Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:29:02 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell, Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Travel Channel Show on AE

Paige the errors in that show are probably too numerous to annotate. Many were of little consequence but the radio reconstruction was, to me, the worst. What they did was get someone to imitate AE's voice then using a reconstructed radio, purported to be her exact radio model, let her transmit her radio messages and using signal strength determine the location and flight path of the Electra. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the fallacies.

1. There will be an induced error since the AE substitute's voice will not have the same strength, quality, pitch and tone as AE.
2. Every radio functions differently. Probably no two the same.
3. The signal strength meter they used was supposed to emulate the signal strength of AE's transmissions but that signal strength is unknown. All we have are annotations suggesting "strength 1 or 2 or 3 and so on. There is no way to quantify that information and therefore no way to reproduce it.
4. There was no directional information in regard to AE's transmissions.
5. There was no propagation information and so that could not be duplicated.

I'm sure there are more factors but those will tell you AE's few radio transmissions cannot possibly be used to reproduce her exact flight path and location of her plane at any point in her mission.

Alan
******************************************************************** *********
From Paige Miller

One additional comment regarding the discovery, via Itasca's logs, of a "ladder search pattern".

During the time when AE could have reasonably been in a search pattern, Itasca received 4 messages from AE. These four are the ones beginning at 07:42 am when AE says "We must be on you". As best I can figure out, all four messages are received at S5 (or the signal strength is not indicated). How you can take four transcript entries plus signal strength, into a mainframe computer, and determine direction and distance from Howland, is totally beyond me. In fact, I would say that four transcript entries plus signal strength cannot reasonably yield the conclusion "ladder search pattern".

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:33:38 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Travel Channel Show on AE

You are absolutely correct, Paige. Correct me guys if I'm wrong but  let's suppose they had exact propagation (is that even possible?), AE's radios and metered signal strength. I still don't think any of that gives direction and location.

At any rate they didn't have any of that so I guess it is a moot question.

In regard to the ladder or any other search pattern look at the timing. They had from 7:42 to 8:43, one hour (and a minute <G>). Speculate they slowed to 120 MPH or thereabouts. In that hour postulate they arrived 25 miles NE of Howland. In other words just out of sight. I picked that since the wind was from the starboard and had diminished. they turn SE along the LOP and fly 40 miles using up one-third of their hour. Now they turn NW and fly 80 miles using up the rest of their hour. No search pattern of consequence and certainly no ladder pattern. You can change those figures all you want and one hour will NOT allow time for much of a search. Say they only flew 30 miles SE then 60 NW and  30 back to the SE arriving at their starting point and still using up their  hour. As you can see, a shorter pattern would not be expansive enough to find  Howland even though it enabled another short leg.

It would be my guess they drove SE, back to the NW and turned finally SE  and that was the extent of their search. They would not have had sufficient fuel to do more even if they took the time. I estimated between 139 and 150 gallons  at 8:43. That is based on the actual flight tests Kelly Johnson performed with a  16,500 # Electra and also compared the fuel usage of the "Daily Express."

Bottom line = no ladder search.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:06:32 -0400
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Travel Channel AE show

Did they also place the radio and the person using it in the cockpit of an Electra at 10,000 feet so as to get all the background noise, altitude changes, etc. How about the fatigue factor induced by the length of the flight and the constant noise from the airplane? What dummies!!!!!!

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:54:17 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Travel Channel AE show

Dave, I think Ric put this in the proper perspective. Given it was an old "documentary" (Don't we use that word loosely nowadays?) and those folks have done nothing and found nothing it sort of needs little commentary.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:07:56 -0400
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      More criticism of Elgen Long's methods

When I read Elgen Long's book "Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved" I had some criticisms of his methods that I didn't write down at that time, and that no one else has mentioned. Since then, I have thought of more criticisms, so here goes. These criticisms concern the "confidence regions" that Long talks about at length. These criticisms are independent of other still-valid criticisms that were posted here in this forum and elsewhere, regarding Long's fuel calculations, Long's assumptions about headwinds, etc.

Basically I want to talk about mathematical modelling and the use of "confidence regions" to indicate where the plane might have come down. The use of such confidence regions is a good thing, in my opinion. They are good for a multitude of reasons: first, no researcher at this point in time knows exactly where AE came down, so it is realistic to indicate a region. Furthermore, it is certainly true that no navigator with the technology available in 1937 could hit a spot in the middle of the ocean exactly. Confidence regions therefore indicate a certain admission that we don't know everything, navigators are imperfect, and thus these regions reflect our state of knowledge better than if Long has simply said "This is the spot right here".

So, confidence regions are a good thing. However, Long's methodology for creating these regions is flawed, as I shall explain, and thus the regions he shows are dramatically smaller than what I think they should be.

First, Long bases his confidence regions on Noonan's ability to navigate. Long neglects to add in other factors that also determine where AE and FN might have come down. So let's do a thought experiment. First, let's think about our state of knowledge if the Chater report had not showed up and Itasca's logs were destroyed before AE researchers could find them. We would have to say that our knowledge about where AE wound up would depend upon the length of time the Electra could stay in the air and FN's ability to navigate. In the absence of any knowledge, this confidence region would be a huge area.

Now, consider what would happen if we apply some of the information in the Chater Report. The confidence region shrinks. Further, we read Itasca's logs (they weren't really destroyed) and get more information, and we can shrink this confidence region even further.

Long neglects to include in his confidence region any uncertainty regarding the length of time AE stayed in the air. He specifically includes the imprecision of FN's navigation in determining this confidence region. This imprecision is primarily due to human imprecision, something which every navigator would have (and this imprecision is NOT due to Noonan being drunk or that he was a bad navigator). So Long understands that humans can't do things perfectly, yet he leaves the imprecision of AE setting the throttle, our imprecise  knowledge of wind conditions and our imprecise knowledge of AE's true heading out of his confidence regions.

Math modelling should provide a confidence region of how long the Electra could stay in the air. It would depend upon many, many assumptions, including wind speed, fuel usage, AE's heading to Howland, etc. And since we can't say exactly what the wind speeds were, we can't say what the throttle settings were, and we can't say exactly what AE's heading was. This would indicate that a reasonable math model should compute a confidence region of possible air times. Once computed, this confidence region could then be shortened, since the lower bound is 20 hours and 13 minutes, the length of time from takeoff at Lae until AE's last verified broadcast. The upper limit would most likely be some number greater than 20 hours and 13 minutes (if the upper limit was exactly 20 hours and 13 minutes, it would be very suspicious).

Long does not compute his confidence regions based upon the length of time the Electra could have stayed in the air. This is a methodological deficiency in Long's work. Furthermore, for each minute additional AE  stayed in the air after 20 hours and 13 minutes, the Electra travels another approx 2 miles (depending on her airspeed, of course). So if the confidence region were realistically extended for the Electra's flying time, they become dramatically elongated. If AE could have stayed in the air 20 more minutes, that's 40 more miles in at least two directions -- AE said she was flying 157/337, so I would extend the confidence regions along the 157/337 axis by 40 miles. If she could have stayed in the air even longer, you extend the confidence regions even more.

Another problem with Long's confidence regions is that they are computed assuming Noonan's navigation was just as good as it was on FN's previous flights. Now, it might have been the case that FN suffered no degradation of his abilities on the flight to Howland. It also might have been that fatigue set in and his abilities were degraded, which would imply a bigger confidence region. Regardless, what is excluded from the calculation of confidence regions is catastrophic problems, e.g. a complete mistake by FN, weather obscuring his ability to sight celestial objects, or an equipment malfunction. While this is consistent with the fact that statisticians normally exclude the chance of catastrophic errors from confidence regions, in this case I think it is unwise.

The reason it is unwise in this case is that statisticians usually have large amounts of data to work with in computing their confidence regions. In this large amount of data, the appearance of catastrophic errors is rare, justifying their omission from the confidence region. For example, a factory has made a large number of a certain item, and so the confidence region is based upon a large amount of data -- which includes the knowledge that catastrophic errors are rare. In the case of AE's flight to Howland, we have no similar knowledge, and we cannot say for a fact that catastrophic errors are rare. Furthermore, as we examine the history of aviation, we see that pioneers and early aviators had many more catastrophic errors per hour in the air than we see today. I can imagine that the first such trip from Lae to Howland was very risky, and the probability of catastrophic errors was not close to zero. Had AE flow Lae to Howland 100 times without incident, I might have a different opinion.

What might those catastrophic errors be? Certainly, equipment malfunction might be one (losing an antenna, for example). Another possibility might be FN simply miscalculating his position -- this is not imprecision now, but an actual mistake in calculations, possibly due to fatigue. Weather issues might also fit in this category. I'm sure experience pilots and experience navigators (I am neither) can add to this list.

So there was a higher probability of something happening that was not included in the computation of the confidence region. As I said, early aviators had more catastrophes than we see today. I feel that in reality, the confidence regions ignore this possibility and again are way too small.

And of course, all of this discussion ignores other criticisms of Long's assumptions about headwinds, about fuel usage, etc. Add those  in, and my guess is that the confidence regions extend to the east of Howland and the to south of Gardner.
--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:16:11 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: More criticism of Elgen Long's methods

>Long  does not compute his confidence regions based upon the length of
>time the  Electra could have stayed in the air.

All of that is correct, Paige, but the reason Long didn't use the possible time the Electra could have stayed in the air is because he somehow determined the plane ran out of gas at precisely 8:43 L. Much of his analysis was directed  to that end. For example evaporating fuel the night before without any support  for that contention and having the plane climb to 12,000' to get over mountains  that AE's position reports showed she avoided. And of course creating a large  headwind with no evidence to support it. In fact simple time and distance  precluded the possibility.

In my casual determination of a confidence area (also called an exercise in futility) I picked a starting point of 8:43 L where Long had picked his ending point. Neither of us have a realistic clue where the plane was at 8:43  L. Wherever that point was I made the educated assumption there was between  139 and 150 gallons of fuel left which most have translated into roughly four hours of flying time. That would mean the plane could go about 480 miles in any direction giving us a circle 960 miles in diameter centered some unknown place  but most probably within 120 miles or so of Howland. Adding in that uncertainty  we now have a circle 1200 miles in diameter. That circle contains one million,  one hundred thirty-thousand nine hundred seventy-three square miles if my math  is correct.

A little bigger area than Elgin would be comfy with.

Obviously we can narrow that down considerably but only with insupportable assumptions. We would like to think they weren't stupid enough to go north or east which helps immensely.

One shaky point in our overall analysis, I think, is the assumption of how they used the famous LOP. I grant it was used within the period between 7:42 L and 8:43 L but what they did thereafter is pure speculation. Our general thought  is they used the LOP to get to Niku but that is not rational. First of all I  don't know why they would particularly want to go to Niku as opposed to say  Canton. Secondly they had to know their LOP did NOT lay through Howland or they  would have found it. Given that they also had to know it would not lead unerringly to Niku. Clearly, at 8:43 L Noonan didn't know where he was confidently within an acceptable distance so flying in any certain direction could not be expected to get to a place certain.

I think that leaves us with two reasonable possibilities. One, that he eventually obtained a position he was sure was reasonably accurate and navigated to Niku for whatever reason. Maybe by that time it was closest or he knew enough  about the Phoenix group that he picked it on purpose. Secondly, he didn't get a position and blindly headed in what he thought  was the general direction of the islands and stumbled on Niku. A third possibility, of course, is that at 8:43 L and not being able to get a position just headed SE and hoped. That I doubt.

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

Why couldn't it simply go like this?:

1.  Noonan gets his LOP shortly after sunrise.  Based on his own track record, he expects the LOP to be accurate within about 10 miles in an east/west direction.  He is much less certain of his north/south position.

2. He advances the LOP through Howland and calculates the time it will take to get there.  He passes a note to AE that says something like "Compass heading (whatever).  Estimate Howland at 19:10."  Fred knows that it's only an approximation and that they'll only see Howland at that time if their north/south position is good.  All AE knows is that Fred says they'll reach Howland at 19:10.

3.  19:10 comes and no island appears.  At 19:12 AE calls Itasca and says, "We must be on you but cannot see you."  Fred would not have put it that way but Fred does not know what AE is saying on the radio.  He knows that they could very well be off to the north or south and he's not surprised that they'll need to do some searching up and down the line.

4. Fred understands the navigational situation.  He knows there are four islands - Howland, Baker, McKean and Gardner - that are on or very close to the 157/357 LOP.  There are about 400 miles between Howland and Gardner.  They have to stay down low to stay below the cloud bases and they have to conserve fuel, so their speed is cut back to not much more than 100 mph.  Fred is reasonably sure that they're not more than 400 miles too far north or south, so as long as they head southeast on the LOP while they still have four hours of gas left they are almost guaranteed to find an island.

5. At 19:12 they have roughly five hours of fuel remaining, so they have an hour of fuel to play with.  They can afford to explore northwestward along the LOP for half an hour but if they don't see anything they'll have to retrace their steps and then just keep going southeastward - hoping to hit Howland but knowing that Baker, McKean, or Gardner will appear if they're already too far south.

6. By 20:13 they have made their northwesterly exploration, have seen nothing, and are now back where they were at 19:12.  Earhart's transmission to the Itasca suggests that she has only the most rudimentary understanding of the navigational situation.  She knows they are "on the line 157 337" and they have been "running on line north and south".  She also knows that "gas is running low".  She is understandably worried and it shows in her voice.

7.  From 20:13 on Fred knows that they have no choice but to press on southeastward on the LOP.  He can't strike off for Canton for the same reason he can't strike off for the Gilberts.  You can't navigate to someplace if you don't know where you're starting from. By running southeastward down the LOP he's really not navigating at all.  He is merely following a line that he knows should intersect a number of islands and, at this point, any island will do.  At some point he probably realizes that it will be McKean or Gardner, not Howland or Baker, that will eventually appear but by then it's too late to turn around.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:21:37 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      40 or 400

Ric wrote:

>Fred is  reasonably sure that they're not more than
>400 miles too far north or  south,

I take that to mean 40 miles off to the North or south.

There are two problems. First, from the time the sun is up high enough to shoot there is really not enough time to get two good speed lines and to determine his ground speed so that may well account for him being further off east/west. Add to that diminishing winds as shown by Itasca.

Now as to his north/south position if he thinks he is safely only 40 miles off say to the North he has to fly SE for half an hour. That only leaves him 30 minutes to do anything before he heads on out to Gardner. If he turns north first then south he is, as you say, back where he started from. If he then thinks he must have been more than 50 miles north of Howland he will soon realize by flying SE he is NOT on the required LOP. Now if he was really to the SE he would have to be at least 70 miles south of course in order to fly NW and not see Baker or Howland.

More importantly, Fred has run up and down the LOP and not seen either Howland or Baker so there is no reason for him to expect to later see McKean and Gardner. He has to know his LOP does NOT run through Howland, Baker, McKean and Gardner. Close? Maybe but clearly not close enough to see them.

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

No. I wrote 400 and I meant 400.  Fred has no way of verifying his north/south position since the last time he was able to get a three-star fix during the night.  He thinks his dead reckoning is pretty close but he has no way to be sure.  400 miles is a very safe outer limit and is dictated by the distance between Howland and Gardner.  If he starts heading southeast when he has 4 hours of fuel left then he is guaranteed to hit land, provided that he is on the 157/337 LOP advanced through Howland.

Your argument that he cannot accurately determine his groundspeed is contradicted by Earhart's "we must be on you" transmission.  Clearly Fred believed he had a good handle on what time they would reach the advanced LOP.   Whether or not your speculation that he didn't have enough time to shoot speed lines is correct, he did have a drift sight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:29:34 -0400
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Radio fiasco

I like your analysis, it fits the facts as they are known.... this being said, I would like to add two things, first that AE and Noonan simply committed a radio fiasco.  Neither one had the slightest idea of   how to use the communications part of the radios they had on board, let alone the DF, which, since we don't know one heck of a lot about what was actually operable, and the "sense antennas" may have been torn off on takeoff, we don't know what we are dealing with... a cockpit photo seems to show an actual ADF indicator, on the top left of the copilot's side of the cockpit.  Now, most ADF's even to this day, are LF?MF devices. They don't go much above the BC band...

AE had, for all practicable purposes, abandoned the 500KHz equipment, yet left the control and the microphone/key switch intact.  She couldn't load on 500 anyway, given the rather cavalier "weight reduction"....... She had refused to listen to experienced PanAm ops, who knew the score.

and kept on making assumptions as to the HF/DF capability of the Itasca, etc, and one knows exactly what assume means....... Her behavior from all the radio logs indicates a total lack of operating knowlege and circuit discipline, especially in expecting a ship and station to get a accurate QDF from 5 seconds of whistling in the microphone, given the mushy modulation from the screen mod transmiter.

We also don't know if she got screwed up and mistuned everything, especially the reciever......

Given their inability to get accurate DF fixes, which could have been plotted against the LOP (advanced for time, of course)  they were literally  < humor > flying in ever decreasing circles until they flew up their own  butts < /humor>

One thing is sure, and that is that Fred Noonan did his level best, given the limited info available to him, but AE was in waaaay over her head.  I frankly believe that she was so mission oriented that she made the fatal mistake of  believing "it can't happen to me".  HAD there  been an experienced radio op aboard, who was fully conversant in Morse,able to work 500 in comfort, and able to check the freqs of the xmtr and reciever, including the elusive "what was that DF system", said op could most likely have pulled the fat out of the fire, as there are other ways than DF to approximate position, includling the MK1 calibrated earset and MK2 calibrated brain. I am dwelling on radio, simply because that is my area of expertise, and can read one heck of a lot between the lines of the log, simply from the tone in which the log entries were written... Chief Bellarts, as well as the other RM's on duty were frustrated as hell from the lousy radio procedure from AE, and frankly, I would have liked to hear the comments made in the Itasca's shack, I will guarantee they weren't complimentary. and that's giving them the benefit of "nice", which the comments were defintiely NOT.

Fred Noonan, as you so eruditely put, was between a rock and the deep blue sea, and your analysis is right on the money.... I think that they spent the last hours of fuel fighting with eachother, don't ask me why, I just feel that AE was convinced she was right, and refused to listen to an experienced navigator.... I also think she screwed up royal with the radios, who knows, she may have even burned something out, and with no equipment, nor knowlege to repair same, basically condemned the fliight....

Rick, kudos to you for a fine analysis, you are dead right concerning what any experienced navigator would do with the limited available  info....he would have headed for the nearest known land, using the last position he was reasonably sure of... the problem. of course, as you stated, is that you can't get somewhere if you don't know where you are coming from, something like trying to fly away from a NDB without a compass course to validate the NDB info.... you can track TO an NDB, but flying away from one, relying on the DF needle alone is flying into infinity,  They weren't dpomg this, of course, but they were doing much the same thing, flying from an undefined point and trying to find a defined point, and this is a sure ticket to being lost....

Just my /02
Greg "GW" Moore
TIGHAR 2645
Former RM1, USN
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:58:38 -0400
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      No forum next week

The forum will be on hold until Tuesday, Sept. 14.

Next week our Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) will be holding its annual conference so I'll be tied up hobnobbing with my brother wizards and wizardresses (?).  This year we'll be meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Next weekend (Sept. 11&12), immediately following the EPAC conference, TIGHAR will be one of the guests of honor (along with the Black Sheep Squadron veterans and Gen. Paul Tibbets) at the Lunken Air Show at historic Lunken Field, in Cincinnati.  We'll have a booth in one of the hangars.  If you're in the Cincinnati area stop by and see us.

You can visit the air show website at http://www.cincyairshow.com


LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 2004 11:47:58 -0400
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Long's methods

Alan writes: "All of that is correct, Paige, but the reason Long didn't use the possible time the Electra could have stayed in the air is because he somehow determined the plane ran out of gas at precisely 8:43 L."

I agree, Alan, any way you look at it Long had his conclusion and then made the evidence fit. But I wanted to put another nail in the coffin. I wanted to offer a rebuttal in case some reader would see Long's confidence regions and think this somehow made his results more "scientifically acceptable". Furthermore, can you imagine if Long had wider confidence regions, would Nauticos really have jumped in and searched that much wider region of the Pacific?

While we are on the subject, we discussed briefly the ridiculous conclusion that some "experts" came to after using Itasca's logs to conclude (with the help of a mainframe computer, because "garbage in garbage out" happens faster on a mainframe) that AE had pursued a "ladder search pattern". Where's the confidence region on that? I think it might be 1/4 of the Pacific Ocean ... but it would have to be so big that every conceivable search pattern could be fit into there, including the infamous "Electric Slide" search pattern that AE was so fond of.

And speaking of Nauticos, do they use confidence regions? They must, IMHO. After all, their "Renavigation" technique must essentially be a mathematical modeling technique under the hood. While it has been successful finding sunken ships, I wonder if they changed their assumptions for this confidence region to take into account the differences between airplanes and ships. But they don't tell us, do they? Well, its their money to spend, I guess. One of my pet peeves is when people don't go back and make sure the assumptions are valid, and wind up using wildly invalid assumptions when it wouldn't be that hard to put in more valid assumptions.

Finally, I would like to take a minute and point out (and commend) a study that does indeed use appropriate confidence regions. That would be the anthropological study of the bones found on Gardner in 1940, study done by Dr. Karen Burns et al, which you can read here:
http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who always does the Electric Slide when she loses things)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 2004 12:11:58 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Long's methods

>But I  wanted to put another nail in the coffin.
>I wanted to offer a rebuttal in  case some reader would see Long's
>confidence regions and think this somehow  made his results more
>"scientifically acceptable".

And an admirable job you've done, Paige. I had not thought about the necessity of a small confidence area to suck Nauticos in. Good point. Whether a motivating factor or not it worked.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:39:37 -0400
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Back from Cincinnati

We had a great EPAC meeting in Cincinnati last week with many new observations made and plans laid.  I'll be bringing the forum up to speed in the days to come.

Meanwhile the forum is once more open for business.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:06:50 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      2-2-V-1

The picture at:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/
Explorers_Record_Setters_and_Daredevils/earhart/EX29.htm

is captioned in part, "...her custom Lockheed Electra Model 10E...had most of the cabin windows blanked out..."

The caption seems to suggest that the plane once had window openings and they were covered over; "blanked out", as it says. This caused me to think a bit about artifact 2-2-V-1. Could 2-2-V-1 be a part of a window covering? Ric, was NR16020 built with window openings that were then covered over with aluminum? Or is this caption misleading; the plane never had window openings at all?

This may sound confusing, I guess, but think of a Chevy van. You can get a solid-sided cargo van or you can get a passenger van with windows. When Chevy builds a cargo van, they don't begin with a window van and then cover the window openings. The cargo van has actual full solid sides.

LTM,

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

Earhart's Electra was built from the get-go without passenger cabin windows except the two aft-most windows.  The rivet pattern on 2-2-V-1 does not match anywhere on the sides of the fuselage on Earhart's Electra 
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:06:04 -0400
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      The Anti-History Channel

Not technically on-topic but of interest to all of us who care about historic preservation.

A History Channel Canada film crew recently violated the Peleliu Battlefield National Historic Landmark in Palau, the site of one of the Pacific war's bloodiest battles. It was as flagrant a violation as you will find anywhere.

The film crew wanted to open and film one of the now-sealed caves where Japanese defenders had died.  The crew had been informed by letter and in person numerous times by the local Historic Preservation Office that opening the caves was illegal without a permit. The preservation authorities met with local, state, and national officials all the way to the Palau President's office and found everyone in agreement on the need for a thorough consultation process before any excavation could proceed. The History Channel crew also were copied letters that clearly spelled out the law and the government's position before they left Canada for Palau.  When they arrived they immediately appealed to all the officials they could find, again up to and including the President's Chief of Staff, who told them that "there will be no excavation".

Despite all of this, the crew got a backhoe and dug a trench into one of the more famous bunker complexes in the battlefield.  Luckily, a Historic Preservation Office official was nearby at the time, helping organize the collections at the Peleliu WWII museum in preparation for the 60th anniversary opening, and was alerted by a local guide.  The official was able to photograph the crime in progress and make an eye-witness report. Despite warnings by the official and uniformed police, the crew refused to stop digging. Their reasoning, if you can call it that, is that the fines imposed are just another cost of doing business and that in the end they would make a profit from the sensational footage of human Remains and artifacts in the cave. By the time police back-up arrived they had fled the scene, leaving a huge open trench and the cave exposed.

The film has since been confiscated and charges have been brought. The authorities in Palau responded well to this attack but the next time you consider tuning in a History Channel program you might consider whether you want to support a company which has such a blatant and criminal disregard for the very subject it purports to cover.

Looking at the History Channel website it seems that they have themselves well-insulated from viewer comments.  Basically, they want viewers to talk to each other via the "discussion boards" and management will comment if they see fit.  If anyone can come up with a genuine email address for comments directly to History Channel management it might be productive for the company to hear from 800 or so history enthusiasts who don't appreciate this kind of behavior.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:34:42 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Anti-History Channel

If we can find out those email address, make sure the complaint is also copied (cc'd)  to the History Channel's  bosses, whoever they are.  Does any one know who owns the History Channel; I'm sure they are not an independent company.

Nothing gets someone's attention quicker than knowing a complaint has gone to THEIR boss and their bosses also.

If you get the email addresses make sure you post them so we can all give them holy hell.

LTM, who's played this game too often
Denis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:24:36 -0400
From:         Kim
Subject:      Re: Anti-History Channel

From the History Channel website - History Channel is a part of A&E Television Networks, along with A&E, Biography Channel, & History Channel International.

According to Hoover's Online
(http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/factsheet.xhtml?COID=47295), A&E is joint venture of media giants Hearst, Walt Disney's Disney ABC Cable, and General Electric's NBC.

LTM,
Kim
************************************************************************
From Ric

Good Lord.  Maybe we could just write to the parent company - Haliburton.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:21:17 -0400
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Anti-History Channel

Off subject but not necessarily bad for us so-called humans.  I'm glad this was brought  to our attention as the main media is so quiet about these subjects.  Imagine that, digging up a grave site illegally, anywhere!

A great many of us are already paying for the History channel as part of the starter package making the only way to hurt them from our position is to ask our cable or satellite provider to drop them [which is unlikely] or going back to the airwaves.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:19:29 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      History Schmistory

Thanks for the report on the activities of The History Channel, Ric. As far as I can see, this group is more than what their name suggests. It doesn't take much searching on their website to see that they have agendas other than pursuing and reporting historical knowledge. They look quasi-political to me.

LTM,

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

Not so quasi.
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:43:05 -0400
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Anti-History Channel

The History Channel is a subsidiary of A&E Television Networks.

From their website:

"A&E Television Networks (AETN), a joint venture of the Hearst Corporation, ABC, Inc., and NBC, is an award-winning, international media company offering consumers a diverse communications environment ranging from television programming, magazine publishing, web sites, music CDs to home videos/DVDs, as well as supporting nationwide educational initiatives. AETN is comprised of A&E NETWORK, THE HISTORY CHANNEL, THE BIOGRAPHY CHANNEL, HISTORY INTERNATIONAL, and AETN Enterprises."

From their FAQs:

"Who is the head of your company?
"Nick Davatzes is the President and Chief Executive Officer of A&E Television Networks.

"Where are your offices located?
"Our headquarters are in Manhattan, and we have offices in Stamford, CT, Atlanta, GA, Detroit, MI, Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL, and London.

There is a form for submitting comments at:

http://www.aetv.com/global/feedback/index.jsp?NetwCode=3DAEN

I couldn't find a specific address for Mr. Davatzes, but its a start.

Tim Smith
1142CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:03:51 -0400
From:         Gary
Subject:      Re: Anti-History Channel

Here is the company profile with contact data Ownership: A&E Television Networks, a joint venture of Hearst, ABC, and NBC http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/47/47295.html

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

I'm working on getting an email address for Nick Davates, the President and CEO of the A&E Television Networks.  Waiting for a call back from his office.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:58:38 -0400
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

Now Now Ric, your LIBERAL BIAS is starting to show. Jim Preston( who is not a lawyer)

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

Okay.  Let's look at the situation with a CONSERVATIVE BIAS.

If the FCC thinks its okay that all of our media sources are owned by a handful of companies, that's just a free market economy at work. If a company can increase its bottom line by flouting the law and paying the fine, that's just a sound business decision.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:34:42 -0400
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Anti-History Channel

In a free business environment,Yes. Flaunting the law makes work for lawyers, but that is different from breaking the law which also creates work for lawyers. Doesn't business make jobs ? If you increase your bottom line people will buy the stock. IF you go out of business (ex. ENRON) due to illegal business practices people lose jobs. But all the while the attorneys are making $$$$$$$$$$$. I wish now I had gone to Law School instead of being a Commercial Pilot.
JImbo
**********************************************************************
  From Ric

We're getting waaay off-topic here but I don't understand how flouting the law is different from breaking the law.  The History Channel film crew made a business decision to flout/break the law.
************************************************************************
From David Hertog

The History Channel gets many of its programs from Independent Producers

David Hertog
************************************************************************
From Ric

All the more reason to make them aware that people representing themselves as a History Channel film crew acted in a reprehensible fashion.
************************************************************************
From Dave in Fremont:

>From Ric
>
>Good Lord.  Maybe we could just write to the parent company -
>Haliburton.

Might as well... The lefties blame them for everything else.

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

Nah.  There's far too much blame for even Haliburton to handle by itself.
************************************************************************
From Dennis McGee

Jim Preston said:  "Now Now Ric, your LIBERAL BIAS is starting to show."

I didn't know that being outraged about grave robbing was a reaction that is the sole purview of liberals.  It seems to me that the History Channel's alleged acts would be an equal-opportunity setting for all sorts of rage.

There is no room for the liberal-conservative labels when it comes to plundering undersea wrecks, recognized grave sites etc.  There is a legal process in place in most countries to accommodate true archeological exploration and those who don't follow the rules deserve all the scorn and contempt they've earned.

My suggestion would be to send the emails to The History Channel and cc's right up the line to the CEO of each parent company.  A few hundred of these things dropping on the desk of the CEOs' desks might at least force THC to issue an apology, if not an explanation.

LTM,

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:20:18 -0400
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

As a frequent viewer of the History Channel, the more I read in this thread, the more I'm inclined to believe that the crew in question was a freelance documentary film crew that presented itself to the local government that they were in production for a project for the History Channel. I don't believe the History Channel employs too many "in-house" technical people, such as film crews.

Having said that, I do agree that these folks should be prosecuted (or persecuted) to the full extent of the applicable laws. Grave robbing is simply beyond the pale...

As a caveat, anyone who watches the History Channel often should always view their presentations with a skeptical eye.

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
************************************************************************
From Alfred Hendrickson:

An interesting discussion. Interesting points of view. If we have the facts correct, the History Channel (HC) went and blatantly violated the law of the land. That, of itself, is non-Liberal, non-Conservative, & non-Partisan. I find HC's actions on this matter disgusting and reprehensible. In my opinion, society is not well-served by people who, in a calculated way, break the law and then pay the bill just because they can afford to do it.

Personally, heretofore, I have not watched HC's shows, and I certainly will not watch them from here forward.

That's my $0.02 -

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
************************************************************************
From Dan Postellon

Why not just send a report to the Japanese news agencies?  I'm sure that they would be interested.

Dan Postellon
************************************************************************
From Ric

We're trying to discourage media misbehavior, not re-start WWII.

************************************************************************
From Ross Devitt

Perhaps the good people of Palau should start some sort of civil action.  It seems to me that in addition to violating local laws, someone is guilty of at least:

Trespass
Destruction of Property/Environmental vandalism
Damaging a historical site
Desecration of a war grave
Endangering Human Life

And a few things I haven't thought of.

Th' WOMBAT
************************************************************************
From Peter Backlund

My liberal bias knows no bounds, but how is this political??

Pete B
************************************************************************
From Ric

It's not, of course.  I'm to blame for the political excursion with my crack about Haliburton.  I try to keep politics off this forum - honest to God I do - but it's hard to stand in a burning building and pretend you're not sweating.

************************************************************************
Ric,

What was the source of this story?

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

Excellent question.  Tom King, or senior archaeologist, received correspondence directly from the Historic Preservation Office in Palau. The story I posted on this forum was an edited version of that correspondence.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:46:48 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

To elaborate a bit on Ric's response to Tom Hickox -- Back in the late '70s I was involved in helping the governments of the then-developing nations of Micronesia set up historic preservation programs, and I remain in touch with many of their historic preservation officials, as well as with the U.S. National  Park Service offices that provide technical and financial assistance to the Micronesian HP programs.  They often copy me in on news of interesting developments.  In this case, there has been lots of correspondence between  the Palau historic preservation officials and various National Park Service offices, which they've shared with me and other interested parties. NPS is  planning to take the matter up with The History Channel, and is also alerting groups like the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).  In response to Th' Wombat's note -- Palau (which actually has very strong historic preservation laws) is certainly prosecuting the wrongdoers, who are indeed independent producers, though apparently under contract to The History Channel.  The larger issue here, of course, is what an organization like  THC encourages its independent partners to do.  I think the more it can be  shown to them that this sort of thing does not redound to their credit, the  better.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:20:19 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Anti-History Channel

As an old journalist and p.r. guy, I would insist on NOT trying to work behind the scenes to settle this issue.  My instincts would be to get the maximum negative exposure for THC that one could get.   The rationale for this is that THC's violation is so blatant, so egregious, so over-the-top it is inexcusable.   This is not simply a typographical error, a misstatement under pressure, or a temporary lapse in judgment. This is a deliberate, well-planned, brazen violation of the basic tenets of respect for the dead practiced worldwide.  What possible defense could they offer?

So why beat up on THC when the act was committed by a contractor? Because THC should have had the foresight to include in its contracts boilerplate provisions regarding certain procedures and actions, among them an obvious prohibition against unauthorized opening of graves. THC's name that goes on the product, therefore it is the responsibility of THC to make sure it's contractors honor THC's corporate "values", which in this case seem to be absent.  THC's behavior challenges one's imagination.

THC needs to be exposed to the wrath of the masses on this issue, both here and abroad.  The blacker the eye, the deeper the bruise, the more likely THC will remember the beating they got - and deserved.

LTM, who's on her high horse today

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

Progress has been made in establishing the necessary avenues of contact.  Tom King and I are consulting on how best to proceed.  Stand by.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:49:47 -0400
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Anti-History Channel

Last note: I thought Flaunting the Law was taking advantage of legal loopholes as opposed to breaking the law. I was flying AIRMIC in the 70's when "Cousteau" was caught breaking into safe's and robbing ships of artifacts in the Trux Lagoon. He was declared "persona non grata" in the Micronesia Trust Territories. was what I heard. These guys should be prosecuted for what they did.
Jimbo
****************************************************************
  From Ric

We all seem to be in agreement on that point.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:23:23 -0400
From:         John Wood
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

I am in complete agreement, keep me posted let me know what I can do. Did this program air, or rather "cable" in the US?  As I am in Korea, I do not know.
****************************************************************
  From Ric

Thanks John.  It hasn't aired (or cabled) anywhere and may not ever. We still don't know whether all of the footage was confiscated.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:54:48 -0400
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

Before we get to carried away , lets try to remember that most of the people out there bend the truth a little. Also they step on a few toes to get their stories. So if you want to condemn the History and or Discovery Channels stop and look at the rest of television, and how the industry works..

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

We're not talking about bending the truth a little.  We're not even talking about bending the truth a lot.  We're talking about the wanton disregard and flagrant violation of historic preservation laws.  We're talking about backhoeing a protected historic landmark.  We're talking about violating war graves.  I don't think that being outraged about that kind of behavior is getting carried away.
************************************************************************
For Dennis McGee:

>So why beat up on THC when the act was committed by a contractor?
>Because THC should have had the foresight to include in its contracts
>boilerplate provisions regarding certain procedures and actions, among
>them an obvious prohibition against unauthorized opening of graves.

How do you know they didn't?  Have you seen the contract?  In fact, I would be extremely surprised if THC's contract lacked such a provision.  Agreements of this type typically require the contractor to abide by local laws and regulations, obtain all required permits, refrain from doing anything that would cast THC in a bad light, say their prayers at night, etc.  If it didn't, then THC's lawyers are as dumb as their writers (and that's pretty dumb).

The common misconception here is that if it's in the contract, people will abide by it.  Honest people do.  Dishonest people don't.  A crook will sign anything you put in front of him;  he doesn't care what's in it because he has no intention of honoring it anyway.  It's all "boilerplate" -- a term which in itself betrays contempt for what should be a solemn commitment.

I emphasize this to my clients all the time.  It's the same point the NRA tries to get across when it argues "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  Whatever you may think of the NRA, there is some, repeat some, validity to this contention.  [NB:  I do not own a gun much less an NRA card.  I engage in no blood sports whatsoever because I saw "Bambi" when I was 8.  Okay, I do like bullfights but it's "only" for the pageantry ....]

I agree that the History Channel is to history what Lynndie England is to Joan of Arc, but before we accuse them of a "deliberate, well-planned, brazen violation of the basic tenets of respect for the dead" perhaps we should wait until more facts are in.

LTM

Pat Gaston

PS to lawyer-haters:  Next time somebody backs out of a contract and costs you $100 grand, call a cop.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Let's keep this in perspective.  Anyone who has worked with or in television knows that it's a cut-throat business.  Producers pride themselves on their ability to get "great visuals" in spite of all kinds of obstacles.  There's nothing inherently wrong with that and it can be a real virtue - but, unfortunately, it's all too common for producers to adopt a by-hook-or-by-crook attitude that results in behavior that is illegal and/or ethically disgraceful.  The companies who hire producers know all of this.  They can write iron-clad contracts all day long but if they don't insist that the contractors abide by them it's all just cover-your-butt window dressing.

It is our intention to provide the contractees with the motivation to police their contractors by letting them know that we, the viewers, the audience, the customers, hold them responsible for the sins of those who act in their name.

By the way, are you sure that the practice of law is not a blood sport?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:32:04 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

For Pat Gaston:

You're right, I should not have jumped the gun on this issue and, as Ric always counsels, should've waited until all of the facts are in. However --you knew there is always a 'however', right? --)  we should never let the facts ruin a good story.  :-)

Contractors are like kids, you have to give them responsibility a little at a time.  I'm guessing here, but I'll bet THC has used this contractor before, and if so has probably seen the contractor "bend the rules a little" several times in the past.  This time they went too far.  The point is: we seldom get caught the first time we violate the law, be that civil, moral, personal values, etc.   If this was a first-time contractor, then THC was even more to blame for its lack of judgment by using an untested contractor on what was obviously a sensitive and difficult assignment.

LTM, who'd RATHER APOLOGIZE, than not

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:04:59 -0400
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

Just so everyone understands where we are on this matter:

We now have email addresses for the top executives at A&E Television Networks (which owns the various incarnations of The History Channel). We have also made contact with their legal department and advised them that there is legal action pending in Palau against a History Channel Canada contractor.  We briefly described the nature of the offense.  We have their attention.

TIGHAR, of course, is not a principle in this matter.  Tom King has passed the contact information to the appropriate authorities at the National Park Service and they'll do whatever they do.  We have also made it known that we are in communication with a considerable number of private citizens (that's you guys) who feel strongly that the media have a responsibility to respect historic preservation laws and ethics. We're presently waiting to hear back from NPS before we take further action.  As we've seen before, this forum is a powerful tool and we want to make sure it always operates in the best interests of historical research and preservation.

I'll let you know as soon as we hear something.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:10:21 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

Or as a famous Chinese statesman recently said : "It's irrelevant what color a cat is as long as he catches mice"

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:37:17 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Feeding Frenzy?

Ric said:  "We now have email addresses for the top executives at A&E Television Networks (which owns the various incarnations of The History Channel)."

Ahh, fresh meat; when you gonna feed the lions? :-)

LTM, who loves a good dust-up

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

As soon as we've verified that we have the right menu.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:09:29 -0400
From:         Richard Brew
Subject:      Re: Feeding Frenzy?

Please can someone put me out of my misery? What does LTM at the end of the emails mean? sorry for being a bit thick :o(

LTM (?)
Richard Brew.
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

LTM stands for Love to Mother which was the closing line of an unsigned telegram delivered to George Putnam from a Japanese internment camp in China at the end of WWII. Conspiracy buffs cite the telegram as evidence that Earhart was in Japanese custody.  Love to Mother, abbreviated to LTM, has become the standard forum closing as a reminder to try to use our brains when we're evaluating evidence.

For more about the telegram and Love to Mother go to -
http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/ltm.html
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:42:54 -0400
From:         Adam Marsland
Subject:      Liberal bias

After a recent and particularly frustrating political conversation, I'm flabbergasted to discover that many folks confuse an actual desire to approach things scientifically, and to reach an objective truth, with "liberal bias."  Don't know where to begin with the ironies there.

There's so much idealogical spin in the air these days that it's damned hard to find oases of sanity where facts, intellectual rigor are the determinants of truth.  Yet another reason I am pleased to be part of this forum and am now (belatedly) a member of TIGHAR.

adam marsland
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Adam and welcome aboard.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:52:28 -0400
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

it's normal for you Ric to disagree with nearly all that I contribute to the forum, that is alright. But don't rewrite what I say so that you can look good. At least you think you look good. Hugs and Kisses
Ron Berry
************************************************************************
From Ric

I did not rewrite what you said.  I posted your comments exactly as you wrote them (see below).  I did disagree with you, as I have on other occasions.  I'll be happy to agree with you if you say something I can agree with.

Thanks for the expressions of affection but I'm straight.

>From Ron Berry
>Before we get to carried away , lets try to remember that most of the
>people out there bend the truth a little. Also they step on a few toes
>to get their stories. So if you want to condemn the History and or
>Discovery Channels stop and look at the rest of television, and how the
>industry works.
>
>************************************************************************
>From Ric
>
>We're not talking about bending the truth a little. We're not even
>taking about bending the truth a lot. We're talking about the wanton
>disregard and flagrant violation of historic preservation laws. We're
>talking about backhoeing a protected historic landmark. We're talking
>about violating war graves. I don't think that being outraged about
>that kind of behavior is getting carried away.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:55:01 -0400
From:         John Merlin Wood
Subject:      LTM

Thanks, I was clueless also.  What did the rest of the telegram say?
JMW (John Merlin Wood)

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

Read all about it at
http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/ltm.htm
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:10:05 -0400
From:         John Wood
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

I agree completely.  The act described is reprehensible.  I live in Korea, and am NOT a huge fan of the Japanese, but such an act, which defiles the graves of men who died for their country, deserves to be PUNISHED!!!
LTM,
******************************************************
From Ric

Here's the latest.

An agreement has been reached between the film contractor and the Republic of Palau concerning the recent illegal trenching and opening of a WWII cave at Peleliu Battlefield National Historic Landmark.

A $65,000 fine was levied.  The film contractor paid $15,000 before leaving Palau and the remaining $50,000 has been secured against the copyright of the film, which is jointly owned by Palau until the fine is completely paid.

10% of all net profits from the film go to Palau. Palau gets to review and approve or disapprove of the film before airing.

The contractor gets the camera back, but the cave footage found inside of it stays in the Attorney General's evidence locker. Palau agrees to discuss the possibility of returning the footage after the draft film is reviewed, but gives no guarantees.

Before encouraging people to send emails about this whole affair to anyone, we (TIGHAR) are currently trying to verify just who the contractor was under contract to.  The initial reports were that they were filming for "The History Channel, Canada" but there doesn't seem to be an entity by that name.  They could be part of History Channel International which is part of the A&E Television Networks family but there is also a company called "History Television, Canada" that is not affiliated with The History Channel or A&E Television Networks.

We don't want to unleash the fury of the forum on the wrong company. (Thanks, by the way, to forum subscriber Don Newman for alerting us to the possible confusion of names.)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:11:45 -0400
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

I beieve that TIGHAR or anyone else who would care to leverage their influence on HC, might want to send a note or  news brief to the war history and militaria magazines.  I subscribe to one, Military Trader, and wouldn't mind forwarding any email or list post to them, and i can think of 3 or 4 others that I buy at book stores, that might also pick this up. I do think there is an opportunity here to
increase the groundswell of opinion.

BTW, as i thought about this, there occurred to me one  unusual case, I mean  the once-yearly battlefield tour visits to Iwo Jima. At least as of about 5 years back, and possibly still today, basically anything the visitor finds in one of the remaining dugouts or tunnels, and can haul back to the plane, is his. Of course, the difference there is, no one enters a sealed off fortification, nor one with human remains. It did surprise me to read this particularly as the island is Japan administered.
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:13:13 -0400
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

> Last note: I thought Flaunting the Law was taking
> advantage of legal loopholes as opposed to breaking
> the law. I was flying AIRMIC in the 70's when
> "Cousteau" was caught breaking into safe's and robbing
> ships of artifacts in the Trux Lagoon. He was declared
> "persona non grata" in the Micronesia Trust
> Territories. was what I heard. These guys should be
> prosecuted for what they did.
> Jimbo

There was a gradual turning in the stance of the island governments in regard to artifacts. Cousteau's fauxpas might have been right in this period of changing regulations. Used to be, whatever you harvested was yours. In the mid 1980s i had a multipage list of stuff for sale removed from sunken  Japanese ships, this all from one private seller, the diver who had brought the stuff up and back to the States. I also recall reading an account of some divers who made a living removing and selling artifacts, such as ship's bells. Frankly, it doesn't faze me that these artifacts were brought up, tho to have them just spread to the far corners to some one's oddments shelf next to Hummel figures and Beanie Babies does seem a shame; the same way i feel about hand- scribed medieval Bibles being sold by the page.
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:38:35 -0400
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      History Channel Flap

"The companies who hire producers know all of this.  They can write iron-clad contracts all day long but if they don't insist that the contractors abide by them it's all just cover-your-butt window dressing."

I agree completely.  Nothing wrong with holding THC's feet to the fire. But I would still like to hear the production company's side of the story. The whole event sounds just a little too blatant for my skeptical nature.  I wonder if we are dealing here with a bureaucratic turf battle or (sheer speculation) the producers refused to grease somebody's palm?  Stranger things have happened.

LTM

Pat Gaston
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:39:46 -0400
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

Hue Miller writes:

>In the mid
>1980s i had a multipage list of stuff for sale  removed from
>sunken  Japanese ships, this all from one private seller,  the
>diver who had brought the stuff up and back to the  States.

If the stuff was from Chuuk (then Truk) Lagoon, it wasn't LEGAL then; protective laws have been on the books since the '60s in what used to be the  Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and now is variously the Federated States  of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau, and the Chuuk/Truk Legislature passed a law specifically protecting the shipwrecks in the Lagoon.  The problem -- then as now -- is enforcing them, as the Peleliu  incident vividly demonstrates.

I was in Chuuk in 1977-78, and recall one incident in which the police encountered some divers on a wreck in the lagoon, beating on a live torpedo with their knives, trying to dislodge it from its housing.  My recollection is  that they just shook their heads and went  away.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:34:53 -0400
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      2-2-V-1

Ric,

When can we expect to get back to the subject of AE and her possible arrival at Gardner Island?

I noticed that in the NTSB report (updated 9/21/04) that there is a possibility of either a fuel tank or battery explosion in the area associated with artifact 2-2-V-1. However, it seems from the description in the report that this possible location of the aluminum skin is farther forward than what has previously been reported.  I thought that the best possible area of a "fit" was more toward the tail section of the aircraft basis the ones you have surveyed.  Can you please clarify the difference!
 
I earlier questioned what hardware and/or what components were in the vicinity of the panel that could have contributed to the "explosion" effect seen on 2-2-V-1 (I questioned hydraulic accumulators, batteries, oxygen tanks, etc.).  If I recall the answer was nothing in the tail area of the plane other than incoming water pressure from the surf. Now reading the NTSB report I see alternative explanations.  Where are we on this issue?
 
Also, if the artifact could have been farther forward e.g. in the area of the battery than what you have been able to determine by "fitting" the piece to existing airframes wouldn't the Tucson fire be more of a factor in the distress seen on the exterior surface?  i.e. The further forward on the airplane the more likely the fire had an affect on the surface of the aluminum.
 
The lack of fire residue on the interior surface of the artifact seems to support a theory of a rapid increase in atmospheric pressure (like from a battery) explosion rather than a fuel vapor ignition from a leaking fuel tank.  If I recall from my mechanic days there was a concern that if a battery was submerged in water (possibly salt water) there could be an abnormal buildup of chlorine gas from the battery that was very susceptible to ignition - this needs to be confirmed by the electrical gurus on the forum - and it didn't take much to set it off. Not necessarily a fire but a rapid increase in atmospheric pressure surrounding the battery area.
 
It seems to me that if you have a piece of aluminum that could possibly have fit in the area forward of the wing, it is of the same material that was used in repairs, the repair order called out a repair in the skin section (rather than a complete sheet replacement) that it could have come from, it exhibits pressure from the interior of plane with no fire residue, it has been exposed to fire tempering from the exterior surface, I think you have found a "smoking gun".
 
That artifact, 2-2-V-1 is something that really needs to be taken apart piece by piece!  Let's get a Rockwell hardness check from exterior to interior surface and compare it to heat treatment of aluminum, let's see if the hardness varies from what could be the bottom center line to the upper edges of the panel, let's computerize a de-deformation of the panel and see if it matches the contour of the skin in the area near the battery/fuel tank, let's draw in possible additional stringer locations in the area forward of the wing to see if its possible to account for the difference in rivet patterns, let's see if the head of the rivets are of a different hardness than the shank (other than work hardened) in order to determine if they were heat treated by the Tucson fire, etc.  I realize this is all going to cost money but it got to be less expensive than another trip back to Gardner at this time:  What for and where are you going to dig during the next visit
 
Just some thoughts to ponder while we debate the History Channel fiasco.
 
Ted Campbell
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

We've recently been spending a lot of time taking another very hard look at 2-2-V-1.  Over the past year TIGHAR researchers have obtained engineering drawings from archives, made several trips to collect detailed data from surviving Lockheed Electras, and three TIGHAR expeditions have visited Electra crash sites in New Zealand, Idaho and Alaska.  As a result we now have much better information to work with than we've ever had before with respect to how Lockheed 10s were built, how they were sometimes modified, and how they come apart in different types of accidents.

The bottom line is that there is one place and only one place on a Lockheed Electra - on top of the cabin opposite the cabin door - where the skin thickness and rivet size, rivet type, and rivet pattern match our artifact with remarkable precision. The rivet pitch (space between individual rivets) and skin seams do not match.  For 2-2-V-1 to have come from this area there would have to have been a nonstandard re-skinning of this part of the airplane.  There is no structural reason why such a change could not have been made but it's difficult to find photos that show that part of the Earhart airplane in sufficient detail to see individual rivet lines and skin seams.   We have found one photo taken in  Carapito, Venezuela shortly after the start of the World Flight which appears to show that such a change had not been made at that time. We're aware of nothing in the literature to suggest that any re-skinning was done later in the flight.

Placing the artifact elsewhere on the airplane requires postulating structural changes that should have required government-approved engineering drawings like the ones on record for strengthening the centersection during the repairs made in April/May 1937.  No such drawings are on file.

At this point I'd have to say that the available evidence argues against 2-2-V-1 being from a Lockheed 10 but the only way to be sure is to figure out what airplane it DID come from.   If 2-2-V-1 didn't come from the Electra then it pretty much had to have been brought to Nikumaroro from somewhere else, probably Canton.  We do have good indications that it spent some time underwater and was later manually salvaged from a larger piece of wreckage.  The best candidate might be the B-24J that crashed on the reef at Canton in 1944 but was not salvaged.  We've long suspected that many of the B-24 parts we've found on Niku, such as the navigator's bookcase that was found a few meters from where we later found 2-2-V-1, are pieces of that wreck that washed ashore at Canton after the war and were brought home to Niku by locals who worked there.

We hope to soon have a 2-2-V-1 template kit available to TIGHAR members who want to help try to pin down what kind of airplane this artifact came from.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:38:28 -0400
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Anti-History Channel

With My Tongue firmly embedded:

Gee whiz, Maybe the creators of SouthPark on Comedy Central had the right idea: namely 'Blame Canada' from one of their Movies a couple of years ago regarding the History Channel Contractors.

another lurker
Carl Peltzer down here in beatup Florida

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

Maybe they're the ones who killed Kenny.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:42:01 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

Pat Gaston writes:

"I wonder if we are dealing here with a bureaucratic turf battle or (sheer speculation) the producers refused to grease somebody's palm?"

For what it's worth, I don't think so.  I know the two key players on the historic preservation side of the case -- Historic Preservation Officer Vicky Kanae and her staff member Rick Knecht -- pretty well, and not only do I trust them, but see no rationale for them to be playing some sneaky game in the background.  Vicky's been HPO for over ten years, knows the ropes, has in my experience typically bent over backwards to make sure things are done in a legal and professional manner.  Rick's fairly new to Palau, having come down from Alaska where he's been managing museums and cultural programs; he, too, has a very solid reputation.  And if the perps  were operating with some sort of wink-and-nod from other offices in the  government, it certainly hasn't come out in any of the correspondence  surrounding the case.

Of course, had the HC folks gone through the proper "bureaucratic" channels -- sought a permit to open the cave -- they might have gotten it, so I suppose you could characterize the conflict between seeking a permit and not seeking one as a "bureaucratic turf battle," but the reason for requiring a  permit is to ensure that any such work is really justified, that it's  properly planned and supervised, that it employs appropriate techniques, that whatever's recovered is properly taken care of and reported, and so on.   Seems to me that folks on the side of not seeking a permit don't have much turf to stand on.

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

By way of contrast, consider the elaborate bureaucratic i-dotting and t-crossing being done in setting up the Tinian dig - and there may not even be a grave there at all.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:44:26 -0400
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Amelia who?

In an effort to drag the Forum (kicking and screaming) back on-topic: What's the status of the Alaska Electra project?  Did the dados match? Were there similarities to any other artifacts found on Niku?

Also, have you completely ruled out the B-24 -- or its patrol variant, the PB4Y-1 -- as a possible source of the dados and aircraft skin?  I mention this because I keep running across stuff like the following (from www.vpnavy.org):

Squadron: VP-106

12 OCT 43 A/C: PB4Y-1 Location: Canton to Funafuti BUNO: 32102 Cause: Missing on a flight from Canton to Funafuti. Crew: Pilot Lt Samuel L. Patella A-V(N) USNR, Ens Richard H. Wood A-V(N) USNR, Ens John C. Mackey A-V(N) USNR, Amm3c John Grady Waiden, Jr. USNR, Aom3c Argus Winfield, Jr. USNR, Amm3c Donald Dean Dickey USN, Art1c Itley Dwight Winn USNR, Amm3c O. Atkinson USN, Amm3c Lloyd E. Hume USN, and Amm3c William E. Lexlon USNR. [According to my map, this flight path would have taken the aircraft extremely close to Niku]

Squadron: VP-108

18 NOV 43 A/C: PB4Y-1 Location: Canton, northwest of Funafuti Strike: Yes BUNO: 32123 Cause: Non combat mission. Ditched at sea, entire crew of ten rescued six days later. One passenger missing. Pilot Lt. P. Hard & 9/Ok. [The plane could not have gone down just off Canton, or it wouldn't have taken six days to find the crew.  It must have occurred enroute.]

I did not include several PB4Y-1 crashes whose location is listed only as
"Central Pacific" or "West Central Pacific."

LTM

Pat Gaston
************************************************************************
From Ric

The Alaska Electra expedition was a resounding success.  The wreck had not been significantly salvaged or disturbed since it went down in 1943.  It was a very difficult trek to and from the site but our team was able to collect important information, hundreds of photos and a few key artifacts (with the permission and assistance of the U.S. Forest Service).  The airplane did have dados as part of the cabin furnishings but they are not much like the dados we've found on Nikumaroro.

Prior to the Alaska trip we had determined that the holes in our dados that we had previously thought were "mounting holes" are, in fact, holes for fasteners that secured the insulating material to the face of the dado.  The only provision for attaching the dado to the airplane was the line of holes in the 90-degree flange through which nails or screws secured it to the plane's wooden flooring.  In other words, the our dados appear to have been cantilevered, free-standing structures. We also noted that the cabin heater ducting that runs along the wall/floor juncture of the Electra cabin would preclude the installation of such an item.  Why then, would you nail a six-and-a-half inch high insulated "fence" to the floor of the airplane?  Logically, as a barrier to insulate something that needed insulating.  We wondered if our dados might  not be true dados at all but a line of heat shields that insulated the cabin fuel tanks from the heater ducts.  But did fuel tanks in the cabin of a Lockheed 10 need to be insulated from the heater ducts?

The Alaska wreck answered that question.  The plane had been modified for service as a bush plane in Alaska by the installation of an auxiliary fuel tank in the passenger cabin.  Not as large as the tanks in Earhart's Electra, this tank replaced the two passenger seats immediately behind the main beam (spar) on the left-hand side of the cabin.  Where the tank was close to the heater duct, the duct itself and the cabin wall just above it were covered with heavy woven asbestos insulation.  Elsewhere in the cabin the heater duct was bare metal , as it is normally.  So fuel tanks in the cabin of a Lockheed 10 need to be insulated from the heater ducts.

How was that accomplished in Earhart's Electra?  We don't know.  In all the photos that show the tanks installed in the cabin of NR16020 the tanks, naturally, obscure any view of the floor area near the wall.

Your questions about B-24s/PB4Y-1s is prescient, as you've probably seen from my recent posting about 2-2-V-1.  Parts from airplanes that crashed at sea could have washed up at Niku but it seems far more  likely that they were brought from another island.  There was a C-47 crash on Sydney Island in 1944 but none of the parts we've found on Niku seem to be from a C-47.  The only parts we've been able to conclusively identify are from a B-24.  As I mentioned in my posting about 2-2-V-1, there was a B-24J that crashed on the reef at Canton in 1944 and was not recovered by the military.  That wreck would seem to be the best candidate for salvaged parts.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:46:04 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Kenny

Ric said:  "Maybe they're the ones who killed Kenny."

Kenny's dead?  Ohhhh, nooooo!  When did that happen?

LTM, who flaunts her grief
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:02:12 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      heater ducts

Ric said:  "So fuel tanks in the cabin of a Lockheed 10 need to be insulated from the heater ducts. . . . How was that accomplished in Earhart's Electra?"

Did AE's plane even have heater ducting?  She really didn't need it (except for the cockpit) considering her route and the way she planned to use ("flying laboratory") it.  Could the ducting have been eliminated during construction?

LTM, who's warming to the subject

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

It's there.  You can see it in the photos.  Her plane did not have the fresh air cabin ventilation system that the airline version had, but it did have heater ducts along the walls.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:23:03 -0400
From:         Steve Gardetto
Subject:      Re: Anti-History Channel

Did the disgraceful activities of the film crew on Palau get written up by any English-language newspapers on Palau or elsewhere in the region, e.g., Australia?  I'm wondering if there's a linkable story on the Web that describes the entire event.

LTM,
Steve G
************************************************************************
From Ric

Not that I know of.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:38:28 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Anti-History Channel

For Steve G

Pacific Daily News on Guam -- http://www.guampdn.com/ -- is the major daily  paper in the general area.  A quick scan of its website this morning didn't  reveal anything.  There are weekly and fortnightly papers in Palau itself,  but I haven't located internet links to them.

I dropped a note about the matter to the Washington Post, but they haven't picked up on it.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:11:03 -0400
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

> From Tom King
> If the stuff was from Chuuk (then Truk) Lagoon, it wasn't LEGAL then;
> protective laws have been on the books since the '60s ...

I think this material was from Kwaj area.

I took a look at Pacific Islands Monthly magazine:

http://www.pacificmagazine.net/pina/pinasearch2.php

no sign of any HC related story at all, altho i suppose if there are more developments, it may yet show up. ( Otherwise, pretty interesting magazine, if you can find it to look at...)
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:12:44 -0400
From:         Alexander
Subject:      Palau

I thought that some forumites might be interested in some facts about palau as it is always good to know about a place that is being discussed...

Palau
Background:
After three decades as part of the UN Trust Territory of the Pacific under US administration, this westernmost cluster of the Caroline Islands opted for independence in 1978 rather than join the Federated States of Micronesia. A Compact of Free Association with the US was approved in 1986, but not ratified until 1993. It entered into force the following year, when the islands gained independence.

Location:
Oceania, group of islands in the North Pacific Ocean, southeast of the Philippines
7 30 N, 134 30 E
total: 458 sq km
land: 458 sq km
water: 0 sq km

Environment - international agreements:
party to: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol, Desertification, Law of the Sea, Ozone Layer Protection
signed, but not ratified: none of the selected agreements.

Geography - note:
westernmost archipelago in the Caroline chain, consists of six island groups totaling more than 300 islands; includes World War II battleground of Beliliou (Peleliu) and world-famous rock islands.

Government type:
constitutional government in free association with the US; the Compact of Free Association entered into force 1 October 1994.

Executive branch:
chief of state: President Tommy Esang REMENGESAU, Jr. (since 19 January 2001) and Vice President Sandra PIERANTOZZI (since 19 January 2001); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government.

Head of government: President Tommy Esang REMENGESAU, Jr. (since 19 January 2001) and Vice President Sandra PIERANTOZZI (since 19 January 2001); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government.

cabinet:
Cabinet elections: president and vice president elected on separate tickets by popular vote for four-year terms; election last held 7 November 2000 (next to be held NA November 2004).

Diplomatic representation in the US:
chief of mission: Ambassador Hersey KYOTA
chancery: 1800 K Street NW, Suite 714, Washington, DC 20006
telephone: [1] (202) 452-6814
FAX: [1] (202) 452-6281
consulate(s): Saipan (Northern Mariana Islands)

Diplomatic representation from the US:
chief of mission: Ambassador Francis J. RICCIARDONE, US ambassador to the Philippines is accredited to Palau
embassy: Koror (no street address)
mailing address: P. O. Box 6028, Republic of Palau 96940
telephone: [680] 488-2920, 2990
FAX: [680] 488-2911

as always i hope this information has been of use.

alexander
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:32:58 -0400
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Palau update

Here's the latest in the Peleliu National Historic Landmark Looting Case via the Palau Bureau of Arts and Culture.

The film contractor was a company called Wunderman Film, Inc. which is owned by an individual by the name of Eva Wunderman.  It is Wunderman and her company that are the subject of the legal action and subsequent agreement. fines, etc.

"The agreement specifically states that it is not confidential and that the details can be publicly disclosed. A story on the incident, with facts drawn from the agreement as well as our incident report appears on the front page of the current Palau Horizon, together with a large color picture of the film crew in the cave mouth.

N"eedless to say, the Palau Horizon isn't exactly on everyone's coffee table. In our view, the more coverage the better."

Wunderman had told the Palauan authorities that she was  "working on a project for the History Channel."  Based on Ms. Wunderman's less-than-stellar credibility and TIGHAR's words of caution, the Bureau of Arts and Culture is presently trying to verify that claim before taking the History Channel to task.

LTM,
Ric=
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:08:18 -0400
From:         Christian Duretete
Subject:      2-2-V-1

Ric: we always only talk about fuselages for fit... If I remember correctly, one of the main problems is that 22v1 seems to be on the thin side, to come from any other planes from the area/era.

Have you checked how 22v1 fits (non structural) "appendages" on bigger airplanes, like gun turrets and assorted cowlings and whatnot?

Regards.

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

2-2-V-1 is .032 Alclad.  That's a bit light for fighters but there's plenty of .032 skin on the less-stressed parts of larger aircraft. We've looked (repeatedly) at C-47s, B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, etc. - including turrets and cowlings - but haven't found anything that's really even close.

The fact that the rivet pattern fits so well on the top of the Electra cabin is either a highly significant piece of evidence or an extremely weird coincidence. At this point, I'm leaning toward the latter but the darn thing had to come from somewhere.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:41:30 -0400
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> the darn thing had to come from somewhere.

Might it be from a boat?

Mike Holt
*********************************************************
From Ric

It would have to be a boat that was built like an airplane, using aircraft materials.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:44:03 -0400
From:         Blake Herling
Subject:      A Story of Palau

I know this is off topic as far as the A.E. search goes, but with the topic of the History channel/Palau thread going I thought it might be of interest. My Dad was in the US Navy in the late 50s & spent time on Guam, Ulithi & Palau as a SeaBee building/rebuilding the airstrips. After reading all the posts on the forum this last week I told him of the H.C. situation, because I thought he might find it of interest having served there. Below is a story he related to me about his time there.

"They must have found and sealed all of those graves after I was there, I don't know if I ever told you but that was where we used the Coast Guard Loran guy's hunting dogs & shotguns to hunt wild chickens, they flew and acted just like a pheasant, and were delicious. One day when we were hunting one of the dogs went nuts barking and scratching at a hole in the ground, we found it and opened it up so one of the guys who was really small could work his way down into it, he took a light with him and found the skeletal remains of some U. S. Marines, they still had their dog tags on, so he took them off and we took them to the commander who wrote to headquarters and gave them all of the info from the tags. Turns out they were "missing in action & presumed dead" and so the families were notified. We were told to leave them there as a decision would be made from higher up as to what to do, so we did and they were still there when we left the island, that was 1958 so who knows what happened after that. Very interesting though. Dad"

Just thought I'd send this your way, so people would realize that Palau being the scene of a battle, is not only a Japanese war grave site, but at one time was a U.S. war grave site as well & most likely still is.

LTM.  Blake- (who has just started the last chapter of A.E. Shoes & has very much enjoyed the read)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:04:54 -0400
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Just had a thought reading this. I think it might be to our advantage to do rubbings and GIS plotting of at least several L-10's. Could be that the rivet patterns vary enough from plane to plane that one rubbing is just not enough to draw a definitive conclusion regarding the rivet placement discrepancies.

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

So far we have either rubbings or good photos of the cabin roofs opposite the door of three aircraft:

c/n 1026 - a 10A at the Western Aerospace Museum (photos)
c/n 1052 - a 10A at the New England Air Museum (rubbing)
c/n 1091 - an extensively modified, airworthy 10A in Denton, TX

All exhibit identical rivet patterns in that area except for added antennas and patches here and there The airplane in Texas seems to have slightly larger rivets ( #4s instead of #3s).  A close examination of other Electras would be good but I don't think we're going to find variations in the number and placement of stringers.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:08:29 -0400
From:         Jim Kellen
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Do you think it would be possible to take a highly magnified picture of a cross section of a rivet hole and from that determine the type of drill bit used to make the hole? You know, kind of how they match bullets with gun barrels. I'm not saying we track down the exact drill bit, but maybe somewhere out there is some drill bit collector who can tell you the date of manufacture and country of origin of a drill bit used to make a hole. Perhaps we could establish a time range of manufacture and country of manufacture. OK, I'll admit it. I've been watching a lot of CSI lately.

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

That's way outside my paygrade but I would be very surprised if there was enough information in a .032 inch-thick hole to tell anything about the drill bit used to make it.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:09:57 -0400
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Palau

> Based on Ms. Wunderman's
> less-than-stellar credibility and TIGHAR's words of caution, the Bureau
> of Arts and Culture is presently trying to verify that claim before
> taking the History Channel to task.

Good job, Tighar!

Anything we can do to assist in guiding the local government strengthens our credibility in that part of the world. Read - makes our life just that much easier when we go asking.

ltm
jon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:21:11 -0400
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> The fact that the rivet pattern fits so well on the top of the Electra
> cabin is either a highly significant piece of evidence or an extremely
> weird coincidence.

Do I understand that this thing fits except that it's got extra holes?

Could the extras have been added after it was separated from the aircraft by whomever used it for whatever other use it was put to before you found it?

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

It's not just that it has extra holes (a rivet pitch of 1 inch rather than 1.5 inches).  That would not be hard to explain in a repair.  The big problem is that, on the Electra, there is a seam where two skins join that runs right down the middle of where 2-2-V-1 would be.  In other words, the underlying structure matches the rivet pattern but the plane would have had to be reskinned in this area in a nonstandard way.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:24:00 -0400
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric, have you tried to match the part to anything on the B-18?.  I remember many years ago someone on the forum said that he found a match on the underside fuselage of a B-18.  They even sent a template of the part to me to compare with the B-18 at the Castle Air Museum.  But I never got around to it before I moved  to California City.  I know there were many B-18s based at Canton during the war.

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

I know of one, but only one, B-18 that was on Canton.  We recently had a good look at the belly of the B-18 at the Air Force Museum.  No match.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:26:11 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

Ron Berry wrote:

>Before we get to carried away , lets try to  remember that most of the
>people out there bend the truth a little. Also  they step on a few toes
>to get their stories. So if you want to condemn the  History and or
>Discovery Channels stop and look at the rest of television,  and how the
>industry works.

How any one could possibly "know" that "most of the people out there bend the truth a little" is beyond me. I could accept that as an opinion but not as a fact.

Secondly, I don't find it very persuasive that something is OK because the rest of television may do it or that's "how the industry works."

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

We seem to be in the midst of a fact-bending epidemic these days.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:28:00 -0400
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Bones mystery

I have been thinking of other ways of cracking the mystery of where the bones, found by Gallagher, may have ended up. Keeping in mind the British are generally a people of pride, detail and "properness" when it comes to living their daily lives.  These were traits that were more prevalent in the Colonial Days than they are today - although this comment is not intended to take anything away from today's British citizen, it's just that modernization has a way of leveling the field of civilization. 
 
Having said that, I was wondering if any of the Forum's legal eagles have given any thought to what the laws-of-the-day (1940) said about the disposition of bones/artifacts found on lands under the British protectorate during those days?  It seems to me that there must have been some legal and/or environmental protocol that had to be followed in such and instance.  I also realize that people will be people and the simple disposal via the trash bin could also be a real possibility. However, following the letter of the law by the authorities involved in the Gallagher/AE matter may have been just what was done and some kind of a paper trail may still exist.  I would expect that our Legal friends would know what statue, regulation, law, etc., to explore in order to obtain an insight as to what, under ideal conditions, protocol may have been followed in disposing of the artifacts delivered by Gallagher to his higher ups.
 
Finally, keep in mind it was the "report writing and filing" details followed by the governing authorities that lead to the discovery of the correspondence that lead us to where we are today concerning this matter.  Just perhaps there is also a legal brief (in another branch of the than existing bureaucracy) that exists that we haven't explored or found.
 
Trying to keep the ball rolling.
Ted Campbell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:32:25 -0400
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Palau update

While the Palau Horizon doesn't have a website, you can listen to a live feed from WWFM 89.5 on Paulau by pasting this link into your browser:

mms://media03.netenterprise.net/palauradio

I'm waiting for a report on the scandal from their hard-hitting news team.

LTM

Pat Gaston
************************************************************************
From Ric

Forum subscriber Don Newman was able to find the following films by Eva Wunderman.  It does appear that she has done work for A&E (which owns The History Channel).

THE LEGACY of TRUK LAGOON
A one-hour documentary produced for A&E, our film describes the history and the incredible underwater legacy of WW II at Truk Lagoon, located in the western Pacific Ocean.

In February, 1944, more than 60 Japanese ships were sunk in the lagoon by carrier-based American planes. ...Our cameras explore the ghostly remains of the these huge relics of war, now overgrown with spectacular soft corals.

At the 1995 Yorkton Short Film and Video Festival, "The Legacy of Truk Lagoon" was nominated for a Golden Sheaf Award and reached the final four of 405 entries.

At the 1996 Leo Awards, the program was nominated for Best Documentary, Best Director and Best Cinematography.

Our Director Eva Wunderman won the Best Director award.

SUBSEA ENTERPRISES INC. - Wet Film Productions
Address:http://www.subsea-enterprises.com/Wet_Film_Productions.html
Changed:5:45 PM on Tuesday, May 2, 2000

---------------
British Columbia Film contributions to the British Columbia film & TV industry from April 1, 1997 through March 31, 1998:

Weird Homes

Profiles the eccentric owners of the most unusual homes in North America.

Yaletown Productions Inc.
(P) Mike Collier
(W) Mike Collier, Eva Wunderman

Television Series/ProfileLife

Network - $10,000

BC Films- News
Address:http://www.bcfilm.bc.ca/reports/98report.html Changed:1:58 PM on
Tuesday, March 4, 2003
****************************

Film and Television producer/director Eva Wunderman wrote: "I have seen him paint and teach in both Canada and in Greece...as I watch him paint...it's an experience of truth endorsed by life that gives his art a sense of soul and beauty."

Doug Linn Watercolors Artist
Address:http://www.ucanbuyart.com/doug_linn.html Changed:8:20 AM on
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
***********************

Paradise Bent
Boys Will Be Girls In Samoa

Cultures - International

Producer:
Heather Croall and Alison Elder

1999 - 51 minutes

Director:
Heather Croall and Eva Wunderman

Production Company:
Re Angle Pictures
*********************

The Wrath of the Dragon

11:35 OpenDocumentary
Canada

Writer - Michael Nietzel
Director - Eva Wunderman
Producers - E. Wunderman & M. Nietzel

The life and death of teenage heroin junkies on the streets of Vancouver as told by themselves

KC Filmmakers Jubilee - Official Selections
Address:http://www.kcjubilee.org/2003highlights/selections_us.htm
Changed:8:35 PM on Sunday, July 11, 2004
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:38:44 -0400
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> It's not just that it has extra holes (a rivet pitch of 1 inch rather
> than 1.5 inches).  That would not be hard to explain in a repair.

It's not an extra RUN of holes somewhere else, but extra holes where holes would normally have occurred and, since the pitch is wrong, I'd assume there's also no holes where you'd have expected there to be some as well.

> The
> big problem is that, on the Electra, there is a seam where two skins
> join that runs right down the middle of where 2-2-V-1 would be.  In
> other words, the underlying structure matches the rivet pattern but the
> plane would have had to be reskinned in this area in a nonstandard way.

OK.  Now I can visualize it.

Thanks for the clarification.

      - Bill #2229
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:43:07 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

> From: Ted Campbell   
> Keeping in mind the British are generally a people of pride, detail and
> "properness" when it comes to living their daily lives.  These were
> traits that were more prevalent in the Colonial Days than they  
> are today ...

Agreed.  This is why there is a slim hope that the bones or the sextant box and shoe parts may yet be found. In theory, an officer of the High Commission ought not to have carelessly discarded the material collected from Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro).

> Having said that, I was wondering if any of the Forum's
> legal eagles have given any thought to what the laws-of-the-day
> (1940) said about the disposition of bones/artifacts found on
> lands under the British protectorate during those days?

Thought, yes.  Research, no.

The High Commissioner in Fiji wore two hats: he was the chief justice for the British colonies under his jurisdiction and he was also the Governor of Fiji.  These two jobs were split some time after 1940, and the High Commission moved out of Fiji to Honiara in the Solomons in 1952. This would have been an excellent time for some bureaucrat to pass the material on to another office.  I looked through the shipping records for the move as carefully as I could in Auckland, but I couldn't find any record of this being done.

> It seems to
> me that there must have been some legal and/or
> environmental protocol that had to be followed in
> such and instance.

There is no invocation in the bones file of any such legal obligation.  I rather doubt that there was a Preservation Act on the books in 1940--but that's only a feeling, not evidence.

> I also realize that people will be people and the simple
> disposal via the trash bin could also be a real possibility.

We know that the Acting Director of the Medical School ordered destruction of records in the early 1950s.  This may have led to the loss of the bones, if they were still at Fiji School of Medicine at that time.  The sextant box and shoe parts should still have been where the High Commission left them, if they hadn't been destroyed or passed on to another body before that.

> However, following the letter of the law by the authorities involved in
> the Gallagher/AE matter may have been just what was done and some kind
> of a paper trail may still exist.

I read all of the "outgoing correspondence" from the WPHC in the archives for 1941-42, hoping to find a letter transmitting the material to some other body (a police department, a court, a colonial office).  I read lots of Letters written by Gallagher while he was Acting Secretary in the summer of 1940.  It was thrilling, but a dead end.

Similarly, I read all of the "outgoing correspondence" from the Medical Commission in the Archives in Suva from 1940 to about 1946--they didn't have any volumes after that.

There may be other volumes of "outgoing correspondence" from the WPHC in the Auckland archives that may contain such a letter.  I'd love to return to Auckland to read them if anyone wants to fund the trip.  But it's a shot in the dark and I can't promise that we would find anything.

> I would expect that our Legal friends would know what statute,
> regulation, law, etc., to explore in order to obtain an insight
> as to what, under ideal conditions, protocol may have been
> followed in disposing of the artifacts delivered by Gallagher
> to his higher ups.

Finding bones of an unknown person was not a common event in the history of the WPHC.  I've read all of the indices to all of the files from 1940 to the end of the WPHC.  Many of the files themselves have been destroyed; they have been winnowed several times as the collection moved from place to place.  The bound volumes of outgoing correspondence seem to preserve some of the material that would have been in the lost files.  The bones file survived and is in Auckland.  Two numbers are written haphazardly on the cover of the file, but no one I asked recognized the numbers as corresponding to a filing system with which they're familiar.  I couldn't make them fit any of the numbering systems used in the indices.

> Finally, keep in mind it was the "report writing and filing"
> details followed by the governing authorities that lead to
> the discovery of the correspondence that lead us to where
> we are today concerning this matter.

True.  As far as I could tell, the disposition of the material should have been recorded in the bones file. It was in the active system, though in an abandoned format, until at least 1952.  I thought that if someone couldn't find the old file to write a note in concerning disposition, they would open a new file--but looking at the indices did not reveal a new file dealing with bones found in 1940 on Gardner.

> Just perhaps there is also a legal
> brief (in another branch of the than existing
> bureaucracy) that exists that we haven't explored
> or found.

As time went on, I came to believe that the notes in the bones file constituted an official inquiry in the eyes of the people conducting it.  There didn't seem to be another body to whom they had to report.

There may be correspondence of some sort with the home office in Britain that didn't get put into the bones file.  There isn't any clue in the bones file pointing to that kind of correspondence. Here again, I'm available to go to England if anybody wants to pay the freight.  ;o)

Let me say again that this is a very long shot. Ric and some others already did some research in England and didn't find anything more than the bones file (which was in Hanslope Park at the time--it has subsequently gone with the WPHC Archives to Auckland).

> Trying to keep the ball rolling.

Roger and I sent copies of the first edition of Shoes, courtesy of Tom King et al., to all of the people we interviewed in Fiji.  We're hoping that someone might read the book or at least talk about the topic from time to time, just in case anything new turns up there.

I'm hoping that somebody some day will open a long-locked closet in Fiji or England and find the bones box packed with the sextant box in a larger trunk. If we're lucky, there will be some label that will lead them to somebody who will know that this is what we've been looking for.  If we're not lucky, the stuff may stay lost.  :o(

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:45:33 -0400
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: The Anti-History Channel

How could you be so naive about the information media of all kinds? If  story is drab and slow the media will find a way to make it interesting or you won't watch or read it. So it's up to the writers to color the story so that you will keep buying that news paper or watching the news channels. I did not say that because the rest of the industry does anything to get a story that it is alright.  What I was saying is that the whole media needs to take flack when it does not deliver the truth. Which is a lot of the time.  What does this have to do with AE? Lets get back on track.
LTM
Ron
2640
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:46:58 -0400
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Apology

Ric I accused you of changing my comments on the anti history story, I have gone back over my files and have discovered that you presented my comment the way that I sent it to you.   I am sorry that I made that charge, please accept my apology, I am truly sorry for the comment. Please post this so that everyone can see it.
Ron Berry
   2640
**************************************************************************
  From Ric

Apology accepted.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:54:27 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric wrote:

>there is  a seam where two skins
>join that runs right down the middle of where  2-2-V-1 would be.

Ric, yesterday I returned from Minneapolis in a DC-9. Looking out of the window I saw what appeared to be a reinforcement patch overlying a wing seam. Would that not be similar? Two wing skins joined in the middle beneath the overlying "patch."

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

In this case they would be fuselage skins and 2-2-V-1 would be patch riveted on top of them.  I can't say it's not possible but we can see that there was no such patch as late as June 3(Carapito, Venezuela) and  we've never seen any mention of skin work being done to the airplane after that.  Then again, there's no mention of the large starboard-side window being skinned over while the airplane was in Miami, but we can clearly see that it happened. (And no, the rivet pattern on 2-2-V-1 does not match the patch over the window.)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:55:19 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

>   I also realize that people will be people and
> the simple disposal via the trash bin could also be a real possibility.
 
Actually, this is rather unlikely for the British and human remains. I have done archaeology in Britain, and care was taken to be sure that human bone (medieval) was re-buried after being studied.  There has also been quite a flap recently about hospitals retaining organs (particularly abnormal hearts, but also small microscopic slide samples) after autopsy, and not releasing them for burial. I could see the bones lost in some warehouse, like in "Indiana Jones", or sent to an obscure museum, or buried or cremated, but not disposed of lightly. Human skeletons found on Henderson in the Pacific were given a "decent burial".
Daniel Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:56:26 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

Ted wrote:

>I was  wondering if any of the Forum's legal eagles
>have given any thought to  what the laws-of-the-day (1940) said about
>the disposition of  bones/artifacts found on lands under the British
>protectorate during those  days

That is certainly a good idea, Ted. I would have to guess, without researching international law, that the possibilities are that the bones were permitted to be destroyed, required to be kept or buried. If they were destroyed, whether permitted by law or not, we should no longer be concerned. If they were allowed to be buried there are only limited facilities for that purpose. If they were required to be kept and that was actually done perhaps  there is some record some place that might tell us where. I think all those possibilities have been thought of and pursued to the best of our ability so  far. Such a search continues.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:34:12 -0400
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Newbie questions

Greetings,
I'm new to all this. Have no background in aviation or navigation. My dad saw an article in the LA Times about a year ago on the Rollin Reineck book and asked me to get him a copy. I borrowed it and read it after he finished. I found the claims therein pretty hard to swallow, so I picked up the Long & Long book, which I'm now about halfway through.

At this point in the book, the Longs are laying groundwork for their own views on the disappearance. Between the lines, it sounds as though a successful trans-oceanic navigation in the 1930s depended  largely on having a really big target (preferably a continent) at the far end. I get the impression that successfully  navigating to a teeny island after flying hundreds of miles over the ocean was a near-impossible challenge with the limitations of the available equipment. 

Further, I get the impression that Earhart was unfamiliar to the point of gross irresponsibility with the radio equipment on board (how to use it, what it was capable of, etc.).

I've poked around the Earhart Project web site quite a bit (including reviews of both books), but it's not clear to me whether there might be other views on this, or whether I might be reading too much into the Longs' writing.

So -- was the attempted flight to Howland Island just plain stupid right from the start? Comments?

Best,
-SW
************************************************************************
From Ric

In principle, not at all.  By July 1937, Pan American had been flying scheduled passenger service across the Pacific for nearly a year, navigating reliably from teeny island to teeny island, using the same techniques and technology that Earhart planned to use.  Her navigator was the very guy who pioneered Pan Am's routes.  The devil, as always, was in the details.  The crucial final leg of the flight relied upon radio navigation.  Pan Am's Clippers had a dedicated radio operator. Neither Noonan nor Earhart was competent in radio communication/navigation.  When radio problems arose they lacked the expertise to solve them - and it cost them their lives.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:42:13 -0400
From:         John Wood
Subject:      New Shoes

A. E. Shoes????
Sorry, new guy here.
LTM
JMW (John Merlin Wood, III)
************************************************************************
From Ric

"Amelia Earhart's Shoes" is a book about TIGHAR's investigation written by our senior archaeologist Dr. Tom King, with help from Dr. Randy Jacobson, Dr. Karen Burns, and Kenton Spading.  The first edition was published in 2001 and has received many glowing reviews.  An updated second edition, in paperback, is soon to be released.

Tom?  Can folks order the new Shoes yet?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:50:34 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

Dan Postellon wrote:

>>   I also realize that people will be people and
>> the simple disposal via the trash bin could also be a real
>> possibility.
>
> Actually, this is rather unlikely for the British and human remains.
> I have done archaeology in Britain, and care was taken to be sure that
> human bone (medieval) was re-buried  after being studied.

Roger read all of the burial/cremation records for Suva from 1940 through the present.  No records of bones from Gardner/Niku being interred or cremated.

Neither the hospital nor the medical school have any old records on the disposal of medical waste.

I've always thought it would have been poetic to have sent the bones back to Gardner for burial, but Ric, others, and myself have looked at all the Gardner files we could find and there wasn't a hint of this happening.

The last note in the bones file is "P.A.", which means "put away."  This is in contrast to "B.U.", which means "bring up" for review at a certain date.  The "put away" entry is something like "case closed."  Everything collected had been examined and there was nothing further to add.

> ... I could see the bones lost in some warehouse, like in "Indiana
> Jones", or
> sent to an obscure museum, or buried or cremated, but not disposed of
> lightly.

That's why Roger and I were optimistic when we flew off to Fiji.  I was very impressed by the British bureaucracy's attention to details all through the war.  My favorite story was about how a young man tried to kiss a young nurse, tearing her dress and damaging some tomatoes in the process.  He was forced to apologize.  Then there was The Case of the Twelve Stolen Stamps.  Justice was done there, too.  And in the last summer of his life, Gallagher labored to try to get some binoculars returned from someone who took them "by mistake."  I would have thought that evidence gathered in an unknown death would have been as important as these other things, but, so far, I've been proven wrong.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:57:29 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

>  From Ric
> ... By July 1937, Pan American had been flying
> scheduled passenger service across the Pacific for nearly a year,
> navigating reliably from teeny island to teeny island, using the same
> techniques and technology that Earhart planned to use.  Her navigator
> was the very guy who pioneered Pan Am's routes.  The devil, as always,
> was in the details.  The crucial final leg of the flight relied upon
> radio navigation.  Pan Am's Clippers had a dedicated radio operator.
> Neither Noonan nor Earhart was competent in radio
> communication/navigation.  When radio problems arose they lacked the
> expertise to solve them - and it cost them their lives.

A brilliant summary!

I'm giving an abbreviated form of my bones talk to a high school Communications class in a week or two. I'm going to put this summary on the handout.  It really goes to the heart of the matter.

Is anybody else doing an AE class this semester?  If so, I'd like to put you in touch with the kids in Lockport.  They're learning a little Morse code before the class so that they can understand what the challenge was like for radio operators in the old days.

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

Having something I wrote called brilliant by Marty makes my day.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:43:08 -0400
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: New Shoes

I think Tom's book, "AE's Shoes" is the best thing I've ever read about AE"s disappearance. It's so nice to read a book that's not full of BS and that has been evenly evaluated by people I trust and respect. I'm anxiously awaiting the next book. (Hurry up, Tom! LOL)

LTM,

Mike Haddock, #2438
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:48:35 -0400
From:         Bob Bennett
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

TO: Ric from Bob in Bluffton:

What 12 stolen stamps is Marty referring to?
**********************************************************
From Ric

I assume it was some minor pilferage in a British colonial office that was exhaustively investigated and documented.  Marty mentioned it, I gather, as an example of classic British obsession with minutiae. That's what makes the apparent lack of a record of what ultimately became of the bones so curious.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:53:23 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Another plug for Shoes

I'm keying off of Mike Haddock's posting here. Agreed 100%. "Shoes" tells the story exactly like it is. And there's not a single line of BS in it anywhere. (Compare it to Long's book, which, in my opinion, has too much guesswork.) Some authors seem to feel a need to fluff a story up to make it better. King, Jacobson, Spading & Burns simply tell the fascinating story of AE's disappearance, candidly present the body of knowledge that we presently have about it, and, in a delightfully conversational manner, relate the story of the quest for the solution to the mystery. They allow the story to be terrific in it's own right. I've read my copy many times, loaned it to others, and I refer to it often.

For those of you who do not have copy, I'd suggest you get one. You have a real treat in store for you! 

(I think this is my fourth plug for this book on this forum!)

LTM, who always wore sensible shoes,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:54:52 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

>  From Bob Bennett
> What 12 stolen stamps is Marty referring to?
>  From Ric
>
> I assume it was some minor pilferage in a British colonial office that
> was exhaustively investigated and documented.

Yes, exactly.  Checking my notes, it was 11 pence in postage, not twelve.  ("Twelve" sounds better.)

> Marty mentioned it, I
> gather, as an example of classic British obsession with minutiae.

Yes.  I would try to write down something funny or interesting every day.  It helped to break up the monotony of turning so many non-AE pages.  :o(

> That's what makes the apparent lack of a record of what ultimately
> became of the bones so curious.

Yep.

Examples of files I read in Auckland:

1. Deaths: Exhumation of Bodies WPHC  F.211/5/10

Two inquiries: 1960 & 1966.  The procedure is so rare that it took almost a year to figure out who could give permission and under what conditions.

2. WPHC 16  1228519  F.125/2/3  Importation of Human Remains into the U.K.
Policy statement from Sec of State for the Colonies, 3 Feb 1955

Marty
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:52:43 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: New Shoes

Tom King used a rather unique theory in writing "Shoes" which escaped other Earhart authors. Tom just wrote a factual and fascinating book rather than deciding on a desired outcome and then manufacturing and warping "facts" and "evidence" to fit the predetermined outcome.

Rare in this day and age. <G> Well maybe not rare but certainly nice to see.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:54:03 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: New Shoes

>Tom?  Can folks order the new Shoes yet?

Yes.  Go to http://www.altamirapress.com, and search for  Amelia Earhart, or Amelia Earhart's Shoes, or Thomas F. King, or pretty much anything else that's reasonable other than Hey, Stupid, and you'll find both the  first (hardbound) and new (paperback) edition.  The paperback has an  addendum chapter that brings it as much up to date as possible, covering our  work through about mid-2004.  If you enter promotion code BM4KING you can get a 20% discount, bringing the cost down to $15.95 plus shipping.

The book is now with the printer, so orders should be filled about late October.  Great Christmas (or Thanksgiving, or Halloween [Think BONES]) gift.

Please spread the word -- we're very interested in promoting the book widely, and getting it reviewed in appropriate magazines, newsletters, tabloids, etc.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:18:13 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

Re. minute record-keeping: the question that continues to worry me is, how much did the system break down in the early days of WWII, when an invasion of Fiji was expected at any moment?  My gut feeling from my own reading of the records is, "not much" -- I'm recalling, for example, the seemingly very matter-of-fact reporting of routine administrative matters by the colonial authorities in Tarawa to those in Fiji AFTER Tarawa had been invaded by the  Japanese -- but it still seems like it would have been a good time for things to    fall through the record-keeping cracks.  Marty/Roger -- does your reading of the files suggest any sort of break or confusion during this  period?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:03:11 -0400
From:         Marty  Moleski
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

>  From Tom King
>
> ... The question that continues to worry me is,
> how much did the system break down in the early
> days of WWII, when an invasion of
> Fiji was expected at any moment?
>
> My gut feeling from my own reading of the
> records is, "not much" ...

Agreed.  I read all of the outgoing correspondence for the Colonial War Memorial Hospital from 1940 to 1946.  My judgment is that the Brits saw the war coming and got ready for it; they then saw the end of the war coming and got ready for that, too. I couldn't detect any signs of panic, just a trace of jealousy that the air raid shelters dug under the hospital perhaps were not as nice as others created for other offices.

I also read all of the bound, outgoing correspondence for the Western Pacific High Commission for a year or so.  I couldn't find any panic or disarray there, either.  [I see it was Vaskess, not Gallagher, who was trying to retrieve the binoculars.]

Notes from one volume:

122572 WPHC 27/XXVI/45  General Letters  July to Dec 1941

7 July 1941: The rudder of the HMS Bounty has been located on Pitcairn and is to be shipped to Suva.  (I think it is now in the Fiji Museum.)

8 July 1941: GBG sends a letter about pressure lanterns, signed as Acting Assistant to the High Commission.  He signed dozens of letters in July.

19 August 1941: Thanks for donation of 17-12-6 to NZ war funds from sale of 47 cases of oranges.

20 August 1941: Jack Pedro got some cash advances en route to Christmas Island in March 1941.

19 September 1941: Vaskess is after some dude to give back the binoculars and compass that belong to the Protectorate Goverment.  It's not the first time he's written to try to get this stuff back.

29 September: first letters about GBG's death.

21 November 1941: What steps have been taken to rid Christmas Island of wild cats?

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:27:26 -0400
From:         Jerry Kiffer
Subject:      Search technolgy

I thank you for the opportunity to follow your project. I am the commander for a private non-profit search and rescue group in Ketchikan Alaska. We are the primary civilian response group for locating downed and missing aircraft.

I unfortunately have little to offer a project of your size, however am very interested in the metal detection techniques I have been reading about on your forum. We are currently in the funding process for a project to develop detection instrumentation for aluminum, magnesium, and steel (primary aircraft components) I wouldn't want to distract from your primary goals but are very interested in hearing from your folks on this technology, and would love to share our development results.

Jerry L. Kiffer

Ketchikan Volunteer
Rescue Squad
************************************************************************
From Ric

Hi Jerry,

I know of no "metal detection" (i.e. magnetometry or pulse-induction) technology with sufficient resolution to be deployed from the air to find lost aircraft.   There are foliage and shallow ground penetration radars that can find something as small as a land mine from the air but they require a dedicated aircraft and are very expensive.  For on-the-ground use we've found that White's Electronics pulse-induction metal detectors designed for underwater use (such as the "Surfmaster Pro") are ideal for aviation archaeological use by volunteers in wilderness environments.  They're relatively simple to use so a volunteer with little or no experience in metal detecting can be productive with just a few minutes' worth of instruction.  They're also rugged and waterproof so you don't have to worry about them getting rained on or dropped in the water.  They don't discriminate between different types of metal but that's not usually an issue in aviation archaeological applications.  You want to find all the metal.  On the other hand, if you're doing SAR work, a hand-held metal detector is of no use.  Long before you're close enough to "detect" an airplane you can see it with the Mark One Eyeball.

Commander is a nice title but I don't think I could get away with it. TIGHAR expedition teams are notoriously disrespectful of their leaders. It's very distressing.

LTM
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:44:07 -0400
From:         David Pawlowski
Subject:      Artifact 2-6-S-21a

Greetings Mr. G and List,

I have a question for you folks regarding artifact 2-6-S-21a.  The piece of glass is listed as having been found at the Seven site. Beyond speculating that the long 7 pathway visible in the late 30's aerial photos of the island was carved by a spinning propeller, I would like to ask a question as the glass composition of the shard of glass that resembles a "fishing float".  I've seen real fishing floats that have been picked up from the sands of Hawaiian beaches and the color was different as well as the texture of the glass.  The glass floats were round of different sizes and also had gobs were the float was sealed.  I was intrigued to note that the shard of glass has what appears to be a mold kerf.  While visiting the Amelia Earhart Purdue website photo collection I noted the front lights of the Electra in several shots.  Using the zoom function you can go right to a portion of the image that your are interested in seeing at 100%.  Your shard looks like a smaller piece of the thick bulb used on the front nose of the aircraft.  As for the colors you folks see in the glass shard, as an old bottle collector who visited junk dumps hailing from the 1920's (in the early 70's) I was taken by how the bottles buried in the wet loam had picked up color shades.  Have you folks ever had the glass shard tested for content and see if it matches and glass composition used for "headlights"?

Just wondering.

Regards,
David Pawlowski
************************************************************************
From Ric

I can assure you that the 7 pathway at the Seven Site was not caused by a spinning propeller.  It's a natural feature that apparently has to do with the nature of the substrate and it has persisted to the present day.

The glass in the lights in the nose of a Lockheed 10 is far thinner than that in Artifact -21a.  All of the glass artifacts recovered from the Seven Site were examined by Rob Jackson of Pacific Legacy, Inc. Dr. Jackson is an archaeologist whose specialty is glass artifacts. His analysis of -21a is reproduced below.

2-6-S-21a: (two pieces)
                1: length: 2.62 in.
                    width: 0.79 in.
                    thickness: 0.42 in.
                    weight: 0.54 oz.
                2: length: 2.80 in.
                    width: 1.07 in.
                    thickness: 0.52 in.
                    weight: 1.10 oz

Description: Two conjoinable, light amethyst, broken glass shards, once part of a glass fishing float.  The two conjoinable pieces were broken in a bending fracture that split the original shard roughly in half, lengthwise.  The reconstructed diameter of the fishing float, based on curvature of the glass shard, appears to be approximately 165 mm.  The glass is relatively free of the air bubbles that are reported as typical of Japanese glass fishing floats made of recycled glass. The glass shards exhibit most of the pontil portion of the float, and the fracture around the perimeter of the shard is radial, forming an acute angle from the outside to inside surface of the float.  This acute angle forms a sharp edge on the two distal ends of the roughly oval-shaped glass shard.  The surface of the fracture exhibits a laminar appearance, reflected on the exterior surface of the float as thin concentric lines etched in the glass.  This may reflect turning of the molten glass as it was  being hand-blown. Cross-cutting these laminar lines is a series of radial striations that reflect the fracture of the shard from the larger float.  The nature of the fracture suggests to me that a sharp blow may have been delivered at the opposing side of the float, resulting in a radial fracture, although this is speculative.   The fishing float must have broken several decades ago, as the fractured surfaces have formed a light iridescent patina.   Such patina is common on glass artifacts that have been exposed to direct sunlight for a significant amount of time. The rate of such patination is not well understood, and can be discontinuous upon movement in and out of direct sunlight.

There is no evidence of purposeful secondary flaking of the edges of the shard.  The edges were examined under a stereo zoom microscope at magnifications ranging from approximately 20x-200x (relatively low power).  The edges exhibited tiny microflaking that was intermittent and bifacial.  This microflaking is scarcely visible to the naked eye, and would take only light pressure to produce.  Such flaking is not uncommon during large flake detachment (i.e., when the fishing float was struck and broken).  In fact, such microflakes can be observed along the surface of the shard at the edges of the conjoinable, perpendicular fracture.  Because the edges are 90 degrees, the edges of the conjoinable pieces would not be suitable for effective cutting, and it is likely that the microflaking is a  consequence of the shard breaking into two pieces.  This does not preclude the possibility that the microflaking of the sharp distal edges were created in another way.

Such damage could be the result of trampling or even light use of the edge for cutting, but the microflaking evidence is inconclusive.

The laminar nature of the sharp, fracture edges makes it difficult to see micro-striations.  Only a few large, unifacial  striations were observed, running diagonal from the edge across the fractured surface. These striations are few in number (less than ten) and could have been created by a single incident of abrasion.  One would expect a larger number of striations if the glass shard was used in a repetitive motion such as cutting.  However, cutting soft material would not create striations.  The final physical examination for evidence of use involved the morphology of the microflakes themselves.  Repetitive motion would be expected to dull or further microflake small prominences and protruding arretes (ridges formed by the intersection of adjacent flake scars).  No such dulling or microflaking was observed.

In summary, after the fishing float was broken and the shard(s) were created by a forceful impact, the shards were not subject to any further purpose modification.  Although two edges of the conjoined shards are quite sharp and suitable for cutting, the glass fragments do not appear to have been heavily used.  If they were used as tools at all, that use was brief and did involve contact with hard or abrasive materials.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:05:37 -0400
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

Ric, replying to my question, "was the attempted flight to Howland Island just plain stupid right from the start?" wrote:

> In principle, not at all.  By July 1937, Pan American had been flying
> scheduled passenger service across the Pacific for nearly a year,
> navigating reliably from teeny island to teeny island, using the same
> techniques and technology that Earhart planned to use.  Her navigator
> was the very guy who pioneered Pan Am's routes.  The devil, as always,
> was in the details.  The crucial final leg of the flight relied upon
> radio navigation.  Pan Am's Clippers had a dedicated radio operator.
> Neither Noonan nor Earhart was competent in radio
> communication/navigation.  When radio problems arose they lacked the
> expertise to solve them - and it cost them their lives.

Thanks, Ric. Your answer causes me to take one step backward, but I'm not ready to abandon my notion yet.

Part of my earlier post was: "I get the impression that Earhart was unfamiliar to the point of gross irresponsibility with the radio equipment on board (how to use it, what it was capable of, etc.)." Is that a fair assessment? In fact, as I think about it, it seems that she not only was unfamiliar with the equipment she had on board, but she'd also made some really poor decisions about leaving some equipment behind. Given that (1) a dedicated radio operator was part of the trans-Pacific flight crew on other flights, and (2) Earhart not only didn't have a radio operator, but didn't even understand her own radio equipment, I still wonder:

"was the attempted flight to Howland Island just plain stupid right from the start?"

Best,
-SW
************************************************************************
From Ric

I think that it's fair to say that the flight to Howland relied upon everything working just the way it was supposed to work.  In other words, the flight's successful completion relied upon luck to an unacceptable degree.  So, yes, I agree that it's stupid for any pilot to undertake a flight like that but recklessness (a euphemism for stupidity) was a hallmark of Earhart's career.  In  the past she had been exceptionally lucky in that the price had always been nothing worse than landing in the wrong place and numerous survivable wrecks. In that respect, Earhart deserves the appellation "Lucky" far more than Lindbergh but, as always happens, she went to that well once too often.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:07:09 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

OK, Marty, but those notes are all from before 12/7/41.  Do such routine discourses continue thereafter?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:13:06 -0400
From:         Bob in Bluffton
Subject:      Re: New Shoes

Sounds interesting especially now since R. Ballard seems more focused. I thought you discounted the shoes theory already though? Anyway, since we are talking about objects, how about the tin case of Fred's that Amelia mentions on page 131 of her own book? This was reportedly found on Barre Island buried under a tree by natives and mentioned in the Vince Loomis book of 1985 by Random House. RSVP to RE
***********************************************************************
  From Ric

I have seen no credible indication that Ballard has any interest in the Earhart mystery whatsoever. I personally am of the opinion that the shoe parts we found on the island are not connected to Earhart but other TIGHAR researchers disagree.  In any event, the shoes that Gallagher found are a major piece of evidence. " Amelia Earhart's Shoes" remains, in my opinion, a great title for Tom's book. The shoe parts we found on Nikumaroro are real artifacts that we can evaluate.  The shoe parts found by Gallagher are documented in contemporaneous written records.  The container buried under the tree on Barre Island exists only as an anecdotal recollection.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:14:15 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

>  From Tom King
> OK, Marty, but those notes are all from before 12/7/41.  Do such routine
> discourses continue thereafter?

Yes, as far as I could tell.  I read all the Colonial War Memorial Hospital correspondence (1941-46) and about three volumes of WPHC correspondence.

I read all of the indices for the WPHC that I could find--the lists of file names--from 1940 to the 1970s.  I'm pretty sure that the bureaucracy never wavered during the war years.

LTM.
Marty  #2359
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:19:13 -0400
From:         Jerry Kiffer
Subject:      Re: search technology

It sounds like your group is another of the grass root organizations, I also get the same respect!  Thanks for the info on white's we will be contacting them as well. We are learning as we go concerning the problems associated with aerial detection, a couple of manufactures have shown interest but have not yet selected a firm. It looks like the project is growing momentum but may take as much as 750,000.00 to complete so not looking at a very timely completion date.

For Scott White,

While by today's standards I would have to agree their flight planning lacked the safety buffer we enjoy today, however at the time, pilots were driving the technology by these types of endeavors. We have always pushed technology this way, look at the first flight to the moon with a navigation and control computer less capable than the basic calculator today. We just recently watched the flight into space by a civilian contractor, was that flight done as safely as it will be done in even 20 years time? Watching the controllability of the aircraft on video we can only conclude that they were luckily to be able to land safely! Would I have made such a flight with the technology available to them, who knows but I sure respect those that did every time I climb into a modern passenger aircraft.

Jerry Kiffer
************************************************************************
From Ric

Earhart was not pioneering new technology.  She failed to competently use the technology that had already been developed, tested and proven.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:33:03 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Titles

Ric says:

>Commander is a nice title but I don't think I could get away with  it.
>TIGHAR expedition teams are notoriously disrespectful of their  leaders.
>It's very distressing.

I don't think any of us would object to your use of "Commander." We're just naturally disrespectful so one title or another would make little difference. <G>

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

Very true...so I may as well pick something good.  I could trump Jerry and go for Master and Commander.  But then there's a scene in "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" where John Wayne addresses a Spanish-speaking Indian chief as "Illustre Jefe" (Illustrious Chief).  Hard to beat that. Too many choices.  May as well stick with the traditional epithets. (Them are the things you wear on your shoulders, right?)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:39:32 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: New Shoes

For Bob in Blufton

> thought you discounted the shoes theory already  though?

Actually, AE's shoes, of various kinds, walk through the book in a variety of directions; it's not just about the ones we found at Aukaraime South on Nikumaroro.  Though Ric's right; he's more or less discounted  them; I, among others, think he's being too hasty.

> Anyway, since we are talking about objects, how about the tin  case of
> Fred's that Amelia mentions on page 131 of her own book?

Let's see it.  Without the object, and some way of linking it with the one that AE writes about, it is, as Ric says, just anecdote.  We have an anecdote about a sighting of the Nikumaroro sextant box on a desk in Fiji in the late 1940s or so.  We have anecdotes about the Nikumaroro bones being in Fiji in the '60s.  We have anecdotes about plane parts on the reef.   All very interesting, and all put together they're very suggestive, but they're still just anecdote.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:52:46 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

Ric wrote:

>I think that it's fair to say that the flight to Howland relied  upon
>everything working just the way it was supposed to  work.

I have long fretted about this very idea. If my understanding of Fred's plan is correct he expected his navigation to get him close and DF to finish the job. However the DF did not work at one point in the round the world flight and  at Lae AE flew an unsuccessful test hop on the DF. They left Lae without knowing  the DF would work. There is no evidence I am aware of they rechecked the DF on  the outbound leg or at any other point in the flight. Secondly, if the receiver  antenna was torn loose on take off she had no radio reception from that moment  on.

Why would they continue the flight knowing they had no DF and no radio receiver when both were necessary to successfully find Howland?

I see the possibilities as:

1. The DF and radio receiver were checked and DID work after take  off.

2.  They did NOT check either piece of equipment and never knew they didn't work.

3. They knew both were inoperative but brazenly thought they could find Howland without them.

Rereading AE's radio transmissions I would opt for number two. They seemed to  think they were going to get a DF and never seemed to comprehend their receiver was out. I think that is extremely odd as at some point in the 20 hour flight they should have become suspicious they were not hearing anything on their radio. I don't understand this. AE was concerned enough about the DF to test fly the plane to check it out yet not concerned enough to recheck during the flight and did not notice the radio didn't work. These folks weren't stupid but there is something here that doesn't compute.

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

Interesting thoughts.  Earhart's neglect of the DF aboard the airplane doesn't surprise me. She replaced the easy-to-use but heavy Hooven Radio Compass with a lighter but less user-friendly Bendix unit, then she ducked out of taking her radio navigation test.  I don't think she ever had any intention of relying on the onboard DF.  She didn't know how to use and she wasn't interested in learning.  She expected the Itasca to do the DFing for her.  It was only after repeated attempts to get a response from Itasca failed that she tried to use her own DF and then she asked for signals on a frequency that was way too high for her to get a bearing on.

It's harder to understand why she pressed on after apparently not hearing anything from Lae.  She had to know that being able to hear voice transmissions was literally a life or death issue.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:54:11 -0400
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Search technology

Those in search of lost aircraft artifacts should look into a longtime sar organizattion that has some very sophisticated equipment recently made available to them.  Computer programing has enabled the finding lost items which are manufactured not made by natural causes and this is meant simply as a lead for them and all I can say about it. In thinking about Tighar's research into the Nungessor and Coli search a few years ago this could be used up there with good effect.

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

Carl, what are you talking about?