Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:17:31 
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Titles

Ric Gillespie wrote:

> I could trump Jerry and go for Master and Commander.

Would that be the lesser of two weevils?

Bob
#2286
*******************************************************************
From Ric

No doubt.  Next time we need to take a close look at the Norwich City wreckage from Naia's launch I can't wait to say, "Lay me along side in pistol shot."
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:48:05 
From:         Jerry Anne Jurenka
Subject:      B-24 in Santa Fe

Ric:

I just returned from Santa Fe where the airport manager, Jim  Montman, presented a keynote address for the South Central Section of The Ninety-Nines. During it, he mentioned that he has heard there is a B-24 buried at the end of one of their three runways and first time he gets a chance, he wants to find and dig it up. Is that something TIGHAR would be interested in?

Hope all is going well ~
Jerry Anne Jurenka
************************************************************************
From Ric

Very possibly, but we don't want to impose ourselves upon someone else's project and there are many questions that must be answered before anyone tries to dig up anything.  The first question, of course, would be "Is there really something there?"  Rumors of buried airplanes are a dime a dozen.  If there is an airplane there, how did it get there?  Is it a crash site (possible human remains)?  Is it a disposal of stripped hulk?  Who owns it?  What regulations apply? The excavation of a B-24 would be a great subject for an aviation archaeological field school but we'd have to know a lot more about it. If Mr. Montman is interested in sharing whatever he knows we'd be happy to talk to him.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:34:21 
From:         Reed Riddle
Subject:      Re: Titles

> May as well stick with the traditional epithets.
> (Them are the things you wear on your shoulders, right?)

Only if the person giving them to you speaks with a bit more force and liquidity than usual.  ;)

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

> (Them are the things you wear on your shoulders, right?)

Nah, Ric,  I'm sure them's called epitaphs...

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:32:11 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

<<She  expected the Itasca to do the DFing for her.>>

You are probably right but how could she expect the Itasca to do the DFing if she could not receive any transmissions from anyone. She had to know she had no receiver. You see, there is something not kosher in our understanding of the events.

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

Given: The test flight in Lae on July 1 confirmed to Earhart that her receiver and transmitter were working but the engineer cautioned her that there were some problems with the transmitter on 6210.

Given: When she was approaching Howland after sun up she tried to contact Itasca on 3105 even though 6210 was her "daylight" frequency. She only switched to 6210 as a last resort.

Hypothesis:  Earhart believed she had a problem with her 6210 transmitting crystal.  During the early part of the flight she attributed her failure to hear any response to her calls back to Lae on 6210 to them not hearing her transmissions.  She did not realize that she had a receiver problem.  She fully expected that she would be able to communicate with Itasca on her "good" frequency -  3105.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:30:38 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

Thanks to Ric, Alan, and Jerry for the thoughts and details on this. I haven't finished the Long & Long book yet, but I already know their conclusion from the TIGHAR web site.

L&L sometimes dwell on bad decisions in selecting radio and antenna equipment, her (and Noonan's) inability to use it properly, and so on. Meanwhile, they also dwell on Earhart's careful attention to the engines and especially the devices that kept track of fuel use (fuel flow meters, exhaust gas analyzers).

Their conclusions depend on the premise that Noonan's navigation got them close to Howland, and that fuel consumption over the course of the flight can be carefully calculated to show where they were when it ran out. So emphasizing Earhart's seemingly cavalier attitude about radio communication and her careful attention to fuel metering throughout the book could be straightforward reporting, or it could be a rhetorical trick to lead the reader toward their conclusion.

Alan's detailed reply on Earhart's and Noonan's decision to press on despite the problems with receiving and direction-finding support the "straightforward reporting" perspective (unless his info comes from Long & Long).

If I understand right, there were two kinds of DF available in those days: Equipment on board the plane could find the direction of an incoming signal, or equipment on the ground could find the direction of a signal broadcast by the plane, and then radio the crew to tell them their location. Both rely on having a working receiver on board the plane. Earhart dumped the equipment needed for the second option 'way back in Florida and relied 100% on the first method. It sounds like Earhart never was able to receive any radio messages at all from the time she left Lae. Is that right? Anybody know of any transmissions she sent that replied specifically to a message?

It's beyond reason to imagine that she and Noonan never figured out that their receiver didn't work (gosh, I wonder why nobody talks to us? Do you think we offended somebody?). So, somewhere in the flight, they just had to have had a little talk: Our radio receiver doesn't work. We need it for direction-finding. Should we turn back, or should we press on? 

The only rationale I can think of for "press on" would be that Noonan would be able to get them close, and that they were confident they'd have enough gas to either find Howland (probably by some standard systematic search pattern) or else find some other place to land.

Well, I'm rambling now. You guys must have given all this a lot more thought than I have.

Jerry Kiffer made the point that young technology has its glitches, and that it never develops without adventurers like Earhart. Which is absolutely true. But how do you tell the difference (in advance) between a daring adventurer and a doomed reckless fool? After the fact, it's easy: the one is a hero and the other is dead. But the only real difference may be blind luck.

BTW, does anyone know the correct year of Earhart's birth? Long and Long say 1897; my cheapo get-one-each-visit-to-the-supermarket encyclopedia says 1898; Rollin Reineck says 1987 (I guess that's the date of her reincarnation).

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

AE was born on July 24, 1897.

>If I understand right, there were two kinds of DF available in those days:
>Equipment on board the plane could find the direction of an incoming signal,
>or equipment on the ground could find the direction of a signal broadcast by
>the plane, and then radio the crew to tell them their location. Both rely on
>having a working receiver on board the plane.

Correct

>Earhart dumped the equipment needed for the second option 'way back
>in Florida and relied 100% on the first method.

It's bit more involved than that.  Of her three transmitting frequencies - 500 kcs, 3105 kcs & 6210 kcs - only 500 kcs was suitable for DFing but to transmit efficiently on that frequency requires a very long antenna (the infamous "trailing wire").  Contrary to Long and to legend, Earhart's trailing wire antenna was not removed in Florida. The mast through which the trailing wire was deployed was destroyed in the Luke Field accident and photos taken in Burbank the day after the airplane came out of the repair shop (and before it left for Florida) show that the mast was already gone at that time, apparently not reinstalled.  Earhart had allowed radio technician Joe Gurr to lengthen the aircraft's dorsal vee wire antenna as a compromise.  The thought was to save the weight by eliminating the trailing wire and, by lengthening the vee antenna, provide reduced, but sufficient, propagation capability on 500 kcs.  In fact, no meaningful propagation capability on 500 kcs was achieved and the lengthened antenna merely served to screw up 3105 and 6210.

As you correctly note, Earhart ended up with no capability to send signals upon which the Itasca could DF, and yet that is what she tried and tried to do.  When she finally decided to try using her own DF she asked for signals on a frequency (7500 kcs) far higher than her radio was capable of homing on.

>It sounds like Earhart never was able to receive any radio messages at all
>from the time she left Lae. Is that right?

No.

>Anybody know of any transmissions she sent that replied specifically
>to a message?

Earhart did hear the signals on 7500 kcs, although she was unable to "get a minimum" to obtain a bearing.  Her ability to receive those signals ( a series of letter "A"s in morse code - dit dah, dit dah, dit dah, etc.) tells us that her receiver was working.  The problem was in the antenna.  Prior to trying to use her DF she had been using the long wire antenna on the belly of the aircraft - the one that we now know was lost during the takeoff from Lae.  When she decided to try to use her DF she switched to the loop antenna over the cockpit and, for the first time, heard something over her headphones.  However, she was unable to take a bearing and the signals themselves contained no useful information.  Tragically, at that point she switched back to the (missing) belly antenna and never heard anything further.  Had she correctly diagnosed the problem she could have transmitted to the Itasca on 3105 and received their replies via the loop.  She still couldn't have gotten DF help but at least she would have had two-way voice communication with the Itasca.

>Jerry Kiffer made the point that young technology has its glitches, and that
>it never develops without adventurers like Earhart.

Young technology never develops without people who are willing to take chances to test it, but Earhart does not belong in that category.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:43:01 
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Titles

I vote for "El Chingon" (accent over the "O"; my machine doesn't do Spanish) uh, respectfully, of course.

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

I'm having a hard time finding a translation for that.  (I may regret this.)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:45:39 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Titles

Try HEAD HONCHO or CHIEF COOK AND BOTTLE WASHER!

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas
************************************************************************
From Ric

"Head Honcho" is a redundancy.  "Chief Cook and Bottle Washer" is pretty much on target.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:53:24 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      pioneering new technology

>  From Ric
>
> Earhart was not pioneering new technology.  She failed to competently
> use the technology that had already been developed, tested and proven.

And there were plenty of screw ups-

1 - her radio antenna lost at Lae

2 - difference in capabilities of her radios and the radios aboard the Itasca

3 - difference in the "time" used by AE and the Itasca

4 - AE's lack of knowledge of radios coupled with Fred's lack of knowledge (when one would expect his PanAm experience to have been better than it apparently was.

and more problems that I didn't discuss here.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas

Oh, by the way, for those who wonder about my relationship to the presidents - I asked the Secret Service about this and they said that it was "Need To Know, Only" and they would tell me when I needed to know.
************************************************************************
From Ric

We can't really hold AE responsible for the antenna loss at Lae - accidents happen - but she did fail to diagnose the problem.

The difference in time used by AE and the Itasca was totally the Coast Guard's fault.  The had asked her what time zone she would be using and she had replied that she would use Greenwich.  They then ignored her and used local.

It's a hard job being a Bush.  The American people know that.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:21:43 
From:         Terry Simpson
Re:           Titles

Hello Forum and Ric,hope all are well......Ric how about.....BOSS!....you know like Stapellton...Terry(#2396) LTM

************************************************************
From Stretch

Sorry fellas, those things on your shoulders are epaulets (I wear some, that's why I know).  An epitaph is what is inscribed on a headstone. An epithet is a disparaging or abusive word or phrase.  Just thought I'd help set the record straight.  Feel free to sling some epithets my way, but I'm not ready for an epitaph yet, not until I've got a couple more stripes on my epaulets, thanks!!  LOL
Stretch
************************************************************
From Ric

This is such a great forum....
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:58:38 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Scott, nothing I wrote came from Long's book. I would suggest you read that book carefully in regard to the fuel usage issue. Although some disagree, it appears to me there was an effort made to make the fuel run out at the precise time Elgin believed it ran out at 8:43 AM local.

Without evidence to support the contention he had some fuel evaporate over night and assumed the tanks were not checked and topped off if necessary. He had  the airplane climbing to 12,000 feet to get over mountains to use up more fuel  even though AE's two position reports showed her flight path differently. He  found a large headwind that is not supported by any evidence.

On the contrary most of us working the fuel issue found the Electra with about four hours of fuel when they departed the Howland area. There is no evidence leading to the conclusion they ran out of gas. It is certainly possible but we know of no credible reason for that assumption.

For your information, Scott, we have the fuel charts for the airplane and Kelly Johnson's test flight data in addition to his recommendations to AE and the example of a similar flight in the "Daily Express" which was also a model 10E. Fuel planning and monitoring was one of my tasks during my USAF flying career so I am somewhat familiar with the subject. Others in TIGHAR have even better qualifications and we generally agree on the subject.

In fairness to Elgin Long I am convinced he thoroughly believed AE ran out of gas and made a number of assumptions to show why he thought that occurred.

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

Long, in fact, went to extreme lengths (no pun intended) to back into the numbers he needed to support his foregone conclusion.  He not only proclaimed an entirely speculative headwind but he then piled speculation upon speculation by claiming that Earhart had increased her power settings to suicidally high levels based upon recommendations in Lockheed report.  The trouble is, Elgen misread the report.  Even based on his own speculation, his numbers are wrong.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:06:01 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: pioneering new technology

Ric said:

>We can't  really hold AE responsible for the antenna loss at Lae -
>accidents happen -  but she did fail to diagnose the problem.

Aha! Another worrisome issue. Wouldn't that antenna snapping off made a rather significant noise? I think I would have wondered enough to do a fly by of the tower to see if any damage had occurred. OR were the engines so loud the gear could have fallen off without anyone hearing?

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

Try this experiment.  Park two T-6s wing tip t0 wing tip. Set the brakes and chock the wheels.  Stand between the two engines and have them run up to full power with the props in flat pitch.  Now ask your lovely assistant in the sequined outfit standing about 20 feet behind you to break a broomstick over her knee.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:12:10 
From:         Jerry Kiffer
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

I have always been interested in early flight, as a newcomer lacking any history with group I only can assume the information has been thoroughly checked for accuracy. Having said that I am more interested than ever in the comments. The entire aircraft industry at that time is full of stories that today we attribute to recklessness, but at the time could be considered a "standard" in the industry. What I am hearing from the forum is their flight was akin to the Gillam flights in Alaska, who also just didn't think, but got lucky a lot? RDF in those days was an important tool in navigation and the idea they didn't know the DF was not working properly shortly takeoff from Florida is quite a stretch in my mind?
************************************************************************
From Ric

I worked for 12 years as an aviation risk manager and accident investigator.  Time and time again I saw it dramatically illustrated that pilots who repeatedly "ask for it" eventually "get it".  It takes a while - often far longer than you would expect - but the ancient adage is true and. I suspect, has always been true.  There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:06:07 
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Balfour again

>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.

I keep coming back to Balfour's "recalibration" of Earhart's receiver at Lae.  Even if this consisted only of putting a couple  hash marks on her receiver dial, it's an alternative explanation of why she never heard Itasca on 3105 kc, and does not require the loss of an antenna.

Let's assume for a moment that she >could< hear Balfour's transmissions from Lae (on 6540 kc), so she had no reason to think her receiver was out.  But we know that AE was a radio novice (to put it mildly), and after 20 hours in the air she  was mentally and physically exhausted, perhaps verging on disorientation.  Under these circumstances it strikes me as quite plausible that she would again use Balfour's hash mark -- hey, it worked before.  One of these marks was probably at 6540.  We don't know if there were others.

Of course AE could transmit on 3105 because her xmit frequencies were crystal-controlled.  But her receiver was tuned manually, and if she was relying on Balfour's "shortcuts" then her ability to receive depended upon the accuracy of those tick marks.

In any event, Balfour's fiddling at Lae has never been adequately explained and I've always thought it may have played a major role in the flight's tragic outcome.

BTW I notice from the Itasca radio logs that O'Hare (Position 1) makes absolutely no mention of the 8:43 am reception.  There is nothing  between 8:00 and 8:56 am, although O'Hare notes that Position 2 was keeping "pertinent data."  Still it's odd that the 8:43 am msg is not noted, considering O'Hare logged transmissions from Earhart at 7:40 and 8:00.  This provides some support for TIGHAR's view that circumstances surrounding the 8:43 reception were chaotic.

It's also curious that O'Hare doesn't log the 8:00 reception - in which Earhart acknowledged receiving Itasca on 7500 kc -- until 8:57 am.

LTM

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

I'm not Amelia but if I wasn't getting anything when tuned to the hash mark I'd sure as heck fiddle around with the dial to see if I could get  something.  I'll also point out that the existence of "hash marks" is purely speculative while the loss of the antenna is right there in the photos.

As for O'Hare, his job was not to listen for Earhart.  His job was to handle administrative traffic.  He's only logging overheard Earhart transmissions because he can't stand not to, and he often misses them, mis-hears them,  or has to play catch-up.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:07:51 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: pioneering new technology

Ric wrote:

>Try this experiment.  Park two T-6s wing tip t0 wing tip. Set  the
>brakes and chock the wheels.  Stand between the two engines and  have
>them run up to full power with the props in flat pitch.  Now ask  your
>lovely assistant in the sequined outfit standing about 20 feet  behind
>you to break a broomstick over her knee.

Sorry, Ric, but I was so distracted by the sequined outfit I didn't even notice the two T-6s.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:26:20 
From:         George Rat Werth
Subject:      El Chingon

Ric commented that he was having trouble translating "El Chingon."

I conducted a search of >El Chingon< and amongst the information that came up was a paragraph in a website that seems to be appropriate.
Go to >http://www.junkmedia.org/?i=226<

Hope this helps, Ric!

GRW1
************************************************************************
From Ric

I blush to offer the referenced paragraph:

"In Mexican slang El Chingon is used as a noun to describe the bad-assed dude. The coolest, the best. As an adjective, it describes something good, actually excellent. El Chingon also has a macho reference, as you would expect, meaning the male, the macho or the one that "opens"."

In fact, all TIGHAR members - male and female - who have completed our Introductory Course in Aviation Archaeology and our Field School have the letters "EC" appended to their member number  -"E" for Expedition Qualified and "C" for Course - but they could just as well stand for El Chingon.  Who could ask for more than to be the "Illustere Jefe de los Chingons"?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:37:17 
From:         Christian Duretete
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

1---When the belly antenna broke, do we have evidence (Lae film/pix) that 100% of the wire was gone, OR, do we accurately know the design of said antenna, with the conclusion that it was impossible for a few feet of wire to remain attached to the plane? Even a few feet of wire would give a somewhat decent receiving. I've never seen this discussed.

2---Is there any reasons as to why AE would request a transmission specifically on *7500*??? Where is that number coming from???

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

1. We know the design of the antenna from numerous photographs.  We know it's function only from supposition, and not everyone agrees about that.  There is not sufficient resolution in the Lae takeoff photos to know for sure that all of the wire departed the aircraft.

2.  Why the heck Earhart requested signals on such a high frequency is a real mystery.  She first asked for it in a message she sent to the Coast Guard several days before the flight, setting up radio procedures.  They didn't question it even though they had previously been told that her DF would only respond to much lower frequencies.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:56:45 
From:         Marcus
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

Ric wrote:

>Young technology never develops without people who are willing to take
>chances to test it, but Earhart does not belong in that category...

-terribly sorry, but as it seems this statement shows rather a personal prejudice than any kind of factually correct access.

Generally, how to interpret EXACTLY the expression "to test the new technology"? Whether any exact "formal definition" of this process exist? As far as I know - no, it isn't.

So who can be a "judge" to make a "verdict" whether some person belongs to this "category"?

Such a discussion looks simply senseless from beginning. It shows more the personal prejudice of some people against other people, than anything interesting in factual aspect.

For the matter of fact, let me to remind however, that Earhart really esteblished many records, that was certainly a PIONEERING work in those conditions. It helped to TEST the "ultimate" abilities of new aviation constructions, and established the "beacons" for aviation industry to achieve such an abilities and characteristics in following serial "products" - new planes. In my - purely personal - opinion it certainly may be called as "testing new technique and equipment".

Best Regards - Marcus
************************************************************************
From Ric

I think you're right that all such judgments are subjective but I must disagree that my opinions about Amelia Earhart's career are the result of any personal prejudice.  When we began this investigation I had no opinion one way or the other about Earhart. After 15 years of trying to separate folklore from fact I find that I can only conclude that Earhart is one of the most overrated figures in aviation history.  That said, I have no desire to tear down AE's image as a hero and role model.  That image, accurate or not, has been and continues to be a very positive force in many lives.  Our job, however, in trying to solve the mystery of her disappearance, is to be as objective as possible.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 2 Oct 2004 13:02:10 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

Thanks again to Ric and Alan for details. I presume you guys have been over this ground many times, and I appreciate your patience.

You both warn about Long & Long's calculations of fuel usage. Yes, I'd kind of figured as much. It's hard to imagine that anyone, several decades after the fact, could calculate fuel usage to anywhere near the kind of precision they claim (though I still haven't heard their side of the story . . . haven't got to that part of the book yet). But I am familiar with the tried and true practice of beginning with a conclusion and working selectively backwards through data and premises.

Another thing about that book . . . It starts right off with a speculative account of what happened, with a big splash, right in Chapter 1. That chapter is written in the same factual tone as the rest of the book. I know perfectly well that L&L are only speculating in Chapter 1. But, as the reader, how am I supposed to distinguish speculation from documented facts throughout the whole rest of the book? In my (always) humble opinion, the authors blow their credibility in the first chapter and leave me doubtful of everything else they write.

I'd forgotten about 7500 k. Wasn't there another problem with that freq.? Like AE could only receive or Itasca could only broadcast Morse Code on it, and neither AE nor FN was proficient with code? Or was it just that they'd planned in advance to use it for DF, and hadn't arranged to make voice transmissions on it? Anyway, yes, what a shame that she and Noonan didn't figure out that they could have received voice messages with the DF antenna.

In any case, she evidently never received any voice message on 3105, 6210, or any other frequency at any time during the flight. Is that right?

Alan mentioned in his post yesterday that AE had tested her DF receiving antenna at Lae prior to leaving for Howland. I just read that chapter last night. According to L&L, she tried the antenna but it didn't work (because she had it set to the wrong band). She attributed this to being too close to the signal source, and didn't follow up. If that's accurate, it seems like one more example of a really casual attitude about a critical piece of equipment.

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

>In any case, she evidently never received any voice message on 3105, 6210,
>or any other frequency at any time during the flight. Is that right?

It certainly seems clear that she never heard anything form Itasca on either frequency during the flight.  Whether she heard any of Lae's transmissions on 6210 earlier in the flight is less certain.  I don't think she did.  There are those who disagree.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 2 Oct 2004 13:06:36 
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

In regards to the bones:

If someone wanted to make the bones that were discovered on the island vanish what would be an easy way to do this? The smart thing to do would be to take them out to sea and toss them over the side of the ship. With the proper weight they would never be seen again. Governments don't work that way they have to have channels for all of that paper work to go through. Just for fun lets say that the bones were taken and brought to the USA. I know that there is no known proof of anything like that happening. Where would the bones be taken here in the states if the military had anything to do with it. What process would be followed to dispatch the problem of having someone famous, or infamous bones?
Ron Berry
2640
************************************************************************
From Ric

Or suppose the Electra was abducted in mid-flight by a UFO?  I know there's no known proof that it happened but, just for fun, what planet  or galaxy would it have been taken to?  Or is it pointless to ask such questions?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 2 Oct 2004 13:11:47 
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Hiatus

For the next couple weeks Pat will be moderating the forum while I retire to an undisclosed secure location to meet a self-imposed October 15 deadline to have a draft of the too-long awaited Post-Loss Radio Study ready for review by our Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC).
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:54:36 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

>  From Marcus
>
>   ... how to interpret EXACTLY the expression "to test the new
> technology"? Whether any exact "formal definition" of this process
> exist?  ...

Without giving a "formal definition," we may note some facts about AE & FN:

1. Radio communications were old technology.  Someone else pioneered airborne radio communications.

2. Use of radiotelephony (voice transmissions) was pioneered by someone else.

3. Many other aircraft, commercial and military, were using Radio Direction Finding in the Pacific.  AE and FN were flying a new route, but they were not "pioneering" the technology.  In fact, according to the Hooven Report, AE took a step backward, removing more modern RDF equipment and returning to a previous generation.

All of the other technology used in the trip was not even arguably new: stressed skin aircraft, radial engines, retracts, exhaust gas temperature sensors, plexiglass windows, etc.  It was "state of the art," not developmental.

The novel elements of the flight were:

1. A woman pilot.

2. A longer route than had been taken by most previous circumnavigators.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:58:01 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Itasca logs

As a favor for Dave Bellarts, son of Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts,  he is inquiring whether any Tighar researchers has physically touched and looked at the "original" Itasca log as submitted by his family to the National Archives c. 1974. He is unable to verify that it is there, and available. The one the Archives is printing is a retyped version, I think with a S-5 missing.

Thanks,
Ron Bright
********************************************************************
From Ric

Randy?  Have you laid hands on the originals?

We have photocopies of what certainly appear to be the originals.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:59:29 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Balfour again

Pat, I flew many long distance flights across the pond and from start to finish of the missions I often exceeded 20 hours. We were on autopilot much of the time except for take off, landing and air refuelings. We had two pilots. AE had an autopilot albeit not as good as ours. There were also two pilots. When my  missions were near the end I was a little tired but hardly physically and  mentally exhausted. I doubt AE was in such terrible shape either. They could  have taken turns dozing off for that matter.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:00:20 
From:         Mary Moleski
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

>  From Ron Berry
>
> ... Just for fun lets say that the bones
> were taken and brought to the USA.

It's an idea that Roger and I discussed in Fiji. I'm not sure that any relevant archives have been searched in the U.S. to try to find correspondence from the High Commissioner and his proper U.S. contact (a consul? an ambassador?  an envoy?) between 1940 and 1952.  I suppose there is at least some chance that the HC may have said, "We've found some stuff.  Do you want to look at it?"

Arguing against this idea is the Doctor's opinion that the bones were from a male too short to be Fred (if they even knew that Fred was aboard the plane!).  Why bother the Americans if it was some lost fisherman who died on Gardner?

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

The minutes in the file show quite clearly that Sir Harry actively disagreed with suggestions that he advise the Americans about the bones.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:00:58 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

Scott, one reason we are "being patient" (although I think we are simply answering your good questions) is that you are trying to learn as opposed to a few we have suffered through in the past.

I would recommend going to the TIGHAR web site and laboring through from front to back. In particular there is an excellent review of Long's book. Several actually but Rollin Reineck did a good job ferreting out some of the  errors.

You will also find many postings on the fuel issue as well as all the issues you will encounter in learning about this mystery. A good example is a lengthy posting on the radio issues.

Glad to have you aboard. You are in a unique position. You don't know enough yet to be attacked. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:01:48 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Balfour Again

>  From Alan
>
>  ... When my  missions were near the end I was a little tired but hardly
> physically and  mentally exhausted. I doubt AE was in such terrible shape
> either.

It is at least conceivable that your flights were not as difficult as AE's, apart from the similarity in duration.

Were your ears a few inches from the tips of the props for most of the flight?

Did you make these flights after a month of traveling around the world?

Were you filled with anxiety about the danger of not finding your destination?

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:03:18 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

For Ron Berry

What I think is more fruitful than speculating about the bones wandering to the U.S. is to speculate about what might have happened to them if they just slowly worked their way out of government possession during or after WWII. The last documentation we have has them in Dr. Hoodless' possession. Assuming they remained there, there'd be no reason for anything to be added to the file.  If they remained with Hoodless or his successor until about the time the WPHC went out of business, something could then have happened to them without their being identified as government property.  I'm wondering about  how closely coincident in time the following events were:

1. Hoodless' retirement
2. The various relocations of the medical school
3. The relocation of the WPHC to Honiara.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:03:38 
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Itasca Logs

Ron wrote:

>Dave Bellarts... is inquiring whether any TIGHAR researchers has
>physically touched and looked at the "original" Itasca log as submitted by
>his family to the National Archives c. 1974.

Yes, I saw them, touched them, and copied them while working on the NBC New Productions syndicated documentary TV special "Untold Stories: The Search for Amelia Earhart."  However, that was over 12 years ago and things may have changed since then.

LTM,
Russ
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:12:49 
From:         Marcus
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

Dear Marty!

   Thanks for your thoughtful answers. Your "facts" that you provided are absolutely correct of course no doubts about it. The problem is that they are slightly "off-topic."

Let's see. Ric wrote: "Young technology never develops without people who are willing to take chances to test it, but Earhart does not belong in that category..."

It was a very common statement.  As I understood it, it was some kind of estimation of all the Earhart's career, not just some opinion about some particular radio-related matters or something about her Last Flight exclusively.

However, the flying career of AE did not consist from this unlucky World Flight only. It was started in 1921. She got her flying license in 1923, and was a competent pilot many years before the 1928 flight, not even mentioning the 1937 flight.

She really broke many records -- that was a PIONEERING work in those times, and certainly can be (in my personal opinion -- must be) called as "testing new technique in ultimate conditions".

So it was a deserved flying career of 16 years, and during this period Earhart did a lot of daring, important and pioneering things -- in many aspects.

In my opinion, it is a damnishly good reason to respect her properly and avoid a public sarcasm or sharp criticism dictated by any kind of personal prejudice. [In my understanding, the statement made on Forum -- especially by the Boss of the Forum -- is a public statement].

At least  it is my personal opinion based on far more than 15 years of studying Earhart's biography and career.

Ric seemed as refusing to admit this, and this is why I wrote my message.  And I still cam see a clear signs of prejudice in his position, although he tries to refute it now.

Ric wrote: "After 15 years of trying to separate folklore from fact I find that I can only conclude that Earhart is one of the most overrated figures in aviation history".   I believe we have a perfect "example" just here.

AGAIN: What means: "overrated"? Who is "officially approved" to "rate"?  Who can be a "judge" to make a "verdict" about it? And please show me these "criteria of judgment"!

The record flights of Earhart are well documented, and she certainly made many big "firsts". Of course, somebody may think it is not important, but I think (my personal opinion of course) that this kind of achievements in those times was really important.

Also  - additionally - she attracted a lot of people's attention (and money!) to the young aviation industry. Maybe somebody thinks that it was not important for the development of this industry -- well but I don't think so.

Also -- additionally -- she inspired many women to join the world of aviation, contributing their talents and abilities to it's development - in many aspects.

Maybe somebody thinks that this contribution was not important for the development of this industry -- well but I don't think so, and such a statement seems for me as, in a very best case, as "politically incorrect".

I am sure that somebody will try to say that last two points are "not connected" to "aviation  itself" (if to understand "aviation" in a narrow way - only as "planes and flights"), so probably I must to remind that they are "additional" ones there was a lot of good FLYING made by Earhart, and nobody can refute this.

Of course anybody can have a personal opinion about "comparative importance" of different flights and achievements etc., but I cannot see any connections between these abstract speculations and the real research of what happened with Earhart and her navigator in July1937 I believe somebody (Tom King?) already wrote this a few months ago I couldn't agree more

      LTM -- Marcus (who respects pioneers)
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

I disagree. A realistic assessment of the pilot's strengths and weaknesses based on his or her prior performance is a standard,  and an essential, part of any accident investigation.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:16:00 
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Radio questions

Pat and Radio Guys,

I need some help in understanding the functions of the various antennae on AE aircraft.  From what I have gathered over time, from the forum, this is  how I understand their location, function and operation:

1.  A "VEE" antenna was on top of the aircraft running from behind the cockpit to both vertical tail plains.
2.  A Belly antenna was from the pitot tubes to a mast near the  tail.
3.  A DF loop antenna was above the cockpit.

This is how I understand their function:

1.  The Vee:  This is what AE broadcast on e.g. the COM side of  the radio.
2.  The Belly:  This is what AE received COM on.
3.  The DF loop:  This is what AE used to home in on (i.e.  find the bearing to) a radio transmission from a ground/ship station.  It  also allowed some, albeit weak, voice signals to be heard by AE.

This is how I understand how AE had to operate each:

1.  The Vee:  Flip a switch to "transmit" and then make her radio  call.
2.  The Belly:  Flip a switch to "receive" and then listen for a  reply.
3.  The DF loop:  Flip a switch to "receive" a signal from a ground/ship station to home in on.

The questions I have regarding the antennae are as follows:

1.  If the Vee was used to broadcast on and it was modified in Miami  to offset the removal of the "trailing wire" antenna what good would that do if  you didn't also adjust the receiving antenna on the belly?  i.e. she may have been able to broadcast over a greater distance but it didn't improve her reception distance on replies.

2.  If the Belly antenna was lost on takeoff from Lea then she never was able to receive a subsequent signal from anyone.  If this is true wouldn't she have noticed this early on into the flight?  Also, wouldn't  she have noticed this missing antenna upon her arrival at Gardner and therefor  reached the conclusion that any of her outgoing "post lost messages" which may have asked (I don't know if any did) for a reply were fruitless?

3.  If the DF loop antenna was still working when she reached Gardner could she have heard and homed in on the direction of the radio traffic that was being used to find her?  This would have been of little help in her communicating with anyone but at least she could have known where to look  for the direction of rescuers e.g. the low level Navy fly over.

4.  Could Balfour have been the "fly in the ointment" in the  whole radio failure fiasco?  Do we know for certain what radio equipment  Balfour worked on?

    A.  If it was the DF loop system does this  imply that AE knew she was having trouble with the system from previous attempts  to use it?  If so, then maybe she wasn't as inexperienced in its function  as we have become to believe.  If  the DF problems were only  encountered on the leg into Lae then could it have been with Lae's equipment and  any attempt to fix it messed it up?

    B.  If it was the Com side of the radios it  seems that Balfour's only fix was to instruct AE to pitch her voice, could this  have been an indication of faulty Lae equipment?  Keep in mind that  the Itasca could hear her fine and I don't recall any other stations along the  route indicating anything was wrong with AE's  transmissions.

    C.  If it was the Receive side of her  radios could Balfour have messed up the whole thing?  Keep in mind  that Lea couldn't hear AE's broadcast coming into Lea (albeit the 36 metres  vs 49 metres mix-up that was reported in the Chater Report), nothing was said in  the Chater Report about AE having problems with receiving Lae signals. Why then  would Balfour adjust something on the aircraft so as to "calibrated for  reception of Lae radio telephone?" Could Lae's radio been the one out of  calibration (both on the receive and transmit side) and Balfour's  reception fix messed the whole thing up?

    D.  If Balfour gummed up the works because his  equipment was out of calibration could this have resulted in the same reception  problems encountered by AE as that of losing her Belly antenna at takeoff from  Lae?  If so, does this muck-up the lost antenna theory?

Finally, it is the Chater Report that indicates there were radio problems with AE's bird and they were numerous - or at least they were reported on in detail.  Are there any other accounts of radio problems along the way before getting to Lae?  We have pictures, and I believe narrative on some  of the pictures along with other reports of instrumentation and engine problems  being corrected along the way but I don't recall any details relating to radios. Also, the Chater Report indicates that they were having trouble receiving other radio signals i.e. weather, time signals, etc., which may or may  not indicate that Lae had some radio problems of their own.

Ted Campbell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:17:12 
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: New Shoes

I just now ordered a copy of the October 2004 edition of Shoes.  My sister-in-law is interested in the mystery also, so I'll probably get her a copy for Xmas.  I'm going to have to keep this a secret from my wife.  She was miffed about me buying the coffee mugs but fully supported coughing up a $100 for raffle tickets to the Caribbean vacation resort TIGHAR offered last year.  I guess I just don't get it.

LTM, a gentle "sole"
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:29:33 
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Palau request

One last note before I bury myself in the Post-Loss Radio Study:

The Historic Preservation Officer in Palau has not been able to determine whether or not the offending producer, Ms. Eva Wunderman of Wunderman Films, Inc.,  is under contract to the History Channel or just hoping to sell her film to them.

He does, however, feel that it is important to contact the History Channel as soon as possible so that they know that she deliberately broke the law. He says, "If she is under contract, it is hoped that the History Channel will never contract with her again. Also, if its contract does not have a provision that film crews must abide by all applicable laws, such a provision should be added to prevent future violations. If the film is ever completed and broadcast it should include her confession of violating the law and her admission of the damage caused. She will try it again and so will others.

"It still is not clear to me if she was under contract to the History Channel or just hoping to sell it to them or the History Station, Canada. She may have been using the "History Channel" in a generic way. If the History Channel responds that it does not have a contract with Eva Wunderman or her film company and/or does not know about the project, then at least the History Channel will be forewarned that she broke the law, there is a court case, and it could have a lot of bad publicity over her film if they ever show it with dealing with the crime violation in an open and honest way. Then we could contact other history stations to make sure she does not market it elsewhere."


If you would like to write to the executives at A&E Television Networks (the company that owns the History Channel) about this situation, here are the email addresses:

davatzes@aetn.com - Nickolas Davatzes, President & CEO
whitney.goit@aetn.com - Whitney Goit, Executive Vice President
abbe.raven@aetn.com - Abbe Raven, Executive VP/General Manager, A&E Network
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:30:35 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

Roger, I examined the files of the U.S. consulate in Suva from its inception in about 1939 through most of WWII, focusing on the time when Sir Harry was in the  WPHC chair; the files are in the National Archives in College Park, MD.  Absolutely no references to the bones at all, no evidence of contact on the subject.  The U.S. Consul had no use for Sir Harry, and the feeling may well have been mutual.

TK
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:14:39 
From:         Pat Thrasher
Subject:      A test to see if I did this right

This is a test. This is only a test. Had this been an actual message, you should read it, but as it is, ignore it -- I am merely checking to see if I set the header correctly for messages to come directly to me instead of to Ric's email.

LTM, who is no computer whiz
Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:33:01 
From:         Mark Guimond
Subject:      Re: Test

Hi Pat

Came through fine at this end.

Good luck.

Mark

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

OK, so we're in business. You may now post freely.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:09:01 
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Noise in the cockpit

It has been posted that AE would have been really tired and prone to errors in judgment after 20 hrs. of flight especially because of the constant noise level and the effects of less oxygen at altitude.

That was countered with a post by one who had experienced 20 hr. flights with no ill effects.

And Ric made the noise issue graphically by suggesting two T-6's wing tip to wing tip with AE inbetween.  [should have been wings overlapping by half to bring the engines closer to her position.]

I am going to add some extremes from my 50 years in the air.

15+ hours in R-2800, C-46's with 'cans' on the ears [the approx. 2" dia. hard bakelite earphones with no surrounding padding to keep out noise] and pressure altitudes between 6 and 10k.   On one arrival at an island base, the twr. advised, "When you are finished with the acrobatics, [bounces and skips]  turn off at the next .... " Beds never felt so good.

Some years later in 'over the weather Connies' and three pilots [CAA/FAA reg. for over 8 hrs.] and a bunk period, the cabin altitudes of 6 to 10k took a toll on energy and thinking ability.

Still later in the smoothest & quietest of the bunch, the B-747 [that had three pressurization sources]  there are several hundred thousand crew members who will testify that using all three systems with cabin altitudes several thousand feet below the use of only two systems, sure made a difference.

I have never quantified it, but cabin altitude and noise are without a doubt, debilitating.

RC  941
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:09:28 
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: test

Message came through fine. Most of us know who the real brains behind TIGHAR is! LOL! Have a great day, Pat.

LTM,
Mike Haddock, #2438
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:21:19 
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Ric wrote:

> The minutes in the file show quite clearly that Sir Harry actively disagreed
> with suggestions that he advise the americans about the bones.

What about advising British Intelligence?  And he would he have had to report this to the "Home Office?" Perhaps the bones, etc. ended up in England.  Hmmmm.

LTM

Eric Beheim, Naval Station San Diego
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:42:01 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Eric Beheim wrote:

> What about advising British Intelligence?

I doubt that British Intelligence would have been interested in the bones of an unknown person who died at an indefinite time on an unoccupied island far from any military site.

> And he would he have had to
> report this to the "Home Office?"

I think Ric and the Hanslope team sought info on that angle.  Once the doctor said the bones were those of a man, the excitement goes out of the case.  I doubt that the Home Office would worry about a "European or half-European" dying on a deserted island in the Pacific.

> Perhaps the bones, etc. ended up in
> England.  Hmmmm.

That would be wonderful.  That's the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" hypothesis--they'll turn up in a warehouse Some Day.

LTM.
Marty
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:44:11 
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Earhart Project Bulletin #25

For Dr. Tom King

Re: Earhart Project Bul. # 25 Dt'd Aug 01, 2000

Dr. King in your research of Colonial Officer Gerald B. Gallagher, did you find any documentation referencing wireless operator training in Gallagher's background prior to his posting to the Gilbert and Ellice Island Colony?

Respectfully:

Tom Strang # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:45:44 
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Titles

Ric, its a Mexican word not Spanish and it is CHINGAR. I was President of the Spanish Club in HS. I got up in class and asked the teacher how to conjugate the word. He told me to sit down and shut up. He was Mexican and was my advisor in SP.CLub & Honor Club. After school he told me about it. You don't want to know.

Jim Preston
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:48:32 
From:         John Wood
Subject:      Autogyro question

I know this is off topic, and I apologize.  I am doing a play about AE (research for which is how I found TIGHAR and this forum) and this play has her being given an official reprimand by the Commerce for Aviation; TRUE or FALSE?  I am enjoying this forum immensely, and expect to become a member of TIGHAR soon.

LTM,
JMW (John M. Wood)

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

Anyone? Outside my paygrade.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:49:58 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Lindbergh Baby Lives!

I haven't been around this list long enough to know if this kind of thing is on topic. My main internet recreation is on the "skeptic" list server. Here's something I posted there, and I thought it might be of interest here too. The AE reference below is to Rollin Reineck's book, Amelia Earhart Survived.

-- forwarded msg.---

Today's (Sunday) LA Times magazine has an article about a guy who claims to be  the long-missing son of Chas. Lindbergh. I have only read a few paragraphs of it. Kind of like the Amelia Earhart thing I was reading about a few weeks ago, the main basis of the claim is an "uncanny resemblance." Along with a bunch of hypnosis. Presumably there also are some unexplained coincidences and maybe even an eerie dream sequence or bizarre feeling.

You can read it at latimes.com
As always . . .
login: skeptics
password: everyone

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:50:44 
From:         Seth Brenneman
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

Marcus wrote:

> there was a lot of good FLYING made by Earhart, and nobody can refute this

I guess that depends on how you define "good flying" and how you define "nobody". And how you define "refute" for that matter.

--Seth
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:20:26 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: A test to see if I did this right

Message received 5x5.  However, image was a little dark due to volcanic ash on the monitor.

Roger
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:21:40 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Eric asks:  "What about advising British Intelligence?"

-- which strikes me as a very interesting question.  I've seen no evidence that British Intelligence had a presence in Fiji at the time, but when I think about it, it would be strange if they didn't.  Roger Kelley, Kris Tague, any thoughts?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:50:58 EDT
From:         Alan L. Caldwell
Subject:      Re: A test to see if I did this right

I ignored your message as you asked so I don't know what it said. I hope that helps you do whatever it was you tried to do. I also don't understand what I just wrote.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:17:09 
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      something new in forum

Pat:

I have received three messages that are displaying the e-mail address of the individual posters. I've not ever seen this before.

Alfred

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

Some of the messages are coming through to me with a link back to the listserv which, if I click it, automatically approves the message and posts it. Yours didn't come that way, Alfred, I don't know what the difference is.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:25:57 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: titles

I thought that word was chienga!   Dan

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

Oh dear, I KNEW I should have taken Spanish instead of German....

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:43:24 
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Lindbergh Baby Lives!

I know, off thread, but to put the Earhart situation I believe the times should be brought into the proper perspective.

We learned about Lindbergh's other Family in Germany after his wife passed away but can we suppose he might have had other children here in the United States and kept that information to himself. After all he was definitely handsome enough, perhaps a one night stand or a long term affair, after all he had to be much more careful about his reputation and to me it should have been easier to keep secrets back then.

CHP  if we are all using abbreviations

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

Which, in fact, we are not.  Postings must be signed, first and last names please. --not a poke at you, Carl, you always do so, but no noms de keyboard or 'screen names' or whatever. Real names, please.

Pat Thrasher
Forum Moderator Pro Tem
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:44:33 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Earhart Project Bulletin #25

For Tom Strang

Good question about Gallagher's wireless training.  I'm afraid I don't have any data on the subject, though I seem to recall that Ric found something about his general training for the colonial service, either in the WPHC archives or on Tarawa.  All I can recall from my own reading is that Gallagher had a good deal of trouble learning the I Kiribati language, and had only just passed  his qualifying exams before he died.  I feel sure that basic training in wireless operation was part of the training for colonial officers, and Gallagher's training as a pilot would have given him some further acquaintance with the subject (though to judge from AE's abilities in that regard, maybe not much).  But I don't know how much training he had, or what kind.  Some  digging in the files from the WPHC might answer the question to some extent, or  might not.

How's that for a nice, clear, black-and-white answer?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:16:42 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Peleliu incident: Target Correction

For anybody planning to write The History Channel about the Peleliu vandalism incident:  I just received the following:

Thomas F. King, PhD
Project Archaeologist, Amelia Earhart Search Project
The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery
P.O. Box  14515
Silver Spring,  MD  20911

Dear Mr. King:

Your October 4th e-mail to Nick  Davatzes regarding the violation of a WWII historic site on the  island of  Peleliu in the  Republic of Palau was bought to my  attention.  I was sorry to hear  about this incident and find it disturbing.

This is to inform you that The History Channel was  not involved in this project.  It  seems that the project was commissioned for History Television - Canada which is  not related to The History Channel even though their name is similar.  Therefore, since this is not our project, we cannot take any action.

Sincerely,
Daniel E. Davids
President, The History Channel -  USA
cc: N. Davatzes


To which I replied....


Dear Mr. Davids --

Thank you very much for your response.  We'd gotten conflicting stories about to whom the contractor was responsible, though she herself is reported to have said it was "The History Channel."

In any event, I can appreciate the fact that you can't do anything about  the incident in question, but in a larger sense, it seems to me to ring a warning bell that The History Channel should heed.  If a contractor for  History Television -- Canada can engage in this kind of egregious activity,  what's to keep a contractor (or would-be contractor) for The History Channel  from doing the same?  It seems to me that The History Channel could do the  cause of historical research and historic preservation a very good turn by  exercising some leadership in this area -- both by providing some very explicit direction to those who aspire to sell you their products and perhaps by airing  something on the subject.

I will, however, pass your message on to others I know who may be gearing  up to send you nastygrams, and suggest that they direct their fire at History Television -- Canada instead.

Thanks again for your prompt reply.

Tom King

Thomas F.  King, PhD
Project Archaeologist, Amelia Earhart Search Project
The  International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery
PO Box 14515, Silver  Spring MD 20911
_www.tighar.org_ (http://www.tighar.org/)
To  purchase Amelia Earhart's Shoes: Is the Mystery Solved?:
_www.altamirapress.com_ (http://www.altamirapress.com/)

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

Thanks, Tom. I guess we need to find out who the honcho is at History Television Canada.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:27:07 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      History Television - Canada

More from Tom King

Here's the website for History Television - Canada.
_http://www.historytelevision.ca/_ (http://www.historytelevision.ca/)

Haven't found information on their power structure, and I HAVE to stop this and do some paying work today, but maybe someone else on the Forum can pursue it....??

LTM
Tom

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

<baying sound> Let slip the dogs of war....

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:41:46 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: History Television-Canada

Contact information:

History Television -- Canada:  121  Bloor St. East, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W3M5.

HT-C is owned by Alliance Atlantis,  information on which is provided below. An inside source tells me that the  person to address is Michael MacMillan, President, Alliance Atlantis.  Phone 416-967-1174.

Alliance Atlantis web site:
_http://www.allianceatlantis.com/_(http://www.allianceatlantis.com/)

And NOW I'm going to do some paying  work...

Tom

Alliance  Atlantis

Alliance Atlantis is a Toronto-based media company. It distributes American and Canadian-made films both in Canada and the United Kingdom. It  has been known to fund projects regarded as too controversial by US companies,  such as Bowling for Columbine. The company now owned the now defunct Salter Street  Films which produces a number of television shows for both the Canadian and  international market such as This Hour  Has 22 Minutes, CODCO, Emily of New Moon, Made in Canada, Blackfly and Lexx. It  also owns a number of Canadian cable and digital television channels such as History Television, and Showcase, along with BBC Canada and BBC. In some cities the company also owns movie theaters. Alliance Atlantis  produces the hit U.S. series CSI:  Crime Scene Investigation.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:42:30 
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Earhart Project Bulletin #25

Do we have any record of anyone on Lae attempting to contact AE to advise her that she had lost an antenna on takeoff? I don't recall ever reading anything to that effect. Were the people on Lae even aware that she lost the antenna? Anyone?

LTM,

Mike Haddock, #2438
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:53:41 
From:         Pat
Subject:      Re: Balfour again

The next few postings got lost in the shuffle on Sunday, but here they are.

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

From Alan Caldwell

Marty, I was asked this same question off forum and I provided the following answer. I will supplement by saying my duty time was 105 hours per week -- flying, class, alert, SAC briefings for five years. We were pretty well worn out most of the time in SAC.

Here is my answer to someone else.

Alan

******************
My airplane was completely cramped and I could not leave my seat nor could I stretch my legs or recline. I had an oxygen mask covering my face all the time and it was icy cold. We were not electronically monitored other than by HF radio reports which occasionally worked. Our navigation equipment consisted of an ADF, sextant and a radar of limited range. Our weather briefing was never close nor were we able to get weather enroute except for Bermuda and Lajes. That was of little value as we weren't going to either place. Our route was just air. There was no land other than what I just mentioned. It is true we did not worry about finding a tiny speck but were looking for the continent of Africa which is not easy to miss.

The "ergonomics" consisted of a piss tube between my legs and a thermos of stale warm water. The only way anyone knew where we were was when we were able to tell them through the static of HF radio. Although the Atlantic ocean was well traveled there was nothing to chart. It's just water and air.

Stress? The plane did not have enough gas to get across and we had to mid air refuel twice. Weather could have wiped us out as could air refueling equipment malfunctions or tankers failing to arrive. All of those things happened periodically although not to me, fortunately. Some planes did not make it for various reasons.

1. One blew up in mid air for unknown reasons.
2. One simply disappeared during let down to the tanker rendezvous and was never found.
3. Often the pilot was unable to fly the necessary formation to get his gas. Nervous, tired, stressed out?
4. Equipment failure.
5. Tanker aborted.
6. Unable to find the tanker.

Given the choice I would have taken AE's flight anytime.

BTW, I flew T-6s and the noise issue is far over rated. I have not flown a 10E but have flown twin Beech aircraft. Smaller engines of course.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:01:54 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Balfour again

Marty, as an after thought you are certainly correct, AE flew just about every day but each flight was only a few hours with a couple of exceptions. I have not had a similar experience so I don't know what  toll that took but I could easily accept the argument they needed the few days they had at Lae before continuing.

In Vietnam I flew every day for two solid weeks, averaging 20 to 30 take offs and landings each day before getting a week off. This cycle was repeated for two years. I never felt tired during each day's flights but that may have been out of terror. <G> I really was happy to get my week off though. That resulted in 1196 combat missions over parts of five years. I WAS tired when I came home. I get tired now riding in a 737. <G>

I've added a chart of AE's routes but I know you are more than familiar with this. It's for the benefit of a couple of new folks.

Alan

May 20
Oakland, California
Burbank, California
325

May 21
Burbank, California
Tucson, Arizona
450

May 22
Tucson, Arizona
New Orleans, Louisiana
1250

May 23
New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
675

June 1
Miami, Florida
San Juan, Puerto Rico
1033

June 2
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Caripito, Venezuela
750

June 3
Caripito, Venezuela
Paramaribo, Suriname (Dutch Guiana)
667

June 4
Paramaribo, Suriname
Fortaleza, Brazil
1200

June 6
Fortaleza, Brazil
Natal, Brazil
268

June 7
Natal, Brazil
Saint-Louis, Senegal (French West Africa)
1961

June 8
Saint-Louis, Senegal
Dakar, Senegal
103

June 10
Dakar, Senegal
Gao, Mali (French West Africa)
1130

June 11
Gao, Mali
Ndjamena, Chad (Fort Lamy, French Equatorial Africa)
989

June 12
Ndjamena, Chad
El Fasher, Sudan (Anglo-Egyptian Sudan)
700

June 13
El Fasher, Sudan
Khartoum, Sudan
501

June 13
Khartoum, Sudan
Massawa, Ethiopia (Italian Eritrea)
450

June 14
Massawa, Ethiopia
Assab, Ethiopia
300

June 15
Assab, Ethiopia
Karachi, Pakistan (India)
1600

June 17
Karachi, Pakistan
Calcutta, India
1390

June 18
Calcutta, India
Sittwe, Myanmar (Akyab, Burma)
335

June 19
Sittwe, Myanmar
Rangoon, Myanmar
306

June 20
Rangoon, Myanmar
Bangkok, Thailand (Siam)
300

June 20
Bangkok, Thailand
Singapore, Malaysia (British Crown Colony)
904

June 21
Singapore, Malaysia
Bandoeng, Java, Indonesia (Dutch East Indies)
560

June 24
Bandoeng, Java
Soerabaja, Java, Indonesia
355

June 25
Soerabaja, Java, Indonesia
Bandoeng, Java, Indonesia
355

June 27
Bandoeng, Java, Indonesia
Koepang, Timor, Indonesia
1165

June 28
Koepang, Timor, Indonesia
Port Darwin, Australia
500

June 29
Port Darwin, Australia
Lae, Papua New Guinea (Territory of New Guinea)
1207

July 2
Lae, Papau New Guinea
Howland Island, U.S. Territory
2556
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:02:34 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Radio Questions

I might mention the belly antenna did not go all the way back to the tail but just to near the cargo or passenger door. I'll leave the rest to the radio experts. I WILL say there is some controversy over the function of the belly antenna. It is not a well settled matter in the minds of some.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:04:43 
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Itasca Logs

Yes, I have touched, and xeroxed the original, typescript radiolog from the Itasca.  It is part of the National Archives, Record Group 200, IIRC.  I have provided TIGHAR central a copy of it...that's where we find the overtyping and platten offsets.

Ron Bright wrote:

> As a favor for Dave Bellarts, son of Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts,
> he is inquiring whether any Tighar researchers has physically touched
> and looked at the "original" Itasca log as submitted by his family to
> the National Archives c. 1974. He is unable to verify that it is there,
> and available. The one the Archives is printing is a retyped version,
> I think with a S-5 missing.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:05:36 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Bones Mystery

In my opinion, there would be a limited number of US organizations that would be candidates for investigating the bones.  Probably the best is the predecessors to CILHI, the US Army Central Identification Laboratory Hawaii, associated with the Punchbowl Cemetery.  Also, either the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, or the Smithsonian.  I suspect that someone could make a short list of British or Pacific Colonial institutions that did similar work, and they would be more likely, as the bones were found on British (colonial) soil.

Daniel Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:08:26 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Tom King wrote:

> 1. Hoodless' retirement

David Winn Hoodless:

         Founding Tutor, later Principal of CMS/FSM
         Set to retire 31 May 1942
         Stayed on as acting director until 1 Feb 47
         Succeeded by A.S. Frater
         Went to Tarawa to give a doctor relief November 1948
         1953: Second trip to the Gilberts
         Died 15 Apr 1955/56 in England.  His wife had problems proving that he was a Fiji citizen.
         He is buried in Britain.
         Hilda Hoodless died Dec 31, 1956.

Hoodless came and "really helped" the people of the Pacific.

> 2. The various relocations of the medical school

I don't have a grip on this.  Roger or members of the earlier team may have some feel for the sequence.

> 3. The relocation of the WPHC to Honiara.

Here is the list of "turning points" that seemed likely times for the Gardner collection to get "cleaned up":

1942: Sir Harry Luke leaves Fiji
1944: The British Return to Tarawa
1945: Peace in the Pacific (GBG's trunk)
1947: Hoodless retires
1952: WPHC Moved From Fiji to Honiara
1954: Central Archives Open in Suva, Fiji
        Records Destroyed at FSM by Acting Director (!)
1970: Fiji gains independence.
1972: GEIC removed from WPHC.
1973: New Hebrides removed from WPHC.
1976: Archival Process begins (Paddy Mac!).
1978: Archives separated: GB, Tarawa, Funafuti.  WPHC defunct.  BHC takes over in Fiji?

People disagree on how to date the death of the WPHC.  It's between 1973 and 1978.

I can't find my source for the assertion that an "Acting Director" destroyed many of the records of FSM circa 1954. I believe we may have learned this from Imeri Waibuca, who is archivist for FSM now.

Waibuca was very pleasant, even enthusiastic, but wouldn't let us see any archival material.  She said she commissioned students to look on our behalf.  I guess the records either aren't open to the public or else they're not organized and prepared for researchers to use.  The head of Fiji School of Medicine wouldn't give us the time of day, so he would be of no help in getting a chance to examine the FSM Archives for ourselves.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:09:25 
From:         Alan Hall
Subject:      Re: Radio Questions

About the reports of unintelligable transmissions, for example:

'The unintelligibility of the voice message is attributed to "bad modulation or speaker shouting into microphone."'

'While in Lae, New Guinea Earhart was advised to "pitch her voice higher to overcome distortion caused by rough carrier wave"'

If her transmitter had an MCW switch, if MCW mode were switched on it could sound like bad modulation. And without being able to hear her own transmissions, she would not have realized there was a problem. It may not have occurred to the radio operators that it was MCW interfering with the voice transmission.

About her shoes, she may have found all leather soles to be slippery and simply asked a porter in a hotel, perhaps in Lae, to have rubber heels put on. I don't suppose that Cat's Paw heels were only available in the US.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:11:41 
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Ric wrote:

> A realistic assessment of the pilot's strengths and weaknesses
> based on his or her prior performance is a standard, and an essential,
> part of any accident investigation.

- Thank you - yes, here I completely agree of course Only problem here -- again - is a criteria of judgment about which assessment may be considered as "realistic", and who and how will judge about it

So I only proposed (for to avoid this problem) to stay with firm facts and try to avoid too common conclusions (especially "discriminating" ones) and abstract speculations about "whether some person deserves to be called as pioneer" etc. etc. etc., that may looks simply offending, or "politically incorrect" especially if the person really deserves some "credit of respect and careful attitude" because of many good and factual reasons...  Such a speculations may seem "curious" in certain aspect, but in fact it eflects nothing objective but a purely personal opinions, adding no useful information to the factual picture

LTM - Marcus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:12:25 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Itasca logs

For Russ M.

Do you still have a copy of  what purported to be the original. If so, Dave Bellarts would love a copy. Thanks so much.

R. Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:14:17 
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Balfour again

I've always been curious if anyone tried to contact AE after she took off from Lae to notify her regarding the loss of the antenna or did anyone even notice that she had lost it?

LTM,

Mike Haddock, #2438
******************************************

The story is that someone (or ones) picked up the antenna wire from the runway. I don't know quite how they would have gotten in touch with her on the subject.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:31:38 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Balfour again

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> ... I flew T-6s and the noise issue is far over rated.
> I have not flown a 10E but have flown twin Beech aircraft.
> Smaller engines of course.

The noise issue is the sound generated by the tips of the props.

In a T-6, all that noise is out in front of you.

In the Electra, it is a few inches away.  Look at how the props line up with the cockpit.

I've flown in small prop commuter planes.  The noise is not trivial.

I'm not saying this proves anything.  It is a possible factor that may be weighed differently by different evaluators.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:32:32 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Thanks, Marty.  Looks to me like the early '50s, when Hoodless retired and the WPHC relocated from Suva, is a time when the bones might well have gone missing.  My recollection is that the Medical School relocated at about this time, too, from the hospital to the old military base at Tamavua.

Another variable: when did Vaskess retire?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:02:16 
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Lindbergh baby lives!

Oh heck...
I know I used to have a name...  Years ago before TIGHAR re-christened me... Now where is it...  I know it was here somewhere...

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:05:10 
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Search Technology

Carl Peltzer wrote:

> 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?

I think what Carl Peltzer was cryptically referring to (and I don't know why as it is public knowledge) is the new Hyperspectral Imaging System that will be coming on line for the Civil Air Patrol over the next year.  The system looks for spectral signatures of man made and other objects which can include humans, vehicles, aircraft debris, trash, oil spills, marijuana, corn, whatever you want to look for that you can provide a spectral signature for.  The idea is to fly over areas of interest and let the camera and computer do the looking instead of the traditional three sets of eyeballs, which can't look everywhere, all the time, with a high probability of detection.

15 Gippsland Airvan GA8 aircraft will initially be equipped with this system.  See http://www.gippsaero.com/index.asp

See also http://www.cap.gov/mediacenter/releases/scc.html

Civil Air Patrol awards contract to Space Computer Corporation

   MAXWELL AFB, Ala. Civil Air Patrol has awarded a $1.6 million contract to Space Computer Corporation for the software to operate 15 hyperspectral imaging (HSI) systems.

   CAP will use the high-tech HSI systems to detect objects from the air.

"Hyperspectral imaging is the next wave of reconnaissance technology," said Maj. Gen. Dwight Wheless, CAP national commander. "Space Computer Corporation is providing state-of-the-art software that will allow us to pinpoint objects very precisely. This will make a tremendous difference when we're searching for individuals or aircraft that are lost or in trouble."

Space Computer Corporation (SCC) will provide all system control, detection, display, and ground-processing software for CAP's HIS systems. SCC also will provide field training for CAP members, all of whom are volunteers.

   CAP, the civilian auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force, has done extensive research on HSI technology and is fielding the first systems in the nation to be used on a continuing basis for community search and rescue work. Dubbed ARCHER (Airborne Real-time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance), the HSI system can automatically search the ground before for objects having any specific "spectral signature" selected by the onboard operator. The technology is based on reflected light, so some portion of the object must be exposed for the HSI camera to pick it up.

SCC's software provides a unique combination of real-time geo-rectified image displays (GeoPaint), target detection and location, and situational awareness for the spectrum of CAP missions. The ease of operation and timeliness of results were critical factors in CAP's decision to contract with SCC. The software is a mature product, leveraging the company's experience with similar systems developed for the U.S. Department of Defense.

SCC will be responsible for integrating its software with hardware produced by NovaSol Corporation. SCC will also provide operator training and support. The ARCHER airborne component will initially fly on CAP's new Gippsland GA-8 Airvans, with portable ground stations available for CAP base operators. These ground stations will allow operators to rapidly review the recorded imagery gathered as soon as the aircraft touches down and delivers the data.

   Space Computer Corporation specializes in solving information-processing problems associated with advanced sensor systems. Their work in these areas extends from algorithm development and data analysis through design and fabrication of specialized signal-processing hardware. Since they began operations in 1987, their customer base has grown to include the Department of Defense and other government organizations, as well as CAP and several industrial firms and research centers. They are a privately owned California small business corporation.

   Civil Air Patrol, the official Air Force auxiliary, is a nonprofit organization with almost 62,000 members nationwide. CAP performs 95% of continental U.S. inland search and rescue missions as tasked by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center. Its volunteers also perform homeland security, disaster relief and counterdrug missions at the request of federal, state and local agencies. The members take a leading role in aerospace education and serve as mentors to the almost 27,000 young people currently participating in CAP cadet programs. CAP has been performing missions for America for more than 60 years.

   On the Web: www.cap.gov and www.spacecomputer.com

LTM (who sees all)

Andrew
Harbor Lights Villa
A Special Place In the Caribbean
www.harborlights.vi
720-635-1166=
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:35:29 
From:         George Rat Werth
Subject:      Off topic for Andrew

For Andrew McKenna

Nice looking spread you have there!
http://www.harborlights.vi

GRW1
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:58:39 
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Search technology

Oh, what the heck, we were told to keep this  quiet just last January.

Glad that the technology is available.

See how things change in just a few months.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:37:31 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

One turning point that isn't shown below:

Invasion by the Japanese. This could result in one of several possibilities for the bones:

1.  Hidden by the British administrator on the island in one of the caves used for storage.
2.  Removed to ? England ? Australia ?
3.  Left in situ and confiscated by the Japanese - who might have either interrred the bones, dumped the bones and kept the artifacts or kept the bones and artifacts. After all, the sextant box, eye piece, etc might have some value in the eye of the conqueror. Also, the hand made box that the bones were in was of kanawa wood and may have had an especial value in the mind of the Japanese. IF the Japanese (either officially or as "souvenirs") confiscated the bones and artifacts they may have been shipped back to Japan and be in someone's private collection today or they may be at the bottom of the ocean aboard a Japanese ship that went down in the war action. They may have also been destroyed in the retaking of the island by allied forces.

I still somewhat favor the last because I can't see the Brits bothering to pack and move the bones and artifacts - since they would, to me, seem to have a low priority in the scheme of things.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas

Marty wrote:

> 1942: Sir Harry Luke leaves Fiji
> 1944: The British Return to Tarawa
> 1945: Peace in the Pacific (GBG's trunk)
> 1947: Hoodless retires
> 1952: WPHC Moved From Fiji to Honiara
> 1954: Central Archives Open in Suva, Fiji
>        Records Destroyed at FSM by Acting Director (!)
> 1970: Fiji gains independence.
> 1972: GEIC removed from WPHC.
> 1973: New Hebrides removed from WPHC.
> 1976: Archival Process begins (Paddy Mac!).
> 1978: Archives separated: GB, Tarawa, Funafuti.  WPHC defunct.  BHC
> takes over in Fiji?
>
> People disagree on how to date the death of the WPHC.  It's between
> 1973 and 1978.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:38:58 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Tom King wrote:

> Thanks, Marty.  Looks to me like the early '50s, when Hoodless retired
> and the WPHC relocated from Suva, is a time when the bones might well
> have gone missing.

Yes, indeed.

> ... Another variable: when did Vaskess retire?

Vaskess retired from the position of Assistant High Commissioner (Conjoint) on 1 May 1948.  WPHC 15/1/III-IV "Officers no longer serving in the WPHC service" (1910-51).

Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:39:37 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: search technology

This sounds similar to technology used by archaeologists and geologists. Maybe it is a more portable or similar version?

Daniel Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:43:27 
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: signing posts

> Postings must be signed, first and last names please

Is this new?  I usually just sign...

      - Bill #2229

Perhaps I've gotten away with this all these years because my email address is my real name?
********************************************************

Well, it's sorta newish. We've been talking about it for ages, and in fact most people do sign their posts. But sometimes our worst trolls are hiding behind fake names or just "Micky" or something... not fair to those who are serious and will take responsibility for what they say. You may have noticed that I add last names to those who don't put them in.

Don't want to make too big a deal of it, as I say, most folks do sign, and those who don't mostly have just forgotten.

Pat, whose name is common enough to need that last name, Thrasher
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:44:33 
From:         Bill  Leary
Subject:      Re: Peleliu incident: target correction

> ((..much omitted..))

> It  seems that the project was commissioned for History
> Television - Canada

> Daniel E. Davids
> President, The History Channel -  USA

How does Mr. Davids know it's was History Television?

We're an organization which prides itself on hard evidence.  I assume Mr. Davids is telling us what he believes to be true, but unless we know how he knows this, or confirm the connection independantly, we may be about to descend wrath upon the wrong people, as unlikely as that seems at this point.

 - Bill #2229
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:45:12 
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: titles

> Ric, its a Mexican word not Spanish and it is CHINGAR.
> I was President of the Spanish Club in HS. I got up in
> class and asked the teacher how to conjugate the word.
> He told me to sit down and shut up. He was Mexican and
> was my advisor in SP.CLub & Honor Club. After school
> he told me about it. You don't want to know.
>
> Jim Preston

Jim,

El Chingon and chingar are NOT the same word. Chingar is, indeed, a "dirty" word, and we north-of-the-border types often substitute it for its "f" word English equivalent, as in "that's all chingered up". Chingon and chingar do share a masculine, phallic root, but El Chingon is not derogatory; it is honorific. See the earlier post by George Rat Werth for the correct interpretation of El Chingon.

Kerry Tiller (who started this thread)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:48:26 
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

I'd like to thank Marcus for his attempts to make some of our forum members more respectful in their remarks and personal bias about AE's piloting skills.

It did my little heart good just to follow his threads and although the Amelia Basher's weren't "hearing" his message, it was great to know that I am not the only one on the forum that feels that same way.

I know I'll be in trouble for this, but here's my opinion on the matter:

Maybe it's a "Man Thing", but it seems to me that many of the statements and remarks about her piloting skills go way beyond statement of fact.  Even if some of the examples of "incompetence" were true, there's no useful purpose in stating so in mean, nasty, sarcastic remarks. It strikes me the same way as the old "women driver" insults and remarks, and it feels very personal toward me as a woman as well as A/E.  I don't think it has anything to do with Amelia being a woman, as men seem to be very insulting and sarcastic toward men as well. Maybe these guys don't see how ill-spirited their remarks appear in print.  I dunno.  But then, maybe they do, and just enjoy ruffling others feathers..  And I think Ric is just trying to hide his personal bias behind his accident investigation experience.  You guys oughta give the girl a break already....

Jackie Tharp #2440
********************************************************

Ric will have to speak for himself on the issue of "personal bias", but simply as one who has known him for 20 years, I haven't seen too much evidence of a bias against women pilots, drivers, or whatever. Against people who do stupid things, yes, but not against a gender.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:50:06 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

You're too logical, Marty. <G> Nothing there to argue about but you guys know far more than I ever will about the search for the bones. From where I stand, it appears you have not missed any idea on the search.

I wonder if we might have a better chance finding bones on Niku that were not in the original find? I well know the guys have searched Niku as well as their time and plans could afford but could we do better? Do you think, Marty, there is a reasonable chance to be successful finding another bone on Niku. I haven't been there so the question may be foolish and I recognize that.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:50:45 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: autogyro story

John, my first response would be to ask the writer or writers of the play where they got the "reprimand" story. Frankly I have never heard of it but if there is some grain of truth in it you need to get the full story before producing something in error.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:51:59 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Earhart Project Bul. # 25

Mike, Lae was not immediately aware of the lost antenna and the source of this issue was simply that long afterwards a piece of wire was found near the runway of unknown identity or origin. Lae may never have known the Electra lost an antenna. We only believe the antenna was lost because AE was unable to receive Itasca and the Electra take off movie was examined by experts who expressed their belief the antenna was missing on take off.

This may sound like hedging but I am trying to measure my words. I believe the analysis was accurate and the antenna was missing. We just don't have 100% positive proof. We'll have to check the plane when we find it. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:52:45 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Balfour again

Good points, Marty. Not being an aeronautical engineer I'll sure not argue the significance of the prop locations but what you say sounds reasonable. If it  was a critical issue we could have fun pursuing it into the ground as we have  other issues. Maybe it would be interesting to resolve anyway.

At any rate I'll be happy to concede she endured far more noise than I ever have although what I DID endure put me into hearing aids.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:53:12 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: search technology

So, if the plane is under water the new system has no application. Is that correct?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:53:50 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Itasca logs

Thanks Randy. I forwarded this to Dave Bellarts. For some reason, he says he is not getting the original, that is the one he got from his father Leo, from the Archives. He may be able to figure it out.

Ron B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:55:40 
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Tom,

This Bones issue has brought to mind a story that my father use to tell, he has long since passed away.  So to try to get more facts is not possible for me. Thats why I mentioned the "what if the bones were brought to the USA. The story as I can remember was never thought to have anything to do with AE  and FN. In 1937 my father went to work at Mc Clellan Army Air Corps Base, in Sacramento Ca.,he was in the first group of civilians to be hired.

Sometime  just before the war he was on a crew that loaded and unloaded aircraft. I remember the story because of the bones in a box, this has always stuck in my mind.

The Story

An airplane came in and parked on the ramp where they worked the crew got out of the plane and went somewhere, no one was with the aircraft. So the loaders opened the aircraft thinking that they would have to unload it.  The funny thing is there was only one box in the cargo section, and it was marked Top Secret.  The crew was curious and opened the box, inside was two skulls and bones.  They closed the box up and left the airplane. Then the FBI showed up and questioned all of the crews who worked on the ramp. No one would admit to opening the box, so everyone on the ramp had to sign some sort of document that reminded them that if they every told what they saw they could be put to death.

My question is how could this story be checked out?

Where would something like this be shipped?

Is this an odd way to transport remains?

Tom King wrote:

> Thanks, Marty. Looks to me like the early '50s, when Hoodless retired and
> the WPHC relocated from Suva, is a time when the bones might well have gone
> missing. My recollection is that the Medical School relocated at about this
> time, too, from the hospital to the old military base at Tamavua.
>
> Another variable: when did Vaskess retire?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:57:53 
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Seth Brenneman wrote:

> Marcus wrote:
>
>> there was a lot of good FLYING made by Earhart, and nobody can  
>> refute this
>
> I guess that depends on how you define "good flying" and how you define
> "nobody". And how you define "refute" for that matter.
>
> --Seth

    - ...I mean Earhart had a long and intensive flying career, during which she made many flights, including long-distance flights and record flights, including "firsts" that became a part of the World Aviation History. Some of them were made in really difficult and dangerous conditions, the flying that requires really good skills, good judgment and cool nerves - over the oceans, in nighttime, in a bad weather by instruments, with unreliable (sometimes broken) equipment.

     I am sure it must be called as really good flying.

     During her career Earhart flew planes of many types, and flew them competently, that is supported by evidence of many serious, credible and competent witnesses -- her colleagues - like Wiley Post, General Leigh Wade, and other good professionals.

     There were many characteristic cases, like that one in March 1929 just for example - when Earhart, being a guest of the airshow in Buffalo, flew during the day several airplanes that were new for her.

     All this is what I consider a "good flying", and it is factual material that seems for me as impossible to neglect or not to admit, and fair to respect.

    LTM - Marcus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:01:12 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Lindbergh baby lives!

Replying to Carl Peltzer (partly clipped):

> We learned about Lindbergh's other Family in Germany after his wife
> passed away but can we suppose he might have had other children here in
> the United States and kept that information to himself. After all he
> was definitely handsome enough, perhaps a one night stand or a long
> term affair, after all he had to be much more careful about his
> reputation and to me it should have been easier to keep secrets back
> then.
>
> CHP  if we are all using abbreviations

I went ahead and read the LA Times article. I agree that it his strong resemblance to the original Chas. Lindbergh might be due to unreported parentage. On the other hand, maybe it's just a coincidence. Or maybe he's an unreported first cousin or something.

The guy's claim to be the lost Lindbergh baby is based on memories "recovered" by hypnosis. The immediate Lindbergh family reportedly doesn't want to cooperate with a DNA test. More distant relatives (perhaps including the children in Germany?) have agreed to cooperate, but the guy evidently won't subject to a DNA test if he isn't to be compared with a full sibling. Or something like that. It sounds to me (and the article's author) that he'd rather keep the "mystery" intact than run the strong risk of discovering a less glorious truth.

I don't know why the Times finds this newsworthy, even for a Sunday supplement.

I usually sign my emails "Best, -SW." It's just a habit. If that's against the rules or custom here, I'll try to behave better. Just let me know. But my real name appears in the "from" line, and I see that this list keeps it intact at the top of each message it posts.

I think I posted this message twice. Did you get two copies, Pat? Sorry.

Best,
-SW

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

The "signature" requirement is just so everyone knows who everyone is. Since your name comes through with each posting and gets put at the top of your message, it's no problem. And yes, I got two copies; the Mac mail system seems to be a bit odd this morning.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:02:29 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Personal story to relate

Just for what it's worth, and in case anyone here has missing info . . .

I started reading about AE because my dad asked me to get him a copy of Amelia Earhart Survived by Rollin Reineck. I borrowed the book and read it when he finished.

My dad had worked for Lockheed from the early 1950s to the late 1980s. The last part of that span, he worked for Kelly Johnson. By the end of my dad's career, Johnson had retired and (if I understand right) suffered from significant memory loss.

Around 1986 or so, my dad met a guy who was working on the AE disappearance and needed to talk to Johnson. He had a photo of an Electra, supposedly taken somewhere in the south Pacific during WWII. He wanted to ask Johnson if visible details in the photo were consistant with modifications made at Lockheed before the around-the-world flight attempt.

I don't know if he ever was able to ask, or if Johnson was ever well enough to answer those questions.

So, I'm curious . . . Does this story sound familiar to anyone here? Is this kind of stuff meaningful, or do stories like this fall into the dime-a-dozen category?

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:03:17 
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Itasca logs

Ron Bright asks:

>Do you still have a copy of [the original typed pages from the Itasca
>radio log]...?

I'd be happy to take a look out in the garage this weekdend, but it sounds as if there is a good copy on hand at TIGHAR central.  Plus, Randy was even able to provide the record group number.  As I recall (and maybe Dr. Jacobson can back me up on this), the pages of the radio log are not filed with other paperwork relating to Earhart -- rather they are kept in a separate box labeled something like "Leo Bellarts collection" with several other items including photos of Itasca standing off the reef at Howland (referred to in another Forum discussion quite some time ago).

LTM,
Russ
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:04:00 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Lindbergh baby lives!

Let's be careful with missing persons turning up... Would the person claiming to be the missing Lindbergh son be the same or related to the one who claimed to be the surviving member of the family of Czar Nicolas of Russia who was murdered in the revolution in 1917 ?

LTM
Herman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:05:18 
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Re: Earhart Project Bulletin #25

For Mike Haddock

I don't think there is any mention anywhere of anyone trying to contact AE re a lost antenna.

What I cannot envisage is the antenna being lost and no one seing it and subsequently mentioning it. We have the Chater/Collopy reports which I feel would have made mention of such a happening.   There were plenty of people present, including  pilots who flew Lockheed 10's, who would have been watching events closely.  These people would surely have seen such an incident and realised it's consequences.

The TIGHAR report says the mast was struck off by contact with the ground  and so leaving a mast trailing along under the aircraft to be  later torn off in a puff of dust. I feel a trail of dust would have been evident all the time the aircraft was moving up the runway,  if such conditions existed, so drawing attention to  the broken mast. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Jack Clark  #2564.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:06:11 
From:         John Wood
Subject:      Re: Autogyro question

Found part of the answer in a compilation of "LETTERS FROM AMELIA". Jean Backus compiled the letters that were found in a house in Berkley which her mother rented while waiting for Amelia to return.  Her Mom moved there in 1947, serious denial.

The Autogiro crashed at an air show in Detroit, but no mention of a reprimand.

She says, in a letter to her Mom, that the landing gear gave way on take  off and she ground looped.  GP running to her, tripped on a wire and fell.  She said to him "it's my fault", meaning his nasty fall, the press heard and had a field day with it.

LTM
John M. Wood
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:07:44 
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: autogiro question

John Wood wrote:

> I know this is off topic, and I apologize. I am doing a play about AE
> (research for which is how I found TIGHAR and this forum) and this play
> has her being given an official reprimand by the Commerce for Aviation;
> TRUE or FALSE? I am enjoying this forum immensely, and expect to
> become a member of TIGHAR soon.
> LTM,
> JMW (John M. Wood)
>
> *****************************************
>
> Anyone? Outside my paygrade.
>
> Pat


- Yes, it is true. The Aeronautic Branch of the Department of Commerce issued a formal reprimand to AE in 1931. The reason was the autogiro crash that Amelia had in Abilene on June 12, 1931. During the takeoff "the air just went out from me", as AE described later, and the plane suddenly dropped for 30 feet hitting the ground, damaging its rotor, forward propeller and also two cars unluckily parked nearby.

AE already had a lot of successful takeoffs and landings in autogiro before this case, and the exact reason of this incident, as it seems, remained not fully clear -- maybe really some kind of error, but more probably some thermal or other effect in the air layer near the ground caused by heat weather and air flows etc. Some spectators claimed they saw a whirlwind that hit the aircraft on takeoff.

The report about the case was made by R.W. Delaney, the Department of Commerce inspector in Abilene, and since then the whole case was used many times by critics who tried to discredit AE's piloting skills.

It is worth to remember, however, that in reality the autogiro was far not so easy plane to handle, in contrary to numerous public advertisements. The trial Pitcairn ship was nicknamed by pilots as "Black Marie" because almost all of them cracked up in it. Blanche Noyes who was a competent pilot hired to fly the identical autogiro for an oil company said "I think ten hours was the longest any pilot flew it without cracking it up".

AE made much more in this aircraft, across all the country and making a lot of takeoffs and landings in different, mainly unfamiliar places and at very different conditions. When she turned her autogiro second over to the regular pilot, after five or six hours he cracked it on landing.

LTM - Marcus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:34:31 
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: signing posts

Pat Thrasher wrote:

> Pat, whose name is common enough to need that last name, Thrasher

And I always thought pat Thrasher was an instruction of some kind..

Th' WOMBAT
******************************
:-PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:35:34 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

Dave Bush wrote:

> One turning point that isn't shown below:
> Invasion by the Japanese. ...

So far as I could tell, Fiji was never invaded by the Japanese.

IF the bones were sent to Tarawa in 1941-42, they may have been lost there during the invasion.

But IF the bones were sent to Tarawa in 1941-42, a note to that effect should have been put into the bones file, which was well known and used extensively in 1940-41.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:36:24 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> I wonder if we might have a better chance finding bones on Niku that
> were not in the original find?

Gallagher found only five (or four) teeth.  That leaves a LOT of teeth left to be found.

> ... Do
> you think, Marty, there is a reasonable chance to be successful finding
> another bone on Niku?

The archeologist and forensic anthropologist in TIGHAR seem to have hope.  I trust that they will do a good search.

Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:45:46 
From:         Alexander Gartshore
Subject:      Re: History television

pat said...

> 'Let slip the dogs of war....'

a classic line from startrek 5 the undiscovered country!

oh no my secret is out

Alexander.

L.T.M : ok i am a trekkie, lol
**********************************************

"And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial."

Wm. Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1.

And I do believe the true devotees refer to themselves as "Trekkers."

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:47:58 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Ron Berry wrote:

> An airplane came in and parked on the ramp where they worked the crew
> got out of the plane and went somewhere, no one was with the aircraft.
> So the loaders opened the aircraft thinking that they would have to
> unload it.  The funny thing is there was only one box in the cargo
> section, and it was marked Top Secret.  The crew was curious and opened
> the box,inside was two skulls and bones.  They closed the box up and
> left the airplane. Then the FBI showed up and questioned all of the
> crews who worked on the ramp. No one would admit to opening the box, so
> everyone on the ramp had to sign some sort of document that reminded
> them that if they every told what they saw they could be put to death.

Nice storytelling, but the last sentence is unlikely.  What is the capital crime?

> My question is how could this story be checked out?

Very difficult, without a date.  You could track the names and origins of all the planes that landed that day (week, year), then see where they came from, for a start.  I would call this anecdotal.

> Where would something like this be shipped?

Some forensic pathology lab. If the FBI was involved, maybe their lab. The Smithsonian.  Arlington Cemetery, if the bones were identified already and military.  Some other cemetery.

>Is this an odd way to transport remains?

Probably not.  How would you ship them?

Daniel Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:48:45 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Lindbergh baby lives!

> The guy's claim to be the lost Lindbergh baby is based on memories
> "recovered" by hypnosis.

Did you ever notice that with this technique, no one ever finds out that they are the child of a drunken sailor and a floozy? Their parents are always well known, romantic figures.

Dan Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:52:01 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: signing posts

No, you park your pat thrasher next to your pet combine and tractor.

Ross Devitt wrote:

> Pat Thrasher wrote:
>
>> Pat, whose name is common enough to need that last name, Thrasher
>
> And I always thought pat Thrasher was an instruction of some kind..
>
> Th' WOMBAT
> ******************************
> :-PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

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

I say again my last. P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:19:24 
From:         Sara Smedley
Subject:      Re: Lindbergh baby lives!

Would you want to find out about a drunken sailor or a floozy?   ha.

Sara Smedley

Dan Postellon wrote:

>> The guy's claim to be the lost Lindbergh baby is based on memories
>> "recovered" by hypnosis.
>
> Did you ever notice that with this technique, no one ever finds out
> that they are the child of a drunken sailor and a floozy? Their parents
> are alway well known, romantic figures.
>
> Dan Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:05:12 
From:         Dave Carter
Subject:      Re: Lindbergh baby lives!

That's funny... I always thought the Lindbergh Baby became Casper the Ghost....

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:41:12 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Itasca logs

For Russ,
Thanks, I will pass the information on to Dave Bellarts. My guess he wants to get the original back from the archives (I don't know if that is possible) and sell them on ebay or hold for the future. He is sorry the family donated the originals vice good copies, I think.

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:42:06 
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Re: titles

Finally a subject I know something about!  Now to (hopefully) put this thread to rest:

"Chingar" is indeed a Mexicanism.  The Spanish use "joder."  Both words mean -- ahem -- "to copulate."  Conjugation:

chingo:  I do it
chingas:  You (singular) do it
chinga:  He does it
chingamos:  We do it
chingais:  You (plural) do it
chingan:  They do it.

"Chingon" is a noun form, and is loosely translated as a guy who lives to "chingar." Alternatively it could mean simply "one bad dude."  Think of a common anglo-saxon word starting with "f" and ending in "er." No, not "finger."  Try again.

Therefore I do not think this would be an appropriate title for Ric.  I prefer El Caudillo, which is what Franco used to call himself.

LTM

Pat Gaston

PS  During Franco's reign, Spanish coins were imprinted with his image and the words "Caudillo de Espana por la gracia de dios" (Leader of Spain by the grace of God).  Spaniards turned this into "Caudillo de Espana porque dios tiene gracia" (Leader of Spain because God has a sense of humor).
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:42:51 
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: History television

Alex wrote:

>'Let slip the dogs of war...
>
> a classic line from startrek 5 the undiscovered country!

Actually the line is from Star Trek 6 -- and is much better enjoyed "in the original Klingon."

LTM,
Russ
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:43:26 
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: Personal story to relate

For Scott White

> My dad had worked for Lockheed from the early 1950s to the late 1980s.

Question, did your father know a Lockheed employee by the name of Max Green?

Green may have retired from Lockheed in the sixties and apparently worked for Lockheed at the time Earhart's L-10 was repaired in 1937.

Roger Kelley
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:15:13 
From:         Anne Springer
Subject:      AE relations

In a posting last week (or it might have been longer) about the meaning of LTM, the Japanese prisoner story must have been true since they had a letter signed, "Love To Mother". (I should add I do not believe this theory, but its interesting just the same)

I was curious how close Amelia and her mother were. I have done a bit of reading, but I cannot remember. How about her relationship with her father?

-- Anne Springer
***********************************************************

Amelia and her mother were quite close; not so much with her father. Her parents were divorced.

If you would like to read the FAQ about Love To Mother and how Ron Bright was able to finally put that whole story to rest, it's on our website at

http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/ltm.htm

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:15:39 
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: Titles

I think--El Caudillo--is a marvelous title for the Tighar Grand Imperial Wizard....We could get him one of those high crowned caps --favored by some foreign services---like --maybe a Russian Admiral with those extra wide caps...

Opens up a whole new thread for the Forum lurkers...
Jim Tierney
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:17:43 
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Itasca logs

Ron Bright wrote:

> My guess [is Dave Bellarts] wants to get the original back from the
> archives (I don't know if that is possible) and sell them on ebay or hold
> for the future. He is sorry the family donated the originals vice good
> copies, I think.

I'm very disappointed to hear that and hope he will reconsider his position. A lot of important research (like TIGHAR's work on the erasures and platen realignments) has been accomplished because those primary source documents are available to all who are interested -- rather than locked away, gathering dust in a old trunk or safety deposit box.

In any case, I doubt the gift can be "ungiven."  You should gently remind him that those log pages likely were not his father's to give in the first place -- after all, they were official Coast Guard documents generated at tax payer expense, which would make them rightfully the property of the people of the United States.

Realistically, of course, we owe Leo Bellarts a debt of gratitude for "bending the rules" as he did or they would certainly not have survived to this day -- and for his foresight in donating them to the National Archives, thus insuring these important documents will be accessible to everyone in perpetuity.

LTM,
Russ
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:18:44 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Autogiro question

Marcus Lind wrote citing Amelia Earhart after her autogyro crash :

"The air just went out from me"...

Doesn't that seem to indicate she stalled the autogyro on take off ? If one pulls up any airplane brutally it will stall. So will rotary winged craft, including helicopters and autogyros. Marcus goes on saying : "Some spectators claimed they saw a whirlwind that hit the aircraft on takeoff". Wouldn't that indicate the rotary wings were actually going around kicking the air so fast that the autogyro jumped from the ground, stalling as it did? What exactly did the Department of Commerce/Aviation reprimand AE for?

LTM (who believes airplanes are like women: they have to be handled gently and with loving care)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:21:33 
From:         Jerry Kiffer
Subject:      Re: search technology

Carl,

What new technology? I have received several replies to the notice but obviously have missed the first one?

> From Carl Peltzer
>
> Oh, what the heck, we were told to keep this  quiet just last January.
***********************************************

From Pat

I repost Andrew McKenna's explanation:

I think what Carl Peltzer was cryptically referring to (and I don't know why as it is public knowledge) is the new Hyperspectral Imaging System that will be coming on line for the Civil Air Patrol over the next year.  The system looks for spectral signatures of man made and other objects which can include humans, vehicles, aircraft debris, trash, oil spills, marijuana, corn, whatever you want to look for that you can provide a spectral signature for.  The idea is to fly over areas of interest and let the camera and computer do the looking instead of the traditional three sets of eyeballs, which can't look everywhere, all the time, with a high probability of detection.

15 Gippsland Airvan GA8 aircraft will initially be equipped with this system.  see
http://www.gippsaero.com/index.asp

See also http://www.cap.gov/mediacenter/releases/scc.html

Civil Air Patrol awards contract to Space Computer Corporation

   MAXWELL AFB, Ala. =97 Civil Air Patrol has awarded a $1.6 million contract to Space Computer Corporation for the software to operate 15 hyperspectral imaging (HSI) systems.

   CAP will use the high-tech HSI systems to detect objects from the air.

"Hyperspectral imaging is the next wave of reconnaissance technology," said Maj. Gen. Dwight Wheless, CAP national commander. "Space Computer Corporation is providing state-of-the-art software that will allow us to pinpoint objects very precisely. This will make a tremendous difference when we're searching for individuals or aircraft that are lost or in trouble."

Space Computer Corporation (SCC) will provide all system control, detection, display, and ground-processing software for CAP's HSI systems. SCC also will provide field training for CAP members, all of whom are volunteers.

   CAP, the civilian auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force, has done extensive research on HSI technology and is fielding the first systems in the nation to be used on a continuing basis for community search and rescue work. Dubbed ARCHER (Airborne Real-time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance), the HSI system can automatically search the ground before for objects having any specific "spectral signature" selected by the onboard operator. The technology is based on reflected light, so some portion of the object must be exposed for the HSI camera to pick it up.

SCC's software provides a unique combination of real-time geo-rectified image displays (GeoPaint), target detection and location, and situational awareness for the spectrum of CAP missions. The ease of operation and timeliness of results were critical factors in CAP's decision to contract with SCC. The software is a mature product, leveraging the company's experience with similar systems developed for the U.S. Department of Defense.

SCC will be responsible for integrating its software with hardware produced by NovaSol Corporation. SCC will also provide operator training and support. The ARCHER airborne component will initially fly on CAP's new Gippsland GA-8 Airvans, with portable ground stations available for CAP base operators. These ground stations will allow operators to rapidly review the recorded imagery gathered as soon as the aircraft touches down and delivers the data.

   Space Computer Corporation specializes in solving information-processing problems associated with advanced sensor systems. Their work in these areas extends from algorithm development and data analysis through design and fabrication of specialized signal-processing hardware. Since they began operations in 1987, their customer base has grown to include the Department of Defense and other government organizations, as well as CAP and several industrial firms and research centers. They are a privately owned California small business corporation.

   Civil Air Patrol, the official Air Force auxiliary, is a nonprofit organization with almost 62,000 members nationwide. CAP performs 95% of continental U.S. inland search and rescue missions as tasked by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center. Its volunteers also perform homeland security, disaster relief and counterdrug missions at the request of federal, state and local agencies. The members take a leading role in aerospace education and serve as mentors to the almost 27,000 young people currently participating in CAP cadet programs. CAP has been performing missions for America for more than 60 years.

   On the Web: www.cap.gov and www.spacecomputer.com

LTM (who sees all)

Andrew
Harbor Lights Villa
A Special Place In the Caribbean
www.harborlights.vi
720-635-1166
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:22:56 
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Itasca logs

Russ Matthews wrote:

> As I recall (and maybe Dr. Jacobson can back me up on this), the pages
> of the radio
> log are not filed with other paperwork relating to Earhart -- rather
> they are kept in a separate box labeled something like "Leo Bellarts
> collection" with
> several other items

That is my recollection as well.  Mostly a scrapbook, some pictures, and some papers are in that box, all donated by Leo Bellarts.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:24:45 
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Fascinating.  Some comments are interspersed below:

Ron Berry wrote:

> This Bones issue has brought to mind a story that my father use to
> tell, he has long since passed away.  So to try to get more facts is
> not possible for me. Thats why I mentioned the "what if the bones were
> brought to the USA. The story as I can remember was never thought to
> have anything to do with AE  and FN. In 1937 my father went to work at
> Mc Clellan Army Air Corps Base, in Sacramento Ca.,he was in the first
> group of civilians to be hired.

Why did the Air Corps hire civilians at that time?   How common was it to have non-military personnel doing anything at all with military equipment on bases?

> Sometime  just before the war he was on a crew that loaded and unloaded
> aircraft. I remember the story because of the bones in a box, this has
> always stuck in my mind.

No idea what kind of airplane or what year?   Even what time of year?

> An airplane came in and parked on the ramp where they worked the crew
> got out of the plane and went somewhere, no one was with the aircraft.

Given that the aircraft had something Top Secret on board, why was it left unguarded?

> So the loaders opened the aircraft thinking that they would have to
> unload it.  The funny thing is there was only one box in the cargo
> section, and it was marked Top Secret.  The crew was curious and
> opened the box,inside was two skulls and bones.

What sort of instruction would civilians have been given, concerning boxes and devices marked Top Secret?  Would they have opened the box simply out of curiosity?   Was there at the time no sense that Top Secret meant something?

> They closed the box up and
> left the airplane. Then the FBI showed up and questioned all of the
> crews who worked on the ramp. No one would admit to opening the box,
> so everyone on the ramp had to sign some sort of document that reminded
> them that if they every told what they saw they could be put to death.

The "death" part seems a bit unlikely, but the paper signing is something I think I've heard of before.   (Air Force folk: is there such a practice now, when civilians are concerned with the loading and unloading of cargo aircraft?)

> My question is how could this story be checked out?

Without more data, I can't see that there's a trail to follow.

Mike Holt
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:25:45 
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Dan Postellon wrote:

>> Where would something like this be shipped?
>
> Some forensic pathology lab. If the FBI was involved, maybe their lab.
> The Smithsonian.  Arlington Cemetery, if the bones were identified
> already and military.  Some other cemetery.

Would there be a reason to mark the box Top Secret?  Are bones ever considered to be that sort of thing?

>> Is this an odd way to transport remains?
>
> Probably not.  How would you ship them?

Why use an entire airplane for one box of bones?   I'd be willing to bet there was other stuff on board.   Passengers, perhaps, or a courier with papers ... but not just one box of bones.

But then again, maybe it was Peking Man.  He still hasn't been found (except on on episode of "Hawaii Five-O.")

LTM, who never flies alone.
Mike Holt
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:27:26 
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: personal story to relate

Scott White wrote:

> So, I'm curious . . . Does this story sound familiar to anyone here?
> Is this kind of stuff meaningful, or do stories like this fall into the
> dime-a-dozen category?

The thing that got me into this is similar.  When I was about 14, my father told me the story of Amelia Earhart.  He just sat me down and started talking about her.   I don't recall much of it except that she vanished over the Pacific.  At the time, it just wasn't important.

Why did the do this?  I have no idea.  He died in January, and it never occurred to me to ask him about what he told me that day.   He was in the Air Force in WW2: as a Staff Sergeant in Tampa during 1943-1946. As far as I could tell, he had no contact with AE or her life, direct or otherwise.

Mike Holt
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:28:11 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Alan says...

> I wonder if we might have a better chance finding bones on Niku  that
> were not in the original find?

Alan, that's one of the major reasons we worked at the Seven Site in 2001, and want to work at it a whole lot more in 2005 if we can get there.  We're trying to pursue both angles: find the bones that went to Fiji, and find those that didn't but survived on Niku.  The best guess, however, is that if anything survived on Niku it'll be only teeth, which are interesting to try to  find in Niku's coral-rubble "soil."
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:28:56 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

I have no clue what kind of pilot Amelia Earhart was. I was five when she disappeared. However, as a long time pilot since 1955 I can tell you mostly we consider a pilot a good pilot who is capable of operating his plane safely. If the pilot wrecks or otherwise damages the plane the pilot is considered at least a poor pilot. If the pilot causes fatalities of crew, passengers or innocent bystanders NOT due to equipment malfunction the pilot is considered a bad pilot. Using those guidelines I leave it to the forum members to place Amelia in whatever category they deem appropriate. I can tell you I don't consider her a good pilot.

Alan Caldwell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:29:41 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: personal story to relate

SW, my guess is that the photo is the one on the TIGHAR web site which has NOT been identified positively as an Electra or any other particular plane. We beat that one to death and so far to no avail.

Alan Caldwell, who can't remember his member number and is too lazy to run up stairs and look at his card in his wallet.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:30:51 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Autogyro question

> Found  part of the answer in a compilation of "LETTERS FROM AMELIA".
> Jean Backus  compiled the letters that were found in a house in Berkley
> which her mother  rented while waiting for Amelia to return.  Her Mom
> moved there in  1947, serious denial.
>
> The Autogiro crashed at an air show in Detroit,  but no mention of a
> reprimand.

Sorry, John, but I don't see that as part of the answer. AE had occasional mishaps but I know of no reprimand nor does that note indicate one.

Alan Caldwell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:31:15 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: autogiro question

Marcus, do you have the full report of the incident, investigation, findings and final disposition?

Alan Caldwell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:32:06 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

I agree that the story of the bones in the secret box would be real hard to check out, and that the stuff about death warnings makes the whole thing seem a  bit far-fetched.  Of course, that's the kind of detail that fertile imaginations often add to stories of this kind.  I imagine that someone saw  some bones in a box on an airplane, and they might have been marked in some way  to indicate that the box wasn't supposed to be opened without authorization (I'm skeptical of it being "Top Secret").

Was it an odd way to transport bones?  IF they were labeled Top Secret, and IF the FBI got all freaky about the box being opened, then sure, pretty odd. If they were just not supposed to be opened, and the crew got  scolded by someone in authority for opening them, then no; they could be specimens from an archeological excavation, parts of a museum osteology  collection being rescued from the impending hostilities, part of a crime scene investigation, the Piltdown fossils escaping China.  Lots of  possibilities.

Incidentally, the notion that people are always very protective of human bones, careful about how they're treated and disposed of, just doesn't hold water.  It mostly depends on whether they're regarded as the remains of more or less recently living people, or as archeological specimens.  If the latter, it used to be pretty common practice to dump them in the landfill when nobody was interested in studying them any more.  Theoretically this  doesn't happen any more in the U.S., but it certainly happened as recently as  the 1970s, and we know that there was an attempt to "dispose" of the entire osteological teaching collection at the Fiji School of Medicine in about the  same time period.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:32:54 
From:         George Rat Worth
Subject:      Good flying

During my flying days "good flying" and "good landing" were characterized by "one you walked away from."
GRW1
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:33:30 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: personal story to relate

Roger Kelley asked:

> Question, did your father know a Lockheed employee by the name of Max
> Green?

I don't know, but I'll ask him. What did Max Green do there? Did he work in KJ's "skunk works"?
Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:34:08 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: autogiro question

Herman, you may be correct. The description fits your theory but it is not necessarily so. A sudden downdraft or wind shear could have occurred but your idea seems more likely.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:34:39 
From:         John Wood
Subject:      Re: AE relations

Her father almost hit her when she poured his booze down the drain. Things were not the same after that.  She did stay with him when he was near death, and read him fake telegrams from others in the family, as a comfort.  She wrote them of course.

LTM
John Wood
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:47:01 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

> But then  again, maybe it was Peking Man.  He still hasn't been found
> (except on  one episode of "Hawaii Five-O.")

Perhaps the story IS about the Peking Man. <G>

This is the account of Peking Man's disappearance.

Alan

"Peking Man" is the name used for the bones of an extinct homonoid discovered near Beijing, China in 1927 inside Zhoukoudian (pronounced Chou-k'ou-tien) Cave. A skull was identified from a single tooth as belonging to  the species Homo erectus by David Black, an anthropologist, during the same year  that it was found. After the skull was unearthed, other bones were excavated  from the site, which was studied and searched over numerous times over a span of  many years and is still to this day under extensive research. The fossils found have been determined to be approximately 130,000 years old, which would make the  pre-humans to be from the Middle Pleistocene era. From the fossilized skull, we  now know that the pre-humans from that era possessed a much smaller brain (the  skull's cranial capacity is 1,075 cubic cm, while the average capacity of a  modern man is 1,350 cubic cm). The teeth and arm bones are indistinguishable  from the bones of modern man. In 1941, the fossils were still under study and  were kept at Peking Union Medical College. However, when the Japanese were invading China, there was an attempt to smuggle all of the fossils to the United  States for safe and unrestricted study. During the mission, the bones  disappeared and have been missing since then. Today, we only have the plaster  casts for those fossils and the originals, found during a 1958 excavation.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:47:23 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

Tom, what would have happened to major bones such as femurs, ribs and the like?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:01:48 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

For Bones historians, is there any chance the Gallagher bones may have ended up on Kwajalein enroute to wherever. There is a very nice credible story of the discovery of a female, Caucasian bones found on or near Ebeye , circa 1982, and handled by police officials.

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:02:24 
From:         John Wood
Subject:      Re: personal story to relate

She captured the imagination of The US.  She was a heroine to many. Someone told me that there are people still looking for her...

My father subscribed to Argosy and Man's True Adventure in the 1960's. I became fascinated with AE as there were many stories about some one or another finding her plane on some island or another.

My father also told me of her disappearance...your story sounds very familiar.  However my father did not tell me of her without my asking, I do not think
John Wood
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:44:15 
From:         John Wood
Subject:      Re: Autogyro story

Thank you Alan.  A good idea.  Embarrassed that it did not occur to me. John Wood

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> John, my first response would be to ask the writer or writers of the
> play where they got the "reprimand" story. Frankly I have never heard
> of it but if there is some grain of truth in it you need to get the
> full story before producing something in error.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:46:01 
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

My father was a person who always had a story to tell about his years at McClellan because he didn't have any war stories I think. He could not pass the physical to get into the military. That is the way he told the story because I have heard it so many times. The box may have been labeled some other way, but I believe that is the way he told it.  I just thought that getting the story out in the forum if there was a thread that could be garnered from it our guys would be very able.

Ron Berry
2640

Tom King wrote:

> I agree that the story of the bones in the secret box would be real hard to
> check out, and that the stuff about death warnings makes the whole
> thing seem a bit far-fetched. Of course, that's the kind of detail
> that fertile
> imaginations often add to stories of this kind. I imagine that someone
> saw some
> bones in a box on an airplane, and they might have been marked in some
> way to
> indicate that the box wasn't supposed to be opened without
> authorization...
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:47:12 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

Ron Bright wrote:

> For Bones historians, is there any chance the Gallagher bones may have
> ended up on Kwajalein enroute to wherever. There is a very nice credible
> story of the discovery of a female, caucasian bones found on or near Ebeye,
> circa 1982, and handled by police officials.

Haven't heard that story before.  Have you got a source?  Contacts in Kwaj?

The quick test is to count the teeth.  If there are more than four, it's not the skull that Hoodless examined.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:48:14 
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

For Mike Holt

I gave you all of the information that I know about the story. The Air Corps use a lot of civilians at the bases in California. I know that for a fact, because my father, my wife and lots of friends worked there. When Mc Clellan first opened 380 civilians were hired and by the end of the war there were thousands working there.

The loaders a Mc Clellan were always opening things that they were not suppose to .  The crews had a code of silence about things that happened on there ramp.  One example that I can remember my father talking about is a box that was marked "Top Secret" was opened. Everyone there got a look inside but they did not know what they were looking at. They described the object as a big round pipe with a lot of little pipes attached to the outside of it. Again the FBI was there to investigate, the crews had to draw what they saw,and swear on a death oath they would not talk about what they saw. A couple of years later Life Magazine had a picture of the item on the front cover. It was a jet engine.

I can only guess that the ramp was considered a secure place, although is seems not. My father had a lot of Uncle Sams junk that he lifted from time to time. I used to have a Norden bomb sight to play with, when I was a very little kid. I took it apart and the pieces never got put together again, but I had fun taking it apart. I kept the lenses for years, I can't remember what ever happened to them.

Ron Berry
2640
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:49:41 
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

For Ron Berry

Please forward all available information relating to the female, Caucasian bones found on or near Ebeye.

Thanks,
Roger Kelley
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:51:13 
From:         John Wood
Subject:      Re: autogiro question

In a letter to her mother she says that she "ground looped" (I do not know what that means technically)

I do not know that the "Commerce for Aviation" (that is what the play calls it) did reprimand her.  That is the second part of what I am trying to find out.

When GP was running to her he had a hard fall.  By way of apology she said "it's my fault" the press heard her, and took it to mean that she was responsible for the crash.  In the letter to her mother she claims it was a support to the landing gear that broke causing the accident.
LTM
John Wood
*****************************************
I wonder if the playwright is confusing the autogyro crash with the Hawaii crash -- the first attempt at the world flight?

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:57:45 
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: autogyro question

John Wood wrote:

> The Autogiro crashed at an air show in Detroit, but no mention of a
> reprimand. She says, in a letter to her Mom, that the landing gear
> gave way on take  off and she ground looped.  GP running to her,
> tripped on a wire and fell.  She said to him "it's my fault", meaning
> his nasty fall, the press heard and had a field day with it.

Your are right of course. However some confusion could appear because of the incident in Detroit and the crash in Abilene, Texas, were two different cases. Your description of the Detroit incident is correct it was in September 1931, it was caused by this malfunction of landing gear, and there was really no any "reprimands" etc

      The case about I wrote -- in Abilene, Texas -- was earlier one, it happened on June 12, and it was that one after which AE received that reprimand, although the real cause of the incident remained not fully clear.

     In reply to Alan's question -- no, alas I have not the original documents about the case and have no clue in which archives these papers may be found now.  The description I posted was based on different sources like AE biographies etc. as I have many of them.

    About the stalled aircraft as a reason of the cause (Herman's theory)-- maybe, but I don't think so.  There were a couple of causes with a stall in AE's flying career -- because of unreliable engine failure just on takeoff -- so I think probably she would be able to "recognize" the case

     Alan wrote:

> we consider a pilot a good pilot who is capable of operating his
> plane safely. If the pilot wrecks or otherwise damages the plane
> the pilot is considered at least a poor pilot. If the pilot causes
> fatalities of crew, passengers or innocent bystanders NOT due to
> equipment malfunction the pilot is considered a bad pilot. Using
> those guidelines  I can tell you I don't consider her a "good pilot"

   - I do not think it is a reasonable way to make such a conclusions attributing to AE's flying the standards of judgment that are proper for modern aviation, even the aviation of 50s.

      The 20s and 30s were a very different time. It was a time of far not so reliable mechanics and equipment, and simultaneously a time of "big rush" - a very rapid development of aviation, when the pilots simply have no time to learn about their planes for months and even years reaching the highest possible "standards of excellency" with their planes like it was in postwar aviation.

       In 50s-60s the period of testing of new airplane could already continue for several months  even a couple of years (now it easily may be more then 10 years! -- like with some military airplanes like F-22 or OV-22). In 20s-30s this "couple of years" frequently meant all the "life cycle" of the aircraft! Five years usually meant a complete "change of generations"

      It was enough common situation when some plane was constructed by a few enthusiasts of a little company -- sometimes even just in a hangar near the private airfield, like Bert Kinner did -- then immediately tested (just by the constructors, without any official regulations used), and -- alas  - frequently immediately crashed, and all the story was already forgotten by everybody except the family and friends just after a few weeks. It was such a time.

      Thus the crash or other kind of incidents in 20s-30s were much more common than in postwar aviation, and I DON'T think the fact that AE had some cases of this sort is a smallest base to call her "not a good pilot".

        If so, let's declare a bad pilots all the pioneers (who of them never had an accidents? ) -- including Lindbergh who jumped 4 times (AE never did!), and others    If not -- why double standards???

       Let's also declare as a "bad pilot" the famous Elinor Smith, who considered the Vega as a not good airplane "with a gliding potential of a boulder falling off a mountain". Despite this, she bought one, for to try the solo Atlantic crossing in it, but after 4 months she crashed it in 1931 in Garden City    by the way, Elinor Smith was declared as "Best Woman Pilot" by the media during some time

      (As you probably remember, the most of AE's flying was in the Vega -- including her 1932 solo Atlantic flight    later it was AE who bought that wreck of Elinor's Vega from subsequent owner, restored it and sat several records in it) 

       If AE would not be a very good pilot, she simply would never survive for 16 years in those period, especially doing such a kind of record flying  - frequently in extremely difficult and dangerous conditions - and "air vagabonding" that she did for all this time. One such an "escapade"  - even a couple -- may be attributed to "just too many luck", but -- as it seems for me -- to attribute such a "verdict" to 16-years intensive career of a record-breaking pilot  -who flew different types of the aircraft - is simply absolutely unfair and  obviously senseless.  Obviously only a really good skills of the pilotmay create such a career -- not a "casual luck".

       Also obviously "not a good pilot" cannot fly successfully  - just "by instinct" -  the planes that she newer saw before, as AE did several times. And -- before this unlucky World Flight -- nobody died because of incidents that she had, and it was mainly minor incidents -- not accidents that few pilots could avoid then at all.

        Many authoritative aviation people who knew AE well and flew with her, supports with their firm evidence that she was a very good pilot. So did Wiley Post, Kelly Johnson, Leigh Wade, and others. Leigh Wade (a World War 2 veteran, ) flew with her in 1929 in a new experimental Consolidated plane, very hard to handle because of it's "neutral stability" and his verdict was: "She was a born flier, with a delicate touch on the stick".

      Amen.

      For Anne Springer: AE and her mother were very close    She wrote to her very frequently all through all her life -- in all the periods they were separated by AE's business and trips, also she provided a lot of support to her, of any kinds -- from emotional to financial.

     Also AE was close to her father and careful about him -- even despite the difficulties that appeared because of his drinking and following divorce. Particularly, she paid for his medial bills, and -- later -- for his debts and mortgage    Probably she never could forget their "better times" when she was a kid and her father -- then a prosperous lawyer free of alcoholic habits -- was a very bright man that paid a lot of attention to his daughters and was very fond about them    He paid so much intensive attention to the little AE so, according to the family records, her very first word was "Papa" 
     For Jackie Tharp from Chesterton, IN -- thank you very much for your kind note    It is very pleasant to feel you are not alone, as you understand my position so exactly
   Best Regards!

      LTM -- Marcus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:58:52 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Replying to Alan (mostly snipped):

> I would recommend going to the TIGHAR web site and laboring through from
> front to back. In particular there is an excellent review of Long's book.
> Several actually but Rollin Reineck did a good job ferreting out some
> of the  errors.

I've looked over much of the site, including Ric G's reviews of "AE: The Mystery Solved" (L&L) and "AE:Survived" (Reineck). I didn't see any other reviews of L&L's book.

I read Reineck's book a few months ago, and I recall discussion of the fuel question. I'm not sure if he was presenting original rebuttals to L&L's fuel analysis, or presenting info gleaned elsewhere (here?). The trouble with Reineck's work is that his conclusions are (ahem) outlandish. I just don't believe for one minute that AE reappeared in the US in the 1960s, or that she was involved in a secret (but not spy!) mission to gin up a US opportunity to recon the Marshall Islands. For my money, Rollin Reineck has very little credibility on the question of what may have happened to AE. While I suspect RR is right about the fuel, I can't rely on his fuel analysis since his view of everything else is so incredible. Probably some of you guys know him better than I do, and please straighten me out if I'm wrong about this.

I'm not convinced by L&L's fuel calculations. Not because I know more about it than they do, and not because RR disputes them. But because of discussion I've read here and an intuitive sense that it would have been really really stupid to attempt that flight without a reasonable backup plan and enough fuel to carry it out. The radio message "running low on fuel" can surely mean "getting close to the threshold where I'll need to switch to my backup plan."

On the other hand, I'm becoming convinced that AE and FN did make a really really stupid decision to push forward with the flight when (1) they couldn't receive voice radio and (2) they had never successfully used on-board DF equipment, at least not on 7500kcs.

It would have made no sense to push on unless they were confident that celestial navigation could get them close enough to the island and that a systematic back and forth search (= time & fuel) would eventually find it. Or (a much less attractive alternative) confident that they would be able to reach some other emergency landing site (Gardner Isl?).

Quoting Alan again:

> Glad to have you aboard. You are in a unique position. You don't know
> enough yet to be attacked. <G>

I may be ignorant, but I can probably fit both feet into my mouth just the same. How's this:

Landing at Gardner seems, in light of all the research presented by TIGHAR, like a bad backup plan. Better than no backup at all, but not much better. No landing strip, no water, tropical heat, minimal possibility of radio communication. Even if they were confident that someone would find them, heading for Gardner Isl. was to abandon any hope to finish the around-the-world flight. It would have been a gamble to salvage their lives and nothing else.

If Gardner Is. was the best available backup, then my view on their decision to continue the flight without voice radio reception and without testing the DF is even more emphatic. Did I mention earlier that it seems stupid?  Anyway, I think TIGHAR presents a good rationale that Gardner Isl. is worth the effort to search for signs of AE. I thought the discussion of the "157/337" line in the FAQ was very good. I'm very impressed with the scientific approach to analyzing artifacts.

. . . on the other hand . . . As far as I can tell from the web site (which I haven't read exhaustively and isn't completely up to date, so I may be wrong) all the promising leads tracked down so far have lead to dead ends or to trails that become so faint that it's impossible to follow them. It looks to me like all the airplane artifacts are either from some other plane, or (at best) only can be attributed to AE's Electra via unlikely scenarios (the metal panel might have been a patch over a seam, but with different rivet spacing, and never appeared in any photo . . . ). Is there anything on the web site addressing a solid piece of evidence?

To me, the "crashed into the ocean" scenario, if you strip away the Longs' efforts to pinpoint the location, is still the most likely explanation. Don't mean to be a wet blanket. I love the work you guys are doing and your approach to this question. But I strongly suspect you are grasping at straws. I'd love to be proved wrong.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:00:29 
From:         Richard Brew
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

Tom King wrote:

> Incidentally, the notion that people are always very protective of human
> bones, careful about how they're treated and disposed of, just doesn't hold
> water.  It mostly depends on whether they're regarded as the remains of
> more or less recently living people, or as archeological specimens

I recently completed an advanced first aid course with The British Red Cross, and in that we were given a complete, real skeleton to study. Someone on the course asked who this person was, and the tantalizing reply was that it is of an unknown person of Asian descent, and that the skeleton is of a female who had died in her late 70's and the skeleton itself is over 80 years old. The instructor said that it was one of many that had been bought quite legally for research purposes at some point in the past. It is kept in a small box on top of a cupboard.

Im not, of course, suggesting that this is AH but that it shows that there is a skeleton, one of many, that no member of her family knows the whereabouts of, and the owners of the skeleton have long since lost the details of where it came from, even though I would be willing to bet that at the time records were kept. What if someone right now, is looking at a fibula in a class learning about broken bones, from an unknown European female?

LTM, who says one day I can become a member.....

Richard Brew.

Richard Brew
I.T. Department
Hampden Private Capital
12/13 Lime Street
London
EC3M 7AB

0207 863 6503
Richard.Brew@hpcgroup.co.uk
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:49 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

> Why did the Air Corps hire civilians at that time?   How common was it
> to have non-military personnel doing anything at all with military
> equipment on bases?

All of the military had many civilians attached to it - personnel who were needed to perform functions of all types, but didn't need to be military (and thus didn't have to pass military physicals among many other amenities). Secretaries and all sorts of personnel were utilized. My father was a crash inspector, but he had polio and was on crutches.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:02:18 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

<<Maybe it was Peking Man>>

Right, and your brilliant project archeologist said Piltdown.   Sheesh. Late-evening lapse.

LTM (who hates it when that happens)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:02:55 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

> Tom, what would have happened to major bones such as femurs, ribs  and
> the like?

They got et, Alan.  Kar's experiment showed that the crabs made a whole leg of lamb disappear in about a week.  It's possible that the larger bones got dragged away and buried somewhere (right, Kar?) but it's also possible that they simply got consumed.  In a less formal experiment I watched them tear apart a pile of lamb ribs (considerably bigger than people ribs) and drag  them off across the forest floor.  By the time they'd gotten ten meters or so their mass had been considerably reduced by crab-munching, and I'm sure that once a group of crabs had them far enough from all the others to sit down and dine at their leisure, they were reduced to nothing but crab poop in pretty short order.

The puzzlement is why some bones got eliminated and others didn't. Size probably does matter -- almost all the bones recovered by Gallagher and his  crew were larger ones (femur, tibia, etc.) -- but so were the bones of  Kar's lamb-leg.  And we sometimes find more or less whole bird bodies and fish bodies lying around, untouched by the crabs, and their bones are obviously small enough for a crab to crack easily.  I don't have an answer to  that.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:03:31 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

Peking man  (actually a group of fossil skeletal remains) is associated with an extensive folklore and group of speculations, exceeding AE.  I agree that it would be inefficient to use a whole airplane to send a box of bones, but tell the truth.  Have you ever heard of an entire flight being used to deliver one important person, the general's cigars, etc.? I have heard dozens of such stories (all anecdotal, and possibly untrue).   Dan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:04:34 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Tom King wrote:

> Incidentally, the notion that people are always very protective of human
> bones, careful about how they're treated and disposed of, just doesn't hold
> water.  It mostly depends on whether they're regarded as the remains of more
> or less recently living people, or as archeological specimens.  If the
> latter, it used to be pretty common practice to dump them in the landfill
> when nobody was interested in studying them any more.

I agree.  Basically, it boils down to whether the bones are considered to be "real people" or not. A colonial service might be less respectful of "native" bones than colonists bones. They might be preserved as evidence, or as an interesting artifact, but these two lines have been pursued at length, with no results.

Dan Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:05:03 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Thanks for the story, Ron.  I don't know how we could follow it up, but it's always good to have these stories "on file" for the time when something else pops up that somehow fits with it.  It's remarkable how often that sort of thing happens.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:22:57 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      More on Peleliu and beyond

Following is a note from Rick Knecht at Palau's Bureau of Arts and Culture, about History Television-Canada and the Wunderman matter.  He's given me permission to distribute it, and I think it's worth noting the general problem  of WWII artifact and bone hunting.  This was a constant problem when I was based in Micronesia almost thirty years ago; I'd thought that the governments more or less had it under control now, but apparently not.

Tom
-------------------------------------------

Tom and friends,

Great letter. On this end we sent messages to both the History Channel and History Television Canada asking if Eva Wunderman of Wunderman Film, Inc. is contracted to them and got no reply. Maybe your letter will get their attention and put them on notice that this kind of behavior won't be  tolerated. Perhaps this incident will force broadcasters examine their own liability and legal exposure, if not their collective conscience. History  Television Canada is owned by Alliance Atlantis in Toronto. _television@allianceatlantis.com_

The Peleliu incident brought to our attention the rising number  of WWII artifact collectors as well as Japanese repatriation firms that  are working on Peleliu and other battlefields around the Pacific.  One American collector was employed as a guide by Eva Wunderman, and has  also been employed by Japanese firms- you can see him in action on this web  site:

_http://www.pacificwrecks.com/people/visitors/mailander/_

The artifacts he 'donated' to the museum were given only when local officials  insisted on it. The human remains you see posted on his site were removed by a  private Japanese firm run by Tojo's granddaughter, who reportedly paid a hefty 'finder's fee' to him. As a result, Mailander was asked to leave  Peleliu by the governor, only to return later in the company of the film crew.

Tojo's group wisely chose to follow the law on Peleliu this past September, but only after being put on notice that we were monitoring the situation. Originally they had planned on removing the contents of the cave after it had been opened by the film crew. They intended to cremate the remains before taking them to Japan, with no attempt at forensic identification as to whether they were Japanese, American, Palauan, or Korean- or as seems likely, an admixture.

There are four or five similar Japanese repatriation firms now working in the South Pacific, many with considerable financial resources. They are quick to offer substantial sums to officials, local guides or American collectors for help in locating sites with human remains. Until recently they have been working in Leyte and elsewhere in the Philippines, but that source has reportedly been tapped out. They are now operating in former battlegrounds  in Micronesia. These groups are not, as local officials might assume, affiliated with the Japanese government in any way. Preservation offices in the Pacific would be well advised to watch for them, and insist that they go through  the consultation and permitting process.

We are beginning to collect the names of WWII artifact collectors and repatriation firms and would be happy to share that information with other preservation offices. In Palau, those names are now on the computer of Palau's  customs officials which alerts them to search their outgoing luggage.

Best from Palau,
Rick Knecht
Bureau of Arts and Culture
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:48:55 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Scott White wrote:

> To me, the "crashed into the ocean" scenario, if you strip away
> the Longs' efforts to pinpoint the location, is still the most
> likely  explanation. Don't mean to be a wet blanket. I love
> the work you guys are  doing and your approach to this question.
> But I strongly suspect you are  grasping at straws. I'd love to
> be proved wrong.

Let me assure you, if wet blankets bothered us, we would have given up long ago; we've accumulated a collection to vie with the Titanic's linen locker. But if you see "crashed into the ocean" as the most likely explanation, I don't think you've read enough on the website, or in AE's  Shoes.  If AE crashed into the ocean, then somebody else (or multiple  somebodies) was responsible for the bones, shoes, and sextant box on Nikumaroro,  the post-loss radio signals, the plane parts reported and found on the island,  etc. the strange shellfish processing at the Seven Site, and so forth.   Which may certainly be the case, but association with AE is a pretty efficient  way to account for all of them.

LTM (who's tough enough to sleep out in the rain)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:59:25 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: autogyro question

Marcus Lind wrote:

> And --  before this unlucky World Flight -- nobody died
> because of incidents that  she had, and it was mainly minor incidents
> --
> not accidents that few pilots  could avoid then at all.

Nice compilation, Marcus, but I stand by my assessment. As I said, I don't normally count equipment or mechanical malfunctions unless they were known before the flight. I base my feelings on her poor judgment. I knew a lot of great, natural pilots who died as a result of poor judgment. Natural ability is not the only or even main factor in whether a pilot is good or bad. Certainly I  would not base my conclusions on what any media might think and all the testimony you cited of fellow aviators referred to her technical skill as a pilot not her judgment.

I do not know how she faired judgment wise before the fatal flight but I would have difficulty believing her judgment was great her whole life and deserted her only for the last flight. Little was written about the earlier part  of her career but she was totally dissected after the last part. The entire Round the World Flight was fraught with poor judgment and nbelievably bad decisions.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:35:01 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Scott, I have not read RR's book nor have I any intention of doing so. You are right. It is outlandish. I only referred to RR's critique of Long's book as was  posted on the TIGHAR web site.

I think there is sufficient radio evidence to discount crashed  and sank  into the ocean. I can see no other possibility than they reached land somewhere. Soon Ric, will have finished the post radio call report and you will see what I  mean a little better. I already know enough of it to be convinced and I am a  hard sell.

I think we DO have reasonable evidence they made it to Gardner although far from convincing. The quandary is that there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to the contrary or that they landed elsewhere. Possible but without  some clue there is no reason to expend resources on a shot in the dark.

Many have suggested they crashed at sea but that means looking in over 600,000 square miles of ocean and that isn't possible. If they crashed  at sea we just pick up our marbles and go home. Certainly they may havefound other land than Gardner but we need some evidence in order to divert our search.

So you are correct, there is no smoking gun. there is only circumstantial and anecdotal evidence but there is a lot of it and none elsewhere. So the search goes on.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:35:39 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

I came up blank, doing an internet search for a female Caucasian skeleton on Kwajalein.  In 1982, I would strongly suspect that the remains would be sent to CILHI. The has been quite a lot of archaeology or human remains recovery on Kwaj, often well documented on the web. It sounds a little exciting to me, as most of the human remains sites also seeem to have unexploded WW II ordinance!  Does anyone have access to Kwajalein Hourglass (local military newspaper) archives, and was it even in print in 1982?  That would be my first choice in documenting the Kwaj female skeleton.

Daniel Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:42:10 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

Tom King wrote:

> ... And we sometimes find more or less whole bird bodies and
> fish bodies lying around, untouched by the crabs, and their
> bones are obviously small enough for a crab to crack easily.
> I don't have an answer to  that.

Theory: Crabs like bone marrow.  Maybe fish and birds don't have enough marrow to make cracking their bones worthwhile?

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:43:23 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: autogyro question

Was Amelia Earhart a good pilot or was she a bad pilot ? I learned one important lesson in life: all the "good pilots" I've known died young. Some died trying to prove they were the best. When they were dead everybody agreed they were great pilots. Some achieved unbelievable  things flying sophisticated jets, then killed themselves flying an unsophisticated sports plane continuing flying VFR in VMC.

Hence follows a lesson: it must be the bad pilots who grow and retire. Amelia Earhart went missing trying to outperform herself, possibly got killed while doing so or finding a forgotten island in the middle of the Pacific. Therefore she classifies as a "good pilot". I guess I never was a good pilot because I retired, mainly because I lived by the rule that there are old pilots, there are bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots. I never bent a single airplane in my life and I missed several occasions to do so. I would never have left Lae for Howland without an ADF in working order.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:10:03 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Autogyro question

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> ... I knew a lot of great, natural pilots who died as a result of poor
> judgment.  ...

Case in point: Wiley Post, may he rest in peace.

Post set, then broke the round-the-world record:

1. June, 1931 - 8 days, 16 hours - with navigator Harold Gatty.
         People praised Gatty for the success of the trip and
         mocked Post as an "airplane driver."

2. July, 1933 - 7 days, 19 hours - solo.  He did all his own navigation.
         He had only one good eye.  He helped to develop an autopilot and
         radio direction-finding (RDF) equipment that he used on this
         flight.  He had to stop for a while on this trip to get a prop
         and landing gear fixed after an emergency landing in Alaska.

"Post developed a pressure suit that permitted him to fly the Winnie Mae into the stratosphere.  He was a natural flier. No less an authority than Eddie Rickenbacker declared that Post was 'a man born with as sensitive a touch as any aviator could develop.'" <http://www.acepilots.com/post.html>

Post cobbled together a weird float plane and killed himself and Will Rogers on takeoff from a brief stop in Alaska--selected a dry tank, lost power, and suffered a stall due to a tail-heavy CG on a plane with high wing loading.

I personally wouldn't rank Earhart as highly as I rate Post. Both were successful pilots; both died due to poor judgment on the fatal flight.

I think the entire discussion of how good a pilot AE was is a MOOT point.  (Note the spelling.  It is an archaic legal term that means "infinitely debatable, but irrelevant.  "Mute" means "unable to speak. Sorry.  It's just my grammar gene acting up today.)

I don't think that TIGHAR's work of investigating what may have happened on Gardner/Niku is affected one bit by how the participants evaluate AE's piloting skills.  TIGHAR thinks she managed her fuel well enough and landed the plane well enough to have used her radio for as much as three days after the fatal flight.  That's a credit to her skills.  IF this hypothesis is true (and it's a big "if"), then she failed to communicate any information whatsoever that could have been used to locate her.  That is consistent with her poor use of her radios and the DF in flight.  If she and Fred could have handled Morse Code (known in the trade as CW--"continuous wave), they could have communicated with the Itasca by transmitting CW on 3105 and listening to replies on 7500.  That would have helped immensely both in getting her to put out a signal of sufficient duration on a frequency that the Itasca could DF on, which, in turn, probably would have led to a successful conclusion to the flight.

So, she and Fred died because they put their trust in "modern" technology--radiotelephony (voice communications) and RDF (both on the Itasca and on the plane).  The fatal error was not in her pilotage but in her judgment about the technical requirements for a successful flight.

All the above, of course, is just my opinion.  I won't kill or die to defend it.  ;o)

LTM.
Marty #2359

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

> ...MOOT point.  (Note the spelling.  It is an archaic legal term
> that means "infinitely debatable, but irrelevant.  "Mute" means
> "unable to speak.  Sorry.  It's just my grammar gene acting up today.)

That's ok, Marty. But if you wanna be REALLY picky, it's not really archaic; it's used constantly in law schools and other settings connected with the legal world.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:10:33 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

Dan et al

The story of the Kwaj bones came up about a year ago and I passed it to a friend at CILHI, who said it was news to him but he'd check into it. My  friend then left CILHI -- my impression is that the inquiry kind of bounced  around there for awhile with no result; at least I've never heard anything  further.

Pursuing the Kwaj "media" seems like a good  idea.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:11:02 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

Marty says:

> Maybe fish and birds don't have enough
> marrow to make cracking  their bones worthwhile?

Makes sense, but often the bones aren't even scattered, indicating that they didn't eat the meat, either.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:11:35 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

For Dan P.et al,

The bones from Kwajelein came from a former Police Officer now living here in Bremerton, Wa. After an EArhart presentation, she approached me about this discovery and the "secret" handling, that is just within the police dept, of the partial skeleton. She said she was personally dispatched to Ebeye, picked up the bones and I believe a skull. They were then sent on as possible Earhart remains to Honolulu., for exam.

Right now I can't find my notes, but I posted to Dr. King and Rollin Reineck this interesting discovery. Rollin checked but couldn't find anything, and Tom King was going to get in touch with some of his colleagues. Tom and Rollin, do you still have my original post?

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:12:09 
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

>> Why did the Air Corps hire civilians at that time?   How common was it
>> to have non-military personnel doing anything at all with military
>> equipment on bases?
>
> All of the military had many civilians attached to it - personnel who
> were needed to perform functions of all types, but didn't need to be
> military (and thus didn't have to pass military physcials among many
> other amenities). Secretaries and all sorts of personnel were utilized.
> My father was a crash inspector, but he had polio and was on crutches.

Thanks.  I didn't know this.  The few USAF types I have known have never said anything about this.  I admit I've never asked.

Mike Holt
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:12:57 
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Ron Berry wrote:

> For Mike Holt
>
> I gave you all of the information that I know about the story. The Air
> Corps use a lot of civilians at the bases in California. I know that
> for a fact, because my father, my wife and lots of friends worked
> there. When Mc Clellan first opened 380 civilians were hired and by
> the end of the war there were thousands working there.

Thanks.  I had no idea this was the situation.

> Again the FBI was there to investigate,
> the crews had to draw what they saw,and swear on a death oath they
> would not talk about what they saw.

What's his death oath thing?  Does this really happen?  Would someone in the FBI have a file of those things?

> I can only guess that the ramp was considered a secure place, although
> is seems not.

It's probably quite secure from the average citizen!

Thanks, Ron.  It's a fascinating story, but I wish there were a way to track it.

Mike Holt
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:15:01 
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: search technology

Correct, unless it is in very shallow water.

Andrew McKenna

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> So, if the plane is under water the new system has no application. Is
> that correct?
>
> Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:31:06 
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Alan,

Naturally I am not attacking your holy right to have your own opinion about Amelia Earhart (althought it seems as not very conclusive for me to argue by "feelings"... I would prefer to judge by firm facts...), but - very sorry - I cannot see too convincing logic in your declared position.

You wrote: "I base my feelings on her poor judgment...Natural ability is not the only or even main factor in whether a pilot is good or bad. I knew a lot of great, natural pilots who died as a result of poor judgment."

Thus, you indicated the reason why you cannot consider AE as a good pilot: because of her "poor judgment" as you says.

But just in the same phrase you are writing that a lot of "great, natural pilots" died because of this "poor judgment". So, they could make errors (I am agree -- NOBODY is perfect!) but still be considered as great pilots and "natural ones". But AE -- according to you - could not be considered so, because she was able to the same "poor judgment" cases.

Sorry, but this combinations of statements looks for me as somewhat controversial and not coherent. If it displays something in factual aspect at all -- purely my personal opinion of course -- it displays only a personal prejudice against this pilot.

     You wrote: "Certainly I would not base my conclusions on what any media might think and all the testimony you cited of fellow aviators referred to her technical skill as a pilot not her judgment"

- I cannot see any rason why not to respect and consider the factually based evidence of the competent professionals who knew AE for many years and certainly could estimate her flying much better then both you and I can today.

I am agree about the "media", but there is no need to attribute any "media" to this... The Earhart's career is very well documented in many serious sources (not advertisments, newspapers etc.), and this data is available.

I am certainly not agree with the statement that "Little was written about the earlier part of her career", because A LOT of good factual material about this period WAS written and this data is available.

     If you really meet some difficulty about obtaining this information, I am adding after this message the listing of some enough easily available sources.

[I hope you will not declare as a "positive prejudice" of a sort if I will start the listing from AE's own books, as it seems natural for me to "let the person say a word about herself" (if only to be really interested in the story of the person) ... Even the crime people during the trial receives such a possibility to say a word for themselves... AE was not a crime person and I believe the things she had to say are worth of some interest and respectful attention].

You wrote: "...The entire Round the World Flight was fraught with poor judgment and unbelievably bad decisions" --

   - sorry, but again this is just a very common declarative statement that is at least disputable.

     AE successfully flew more then  3/4  of her planned route, in a very different clymatic conditions, in the rush and sometimes in a very bad weather, and flew it SUCCESSFULLY.

And I am pretty sure if she would finish it in Oakland safely after a couple of days, NOBODY would blame her in anything and speculate about any "bad judgment" -- at all.

     But, as she disappeared, it became a most easy way "to explain" the case -- for too many people, including male chauvinists, AE's rivals and personal opponents of all sorts, and some people from Coast Guard and other governmental institutions whose inadequate actions could contribute a great deal in the whole tragic outcome.

Lets not forget that - really - we still DON'T know exactly how and why AE's World Flight ended with a tragedy. If we would know -- what we are discussing and "researching" here???

So, in fact, to judge about the whole AE's career exclusively (or mainly) by the outcome of her Last Flight, we are simply ignoring all the previous, well documented and really deserved career of the pilot, trying to judge about the matter on the base of much more unreliable, incommplete and frequently controversial fraqgment of the "material".

     Certainly I cannot be agree with it, and -- generally -- I still cannot see any connection between any speculations on this topic and the real reasearch of what really happened...

LTM - Marcus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:44:21 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

No, Ron, back in January you and I agreed that we both must have contracted Alzheimers, because I couldn't find your original email and you couldn't find your original notes.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:44:46 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Re: Ebeye Bones

I am searching my files now for the details as related by the Police Officer. As I recall the preliminary identification of the bones was a female, caucasian, which caused them to speculate about AE. Few female bones were found in this area. This information is  pretty rough, but the Officer was positive that the remains were forwarded to Honolulu circa 1982 for forensic identification. Perhaps the Army had a laboratory there.

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:18:57 
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Re: titles

Jim Tierney wrote:  "I think--El Caudillo--is a marvelous title for the Tighar Grand Imperial Wizard....We could get him one of those high crowned caps --favored by some foreign services---like --maybe a Russian Admiral with those extra wide caps..."

Jim, I have a genuine Guardia Civil patent-leather tricorn that I will donate to the cause.  Despite their silly appearance, these hats (and their wearers) struck fear into the Spanish populace during the Franco era.  I had a friend who received two black eyes for daring to address a GC as "tu" rather than the more formal "usted".  At least, that's the way he told it.

Of course, here on the Forum all thrashings are administered verbally ...

LTM

Pat Gaston
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:19:32 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

For Tom King,

I recall we exchanged emails on this, but for the life of me I can't find the notes. The ex officer lives here, so I may try to see if I can track her down. What attracted me to the story was her detailed description of  how she was dispatched to get the bones, bring them back for shipment, with only the Chief and a few others in the loop.

I am not sure how significant or important to spend further effort.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:20:36 
From:         Jerry Kiffer
Subject:      Re: search technology

Sounds like promising research, however not going to locate many aircraft in southeast Alaska. The problem with this imaging system is the same we have with the FLIR, thermal imaging, or night vision systems, they all require you to be able to "see" the part. We are looking into some promising equipment used by the mining industry that apparently maps electromagnetic disturbances caused by metals (up to 300' underground) the system is being deployed in Ketchikan using a slow flying helicopter at 50 AGL. The unit of course is very large but does offer some hope. It seems this technology if developed would be very useful in your endeavors?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:49:29 
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Another limb of the tree

Fooling with planes for more than 50 years as an owner and operator, in 1987  flying small, single engined aircraft and one trip was a vfr delivery flight from south Florida to Mississippi, returning the same day. I was right around her age and how tiring it was, it was a very long trip daylight to dark; at the end my hearing was suspect with noise,  vibrations, sitting in one place, etc. but one thing to realize is that all I had to do was look out the window or run a cross check on the vor's to see where I was at any time, while most of their flight was at night over water in a very sparse location of earth. Go try that sometime yourself in the days before the good communication and navigation aids we have now.

So now put yourself in that cockpit, imagine that this is your second to last flight before you quit forever after 15 years of more dangerous flying than usually occurs today; now add that you have gethomeitis very badly.  How many mistakes might one of us make and is it possible to make some of the worst which will end your life, too but you are supremely confident just the same.  Titanic Scenerio, anyone?

Now take Amelia and Fred after a month of flying all over a mostly unpopulated planet  where if something had gone wrong it probably would have been finis, add the stress and health problems adding up to what became their last flight.  It does seem to me that they could have taken a little more care with the equipment and it's operation but that is not our call here.

There are of course no facts for us to use but supposing that there was 4 hours endurance left at the end of their course, this gives them about 600 miles to work  in any direction and her saying that she would find and land on an island if possible with and I'll go with that possibility along with Tighar.

The engines were quite reliable after more than 10 years of use  and most other systems were far from experimental.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:30:55 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

For Ron Bright --

E-mail's cheap.  You get a fresh version of the officer's account, and I'll try to plug it back into the folks in Hawaii, see what they can  come up  with. And it seems like running down contemporary Kwajalein news media  would be a good idea, too.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:32:10 
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

For Ron Bright

I would be more than pleased to interview the police officer who investigated and took possession of the suspect bones on Ebeye. Bremerton is a convenient location and a beautiful drive from Longview.

If the officer in question was in fact personally dispatched to Ebeye, picked up the bones and possibly a skull, there will be documentation to support her claim.  A wealth of information may be in the offering.

Please reply to me directly with copies to Tom and Ric.   I have requested that Pat provide you with my personal email address and telephone number.

Thanks,
Roger
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:34:03 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Kwajelein bones mystery

The Kwajalein Hourglass is actually available on line, but only since 1999.  It doesn't seem to be very relevant to the 1982 bones.  I'm still very interested.  Skeletal remains might be fairly common there, but not female Caucasian remains.

Dan Postellon #2263

Ron Bright wrote:

> For Dan P.et al, The bones from Kwajelein came from a former Police
> Officer now living
> here in Bremerton, Wa. After an EArhart presentation, she approached me
> about this discovery and the "secret" handling, that is just within the
> police dept, of the partial skeleton. She said she was personally
> dispatched to Ebeye, picked up the bones and I believe a skull. They
> were then sent on as possible Earhart remains to Honolulu., for exam.
> Right now I can't find my notes, but I posted to Dr. King and Rollin
> Reineck this interesting discovery. Rollin checked but couldn';t find
> anything, and Tom King was going to get in touch with some of his
> colleagues. Tom and Rollin, do you still have my original post? Ron
> Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:35:16 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Vandalism of World War II historic site

Letter on the Peleliu looting:

-----------------------------------------

Michael MacMillan, President
Alliance Atlantis

Dear Mr. MacMillan

A film crew claiming to be affiliated with "The History Channel," but apparently under contract to History Television-Canada recently  used a backhoe to dig into a World War II historic site on the island of  Peleliu in the Republic of Palau, violating Palau's historic preservation laws  and the sanctity of a possible burial site of Japanese and American war  dead.  It is also worth noting that Peleliu is a U.S. National Historic  Landmark.  Attached is a report on the incident filed by one of Palau's  historic preservation experts, who was an eyewitness to the incident.

I am sure this incident is as disturbing to you and your colleagues as it  is to me.  As an archaeologist I support History Television in  its effort to make history accessible to the public in an entertaining manner,  but such popularization always carries risks with it, and the Peleliu incident is an example of how risky it can be.  The perpetrators in this case were apprehended and prosecuted, but I fear they are not the only ones wandering  around the world wondering what they can dig up, by fair means or foul, and sell  to markets like History Television.

I urge you to take steps to make sure that people working for History Television, either as employees or as contractors -- or as free-lancers hoping  to sell a product -- refrain from disturbing historic and prehistoric sites without full compliance with applicable laws, full consultation with relevant authorities and concerned communities, and full supervision by qualified archaeologists.

Sincerely,
Thomas F. King

Thomas F.  King, PhD
Project Archaeologist, Amelia Earhart Search Project
The  International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery
PO Box 14515, Silver  Spring MD 20911
_www.tighar.org_ (http://www.tighar.org/)
Available in October: New  paperback edition of Amelia Earhart's Shoes:
Is the Mystery  Solved? _www.altamirapress.com_
(http://www.altamirapress.com/)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:51:35 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Kwajelein bones mystery

Alas I found my notes on the former Police Officer from Kwajelein that recounted the bone discovery story. It is juicer than I recalled!! As I said she approached me after an Earhart presentation in Sept 2004 at Bremerton, Wa. Here is her story:

In the Spring of 1985, while employed as a police lieutant under the subcontractor of Washington Patrol Services, Escondido, Ca., she was notified that a medic living at Roi Namur  had found a skeleton, estimated to be about 60% complete, near an underground hospital. It was a large pit 20X30 ft deep where over the years other remains had been found. She understood that it was a known "execution pit" used by the Japanese before and during the war.  A male Caucasian had been found a few years earlier, but mostly Marshallese, possible workers, possibly missionaries.

The only identification made at the time, perhaps by the medic, was that the skeleton was  a Caucasian female. Because this would be very rare, the Earhart connection was brought up.  ( She recalled no  discussion of the skull or teeth remaining). She was sent to Roi Namurto bring the bones back and any other evidence to Kwajalein. The bones were in a plastic sack and she could not identify what kind of bones they were.  The whole operation was handled at the "senior level" in the department, with the Chief, the head CID investigator and a Sgt involved. She didn't know why the secrecy then, except by inference the AE disappearance.

The bones were flown to Hawaii for identification, exact facility unknown.

She also recalled that beside the bones (this is what she said) a 1920s/30s type watch was found, reportedly similar to the watch Earhart had made for herself. There was a serial number on it.

All this infomation may well be in the Contractor files or the Kwajalein police files.

The police officer also said she talked with the mother of one of the interpreters at Kwajalein circa 1984, and she recalled seeing a civilian "non Japanese" silver plane on the back of a ship which was off of Ebeye prior to the war. The woman is deceased.

Note: AE researders will recall the Klaas and Gervais have long speculated that AE was transported from Jaluit to Kwajalein enroute perhaps to Saipan. Also I recall that a Marine found a briefcase with initials "AE" on it at Roi Namor somewhere in all of the Earhart literature.

I did not really pursue this report by the officer as it seemed pretty sketchy, but did forward it to Tom King. There must be records on Kwajalein of this discovery and where the remains were sent. I can not attest to the accuracy or reliablity of this witness; the story of the watch seems quite incredible.

If there is enough interest I could persue this with her as she lives nearby.

LTM
Ron Bright
(Didn't AE have a special watch made for her? No it wasn't ticking.)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:36:37 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Autogyro question

Herman, wouldn't it be nice if we could go back in time to Lae on that fateful day and give those two our Monday morning quarterback advice? I agree  with you that there are a number of things they decided that few of us would  have done -- even in 1937. I recognize the get home itus factor that most of us have experienced but probably few of us have risked our lives in doing so.

Like most of us I have put myself in their shoes at Lae and tried to think up a reasonable excuse for doing what they did. By that I mean taking off and flying on without making sure the radios and DF worked properly. I haven't come  to grips on the antenna ripping off without the crew having some clue or those  watching noticing it. I understand the noise in the cockpit and possibly nothing  "felt" by the crew. We see the puff of dust in the take off film so the  spectators had to see it also. Maybe they did but there is no indication there  was an attempt to contact the plane.

They expressed concern before take off of the hazards of finding a tiny speck in the ocean so they were not oblivious of the difficulty. Yet they appear to have charged on totally confident they could spot the island. I suppose we may be missing some factor in their decision process but I don't know what it would be.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:37:02 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Kwajelein bones mystery

A special watch made for Amelia Earhart? Is there any information available on the watch she wore during her 1937 flight? I don't remember ever having seen a picture of her wearing a watch but there must be pictures where she can be seen wearing a watch. It would be interesting to find these. I do remember Charles Lindbergh used a specially made Swiss Longines watch on his trans-Atlantic flight in 1927. It was a mechanical 24 hour model and in fact a small computer, allowing calculations like fuel consumption. I have always found it hard to believe that Longines would have produced that watch just for him. It could be that the Swiss company made a small number of special navigator's watches in the roaring Twenties for the new generation of daring aviators that began flying long distance pioneering flights and were in need of a reliable specialised aviator stopwatch. An interesting point is that to commemorate the Lindbergh flight Longines produced the original watch model again in limited numbers 60 years later. Which brings us to the Eighties when the Kwajalein watch was supposedly found.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:23:38 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: autogyro question

Pat Thrasher wrote:

> That's  ok, Marty. But if you wanna be REALLY picky, it's not really
> archaic; it's  used constantly in law schools and other settings
> connected with the legal  world.

......and on this forum. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:24:56 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Moot autogyros

Pat Thrasher wrote:

>> ...MOOT point.  (Note the spelling.  It is an archaic legal term
>> that means "infinitely debatable, but irrelevant.  "Mute" means
>> "unable to speak.  Sorry.  It's just my grammar gene acting up today.)
>
> That's ok, Marty. But if you wanna be REALLY picky, it's not really
> archaic; it's used constantly in law schools and other settings
> connected with the legal world.

Yes, of course I wanna be REALLY picky--that's what the grammar gene does to people!  :o(

Instead of saying "archaic," I should have said "ancient":

moot - 1154, from O.E. gemot "meeting" (especially of freemen, to discuss community affairs or mete justice), from P.Gmc. *ga-motan (cf. O.L.F. muot "encounter," M.Du. moet, M.H.G. muoz), from collective prefix *ga- + *motan (see meet (v.)). The adj. senses of "debatable" and "not worth considering" arose from moot case, earlier simply moot (n.) "discussion of a hypothetical law case" (1531), in law student jargon, in ref. to students gathering to test their skills in mock cases.

<http://www.etymonline.com/m8etym.htm>

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:25:45 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

> Thanks.  I didn't know this.  The few USAF types I have  known have
> never said anything about this.  I admit I've never  asked.

I spent an entire career in the Air Force. Every installation I ever had any kind of contact with had hordes of civilian workers.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:26:11 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Marcus, my rights are not "holy." As a pilot since 1955 it is my opinion  she was not a good one. If you wish to believe she used GOOD judgment be my guest. This is not an important issue and let us just agree to disagree and get on with more significant issues.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:26:49 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

Ron Bright wrote:

> I am not  sure how significant or important to spend further  effort

Ron, it sounds like a rabbit trail that needs tracked down. If any of it is true I should think it has to be looked at until resolved.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:27:10 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: autogyro question

For Alan Caldwell

What keeps puzzling me is that Amelia Earhart made a test flight the day before and found the Electra's DF wasn't working. She thought it had something to do with the fact that the transmitter at Lae was too close and apparently didn't give the matter a further thought. I feel this was the moment the fatal decision was made. Given the fact that  everything was in place for a radio approach to Howland (the Itasca waiting for them) I can't understand why they did take off without a further check of the DF equipment. Wouldn't it have been normal, given the DF failure the day before, to test the radio compass after take off to make sure the DF showed a reciprocating course if there was any doubt? I agree with you that the "get home-itis" may have played a vital role. Being the sort of person she was and the point she wanted to make, wanting to arrive back home on 4 July was probably the reason why they made the fatal decision.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:28:19 
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Missing antenna

Alan Caldwell said:

> I haven't come to grips on the antenna ripping off
> without the crew having some clue or those watching noticing it. I
> understand the noise in the cockpit and possibly nothing "felt" by the
> crew. We see the puff of dust in the take off film so the spectators
> had
> to see it also. Maybe they did but there is no indication there was an
> attempt to contact the plane.

Even if the spectators had seen the antennae come off it there was nothing they could've done about it except get on the radio and try and reach AE.   But it appears no one saw the antennae come off, or if they did they didn't recognize the puff of dust it for what it was.  The fact we have no record of anyone trying to contact AE about the loss would tend to confirm the speculation that no one else noticed the antennae coming off.

Also, the puff of dust was a familiar sight when a tail-dragger taking off from a dirt-sod runway.  If any one had seen it I doubt if they'd given it a second thought - dust, dirt, grass, weeds etc. are common debris on a dirt/sod field and would be almost expected, I'd assume.

LTM, who's baaaaack
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:29:17 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

The "Army Lab in Honolulu " is likely to be CILHI.

I'm working on local media.  Kwajalein Hourglass is available on line from 1999, in case you want to check out tide data or TV schedules for Kwaj.

1982 was a difficult time there, with the Marshalese from Ebeye on a sit down strike over payments for the use of the atoll (how much, and who gets the cash).

I wonder if we are trying to track down a Marshallese "urban legend", tying the slums of Ebeye with the death of a "Caucasian female".?

Dan Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:30:09 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein  bones mystery

Ron Bright wrote:

> The  police officer also said she talked with the mother of one of  the
> interpreters at Kwajalein circa 1984, and she recalled seeing  a
> civilian "non Japanese" silver plane on the back of a ship which  was
> off of Ebeye prior to the war.

I was OK up to the plane on the back of the ship.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:30:28 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      New Shoes

I just got word from the publisher that the new, improved, updated, paperback version of AE's Shoes has gone to the printer, which means about 6 weeks till it hits the bookstores.  A bit later than expected, but hey, that's island time for you.

LTM (who counsels patience)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:31:25 
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

Marty Moleski wrote:

> I doubt that British Intelligence would have been interested in the
> bones of an unknown person who died at an indefinite time on an
> unoccupied island far from any military site.

The unknown person had a sextant box and a woman's shoe and was found on an unoccupied island that was only a few hundred miles from an island where the "Yanks" had recently built an airfield that may or may not have had military significance.  If Sir Harry Luke saw fit to mention the incident to Harold Gatty, then why not the local representative of British Intelligence?  After all, England was at war and even seemingly insignificant incidents are always of interest to intelligence agents.

> That's the "Raiders of the Los Ark" hypothesis --[that the bones will]
> turn up in a warehouse some day.

The bones and artifacts certainly went someplace and under the auspices of a government bureaucracy.  From what I've read, TIGHAR researchers have already looked in caves, basements, storage rooms, etc. so why not a warehouse?

Stupid Question (actually, the only stupid question is the one you don't ask): Did Suva keep records of the burials and cremations that took place in 1941?  If Hoodless had no further use for the bones, he might have just turned them over to a local funeral home for disposal.

LTM
Eric, Naval Station San Diego
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:35:46 
From:         Al Hillis
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

Here is the address for the HourGlass newspaper and another website pretaing to the Earhsrt saga.

http://www.yokwe.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=779

http://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/Hourglass/issues/02Issues/hourglass6_25_02.pdf

A Hillis
**************************************************

Could someone check these out and get back to us? Thanks.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:02:20 
From:         Peter Gray
Subject:      Re: New shoes

Great News on the printers!

As soon as my employment situation improves, I'll get that edition. The first thing I do is pay some bills, and then reinstate my Membership (Ric, how do I butter-up Pat on doing this?)

LTM, who remembers bookstores and the Depression
Pete #2419 (sort of...)
**********************************************

Well, I haven't knocked you off the rolls yet <G>. Just write me a tear-jerker note so I'll know you're still interested, just broke.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:02:55 
From:         Danny Brown
Subject:      Re: New Shoes

Tom King:

For those of us who have a first edition of the original Shoes, will there be any sort of addendum that we can get that will bring our edition up to date?

LTM
Danny Brown
#2426
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:27:29 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: bones mystery

Eric Beheim wrote:

> The unknown person had a sextant box and a woman's shoe and was found
> on an
> unoccupied island that was only a few hundred miles from an island
> where
> the "Yanks" had recently built an airfield that may or may not have had
> military significance.

"A few hundred miles" of Pacific Ocean seems like a pretty good security buffer to me for the time.  I don't think anyone would learn much about the Yanks' activities using a sextant and some used shoes.

;o)

> If Sir
> Harry Luke saw fit to mention the incident to Harold Gatty, then 
> why
> not the local
> representative of British Intelligence?

I imagine Sir Harry thought Gatty knew more about sextant boxes.

We're not even sure that British Intelligence had an agent there.  It may be that Sir Harry WAS the intelligence agent.

> The bones and artifacts certainly went someplace and under the
> auspices of a
> government bureaucracy.  From what I've read, TIGHAR researchers have
> already
> looked in caves, basements, storage rooms, etc. so why not a warehouse?

Nobody has given us keys and permission to search their warehouses.  We certainly would if we could.

> Did Suva keep records of the burials and cremations that took place 
> in 1941?

Yes.  Roger searched all the records from 1937 until 1976, if I remember correctly, for both burials and cremations.  No unknowns whose place of death was Gardner Island.

Roger looked at every record.  If they got cute and gave the bones a name, he would have found them--as long as they gave the place of death as Gardner.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:57:39 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

For Alan,

My curisoity has  been revived on this story. I am convinced that the police officer, whose name I have, was telling me an accurate story about picking up the remains and mailing them off to Hawaii. The connection to AE is based so far on the inference from  the female caucasian identification at Kwajalein.     About two years ago, Bert Webber, an expert on Japanese submarines, and author of several books such as "Silent Siege", (carried in most Navy Museums) told me that he tried to track down the Kwajelein rumor of AE's presence there. He even flew from Saipan to Kwajalein circa 1972-3. He interviewed a number of people but in the end couldn't find anyone there to confirm the story. And that was 30 years ago. For instance, he was told that the Postmaster knew the "real story", but when he approached him, the Marshallese "clamed up". Webber gave up and returned to continue his submarine investigations.  I will reinterview her.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:58:07 
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Re: Personal stories

> My father was a crash inspector, but he had polio and was on crutches.
> LTM,
> Dave Bush

Dave do you or your father have an reports or photos from his investigations? You can contact me off forum.
Thanks,

Craig Fuller
AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research
www.AviationArchaeology.com         aair@juno.com
Falcon Field Station Box 22049
Mesa, AZ 85277-2049
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:51:58 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: autogyro question

Herman, that same issue has troubled me. Could it be they thought the Itasca's DF was going to be sufficient and so they didn't worry that their own  was not working or did not check out at Lae?

Their various decisions are worrisome to me and I find them hard to explain. I was not only a pilot since 1955 but for most of the time I was an instructor pilot, evaluating, upgrading and checking out other pilots. The  greater part of the check flights had little to do with actual flying ability  and I flew with guys who were smooth, talented fliers and those who were rough  on the controls and with little technique. They could fly the plane and do the  job but would not get gold stars. <G> Most of the check rides dealt with  judgment on emergencies, real and made up for test purposes, and mission  planning and accomplishment. I looked less for smooth piloting but for using their head, following checklists and procedures and remaining calm and focused  on the job. If I had been a check pilot on the Electra at Lae it would not have  left the area without a valid check on the DF and radios. Had the crew attempted  to go on it would have been a failing mark and the plane would have returned to Lae. In which case George Putnam would have had me by the neck and off to parts  unknown. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:52:38 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

Pat, I've already checked the Hourglass web site. It doesn't go back far enough and the only significant bones stories were the lost raiders of W.W.II and two Asian bodies found. I saw nothing of interest for us.

Alan
****************************
Thanks, Alan.

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:54:59 
From:         Alexander Gartshore
Subject:      Re: History television

Sorry its a while since i have viewed that film but i dont mind being corrected... 5 must be the one with spocks brother... either way its a good film....

L.T.M : now look what i've started [oh dear]

Alexander - G -

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

Guys. The quotation (Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war) is from SHAKESPEARE. OK? Julius Caesar. Get the Marlon Brando film version, it's out on tape.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:59:45 
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: Missing antenna

If I may, I would like to submit my $0.02  on both the missing antenna (I am a radio guy who is independently checking out the Itasca logs, propagation, etc (Dave Ring, N1EA and I are both doing this, and since both of us are former professionals, he civilian and I military, we kind of complement (as well as kibitz) each other's work --hi--) as well as a pilot, so I have first hand knowledge of those great round engines, taildraggers, and since I am comm'l rated, albeit without a  medical at this time, I figure that maybe I can plug some insightfulremarks in here  --hi-- (Yeh right, GW),,,

OK, first off, on the antennas.... None of us who are investigating this are sure what the ventral  antenna(s) were used for.  Thought on this  matter goes from separate xmit/rcv antennas to sense antennas for an ADF.    There is a pix around which shows AE in the cockpit, and the pix must have been taken early in the Electra's career, for the CW key is still present on the console, but what is even more interesting is  the instrument on the RH side, inboard, top row, next to the autopilot panel.   This instrument looks more than suspiciously like an ADF indicator, and I have yet to get any definitive opinion.

OPNOTE: the pix in discussion appeared in the Loomis/Ethell book "Amelia Earhart, the Final Story", and while the book and appendices are  contradictory, it still is a pretty decent story, but the pix are worth the book alone... this is where I saw the pix of the "ADF" which I discussed with Ric via telecon.  I don't think we will ever know for sure if she had an ADF aboard, due to the differences in stories,  the lack of documentation as to the radio equipment, and because neither AE nor FN gave a hoot about radio,  AE  somehow got a Commercial Radiotelegraph license without knowing CW, except, presumably, enough to identify beacons and range stations (she could have, of course, read the Morse from the charts, and simply made simple comparisons). At any rate, neither she, nor FN was a qualified op in  any sense of the word, and could have made communications go from bad to worse simply by mishandling of the equipment and tuning.  I have no idea if the Gurr modification was still present on the final flight, since ir may have been removed along with the key(s) and the rest of the equipment for 500 kHz.  There are simply so many opportunities to mess up, that she may have messed up on every occasion, and as the pucker factor increased, so did the mistake level.

OK, back to the ventral antenna.  First off, there are always puffs of dirt, etc from taildraggers taking off from minimally improved fields, dirt strips and the like, as well as smoke puffs from the round engines, which, as you are probably aware, have a tendency to throw oil, and, if the a/c was shut down for any period of time, allow oil to migrate to the bottom cylinder, which creates the huge smoke puff seen when starting a radial, as well as the need for pulling the prop(s) thru enough blades to make sure that there is no liquid lock in that same lower cylinder, and correcting matters if there is (one removes the plugs, drains whatever is collected, cleans or replaces the involved plugs, then begins the start all over again)... a "puff of smoke" would not necessarily be noticed by those bystanders who were watching the takeoff, and  who  were presumably far more interested in "Will She Make It", than puffs of smoke.

Inside the aircraft, there would have been no real alarm either, as takeoffs in a taildragger, or any aircraft, for that matter, from unimproved runways are extremely bumpy and noisy affairs.  The antenna would not have been seen from the cockpit, nor, even though photographic evidence seems to indicate damage to one of the pitot heads, one has no way of knowing if the pitot masts/heads were hooked up to redundant instrumentation (one for pilot, one for copilot, or one for the navigator) or on a valve which could be switched between the two pitot  heads.     One doesn't even know if she had valid airspeed indication, or if she really cared.   One also has the interesting possibility that the pitot in use was damaged, but not obstructed, which may have caused an erroneous airspeed reading, thereby leading to a navigational error. All this, of course is speculation, and should not be taken as fact. I am simply brainstorming at this time.

     The ventral antenna could also have been a sense antenna for a manual ADF.  Now, IF AE and FN were both mistrustful of "radio" there is a possibility that this is why the DF loop wasn't giving a valid null (OPNOTE: there is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to suggest that the DF equipment had HF capability, and since the trailing wire had been removed, along with the Morse keys, etc, she basically had NO MF/LF capability, either send or receive.  thus, 3105 kHz would NOT have been able to be DF'ed by  AE, and even if it could, without a sense antenna, one has 180 degree ambiguity.  I have no idea if she  as trained to recognize this phenomena, nor took it into account if she did encounter it.

OPNOTE (again): NOBODY that I have ever encountered, nor any ship or shore station which I have worked on MF (500 kHz and shifting down to a working freq in the low 400's. as 500 is a calling and distress frequency only, one does not tie the freq up passing traffic) has ever used A3 (AM) voice, nor any other kind of voice (SSB, etc) Everyone I ever worked (a lot) operated A1 CW) or A2 (MCW) the difference being that MCW (Modulated CW) can be received on ANY receiver, and does not require a BFO (Beat Freq Oscillator, or as it was termed in the schematic of AE's rcvr, a "CW oscillator), to obtain readable signals, as it has modulation, and will produce sounds in the speaker, unlike A!, which, as a pure carrier, will simply pull the speaker cone in when present, and release it when not present,, One just perceives a "thud" instead of readable signals.

Even though the Itasca transmitted on 500 at some period of time, there is no evidence to suggest that she even tuned to that freq, let alone tried to transmit on same, and even if she had tried, loading the antenna would have been impossible, without the trailing wire, and unlikely in any case, since the transmitter was preset, and had frequency control only, there was no provision for "tuning up" or "loading the antenna".  All she had was a frequency control which drove, thru a flexible shaft, the xtal select, as well as the interstage and output tuning networks.  One got what one had preset, no less and no more.

To be quite honest, I don't believe that anyone on the Itasca had a real clear idea of what AE's radio sked was going to be.  The logs indicate a great deal of freq changes, weather (WX) being sent on 7105 kHz, and although the receiver was continuous tuning, unlike the rockbound xmtr, well, I don't believe she would have been tuning around that much, nor shifting between a configuration able to receive CW to one able to receive AM (turning the BFO (CW osc) on and off).

Now, Chief Bellarts and the RM's did a great job, kept the logs up and were very conscientious about sending regular calls and asking for posit reports from KHAQQ.  One can see, from the logs themselves, that the comm watch was able to keep up with both their regular tfic skeds, as well as following the flight, and left no stone unturned in trying to maintain quality comms,one could ask for no more from any RM standing the watch.  This, of course, is "business as usual" for once one has stood x amount of watches, one develops the ability to multitask (we didn't use that word, of course) without even realizing it... One simply does what is necessary, and when tfic is received, it is done so  smoothly and automatically, and the fingers hit the keys of the mill without conscious thought, and one is able to do that, and answer a voice circuit at the same time without thinking about it, nor considering it in any way special.

OK enuf about the radios/ventral antenna, on to the autogiro....

I, from all the reading and research I have done on AE don't particularly consider her a good pilot.  My own opinion is that she probably flew mechanically, and while evidently competent, wasn't comfortable, nor was ever really qualified in multi-engine.  The facts of the crash, etc seem to support this.  As regards the autogiro, the only pix I have seen were taken of her in the early Kellet aircraft, which, although having a rotor, had the primary flight control systems in the rudimentary wings and tail surfaces, unlike the later models which had direct control to the rotor head.

Now, I have never flown an early 'giro, but have flown more modern gyroplanes, and am helicopter rated.  The modern gyroplanes have direct rotor head control, and are pure unadulterated fun to fly. It would seem that the early models, who had control only thru airloads on control surfaces, like a fixed wing aircraft, would have serious controllability problems at low airspeeds, especially on landing when the forward velocity was bled off, and one had no lift, nor airflow over, the "wings" and other control surfaces.  Yes, one would,. as in all gyroplanes, be in continuous autorotation, and thereby be in no real danger as far as rate of decent went, but there was absolutely no way to maneuver once the airspeed bled off.  My guess is that she tried a vertical landing, and had no way to decrease decent rate in the final feet, nor had any other sort of control since the airspeed was basically 0 at that point.  If she had been prudent, she would have maintained enough forward airspeed to maintain control authority, and simply done a running landing, no big thing in either a gyroplanes or a helo in autorotation.  I think she simply got in over her head, as she did on numerous other occasions (The crash of the Electra because of asymmetric thrust is a good example, she was playing around with throttles instead of getting directional control with the rudder right away and staying on top of the airplane).

Anyhow, I've babbled on enuf tonight, that has got to be a long enuf screed for one email message --hi--

de Greg
TIGHAR #2645
former RM1 USN
former commercial pilot (now sans medical and frustrated--hi--)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:00:37 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

Thanks, Ron. My comment about the plane on the back of the boat refers to the old Marshallese story about a Japanese seaplane tender and AE's Electra on board. Three problems are:

1. I can't think of a reason the Japanese would want the plane. It would have taken only a few minutes to tell there were no cameras for spying.

2. There was nothing them to spy on

3. How would they get the plane off of a reef and all the way out to the ship to get it on board?

Alan

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

#3 is the kicker, let me tell you.

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:01:52 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: New Shoes

For Danny Brown

Danny, if you (or Pat) send me your email address I'll send you the text of the addendum chapter that brings the book up to date, but it's just typescript,  not prettied up and illustrated as the published chapter is.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:04:29 
From:         John Wood
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

We (the Army, I work for the Army in Korea) send all out remains to Hawaii for ID.  Not sure what the facility or lab is called, it may be part of Trippler.
John Wood
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:11:52 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> Scott, I have not read RR's book nor have I any intention of doing so.
> You are right. It is outlandish. I only referred to RR's critique of
> Long's book as was  posted on the TIGHAR web site.

I haven't found it on the web site. It's not in the book reviews section of the AE Project. Can you help me out?

[From Pat: A good deal of the back and forth concerning the Long book happened on the Forum. A Google search of the TIGHAR site should pop up a good many results in the Forum Archives, which are text files.]

> I think there is sufficient radio evidence to discount crashed  and
> sank  into the ocean. I can see no other possibility than they reached
> land somewhere. Soon Ric, will have finished the post radio call report
> and you will see what I  mean a little better. I already know enough of
> it to be convinced and I am a  hard sell.

I know nothing about it, of course, so I won't go out on a limb. But I'm skeptical about evidence gleaned from 70-year old radio transcripts. Having looked at discussions and reproductions of the Itasca radio logs on the TIGHAR site, I wonder if anybody can really interpret what was said, what was inteneded, or where it came from. I sure wish there were tape recordings.

Long & Long made a big deal out of somebody's recollection that Earhart may have been panicking, based on the pitch of her voice in some of the last transmissions. Jeeeeeez. If people on board the Itasca couldn't figure out that AE was scheduling her transmissions on GMT, based on a radio message that specifically stated GMT, then how the hell could they claim to interpret her emotional state from radio transmissions???

> I think we DO have reasonable evidence they made it to Gardner although
> far from convincing. The quandary is that there is absolutely not a
> shred of evidence to the contrary or that they landed elsewhere.
> Possible but without  some clue there is no reason to expend resources
> on a shot in the dark.

Right. But if they crashed in the ocean and sank, then there would be no shred of evidence. There seems to be some testimonial evidence for Mili atoll (likewise, there is testimonial evidence that there was once a plane on Gardner Isl). But you know the story . . . that kind of evidence won't get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks or even McD's.

> Many have suggested they crashed at sea but that means looking in over
> 600,000 square miles of ocean and that isn't possible. If they crashed
> at sea we just pick up our marbles and go home. Certainly they may have
> found other land than Gardner but we need some evidence in order to
> divert our search.

No argument here.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:13:47 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Tom King wrote:

> Let me assure you, if wet blankets bothered us, we would have given up
> long ago; we've accumulated a collection to vie with the Titanic's linen
> locker. But if you see "crashed into the ocean" as the most likely
> explanation, I don't think you've read enough on the website, or in
> AE's  Shoes.

I've read quite a bit of the web site. Enough to convince me that Gardner Is. is the best hope of finding any evidence on land anywhere on the planet. I haven't read AE's Shoes. may get to it in a while . . .

Tom again:

> If AE crashed into the ocean, then somebody else (or
> multiple  somebodies) was responsible for the bones, shoes, and sextant
> box on Nikumaroro,  the post-loss radio signals, the plane parts
> reported and found on the island,  etc. the strange shellfish
> processing at the Seven Site, and so forth.   Which may certainly be
> the case, but association with AE is a pretty efficient  way to account
> for all of them.

Sure. But if I understand right, there are plenty of "somebodies" available. The shipwreck, the colonists, the people who shot up some radio equipment, all leaving behind a bunch of tantalizing but misleading debris . . .

Everyone in history has had their own set of bones to carry around with them and eventually leave behind somewhere when they die. Without real physical evidence (preferably, the bones themselves) there is no link to AE.

It was my impression that the shoes lead didn't pan out . . . am I wrong about that?

Probably half a dozen people who would have brought along sextants had been on the island by the time the mystery box was discovered. Any of them would have had good reason to use the sextant on the island for mapping. And any of them might have accidently left the box behind. If the sextant box can't be specifically identified as something known to have been on board the flight, then the most parsimonious explanation is that it came from someone else. Plus, the box is wooden isn't it? So it could have washed up there.

I look forward to reading Ric's report on the radio signals. Outside of TIGHAR, sources I've seen so far have dismissed these out of hand. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, and of course the sources I've seen have their own axes to grind, so it's no surprise they discount the signals.

If I understand right, all the plane parts that can be attributed to any specific airplane model are clearly not L-10 parts. There are some leftover parts not yet nailed down to any particular plane, but *if* they are AE's L-10 parts, then they are specialty custom parts that never came from Lockheed and can't be verified as L-10 parts.

And (again, if I understand right) it seems pretty clear that somebody had a little clam bake on the island, but it's not clear to me why that somebody was most likely to be AE or FN. Again, lots of people have been there, many of them by accident, others maybe children who might not have been adept at processing clams, etc. etc. And the fact that there once were 1 or more castaways on the island gives no indication of who s/he/they may have been.

I agree that all these lines of evidence are fascinating. But it seems to me that Occam's razor dictates that the AE hypothesis is not the best available explanation for any of them. Not now, anyway. That would change if one single solid object clearly from AE could be found. And I hope it will be.

I agree that *if* AE & FN were on the island, then that would be a good explanation for the various bits of ambiguous evidence. But, without the plane, without the bones, without some other solid evidence, then each of these lines of evidence is better accounted for by some other explanation. So far.

I admire TIGHAR for taking each piece of evidence and wringing it out for everything it's worth. And I really admire them for their adherance to the scientific principal of falsification. Instead of looking for evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion, you guys are doing an excellent job of looking for all the available evidence, and coaxing the story out of each tiny artifact.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:16:10 
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

For Alan Caldwell

Thank you for your message. I assure you I did not joked about "holy rights", as I really respect the people's right to have their private opinion about anything and anybody.

I am studying the AE history for more than 20 years (I mean exactly what I said -- the whole AE history, not just a history of the World Flight and disappearance), but, as you saw, I was NOT enthusiastic from the very beginning to start this kind of "battle of sophisms" like "what is a good pilot, what is a difference between the good, bad and great pilots, etc.".

However, as the whole stuff turned into some "public discussion", I simply presented some arguments of purely factual nature, which  - as seems for me -  are the obvious and  firm factual proofs that Amelia Earhart was a really good pilot.

For me these proofs seems as convincing, and everybody in the group may now draw their own conclusions, reviewing your and my arguments and position being "publicly presented" - that looks for me as enough fair and satisfactory outcome. Naturally I still respect your right to have your personal opinion and "agree to disagree". And I am still thinking (and here, as it seems, absolutely agree with you now) that this kind of speculative discussion, in general, in fact brings nothing useful for the real research and looks as not very promising topic to continue.

Respectfully, and with best regards --  LTM,  Marcus Lind

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> Marcus, my rights are not "holy." As a pilot since 1955 it is my
> opinion she was not a good one. If you wish to believe she used GOOD
> judgment be my guest. This is not an important issue and let us just
> agree to disagree and get on with more significant issues.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:16:52 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: New Shoes

But at least you made it in time for the Christmas gift season.
Dan Postellon

> From Tom King
>
> I just got word from the publisher that the new, improved, updated,
> paperback version of AE's Shoes has gone to the printer, which means
> about 6 weeks till it hits the bookstores.  A bit later than expected,
> but hey, that's island time for you.
>
> LTM (who counsels patience)
> Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:17:48 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

What I see here is a failure to communicate. AE probably didn't exercise good judgement in a lot of her flying. That doesn't mean that she didn't have good basic flying skills, only that her advanced skills - judgement, etc. - were "questionable". Let's see, what is the saying - a superior pilot is one who uses his superior judgement to avoid situations where he will be required to use his superior pilot skills? or something to that effect.

LTM,
Dave Bush

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> Marcus, my rights are not "holy." As a pilot since 1955 it is my
> opinion  she was not a good one. If you wish to believe she used GOOD
> judgment be my guest. This is not an important issue and let us just
> agree to disagree and get on with more significant issues.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:18:47 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

Ron Bright wrote:

> The bones were in a plastic sack and she could not identify what kind
> of bones
> they were.

When were "plastic sacks" first introduced? I don't believe any such item was available in 1937 thru the end of WWII, but then I wasn't around at the time to know.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:19:11 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

> What's his death oath thing?  Does this really happen?  Would someone
> in the FBI have a file of those things?

We'd tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:20:20 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Autogyro question

Wiley Post, may he rest in peace, did not die at Point Barrow, Alaska, as is commonly reported. He changed his name to Howard Hughes and later became a rock and roll legend after getting a face lift. He now resides in Bethesda, MD, where he continues to direct secret operations for the US intelligence community.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas

Don't ask me how I know, or WP will have you shot at sunrise.
******************************************

OK, OK, the cat's not THAT far away. No posts continuing this joke, please! ;-)

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:20:49 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: autogyro questions

The worlds two greatest pilots are Bob Hoover and Chuck Yeager - both still alive, despite some really hair raising, death defying stunts. The difference between good and great is a great chasm, filled with the bodies of the mediocre.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:21:24 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: autogyro question

A "good pilot" can seem really great - as long as he/she stays in the pattern or close to the practice area. Great pilots go far beyond, defying death  -  some are just lucky and some are really talented and stay ahead of the machine and other factors. Thus you have pilots like Yeager and Hoover, among many others, too numerous to mention - like Neil Armstrong and many other of the astronauts - Gordie, for instance, may he rest in peace. But even the best are sometimes taken early by events even beyond their ability to handle. How do you judge those events and the pilot's ability?

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:21:49 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: newbie questions

Besides, if she crashed in the ocean, then that's the end of the story because, except for extreme luck (odds greater than the lotto), no one will ever find her or prove what happened to her.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:26:27 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

Pat Thrasher writes:

> http://www.yokwe.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=779

I can't get this one to work

> http://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/Hourglass/issues/02Issues/hourglass6_25_02.pdf

Yes this is the hourglass.  Copies are archive on line from 199 on, so not much help.  There apear to be earlier issues at the Univ. of Hawaii, on microfilm.

Dan Postellon #2263  LTM (let's try microfilm)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:27:28 
From:         Al Hillis
Subject:      Kwajalein info

Pat, I'm sorry about the website listings I sent you yesterday as they came across incorrectly.  The Kwajalein Hourglass is a PDF file that requires Microsoft Power Point or comparable to open. I have this file and will be glad to email it to you for distribution.

Hourglass Info - Started  Feb 4, 1944  and is still active. Phone number is(as given) 254-3539, local 3539. I suppose you have to ask a long distance operator to dial the long distance number. Commanding office is - Col Jerry Brown. Editor etc are given in the newspaper.

The other web site relating to the island is at www.yokwe.net.

Again, my apologies to you and the forum as my handicaps sometimes cause me loss of memory and function.

Respectfully,
A W Hillis
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:28:34 
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

By the numbers of messages it looks like everybody today ]including myself] either needs to get a life or are we all taking a 3 day weekend?

Anyway, it is common to ship aircraft and large things, locomotives, etc, as deck cargo even today and yep would stick out as well as a great target being made of polished aluminum.

Also glad others picked up the gethomeitis along with me.  I believe that is the one that ultimately gottem along with that supreme feeling of cannot happen to me.

another broke lurker
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:29:11 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bones mystery

The Hawaii facility is the U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii, fondly known in the trade as CILHI.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:54:14 
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Pilot technique and expertise

Carl again, then will quit this and go to work but come sit around the local airport with a bunch of pilots/ wanna be's on a Saturday or Sunday to watch landings and takeoffs for awhile and note the differences and techniques.

They're wonderful to observe and run from silly to near deadly and other times really scarey!

The planes available today are quite docile in comparison to machines available in the 30's which would bite at you from many directions.

Now, If you choose to do this, You should hide a videa tape along with the audio somewhere as it really hasn't changed and can be very comical interesting and a learning experience for all.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:55:01 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Scott, I'm not going to get into a point by point argument with you, and I really would suggest that you read Shoes -- especially the soon-to-be-issued new  edition, which explains in some detail why the "clambake" is so peculiar. I think you may have gotten a somewhat oversimplified, black-and-white impression from reading the website. Whether the shoes have "panned out"  or ever will is, in my opinion (to mix a metaphor mildly) very much up in the  air. The plane parts that can be clearly identified are not from an  Electra, but there remain some very curious parts that may well be.  And so  on.

Individually, each of the pieces of evidence can be explained some way other than by invoking AE and FN, but the more the pile up, the more different ways you've got to find to account for them without such an invocation, and it starts to get so complicated that I think any fair judge would have to suspect a  simpler solution.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:58:17 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Autogyro question

For Alan Caldwell

That's what I suspect. From what we know it appears Amelia Earhart  expected the Itasca to provide her with what we now call a QDM. And the Itasca seemed to expect Amelia Earhart to find the vessel by using her ADF. Since the Itasca was unable to provide a QDM and Amelia Earhart did not have a serviceable ADF, the Electra eventually didn't find the Itasca and therefore missed Howland although Fred Noonan's navigation brought them pretty near.

LTM (who always said never to take off in an aircraft that isn't 100 % operational if you want to grow old)

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> Herman, that same issue has troubled me. Could it be they thought the
> Itasca's DF was going to be sufficient and so they didn't worry that
> their own  was not working or did not check out at Lae?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:54:41 
From:         Anne Springer
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

I was thinking the same thing, interview the locals. Even if it turns  out to be urban legends, there still might be pieces of truth hidden in there. The previous local interviews with the former Gardner habitants were interesting enough... Wish I had the money and resources to fly down there and do it myself!

Oh what the heck, why don't we skip all this research and hold a seance? It'd be easier! hehe

Anne Springer
--who lives with things that do indeed go bump in the night

Dan Postellon wrote:

> The "Army Lab in Honolulu " is likely to be CILHI.
>
> I'm working on local media. Kwajalein Hourglass is available on line
> from 1999, in case you want to check out tide data or TV schedules for
> Kwaj.
>
> 1982 was a difficult time there, with the Marshalese from Ebeye on a
> sit down strike over payments for the use of the atoll (how much, and
> who gets the cash).
>
> I wonder if we are trying to track down a Marshallese "urban legend",
> tying the slums of Ebeye with the death of a "Caucasian female".?
>
> Dan Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:55:06 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

I tend to discount the "plane on the ship" story as it is second hand. It does sound  close to the Amran story of seeing the silver plane on the back of a ship at Jaluit. I don't think it has anything to do with the Police Officer escorting the bones from Roi Namur to Kwajalein for shipment to Hawaii.

LTM,
Ron B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:55:25 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

Thanks John Wood for the information. Is there any Tighar member in Hawaii that would contact the local Army forensic lab, as we know the date, 1985, and the bone shipment was from Kwajalein. Or do we have any contacts on Kwajalein.

Ron B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:55:42 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

For DAve Bush,

The Police Officer was referring to the "plastic sacks" as a  1985 container used to carry the bones back to Kwajalein. The bones were found spread in an area in the pit, as I understand it. Sorry for the confusion.

Ron B
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:31:46 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

I think that the story is definitely worth pursuing.  Is Kwajalein still a restricted area for civilians?
Daniel Postellon

Anne Springer wrote:

> I was thinking the same thing, interview the locals. Even if it turns
> out to be urban legends, there still might be pieces of truth hidden in
> there. The previous local interviews with the former Gardner habitants
> were interesting enough... Wish I had the money and resources to fly
> down there and do it myself!
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:34:07 
From:         Al Grobmeier
Subject:      AE's Plane

"Sea Classics" magazine, Nov. 2004, in an article by Richard L. Hayes, "Saga of Scouting Squadron Six" on page 31 states in part, "...As he investigated the (Japanese) ships he was approached by a 'silver twin-engined monoplane carrying two vertical stabilizers.'  He evaded attack by diving at full throttle... to land at Kaneohe Bay." This was on December 7, 1941 during the Pearl Harbor attack.

Brink in "Lost Star, the Search for Amelia Earhart" states in a photo caption, "The Japanese built no twin-tailed monoplanes either before or during World War II." The USAAF WWII photo shows a twin-tailed monoplane with one wing missing at Taroa Island during a bombing raid in 1944. Would anyone desire to discuss these two sightings of a twin-engined monoplane with two vertical stabilizers?

Al Grobmeier
***********************************************

Brink is NOT a reliable source. His statement is not true. I don't have the details to hand; airplane people, help me out here please.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:36:05 
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

Let's try this again

> http://www.yokwe.net

The shorter version works.

> http://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/Hourglass/issues/02Issues/hourglass6_25_02.pdf

Yes this is the hourglass.  Copies are archive on line from 1999 (not > 1999) on, so not much help.  There appear to be earlier issues at the Univ. of Hawaii, on microfilm.

Dan Postellon #2263  LTM (let's try microfilm)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:37:47 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

Ron, I did contact the CILHI, last time around, with no result, but they were still looking into it the last I heard.  I can try to reinvigorate my  contact there (actually Van Hunn's contact), but I gotta get some other stuff off my desk, too.  I may also have a useful contact on Kwaj, but I'm not  sure she's still there.  Again, I'll have to dig to find  her.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:39:22 
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Airplane on the ship at Jaluit

Ron Bright wrote:

> I tend to discount the "plane on the ship" story as it is second hand.
> It does sound  close to the Amran story of seeing the silver plane on
> the back of a ship at Jaluit.

Is there any reason for a Japanese ship to carry an airplane on board? Were there any such ships that woukld have been in the right place at the right time?

I keep thinking that there might have been such an event, but it was either normal practice or a one-time innocent thing.  I'll go to my sources and get the names of seaplane tenders and the
like.

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

See Dave Bush's remark re: catapult launched planes; usually floatplanes.

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:39:57 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

I have long challenged the Marshall advocates to tell me how the Electra got to the Marshalls. It did not fly there and I can't see the Japanese sailing a thousand miles just to pick up a plane of a type they already had. Nor  could I see how they could get it on board a ship. No one ever accepted the challenge.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:37:19 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

It wasn't unusual in that era for a ship to be carrying a catapult launched seaplane, so I don't discount any of the stories, only the source of the airplane.

LTM,
Dave Bush


Ron Bright wrote:

> I tend to discount the "plane on the ship" story as it is second hand. It
> does sound  close to the Amran story of seeing the silver plane on the back
> of a ship at Jaluit.I don't think it has anything to do with the Police
> Officer escorting the bones from Roi Namur to Kwajalein for shipment to
> Hawaii.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:45:26 
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Opinionated forum

Forum at Large:

Lately forum e-mail full more often than not with opinionated posts - Keeping in mind opinion begets opinion, which tends to be as useful as watching a dog chase its tail - Can be entertaining but of little productive value - I'm as guilty as any, as you can see from this post.
   
I try to temper my desire to express opinions with the following old western proverb.

No two cowpokes see the landscape the same.

Let's get back to resolving the loss of NR16020 and its crew in a factual manner.

Respectfully:

Tom Strang # 2559
***************************************************

I'm guilty of letting it go on and on and on... have had some complaints. So the really off-topic threads are now closed including greatest pilots, AE as pilot, and so on.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:52:38 
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Missing antenna

For Greg Moore,

Greg, your posting is the closest to a laymen's explanation of what the belly (ventral) antenna could have/may have been used for - thank you. However, for us non-radio types could you expand on the following - basis the paragraphs in your post:

Paragraphs #2 and #3
Was ADF a radio receiver that was in common use in the 1937 time period? You indicated that we may never know if AE had an ADF on board or not because of the different stories - without necessarily siting chapter and verse what "stories" are you referring to?

You talk about how AE may have gotten her Radiotelegraph license by being able to simply compare the Morse code signals received to that noted  on the charts.  Did charts of the day i.e. 1937 have Morse code noting as  they do today?  If they did, would that indicate that ADF/NDB was in wide  use at the time?  If ADF/NDB was common in those days wouldn't it be  expected that aircraft of the day would carry an ADF to receive the  signal?

Paragraph #6
I am not sure what is being said here; first you start by talking about the ventral antenna possibly being used by an ADF then you switch to why  the DF loop wasn't giving a valid null.  Would you please review this  section and expand on your explanation.

Also, what is meant by MF/LF capability?  Remember, I am  non-radio!

Paragraph #7
Are you saying that it was uncommon for anyone to use voice on the frequency that would have been picked up by the DF loop antenna and therefor  would have been of little use to AE in a post landing  situation e.g. hearing  that people were looking for her, getting some idea of where to look for  rescuers, AE trying to broadcast herlocation via the loop because no one would  be expecting a voice in the 500 range, etc.?

Paragraph #8
You said that there is no evidence that AE tuned to that frequency (500). What frequency would the Itasca have use to broadcast the A's that  AE reported hearing?  What equipment on the aircraft would AE have  used to pick up the A's signals?

Finally, I really thank you for trying to shed more light on this radio/antenna discussion and look forward to your response to my questions.

Ted Campbell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:50:54 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Replying to Tom King

Tom, thanks for the reply. I don't mean to be argumentative (not in a bad way, anyway). I love TIGHAR's work on this and I love the willingness of people on this list to seek out details that may help with part of the project. It's a great example of solid scientific work involving a collaboration of professionals and interested amateurs.  I think everyone involved has a lot to be proud of.

Anyway, the whole mystery has piqued my interest and I'm glad to find somebody who can help with my questions.

I will try to read the book. Honest. But I'm sure you know how that reading list piles up. Meanwhile, I'll keep on asking questions. I'm not trying to back you into a corner or anything. Just hoping to learn something.

So here's one more: The plane itself is the brass ring, right? Given the hypothesis that AE landed in shallow water on the reef and the plane was later washed off the reef by surf, is there any reasonable hope of finding it? Would it have probably floated for a few hours and just drifted away? Or would it more likely be underwater right off the shore there? And, if so, what happens to aluminum if you leave it underwater for 70 years or so?

Along these lines, what are the tides like on the island? I remember from Oceanography a long time ago that daily tide cycles are much less pronounced at sea than on continental coasts. Does water depth on the reef change a lot or just a little with the daily tides?

One other thing -- I may visit the March Field Museum in Riverside, Calif. this weekend. They have a list of aircraft on display on their web site marchfield.org They don't have an Electra there, but they  may have other planes TIGHAR is interested in. If anyone could use a photo of something, let me know and I'll try to get one.

Best,
-SW
********************************************

Scott, I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but your questions about the island, the reef flat, the tides, and so on have been covered repeatedly and are in the Forum Archives.

The reef flat tides are approximately 3 feet on average. The reef is almost dry in many areas at low tide.

The aircraft would float for a while if intact; however, waves pounding it would tend to render it un-intact.

Aluminum immersed in salt water for any length of time bonds with the chloride ions in the salt water and becomes unstable. This is why any recovery of an aircraft from salt water needs to be preceded by extensive conservation planning.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:46:21 
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: personal story

For Scott White - Your story sounds related to the issue of the "Wreck" photo that about that time was circulating around the Skunk Works (I was there). Lockheed folk were asked to try to identify the plane in the photograph. I think TIGHAR has beat this one to death...

Peter Boor #856C and retired Skunk.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 14:01:39 
From:         Al Grobmeier
Subject:      Re: airplane on the ship at Jaluit

Brink, " Lost Star, the Search for Amelia Earhart" has the following:

"Marshallese natives told of Earhart and Noonan, with their Lockheed Electra aircraft, being taken aboard the Japanese seaplane tender KAMOI. The Heine brothers, John and Dwight, told investigators that they helped unload the Electra, missing the wing that Amelia's transmission indicated was 'broken,' at the island of Taroa where the Japanese had secretly constructed an illegal air base."

And on page 154,

"The crew of the ship said they picked them (AE & FN) up between the Gilbert Islands and Mili Island, on a small atoll. ... The Japanese on board told me (Brink) that they had run out of fuel and came down near  Mili; the man hurt himself when the plane landed." from Brink's interview with Bilimon Amaron, Majuro, Marshall Islands, June 1984.

Al Grobmeier

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

Brink is not a reliable source.

The Japanese did not have a "secret" air base in the Marshalls in 1937.

Please read

http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/captured.htm
http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/japanesecustory.htm

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 14:05:05 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: opinionated forum

Tom Strang wrote:

> Forum at Large:
>
> Lately forum e-mail full more  often than not with opinionated posts -

Tom, you are correct. We are guilty of doing that. Where we really go wrong is portraying our opinions as fact. They are not of course.

I received an off forum note from David Billings who took exception with my comment there was not a shred of evidence contrary to TIGHAR's theory. I apologized to David. Until our theory is proven correct we cannot claim no one else's theory is without merit regardless of our beliefs.

I can't prove AE did not turn back to the Gilberts or somehow end up in  the Marshall's. I think it is highly unlikely but I can't prove it. For that matter I can't prove she ended up on Gardner.

David's claim is that they ended up in the New Britain jungles and out of respect for David's hard work, time and money expended in trying to prove that, I offer his information here. I have told David I cannot reconcile the New Britain idea with what we believe occurred but nevertheless it hasn't been disproved.

"The New Britain theory starts April 17, 1945, when a 20-member Australian infantry patrol found wreckage in the jungle. They saw an engine, then the main  plane body with a smashed cockpit. The patrol retrieved a metal tag with letters  and numbers from an engine mount. The patrol troop sent the tag to the U.S. Army Air Force, which replied that the plane did not belong to it and likely was a civilian aircraft, Billings says.

"In 1994, Billings and members of his team were examining an old map kept by a patrol member when they found writing beneath tape on the map's edge. The writing mentions an engine type, horsepower and a  construction number. The engine type matches Earhart's plane. The horsepower does not. But the third number, C/N 1055, matches the construction number given to Earhart's Electra.

"Billings theorizes that the numbers came from the tag that the patrol removed. He thinks it was a repair tag, as Earhart damaged her plane in a crash  on takeoff earlier in 1937.

"To prove he's right, Billings must find that plane. He has interviewed four members of the patrol, researched clues they provided. His team has searched eight times with no luck.

"Skeptics say it's impossible that Earhart returned so far. The site is roughly 300 nautical miles from where she took off at Lae, New Guinea - and  nearly 2,000 miles from Howland. To return would have required flying at least 4,300 total miles, longer than many researchers believe was possible."

I might add that the above information is incorrect that the horsepower on the note did not match that of the Electra. It did. They just didn't know it. It  said 600HP which the Electra was rated at for one minute on take off. David, if any of this is misstated please correct it.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 14:05:54 
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Recent radio threads

Some of the issues that are currently going around regarding radio deserve some clarification.  (Indeed, these issues seem to "go round and round" periodically.)  So, for the newbies:

Did AE have "ADF" aboard?

It appears that her radio direction finding equipment was not an "ADF." The term ADF means that the equipment will automatically orient the loop antenna to a "null" and simultaneously indicate the direction of the station on a pointer dial which is electrically linked to the antenna through "selsyn" position-transmitter devices.  AE's equipment used a manually operated loop.  The pilot, or whoever operated the receiver, had to manually position the loop using something like a steering wheel, at the top of the cockpit, directly below the loop.

Her aircraft may have originally had at the time of delivery, a very-new, perhaps a prototype, ADF system aboard; but prior to her world flight attempts, this was removed and the older manual-type direction finder installed.  Why?  Who knows.

Did AE's transmitter have "MCW" capability?

"MCW" means tone-modulated telegraphy, which by explanation  means that the signal the transmitter produces is "modulated" with an audio tone, usually about 1000 Hz in frequency.  MCW is designated as "A2" emission under radio regulations.  Regular "CW" radiotelegraph signals are unmodulated.  The transmitter is "keyed" on-and-off to produce the Morse characters, This is designated "A1" emission.  With CW, the "tone" characteristic of radiotelegraphy is produced at the receiver through mixing the incoming signal with a "beat frequency oscillator" or "BFO" which is a circuit within the receiver itself.  "MCW" signals do not require a BFO for detection; but MCW does not "carry" as far, range-wise, as CW.  This is due to several factors but the biggest has to do with "signal-to-noise ratio" in the receiver.  CW has a great advantage in this regard.

As far as can be determined through research, AE's transmitter DID NOT have any capability to send MCW signals.  The equipment, a Western Electric Model 13C, was originally designed strictly for amplitude-modulated voice radiotelephone work, which is designated "A3" emission.  It was factory-modified by Western Electric engineers to incorporate CW (A1) transmission capability; but the modification did not provide for any source of audio tone to modulate a radiotelegraph signal for MCW transmission.  And, by the way, the Western Electric mods to incorporate CW capability were done in a rather "Rube Goldberg" manner that was not consistent with the state of the art in 1936-37. The result may have left the door open to some excess confusion for non-radio-oriented operator like AE, as to just how the transmitter was supposed to operate.

Did AE use 500 KHz?

Her transmitter had been modified to incorporate that frequency.  (The normal coverage of the 13C as designed, was 2.5 to 6.5 MHz in three crystal controlled channels.)  Her aircraft originally had been equipped with a trailing-wire antenna for use at 500 KHz, but it had to be reeled out after takeoff and reeled back in before landing.  The reel control was manual, and located in the aft section of the cabin. Apparently this was removed following the Luke Field accident.  The lack of this antenna would have eliminated her 500 KHz capability as the dorsal Vee antenna (normally used for transmitting on her high-frequency channels) was far too short to be used at 500 KHZ... we are talking about wavelengths of 600 meters for 500 KHz, about 98 meters for 3105 KHz and 49 meters for 6210 KHz, and for an antenna to be effective, its physical length must somewhat approximate at least 1/8 of the wavelength.

A radio technician named Joe Gurr offered to "modify" AE's dorsal Vee antenna to add a little extra length, maintaining that this would allow it to function on 500 KHz as well.  The explanation of what happened is a bit complex for nontechnical readers, but the net result was, it didn't work well at all.  The antenna was too inefficient as a radiator of radio energy at 500 KHz to be worth anything; and adding the small amount of extra length appears to have seriously disturbed the tuning of the antenna such that it didn't radiate very well on the high frequency channels, especially 6210 KHz.

This mistuning may have resulted in the transmitter producing numerous "harmonics" (multiples) of the desired frequency; and these harmonics may be the signals that seem to have been widely heard Stateside after her disappearance.  The problem seems to have been that the searchers did not pay attention to the possibility that the radio on her aircraft might be producing signals on harmonic frequencies.

Why could AE not "get a null" on her DF loop?

The DF system she seems to have been using (some forumites disagree on just what type of equipment it was) was designed to function in the frequency range of 150-1600 KHz which includes the standard broadcast band, the 500 KHz emergency frequency just below that band, and the "beacon" or "radio range" frequencies below that.  She appears to have been trying to use her DF loop on a much higher frequency, 7500 KHz, for which it was not designed and may not have been capable of finding a null.

Did she ever tune to 500 KHz?

We don't know for sure.  However, 500 KHz was NOT used for voice transmissions; it was strictly used for radiotelegraphy.  Since neither she nor Noonan were proficient in radiotelegraphy (seems they had no use for it), they more than likely did not utilize that frequency.

This does seem odd indeed, because in those days, 500 KHz was the ONLY emergency frequency employed by ships and aircraft.  There were no such things as ELT's.  There was no VHF radio either.

I hope this answers some questions and clears up some confusion.  It probably just scratches the surface.

My qualifications for addressing this are that I am a professional radio communications technician with experience in avionics; I hold an FCC general-class radiotelephone and second-class radiotelegraph license, plus an Amateur Extra class license; and I am a trained historian with a specialization in radio technology.

LTM (who longs for the return of Radio Drama)
and
73
Mike Everette
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 14:12:23 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Plane on ship

Alan Caldwell posted:

> Thanks, Ron. My comment about the plane on the back of the boat refers
> to the old Marshallese story about a Japanese seaplane tender and AE's
> Electra on board. Three problems are:
>
> 1. I can't think of a reason the Japanese would want the plane. It
> would have taken only a few minutes to tell there were no cameras for
> spying.
>
> 2. There was nothing them to spy on
>
> 3. How would they get the plane off of a reef and all the way out to
> the ship to get it on board?

And, separately:

> I have long challenged the Marshall advocates to tell me how the
> Electra got to the Marshall's. It did not fly there and I can't see the
> Japanese sailing a thousand miles just to pick up a plane of a type
> they already had. Nor  could I see how they could get it on board a
> ship. No one ever accepted the challenge.

Presumably, the Japanese would have wanted an Electra to look over its design and capabilities to see what they might learn from it. I think I've read that they already had one. Even so, the USAF would have always wanted another MiG no matter how many they  already had, wouldn't they? Yes, I know, the Electra wasn't a military plane. But just the same, I would think the Japanese would see an opportunity to learn something about a likely enemy's engineering capability.

The presumption that there were no cameras is almost certainly right, but we can't know that without having the airplane in hand. And even that would probably never dissuade someone who is already convinced about the spy mission.

Couldn't they get an airplane off a reef by strapping on a bunch of floats, and then floating it out to deeper water and lifting it on board with a crane? Or, if it was close enough in, maybe it could have been towed onto the beach and then lifted onto a raft or barge, then moved to deeper water. I'm no engineer, and these are just some shots in the dark. The one thing I know about engineers is that they like challenges, and a few of them together can figure out solutions to just about any mechanical problem.

Alan, in the second quote above, do you mean that it didn't fly to the site where it reportedly was seen in the Marshalls, or do you mean it didn't fly to Mili Atoll?

Best,
-SW
(*not* trying to advocate or refute anyone's ideas -- just trying to understand them)

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

The Japanese had purchased an Electra (as well as other Lockheed aircraft) in.. was it 1935? I think so. Let us all please remember that the U.S. and Japan were NOT at war in 1937! The Japanese military could have purchased other aircraft from Lockheed if they had so desired, and not run the risk of creating an international incident.

Re: getting a large-ish airplane off a coral atoll... guess you haven't spent much time in the Pacific. We take NOTHING to Nikumaroro that cannot be hand carried from ship to boat to shore and back again. Short of major and very specialized engineering projects, there is no realistic way to get heavy things to and from a coral atoll that has no gap in the reef, no pier, no landing. It's hard enough even when you do have those things.

And the aircraft did not have sufficient fuel to reach the Marshalls after being heard within 100 miles of Howland Island.

Again, all of this has been addressed over and over again. A thorough reading of the archives materials on our website will benefit all participants in this Forum.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 14:57:00 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: AE's plane

Yes, the Japanese used twin engine aircraft with twin fins.

When Japan entered the war the twin engine Mitsubishi G3M2 with twin fins even formed the backbone of its bomber force (Allied code name : "Nell"). The type was used throughout the war. In its closing stages the type was mainly used as a transport.

One other twin engine which looks familiar was the twin engine twin fin Kawasaki Ki 56. Japan Airways used the Lockheed Super Electra before the war and at the  beginning of hostilities the type was adopted by the Japanese air force. During 1940-41 a number were manufactured by Kawasaki before production was handed over to  the Tachikawa company who built a further 688 until 1944. As early as 1938 Kawasaki had begun work on modifying the Lockheed design to Japanese standards and 119 examples of this modified machine were built as Ki 56. They had two 990 hp Mitsubishi Ha 25 radial engines.

Another Japanese airplane with twin fins was the four engine Kawanishi H6K flying boat. It was primarily used on long-range sea patrol (Allied code name : "Mavis").

I would also reply to an other question by one of the forumites. It was not unusual for Japanese warships to carry airplanes on a catapult, just like American, British and German warships did. They were used for reconnaissance and as artillery spotters. The Nakajima E8N1 was widely used in the opening stages of WW II. Later Mitsubishi produced the F1M2 (Allied code name : "Pete"). Last but not least there was the Mitsubishi A6M2 (Allied code name: "Rufe"). This was in fact the single float seaplane version of the famous Zero fighter. The project was allocated to the Nakajima company who began work on it in 1941. Between April 1942 and September 1943 some 327 were built. They were mainly used for reconnaissance and home defence missions.

LTM
******************************

Thank you, Herman.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 14:57:37 
From:         Charles Wood
Subject:      Re: recent radio threads

Mike,

That was a superb synopsis on the AE Radio situation.

Question ... when did "Loaded Whip Antennas" (if I recall the term correctly) come on the scene, which eliminated the need for physical 1/4  Wavelength antennas in end-fed configurations?

Charles Wood
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 15:20:38 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

Alan,

If you want answers to your challenge you must go to the AES channel. There are many folks there who will describe in detail a theory, based on some eyewitnesses, that the Electra was picked up at sea, perhaps near Mili or Jaluit, probably by the Koshu, taken to Jaluit on the stern, where Japanese corpsman Bilermon Amran provided first aid to an American man and woman. From there to Kwajalein and Saipan. I wrote an extensive monograph analysing the Marshall Island evidence only. Aoki's translation of her 1983 book says in part that the records of the Koshu and an interview of the Communications officer do not confirm this account.

Alan, it is a  long story, but the bread and butter of the survival at Saipan accounts as offered by many authors, including Joe Klaas, Davidson, Devine, et al.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 2004 15:36:18 
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Lockheed L-10E or Kawasaki Ki-56

For Al Grobmeier

> The Japanese built no twin-tailed monoplanes either before or during
> World
> War II
>
> Would anyone desire to discuss these two sightings of a twin-engined
> monoplane with two vertical stabilizers?

Yes, I would like to discuss a twin engine,  monoplane with two vertical stabilizers.

I would suggest the Japanese Kawasaki Ki-56 transport.  First produced in Japan during late 1940 or early 1941.  It appears to be a prime example.

Roger
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:30:03 
From:         Al Grobmeier
Subject:      Radio intercept logs

Has anyone attempted to find the logs of the US Navy radio intercept stations at Libugon, Guam (Mar. 1929-Dec. 1941) and Heeia, Hawaii (Jun. 1933-Dec. 1941) for transmissions from Earhart's aircraft in 1937 ? These documents probably exist in the record groups of the National Archives and/or the files of the Naval Security Group Command Headquarters, Fort Meade, MD. It is interesting to note that Brink in "Lost Star, the Search for Amelia Earhart" on page 182 states, "Even so, as the revelations discussed in this book should show clearly, the story of what happened ... is at last falling into place, piece by piece. Each new discovery underscores a fundamental and disturbing fact: the truth conflicts with the official and traditionallhy accepted versions.. That will contine to be the case, without doubt, as more information is gradually released by the Treasury Department, the National Archives, the FBI and the Naval Security Group Command." Since the Navy mounted a huge effort to find Earhart, there is no reason to believe that its radio intercept stations were not also involved in that effort.

Al Grobmeier
******************************************************

Oh well. Randy? Bob Brandenburg? Anyone? give me strength.

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:31:01 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

For Scott White

Scott, I'm not trying to feel proud about anything, or avoid being backed into corners; I'm just objecting to being expected to spend time answering questions that have been hashed and rehashed in this Forum, that are extensively addressed on the website, and that we've written a book about.

We have about four highly qualified guys working on figuring out how dry  the reef was at the time AE would have gotten there.  It looks like it was fairly but not entirely dry, but it's a lot more complicated than that.

We have ongoing arguments about what would have happened to the plane once it got washed off the reef; there's basically the "into the abyss" school and the "ground to powder" school.  We've gone over and over and around and around about what would be involved in looking for it if it went into the  abyss. Simple answer: lots of money. 

I'm not trying to discourage you, or put down your questions; I just wish you'd look at what we've already done to address them.

LTM (who gets crochety at her age)
Tom
***********************************************

Amen, Brother Tom.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:33:21 
From:         Bob Bennett
Subject:      Re: Plane on ship

I think all you have to do is read the Vince Loomis book of 1985 by Random House and most of these questions will be answered. Getting a plane off a reef or beach would be no more difficult than having a tank retriever get a military tank out of a bog or ditch, etc. Thats what  you have that kind of equipment for. What looks hard to a civilian isnot all that difficult to trained military personnel of which the Japanese had an abundance in the Marshalls at that time. They most certainly would want the plane to examine and or keep because it belonged to such a famous person. Would you not do the same?

Cordially,
Bob
***************************************************

Does anyone want to deal with this? or should I just stop posting this stuff?

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:34:00 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: recent radio threads

Mike Everette wrote:

> My qualifications for addressing this are that I am a professional
> radio communications technician with experience in avionics; I hold an
> FCC general-class radiotelephone and second-class radiotelegraph
> license, plus an Amateur Extra class license; and I am a trained
> historian with a specialization in radio technology.

Is that all, Mike? <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:34:33 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Plane on ship

Scott, Pat gave a better answer than I could. Most of our fuel analysts have settled on roughly 150 gallons of fuel left departing the Howland area. I figured 139 gallons but we all estimate about four hours of flying time left. All of this is based on the fact we have the Electra fuel performance charts, Kelly Johnson's test flight data, KJ's recommendations to AE and the flight data for the similar flight of the "Daily Express."

Four hours would not permit the Electra to fly to Mili Atoll or anywhere in the Marshall Islands. Some have tried to place the Electra far to the north in order to get around the fuel problem. The difficulty with that is the radio report of AE thinking she "must be on you" was so loud the Itasca radio operator belied the plane was overhead. Apparently it was not but it must have been pretty close.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:34:58 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Kwajalein bones mystery

Thanks, Ron. I'm aware of all of that and have studied it for years. I don't think any of it will stand up to close scrutiny. There are so many variations and all of them can't be so but the AES folks are entitled to their opinions.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:36:21 
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: titles

To Pat Gaston---I think you should donate the tricorn leather headgear to the Tighar/Gillespie Museum of Memorabilia in Wilmington , DE... There it can be worshiped/honored  and utilized in various induction and memorial ceremonies, etc...

It could be worn by 'THE GREAT CAUDILLO' on certain public occasions and ALWAYS worn-on July 2nd every year at the annual AE Clambake-Barbeque-and Chowder Festival- to celebrate the anniversary of the disappearance of AE/FN....

Just a suggestion--from a major lurker.....
Jim Tierney
Simi Valley, CA
Member Number 0821
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:37:54 
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: recent radio threads

Mike Everette and the (radio) newbees:

Mike, you said =

> The DF system she seems to have been using (some forumites disagree on
> just what type of equipment it was) was designed to function in the
> frequency range of 150-1600 KHz which includes the standard broadcast
> band, the 500 KHz emergency frequency just below that band, and the
> "beacon" or "radio range" frequencies below that.  She appears to have
> been trying to use her DF loop on a much higher frequency, 7500 KHz,
> for which it was not designed and may not have been capable of finding
> a null.

I'm not paying much attention to the Forum these days, because a) I've got a lot more things to do, and b) there's obviously nothing new to report these days.

However, with the recent revival of all the "conventional" radio/df theories, I feel obliged to point out (especially to the newbees), that there seems to be a definite mindset among the Tighar "regulars" that there are NO  explanations (other than their own) worthy of their official consideration. More than once I have offered quite reasonable theories to explain Earhart's use and misuse of her electronic equipment,  based on 12 year's worth of SERIOUS AND THOROUGH RESEARCH. This has been ridiculed and sidestepped  at every turn on this Forum. Like the Scott Peterson murder case, neither I nor the Peterson prosecution have that undeniable "smoking gun", but do have enough solid supporting related evidence to convince any reasonable individual that "where there's smoke, there's fire."

At this point in time NOBODY not Mike Everette, not Ric, not Alan Caldwell, not Paul Rafford or a dozen other qualified experts can honestly tell you what radio/DF equipment AE had - or didn't have aboard the Electra.  Hence my information  is as good - and likely even better - than anyone else's.

One example; it's common knowledge that  inventor, entrepreneur and radio equipment manufacturer Vince Bendix was a good friend of Amelia, and supported her efforts both financially and as a frequent donor of Bendix  equipment.  It's a safe guess he would have been most anxious to have someof his latest, and (presumably) best gear on the Electra. Point  two, Bendix did build (and sell to the military) a high frequency DF system that  WOULD operate on 7500 kc.  Point three, AE did, in fact, receive a homing signal on that frequency, after asking to ITASCA to transmit  one.

The Navy was not satisfied with the HF gear, despite it's theoretical advantages, But doesn't require much imagination to suspect that  Bendix, anxious to avoid losing his lucrative government contract, would conclude that a successful demonstration of  his equipment on the around-the-world flight would restore the Navy's confidence.

My research  has also provided  a good explanation  of  Earhart's radio failure, which is as good as - or better - than the scraped-off antenna theory espoused by TIGHAR.  And, on the subject of  "lost at sea",  there are good reasons to consider the (vicinity of) the Gilberts or Winslow Reef..

And so it goes.  Despite protestations to the contrary, good, valid alternate theories to the Nikumaroro scenario do exist, and no amount of island detritus ("bits and pieces" if you will).alter that conclusion.  Such is also the case with the radio/DF puzzle.

Cam Warren
(ex WW2 Navy ET2C and CIC specialist, NBC network engineer, constructor and chief engineer of Southern California regional FM station, manager of Pacific FM Network, founding member of the Audio Engineering Society, etc.)
======================================================================== =
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:39:07 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Peleliu incident: target correction

For Bill Leary

Bill, you asked...

How does Mr. Davids know it was History Television?

> We're  an organization which prides itself on hard evidence.  I assume
> Mr.  Davids is telling us what he believes to be true, but unless we
> know how  he knows this, or confirm the connection independantly, we
> may be about to  descend wrath upon the wrong people, as unlikely as
> that seems at this  point.

I don't know how he knows, and don't know how to find out.  At the same time, I don't know that it matters much.  Certainly we're an organization that prides itself (do TIGHARs form prides?) on hard evidence, but  in this case we're not doing research, we're trying to influence policy, and  whether the infamous Ms. Wunderman was affiliated with The History Channel or  with History Television-Canada, we can be quite sure that people contracting  with or seeking to contract with both are likely to contemplate the kind of  thing she did on Peleliu, so it doesn't hurt -- in my opinion -- to alert the  moguls of both organizations that they ought not support such things.

LTM (who can spread wrath in all directions)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:40:14 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Titles

Ric says:

> Next time we need to take a close look at the Norwich  City
> wreckage from Naia's launch I can't wait to say, "Lay me along side  in
> pistol shot."

Ric, it may be noted, has been known to refer to the film "Master and Commander" as "Gillespie and King: the Early Years"

LTM (who loves a Surprise)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:41:47 
From:         Bill Zorn
Subject:      Re: Lockheed L-10E or Kawasaki Ki-56

Two v-stabs, two spinners Japanese aircraft examples

in 1938 the Japanese imported 30 Vega-Lockheed model 14-38, very similar to the Ventura. They also built their own transport copies as the type "LO." and a bomber as the KI-56. Allied code names "THELMA" and "THALIA." My reference put local production of the both types at 119 type LO and 121 KI-56. Widespread service.

The wings and tail structures were also used as the basis of the one prototype Type SS-1 for high altitude and pressurization tests, in 1943.

Another twin tail, twin engine bomber and transport type was the Mitsubishi G3M series, (including the KA-15, KA-9 variants) also known as the type 96 Code names "NELL" and "TINA," production run was 1048. The first aircraft flew in 1934, and was still in production in 1943. Another type that was seen thurout the pacific theater

The twin tail of the type 96 has the vertical stabilizers at  the app. half span and do not  extend below the horizontal stabilizer.

Kokusai KU-7 originally was built as a glider. 9 examples were built, with engines, designation KI-105. Very similar in configuration to the US's C-82 and later C-119 flying boxcar with two tail booms. Didn't find any listing for Allied code names, but in Japanese Army named the gilder version "MANAZURU" (CRANE)" and the engine variant "OHTORI" (PHOENIX) .Powered version first flew in April 1945, the glider in August the previous year. Probably not seen outside of Japan, but possibly test flights to Sumatra. The concept was to fly from the oil fields and refineries as a flying tank-car. Much of the takeoff load 3.6 tons of fuel would have been used  for the journey, delivering slightly less than three quater tons (200 to 250 gallons or so)? av-gas to the islands.

reference "Japanese Aircraft of the pacific War by Rene J Francillon, Naval Institute Press  1988

WHZ
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:45:14 
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: airplane on ship at Jaluit

Pat, when were the Japanese Air Bases constructed in the Marshalls ? I heard when I was flying thru there, 65-70, that they started in the mid 30's. I heard from some Air Force Types that some Aussies found several Jananese planes still in crates on one of the islands and bought them from the Marshallese Government. They had them loaded on a barge and taken out to a small freighter in the lagoon.

Jim Preston

PS. Will I get a renewal notice in December ?
************************************************************

The first airfields built in the Marshalls were on Kwajalein, Wotje, Maloelap, were started in 1940, and completed in 1941.

You will get your first renewal notice in November, followed by successive ones until you cry UNCLE and send us a check <G>.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:46:28 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Personal story to relate

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> SW, my guess is that the photo is the one on the TIGHAR web site which
> has NOT been identified positively as an Electra or any other
> particular plane. We beat that one to death and so far to no avail.
>
> Alan Caldwell, who can't remember his member number and is too lazy to
> run up stairs and look at his card in his wallet.

The background info. in the web site pages about "the wreck" are consistant with what my dad has told me about the guy, the photo, and the story. I think I'll print these pages out and show them to him.

My dad spent quite a bit of time (i.e., several weeks) with this guy (presumably, Capt. George Carrington), hoping for a time when K. Johnson would be able to look at the picture. (Hey, he was getting ready to retire, and Lockheed probably didn't have any real work for him . . . ). Has TIGHAR already wrung this out for all its worth? Or could recollections from somebody who met Carrington be useful?

It sounds to me like Lockheed was willing to cooperate with Carrington, or at least humor him. Presumably, people would have tried to remember if there was anybody else still at Lockheed who had worked on AE's plane in 1937, and sought a meeting w/ Carrington.

It's a shame Carrington wouldn't cooperate w/ TIGHAR.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:36:34 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Personal story to relate

For Scott White

Scott, if you and your dad can get another angle on the "wreck photo," that could be very useful.  It seems like TIGHAR's wrung everything from it  we could wring with the information available to us as of the moment, but a different perspective could yield valuable insights.

LTM (who's all in favor of showing things to dads)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:44:55 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Marshalls or bust

For Alan and survival buffs,

It seems that there is a preponderance of evidence, although strongly debated by Elgen and Marie Long and others, that AE had about 4 hours left at 0900 Howland time, and thus couldn't make it up to the Marshalls. At least not by air!

Not to be deterred by the lack of gas,  many Marshall Island  theorists rely on the presumption of a Japanese fish boat or Japanese ship pick-up quite south of the Marshalls, then transfer to Jaluit or other atoll.  I think even Goerner believed AE went down close to the Phoenix but was picked up by the Japanese and eventually ended up in Saipan.

And to top it off, she must have made it to Saipan, later Japan, in order to account for Amelia reappearing under the new identity of "Irene Craigmile", later Bolam, in 1945. Col Rollin Reineck's book "Amelia Earhart Survived" sets forth his evidence. Tighar got involved in a challenge match over the "facts" about a year ago. [ I am not sure if Rollin responded]

I don't think she made it to Saipan, but there is a considerable body of evidence that like so many authors, make it difficult to dismiss.

The Tighar channel is not the venue to get back into this debate, hence I was only offering what some believe answers the amount of gasoline left with a Marshall island scenario.  Mantz, who personally did most of the fuel calculations for AE,  disagrees with the Tighar theory; he believed she ran out of gas and ditched into the ocean not far from Howland. [ Don Dwiggins, "Hollywood Pilot", p.112]

Unfortunately we researchers have yet to review  Mantz' original documents and notes concerning the specific performance of AE's Electra . The documents are now held in 6 boxes at a air museum.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:45:45 
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: radio intercept logs

The last time I checked, the records were still at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana, with accession about to be provided to National Archives.  This was circa 1998.  The records will still be classified Secret until declassified, and I was told quite a number of years before that happened.

When I compiled the radio message database, I found only about 4 messages that where referenced that I did not have a copy of...not bad, considering well over 3000 messages in the database.  I don't think we'll find much use in those records, but one can never tell.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:38:16 
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Marshalls or bust

> Unfortunately we researchers have yet to review  Mantz' original
> documents and notes concerning the specific performance of AE's Electra.
> The documents are now held in 6 boxes at a air museum.
>
> LTM,
> Ron Bright

May I ask what museum has these documents? Thanks.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:39:23 
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Emergency landings

A small input!

Had I been in Amelia's shoes [pun intended] and having spent about 5 years flying over the Gulf Of Mexico as I got low on fuel I would have looked for any island or ship no matter how small to land near or on.

If a ship, I'd land right in front of it so they'd have to pick me up and it would've made no difference to me what boat,ship or fishing boat's national markings on it at all to me.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:40:30 
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Peleliu incident: target correction

Tom King wrote:

> Certainly we're an
> organization that prides itself (do TIGHARs form prides?) on hard
> evidence, but  in this case we're not doing research, we're trying to
> influence policy, and  whether the infamous Ms. Wunderman was
> affiliated with The History Channel or  with History Television-Canada,
> we can be quite sure that people contracting  with or seeking to
> contract with both are likely to contemplate the kind of  thing she did
> on Peleliu, so it doesn't hurt -- in my opinion -- to alert the  moguls
> of both organizations that they ought not support such things.

The tone I was feeling was that a letter writing in numbers, and wrathful in tone, was about to occur and was only being held off until it was discovered WHO the target should be.  I that case, I thought it was rather important that the guilty party be very clearly identified.

Since, as you say, the intention is to be cautionary, and to both of the likely subjects, then that's a quite different thing.

      - Bill Leary #2229
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:43:26 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Recent radio threads

Cam Warren wrote:

> At this  point in time NOBODY not Mike Everette, not Ric, not Alan
> Caldwell, not  Paul Rafford or a dozen other qualified experts can
> honestly tell you what  radio/DF equipment AE had - or didn't have
> aboard the Electra.  Hence  my information  is as good - and likely
> even better - than anyone  else's.

Cam, I wouldn't consider myself a qualified expert in very many things and certainly not radio even though I worked for Bendix and built HF for the Navy eons ago. However I heartily agree with your statement excerpted above although I don't know that your information is better or worse. I think where some folks  gave you grief was in perceiving your comments to be offered as fact. I know you  did not intend that but you are very strong in your opinions. <G> I have  no problem with that as I know you have put a lot of hard work into your research.

You are also correct in that TIGHAR does not have any smoking guns nor does anyone else. I am probably as guilty as you in being a bit too dogmatic in my opinions and as you point out that is probably a disservice to our new readers.

I have no clue why AE could not receive transmissions and nothing I have read has persuaded me one direction or another although I don't see the significance of resolving this issue.

I don't know of any reasonable evidence to redirect our search to any place other than where it is even though I am not 100% convinced Gardner is where they  ended up. Given the totality of the situation on that day it would not surprise  me that AE put the plane down on the first piece of land she came upon. That  could have been any number of reefs charted or uncharted in 1937.

In writing this I am not disagreeing with any specific thing Mike wrote. This is far from my pay grade.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:44:13 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Lockheed L-10E or Kawasaki Ki-56

Bill, that is good info on Japanese aircraft. Did they or anyone else have at that time S3H1 W&P engines in Asia? My understanding is only The 10E used those engines during the 30s and early 40s.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:44:45 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Personal story to relate

Scott, I think we have wrung the last drop out of the wreck picture. Actually there was more than one picture and it was clear they were not of the same island. The vegetation in the wreck photo was not consistent with any place AE could reach that we know of. The plane in the picture never quite passed muster.  I would not say it was 100% eliminated but close.

Alan, #2329
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:45:58 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshalls or bust

Ron Bright wrote:

> The  documents are now held in 6 boxes at a air museum.

Ron, what museum?

I ran the fuel from Lae to 8:43 L and arrived at 139 gallons and I think most guesses were 150 gallons.

David Billings has different figures giving a far better reserve. I have an easier time buying MORE fuel than LESS. I have not seen anything other than opinion that would cause the Electra to have less fuel than we have estimated.  If you know of any such evidence, Ron, please let me know as I have clearly missed it. I am going on the Electra fuel performance charts and Kelly Johnson's  flight test data and my own Air Force expertise in planning and managing fuel  usage.

Alan, #2329
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:46:45 
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Radio intercept logs

For Al Grobmeier

Interesting post - Suggest for better mental health do not enter that rabbit hole - In that rabbit hole lives a many headed snake - If you are truly interested in resolving the loss of NR16020 and it's crew, intercept information may tend to confuse rather than enlighten the issue.

I suspect if the Tighar Post Loss Message project is placed before this forum you should see some of the intercepted traffic prior to July 7, 1937 pertinent to the loss of NR16020.

Respectfully:

Tom Strang # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:51:28 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Plane on ship

Bob Bennett wrote:

> ... Getting a
> plane off a reef or beach would be no more difficult than having a tank
> retriever get a military tank out of a bog or ditch, etc.

It doesn't sound as though you have first-hand experience with reefs, airplanes, or ships.

I know what it's like to get tractors stuck and unstuck from mud.

Working from water near a reef is a whole different kettle of fish.

> ... They most
> certainly would want the plane to examine and or keep because it
> belonged to such a famous person.

What you mean by "most certainly would" is "I speculate without evidence that they would."  The vividness and intensity of your imaginary view may be precious to you, but it won't stand up in court.

In my imagination, I speculate without evidence that the Japanese in July of 1937 would have returned AE and FN to the U.S. in style.  At that time, there was still a chance to salvage their relationship with the U.S.

Others have already noted (many times) that the Japanese had purchased as many Lockheed planes as they wanted and made improved copies of them for their own purposes.  They didn't need another damaged Lockheed to study.

> Would you not do the same?

Nope.

> From Pat Thrasher, Grammar Queen and TIGHAR Fac Totum:

> Does anyone want to deal with this?

Yes.  There are always newcomers.  The Forum is one-room classroom. There are rocket scientists and other extraordinary professionals at one end of the spectrum; at the other are new students who have only just begun to study the curriculum. Some repetition of the basic facts and rules of argument and evidence is necessary for the sake of the new recruits.

> ... or should I just stop posting this
> stuff?

I think you should let new posters have enough rope to hang themselves.    If they prove capable of dialogue, great.  If they act anti-socially, then they deserve quarantine or exile.

LTM & the aspiring author.
Marty #2359
********************************************************************

OK, Marty, you win. But my patience is getting with those who repeatedly refuse to review the information which is publicly and readily available on our website and to which they have been referred, by link.

> I know what it's like to get tractors stuck and unstuck from mud.
>
> Working from water near a reef is a whole different kettle of fish.

Uh, yeah. Kettles of sharks, too.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:53:13 
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Marshalls or bust

Ron Bright wrote:

>  Mantz, who personally did most
> of the fuel calculations for AE,  disagrees with the Tighar theory; he
> believed she ran out of gas and ditched into the ocean not far from
> Howland. [ Don Dwiggins, "Hollywood Pilot", p.112]
> Unfortunately we researchers have yet to review  Mantz' original
> documents and notes concerning the specific performance of AE's
> Electra.
> The documents are now held in 6 boxes at a air museum.

Can you tell me the name of the air museum? I have an ongoing, serious interest in the Electra's capabilities especially, the all important issue of the fuel consumption and would be happy to obtain and review Paul Mantz's notes if they are available. In light of his conclusion(ditching near Howland),perhaps Mantz was more conservative in estimating fuel consumption than was K.Johnson or P&W.If this is so,one wonders what basis he used to calculate the fuel data?

When investigatng fuel consumption or other performance  parameters,one of the tools I have developed  is a detailed engineering simulation of the model 10E.It is based partly on available Lockheed and P&W specifications and documents.As in the real world,the brake specific fuel consumption (bsfc) is computed as a primary measure of engine fuel efficiency.It is a function of engine power level (or torque) and RPM,The model may then be used to compare the fuel consumption results predicted by different sources.

The bottom line is,of course,to predict total gallons consumed (or range) for a given flight scenario (Hono,Lae-Howland).The model is helpful in automating these somewhat complex calculations.

Harvey,no.2387
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:55:47 
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Recent radio threads

Mike Everette wrote:

> A radio technician named Joe Gurr offered to "modify" AE's dorsal Vee
> antenna to add a little extra length, maintaining that this would allow
> it to function on 500 KHz as well.  The explanation of what happened is
> a bit complex for nontechnical readers, but the net result was, it
> didn't work well at all.  The antenna was too inefficient as a radiator
> of radio energy at 500 KHz to be worth anything; and adding the small
> amount of extra length appears to have seriously disturbed the tuning
> of the antenna such that it didn't radiate very well on the high
> frequency channels, especially 6210 KHz.
>
> This mistuning may have resulted in the transmitter producing numerous
> "harmonics" (multiples) of the desired frequency; and these harmonics
> may be the signals that seem to have been widely heard Stateside after
> her disappearance.  The problem seems to have been that the searchers
> did not pay attention to the possibility that the radio on her aircraft
> might be producing signals on harmonic frequencies.

Mike, someone needs to step forward and reckon the actual possibility of a harmonic being radiated from a *specific length*  and its *matching* on 3105 and 6210. ( If i could put those numbers in caps, I would.) You yourself are aware that a low impedance load setup for one frequency will not radiate harmonics if the antenna is of a grossly different impedance at the harmonic. I don't care to wade into this particular controversy again right now, but suffice it to say, the mathematics of the "harmonic power and probability" theory, as far as I can tell, has *never* been vetted by peers,  by any other radio communicatons or propagation engineer. If i'm wrong, please correct me.

> Why could AE not "get a null" on her DF loop?
>
> The DF system she seems to have been using (some forumites disagree on
> just what type of equipment it was) was designed to function in the
> frequency range of 150-1600 KHz which includes the standard broadcast
> band, the 500 KHz emergency frequency just below that band, and the
> "beacon" or "radio range" frequencies below that.

Mike, are you certain that 150 kHz was the low end of ANY loop antenna this aircraft may have carried? I ask because that is well below what is considered "standard beacon band". Also, i'd say that if you  maintain this frequency coverage for the aircraft's direction finder adapter, it's incumbent on you to explain that photo of her with the Bendix rep and the 5-band direction finder adaptor. Or, was this  photo simply a "photo op", or like any advertisement promo by a basketball star?

> She appears to have
> been trying to use her DF loop on a much higher frequency, 7500 KHz,
> for which it was not designed and may not have been capable of finding
> a null.

Mike, if the loop was a standard frequency tuning loop, as you maintain in the excerpt above, how did it pick up *any* signal at 7500 ???  Not a *theoretically possible*  answer, please, but a real life answer. And i mean a usable signal, like from miles away. I'm not allowing any wiggle room here.  As we covered in some years ago now, the d/f adapter in this particular photo is identical to the Navy's model "DU" ("Direction finding equipment model U"), except the one in the photo was for remote, separate loop. This device tuned up to 8000 kHz.  If you think it unlikely that the one in this photo was on this plane, then you are correct that she could not hope to d/f on Itasca 7500 kHz. However, IF also you subscribe to the "antenna lost at Lae" theory, and i am right about  "no 7500 reception on an LF/MF loop",  then you must explain how her supposed low frequency loop allowed her to hear 7500 at all - let alone try to detect a null.

I am still very puzzled over AE's inability to "null" the signals from Lae and from the Itasca. I can tell you, however, i am completely unconvinced by her Lae explanation that "maybe the Lae transmitter's signal was just too strong" ( to  paraphrase ). The Lae transmitter I strongly suspect was in the power range of 50 - 150 watts, in this range; i suspect this based on perusal of Berne ITU station lists and other texts from those years, without elaborating at this time, but I do not believe an out of the way overseas station would have substantially more power, especially considering the state of the art in those days.  I do not believe it would have been necessary to fly much more than a couple miles or so, to be able to recover a usable station-null on the transmitted signal.  If you're talking about a 10 - 50 kw broadcast station in the USA, yes, but not a low powered airdrome station. That's my considered opinion, anyway. The only answer i can come up with, in brief, i just lack of skill, *or* sky-wave signals confounding the direct signal around the radio-turbulent times of sunset and sunrise. ( But, i'm not up enuff on the timeline to know if both tries fit into what you could loosely call "sunrise" and "sunset" ) On the other hand, the two undoubtedly had experience with d/f -ing beacon stations, low frequency or broadcast band, back in the USA; or at least one of them did; so how could this skill simply flee them now????  VERY puzzling still.

-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:56:39 
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      More Loopy-ness

After launching my last post, i almost immediately, as usual, realized i should not be posting anything late at night, as i recalled a couple of examples of military loop antennas, untuned models, simple d/f adapting loop antennas, as i'm sure Mike E. intended, which were put to use beyond their normally- considered, upper frequency limits. AE's aircraft certainly could have been fitted with such a loop, even an non-rotatable one maybe.  The advantage to such a loop is "no tuning", no hands-on, so it's much simpler than the one in the Bendix photo, which requires very careful knob setting.  However, even with the simpler style, there's no reason to suppose it was unable of delivering a null-signal  point or angle, since the design would have to be balanced, to offer this feature at all.

At shortwave frequencies, the null can be very slight and move around, even, from second to second. This can be very frustrating. If i have to guess at what caused the problem, i'd have to guess a combination of the indistinct-null  problem, unstable radio propagation due to time of day, and operator inexperience, and not equipment design or operational failure.

I don't think Long's "d/f theory" holds water at all. Number one, if the loop-adaptor he supposes was onboard is mistuned, no signal at all, not just no null. Number two,  they had it correctly tuned in at Lae, and while Itasca was on a different channel, the flyers were surely intelligent enuff to note the bandswitch position and the general positon of the tuning knob. Long, if i recall, thinks they, approaching Itasca, could not find the correct tuner settings for the loop adapter box ( the one in the Bendix photo.)

-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:58:56 
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: missing antenna

Ted,

How deeply do you want me to go into the operation of DF/ADF systems??? Do you want a  relatively simple explanation, or the whole 9 yards about the different field polarities, etc, and how the loop and sense antennas interact?

Also, I wasn't referring to AE recieving her Commercial Telegraph from reading charts.  I was (tongue in cheek, BTW) simply mentioning that all of today;s and the same with vintage, charts have the morse ids for both NDB/s (non-directional beacons) and radio range stations (the precursor of today's VOR, where a 4 antenna array transmitted Morse A's (.-) on two antennas and the other two transmitted Morse N's (-.)  Ok, since the dash length and the dot length were the same length, one would up with 4 points where the A's and N's perfectly interacted with eachother, producting a single tone.  This was known as the "beam" and one simply followed the steady tone to the tower, and since there were no emissions directly above the tower, one had what was called the "cone of silence" which would indicate when the aircraft was passing directly over the tower.  The A's and N's were also interrupted periodically with a morse ID so the pilots could know to which radio range they were tuned, backing up the frequency readout on the reciever.    Later, of cource, with the advent of the VOR (VHF OmniRange) which I will be happy to describe if you wish, the same id was used, the same "cone of silence" still existed, except in this case, the needle on the indicator and the to/from flag would show erratic behavior (the to/from would either show "off" or switch from to to from, etc, and the needle would begin to oscillate, then steady on the new course, which, if no settings were changed would be180 degrees from the former indication.  This, of course, did not exist in the '30s/

OK, almost all the anecdotal evidence (Chief Bellarts, most of the books (scholarly or "national enquirer" type) pretty much agree that AE couldn't read morse at over 1-2 WPM if that.  Somehow, she managed to obtain a Comml T3 license, which I feel was more for possibly her notoriety or Geo Putnam's intercession than her actual knowlege of morse and radio communicaions procedures..  It seems to be a pretty much given, that both in the accounts written of the flight, and discussions on the forum that basically, she was pretty hopeless with Morse.

OK, lets talk about using DF (manual) or ADF (automatic) on High Frequencies.  Even today, if one gets into an aircraft, flips on the ADF, one will see the frequency range to be somewhere between 100Khz and 1600Khz which were the frequencies for the old range stations and NDB's.

At the time of the flight, Bendix (among others) were working on a functional DF/ADF which would work on HF transmissions, and a rudimentary set was established on Howland Island, but the results were inconclusive due to unfamiliarity of the operator with the loop (he twisted the leads off by rotating the antenna 360 degrees (they weren't using slip rings then), and the problem of batteries being kept charged (the A, batteries, the B, or HV batts would not have been able to be recharged with a standard generator, as most B batts were one shot alkaline types, just like flashlight batteries today, albeit with a lot more cells, but still couldn''t be recharged....

Now on to 500 KHz.  Up to recently, 500 was the International Calling and Distress frequency. At no time in my career did I ever operate anything but CW or MCW on said freq.   MCW was used mainly in emergency transmitters, as it was capable of being recieved without a BFO (Beat Frequency Oscillator), or as called in the Rcvr aboard AE;s a/c the "CW oscillator:... Since CW is not modulated in any way, one must have another oscillator, close to the IF freq, which will beat against the carrier and produce a audible note.  A CW signal, without a BFO simply sounds like a series of  "thuds: in one's headphones or speaker, for all that happens is the speaker cone (or headset plate) is pulled in when the carrier is present, and released when the carrier is not present. A;though with practice, one can read these "thuds", if one is so inclined to learn to differentiate times between thuds, somewhat like landline telegraphy, it is neither useful nor recommended, as the use of a BFO creates the tones of which we who know the code regard as easy as transcribing speech.

Now, there is a whole bunch of different opinions about 500Khz (Kc in that time period), The Electra, as many aircraft thereafter, especially during WWII, was originally equipped with a trailing wire antenna, which was held taut by a lead "fish" attached to the bottom of the trailing wire.  One tuned the antenna by cranking it out our in a certain number of turns depending on the frequency desired.  Now, the antenna had to be cranked in and out from the rear of the cabin, very inconvenient for the pilot, and was also hooked up to a extremely Kludged together load coil during the Gurr Modification.  This coil, which, by all accounts was very large and unweildy, was tuned by adjusting a clamp tap on the coil, and since the transmitter in use had no operator adjustable controls, loading such an antenna in the air would be virtually impossible (all the adjustment points and meter connections were simply jacks to which an external meter was plugged in, and , since anyone who has ever tuened any transmitter knows all too well, when one makes one adjustment, all the other adjustmets are affected, and one has to go back and forth until one gets maiximum output.

The other problem that exists is that in those days, transmitter effectivenemss was often found by tuning for maximum amps in the antenna, commonly referred to as "tuning for max smoke --hi--), well, depending on who does the tuning, and how carefully one does same, if one uses a frequency menter such as a BC-221 which would allow the person doing the tuning to make darn sure that they were on the right freq, it is very possible that the transmitter was off tuned, especially on the upper harmonic of the 3105 signal, or 6210.   Since the Morse key had been removed in the weight reduction program prior to the flight, it is doubtful that AE ever attempted to use 500 even for recieve, and the "switchology" necessary to go from transmit, usig a key, to recieve, was complicated and confusing, there could have been many, many opportunites to make mistakes, even with the key removed, simply to listen to 500 Khz (called 600 meters in the logs, but the same thing anyway). I also have absolutely no idea if the DF loop could be used with the standard reciever, or if there were a separate DF reciever aboard, as the documentation is spotty...

I hope this helps some, if you want a complete explanation, to save a long boring screed on this list, I will reply off list, and go over the whole radio navigation history, from beacons and range stations thru loran and VOR/TACAN, to inertial, and on to GPS..

74 de Greg "GW" Moore

Ted Campbell wrote:

> For Greg Moore,
>
> Greg, your posting is the closest to a laymen's explanation of what the
> belly (ventral) antenna could have/may have been used for - thank you.
>  However, for us non-radio types could you expand on the following -
> basis the paragraphs in your post:
>
> Paragraphs #2 and #3
> Was ADF a radio receiver that was in common use in the 1937 time
> period? You indicated that we may never know if AE had an ADF on board
> or not because of the different stories - without necessarily siting
> chapter and verse what "stories" are you referring to?
>
> You talk about how AE may have gotten her Radiotelegraph license by
> being able to simply compare the Morse code signals received to that
> noted  on the charts.  Did charts of the day i.e. 1937 have Morse code
> noting as  they do today?  If they did, would that indicate that
> ADF/NDB was in wide  use at the time?  If ADF/NDB was common in those
> days wouldn't it be  expected that aircraft of the day would carry an
> ADF to receive the  signal?
>
> Paragraph #6
> I am not sure what is being said here; first you start by talking
> about the ventral antenna possibly being used by an ADF then you switch
> to why  the DF loop wasn't giving a valid null.  Would you please
> review this  section and expand on your explanation.
>
> Also, what is meant by MF/LF capability?  Remember, I am  non-radio!
>
> Paragraph #7
> Are you saying that it was uncommon for anyone to use voice on the
> frequency that would have been picked up by the DF loop antenna and
> therefor  would have been of little use to AE in a post landing
> situation e.g. hearing  that people were looking for her, getting some
> idea of where to look for  rescuers, AE trying to broadcast her
> location via the loop because no one would  be expecting a voice in the
> 500 range, etc.?
>
> Paragraph #8
> You said that there is no evidence that AE tuned to that frequency
> (500). What frequency would the Itasca have use to broadcast the A's
> that  AE reported hearing?  What equipment on the aircraft would AE
> have  used to pick up the A's signals?
>
> Finally, I really thank you for trying to shed more light on this
> radio/antenna discussion and look forward to your response to my
> questions.
>
> Ted Campbell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:26:28 
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Odds and ends

Two things:

1) I thought the Ki-54 was a Tachikawa Ki-54, not a Kawasaki Ki-54. Can someone tell me, am I missing something? (FWIW, I believe the Wreck Photo is, in fact, a picture of a Ki-54.)

2) If Mantz's documents are now being held in 6 boxes at an air museum, I, too, would like to know what museum. Ron (Bright), can you help us out?

LTM, who, like me, doesn't think too clearly until she's had a cup of coffee,

Alfred Hendrickson, PE
TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:31:27 
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Native Magistrate Koata

What was Koata's full name?  What does "Koata of Inotoa" refer to, what is or where is Inotoa?

I am trying to find a link to the file found at Kiribati National Archives, Tarawa (the bones file believed to be Gallagher's personal files) under the "List KNI 11/I File 13/9/1."  Would Koata have turned over Gallagher's  files (and other things) to the authorities shortly after Gallagher's death  using initials KNI?

Remember Gallagher made a commitment to report any findings of any additional material that may be found when the settlement group began to clear  and dig in the area where the bones where found.  I would expect that after Gallagher's death work went on and Koata's role may have become more significant relative to the work being carried on.

Koata, I expect, would have been very much aware of Gallagher's original hypothesis that all the stuff found was somehow linked to AE. After all he  had the Benedictine bottle with him when he went for medical treatment (although for the life of me I can't understand why someone who was sick and going for treatment would have carried along an empty Benedictine bottle).

Ted Campbell
****************************************

Buakee was Koata's given name. Onotoa is an island in the Gilberts, Koata's home island. Any map of the Gilberts will show you its location.

Koata left Nikumaroro at about the same time Gallagher arrived. He was not directly involved with the finding of the bones and so on.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:33:50 
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Marshalls or bust

Has anyone calculated fuel consumption of AE's aircraft on other legs of  the trip i.e. taken fuel receipts showing gallons delivered and compared it to time enroute?  This may give us an estimate of how AE managed her fuel in  the "normal course of business."

Ted Campbell
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:34:26 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Marshalls or bust

Harvey Shor wrote :

> Can you tell me the name of the air museum? I have an ongoing,serious
> interest in the Electra's capabilities especially,the all important
> issue of the fuel consumption and would be happy to obtain and review
> Paul Mantz's notes if they are available.In light of his
> conclusion(ditching near Howland),perhaps Mantz was more conservative
> in estimating fuel consumption than was K.Johnson or P&W.If this is
> so,one wonders what basis he used to calculate the fuel data?

Well, what about the Movieland of the Air Museum at Orange County airport (now John Wayne Airport ) ? I visited it some years ago. It was the place where Paul Mantz kept the airplanes he used for Hollywood productions and at the time were still available for the making of any new film. The collection was quite impressive. If there is any place where one should begin looking for documents having belonged to Paul Mantz, I bet it's there.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:34:46 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re; Odds and ends

As I explained in a previous posting Kawasaki began producing a limited number of Lockheed Super Electra's, brought to Japanese army standard as Ki-56, then handed over production to Tachikawa who later built most of the aircraft during WW II.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:36:13 
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Plane on ship

I agree, Marty.

I propose a simple test that can be applied by Pat or Ric as an aid to deciding whether to open a thread.   It could be called something like an "empirical feasibility" test, or perhaps a more scientific <G> term such "has anyone ever done that" might be more appropriate.

There are lots of examples of how to retrieve tanks and other vehicles from ditches and the like, so there's no mystery about how it's done. But when the idea of getting an aircraft off a reef and onto a ship is proposed, it seems fair to ask whether such an evolution has ever been attemped, by whom, with what equipment, under what circumstances, and what the results were.   If it turns out that there aren't any examples, then a detailed plausible description of how the operation could have been carried out with equipment and methods available at the time might be sufficient grounds for further discussion.

LTM, who held fast to the maxim that ships are ships and reefs are reefs, and never the twain shall meet.
Bob
#2286

Marty Moleski wrote:

> I think you should let new posters have enough rope to hang themselves.
> If they prove capable of dialogue, great.  If they act anti-socially,
> then they deserve quarantine or exile.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:37:02 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Native magistrate Koata

For Ted Campbell

Interesting idea about Koata, but I doubt if it will pan out.  Besides what Pat said...

(1) we're pretty sure Gallagher's end of the wireless traffic ended up in the Tarawa archives only after World War II.  Whatever was there before  that time almost certainly either wound up in the WHPC archives or was lost  during the invasions of Tarawa.

(2) In the late 1950s, Koata was a major source of information on I Kiribati social organization for the well-known University of Pennsylvania  cultural anthropologist Ward Goodenough, who did a short paper on the subject  based largely on Koata's information.  Ward was later my wife's  dissertation advisor, and we've corresponded about Koata.  He says that  while Koata remembered his time on Nikumaroro with great fondness, he never said  anything about bones.

LTM (who wishes it were otherwise)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:08:48 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Plane on ship

I wrote:

> I think you should let new posters have enough rope to hang themselves.
> If they prove capable of dialogue, great.  If they act anti-socially,
> then they deserve quarantine or exile.

Pat Thrasher responded:

> OK, Marty, you win. But my patience is getting thin with those who
> repeatedly refuse to review the information which is publicly and
> readily available on our website and to which they have been referred,
> by link.

Fair enough.  You've got the right to call 'em as you see 'em.  There are no professional sports that function without referees.  If you want to hammer somebody for not listening to the answers that have been given in the Forum, you have my blessing.  That kind of behavior certainly is "anti-social."  ;o)

LTM & the boys.

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

So listen up, guys. You are hereby referred to

http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/Forumfaq.html
http://www.tighar.org/forum/ArchivedHighlights.html
http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forum_Archives/archiveindex.html

In computer-speak this is known as RTFM. All of the archives are searchable via Google; restrict your search to www.tighar.org and you'll get tight results.

Our purpose in this forum is to move the Project forward, at however glacial a pace. Constant reiterations of the shortcomings of already-disposed-of theories and books just wastes bandwidth.

Thanks for your cooperation.

LTM, who dislikes repeating herself more than forty or fifty times
Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:34:35 
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Marshalls or bust

I don't have the specifications for fuel usage right here but can look at them but:

Imagine being on this last flight knowing the plane's endurance by testing and as fuel runs low they probably will continue to lower the rpms and lean the mixture out until the engines are barely running;  after all by than who really cares if they damage anything in the effort to get the most time in the air,  perhaps even shutting one down to  increase their time aloft, what I would have done if been there.

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

A Google search on the words "fuel consumption" on the TIGHAR website
returns 63 results including

www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/
Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html
www.tighar.org/Projects/ Earhart/Documents/Kelly_Johnson.html
www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/
Bulletins/35_Titanic/titanicbulletin.html

and numerous references to the Forum Highlights and the Forum Archives.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:35:07 
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      New signoff?

Pat, I suggest a new sign-off!

RTFM,

Alfred Hendrickson, PE
TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:02:29 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Upcoming talk

For anyone interested in New Jersey or environs (Never mind, Ms. Bolam), I'll be giving an illustrated talk on TIGHAR's quest for Amelia on December 9th at 7 PM in the Loree 24 Building on the Rutgers University Douglass Campus in New Brunswick.  Public is invited, admission free.  For directions to  the building (72 Lipman Dr, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8525), visit _http://maps.rutgers.edu/building.aspx?id1_

LTM (who assures everyone that it's a great  show)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:06:37 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Personal story to relate

Tom King wrote:

> Scott, if you and your dad can get another angle on the "wreck photo,"
> that could be very useful.  It seems like TIGHAR's wrung everything
> from it  we could wring with the information available to us as of the
> moment, but a different perspective could yield valuable insights.

I'll spend most of the day with him Wednesday. I would be surprised if he as any new angle on it, but it's hard to tell. Presumably, the photo was circulated widely around Lockheed and TIGHAR has already interviewed one or more people who had copies. Based on his post to this list, I presume Peter Boor has already contributed anything he might know about it.

I guess it's possible that Carrington told my dad something more about the origins of the photo that might help. He might be able to remember who (if anyone) else Carrington interviewed. Maybe that would help identify people still at Lockheed ca. 1988 who had been there since 1937. (That's gotta be a short list).

I'm no detective, and I haven't thought up any other lines of inquiry that might be useful. Let me know if you have any ideas. For what it's worth, my dad is 75 and is undergoing chemotherapy. As you might imagine, he isn't always in a very good mood. When he is in a good mood, he likes to talk about his career. This might be fun for him. It's a lot more fun than dwelling on cancer.

One minor point that might be useful for rhetorical purposes, but not much use in finding the plane, is that Lockheed was apparently cooperative with Carrington. Even to the point of giving him access to Skunk Works personnel. This would contradict the conspiracy / spy mission notion. I.e., if the US military was trying to keep the mission a secret, then Lockheed would  certainly be among the conspirators. Lockheed could have refused to talk to Carrington and could have refused him access to its employees. But it didn't.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:53:53 
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: Upcoming talk

Tom ,
Consider me a definite. I am looking forward to hearing the full details of TIGHAR's quest for AE,  and the illlustrations attached thereto.   I promise that I will not ask one single question concerning types of radios aboard,  DF/ADF, propagation, nor launch into a long spiel about the characteristics of the xmtr/rcvr or if there was an actual HF/DF aboard, nor any other radio questions --hi-- I can save that stuff for the forum --hi-- In other words, I will not be QBF2 during the presentation.

Greg "GW" Moore
TIGHAR ##2645, and one of the unofficial "radio dudes"
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:55:18 
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Missing antenna

Greg Moore wrote:

> The ventral antenna could also have been a sense antenna for a
> manual ADF.

Sorry about being picky, but "manual ADF" is kinda an oxymoron, innit?

> Now, IF AE and FN were both mistrustful of "radio" there
> is a possibility that this is why the DF loop wasn't giving a valid
> null (OPNOTE: there is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to suggest
> that the DF equipment had HF capability, and since the trailing wire
> had been removed, along with the Morse keys, etc, she basically had NO
> MF/LF capability, either send or receive.  thus, 3105 kHz would NOT
> have been able to be DF'ed by  AE, and even if it could, without a
> sense antenna, one has 180 degree ambiguity.  I have no idea if she was
> trained to recognize this phenomena, nor took it into account if she
> did encounter it.

We do know:
that the ship had RDF equipment onboard
that they did try to use it on HF
that the RDF equipment, whatever it was, did receive adequately on HF

In addition, i think what we know from the above and from what we do know about her regular communications equipment strongly suggests the Bendix ( i will call it by the Navy name ) DU adapter was on board. But i'll have to draw out the possible cabling myself to convince myself before i try to explain that.

>  The logs
> indicate a great deal of freq changes, weather (WX) being sent on 7105
> kHz, and although the receiver was continuous tuning, unlike the
> rockbound xmtr, well, I don't believe she would have been tuning around
> that much, nor shifting between a configuration able to receive CW to
> one able to receive AM (turning the BFO (CW osc) on and off).

Changing between AM mode and telegraphy on the receiver is simple as flipping a switch. Changing bands/ frequencies would have been more of a hassle and time consuming, as both "BAND" ( or range ) and "TUNING" were driven by flexible cable from the control box to the receiver, as far as i can tell...

As for the sense antenna, here's something that puzzles me: i would think you'd want minimum length wire running inside the aircraft, I mean you'd want the sense antenna to terminate near the RDF equipment, isn't that true?

There were 2 wires you could use for sense: the upper, V-wire, used as the transmit antenna, or the belly antenna. Either one seems not comfortably close to the RDF equipment.

-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:26:16 
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Another thread

Check out the 15th Air Force 'Lady Be Good' B-24 lost in the desert in April 1943. That navigator was very new and made a  mistake with their adf which caused their deaths because of the sensing properties of the equipment. They flew about 600 miles past their base in the dark.

AE/FN's plan was to run up close but not to Howland at night using star sights so they would have a good position to fly to the island in the morning. This is a good plan as they figured that his skills were good enough that the Coast Guard was simply the backup so I'll bet they were surprised that Howland didn't just popup right in front of them.

In my opinion overconfidence evidently rode with them that day, and gee, just think, had they just like the Titanic, had only one thing go right we would have something else to occupy our lives.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:26:46 
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Upcoming talk

For: Tom King

Having seen the video of your presentation I would highly recommend it. For the newbies on the forum I would also recommend "Amelia Earhart's Shoes". It's my favorite book about AE & it presents TIGHAR's case unbiased. It answers most if not all the questions I see asked by those who are new to the forum. The book is also a wonderful resource & reference. I'm anxiously awaiting you next book, Tom.

LTM,

Mike Haddock, #2438
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:06:55 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re; Upcoming talk

For Greg Moore

Thanks, Greg.  I'll look forward to seeing you at Rutgers.  And  don't refrain from asking questions; just recognize that to radio-dude questions  my stock
answer is: "duh." ======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:08:00 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Upcoming talk

For Mike Haddock

Thanks for the plaudits, Mike.  Aw, shucks.

"My" (and Randy's, Kar's, and Kenton's) next book, of course, is the new version of Shoes, and I feel rather bad promoting it with folks who already have the first one, but I'll do so anyway.  Here's how it's different from the first edition:

1. It's paperback, so good for reading on airplanes (unless you're the pilot), etc.
2. I'm promised that the photos have been cleaned up (Here's hoping)
3. Various typos and such have been fixed;
4. The index has been re-checked and reworked (thanks to several dedicated Forum volunteers); and
5. An epilogue chapter has been added that brings the story almost up to date -- basically, through about mid-2004.  Much of this is stuff that's  well known to Forumites, and it's necessarily brief, but it's all strung  together in more or less logical order, and I think it tells the story.

So, I hope it'll be worth the purchase price to Forumites and others; let  me suggest that it'd make a great Christmas present.  And while the way the royalties have to be split with the owner of media rights to the 2001 expedition means that TIGHAR doesn't make much money off sales, it'll make some, and every  little bit helps.  Please think about suggesting it to your local bookstores, air museums, historical organizations, etc. etc. etc.

It should be out within about a month, and if you go to the publisher's website, _www.altamirapress.com_ and  use promotion code BM4KING when placing an order, you'll get a 20%  discount.

LTM
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:23:01 
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: Missing antenna

For Hue Miller

I will address your comments one at a time, they are all valid and correct --hi--

Hue Miller wrote:

> Greg Moore wrote:
>
>> The ventral antenna could also have been a sense antenna for a
>> manual ADF.
>
> Sorry about being picky, but "manual ADF" is kinda an oxymoron, innit?

OK, this is my typo.....I meant to type manual DF but since I was thinking about ADF at the time simply typed ADF.... manual ADF is certainly an oxymoron // GW//

>> Now, IF AE and FN were both mistrustful of "radio" there
>> is a possibility that this is why the DF loop wasn't giving a valid
>> null (OPNOTE: there is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to suggest
>> that the DF equipment had HF capability, and since the trailing wire
>> had been removed, along with the Morse keys, etc, she basically had NO
>> MF/LF capability, either send or receive.  thus, 3105 kHz would NOT
>> have been able to be DF'ed by  AE, and even if it could, without a
>> sense antenna, one has 180 degree ambiguity.  I have no idea if she
>> was
>> trained to recognize this phenomena, nor took it into account if she
>> did encounter it.
>
> We do know:
> that the ship had RDF equipment onboard
> that they did try to use it on HF
> that the RDF equipment, whatever it was, did receive adequately on HF
>
> In addition, i think what we know from the above and from what we do
> know about her regular communications equipment strongly suggests the
> Bendix ( i will call it by the Navy name ) DU adapter was on board. But
> i'll have to draw out the possible cabling myself to convince myself
> before i try to explain that.

YES, I have heard some evidence there was a DU adapter on board.  In addition, I believe I wrote in and earlier post, there is at least one picture extant that shows what appears (the pix is not all that clear) to show a reasonably modern ADF indicator on the top row of the copilot's side of the cockpit, just to the right of the Autopilot control unit.   As a matter of fact, the darn indicator looks TOO modern for the era, as I am more use to seeing the 6"  "Radio Compass" indicator with the needle synchro driven and the compass card controlled manually.   The indicator to which I am referring looks like a Narco, or equivalent unit from the  late 40's on, as I have used many indicators which look identical in many aircraft over the years, and since, while building time, I couldn't afford to rent GOOD aircraft, I had to settle for those with "most of the larger pieces present".  I also traded a lot of avionics work for time.  The indicator in the pix looks like a modern (relatively so) with a manual card and a synchro driven pointer, it is not an RMHI, (there is no indication that it was slaved to a fluxgate as I have heard nothing about the aircraft being equipped with a fluxgate system,  nor a dual ADF, nor a LF/MF on the center pointer and a VHF D on the wide pointer //GW//

>> The logs
>> indicate a great deal of freq changes, weather (WX) being sent on 7105
>> kHz, and although the receiver was continuous tuning, unlike the
>> rockbound xmtr, well, I don't believe she would have been tuning
>> around
>> that much, nor shifting between a configuration able to receive CW to
>> one able to receive AM (turning the BFO (CW osc) on and off).
>
> Changing between AM mode and telegraphy on the receiver is simple as
> flipping a switch. Changing bands/ frequencies would have been more of
> a hassle and time consuming, as both "BAND" ( or range ) and "TUNING"
> were driven by flexible cable from the control box to the receiver, as
> far as i can tell...

Hue, the point I was trying to make is that AE was both leery and rather unknowing about radio in general.  She also seemed to be stubborn as all hell, because she refused, on numerous occasions to make use of the many PanAM facilities, either by having a rock in the xmtr for the PAA freqs, nor accepted help and guidance from several PAA radio ops, which, if I were making the flight, or any long distance flight for that matter, would have their brains picked clean and then some, for I like all the info I can get when I aviate.  I kind of like my landings to equal my takeoffs, and on runways to boot --hi--.  Now, given the fact that she obviously couldnt copy CW, which has been verified on more than one occasion, I think her (Probably a  T3) was simply given to her either because of Putnam's influence, or because she was, after all AE!!!,  My guess is that she simply looked on the charts (when such were available) and compared the printed morse with what she heard in her headphones. Once she got outside of that small circle, I don't think she could copy morse at any speed to speak of, and certainly NOT morse sent by a Merchant, or  Navy or USCG RM, as we all tend to have the "good 'ol banana boat swing" (I certainly do, and wouldnt re-learn my sending for all the money in the world)... It takes practice, a lot of practice, to copy most Merchant, or Navy, or CG sending, or any sending which isn't done by machine, for that matter, for nobody sends machine code (OK, I'm sure we can all come up with the names of some OM's and YL's and XYL's who can send perfect code, but they are not common).  The first time I sat a real live circuit,at NWP, Argentia NFLD as a brand new wet behind the ears RMSA, fresh out of RM 'A" school, and a Ham at that (yup big head and all) , I had the "pleasuire" of running up against the good 'ol USNS Mirfak, with an old salt at the key, and frankly, I'm sure glad someone was backing me up cause I darn near froze, what with the Merchant procedures, the long dash for 0 (ask my old watch supr about the 100,000 pounds of laundry) and various other interesting interpretations. Embarrassed was a supreme understatement, and I heard about that for a L O N G time ( not to mention  HOURS of copying CW  graciously assigned to me).... well, I triumphed over that  debacle,  got my speed key cert,  and  worked the best of them, but  it happened to me, and  if AE didn't know morse at any speed,  I',m pretty darn sure it happened to her...  Yes, the reciever had a remote tuning knob, and a BFO switch (maybe) unless the BFO was removed with the rest of the 500Khz stuff, the key, the load coil, and the trailing wire.  Incidentally, that pix I speak of shows a key on the console, so it was presumably taken prior to the removal of all the CW capability...... OPNOTE: the pix in discussion appeared in the Loomis/Ethell book "Amelia Earhart, the Final Story", //GW//

> As for the sense antenna, here's something that puzzles me: i would
> think you'd want minimum length wire running inside the aircraft, i
> mean you'd want the sense antenna to terminate near the RDF equipment,
> isn't that true?

Yes, it sure is.  In all the ADF's I have installed, I usually have the sense antenna running from the cockpit overhead  back to the top of the vertical stab, with the leadin as short a distance from the input to the ADF sense input, and the coax shield grounded to the airframe right next to the porcelain insulator running thru the overhead.  The loop is usually mounted underneath (OK ventral surface, if you wanna get technical --hi--)  there is, a reason why this configuration is used, and that is since beacons are on the ground, one puts the loop below the fuselage, so that it is not obstructed or masked by any surfaces. Since the sense antenna  is omnidirectional, having it on top of the top makes no difference, as it is receiving the H field, and the loop is receiving the V-field and therefore should be underneath.   I have seen installations opposite to this, and they appeared to work ok, but since I was taught the "correct" way (sense on top, loop on bottom) that's the way I did it, and I haven't had a dissatisfied customer yet (OPNOTE:: YES, I personally test fly every single one of my avionics jobs, or did, before I retired, and will gladly fly any IFR approach to minimums with any work I have done. I always figured that if this was good for Parachute Riggers, it should be the same for Avionics dudes.) One always wants the sense antenna to be terminated as close to the receiver as possible, as the loop also should be (usually the cable for the loop is already made up by the mfgr, and that's the length one gets, and stays with it. The sense is usually left up to the installer, but close is recommended.  //GW??

> There were 2 wires you could use for sense: the upper, V-wire, used as
> the transmit antenna, or the belly antenna. Either one seems not
> comfortably close to the RDF equipment.

Neither one seems really great for RDF, but then, at least the upper V-wire, after the Gurr mod didnt seem to be good for anything, as it  was seemingly cut to be the wrong wavelength for all the frequencies which AE carried rocks for.  I also have heard, nor seen, any switch for changing from the V to the belly antennas, unless it was back in the cabin.  I also have no idea where the DF stuff was located. I know where the loop was, but I have no idea where the rcvr was, because the com rcvr was under the right seat, and the  com xmtr was directly behind the cockpit bulkhead (there also exists a pix of AE sitting on the xmtr).  //GW//

Ok Hue, that's my .02, both as a radio dude and a pilot (now, unfortunately sans medical) but I hope I have clarified myself.... fire away--hi--

de Greg Moore
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:01:53 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: a personal story to relate

For anyone who's interested, reg. the "wreck" photo:

I asked my dad about it today. He thought Carrington was the guy he talked to, and the name sounded familiar to him.

By his recollection, Carrington was confident that the wreck was a 10-E, based on engine details he could see (or thought he could see). When he was showing the picture around Lockheed, Carrington was also talking to people at Pratt & Whitney.

Carrington hoped to talk to Kelly Johnson at a time when Johnson was relatively lucid, but may never have had that opportunity. Carrington was able to talk to a few others at Lockheed who had been there back in 1937. What (if anything) he learned from them, I don't know.

In 1988 Carrington had (reportedly) already written a book about AE and was planning to write another. Evidently, it was his intent to visit the site where "the wreck" photo was taken to search for the wreckage itself. I asked if my dad believed that Carrington knew more about the location than he let on, and his answer was "yes."

According to Carrington, the British sailor who reportedly took the photo wanted to remain unidentified because he later deserted the ship and didn't want to be found.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:02:44 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Odds and ends

Herman De Wulf (#2406) wrote:

> As I explained in a previous posting Kawasaki began producing a limited
> number of Lockheed Super Electra's, brought to Japanese army standard
> as Ki-56, then handed over production to Tachikawa who later built most
> of the aircraft during WW II.

In the earlier post, you said that Japan Airways flew Electras, and that "the type was adopted by the Japanese Air Force."

Did Kawasaki (or anyone else in Japan) ever build Electras under license from Lockheed? Or were all these planes built as "pirated" copies (in present-day software jargon)? Also, did you mean that the  the Japan Airways planes were turned over to the AF for their use? Orjust that the basic design was copied and put into production (as above)?

Thanks,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:03:58 
From:         Robert Bennett
Subject:      Re: Marshalls or bust

To Alan Caldwell

Sir, I am primarily a glider pilot with some single engine experience so, my question peertains to computing the Electra's fuel consumption at the time of AE's last transmission. At one pont she said she thought she had about a half hour fuel left, then flew on for at least another hour. Aparently the Electra was outperforming her expectations and she had more fuel left than she thought. What are the performance characteristics of an empty Electra with approximately 145 gallons left at that time going NW? and/or any other direction computing in winds aloft, etc?

Cordially, Bob at rben@wcoil.com. PS: Isn't it possible to go 500-600 miles?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:11:30 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: a personal story to relate

Scott, I could easily be wrong about the Carrington story, but my recollection of what we did in that regard came to naught. There were aspects of the story that didn't ring true and we could not identify the wreck as an Electra positively let alone a 10E. I had a friend in NZ who rebuilds Electra 10As look at the photos and he was certain it  WAS an Electra but never followed up on the subject and I can no longer locate him. Also the trees in the picture were diseased according to analysts that ruled out our area of interest. An additional photo in the series could not be identified but clearly was not in  the Phoenix group. The information about the seaman who supposedly took the picture was suspect too.

If anyone remembers any of this please correct what I have written.

Alan, #2329
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:13:00 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Marshalls or bust

Bob, first of all it is not believed AE said she had a half hour of fuel left and if you go to the web site you can read the particulars about  that.

As to your fuel performance question I would be glad to work that out if I have time but the answer would be of no use to you. The problem is that at 8:43  L when she made what has always been thought of as her last transmission neither  we nor anyone else knows where the Electra was. Without a starting point no fuel  or distance exercise could have any meaning. The weather data is unknown to a  great extent so all you can ever come up with is probable time in the air but  not range or possible destination.

Granted we could make a circular error guess of her position at 8:43 L but the possible area is so large it would be virtually meaningless.

I understand what your real question is, however. You want to show the plane could fly to the Marshalls. That is virtually impossible. I say "virtually" only because no one can be 100% certain of very much in this  mystery. There can be little doubt the plane was very close to Howland at 7:42 L  because of the radio transmissions. She then had an hour to fly somewhere which  gives us a possible circle around 120 miles or so depending on airspeed. If  at 7:42 she was 100 miles north and then flew another 100 miles further north which is not conceivable,the Electra could have been 200 miles north of  Howland with sufficient fuel to end up dry tanks half way to the Marshalls.  That's a poor scenario to try to support.

I personally think she possibly could have reached the Gilberts but the navigation with the only celestial object behind them makes that a foolish choice.

David Billings, of PNG is working on another theory which, if correct would allow the Electra to fly another 2,000 miles or so. David has a nice web  site up that explains all that much better than I can. David and I butt heads on occasion over our respective ideas but like all of us we can't go to the bank with our ideas. Hopefully we'll solve this and we can all get on with another  search project.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:13:47 
From:         Herman De WUlf
Subject:      Re: Odds and ends

For Scott White

As far as my information goes the first genuine export order for the Lockheed 10A came from Japan. This aircraft (c/n 1017)? was acquired by the Japanese trading firm Okura & Co in March 1935.  In 1938 the Tachikawa Hikoky KK company (Tachikawa Aeroplane Company Ltd) bought 20 Lockheed 14 Super Electra's and production rights for the type, acting as agent  for Nihon Koky KK (Japan Air Transport Co Ltd). This airline later bought a further 10 Lockheed 14 Super Electra's directly from Lockheed. All aircraft were equipped with Wright Cyclone GR-1820 engines rated 900 hp at take-off and 840 hp at 8,000 ft.

When war broke out the type was adopted by the Japanese army and 56 were locally manufactured for the army by Kawasaki. As early as 1938 Kawasaki had begun developing a Japanese version known as the Ki-56 which had two 990 hp Misubishi radial engines. Of these 119 were built. Manufacture was then handed over to Tachikawa who built another 688 over the next three years. The Lockheed/Kawasaki/Tachikawa airplanes served with Dai Nippon Koku and the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force as personnel transports and paratroops transports and were operated over Japan, Korea, the Philippines, China, Manchukuo, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. When operating over the Dutch East Indies they caused confusion as the Lockheed 14 was also used by the Dutch airline KNILM (the colonial subsidiary of KLM). A recognition problem persisted when the Japanese aircraft flew in war theatres  where the Australian air force operated the Lockheed Hudson look-alike.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:25:32 
From:         Anne Springer
Subject:      Newbie Problem

The problem is, there is soooo much stuff to read and research, and some of the questions you've got cannot be answered by pouring through the papers. And sometimes when you need an immediate answer, its best to ask the grumpy, or is it grumbling?, forum. When I started my research last year, I poured over the TIGHAR website but there were things I came up with that weren't covered but apparently had already been discussed on the forum.
   
I see a couple of options here- a second forum for "newbies" and people who like to ask and discuss questions already covered. Or two, come up with a better way of organizing the forum backlogs. I tried to read through them, but there's tons of them! And they are also not up to date, although I know you guys are super busy and its a big project for anyone...

But for the meantime, take it easy on the newcomers! They might just have valuable insight and not everyone is born with knowledge; its acquired from somewhere!

Anne
*************************************************

The Forum archives are in three parts.

For the first four years I  made a good-faith effort to excerpt highlights from the forum on a weekly basis. These are still on our website. Except for the first six or eight highlight pages, the title of each page has a quick list of subjects covered. There are 154 Highlights files. The Highlights can be accessed through this URL:
http://www.tighar.org/forum/ArchivedHighlights.html

When the Highlights had to be abandoned as too time-consuming, I began posting the full forum archives on our website as text files. These are complete through July 2004 -- two months ago. Each month is a separate text file. The files can be downloaded or read on-line. There are 83 .txt files on line; they will open in any word processor. They can be accessed through this URL:
http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forum_Archives/archiveindex.html

The most recent archives are on the L-Soft Listserv computers (August through yesterday). They are raw data files which download as .txt files and can be opened by any word processor. They are kept on a weekly basis; each week starts a new file. They are accessible to any registered member of the Forum. You can access the FAQ with instructions for acquiring these files at this URL:
http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/archives.htm

All of the archives on the TIGHAR website can be searched using Google.

If you go to google.com, and click on "Advanced Search," you will find a place where you can restrict your search to just the TIGHAR website.

I guess that's my answer to "They're not up to date." They are. Not only that, they are reviewed periodically and re-formatted to conform to current HTML standards, so they read correctly in almost any browser.

It is quite out of the question that we would start a second Forum. The one we have is more than sufficient to keep us busy, thanks. If folks want to hash over old stuff, they can do so privately; it's a free country and a mostly-free internet.

Yes, there is a lot of stuff. We (TIGHAR) have been working on the Earhart Project since 1988 -- before we had our first computer, in fact. We make every effort possible to have our work available to the public for review and study. But we just don't have the time to keep covering the same ground month after month; we'd never make any progress at all. We've done the work, it's there for those interested and motivated. We present it in a format which is widely accepted, and it's FREE. All it takes is time. We've spent, at last best estimate, over $2M getting this information (think ship charters, airline tickets, time and time and more time). But to you, it's free.

Knowledge IS acquired from somewhere, but it is acquired through the application of personal effort and study. All we can do is provide the resources; the individuals who are interested must do the rest.

So, yeah, RTFM. It's right there, and we are MORE than happy to entertain questions about the content -- once the content has been read.

Love to mother, who likes for her kids to do their homework,
Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:29:57 
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: a personal story to relate

For Scott White:

My introduction to the whole TIGHAR/AE Project began in the office of a Lockheed Skunk Works employee (and TIGHAR member) named Ray Stratton. He had a large blowup of the wreck photo and told me that folks thereabouts were examining it to see if it could be AE's ship. Ray later was transferred to the Lockheed Corporate office in Tampa FL. If he is still around, he might be able to give details on what, if anything, Lockheed thought of the photo. Good luck - PMB #0856C
*****************************************************
Ray has retired from Lockheed but is still a member of TIGHAR. If legitimate questions arise about the photo we can certainly query him, but as we are quite sure the photo shows a Ki54 I'm not sure what the questions would be...

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:42:22 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Newbie question

Pat says:

> So, yeah, RTFM. It's right there, and we are MORE than happy to
> entertain questions about the content -- once the content has been
> read.

And I'd add that we're happy to entertain questions BEFORE the content has been read, but don't be surprised if we answer by saying "Go read X, Y, or Z and  then we can discuss it."
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:49:11 
From:         Pete Gray
Subject:      Re: Odds and ends

For Herman de Wulf

Thanks for the info!,  I came up with was a site called japan-101.com that states 121 Ki-56 were built, and those with Nakajima Ha-25 engines.  The go2war.nl site says Mitsubishi Ha-26- 1 (Army Type 99.) I notice in the images I've been able to find, the Ki-56 had three-bladed propellers.  Any mention of the Electras originally bought having two blades?

LTM
Pete
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:50:18 
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: A personal story to relate

For Scott White

Scott, compare Tighar Wreck Photo to one of many post 0900 20 March 1937 official photos taken during disassembly of NR16020 prior to removal from Luke Field crash site - Pay particular attention to the engine cowling in both photos - Any solid forward cowling ring in Luke Field crash site photos?

Do give my regards to your Dad, I wish him the best - Our family is doing battle with cancer also as so many other families are - Keep the faith!

Respectfully:

Tom Strang # 255=
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:55:05 
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: Newbie problem

Anne Springer wrote:

> I see a couple of options here- a second forum for "newbies" and
> people who like to ask and discuss questions already covered. Or two,
> come up with a better way of organizing the forum backlogs. I tried to
> read through them, but there's tons of them! And they are also not up
> to date, although I know you guys are super busy and its a big project
> for anyone...
> But for the meantime, take it easy on the newcomers! They might just
> have valuable insight and not everyone is born with knowledge; its
> acquired from somewhere!

Anne:

Your message really cracks me up...   Good Grief!!! You've been researching this for a whole year, and came up with things that had already been discussed on the "tons" of forum backlogs, but you want a private little forum just to answer questions you're too lazy to look up? You poor thing...

The Tighar website has the most information on A/E's disappearance in the world.  Many, many people have done the research, checked out the facts, and organized it all on a very easy to navigate website, and all we have to do is go there and look up anything we want to know. Ric and Pat have devoted their life to Aircraft Recovery and Preservation, and can be very proud of the complete and professional job they've done. Other websites only give a few pages of background and some photos.

I've been doing family geneology for about 20 years, and this is very similar to what I've been dealing with. My family always wants to know the "latest findings", but they're not interested in doing any research themselves.  They want you to do all the work, and cover all the expenses, and then make sure they're kept abreast....  I put up a family website, and now my family can go there, download anything they want, and yet they always come back to me with questions they want me to spend my time and money researching while they sit back and impatiently wait for answers...  I've even been asked to put together a hard copy of all my research, notes, and photos to give each one so they don't have to waste all that ink downloading and printing it from the website.  All free, of course.

The forum usually tries to take it easy on newbies, but what you're asking for is sooooo ludicrous that I can't help but respond.

Jackie #2440

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

From Pat

I will add to my former reply, that in fact "newbies" -- people with fresh outlooks and ideas -- often do contribute valuable insight to our work by asking insightful questions based on the research that has already been done. Then we look at each other and say "Duh. Why didn't WE think of that?"

But to ask such questions, they have to do the background work.

LTM, who says RTFM
Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:37:49 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Odds and ends

For Pete Gray

I find only one Lockheed 10A Electra sold to Japan. That was c/n 1017 remember ? All Electra's had two bladed propellers. The Lockheed 14 Super Electra's were bigger and had Wright Cyclone GR-1820 engines with three bladed propellers. So did the Ki-56 which was a licence-built variant with the more powerful Mitshubishi Ha-25 engine and became the "Army Type 99". The first airplanes were built in two batches. According to Rene J. Francillon (Lockheed Aircraft since 1913) Kawasaki built 55 and Tachikawa 64 between 1940 and 1942. That makes a total production of 119. The Allies assigned these aircraft the code name "Thelma". The civilian Lockheed 14's bought from Lockheed were referred to as "Toby". I find Tachikawa also built a stretched version of the Ki-56 which was not unlike the Lockheed 18 Lodestar. It was referred to by the Allies as the 'Thalia".

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:38:19 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Odds and ends

For Pete Gray

You are right in that the japan-101.com site says 121 were built with Nakajima Ha-25 engines. I don't know where they  get this figure and the Nakajima engines from. This information differs from reliable sources, including Rene J. Francillon in "Lockheed Aircraft since 1913" and Kenneth Munson in "Aircraft of World War II". Both authors mention Mitsubishi Ha 25 radials on the Ki-56 and a total production run of 688 for the Ki-56. Both explain how production of the Ki-56 began by Kawasaki using Mitsubishi engines and was later taken over by Tachikawa. I take it the first batch of 55 built by Tachikawa is included in their total production run of 688 which is mentioned  both by Francillon and Munson.
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:03:37 
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Newbie problem

Okay, at the expense of embarassing myself, what the heck does RTFM mean? I must have been asleep at the wheel when that acronym was explained. You're doing a terrific job in Ric's absence. I always knew you were the real brains behind the forum! LOL!

LTM,

Mike Haddock, #2438
********************************************

Read The F***** Manual. Useful for all sorts of equipment <G>.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:19:01 
From:         Pete Gray
Subject:      Re: Odds and ends

For Herman de Wulf

Thanks Herman!  So, if all Ki-56 had three bladed propellers, then our wreck photo cannot be a Ki-56?  That leaves either a "Toby" early Electra, or possibly a "Thora" Ki-34 (Army) or L1N1 (Navy).  I found the "Thora" to be a military variant of the Nakajima AT-2 airliner, with 351 units built.  All the images of the Thora I could find had two bladed props, but I found no closeups that would give me a clue as to how the engine cowlings were attached.  Engines are listed as Nakajima Kotobuki 41 (aka Ha-1b) on www.warbirdresourcegroup.org.

I came across one listing regarding loss of an AT-2.  Japan Aviation Corporation lost the bird 8 Dec 1938 "Off Kubashima."  I wonder how many records of military losses survived the USAAF strategic bombing campaign.

This wreck sure is a puzzle!

LTM
Pete
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:21:43 
From:         Pat Thrasher
Subject:      Email addresses

A question has come up about posters' email addresses, if folks want to chat off-forum about things.

We used to have the full list of Forum subscribers available to the public (well, to any forum member); but about a year ago there was a lot of trouble with maillists all over with spam and viruses, so we took the list private. I'm sure those of you who've been members for a while remember the trouble and how annoying it all was. Anyway, for that reason we are a little uneasy about making the list public again. If anyone wants to email someone privately, just drop me an email off-Forum and I'll get you connected. The address is tigharpat@mac.com.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:50:24 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: A personal story to relate

Pat Thrasher wrote:

> Ray has retired from Lockheed but is still a member of TIGHAR. If
> legitimate questions arise about the photo we can certainly query him,
> but as we are quite sure the photo shows a Ki54 I'm not sure what the
> questions would be...

Well, after all Pat's recent carping about people asking questions that have already answered, I wasn't going to just ask the straightforward question, like "Huh? That's not what the FAQ says, not what the Tighar Tracks articles say, and not what the Research Bulletin says." Cause I already know Pat's answer: "go RTFM."

Hoo boy. I've spent about the past hour and a half reading the f***ing manual and I'm quitting.

Tighar has three research bulletins, FAQ pages, and/or Tighar tracks articles on-line, dating from about 1998 - 2000 addressing "the wreck photo."  All imply or state explicitly that Lockheed 10-E is a strong  possibility, and make a pretty good case for it based on structural details of the unidentified plane and the candidate planes. One of them explicitly  concludes that "the wreck photo is not a Ki-54" based on visible details of the windshield post, the spar structure in the wing, and the lightening holes in sheet aluminum inside the wing.

Searching the site for "wreck photo" turns up gazillions of forum_archives pages. You can search within these for "wreck photo" or whatever keywords you like with your browser. Oops, no, you can't. Many of them are not formatted to wrap words, so the only way to read them or find anything in them is to copy them into a word processor, and then search them. Sound tedious? Oh, no, not at all. It's fun.

As recently as August 2002, Ric stated that he was fairly confident that the "wreck photo" was either a 10-C or 10-E. In January 2003, the tide had begun to change, based on evidence reg. the interior diameter of the engine cowling. Ric was evidently convinced by then that the plane wasn't AE's, and presumably wasn't a 10-E. I haven't found a post from him stating what he thought it was.

Ric's opinion was evidently based on earlier posts from Angus Murray, but I haven't found a post from Angus stating what's wrong with interpreting "the wreck" as a 10-E, nor have I found anything from Angus stating what he thinks the airplane is. On the other hand, I *do* find comments from Angus stating several reasons to avoid rushing to any judgement about the plane's identity from his calculations.  These may include (working from memory here - I stopped taking notes about 40 minutes ago) (1) the fact that the only image available is a monitor display of a scan of an old photocopy of an older photo, (2) the cowlings might vary by a few inches, one plane to the next, if they were hand-made; that interior diameter wasn't critical to any known performance parameter, (3) the original cowlings on AE's plane may have been damaged in Hawaii and replaced with non-standard ones.

Once people had latched onto this cowling detail, I found no follow-up discussion addressing the problems with the Ki54. What about those lightening holes or the interior wing structure? Do we just ignore the earlier work with them?

If someone other than Pat would like to suggest to me what chapter of TFM has more complete answers, I'd appreciate it. I'm mainly curious about the following:

1. Depending on focal length, photo lenses may tend to stretch or compress parts of the image. Did the analysis take this into account?

2. Likewise, photocopies do not necessarily make correct scale replicas of the originals. Instead, they tend to stretch or compress scale, at least a little, in different parts of the frame. Did the analysis of the cowling diameters take this into account?

3. Jeez, the image we're looking at is really poor and differences of a few inches on the plane are minute at that scale. What would happen to the cowling measurements if the photocopier had been set for just a little darker, or just a little less contrast? Or if it had a smudge on the glass?

4. Cowling diameter be what it may, what happened to the once-definitive conclusion that the plane in the photo is *not* a Ki54? Did the spar and other evidence evaporate?

5. Were Angus's concerns ever conclusively addressed?

I will appreciate help if anybody can offer it. If not, I'll live with it just fine. I already am aware of where I have and have not spent my time and what year WWII started, so you need not reply to help me with those or similar details.

But thanks for all your kind advice Pat. In case you hadn't noticed, TFM doesn't have a table of contents, doesn't have an index, and is full of  contradictory information. The FAQ, Tighar Tracks articles, and research bullitins sections have not been updated in years. Using google to find very specific references misses large numbers of relevant posts and using it for  more general phrases yields huge numbers of hits. In both cases, the results are unsorted, unformatted email spanning weeks at a time. But thanks for the hints on tight search results.

For all my bitching about this, I *like* the web site a lot and I *like* the fact that so much information is posted there. I understand that it's a lot  of work to keep up a site like this, and it's probably done without pay. What steams me is this attitude of refusing help with reasonable questions from interested outsiders, and belittling them on top of it. Decades ago I heard a Jr. High School teacher say that he found himself saying out loud to his students "I've been telling you this over and over again for years! Why can't you get it through your heads?!" That was when he realized it was time to retire.

Pat, I've been charmed by all your snotty and pedantic comments. I don't want you to waste your time helping with these or any future questions I may have. If someone else can help, then maybe they will. If not, there's a delete key within easy reach.

LTM, whom I sometimes ignored, but never insulted.

-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:51:20 
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: The Wreck Photo

I'm running a bit over my self-imposed deadline for finishing a draft of the Post-Loss Radio Study but I'll poke my head out of my hole long enough to try to clear up any confusion about where the whole question of the Wreck Photo stands.

First I want to say that Scott is correct in one respect.  The most current work on that subject is not available on the TIGHAR website because I have not gotten around to writing the necessary Research Bulletin.

Second, I'll say that new information that became known to me a few months ago convinced me that the photo does indeed show a Ki-54.  As Scott correctly notes, I have gone back and forth about this photo for many years.  Some pretty sophisticated forensic imaging of the photo has shown that the ratio of the prop length to the cowling diameter is right for a "big-engined" Electra ( a C or an E) but with nothing in the photo  to use as a scale, any comparison of dimensions is based upon assumptions.  In other words, we can say that IF the prop length is X then the cowling diameter is Y.  As Scott has also correctly noted, the quality of the photo is so poor that conclusions based upon fine detail (such as the construction of the windshield centerpost) rely heavily upon interpretation.  The discrepancy in cowling construction, by contrast, is not  rocket science.  For the airplane in the photo to be Earhart's her Electra would have to have been modified with nonstandard cowlings.  Photos taken in Lae show no evidence of such a modification.

But what finally put the issue to bed for me was a small photo that was included in an article about Japanese air museums that appeared earlier this year in the British magazine Aeroplane Monthly.  It showed the fuselage of an unrestored Ki-54 apparently stashed in back of a hangar someplace.  What caught my eye was a small round hole, evidently an inspection plate, on top of the nose section just to the starboard side of the centerline.  There is an identical hole in the plane in the Wreck Photo and it had often bothered me because there is no such hole in the Lockheed.  The presence of the hole on the Ki-54, in my opinion, clinches it.

I want to thank Pat for handling the forum while I've been (and will continue to be for a while yet) immersed in finishing the Post-Loss Radio Study.  About twice week she'll turn to me at the end of the day with a somewhat wild-eyed look and say "I don't know how you do it!" I also want to thank the many forum regulars who help lighten the load by stepping in to answer newbie questions.

Lastly, let me say that while those who are interested in our work do need to RTFM they also need to realize that the material on the TIGHAR website and in the forum archives is not really a manual.  Rather, it's a chronicle of a 15 year-and-counting investigation.  Some of the information is definitely contradictory because we're constantly learning and what we thought was true ten years, or two years, or ten minutes ago may be disproved at any moment.  That's how the process works.

Now I'm gonna crawl back into my hole and get back to work on the Post-Loss Radio Study.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:45 
From:         Jack Thomas
Subject:      Re: Newbie problem

Jackie Tharp wrote:

> The forum usually tries to take it easy on newbies, but what you're
> asking for is sooooo ludicrous that I can't help but respond.

I feel compelled to respond as well.  I'm an IT manager at a university and I work exclusively with Ph.Ds and graduate students who ask many questions, the answers to which are easily and freely available on the internet.  But, if my response to their questions and issues was to tell them to go look up the answer/solution themselves or to RTFM, I wouldn't have a job very long.

Personally, I prefer to research answers to my own questions from multiple sources (where possible) as opposed to relying on someone else's imperfect recollections, but that's just me.

As for the geneology analogy, consider this: there's an enormous amount of software on the web that individuals have poured their blood, sweat and tears into, and then they turn around and give it away absolutely free. Are the folks that take advantage of its availability lazy because they didn't do the work themselves?

Have you ever had asked someone a question about a problem with your car or computer (or any other device) because they had more knowledge about repairing them than you do?  Why not do the research and figure it out yourself?  Because sometimes it's simpler to just ask, isn't it?

My point (or one of them) is this: if it takes more effort to admonish someone for asking a particular question than it does to answer it, then you're just being arrogant.  And some of the attitudes on this forum are bordering on hubristic.

I apologize for ranting, but if everyone else is speaking their opinion on this matter, I'm adding mine as well.

-Jack Thomas
***********************************************************

From Pat

If, in fact, it takes less time to answer someone's question than to tell them where to find the answers for themselves, I do answer. But this is seldom the situation; just pulling together the URLs to make a "reading list" can take 10 or 15 minutes. When you multiply that by the number of emails this Forum gets a day, you can see that it really adds up.

And you know what? If it were my job, I'd do it. But it's not. It might be argued it's Ric's job, but even that has its limits. I wear a number of hats at TIGHAR, primarily webmaster, business manager, accounts payable, accounts receivable, membership manager, and building supervisor <G>. The hat of Forum manager is difficult for me because I don't have all the facts and history in my head, as Ric does. That's why he puts up so many answers; it IS easy for him, he doesn't have to look the stuff up. Answering people's questions about their computers and software IS your job, that's what you're paid to do; answering Ric's questions about his computer and software is part of my job. But not knowing everything there is to know about the wreck photo.

Your analogy to freeware is actually quite apropos. TIGHAR mounts its research on the Web for free access. We tell people where to find it and how to use it. After that... well, you just have to fool with it enough to get familiar with the patterns and menus. The freeware designers usually provide a short README guide, but they don't come over and sit beside you and walk you through the program.

I will also say that if I have a question about computers, automobile mechanical systems, health, whatever, that I cannot find an answer to, I expect to pay for the time and expertise of those who know more than I. I can just about change a tire or a battery in a car; otherwise, off to the garage it goes and I sigh and reach for the checkbook. I am somewhat better with computers, but when I run out of my pay grade I figure it's worth paying someone to get good information. Could I work hard at learning more? Sure. But my time is also worth something, so it's often cost-effective to produce cash rather than spending weeks sweating bullets over minutiae of programming code.

Our work is free to those who can put some time and energy, and sometimes some skull sweat, into looking up things and following references and threads. I won't claim it's easy; heck, I DESIGNED most of the website, and I can get lost in it too, it's huge. I cannot possibly carve out time to set up a global index/TOC; if there is software that will do it automatically I don't know about it. Google access and the on-site search function is the best we can do as a compromise.

Sorry if this frosts people, but the realities of limited time and resources make it literally impossible to be all things to all comers, however casual or focused their interest in the work.

LTM, who will be very glad indeed when that radio report is done and I can go back to being just a nice quiet little webmeister again

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:39:47 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Newbie problem

Pat Thrasher wrote:

> Read The F***** Manual. Useful for all sorts of equipment <G>.

I pronounce that as "Fact-filled" in this context.  ;o)

LTM.
Marty #2359

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

Well, of course. What did you think I meant? ;-)

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:14:09 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Odds and ends

For Pete Gray

Pete,
"Toby" was the codename given by the Allies to the 30 Lockheed 14 Super Electra's bought from Lockheed. These had Wright Cyclone GR-1820 engines with three bladed propellers.

I don't know about the "Thora". Google can't  find
www.warbirdresourcegroup.org your mention so I couldn't check.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:27:25 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Let me add one more thing to Pat's explanation.  Please remember that the time anybody takes to answer a question is time taken away from doing research. Ric is the only one who's paid (poorly) to do research on the project, along with his many other duties, and there are only so many hours in the day in which he can do it.  Everybody else is a volunteer, with even fewer hours to devote to the project.  Answering people's questions is a Good Thing To Do, and something that needs to be done, but it's not TIGHAR's central purpose, and when it gets in the way of getting the work done, people understandably get a bit grumpy about it.

LTM (who can be VERY grumpy)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:28:02 
From:         Terry Lee Simpson
Subject:      Re: Newbie problem

Dear Forum,Pat,Ric,hope all are well.Pat I just wanted to say I think you are doing a great job in Ric's absence."Pat" must be short for "PATience".I appricate your hard work ,I appricate Tighar! Thank you very much......Terry Lee Simpson(#2396) LTM....Who taught me the power of apprication
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:29:04 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Newbie questions

Pat wrote:

> Read  The F***** Manual. Useful for all sorts of equipment  <G>.

PAT!!!!!!!! <G>

Alan

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

You rang?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:29:45 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Odds and ends

> Thanks  Herman!  So, if all Ki-56 had three bladed propellers, then our
> wreck  photo cannot be a Ki-56?

Herman, I asked this before of someone but didn't get an answer. Other than the 10E, were any S3H1 engines used in the Pacific or Far East?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:30:33 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: A personal story to relate

Scott, your interest in the wreck photo is highly welcomed although I speak only for myself. A lot of work went into investigating the photo whether you are able to sort all that out or not. We don't get paid for our research and so you  are not going to have an easy time getting someone to do it for you. I would  suggest you take on this issue yourself and see what you can come up with. You  may feel you are going over areas that have already been tackled but a fresh  look would be ideal. None of us have the time or the inclination to catch you  up.

Doing new research would be of great value but just asking us is not going to be worth your time.

I say all this not to cut you off at all but I am doing the same thing. I spend a lot of time redoing issues that have not been resolved or at least not resolved to my satisfaction. It is often easy to miss something in a mystery as  complex as this one.

Good luck and keep us advised.

Alan, #2329
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:31:50 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Newbie problems

Jack Thomas wrote:

> My point  (or one of them) is this: if it takes more effort to admonish
> someone for  asking a particular question than it does to answer it,
> then you're just  being arrogant.  And some of the attitudes on this
> forum are bordering  on hubristic.

Jack, that would be true if we were talking about one person asking one question but if you were on the other end of this forum you would see the huge problem this presents. When any of us suggest (strongly) for a person to go read the web site we are talking to everyone not just that particular newbie. That  means a lot of folks are being admonished for a lot of questions so the time it  takes is well worth it.

If, after reviewing the web site there is something confusing we'll try to deal with that but Scott's concerns would take too much time to shake out. He needs  to take on this issue himself.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:57:10 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Newbie Questions

I'm over my little snit now.

Thanks to Jack Thomas and Pat Thrasher for covering two sides of this, and to various other points of view aired here. There was one suggestion to create a second list for newbies (sorry, I can't recall who posted it). I keep picturing a Thanksgiving dinner, with the kids sitting at their own little table. :-) This was shouted down pretty quickly. It may be worth adding a couple of points to what's already been said --

Anyone can create and run a list server. I think Yahoo will let you set one up, and I think it's free. There are probably other sites that will also do it. Bear in mind, however, that a successful list needs to have a critical mass of interesting and talkative people or it will flop. And it needs a moderator, or it will rapidly degenerate into flame wars about unrelated subjects ranging from movie special effects to 70s era jazz fusion to current politics. If the person who suggested List B wants to start it up and run it, it's always an option.

But I think the present list can serve everyone very well. I like to find people who know more about X than I do and try to learn from them. So I ask them stuff. Not everyone who knows more than I do has the time or interest to entertain my questions. It has always been my expectation that those people would either ignore me or politely decline to spend time on me. I have never imagined that my asking a question in a forum like this one somehow creates an obligation for someone else to answer it. I feel fortunate if I can get a helpful reply but if I don't, I figure that either (a) nobody knows, or (b) if someone knows, they don't have time for it. No problem either way.

It may not be evident, but I reviewed a whole lot of the stuff on the Tighar site before I ever subscribed to this list. I had already figured out what kinds of resources were there and how to navigate around. I even had dug around the forum_archives. The admonition to "RTFM" had no meaningful content to me the first time it was posted. It went downhill after that.

Jackie, Pat, if you don't know or if you don't have time, please feel free to ignore me. If someone else can help, maybe they will. If not, nobody got hurt, did they? Jackie, for your relatives, I recommend that you just say  no. Your time is your own and, ultimately, it's the only thing in life that's really yours. The classic response to the questions you describe is "That's a great idea, and I've been looking for someone to research it. Call me on Tuesday and I'll help you get started." You will hear variations on this line at almost any meeting of any volunteer organization.

In this same thread, Tom King wrote:

"And I'd add that we're happy to entertain questions BEFORE the content has been read, but don't be surprised if we answer by saying "Go read X, Y, or Z and  then we can discuss it." "

This is exactly the kind of reply I would hope for. Just a little nudge toward the relevant info.

In case anyone has read all the way to here  . . . thank you for your time.
Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:07:27 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: A personal story to relate

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> Scott, I could easily be wrong about the Carrington story, but my
> recollection of what we did in that regard came to naught. There were
> aspects of the story that didn't ring true and we could not identify
> the wreck as an Electra positively let alone a 10E. I had a friend in
> NZ who rebuilds Electra 10As look at the photos and he was certain it
> WAS an Electra but never followed up on the subject and I can no longer
> locate him. Also the trees in the picture were diseased according to
> analysts that ruled out our area of interest. An additional photo in
> the series could not be identified but clearly was not in  the Phoenix
> group. The information about the seaman who supposedly took the picture
> was suspect too.

Thanks, Alan. Ric's post seems to put a wooden stake through the heart of this whole line of evidence. I think there still are a bunch of unanswered questions, but they no longer relate to AE. Maybe after Tighar figures out the whole AE mystery, it can move on to the Wreck as a separate project :-)

I printed out the 3 tighar web pages on the subject for my dad. I asked him if that was the photo he'd seen back in 1988 or so. The first thing he said was "no, there were hills in the background." Then he motioned toward the foreground and said, "well, this part is the same ..."

I left the pages for him to look over.  I'll follow up with him later, but it seems clear that this has nothing to do with AE. I think what he meant was the he had seen hills in seemingly overexposed area behind the dreary-looking palm trees. I'm sure this would rule out Niku as a possible site for the photo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it also would rule out most every other island within a reasonable radius of Howland. During my muddling around in the forum_archives, I think I ran across something Ric posted about visible topography in the photo being inconsistant with Niku. Even if the plane was an Electra, it's pretty clear that there were a lot of Electras around (thank you Herman for all that info). The palm trees suggest that the photo was taken somewhere in the tropics. But I can find lots of places that look about the same in my neighborhood (southern California). Don't know if the Smithsonian people were able to identify any other plants in the photo, or narrow down the geography any further. It seems to me that the photo could have been taken anywhere in the tropics or lower temperate latitudes. Assuming it is not faked. Which may be an unwarranted assumption. Some elements of the photo seem to rule out the Ki54, others seem to confirm it. Maybe it's from a Hollywood movie set, with a mishmash of various aircraft wreckage (lots of places in and around Hollywood with brush low vegetation in gullies, and palm trees in the background). The photo's origin is worse than dubious, and the image  quality available to everyone except Carrington is very poor. Carrington himself said it came from a guy who won't release his name and didn't know where he was when it was taken.

I've seen better quality photos of hubcaps pass for UFOs.

Thanks much also to Ric for the explanation and to Tom Strang for further info and important words of encouragement.

Best,
-SW
*******************************************

Just off the top of my head -- I think you have to go to Samoa, Fiji, Tahiti, the Marianas, that far to get to mountains in the central Pacific. The Marshalls, Ellice Islands, Gilberts, all of those are coral atolls, which means max elevation in the neighborhood of 20 feet.

Speaking of Hollywood set -- there is an episode of Gilligan's Island in which Gilligan stumbles across an airplane back in the bush.... I wonder....

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:08:17 
From:         Scptt White
Subject:      Re: A personal story to relate

While I was writing:

"The classic response to the questions you describe is 'That's a great idea, and I've been looking for someone to research it. Call me on Tuesday and I'll help you get started.' You will hear variations on this line at almost any meeting of any volunteer organization."

Alan Caldwell was writing:

> Scott, your interest in the wreck photo is highly welcomed although I
> speak only for myself. A lot of work went into investigating the photo
> whether you are able to sort all that out or not. We don't get paid for
> our research and so you  are not going to have an easy time getting
> someone to do it for you. I would  suggest you take on this issue
> yourself and see what you can come up with.
>
> You  may feel you are going over areas that have already been tackled
> but a fresh  look would be ideal. None of us have the time or the
> inclination to catch you  up.

I love it.
Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:11:29 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Odds and ends

For Alan Caldwell

You are right. The airplane on the wreck photo is not a Ki-56. As for Pratt & Whitney Wasp S3H1 engines, I'm not aware of any airplane ever having been operated in the Far East, Australia, New Guinea or the Pacific with these engines. If you find one in the Pacific it will be Amelia Earhart's.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:34:01 
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Wreck photo

I have been following this thread, and all of a sudden realized "Hey, I haven't SEEN the photo". Now, maybe I haven't been following TIGHAR tracks, or missed something in the website, or have been too involved with radio analysis (not stepping on anyone's toes here, my own personal analysis of the logs and propagation condx, the radio equipment, especially the DF/ADF mystery, as well as my own research into the post loss messages-- OPNOTE:    I'm hooked, and once that happens, one simply can't let go --hi--//GW//

Anyhow, If someone would point me in the direction of the photo in question, it would be greatly appreciated.  I would like to see the engines myself, as well as the wreck,

tnx much,
Greg "GW" Moore
TIGHAR 2645
******************************************

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/02_Wreckphoto.html
http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/13_1/wreckphoto.html
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/10_Wreckphoto/
10_Wreckphoto.html

Plenty of photos in all.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:10:25 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: personal story

> Even if  the plane was an Electra, it's
> pretty clear that there were a lot of  Electras around

Ric posted a good run down on all the Electras on the web site.

Alan
***************************************

Ric did no such thing. He did the research, granted, but html might as well be Martian to him.

http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/existingelectras.htm

This is, obviously, NOT a complete listing of every Electra ever built and what happened to it, just the ones still around. A complete list needs to be compiled. Any volunteers?

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:11:28 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Electras in the Pacific

Herman De Wulf wrote:

> You are right. The airplane on  the wreck photo is not a Ki-56. As for
> Pratt & Whitney Wasp S3H1  engines, I'm not aware of any airplane ever
> having been operated in the Far  East, Australia, New Guinea or the
> Pacific with these engines. If you find  one in the Pacific it will be
> Amelia Earhart's.

This will make David happy. <G>

Thanks, Herman.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:28:16 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

On one of the previous threads concerning the wreck photo, I pointed out to Ric that the photos he showed of the KI 54 indicated that the rivet pattern on the nose of the KI 54 did not follow a rectangular pattern. The wreck photo definitely shows rectangular patterns where the skin is blown out. The Electra does have rectangular patterns and thus fits the wreck photo. So, I don't know what forensic evidence he has, but what I see does not fit what Ric is now claiming.

LTM,
Dave Bush

One photo of a KI54 is at the following address, but does not have enough detail to see the rivet pattern.

http://www.pluth.net/captured/capturedfrom/TAIC/TAICSKI54/taicswpa_ki54_hickory.htm
======================================================================= 
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:33:04 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

I spent some time today going over the Research Bulletin and Tighar Tracks articles on "the wreck," trying to reconcile them with posts to this list server.

There are several details of "the wreck" that just won't work for a Lockheed Electra. The main ones seem to be the cowlings (sizes relative to the prop and the forward ring that shouldn't have remained intact) addressed by several people and the round "inspection plate" that Ric mentioned.

On the other hand, one of the Research Bulletin articles goes into some detail about the innards of the wings. There is a photo of AE's Electra,  with AE and Paul Mantz posing in front of the wing during the repairs. This photo shows an end-on view of the internal bracing. There is a separate photo of a lightening hole cut into a vertical sheet of aluminum just behind the leading edge of "skin." Two lightening holes like this are visible in "the wreck" photo. I'm no engineer, and it took me quite a while to figure out how the various parts fit together and how they would look from different orientations. But once I figured it out it made sense.

The same web page has an engineering drawing of the KI-54 wing internal structure, and it is completely different. The only way to make this  drawing fit "the wreck" photo is to presume that big round lightening holes were cut into the main structural braces ("spars") just behind the leading edge of the wing. No such holes are shown in the drawing, but that doesn't mean they weren't present in the actual aircraft. I don't know enough engineering to know whether the plane could function with holes like that cut into the main transverse structural members.

The Research Bulletin rules out the Ki-54, based on this and the windshield post evidence. I'm glad to disregard the windshield post. I don't see any stylized rouned corners in "the wreck." But this wing structure evidence is good. Damned good. Somebody (these things aren't signed or attributed) put a lot of work into it and did an excellent job of researching and presenting the evidence, including illustrations.

I'm not trying to claim the plane is an Electra. That hypothisis started to fall apart when discussion on this list showed that the cowlings weren't right. Ric's post about the "small round hole" is the kind of evidence I love. It's something he noticed a long time ago and it's been nagging at him for years. He's on record in the Forum_archives wondering about this back in 2002 or 2003. It was inconsistant with his best guess about the plane, but it wasn't major. Who knows . . . planes back then had various modifications for various reasons, and nobody kept track of it all. But when the same "small round hole" turns up in the #2 candidate airplane, then everything changes.

What I wonder now is whether the Ki-54 could have had these lightening holes in the major structural beams. Better yet, whether it *did* have them. Or if there was a sheet of aluminum in front of the structural beam not shown in the drawing (see the Research Bulletin). If not, are there other candidates to be considered?

If the Ki-54 was a knock-off of the L-10, could it be that the first design followed Lockheed's pretty closely, but that later designs changed the wing support structures, so that two versions of it existed? This would be a *major* design change, and seems intuitively unlikely to me. But Herman described the manufacturing history of the Ki-56 -- first it was built at Kawasaki, then at Tachikawa. Maybe significant design changes were made when  the manufacturer changed. Likewise, maybe the Ki-54s were made at two different factories from two different designs. Obviously, I'm speculating.

It looks like the Ki-56 is out due to 3-bladed props. I think I've read here that Lockheed 12 and Lockheed 14 also had 3-bladed props. (?)

Pete Gray wrote:

> That leaves either a "Toby" early
> Electra, or possibly a "Thora" Ki-34 (Army) or L1N1 (Navy).  I found
> the "Thora" to be a military variant of the Nakajima AT-2 airliner,
> with 351 units built.  All the images of the Thora I could find had two
> bladed props, but I found no closeups that would give me a clue as to
> how the engine cowlings were attached.  Engines are listed as Nakajima
> Kotobuki 41 (aka Ha-1b) on www.warbirdresourcegroup.org.

Is this Ki-34 a good lead? Anybody know what the wings looked like underneath the skin?

And, finally, it would sure be worth checking to see if the relative propellor length and cowling diameters of the Ki-54 and any other candidates matches up with "the wreck."

As always - I don't expect anybody to go figure this out for me. But if anybody happens to know or has an idea  . . .

LTM, who never liked my Rolling Stones records ("under my skin . . . ") -SW
*****************************************

Well, all this is way outside my paygrade... have at it, guys. I do think this is a valuable discussion; just because a conclusion is drawn doesn't mean it's correct.

Note: all material on our website is written by Ric unless otherwise attributed. He usually finds the photos; I set them up and do any graphics, and do all the layout and design work. So it's all our fault.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:38:56 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Electras, surviving and otherwise

Ric did produce a complete listing of every Lockheed 10 Electra surviving today. A complete listing of all 149 Lockheed Electra's built can be found when studying Lockheed production literature. One  prototype was built and 148 then followed. They were delivered tovarious airlines in the United States and overseas between 4 August 1934 and 18 July 1941 in four commercial and five military versions. More than two thirds of all Electra's were the Pratt & Whitney Wasp Jr. SB powered Model 10A. Of these 101 were delivered to four US carriers, ten overseas airlines, American and foreign private customers and to the Venezuelan Government. US airlines operating the type were Northwest Airlines, Chicago & Southern, Continental Airlines, Delta Airlines, Eastern Airlines, Hanford, National Airways (later Boston-Maine) and Northeast. The last ten model 10A were delivered to LAN-Chile. The 10A were normally fitted with variable-pitch two-blade propellers. Later some aircraft received constant-speed units and Goodrich de-icers were available as options.

Of the Model 10B eighteen were built. They had had the 440 hp Wright R-975-E3 Whirlwind engines. Production began in September 1935, the first example being delivered to Eastern Airlines. Model  10B went to three US airlines, one foreign carrier and one private customer. The  last model 10B was delivered to Ansett Airways in Australia in July1937. The Model 10C was developed mainly to meet a Pan American Airways  requirement which had expressed an interest in a version with the 450hp Pratt & Whitney Wasp SC1 engine of which the airline owned a surplus. In all, eight Model 10C were delivered to Pan American's Alaska division and its subsidiaries Aerovias Centrales and Cubana. By the way, the first 10C was the fourth Electra built. The last went to Aerovias Centrales eight months later.

The Model 10D was a projected military variant which was not built. The Model 10E was powered by the more powerful 600 hp Pratt & Whitney Wasp S3H1. Fifteen were built, mainly for Aerovias Centrales after Pan American's stock of Wasp SC1 was exhausted. The 10E also found a ready market with private owners seeking high-performance aircraft. The most famous one was Amelia Earhart's c/n 1055 which was custom-built and did not have the normal passenger lay out or windows. There were a number of military versions. The first was the XR2O-1, ordered in 1935 and delivered in 1936 (c/n 1052). It was powered by two 450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-985-48 and was based at NAS Anacostia and was used as a staff transport by the Secretary of the Navy. The XR3O-1 was intended to be identical to the XR2-1 (c/n 1053) but as delivered in 1936 with a pair of Wright R-975-E3 engines and a convertible cabin interior arrangement for rapid change from command transport to ambulance. After the war it was sold to a private owner and modified to the Wasp S3H1 powered Model 10E standard. This is the airplane that was eventually ditched in Massachusetts Bay on 27 August 1967 while being operated by Provincetown-Boston Airline.

The XC-35 was a one-off aircraft and was unique in having a pressurized cabin. It was built for the War Department for experimental use. It had two 550 hp turbo-supercharged Pratt & Whitney XR-1340-43 radials. Due to the 10 lb/sq in differential between inside and outside pressure, the large cabin windows of the standard Electra were dispensed with. After an extensive high altitude research programme the aircraft was judged to have made a valuable contribution to aircraft development and was set aside for preservation. It is now part of the National Air and Space Museum collection in Washington. In addition to the XC-35 the Air Corps ordered three Lockheed 10A powered by 450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-985-123s. The became known as military Y1C-36 (c/n 1071, 1073 and 1074) . One was damaged beyond repair. The other two were renamed C-36LO and transferred to the Brazilian air force during the war. Both crashed in the early 1950s after  having been transferred to the Brazilian civilian register.

Early after America's entry into the war 15 commercial Model 10A were impressed into the USAAF as C-36A. They were powered by the 450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-985-13. Surviving aircraft were returned to the civil register in 1944. In similar fashion five Model 10E with 600 hp Pratt & Whitney R1340-49 engines were impressed in the USAAF as C-36B. They  were followed by another seven impressed Model 10B with 440 hp Wright R-975-13 engines. One (c/n 1104) Electra was ordered by the War Department shortly after the three Y1C-36 and was delivered to the National Guard Bureau to be used as a staff transport and became the C-37.

During the late thirties and early forties several US airlines replaced or supplemented their Electra's with larger-capacity airplanes and by 1942 only 16 (sixteen) out of the total US trunk fleet of 322 aircraft were operated  by Delta, Mid-Continent (previously Hanford), National, Northeast (ex Boston-Maine), Northwest and Pan American's Alaska Division. After the war Electra's were operated by a small number of smaller scheduled and non-scheduled airlines. The last commercial  Electra service was being flown by Provincetown-Boston Airlines in the early Seventies.

In the US and abroad Electra's were acquired as executive transports and special-purpose aircraft by private owners. The most famous were c/n 1055 and 1065, both Model 10E. One was the aircraft in which Amelia Earhart disappeared. The other was owned by Harold S. Vanderbilt and was acquired a few months later by financier Ben Smith to be used by H. T ."Dick" Merrill and J. S. Lambie for a special round-trip crossing of the Atlantic with extra tanks installed. Named "Daily Express" it flew in May 1937 from New York to London carrying newsreels of the Hindenburg airship disaster, returning to New York with the first photographs of the coronation of King George VI in London. The airplane was sold three months later to the Soviet trading company Amtorg to be flown by Sir Hubert Wilkins and Herbert Hollick-Kenyon in the Arctic search for the missing Russian flyers Levanesky and Levchenko. After the successful conclusion of the operation this Electra, registered SSSR-N-214, was shipped to the USSR.

By that time the Electra had already attracted considerable international interest and orders had been placed by airlines in Australia, Europe, Japan and Latin America and by the  governments of Argentine and Venezuela. The first genuine export order came from the Japanese Okura & Co for one Model 10A (c/n 1017). Two examples went to Spain (together with the only DC-1 ever built by Douglas) and were used by both sides in the civil war. The first major overseas customer was Polish airline LOT which ordered ten. Other European airlines operating the Model 10A were British Airways (six), LARES of Rumania (seven), Aeroput of Yugoslavia (eight). All operated the Model 10A on scheduled European services. British Airways used the one registered G-AEPR (c/n 1083) to fly Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to Germany on his quest for "peace in our time" when meeting with Adolf Hitler. When war broke out on 1 September 1939, 26 out of the initial 31 European registered Electra's were flying in Europe, including one of the Bata Shoe Company of Czechoslovakia which operated a Model 10A as executive transport. Three British Commonwealth nations also operated Electra's. In Australia the Model 10A was purchased by Guinea Airways ((three) and Mac. Robertson-Miller (two). Ansett acquired three Model 10B. In New Zealand, Union Airways operated five Model 10A from April 1937. In Canada Canadian Airways received its first of two Model 10A in August 1936. Later the two were acquired by Trans Canada  Airlines and were joined by three more. Latin American customers included the Argentine Army and Navy which received one Model 10E in October 1937 and May 1938, the War Department of Venezuela (two model 10A) and three airlines : LAV of Venezuela (six Model 10A), Servicio Aereo Colombiano (two 10E) and LAN-Chile (six 10A). The last of these aircraft (c/n 1148) was delivered to LAN on 18 July 1941 and ended production of the Electra.

When war  broke out British Electra's were impressed in RAF service. So were four Czech machines plus the one of the Bata Shoe Company which had escaped to Britain. The aircraft served in the transport role with the RAF in the Near East and in North Africa. Two British Airways Electra's went to BOAC and were used on African and Middle Eastern routes, together with the former LOT aircraft that had escaped from Poland when war broke out. The Royal Canadian Air Force also operated the type (12 Model 10A and three Model 10B). During the war the Brazilian air force obtained four Model 10A and the Honduras air force also had one Model 10A. After the war used Electra's appeared on the civil registers in a number of Latin American counties, including Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. Today those mentioned in the TIGHAR list are the only examples to survive. I saw the one in the Science Museum in London. I saw the one in which Lynda Finch flew around the world in 1997 when it made a stop at le Bourget (Paris). And I had the time of my life when I had the opportunity of flying a real Lockheed 10A Electra in 2000 when I was invited to the (crammed) cockpit of the Air Canada owned Lockheed 10A Electra, registered CF-TCC, when touring Lake Ontario. I believe to be one of very few TIGHAR members who have actually flown in an Electra.

By the way, the Lockheed 14 Super Electra was not another Electra model. It was a different aircraft with more powerful three bladed propellers. It is perhaps better remembered as the Lockheed Hudson in RAF service during the war. The Lockheed 18 Lodestar (C-60) was even bigger still.

LTM
*****************************************************************

Thanks so much, Herman. May I set this up in the FAQs section of our website? Credit given, of course.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:39:39 
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Greg remember the Japanese have always been great at reproducing someone Else's work. So Comparing construction is not a good idea. The one thing that you can use is the back round in the picture, like buildings, barrels,and assorted junk in the undergrowth.
Ron 2640
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:42:05 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Wreck photo

Looking at the wreck photo again I wonder if the aircraft could in fact be a Lockheed 12 Electra Junior. Chances are much better for finding one wrecked among palm trees on a deserted island than of a Lockheed 10. The Lockheed 12 Electra Junior had the same 450 hp Pratt & Whitney Wasp Jr SB engines. Lockheed built ninety as feeder liners but the idea was not successful and the bulk were eventually sold to private operators as executive transports, in which role they excelled. 440 hp Wright R-975-E3d engines or 450 hp Wasp Jr SB3 powered some. The Lockheed 12 also saw military service during WW II as the C-40 and UC-40D.

But the Lockheed 12s I am thinking of are those used by the Netherlands East Indies Government which was the largest single operator, having 36 out of the total of 130 Electra Jr eventually built by Lockheed. They were used by the KNILM, the Netherlands East Indies Air Force, in the bomber crew-training role. Designated Model 212 they had two 450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-985 AN-4 engines and sported a dorsal gun turret. Sixteen of these were delivered between February 1939 and June 1940. Another 16 were added without gun turrets to be used as transports. Another four Model 12-26 followed them. Al had the same engines. With delivery of the last Netherlands Model 12-26 in May 1942 production of the Lockheed 12 ended. All 36 aircraft had reached Java when the East Indies came under Japanese attack and they were used on maritime patrols. Four Dutch aircraft survived the war. I wonder if the picture we are looking at would not be one of the 36 Dutch machines. It could have been taken on one of the islands of the Netherlands East Indies. Ric?

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:06:00 
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

One of the photos of the KI54 in storage at the Point Cook aviation museum showed the rivet pattern fairly clearly.

Unfortunately, since the RAAF Museum website has been updated, the article on the KI54 in storage is gone, and so are the photos.

I did post the URL on the list years ago, so I imagine Ric filed the pics somewhere for reference.

Th' WOMBAT

> One photo of a KI54 is at the following address, but does not have
> enough
> detail to see the rivet pattern.
> http://www.pluth.net/captured/capturedfrom/TAIC/TAICSKI54/
> taicswpa_ki54_hickory.htm
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:06:21 
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Ok, I found where Ric put the photos I found of the Aussie KI54. There's a good discussion of the pros and cons at:

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/10_Wreckphoto/10_Wreckphoto.html

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:35:38 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Ross Devitt wrote:

> Ok, I found where Ric put the photos I found of the Aussie KI54.

I've put up a page on my own website with some closeups of a 10-A cowl.

<http://moleski.net/tighar/cowl.htm>

I don't know what airplane is pictured in the wreck photo. It seems to me that the cowling around the engine is radically different from what was on AE's 10-E.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:35:51 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

Good work, Scott and Pat is right. This could be a valuable discussion. I think you will find in your meanderings through the research of airplanes they were NOT all exactly alike. Somewhat similar today are the occasional modifications. I don't think I have ever been on the same model 737. Each one  has been different. All changes are supposed to be documented and maybe they  were and maybe we don't find all the changes. We only know what we DO have but  not what we DON'T have. Complicate the matter further by the fact that most airplanes have a lot of similarities. Aeronautical engineers all know what each other is doing and why and so may well "borrow" ideas. The original plans are supposed to be supplemented and maybe that always happened and maybe we haven't found all the modifications. Of course it is also possible nothing slipped through the cracks.

Alan, #2329
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:30:24 
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Herman asks:

> Looking at the wreck photo again I wonder if the aircraft could in
> fact be a Lockheed 12 Electra Junior. ... I wonder if the picture we
> are looking at would not be one of the 36 Dutch machines. It could
> have been taken on one of the islands of the Netherlands East Indies.
> Ric?

Find me an Electra Junior with a little round inspection plate on the top of the nose just like a Ki-54.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:42:42 
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

I wanted to share some thoughts on the wreck photo.  I do not think it is a KI-54 because a KI-54 had access doors and cutouts in the nose section which I do not see in the wreck photo.  But what I do see is a definitive line from the center of the nose section running downwards on both sides of this nose section.  This gives me the impression of a boat hull design, similar to what is found on some of the Sikorsky equipment.  The position of the main spar over the wreckage seems to indicate a high wing structure that was once supported by struts to the main fuselage section.  I think this photo is of a WW2 era, high wing seaplane, whether it be Japanesse or American.  The prop appears to be a high speed Hamilton Standard type propeller as opposed to a cargo type propeller which would be shorter and fatter.  Either the photo is stained or it appears some super imposing has been don
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:12:53 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

I've got a new theory for the origin of the wreck photo (untested and possibly untestable): it may show an Allied Technical Air Intelligence Unit (ATAIU) scavenging a crashed Japanese aircraft.  The job of ATAIU-SEA (South-East Asia) was to rebuild and test wrecked Japanese warplanes during WWII. <http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/usaaf/atiu.htm>

If there are any archives for ATAIU-SEA, it might be possible to leaf through all of their photographs to see if any match the wreck photo. A quick google search doesn't give much hope that such archives exist.

The ATAIU-hypothesis would account for the apparent partial disassembly of the wreck.  It might also explain how the photograph circulated among Western sailors until it reached Carrington.

Of course, the effort to identify the plane in the photo is a red herring with respect to the purposes of the AE Forum.  As TIGHAR figured out years ago, the terrain and vegetation of the photograph doesn't match any of the islands in the Phoenix group and therefore doesn't support the Niku hypothesis.  Any time or effort spent trying to track down ATAIU records would just be for the fun of "historic aircraft" research.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:54:54 
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

One of the reasons that I think the plane in the Wreck Photo (W/P) is a Ki54, and is not an Electra 10, is the skin seam pattern. In the W/P, there are sections of skin missing from the nose. The edges are regular and straight; it looks like the missing pieces were removed along seam lines. The seam lines DO appear to match the Ki54; they do not appear to match an Electra 10. I have two very nice Ki54 photos (jpg's) that show this. They're yours for the asking; my e-mail address is below. The photos also show the access door in the side of the nose that Ric referred to in his post.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
email: alfred@whittenborges.com
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:36:27 
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

I need to do some research  located in approx 40 years of publications in my possession, ie:   Airpower/Wings Air Classics /Air Progress and so forth as soon as have some time,  unless someone on the forum has already done this.

Now I realize that this is not first hand information but there might be photographs available in the stack that can help in the investigation.

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

Yes, the photos can be very useful. Just remember that the captions may or may not have any facts straight, even about the identification of the aircraft shown.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:01:13 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

The nose is on its side, not upright, which would mean that the doors are down and not visible in the photo.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas

Don Iwanski wrote:

> I wanted to share some thoughts on the wreck photo.  I do not think it
> is a KI-54 because a KI-54 had access doors and cutouts in the nose
> section which I do not see in the wreck photo.  But what I do see is a
> definitive line from the center of the nose section running downwards
> on both sides of this nose section.  This gives me the impression of a
> boat hull design, similar to what is found on some of the Sikorsky
> equipment.  The position of the main spar over the wreckage seems to
> indicate a high wing structure that was once supported by struts to the
> main fuselage section.  I think this photo is of a WW2 era, high wing
> seaplane, whether it be Japanesse or American.  The prop appears to be
> a high speed Hamilton Standard type propeller as opposed to a cargo
> type propeller which would be shorter and fatter.  Either the photo is
> stained or it appears some super imposing has been don
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:06:53 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Marty Moleski wrote:

> Of course, the effort to identify the plane in the photo is a red
> herring with respect to the purposes of the AE Forum.  As TIGHAR
> figured out years ago, the terrain and vegetation of the photograph
> doesn't match any of the islands in the Phoenix group and therefore
> doesn't support the Niku hypothesis.  Any time or effort spent trying
> to track down ATAIU records would just be for the fun of "historic
> aircraft" research.

That's what I was thinking a few days ago, too. Especially when my dad told me he had seen hills in the background of the original photo. I presumed that these hills had been washed out by the photocopying, scanning, and whatever other mistreatment the poor image has suffered.

I talked to him again, though, and he said he was mistaken. He'd seen hills in the background of the other photo Carrington had. The one of the sailors on the beach,  not  "the wreck" photo.

Based on the articles from Tighar Tracks and Research Bulletin on the web site and many (but far from all) Forum posts on this subject, I think the terrain and vegetation can be reconciled with Niku Isl., and probably many other Pacific Islands (perhaps including Gilligan's Island :-).

The palm trees in the background appear to be unhealthy, according to Smithsonian botanists. I presume they saw a better image than the web site. To me, the palm trees appear to be overexposed. Anyway, there had been a palm plantation on Niku, but those trees are no longer there. They very likely would have become unhealthy somewhere along the way (drought, etc.). As one of the articles states (from memory), the vegetation doesn't match what is present on Niku today, but may match what was there ca. 1948.

Of course, if the plane was really Earhart's, it doesn't matter if it supports the Niku hypothesis.

Couple of things about the post I just sent a few minutes ago. I actually wrote it a couple of days ago, and just re-read it. There is a typo where I mention Ki-56 - that should read Ki-54. Also, reg. the Ki-54 fuselage that Ric saw in the photo -- were the wings detached from the sides of it? According to material elsewhere on the web site, that construction would rule out the Lockheed design, with the central structural "beam" extending laterally from engine to engine and right through the middle of the fuselage.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:19:57 
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

I did some super imposing last night which I would like to share.  I think I have a good candidate for the wreck photo so I posted this on the internet

http://www.e-southerndata.com/wreck.htm

I think I have a pretty close match, I just havent hit the exact model.

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

If it was anyone but you I'd say you've GOT to be kidding.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:24:10 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Ric wrote:

> Find me an Electra Junior with a little round inspection plate on the
> top of the nose just like a Ki-54.

Ric, can you elaborate a little on the inspection plate? Looking at the photos on line, I think you mean the dark spot on the nose of the plane, immediately above the forward edge of the dark rectangle that's divided into 4 smaller rectangles by underlying structure.

The image on the web page is pretty blurry and I can't say that it isn't a fallen leaf or albatross poop or some other artifact. One of the web pages stated or implied that you guys have done some image enhancement with the picture. If so, is that image available to download from the web site? Or is there a scanned image with finer resolution than the one used to illustrate the articles?

I'm having a tough time reconciling the conclusion that the plane is a Ki-54, based mainly on a little round inspection plate, with the fact that the internal wing structure appears to be all wrong. Why, one fellow right here on this list wrote that the wing design of the two planes is as different as fish & chips from sashimi. Not to be contrary, but it's easier for me to accept that there's a funny black spot on my sashimi than to accept that it suddenly has morphed into fish & chips.

I think that reviving the discarded Ki-54 hypothesis requires more than the inspection plate. I speculated earlier that the Ki-56 could have been built from two different designs at the two factories. Or, maybe there were big round holes cut into the main structural beams in the wings (I'm having a very tough time believing this one). Or, maybe there was a piece of vertical sheet metal with lightening holes in front of the structural beam, but not shown in the wing design drawing.

Another speculation is that maybe the engineering drawing showing the internal wing structure is deliberate falsification. If the Ki-54 was a knockoff of the L-10, then there could have been a patent infringement (unless it was manufactured under license to Lockheed). But if Kawasaki and the other builder (T---- I lost the page I was copying the spelling from) went on record with a completely different design, regardless how the plane was actually built, then maybe they'd have avoided an infringement accusation. This is a real stretch, of course.

The way to answer this is to find a Ki-54 and look at the wing construction. Old posts to this lists mention one in Australia and one in Bejing. Probably, there are a few others around in air museums, but  I sure don't know. And then there's the problem of getting a museum curator to let you take the plane apart. I don't know if the main structural design could be inferred from the rivets visible from the outside, but you couldn't infer lightening holes without seeing inside there.

Ric mentioned seeing a fuselage in a photo in a British aviation magazine. I wonder if they have the wings stacked up somewhere in the warehouse.

By the way, in forum highlights back in 1998 or so, when people metioned Ki-54s in Australia and Bejing, one of these planes reportedly had the hole and the other didn't.

So - does Tighar have established reltationships with air museums or, better yet, with a broad association of air museums? If so, would it be out of line to ask staff at the right museums to look inside their Ki-54 wings?

Best,
-SW
***********************************************************************

From Ric

As far as I know we don't have an established relationship with any museum that has a Ki-54.  Sorry, Scott but I don't have time to mess with this right now.  Chase all the Ki-54s and -56s you want to and if you come up with a supportable theory about the Wreck Photo tell us about it.

Having become convinced that it's not a Lockheed 10 I don't particularly care what it is.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:25:59 
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Scott White

Scott White: Please contact me off-Forum.

Thanks and LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
email: alfred@whittenborges.com
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:26:36 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Every photo I can find of a PBY shows three bladed, not two bladed props.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas


> From Don Iwanski
>
> I did some super imposing last night which I would like to share.  I
> think I have a good candidate for the wreck photo so I posted this on
> the internet
>
> http://www.e-southerndata.com/wreck.htm
>
> I think I have a pretty close match, I just havent hit the exact model.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:19:31 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Scott White wrote:

> Based on the articles from Tighar Tracks and Research Bulletin on
> the web site and many (but far from all) Forum posts on this
> subject, I think the terrain and vegetation can be reconciled
> with Niku Isl., and probably many other Pacific Islands
> (perhaps including Gilligan's Island :-).

The folks who have been to Niku five or six times say that there are no hills as shown in the background of the wreck photo.  You can see the height of the hill behind the wreck by looking at the trunks of the palm trees behind it.

> Of course, if the plane was really Earhart's, it doesn't
> matter if it supports the Niku hypothesis.

TIGHAR is testing the Niku hypothesis by searching Niku.

Folks who think the photo shows AE's plane will have to search somewhere else for the wreckage.

> ... reg. the Ki-54 fuselage that Ric saw in the photo --
> were the wings detached =B1 from the sides of it? ...

I've put Alfred Hendrickson's two photos of a KI-54 fuselage on my web page:
<http://moleski.net/tighar/cowl.htm>

The wings seem to be detached.

LTM.
Marty #2359
**************************************

Definitely no hills on Niku. Highest elevation is in the neighborhood of 20 feet, IIRC. Maybe less. The background in the photo looks more like a volcanic-type island than an atoll.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:20:32 
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

Dave Bush wrote:

> The nose is on its side, not upright, which would mean that the doors
> are down and not visible in the photo.

I think the consensus has been that the nose is upright. You can see the centerpost that used to separate the windows at the back of the remnant.

The most recent theory I've come across is that the wreck is a high-wing seaplane, something like a Grumman Goose.  That would explain how the fuselage ended up under the wing: that's where the builders put it.  If the plane in the photo is AE's Electra, some huge disassembly has to have taken place to get the nose dropped to the ground and to make the rest of the fuselage above and behind the wing disappear.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:48:15 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

For Dave Bush and others

If anything the picture does not show a PBY. The only twin engine seaplanes I can think of that look a bit like the airplane in the wreck photo are Grummans. There are two that come to mind that might fit. Grumman's Model G-21 of 1937 this was an eight seat commercial amphibian. When used by the US Navy it became the JRF-1. Later versions were JRF-2, -3, -4, -5 and -6. In all 275 were built for the US Navy and Coast Guard. They were used as light transports, target tugs, navigation trainers, photographic reconnaissance and for air-sea rescue missions. The USAAF also received 31 and called them OA-9. Later five OA-13 joined them. I think it is very unlikely one would find the type on coral islands in the Pacific, too far away from the US. However, JR-5s and -6s were supplied to the RCAF and especially to the RAF who both called the type Goose. But when looking at the wreck picture again one can exclude the JRF or the Goose because the nose doesn't fit the picture in the wreck photo... That leaves us with the Grumman J4F Widgeon. Derived from Grumman's civilian G-44 in 1940, this four/five seat amphibian was used by the US Coast Guard as the J4F-1. The Navy used the J4F-2 from 1942 on and small numbers were supplied to the USAAF as the OA-14. This type too was supplied to Canada and Britain. The Royal Navy called them Gosling. The interesting thing about the Gosling is that the British used them in the Far East. That's where one would find palm trees and volcanic mountains in the background as in the wreck picture.

However I have TWO problems with the Widgeon/Gosling.

First the picture I have of a US Widgeon shows the aircraft with a pair of 200 hp Ranger L-440C-5 inline engines. That doesn't prove anything for in 1997 I saw two privately-owned beautifully restored Widgeons at the Flying Legends Air Show at Duxford (Britain), both having shiny radial engines, not unlike the Wasps used in the Lockheed 12. However, the engines had three bladed propellers. Again that doesn't prove anything for this summer there was a French-owned Lockheed 12 Electra Junior at Duxford, which was also equipped with untypical three-bladed propellers. Even the legendary German Junkers Ju-52/3m had been re-equipped with three bladed propellers! The reason why, I was told, is that besides giving greater speed, three bladed props are compulsory on Wasps or comparable engines to comply with today's European noise regulations...  At certain airports AT-6s are not allowed to take off under full power to reduce noise at take off! I wonder if there is anyone on the forum who is familiar with the WW II Grumman amphibious types and can explain this change of engine from the inline Franklin to what I believe to be a Pratt & Whitney Wasp. BUT... the main problem I have with the Grummans of either type is that they had a typical cockpit windshield layout which is not shown in the wreck photo. Therefore I hesitate to conclude the airplane in the picture is a Widgeon or, more likely, a Gosling in a palm tree setting with volcanic mountain setting. Ric at one time believed the wreck photo showed a Lockheed 10. Then he changed his mind and now believes it is a Tachikawa Ki-54 Hickory. Could be. But I'm still not 100 % convinced it is not one of the 32 Dutch Lockheed 12s (Lockheed 212 and Lockheed 12-26) the Netherlands air force lost in the Dutch East Indies during the Japanese invasion. This might also explain the palm trees and the volcanic mountain landscape.

LTM (who loves seaplanes)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:53:21 
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

I don't know whether the so called second photo is posted on the web site but some of us have seen it. The photos were NOT taken anywhere we could reasonably put the Electra. I would hate to guess but maybe in the Solomon's or  in that general area. I don't know when the sick palms would have occurred. I'm not convinced what the plane is or isn't but I don't think a lot of time needs to be expended on this unless someone just wants to nail the rabbit trail down.  Nothing wrong with that.

Alan

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

No, the second photo isn't on the website, but Alan is quite right.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:54:48 
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Mantz' fuel calculations

Group,

I mentioned that possibly one of the few remaining jewels left in the Earhart research is digging up Paul Mantz' original fuel calculations of Amelia's Electra.

After all it was Mantz' day in and day out flying with AE during the pre- round the world attempt training that he made his calculations under varing conditons. Whether there are some additional fuel calculations not previously published in his material remains to be seen.

Several researchers have made efforts to contact the Museum Archivist who has the boxes of Dwiggins material which contain the Mantz figures, but apparently the Archivist wasn't too happy with the approaches. It is not too complicated but it would require some planning and about two days of effort. It is sort of a sensitive issue now I guess.

If someone is truly interested in reviewing this material, I suggest they contact me directly, at brightaway@aol.com and follow with a phone call.

Ron Bright

PS I learned of this location from an interview with Paul Mantz son. But perhaps other researchers plan to contact the Museum. I don't want to interfere with this.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:57:26 
From:         Pete Gray
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

So while we wait with baited breath for Ric to get the matrix together, we practise our research skills at identifying the aircraft in the wreck photo and possible locations.

I owe Pat an apology, since the email I sent direct with a Ki-54 with open cowlings was the very same photo on the TIGHAR  site from a 1998 Bulletin (RTFM applies to us all) and the pic is from a Korean AFB. I've seen there are different models of the Ki-54, and other transports built for IJA and IJN, AND with wartime materials shortages understand the possibility of "lightening cuts" in later model aircraft to save material and weight for fuel economy. PAT,  FORGIVE THE ONE WHO HAS ERRED BY NOT RTFM PLEASE!

I suggest an approach by another angle.  Since the trees in the "Wreck Photo" are judged to be diseased, and the photo predates the International Geophysical Year surveys, AND the topography does not match that which Nikumaroro has, I suggest we find any mention of surveys taken before countries had an environmentalist movement to identify which Pacific islands had such problems, with war wreckage available to be in said photo, and include any other surveys that might show our "wreck"  as something causing environmental damage by leaking oil/hyrdraulic fluid/fuel or containing ammunition primed by Picric Acid or some other compound that after this amount of time will be Spontaneously Combustable (spell?).  Dive sites I have found mention the detonation of armaments in the vessels sunk at Truk lagoon and at Kwaj (I'm NOT even going near that water until you prove to me "Mag Check Charlie" is DEAD.)

After scrolling down through all the above, and lurking, the point is to prove a negative.

Pat, I will get my number back as soon as I am able!

Pete, former #2419
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:00:45 
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Ric wrote:

> Chase all the Ki-54s and -56s you want to and if
> you come up with a supportable theory about the Wreck Photo tell us
> about it. . . . Having become convinced that it's not a Lockheed 10 I
> don't
> particularly care what it is.

I don't doubt you're right, based mainly on the cowling problems and supplemented by that funny little inspection plate. But the argument that it's not an L-10 would be a lot stronger if we could say what it really is. I'm still troubled by the strong image of the lightening holes and the general appearance of the wreckage, which shows the whole lateral structure from one engine to the other still intact. I'm no airplane guy, but that arrangement in a badly deteriorated plane seems to imply that it was very strong through that part of the structure.

Even when it seemed that the plane might be an Electra, Tighar kind of waffled on the cowlings. Aside from the diameter, there are some details about the way they fit together and tie to the wing that don't seem right. Tom Strang posted a hint about this, too. But I still don't understand the distinction. I'll appreciate it if anyone can point me to the right photos, or to a text explanation of how they fit together.

Replying to Marty Moleski

>> SW: Of course, if the plane was really Earhart's, it doesn't
>> matter if it supports the Niku hypothesis.
>
> MM: TIGHAR is testing the Niku hypothesis by searching Niku.

Right. I only put that in to point out a little semantic quirk in your earlier post. Don't remember now what that was. Probably should have included a :-). I mainly included it because of discussions of yours addressing the philosophy of science. I ran across them in forum_archives posts from > 1 year ago.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:26:01 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Pete calls this "war wreckage" but how does he know it is from the war? He's jumping to an unreachable conclusion, IMHO.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas

> From Pete Gray
>
> ... I suggest we find any mention of surveys taken before countries
> had an
> environmentalist movement to
>  identify which Pacific islands had such problems, with war wreckage
> available to be in said photo, ...
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:26:19 
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Looking again at these photos, the holes in the nose of the wreck photo are rectangular and match more closely to the rivet pattern of an Electra than anything else we've seen.

LTM,
Dave Bush
Houston, Texas
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:26:41 
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

For Dave Bush

The Grumman Albatross was a post war design of around 1958 that succeeded to the Goose. It was a much larger aircraft and carried some 22 passengers. Hence it was powered by two Pratt & Whitney R-1820 engines with three-bladed propellers. Hardly the type of engine in the photo !
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:36:26 
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

Niki Zanzonico has a website where he offers his analysis of the W/P. In my opinion, he makes a very convincing case for the plane being a Ki-54. Have a look at it; it is quite interesting:

http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html

We've gotta hurry and complete the Earhart Project so we can devote more resources to the Wreck Photo Project! ;o)

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:38:46 
From:         Rick Metzger
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

When you enhance the photo you can see the oval inspection holes on either side of the nose. This is what Ric is talking about as being unique to the Ki, not an Electra.

Its not the Electra....
Where are those post lost radio messages!
************************************************

Ric is deep in the writing process and is making great progress every day. My guess would be somewhere in the neighborhood of the first week of November I'll be able to start setting type.

I think you'll find it was worth the wait.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:39:28 
From:         Dale Intolubbe
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

>From Pete Gray
>
>So while we wait with baited breath

"Bated" maybe even..??

Dale #2656

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

Well, I dunno, maybe Pete had anchovies for lunch?

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:40:27 
From:         Al Hillis
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

Would it be too difficult to place the second picture on the website so all may see it?
***************************************

To be honest, I don't know. I don't know if we have a print to scan, or what. I'll find out tonight.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:18:51 
From:         Ed Rollman
Subject:      Re: Wreck photo

I'm 48 yr-old Ed Rollman from Washington state, a fromer councilman and a local historian. Whats all this talk about the wreck photos? In 1971  I was 15 and I wrote Amelia Earhart's sister (Mrs. Morrisey) a letter and sent it off to her in Mass. I actually got a reply back,she told me not to believe rumors her sister Amelia was alive and living incognito in the US, she said that was some fantasy made up by an author. She told me she thought her sister had died in the plane crash and that she still missed her. Thus I learned at an early age that myseteries may be very exciting to us but they carry a very real human toll for the families involved. Find her! It will take a part with a serial number on it or dna but it will be more than worth it. Find her. Ed Rollman,Bremerton,Wa.

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

We're trying, Ed. Meanwhile, you can find out about the wreck photo by
reading this material on our website:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/02_Wreckphoto.html
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/10_Wreckphoto/10_Wreckphoto.html
http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/13_1/wreckphoto.html
http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/14_1/Wreck_Photo.html
http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/14_2/14-2Wreck.html

Also, if you do a Google search on "wreck photo" confining it to our website, www.tighar.org, you will come up with enough hits to keep you busy for a while.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:23:46 
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

For Scott White and Peter Gray

Scott - There is good reason to believe that NR16020 never had a solid forward cowling ring assembly as seen "Tighar Wreck Photo"- Review photo # 62 in "The Sound Of Wings by Ms. Mary S. Lovell ISBN 0-312-03431-8 (1989)- Short time frame Lockheed repair of NR16020 using same powerplants gives little reason to change cowling design.

Peter - You make a good point as to war wreckage photo - Actions of war cause considerable environmental damage which in most cases takes much time to correct itself in a natural state without a helping hand.

Please take the following comments with a grain of salt.

I'm sorry gents I have never thought that the "Tighar Wreck Photo" had anything to do with Amelia and her sidekick Fred, especially the first time I saw the photo more than 2 years ago- I have reason to believe there is more to that photo than what is shown - My minds eye tells me I've seen the photo before -My minds eye also tells me there should be an aircraft to the left of wreck image - Possible F4U with three bladed prop.

With that said let me remind you that "False Memory" is real -My gut feeling is that I have seen this photo before - But reasonably I can not be absolutely sure at this time if this is not what my minds eye wants to believe or whether it is telling me that I actually have seen this photo in my past travels-Believe me Im looking hard to prove one way or another.
   
Please do not be detoured by these comments

Respectfully:

Tom Strang # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:39:40 
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

Simply look at the copilot window and compare it with a lockheed 10 picture and you will i think come away with the certain knowledge that it's not one at all, Just the shape of the window gives it away!    And for reference look at the book [in my possession ] Amela Earhart The Final Story and the picture that starts March 20 1937  will make it positive, ======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:29:55 
From:         Pat Thrasher
Subject:      Friday's Forum

There won't be one, sorry -- we have to be out of the office for the whole day. Saturday will be normal, go ahead and send your posts and everything will be put up Saturday morning.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:07:44 -0400
From:         Dave Carter
Subject:      Re: Friday's forum

Since it seems to be an open forum day, it must be a good time to catch up on some things-->

For Don Iwanski:
Welcome back, Don! I think I can speak for the forum as a whole when I say it's nice to have you back! Your commentary and projects are always interesting to read and ponder.

For Scott White:
I know I can't speak for the whole forum in this, but it's always nice, in my mind, to welcome a new provocateur in the forum! Soooo... Welcome!

For all the other "newbies" who are always welcomed:
Speaking for myself, and only myself, I read (quite exhaustively, I might add) all the postings on the TIGHAR website I could lay my hands on until I felt confident or comfortable enough to posit some comments or questions. Take my word for it; eventually, you will be sufficiently consumed with the quest for AE and FN that you will become more active participants in the forum, and who knows, you may even become paying TIGHAR members (for bragging rights, if nothing else, as I have with all my licensed pilot buddies). And don't be shy about 99% of the flak you catch around here, it's all in good fun (RTFM, as an example) and it's a really good way to pass some time reading other opinions, whether you agree with them or not. Over time, you will see questions and opinions that range from the merely misinformed to the deliberately provocative. Just keep in mind that it's people like you who often raise questions in the minds of the "old hands (I do NOT include myself in that description)" that help the true "old hands" "move the ball forward" in a host of ways that you/we are often unaware. As a member, I welcome you with open arms, and I would heartily suggest that you become members, as well. For one thing, nothing is as juicy as being able to include (parenthetically) your member number in your posts. After all, for most of us, it's not a lot of money; every membership helps Ric and Pat, to whatever extent, get us in the direction to either prove or disprove the "Niku Hypothesis"... So pry yourselves off your butts and open the wallet a little for TIGHAR and all the work they (we) are venturing to perform.

I am Dave (Carter) in Fremont (proudly #2585) and I endorse this message.

Now, on to my question... For what it's worth, I've never read a comprehensive sketch of AE's personality, quirks, sense of fame (and therefore, sense of ego), that preceded the World Flight. Is/was there ever a notion in her public/personal communications that she ever realized that, perhaps, she felt that she had "bitten off more than she could chew" regarding the flight? Is there some nuance in her telegrams and dispatches as to a time where she felt overwhelmed by the whole project and just wished to be home? I've read about the aviatrix; where can I learn about the woman and her reality, or self-perceived reality?

LTM (who still encourages all lurkers to join),
Dave (#2585)

P.S. And don't forget, "newbies", we don't require you to submit a CV or resume' for membership, ala the AES.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:09:11 -0400
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Tom Strang wrote:

> Scott - There is good reason to believe that NR16020 never had a
> solid forward cowling ring assembly as seen "Tighar Wreck Photo" -
> Review photo # 62 in "The Sound Of Wings by Ms. Mary S. Lovell ISBN
> 0-312-03431-8 (1989) - Short time frame Lockheed repair of NR16020
> using same poweplants gives little reason to change cowling design.

Thanks, Tom. I just looked at Marty's web site. He has a bunch of good stuff there. There are good, close shots of L-10 cowlings, shots of AE's plane with the cowlings removed, a shot of a Ki-54 with the outer cowlings off, but with an inner "donut" cowling still in place (just like "the wreck").

Marty also has 2 photos of the Ki-54 that show the inspection plate pretty clearly. So maybe I'm still confused about this, but to my eye the inspection plate is in the wrong place (left side of the plane, well forward of the hatch) to match with the round hole in the wreck's nose (right side of plane, not nearly so far forward). One of the Tighar web pages addressing "The Wreck" has a blown-up / enhanced view of the wreck's nose (see the links Pat posted Thursday, or see links on Marty's page). I'm pretty sure I understand now what round hole Ric is talking about.

Marty also has a link to Niki Zanzoniko's web page. In my wading through last year's Forum posts on this topic, Niki was very prominent for a while, and more controversial than me! He said he was going to take the page down, so I didn't bother to look for it until now. It's got some worthwhile stuff, though I tend to think he's squeezing more information out of the photo than really is there.

Marty's page is up to date, incorporating some of the ideas discussed here in just the past couple of days. I recommend it.

http://moleski.net/tighar/cowl.htm

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:10:53 -0400
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Lost Antenna

I have been looking at Niki Zanzonico's web site referranced in Don Huchinson's recent posting (22/10). I was interested to see Niki's analysis of the lost antenna.

I believe there is some credence for his theory of water splash rather than dust puff.     In the 24hrs from 0900 local on the 1st July to 0900 on 2nd July  20.1mm (.79 inch) of rain fell at the  Met station Lae.   Not a flood by any means but enough to give the ground a good soaking which I believe would still be lying around to some extent next morning given Lae's humidity.     Further to this from 0900 2nd July to 0900 3rd July 43.9mm (1.7inch) of rain fell.   AE of course took of at 1000 Local on the 2nd.      We don't know at what time this rain fell only the 24hr totals.     I think the figures show it was a fairly wet time and so gives considerable weight to Niki's analysis.

Jack Clark   #2564
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:14:31 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

For Dave Bush

The radial engines I mentioned on the Grumman Widgeons can't possibly have been Wasps : too powerful. They were more probably 200 hp Continentals which is more in line with the 200 hp Ranger inlines that were originally installed on this type.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:15:23 -0400
From:         Hermand De Wulf
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

I think Alfred has a very convincing case for the Ki-54. Far better than any theories on flying boats with all the material he provides.

LTM

> From Alfred Hendrickson:
>
> Niki Zanzonico has a website where he offers his analysis of the W/P.
> In my opinion, he makes a very convincing case for the plane being a
> Ki-54. Have a look at it; it is quite interesting:
>
> http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html
>
> We've gotta hurry and complete the Earhart Project so we can devote
> more resources to the Wreck Photo Project! ;o)
>
> LTM,
>
> Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:16:28 -0400
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

> From Scott White
>
> Marty also has 2 photos of the Ki-54 that show the inspection plate
> pretty clearly. So maybe I'm still confused about this, but to my eye
> the inspection plate is in the wrong place (left side of the plane,
> well forward of the hatch) to match with the round hole in the wreck's
> nose (right side of plane, not nearly so far forward).

How do we know the image isn't reversed?

LTM, who always turns socks the right side out.

Mike Holt
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:17:18 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Herman De Wulf (#2406) writes: "I think Alfred has a very convincing case for the Ki-54."

Thanks Herman, but all credit for that goes to Niki.

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:19:15 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Although the wreck photo is now perhaps of  historical interest, it is collateral  to the Earhart final flight. For an excellent historical review of the  origin of the photos, see Tighar Tracks, Vol 13, Sep 1997, p.14  http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/13_1/wreckphoto.html.

Carrington's received  the photos in 1987 from a British sailor ( I think identified by Tighar?) who was aboard the British submarine tender HMS ADAMANT circa 1946 and 1947. The tender reportedly was cruising in the "western Pacific" and the sailor took the photos of the twin engine aircraft while taking an R&R walk on an uninhabited island, the name of which he couldn't recall. It all sounds a  bit fishy.

Could Carrington been duped?  [Carrington believes that the Electra landed northwest of Howland on a "small reef".]

Carrington gave the photos to Lockheed in 1987 for analysis to see if the engine was an Electra, and  according to  Tighar, the results were "inconclusive"

Although Carrington would not cooperate with TIGHAR, TIGHAR's independent inquiries found that the HMS ADAMANT was not in the vicinity of Niku in 1946 or 1947, or near the Phoenix Islands. The tender was  in Hong Kong during this time. And further the sailors name didn't appear in the ship's company. Not much to go on. (See Tighar reference, supra). This adds to the problem of the photo's origin.

Those interested in seeking out  where, when, who took the photo, may want to attempt a reinterview George Carrington. He  may have mellowed a bit. As I understand, Carrington works part time as a docent at the Boeing Air Museum in Seattle. He holds the answer to this wreck photo.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:19:54 -0400
From:         Lawrence Talbot
Subject:      Re: Lost antenna

I have looked at the last take-off (Lae) till I'm blue in the face. Water is a good guess, but it still looks like dust to me. The dust could be from a snagged antenna or may be just prop wash.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:21:44 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: Friday's forum

Dave Carter wrote:

> Since it seems to be an open forum day, it must be a good time to catch
> up on some things-->
>
> For Don Iwanski:
> Welcome back, Don! I think I can speak for the forum as a whole when I
> say it's nice to have you back! Your commentary and projects are always
> interesting to read and ponder.

Dave in Freemont - thankyou for such hospitality! This buds for you Dave - enjoy
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:24:17 -0400
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: "Where to learn about the woman and her reality"

Dave Carter wrote:

> ...I've read about the aviatrix; where can I learn about the woman
> and her reality, or self-perceived reality?

Here (below) is a brief listing of some sources that seems for me as "principal" about this topic...   I would propose to start from AE's own books as it gives a good insight inot her spirit, mind and personal character... Also the book "Letters From Amelia" is very good and informative, in the same aspect (her private correspondence published).

If about biographies, in my opinion the most interesting in "personal aspects" is  "Amelia, My Courageous Sister" - by her sister, Muriel Earhart Morrissey. It includes most "personal" view into AE's character - because of obvious reasons.

If about other published bios, I tend to agree with Ric Gillespie that "The Sound of Wings" is probably a most detailed biography... Although I generally tend to prefer the Susan Butler's "East to the Down" because of better coverage of some particular aspects (AE's early life and character how it was formed since early childhood, etc.).

The book "Amelia: Pilot in Pearls" is rather a "collection of tributees" then a biography or some "academic research", but still includes a very interesting material - particularly the personal memories and impressions of many different people who contacted with AE at different circumstances, and also many very good photos.

Have a nice reading!

LTM - best regards, Marcus Lind

Here is some "AE Bibliography"


1.        Amelia Earhart. The Fun of It. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1932 (republished by Gale Research Company, Book Tower, Detroit, 1975).

2.        Amelia Earhart. Last Flight.  Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1937 (republished  by Orion Books, New York, 1975).

3.        Amelia Earhart. 20 Hours and 40 Minutes. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1928.

4.        Muriel Earhart Morrissey, Carol L. Osborne.  Amelia, My Courageous Sister. Biography of Amelia Earhart. Osborne Publisher, Incorporated. Santa Clara, California, 1987.

5.        Jean L. Backus.  Letters From Amelia 1901-1937. An Intimate Portrait of Amelia Earhart. Beacon Press, Boston, 1982.

6.        Mary S. Lovell.  The Sound Of Wings. St. Martin's Press, New York, 1989.

7.        Susan Butler.  East to the Dawn. The Life of Amelia Earhart. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997.

8.        Doris L. Rich. Amelia Earhart. A Biography. Dell Publishing, NY, 1989.


9.        Donald M. Goldstein, Katherine V. Dillon. Amelia.  A Life of The Aviation Legend. Brassey's, London / Washington. 1997.

10.       Shirley D. Gilroy. Amelia: Pilot in Pearls. Link Press  Publishers. McLean, Virginia, 1985.

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

Also see

http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/12_2/film.html

For a listing of other books and some films as well.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:27:07 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Ameliaschpiels in 2005?

As some Forumites know, I have a  Powerpoint-illustrated talk I do on TIGHAR's quest for AE and Fred; over the  last three years I've given it maybe three dozen times to formal (e.g.  Washington Athletic Club, Kansas City 99s) and informal (y'all come) groups all  over the country.  No charge, but I can only give it in a city I happen to  be in, unless someone pays my freight. WCA Environmental Consultants (_www.swca.com_ (http://www.swca.com) ), which employs me to do short-course training in historic preservation and related matters, has just  completed its training schedule for 2005, which has me traveling to the cities  listed below to teach on the dates indicated.  I should warn that all dates  are a bit provisional, since classes don't run unless there are enough warm,  tuition-paying bodies to pay the bills. But it's certainly my  intention to be in the below-listed cities on the dates indicated If anyone in or around any of  these venues is interested in having me give a talk, peddle copies of AE's  Shoes, or otherwise put on a TIGHAR song and dance, I'd be happy to try to accommodate.  Just contact me at tfking106@aol.com.

LTM (who loves the show, but  she's biased)
Tom

2005 classes scheduled in:
Albuquerque, NM 1/26-2/2
Austin, TX, 2/14-15
Chattanooga, TN,  4/4-6
Phoenix, AZ, 3/24-25
Salt Lake City, UT, 5/24-25
San Diego, CA, 11/9-10
San Francisco,  CA, 7/18-20
Seattle, WA, 6/28-29
Washington DC, 10/19-26

And -- to repeat last week's  announcement for anyone who may have missed it: For anyone interested in New Jersey or environs (Never mind, Ms. Bolam), I'll be giving an illustrated talk on TIGHAR's quest for Amelia on December 9th, 2004 at 7 PM in the Loree 24 Building on the Rutgers University Douglass Campus in New Brunswick.  Public is invited, admission free.  For  directions to the building (72 Lipman Dr, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8525),  visit

http://maps.rutgers.edu/building.aspx?id 1
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:06:02 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ameliaschpiels

Tom, I will see on the 14th of February in Austin. Where will you be? Write me off forum.

Alan
acaldwell@aol.com
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:26:59 -0400
From:         Adam Marsland
Subject:      Re: Landing on a reef

I keep forgetting I'm a member of TIGHAR now and I can post here without feeling like a freeloader.  ;)  Then again, I generally don't have much to add.

Here's my question...I'm fully aware that there are no charted islands northwest of Howland within range...but was Carrington's belief -- that such a reef existed -- even possible?  Are the depths of that part of the Pacific charted and if so, are they at any point shallow enough that such a reef could form?

adam

<< Carrington believes that the
Electra landed northwest of Howland on a "small reef". >>
*****************************************************

No islands north of Howland until... well, Hawaii, really, with the exception of a bump at Johnston Island. It's a real empty ocean. And it's all pretty well charted what with satellite coverage and all. A quick look at the atlas tells me that the intervening ocean is part of the Pacific Basin -- deep deep deep.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:33:30 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Landing on reef

For Adam,

George Carrington beleives that the Electra flew north with enough gas to reach into the Marshalls, hence a landing on Mili or thereabouts. Not exactly clear. He bases this on the Nauru intercept, he claims, that reported "Land in sight ahead" at about 1030 am Howland Standard Time, or about an hour or so after her last "official msg". This Nauru reception has been debated at length on Tighar re the time and the text. I think Carrington is mixing his time up with the late night reception by Cude and the VKT operator of "land " or "ship" in sight. The next morning Nauru heard an undecipherable voice but thought to be the same voice as heard the night before.

Ric can expand on this long time confusion over the Nauru intercepts.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:46:56 -0400
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: the wreck photo

Ron Bright wrote:

>   Those interested in seeking out  where, when, who took the photo,
> may want to attempt a reinterview George Carrington. He  may have
> mellowed a bit. As I understand, Carrington works part time as a docent
> at the Boeing Air Museum in Seattle. He holds the answer to this wreck
> photo.

Good Luck !!

I did just what you suggest above in, oh, 1997 or so.  Some of us formed an informal "Wreck Photo Club" to work on this problem.

After several attempts at calling Carrington's number (no answer, no answering machine) I got a call back one day from a guy who simply said "Why are you calling me?"  No introduction, no name given, no 'hello how are you', just simply "why are you calling me?"

I took an educated guess and said "Is this Captain Carrington?  I read your book"  and that started one of the most bizarre conversations I've ever had.  We talked about some items in his book (one was a reference to Paul Mantz as saying that the Phoenix Islands was one of their backup destinations in the planning for the first attempt East to West), and  other topics.  At one point he asked how many PIC hours I had, (300 at the time) and then chided me with a gruff "Thats not enough!!" (for what, I'm not sure).  I guess you need more PIC hours to be an Earhart Researcher.

Eventually, I asked about the source of the wreck photo.

First, he denied that the photo existed.
Then he told me that he never took it to Lockheed.
When I told him it had been published in TIGHAR Tracks, he said something to the effect of  "What?!?  Well, the owners of that photo are going to sue for copy-write infringement" (so much for a photo that didn't exist). The mention of TIGHAR sent him into a tirade

All in all, I kept him on the phone for something like 20-30 minutes, but learned nothing substantial other than the distinct impression that George was on the edge (if not over the edge) of a state of paranoia.

SO, for all of you who expect to have a productive chat with George Carrington, I say go to it, but don't be surprised if you find him uncooperative, combative, deceptive, and generally difficult to talk with.  Don't mention TIGHAR until the end if you want to get anything out of him.

It is unfortunate that the one guy who knows something about this photo refuses to divulge anything about it.  My personal theory is that George or one of his Navy buddies took this photo during their time in the Pacific, he's become convinced that it is AE's Electra, and doesn't want anyone to get in the way of his big scoop.

Have fun.

LTM (who wants to know why you don't call)
Andrew McKenna

Harbor Lights Villa
A Special Place In the Caribbean
www.harborlights.vi
720-635-1166
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:04:57 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Stranger than Fiction

For Andrew McKenna:

Thanks Andrew, for your missive about George Carrington. I, like many others I'm sure, often wonder what it is about the AE mystery that draws to it such funny characters. Grace McGuire is another one; she, for some reason, won't let anyone near her Electra (a 10E, I believe). What's the deal, anyway? It seems like there are only a few of us around anymore who are sane and reasonable . . . Aaaaaahh!! What!! BUGS! BUGS! All over me!! Get 'em off! GET 'EM OFF!! Oh Nooooooooooooo!

LTMD (Love to Mommy Dearest),

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:16:40 -0400
From:         Ron bright
Subject:      Re: wreck photo

Based on Andrew McKenna's description of the rather bizarre phone call coupled with the more bizarre origin of the "wreck photo", it seems to me it is not worth pursuing in regards to the AE flight.

Ron Bright
Bremerton, Wa

======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:10:06 
From:         Al Grobmeier
Subject:      PAA DF

Prior to 1940, PAA had a DF network with stations at Honolulu, Wake, Canton, Guam and Manila with net control at Honolulu. The first trans-Pacific PAA Clipper flight was in 1935.  Has anyone searched for the logs of the PAA DF stations for July  1937 to determine if any of them obtained lines-of-bearing or fixes on AE's HF transmissions?

Al Grobmeier, La Mesa, CA
******************************************************

This is well known, actually; Pan Am took DF bearings on several post-loss signals, and those bearings converge on Nikumaroro, although the island is not named. The actual search coordination map used by the 14th Naval District, which is at the National Archives branch in San Bruno, California, shows the bearings and the headings (along with some rings from coffee cups).

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:11:02 
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Update from Ric

<emerging from hole, brushing off dirt, blinking>

The Post-Loss Radio Study is coming along well.  It's taking longer to finish because I've expanded it.  Here's a quick overview of how it's laid out:

Section One explains that a major part - perhaps the most important part - of the story of the disappearance of Amelia Earhart has never been told.  This section further explains why the question of whether any of the alleged post-loss signals was genuine is crucial to any attempt to solve the mystery of what happened.  It also reviews and thoroughly debunks the later claims that all of the receptions had been investigated and eliminated.

Section Two tells the story of the 1937 search and how the reports of distress calls were the primary factor influencing decisions about where to look for Earhart.  This section also reveals why, when the search finally concluded, it was so important that all of the alleged receptions be discredited rather than fully investigated.

Section Three is a quantitative analysis of the entire body of reported post-loss radio receptions suspected at the time of having emanated from the missing aircraft.  The signals are examined from five perspectives:

Distribution by time
Distribution by geography
Distribution by type of receiving station (amateur, professional, etc.)
Distribution by frequency
Distribution by signal type (intelligible voice, unintelligible voice, code, etc.)

Section Four investigates patterns revealed by the quantitative analysis and explores specific groups of signals such as the Pan Am direction finder bearings and the messages reportedly heard by amateur shortwave listeners.

Section Five draws upon the results of the quantitative analysis and the investigation of specific groups to divide the reported signals into three categories: Credible, Ambiguous, and Not Credible. (Note: these are relative terms and not intended to indicate a final judgment as to authenticity.)  The "Credible" receptions are then examined for patterns.

Section Six discusses the conclusions that can be drawn from the results of the study.

In a nutshell, we'll end up with a report that says:

This information was never fully examined.
Here's why it was never fully examined.
Here's our full examination of it.
Here are the conclusions that can be drawn.

We're not yet sure exactly what form the finished report will take. It's way too big to be even a special issue of TIGHAR Tracks.  It may end up being a book.  I'm going keep working on it full-time (or as  close to full-time as possible) until it's done.  Pat will continue to moderate the forum but I'll participate in some discussions as a forum subscriber.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:37:26 
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      TIGHAR on Tinian

As many on the forum may recall, TIGHAR's senior archaeologist Dr. Tom King and our forensic anthropologist Dr. Karin Burns are off to the island of Tinian in mid-November to supervise the excavation of a site alleged to contain the remains of a woman dressed in an "aviator's suit" who was executed by the Japanese.  The excavation is not, of course, a TIGHAR project.  We see no reason to believe that the site might be Earhart's grave but those who do did not have the expertise and credentials required to satisfy the permitting authorities.  Tom and Kar generously agreed to help out in the interest of allowing this hypothesis to be tested.  Tom was able to arrange a teaching gig on nearby Guam  and many on the forum helped with contributions that made it possible for us to send Kar.

   As we've always said, we're interested in solving the mystery.  If they end up exhuming Amelia on Tinian we'll be baffled as to how the heck she got there but - hey, stranger things have happened (I guess). In any event, everyone can be assured that the dig will be performed under the supervision of two top-notch scientists.

We'll cover the excavation on the TIGHAR website with daily updates. We're hoping that Tom will able to send email and photos from Tinian but he'll have our satellite telephone with him in any event.  We'll let the forum know when the coverage starts.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:20:52 
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR on Tinian

Just a minor correction -- Kar and I won't be SUPERVISING the dig; it's under the general direction of U.S. Navy Archaeologist Jennings Bunn, and is being overseen by Dr. Hiro Kurashina of the University of Guam, with assistance from Michael Fleming and other Guam and Northern Mariana Islands archaeologists.  I'm just helping out, and Kar is contributing her forensic  expertise.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:22:31 
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: TIGHARs on Tinian

For Ric

With what appears to me your 180 degree turn into the wind on a possible Earhart / Japanese connection - While not wanting to put a bur under your saddle, I just have to ask you the following question pertaining to Tighars quest on Tinian -
   
Is this new direction for Tighar being influenced by the analysis of the "Post-Loss Radio Study"?

Respectfully:

Tom Strang # 2559

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

Ric will discuss this tomorrow or so.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:51:35 
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: TIGHARs on Tinian

Tom Strang asks:

> With what appears to me your 180 degree turn into the wind on a
> possible Earhart / Japanese connection - While not wanting to put a
> bur under your saddle, I just have to ask you the following question
> pertaining to Tighars quest on Tinian -
>  
> Is this new direction for Tighar being influenced by the analysis
> of the "Post-Loss Radio Study"?

I must confess to being somewhat amazed at your question.  I very explicitly said, "We see no reason to believe that the site might be Earhart's grave but those who do did not have the expertise and credentials required to satisfy the permitting authorities." I also said, " If they end up exhuming Amelia on Tinian we'll be baffled as to how the heck she got there but - hey, stranger things have happened (I guess)."

In case that sounds somehow nuanced, allow me to be more blunt.  I don't think there's snowball's chance in hell that Earhart was buried on Tinian.  TIGHAR's participation in this exercise is purely in the interest of seeing that even a ridiculous hypothesis is tested according to high professional standards.  It in no way represents a 180 degree, or even a 1 degree, turn in TIGHAR's position with regard to a Earhart/Japanese connection and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Post-Loss Radio Study.

LTM,
Ric