Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:35:33 From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: Noonan's calculations For Harvey Schor - when working at night, with fixes generally scheduled for intervals of one hour or less between, power was continuously adjusted to maintain a constant TAS (an easy job). This was the way our crew did it -- others may have stayed with a constant power setting, and had the navigator average his TAS. Back to basics for a moment - I believe AE had an airspeed indicator that indicated IAS - some call it "q", or impact pressure. To arrive at TAS, IAS has to be corrected for several things (temperature, altitude etc.), which by the time I was flying was done by a TAS indicator at the navigator's station ( I doubt that FN had one). Now, TAS is the "actual" speed of the aircraft through the air, and is the only velocity to be compared to ground speed, which can give a navigator a wind component. In summary, pilots care about IAS or "q", having to do with structural aspects of his vehicle at any altitude. IAS and TAS differ by greater amounts as the aircraft flies at higher altitudes. Navigators care about TAS, the velocity of the aircraft through the air mass. And TAS has to be known, by observation or averaging, in order to compute wind. For navigators, it is important to know TAS throughout the flight - not just at celestial fix times. It would make sense to me that AE adjusted power as fuel was burned as we did, but I just don't know. It's a big compromise - power, altitude, fuel usage, stable TAS...we had more than one person doing it... And we obtained "sufficient navigational accuracy" using these methods. Navigational legs during the SAC Bombing Competitions were scored by the same scoring methods as the bomb drop scoring in the 50s. It wasn't sufficient for FN, though - I believe that he and AE depended on the radio homing end game, which turned out not to be...PMB. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:36:18 From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: FN, etc. Alan - You're not wrong. I'll have to go back over the radio calls for a refresher, but I think it went like this - our intrepid aviators fly to the LOP at FN's ETA. No island. They try radios - no joy. They fly up and down the "LOP". No joy. In "desperation/frustration", AE transmits "We must be on you..." Just guessing - everything says that they must be there, but... Whether they flew offset or straight in, we know the outcome. Somehow, it really doesn't matter, does it? I believe that they did their best at the moment, but I feel that without radios, they were very unlucky or doomed not to find Howland. And Ric will likely drive a final nail when he publishes his book... ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:37:12 From: Walk Holm Subject: Re: Fuel temperature I think you can accuse Elgen of not being a very good writer, or you can accuse him of, as Skeet would say, "measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an axe", but the fuel temperature effects he refers to are very real. Elgen unfortunately chooses to use the words "expansion and venting" on page 232 of "Amelia Earhart - The Mystery Solved" to describe a process that has nothing to do with expansion and venting. In fact, what would really happen on the flight is that the gasoline would cool and contract as the Electra climbed to higher and cooler altitudes. What Elgen should have said is that the energy content of the 1100 gallons of fuel loaded on the plane at Lae were equivalent to the energy of 1092 gallons of fuel at standard temperature. His reference to "standard gallons" is somewhat confusing here, but he is talking about energy equivalence which is a real effect. A brief search on the web for the volume coefficient of thermal expansion for gasoline turned up this document: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/construction/OCA/Specs/SSandPN2002/10600402for2002.pdf whose listings for gasoline should be roughly applicable to Avgas. Standard temperature for gasoline is listed as 60 degrees F. Taking the coefficient of thermal expansion for gasoline as 0.0007/ degree F as shown on page 4, and given an assumed temperature of 75 degrees F for the fuel at Lae, we have a volume correction factor of: (75-60) * 0.0007 = 15 * 0.0007 = 0.0105 So, for a load of 1100 gallons of gasoline at 75 degrees F has an energy equivalent of: 1100 / (1+0.0105) or about 1089 gallons of gas at standard temperature. One can argue as to how relevant "losing" 10 gallons or so of gas is, or you may disagree with his assumptions, but you can't claim that Elgen is incorrect. As to the folks who posted with the opinion that engines care about gallons and not pounds, well, it ain't so. All engines care about is mass flow, and in the goofy English system of measurements that we use, the specific fuel consumption of the engine (BSFC) is measured in pounds per horsepower per hour. For the pilots out there, note that these effects hold true for the airflow into the engine as well as fuel flow. The mass flow of air into the engine changes as a function of air temperature. When you apply carburetor heat to an aircraft engine, the warmer air causes a loss of mass flow of air into the engine. The power of the engine goes down, and the mixture gets richer since the mass flow of fuel has not changed. Kudos to RC for his posts. -Walt Holm ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:37:46 From: Bob Sherman Subject: Fuel temp/weight Alan said: > According to the oldest weather data I could find for Lae in July the > average maximum temperature was 81 F and the average minimum > was 71 F. I don't want to argue those temperatures. > > ...but if the temperature of one gallon of fuel varied ten degrees > what would the weight difference be? RC Reply's: Make your own graph. The Petroleum institute gives: 5.87 # at 60 deg. F. std. & 6.12 # at zero F & 5.54 # @ 140 F approx. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:38:28 From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Fuel temperature Alan Caldwell wrote: > Bob, I understand what you are saying and I agree the engine uses > pounds. It uses 0.46 pounds to make one BHP per hour. > > According to the oldest weather data I could find for Lae in July > the average maximum temperature was 81 F and the average > minimum was 71 F. I don't want to argue those temperatures. > > .... but if the temperature of one gallon of fuel varied ten degrees > what would the weight difference be? Alan Finally you are now facing North! The difference 10 deg. Would make with 1100 gallons is 46 lbs. or just under 8 gals.15 deg. would be approx. 11 3/4 gal. 18 to 20 minutes of flying. Make your own graph. A.P. I. lists avgas as 6.25 lbs at 32 deg. F and 5.4 lbs. at 140 F. The line between those points should cross at exactly 5.87 lbs at 60 F. Cheers, RC 5.87 at 60 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:08:22 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Fuel weight at Lae Dagnabbit, anyway, that's what I get for being snowed in a for a day - missing some good stuff on the Earhart Forum. We discussed the fuel/weight issue about four years ago, and Bob Sherman passed along some numbers that I used to figure out how much fuel AE "lost" with the temperature changes. I don't think anyone read the numbers then, and suspect no one will read them now, but nonetheless here they are again. Bob Sherman said: "The specific weight of avgas* in lbs. per gal is 5.87 @ 60d/F., 6.25 @ -32d/F and 5.54 @ 140d/F if you want to make a graph." OK, using Bob's numbers AE had 19.67 FEWER gallons of fuel at 85 degrees (F) than she had at 60 degrees (F). Here's my math. Assuming a straight-line computation between the difference in weight per-gallon at 60 d/F (5.87 lbs./gal.) and 140 d/F (5.54 lbs./gal) yields a difference of .33 lbs./gal. The total temp difference between 60 and 140 is 80 degrees. Divide that into the .33 lbs./gal. and you arrive at a weight decrease of .004125 lbs./gal. for each one degree of temperature increase. Multiply the decreased weight per gallon by 25, the difference between the baseline 60 d/F (5.87 lbs./gal) and the take off temp of 85 d/F, this gives you a weight decrease at 85 d/F of .103125 lbs./gal. Ergo, at 85d/F each gallon of fuel weighed .103125 lbs. LESS than it did at 60 d/F. Now, multiply the weight loss per-gallon by the number of gallons known (1,100) to be on AE's plane (.004125 X 1100) and you get a total weight loss of 113.4375 pounds. But how many gallons is that? OK, take the baseline 60 d/F (5.87 lbs./gal) and subtract 0.103125 to arrive at the temperature-adjusted weight of 5.767 lbs./gal at 85 d/F. Divide the total weight loss (113.4375 pounds) by the new adjusted weight per gallon (5.767) and you arrive at 19.67 gallons. That is, at 85d/F the airplane was capable of carrying 19.67 FEWER gallons of gas then it could carry at 60 d/F And flying at 38 gal/hr, it means Amelia and Fred had 30 FEWER minutes to be airborne. LTM, who burned up her calculator doing that! Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:08:40 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN, etc. Thanks, Peter. The actual sequence was that they called 200 miles out and possible said they were 100 miles out although that's not what I think she meant. Then at 7:42 AM she gave the "we must be on you" call and an hour later said they were on the 337/157 running north and south. Paraphrased slightly but essentially correct. So, on arrival they thought they were on Howland rather than after they started their search. So what would we do with the information as to whether they offset or not? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:04:30 From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: FN, etc. Yep - offset or not, we know the outcome. Whether FN did it or not, it really doesn't matter. As a navigator, I have always felt that I needed all the tools that I could get in my toolbag, and it was certainly more so in 1937 than it was when I was flying. I used offsets in practice, and that practice helped me in preparation for the time that I really needed it. It was the end game with(out) radios that doomed the landing at Howland. Like that chunk of insulation on the Columbia takeoff... Peter Boor #856CS ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:29:49 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN, etc. Right, Peter. It's that one little thing not thought of that dooms success. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:31:24 From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Earhart Myth So what is it about the Amelia Earhart phenomenon that seems to produce these books and TV shows that present and repeat the inaccuracies we mention now and then on this forum (e.g., Noonan's alleged drinking problem)? Maybe it's not due to anything about Amelia Earhart at all. Maybe it's business as usual. In the following link, computer user interface designer Jef Raskin describes his personal experience in how books and documentaries consistently get the history of the Apple Macintosh wrong. http://jef.raskincenter.org/published/holes.html It's a list of faults on the part of professional writers, journalists, and producers that should sound familiar: - Use of secondary sources. - Distorting the facts to make a "good story." - Lack of skepticism. - General sloppiness and corner-cutting. Jef Raskin died on February 26. --Mike Z. from Massachusetts ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:31:59 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel weight at Lae I am not a physics major and you guys are confusing me which is not that hard to do. I thought that raising or lowering the temperature of a liquid increased or reduced the volume but the weight stays the same. Only if you change the number of gallons would the weight change. Am I wrong? Also how do you get 60 degree gasoline at a place where the minimum average temperature is 71? Finally where did we get 75 degrees for take off? And finally finally how do we know the temperature spread between final refueling and take off? I'm missing something here. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:27:05 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Fuel weight at Lae > From Alan Caldwell > > ... I thought that raising or lowering the temperature of a liquid > increased or reduced the volume but the weight stays the same. True. If all you've got is (say) 6 lbs of gasoline, it will still weigh 6 pounds after you raise the temperature. But it will occupy more space than it used to. And if you've only got a gas can designed to hold 6 pounds of gas at the standard temperature (let's say 60 degrees), then as you raise the temperature, the expanding liquid will force some of the gas to spill out of the can. You will still have 6 pounds of gas, but some of it is going to be spilled all over your laboratory. Be very careful when you clean it up. Gasoline vapors are HIGHLY explosive. (Don't ask me how I know that.) AE's gas tanks were a finite space. Into that finite space, they could put more mass when the temperature was cooler than they could when it was warmer. It's the mass of fuel that determines how long the engines would run. More mass, longer run; less mass, shorter run. > Also how do you get 60 degree gasoline at a place where the minimum > average temperature is 71? The question is not average temperature, but the variation between nighttime and daytime temps. Fill the plane to the brim at dawn; then watch the gas spill out of the vents as the sun rises and the liquid expands. Be very careful now, because vaporized gasoline is very, very explosive. (Don't ask me how I know.) > Finally where did we get 75 degrees for take off? > And finally finally how do we know the temperature spread between > final refueling and take off? Everybody's guessing at the temps. > I'm missing something here. Somebody with experience started this thread (R.C. Sherman?). He wanted to criticize some calculations about the amount of fuel carried and therefore about the theoretical limit of how long and how far the plane could fly. The critic is essentially saying that all statements about the fuel load should contain an asterisk and an error bar. The asterisk should read something like "assuming that the temperature at the time of takeoff was thus and such" and the error bar should show the range of uncertainty in the statement about the fuel load--something like "plus or minus 30 gallons." Another way of stating the case is that the critic is asking us to pay attention to an overlooked variable that may have had a noticeable effect on the fuel load and effective flight range of the aircraft. LTM. ******************************************* From Pat > Gasoline vapors are > HIGHLY explosive. (Don't ask me how I know that.) > ... > Be very careful now, because vaporized gasoline is > very, very explosive. (Don't ask me how I know.) Marty, I have the flu and my entire body is in a state of meltdown. If the story is funny, please tell it, however off-topic; I could use a laugh. :-/ P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:32:55 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel weight at Lae I guess the first question to Marty would be if he still has eyebrows. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:41:35 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Fuel weight at Lae > From Pat > >> Gasoline vapors are >> HIGHLY explosive. (Don't ask me how I know that.) >> >> Be very careful now, because vaporized gasoline is >> very, very explosive. (Don't ask me how I know.) > > Marty, I have the flu and my entire body is in a state of meltdown. > If the story is funny, please tell it, however off-topic; I could use > a laugh. :-/ A friend told me he had some old, oily gasoline that was practically useless. He persuaded me to pour it in a large stack of wood. Then he videotaped me lighting the fire: You probably have to download this to get the full effect of the lesson--it comes in the last two frames. If you turn up the volume, you can hear the birds singing and then hear the "WHUMP" of the explosion. This video shows my reaction and the subsequent fire: It was just plain dumb luck (or what religious types call "God's providence") that I didn't get injured. I had seen a friend get second degree burns in a similar incident. I should have known better. It was just dumb luck that I happened to be upwind rather than downwind of the pool of vapor. I'm a changed man. Gasoline has earned my highest respect. :o( LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:24:57 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel weight at Lae Marty, were you testing God? You hung in there after lighting the fire quite a while. Use longer matches.....like 7 feet. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:31:44 From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Weight vs. Volume Thank you Marty for making a jr. high school principle even plainer. And you were correct that my point was that calculated max endurance was a mite less than it appeared .. and mentioned much earlier, max distance was a mite greater the great circle distance. Another quirk more easily accepted was the latest location of HOW may not have been known to her. It shows that sitting in a cockpit for thousands of hours does not necessarily add to one's aeronautical knowledge, nor give some appreciation to the fact that his refuelers took the temp. of the fuel into consideration before writing the [jet] fuel load in lbs. on the Form 1 [and/or in some manner advising the pilot ] after every servicing. Cheers, RC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:33:12 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Fuel weight at Lae > From Alan Caldwell > > Marty, were you testing God? No. I was testing (and starting to believe) the hypothesis that "old oily gasoline won't burn." The hypothesis was working great until something went WHUMP! :o( > You hung in there after lighting the fire > quite a while. Yes, I did. And reached back in to adjust the little piece of paper that I had managed to light. > Use longer matches.....like 7 feet. The young man whom I saw get burned was 10 feet from the bonfire. He was planning to throw a sparkler on the pile to get it lit. Unfortunately, vapors came off the pile and pooled around his bare legs. I saw a spark drop from the sparkler, then a blue flash, and then the screaming began. Now, a 7-foot match UPWIND of the vapors might work. But you're not gonna get me to run that experiment. "Once [nearly] burned, twice wary." ;o) LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 09:22:23 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Forum Hello ! Is there anyone there ? What's happening to this forum ? I haven't read anything for a couple of days now. Herman ******************************** Just waitin' for someone to post something. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 10:31:29 From: Lee Boyle Subject: Artifacts Have all the items collected on past visits to Gardner Island been checked out and the finding reported to the FORUM? Lee Boyle Millville, DE Tighar Number ? I forgot. I guest it is due to age. ******************************************* Pretty much. Of course, all research is pushed ahead as possible. The new hypotheses concerning the dados, based on last summer's work in Ketchikan, are responsible for a good bit of fussing around right now. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 09:26:27 From: Danny Brown Subject: Forum Here's something for the forum that Ric may want to look into a little further. I was reading the March 2005 issue of Western and Eastern Treasures magazine (a metal detecting magazine) and came across an article about a propeller found by a man named William Watson Purkey, a veteran of the Air Force during the Korean War. He found the twisted and bent propeller in Lake Hamilton at Greensboro North Carolina. Lake Hamilton is one of two artificial lakes created for the town of Lake Hamilton in the 1920s. Its beaches, swimming, boating, and water sports were popular attractions in the 1930s. He was metal detecting for coins and jewelry in the lake because it had been drained to correct the pollution and sediment problems that had accumulated over the decades. In an effort to solve the mystery of how the propeller got there, he contacted researchers who traced the numbers on the base of the prop (DWG. NO. 6531A.8 - if I read the numbers in the photo correctly) to a Hamilton Standard blade, c. 1940s-50s. However, the story then goes on to say that the researchers said the prop was likely from a Lockheed 10A Electra or a 12A Electra. Could it really be from a 10A if the prop was from the 1940s-50s? If they are wrong about the dates and it indeed could be from a 10A, could there be an Electra crash unknown to Ric in that area? Of course there is always the possibility that the prop could have been damaged somehow and removed during repairs and ended up in the lake by someone using it as a very large and heavy anchor. Somehow, I just don't see someone using a 4-foot, 70 lb. anchor on a lake fishing boat. The story shows some good photos of the prop and recounts the story of a B-25H crash that was never found after crashing into Badin Lake in North Carolina. The article says Lake Hamilton is due to be drained again, so it may be worthwhile to see if an Electra crash occurred in the area. If so, it may also be worth checking out for dados, etc. if other wreckage is still in the lake. LTM (who has all her props) Danny Brown #2426 ************************************************************ Electras stayed in service for a quite long time, well into the 60s. No reason there could not be a crash in that area. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:29:02 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Props Were air boats ever used in the lake? I can see someone using an old or surplus prop for an air boat. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (love that motorboat) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:01:39 From: Ray Brown Subject: AE pics On another aviation forum that I like to hang about, I found some pics of AE and some of her various aircraft including the Electra. Fred Noonan appears in one of them, too. One snap that I find intriguing shows Amelia with some personal luggage and other gear that appears to be about to be loaded into the Electra before the second RTW attempt. The belly of the aircraft appears to have been re-skinned. On top of the suitcases there is a case about 18 inches by 12 by 4 deep with the lid secured by two metal catches. Could we be looking at the sextant box found on (then) Gardner Island in 1940 ? I guess the old hands on the AE forum may have seen these pics before , but for those who haven't the link is as follows :- www.airwarfareforum.com then look in the discussion" Pre WW2 and WW2 Aviation" for the thread "Amelia Earhart Photos " Regards to all and LTM. Ray # 2634. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:45:06 From: Tom King Subject: Re: AE pics For Ray Brown Thanks, Ray. I think the photo you found is a variant on a couple of others we've seen, but (without going back to check) I don't think it's the same -- more like one in a series. The box you're looking at doesn't look quite like the one from Pensacola, which is squarer, but sextants came in lots of different sized and shaped boxes. The water bag is interesting too, as a possible source of one of the "corks on chains" reported by Steenson from Nikumaroro, but unfortunately I can't see any evidence of any sort of closure for it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:19:00 From: Ron Bright Subject: Ham invents new receiver Here is an interesting AP article dated 4 Dec 1941, datelined Los Angeles: "An amateur radio operator who picked up messages from Amelia Earhart on her fateful around the world flight in 1937 has developed his receiver until he claims it is more effective in eliminating static than any now available." " The amateur, Karl E. Peerson, asserted shortly after Miss Earhart's ship was forced down that he had picked up signals from it and now declares he is positive." The article goes on about how the Army signal corp will test it, etc. But here is Pierson, back in the news 4 years later, still "asserting" he heard AE's signals. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:16:53 From: John Harsh Subject: Preservation From AOPA ePilot, Volume 7, Issue 10, March 11, 2005 and offered to a slow forum: -JMH 0634C <><><><><> NAVY THREATENS TO SINK CORSAIR PROJECT A year ago it seemed that a warbird restorer who recovered a 60-year-old Brewster F3A-1 Corsair from the mud of a North Carolina swamp would get to keep the airplane. The Navy had threatened Lex Cralley, 50, of Princeton, Minnesota, with legal action, claiming that the plane was Navy property. But Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) introduced an amendment in the defense spending bill that conveyed title of the aircraft to Cralley. That was only a first step, as it turns out. Navy concerns about liability mean Cralley's proposed "gift of deed" comes with restrictions, requiring him to buy a $2 million liability policy for the aircraft and naming the Navy as an insured party. It forbids him from flying the aircraft for seven years. Cralley says that would set a bad precedent for other warbird restorers, so the matter may yet go to trial. Unfortunately, the defense spending bill that gave Cralley the airplane also contained a section reinforcing the premise that the Navy owns all sunken or buried military aircraft. Jones continues to work on the issue with further negotiations planned for this week. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller said a "scheduling conference" set for March 16 could tentatively set a trial date. Cralley wants to continue the fight but doesn't want to become a burden on Jones and others helping him. "I plan to display the Corsair at Oshkosh this year to promote the change of the latest anti-preservation law," Cralley told "ePilot." ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 09:34:04 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Navigator's table and sextant box I was watching the video "The Final Hours: Amelia Earharts Last Flight" produced in 2000 by The National Air and Space Museum. This video is about AE's last flight, using Linda Finch's recreation as a comparison. The part I want to submit to the forum is a short, video shot of Fred Noonan working on one of his charts. This shot clearly shows the Navigator's table mounted at the back of the fuel tanks, (wing to wing direction) and mounted low, as Noonan seems to be sitting on the floor as he works. It also has a few shots of Linda Finch's Electra as it sat behind an airport before she bought it. There is a shot of the interior of the plane, but it seemed kinda dark. I thought perhaps it might show those dado's we have. I enjoyed this video, as it has many shots of AE operating her plane in flight, and also the shots of Linda's plane flying over most of the landing sites AE used in 1937. It has a great shot of linda approaching and flying over Howland. Does Tighar headquarters have this video? I'd be happy to donate it if it would be helpful to our cause.. Jackie Tharp #2440 *********************************** No, we don't have this one Jackie, thank you very much. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:18:49 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Navigator's table and sextant box Jackie, It is a nice video , mostly from Tom Crouch's NASM viewpoint, but nevertheless lots of archival footage of AE and the Electa. I have played that tape 100 times in slow motion to observe the famous "pfoof" of smoke or dust as the 10E takes off. Brennens tape is also interesting. Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:30:19 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Nauticos It seems Nauticos has a new partner, and supposedly they are embarking on an expedition sometime this month. Here's the address: www.raisingameliacorporation.com This new company plans to also market DVD's , other memorabilia, and a live satelitte feed during their expedition. Check it out... Jackie #2440 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:42:36 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Nauticos Jackie Tharp points us to the Raising Amelia website (http://www.raisingameliacorporation.com). This was an extremely disappointing website, since I have been used to reading a wealth of information at the TIGHAR website. Raising Amelia has absolutely no details on how they are going to search, or why they believe that Amelia's airplane can be found via a deep sea search. In fact, they provide no research at all on anything regarding Amelia's disappearance, but they do tell us that Howland Island is shaped like a flattened hot dog. I believe Shakespeare would have called this website "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:18:02 From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Nauticos Hi Pat, My first thought when I looked at this website was that Ric should probably let his hair grow long, and grow a goatee... I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear what you just said.... ltm jon 2266 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:41:51 From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: What's up? I realize I'm a nobody, mostly just a lurker, but what have you done? Yes, the amount of email you were receiving in the past must have been very time consuming to deal with. However, with the new deal, the forum is a wasteland. Can you see it in your heart to go back to the way it once was? Thanks ********************************************* The problem is not with the change in posting regs -- frankly, 98% of our regular posters are and always have been members. The source of the drought is the fact that Ric is buried so deep in the book writing that he just doesn't have the time to participate. I think none of us quite realized the extent to which his presence on the Forum made it rock. I'll see what I can do to re-engage him a bit. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:16:29 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: What's up? > From Pat: > > I think none of us quite realized the extent to which his > presence on the Forum made it rock. I knew that! > I'll see what I can do to re-engage him a bit. Noooooooooooooooo, please, noooooooooooooooo! The book will re-energize the forum. Getting it written is a "first thing." Ric has struck a rich vein. It needs mining. The payoff will be great. Let him work in peace. "People who talk about writing books rarely do." LTM & the boys. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:05:53 From: Tom King Subject: Re: What's up? I agree with Marty. Let Ric focus on the book. The Forum will survive. LTM (who's looking forward to a good read) Tom ************************************** OK, OK, I'll let him alone. Didn't mean to scare you guys . The book does progress. Ric is now at the point of turning into a truly professional writer: this morning he was debating cleaning out the basement to avoid writing ;-). I drove him back to the computer with my whip and chair. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:11:05 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: What's up? > I'll see what I can do to re-engage him a bit. > > Pat Leave him alone, Pat. What he is doing is more important than the Forum's sometime inane chatting at this juncture. The more focused Ric can stay the quicker all will be back to .................er .......Normal? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:03:04 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: What's up? You're doing a great job but I have to confess I do miss Ric's humor and occasional rantings! Thanks for all your efforts! LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:03:41 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: What's up? > From Pat: > > Ric is now at the point of turning into a truly professional > writer: this morning he was debating cleaning out the basement > to avoid writing ;-). I drove him back to the computer with my > whip and chair. Good for you! Mark Twain used to count his words--you can see the tally in the margins of the Huckleberry Finn manuscript here in Buffalo. Other writers go by the clock--so many hours a day and then you can do other things. Whatever method Ric is doing, you may put down the whip and chair when he's done "enough" for one day. And then give him our fond, if distant and rather ineffectual, regards. :o) Marty ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:35:06 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: About that book..... This is a fairly finalized draft of the introduction chapter of Losing Amelia. It would be useful to have some general reactions. Acknowledgments and explanations about how to use the Sources DVD that will accompany the book will be addressed elsewhere. BEYOND THE LEGEND Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, vanished in the Central Pacific on July 2, 1937.At the time of her disappearance Earhart was one of the world's most famous personalities. Over the ensuing years she has passed from celebrity to legend, and the answer to the riddle of her fate has become the Holy Grail of historical investigation. Researchers and enthusiasts have spent millions of dollars trying to establish the validity of competing theories. Dozens of expeditions have combed tropical islands and scoured the depths of the ocean. Hundreds of books, articles and documentaries have offered solutions to the riddle. And yet the fate of America's favorite missing person remains unknown. Clearly there is a problem. Puzzles of far greater complexity are regularly solved in the fields of medicine, genetics, paleontology, law enforcement and dozens of other disciplines. Why can't we figure out what happened to Amelia Earhart? The answer lies in the nature of the mystery. Like the quest for the Holy Grail, the search for Amelia Earhart is rooted in legend. The information commonly accepted to be the facts of the Earhart case is drawn chiefly from Earhart's own writings and from official government reports written after the search for her was abandoned. Although relatively accessible, these sources are after-the-fact descriptions of events rather than contemporaneous records of the events themselves. The stories they tell are necessarily colored by the motives and agendas of their authors. Amelia Earhart was a professional celebrity whose livelihood, and that of her promoter/husband George Palmer Putnam, depended upon her popularity with the public. Her press releases, quite naturally, reflected those interests. The book she wrote describing her flight around the world, up to what proved to be her final takeoff, also told her story as she wished it to be told. Originally to be titled World Flight, the unfinished work was edited and embellished by Putnam, and published posthumously as Last Flight. After the massive U.S. Navy and Coast Guard effort to find the lost plane was abandoned, the officials who were responsible for assisting the flight, and the officers who directed the search, wrote reports that blamed the victim and exonerated themselves. The official Coast Guard summary of events was such a scathing indictment of Earhart's abilities that senior officials resisted releasing it to the public rather than besmirch the reputation of America's late lamented First Lady of the Air. Their attempt to protect Earhart's image was, in part, responsible for the public's correct impression that there was more to the story than was being told. It wasn't long before rumors of conspiracy began to fill the gaps. The difference between accepting these versions of events and insisting upon contemporaneous documentation is the difference between reading someone's description of a conversation and having a transcript of what was really said. If we are to solve the mystery we must get beyond the legend. Fortunately, a record of what actually happened is available. Most of the arrangements for Earhart's two World Flight attempts -- the preparation of the aircraft, decisions regarding the route, the extent and nature of the U.S. Government's involvement -- were written down in correspondence. Nearly all of those documents survive, as do the logs of the ships and the official records of the radio communications that directed the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard search. All told, these sources amount to more than 5,000 individual items, each representing an undeniably genuine piece of the Earhart story. Scattered and dispersed among dozens of archival files and private collections, they are as indecipherable as a dropped box of jigsaw puzzle pieces. Collected, compiled and assembled they provide a day by day, and in some cases minute by minute, record of events. Information replaces interpretation, documentation dispels speculation, and the mists of legend are swept away to reveal a far more accurate and informative picture of the Earhart disappearance than has ever before been available. Part One of this book is a narrative of Amelia Earhart's two ill-fated attempts to fly around the world as documented in the letters, memos, telegrams, radio messages, maps and logbook entries that recorded events as they actually happened. The documented record answers questions that have fueled decades of conjecture and puts to rest a number of theories about the flight's fate. More importantly, it reveals a crucial question that arose during the search and was never resolved. In the days immediately following the disappearance, press coverage of the search was dominated by recurring reports of radio distress calls from the missing plane. Professional operators in and near the search area, and amateur stations in Hawaii and on the U.S. mainland, reported hearing signals that were widely believed to be calls for help sent from the lost plane. U.S. Coast Guard, Navy, and Department of Interior radio stations in the Pacific maintained listening watches on Earhart's frequencies and logged a variety of transmissions ranging from weak indecipherable signals to "good, strong" receptions that included the aircraft's call sign. Powerful commercial stations in Hawaii made special broadcasts assuring Amelia that help was on the way and asking her to send dashes if she had received the message. Numerous stations heard dashes in reply. Sophisticated Pan American Airways radio facilities in Hawaii and on the islands of Midway and Wake were able to take directional bearings on some of the signals. Private citizens as far away as Florida and the Canadian Maritimes told of trying to tune in foreign stations on their home shortwave radio sets and stumbling upon Amelia Earhart desperately calling for help. Major newspapers carried daily updates of the latest reported calls under banner headlines such as "Earhart Radio Heard By Warship After Plane Is Missing Half a Day"[1] and "Hope For Safety of Two Fliers Revived As Signals Recur Almost Hourly."[2] Public anticipation of a happy ending to the drama rose and fell like a Pacific swell as, time and again, a new interception seemed to direct the searchers to where Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan would surely be found, only for the rescuers to be met by another disappointment. The authorities and the public knew that the question of whether authentic distress calls were heard was crucial to knowing where to look for the missing plane. Early in the search, Lockheed engineers made it known that, due to the location of the aircraft's radio equipment, it was not possible for the transmitter to function if the plane was floating in the ocean. If even one of the alleged distress calls was genuine, the Earhart flight must have made a survivable landing at some island. To investigate that possibility a battleship was specifically tasked to search the land areas where the plane may have come down. The Pacific is vast and the flight had been missing for nearly a week before the ship reached the area. By that time the flood of reported distress calls had died to a trickle. Concerns about the accuracy of the available charts kept the ship well clear of the reefs and atolls. No search party was put ashore on any of the islands. Instead, an aerial inspection was conducted using the battleship's three catapult-launched observation planes. When no trace of the missing plane or its crew was identified, the ship's captain declared that it had been "definitely ascertained that the Earhart Plane (sic) is not on land within the region unless on an unknown, uncharted and unsighted reef."[3] Having concluded that the plane was not on land, it followed that none of the alleged distress calls was genuine and further operations focused on areas of open ocean. When the search was ultimately abandoned, no attempt was made to compile, compare and evaluate all of the alleged receptions. To question whether brief over-flights of the islands constituted a conclusive search, and to acknowledge the possibility that any of the signals was legitimate, would be to admit that when the ships finally turned for home they might have condemned the lost fliers to a slow death as castaways on some remote Pacific atoll. Instead, the entire body of evidence was declared to be comprised entirely of hoaxes and misunderstood receptions of messages sent by the searchers. The alleged distress calls were characterized as "a serious handicap to the progress of the search" [4] and the receptions reported by amateurs were said to be "all probably criminally false transmissions."[5] Earhart's husband and many of her closest associates were unconvinced by the official dismissals but their attempts to launch a comprehensive privately funded search of remote islands were unsuccessful. Today, the role of the radio distress calls in the Earhart saga is largely forgotten. The Amelia Earhart of legend vanished without a trace. A few researchers have examined some of the more remarkable incidents, most notably the handful of occasions when Pan American Airways radio stations on Oahu, Midway, and Wake Island were able to take directional bearings on suspect transmissions. Selected bearings have been used to support or refute a variety of theories about Earhart's fate, but they have been treated as isolated incidents rather than analyzed in the full context of events. Part Two of this book addresses the question of whether any of the signals was sent from the lost plane. If Amelia Earhart called for help then the mystery of her disappearance is a far smaller mystery than has previously been supposed. Transmissions from the aircraft were not possible unless it was on land. If there is reason to believe that genuine distress calls were received, then there is reason to believe that the Earhart plane made a survivable landing on a reef or island -- and the possible locations are very few in number. Finding and cataloging the nearly two hundred alleged receptions took years of old-fashioned archival detective work. Compiling and comparing the data were only possible through the use of 21st century information management systems. Once the reports were digitized and databased the entire body of evidence could be examined quantitatively, without making subjective judgments about the credibility of any individual report or group of reports. The ability to instantly sort the data by any desired criterion, or combination of criteria, revealed patterns and anomalies that could then be evaluated in the context of documented events. Were any of the reported calls from Earhart misunderstood interceptions of the searchers calling Earhart? With a database of the alleged receptions and an accurate and accessible record of all of the searcher's transmissions, the question can be readily answered. Were there hoaxes? That possibility is harder to resolve but by examining the frequency, type of signal and geographical location using state-of-the-art radio wave propagation software, receptions that have a very low probability of being physically possible can be identified. When the message content of a low probability reception describes circumstances that are impossible (i.e. supposedly sent from a floating aircraft) or when the information can be shown to have been available from other sources (i.e. from intercepted government radio traffic) there is a significant likelihood that the report is a hoax. How many of the suspect signals were heard by professional operators in or near the search area? How many were heard by far away amateurs? Do any of the messages contain information that could only have come from Earhart? Were there occasions when multiple stations heard the same thing at the same time? Do the directional bearings taken by Pan American offer a credible indication of the transmissions' point of origin? The answers to these and other questions allow an informed assessment of how many, if any, of the reported signals were genuine. If some of the messages are credible then their content might provide important clues to the circumstances faced by Earhart and Noonan, and to why the aerial search failed to spot them. A re-examination of what the Navy pilots reported seeing could reveal clues that were not recognized at the time. Other historical accounts and physical evidence recovered by expeditions might provide puzzle pieces that fit an emerging picture of what happened and where. Any investigation must begin with a reasoned assessment of what is known. Only then is it possible to know what questions to ask in seeking answers to the unknown. The mystery of Amelia Earhart's fate is solvable but only at the expense of treasured myths about those who disappeared and those who tried to find them. The intent of this book is not to defame or judge.This is the true story of the events surrounding the Earhart disappearance and an examination of the questions it reveals. _______________________________________________________ [1] New York Herald Tribune, July 3, 1937.Late Edition, page one. [2] New York Herald Tribune, July 5, 1937.Early Edition, page one. [3] "Resume Earhart Search by the USS Colorado," Wilhelm L. Friedell, Captain, USN. Commanding Officer USS Colorado, dated July 13, 1937. [4] "Report of Earhart Search, USS Lexington, July 1937," Leigh Noyes, Captain, USN. Commanding Officer USS Lexington. Page 4. [5] Treasury Department Report "Radio Transcripts -- Earhart Flight," 19 July 1937.Page 104. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:57:15 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: About that book Ric: Your introduction is "EXCELLENT"!! You have summarized the mystery in such a logical and easily read way that your making me crazy waiting for the rest of the book. This introduction makes you want to know more about many of the riddles and clues. I'm sorry, Ric, but you gotta get back in your cave and write the rest of the story. This book is gonna be "AWESOME" Jackie ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:57:36 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: About that book Looks good to me. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:50:36 From: Marjorie Smith Subject: Re: About that book For Rick: Some free suggestions from a professional editor. I have a problem with this paragraph: > The information commonly accepted to be the facts of the Earhart case > is drawn chiefly from Earhart's own writings and from official > government reports written after the search for her was > abandoned. Although relatively accessible, these sources are > after-the-fact descriptions of events rather than contemporaneous > records of the events themselves. The stories they tell are necessarily > colored by the motives and agendas of their authors. At first glance, I don't see how "Earhart's own writings" can be an "after-the-fact" description when the fact in question is her disappearance. Perhaps you mean her writings after the crash in Honolulu? But the lumping of her writings with government reports in the same sentence is confusing. As an editor, I'd ask you to specify which of her writings are concerned, or make two separate evaluations of these sources. Or perhaps add "edited by her husband" to the mention of "Earhart's own writings." In the paragraph beginning: > The authorities and the public knew that the question of whether > authentic distress calls ... etc. You need the past tense (might) instead of the present/future (may) > was specifically tasked to search the land areas where the plane MIGHT > have come down. Since "any" and mean one or more, you need the plural (were) rather than singular (was) in this sentence: > Part Two of this book addresses the question of whether any of the > signals WERE sent from the lost plane. Good beginning! Can't wait for more. Marjorie ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:51:22 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: About that book Since you asked......... My immediate reaction to the introduction was "WOW, I wish I could write that well!". There was only one phrase that I stumbled over. While I was mentally forming my criticism of it, I scrolled back up to the top of the piece and discovered the title of the introduction (which I had not previously digested) was derived from the phrase of which I objected. OOPS! That means I don't like the title either. Here's my beef. "we must get beyond the legend." To me, getting beyond the legend; getting past the legend or getting around the legend all imply drifting further from the truth. Elgin Long went beyond the legend. What you are doing is cutting through the legend or going beneath the legend. Actually, I just have a problem with the word "beyond". I try to avoid it whenever possible. It strikes me as one of those perfectly good words that has been ruined by popular culture; in this case, grade B sci-fi flicks, novels and TV shows that over use it as an inflection of high drama. OK, I'm done. PS....I know my dues are due (that was a pop song in the 30s, wasn't it?). I'll probably be late as usual. I'm off to Thailand for vacation. If you don't get my check by the end of April, it will mean I didn't come back this time. My boss is sure I won't. When I announced my vacation plans, he went out and hired a new guy. He started last week. LTM (who is in no hurry to go beyond her present existence) Kerry Tiller ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:26:44 From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: About that book Very well done. One tiny comment: Twice, you used the term "i.e." which means "in other words." Maybe "e.g." would fit better in the sentences, which means "for example." ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:27:25 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: About that book Marjorie, critiquing Ric about grammar is way out of my pay grade. Fortunately I don't write books so I'm safe. My first question was starting a sentence with "and" in the first main paragraph but I find that we can now do that rather than be as stilted as we once were. We can actually start a sentence with any of the conjunctions. The "were" and "was" correction was good. The issue about Amelia's writings being after the fact, however, has an explanation. Her "writings" on the flight were actually notes sent back to Putnam. The real writing occurred after she was lost and so well after the fact as was explained in the next paragraph. Given that "Last flight" was really put together and edited by Putnam writers from Amelia's notes and edited favorably the point Ric was making was accurate. They WERE after the fact and not all that true to fact. The use of "may" rather than "might" was also correct. In the case of granting permission you would have been correct but such was not the case. Here the word was used to denote possibility and so the two words may be used interchangeably. And so ends my foray into the world of grammar. Marjorie, I'm sure you are far better versed in that field than I am. I had to look those things up. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:27:53 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: About that book Forgot to post my source. No one would believe I just know this stuff. Uses of May and Might Two of the more troublesome modal auxiliaries are may and might. When used in the context of granting or seeking permission, might is the past tense of may. Might is considerably more tentative than may. * May I leave class early? * If I've finished all my work and I'm really quiet, might I leave early? In the context of expressing possibility, may and might are interchangeable present and future forms and might + have + past participle is the past form: * She might be my advisor next semester. * She may be my advisor next semester. * She might have advised me not to take biology. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:29:45 From: Herman De Wulf, from Brussels Subject: Re: About that book Having read the introduction of Ric's book the only thing I can say is that I'm looking forward to it. Contrary to most of us I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't feel I should comment on Ric's command of the English language. However, having graduated in English after having studied the language for six years and having used English on a daily basis (both as an aviation journalist and as a pilot) for the last 50 years, I do not object, as some do, to the use of the word "beyond". To make sure I ran the introduction through my computer's spelling control. OK, it was set to Oxford English, not to American English. So it came up with some misspelled words which would be misspelled both in King's English and in American English. Therefore I'm sending the entire revised text back with the result. It's up to Ric to decide whether he should take notice. In summary my comment is : I wish I could write as well as Ric does. When will the book be available ? LTM ******************************************* We're not sure. We have a preliminary meeting with a publisher next week, and if all goes well, we may be able to set a time frame with them. I would certainly hope by autumn. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:30:16 From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: About that book Excellent - particularly the para setting out consisely the value of contemporaneous sources over anecdote. One change I would make, though, is to cut the references to the Holy Grail. This would have been OK a couple of years ago, IMHO, but for me the efforts of Dan Brown have turned the phrase into at best a very worn cliche, and at worse a signpost for hogwash. OK he's a fantasy novelist, but he claims historical accuracy and his research principles seem to be about as far from TIGHAR's as could be. I wouldn't contaminate the brand by using his favourite two words! Phil Tanner 2276 (just renewed on line) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:31:07 From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: About that book And of course I need to learn how to spell "concisely"... ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:31:34 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: About that book Ric wrote: "...Their attempt to protect Earhart's image was, in part, responsible for the public's correct impression that there was more to the story than was being told..." - - I feel sorry for my cynics... but, as it seems for me, we have no real base to be sure that the people who said this really were driven exclusively by such a generous idea to "protect Earhart's image"... So I would rather write something like this: "...their enough foggy statements about the need to "protect Earhart's image (that quite possibly reflected rather their desire to protect their own images and careers) was, in part, responsible..." - and so on... Just my view... Regards - LTM, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:32:06 From: Danny Brown Subject: Re: About that book I agree with Marjorie Smith's grammar changes. I also tend to agree with Kerry Tiller about the "Beyond the Legend" phrase. However, at this time, I have no suggested alternative. I will sleep on and let you know. Other that those minor points, I feel you did an excellent job. Your introduction is as it should be -- a great outline of the book. I'm looking forward to reading it. I know what a huge undertaking it is to write a book. Thank goodness for great editors. LTM (who son is often referred to as a so-so professional journalist) Danny Brown #2426 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:32:45 From: Chin Koon Fun Subject: Re: About that book Clear, precise, logical. Better than many of the anecdotal mumbo jumbo that I have read. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:29:06 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: About that book Just a couple of observations on your introduction: Somehow you have to make the distinction between the July 1937 search efforts and those many years later when you liken the search to "the quest for the Holy Grail." Your point is well taken for those of us that have watched and learned over the years the efforts of TIGHAR and others starting somewhere in the '70's, '80's and later. However, for those who will be reading about this saga for the first time, many will no doubt cast dispersions on your research because you don't state the value of clarity of using hindsight Vs what was known or suspected at the time of the event. For example, you pose an argument that contemporaneous records are much better (more accurate) than "after-the-fact descriptions," which is true, however you need to distinguish the difference between the two. Keep in mind that the reports of the USS Colorado and USS Lexington were written within weeks of the search not years later as one would assume an "after-the-fact description" would be called; describe what you would call a contemporaneous record. When describing the legend that has risen around Amelia you might wish to embellish the paragraph that you wrote about her being a "professional celebrity" i.e. much of what was written at the time is what someone wanted the public to remember her as and not the gory details of the mis starts and errors involved in the actual incident. Finally, I would suggest that you tone down your disgust of other than contemporaneous records (we TIGHAR's know where you are coming from) as I am sure this is where the critics will concentrate their efforts in critiquing the final publication: Simply put the value of contemporaneous records in its proper pigeon hole of archaeological information hierarchy - I believe you did this once on the web site in a very clear and understanding way. Great start to an even greater book, keep at it! Ted ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:31:32 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: About that book I enjoyed the introduction very much. Has Tom King commented on Ric's efforts? Just curious. You have done a terrific job Pat, but I must confess I miss Ric's humor! When may we expect him back in the role as forum moderator? LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ********************************************** Well, I don't know. The top priority has been the book; and there is another Marshall Islands trip set up for April. It may be that sometime this summer he will start checking back in. I know it's not the same, but just remember that when the book is in your hands, you'll be glad he wrote that rather than comments on postings. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:32:10 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: About that book Hold the presses, Ric. They are back in Saipan jail digging up Amelia and Fred again. Seriously, all the critiques have great merit and Herman, don't sell yourself short. I can assure you that your command of English is far better than mine and a lot of Americans. As for considering what the eventual attackers may say I wouldn't worry about it. They will attack anything and no matter which side of an issue you take they will pound you for both. that is simply the nature of reviewers. To me, readability is the number one criteria. You could follow every grammar rule and ALL of our suggestions and end up with a poor book. Write it like you feel. write it like you were talking to us. It'll be great. If all your readers can find to complain about is a broken grammar rule or something not quite politically correct then you wrote a perfect book and they can go get a life. I am NOT referring to any one on the Forum or any of our old contributors but rather the expected detractors out in Earhart land. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:37:56 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: About that book Hi Ric: I read the draft of the intro chapter posted to the Forum. Good stuff! I hate to be one more person telling you to get it finished, but stay at your desk, keep writing, and get it finished! Suffice to say, I'm eager to read it. Hi Pat: Please call Domino's and order Ric a large with the works. Let me know how much, 'cause I'm buying! LTM, who never ordered anchovies, Alfred #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:39:45 From: Tom King Subject: Re: About that book For Mike Haddock Yes, I've commented on Ric's effort. I like it a lot, but sent him a whole bunch of nitpicky comments for him to take or leave. For Alan Caldwell Yes indeed, excavations are now planned at the Garapan jail. The National Park Service is supporting the work not because of the Amelia connection but because the jail is an important historic property, included in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, which needs ongoing management, and various plans are being considered for taking care of it. Getting a handle on what's underground is a necessary part of this planning. But I'd be amazed if human bones weren't found there, considering what happened to Garapan back in '44. And under the circumstances, I'd be amazed if someone didn't proclaim that they're AE's. We're keeping track of it. LTM (who's never been in jail) Tom ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:56:33 From: Ron Bright Subject: AE on Saipan My friend in Saipan is keeping track of the excavation, and as you can see was part of it. No AE bones yet.... Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:57:35 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Saipan More info on the Garapan jail: > Ron. The Article Is in the Marianas Variety noting that the historic > preservation office has requested funds in the National Park Service > to run a stabilization survey of the Japanese jail. When I talk to > the Director the historic preservation office this morning he said the > project would also include checking out various local rumors about her > being buried behind the jail after being executed and "burned." The > reason I mention the two soldiers was that is exactly what happened to > them and I thought perhaps some passerby noticed the process and later > on a memory might have been transmutted to be Amelia & Co.. > Apparently the reference to the French consul in the article was > result of some independent research done by the > reporter.www.mvariety.com is the url .I will try to scan it > and send it as an attachment later. Cheers, Sam ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:57:51 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Saipan Thanks for the Saipan details, Tom. I agree they will certainly find bones and get all the Marshall theorists excited beyond words. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:12:15 From: Dave Porter Subject: About the book Ric and Pat, Loved the intro, eagerly anticipating the book. Any idea of cost, so I can be sure to have the $$ available when the time comes? Are you accepting orders and payment now, in advance of printing? LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ************************************** No idea, but I would expect it to be an "ordinary" price; we don't see it as a coffee-table book with a lot of photos or anything. We will certainly arrange for some sort of member discount. No orders yet as we have no idea what the publisher will want to do. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:39:28 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: About the book Found your intro a fun read - Forum comments appear for the most part constructive towards your effort - With that said let me add to those forum comments, hopefully you'll find these comments constructive also. - In the body of the sixth paragraph, I suggest replacing "besmirch" with wording more attuned to the 21st. century reader. - Suggest resistance to use of preceptual statements or comments - Let your reader form their own preceptions of what you allude to be factually driven research. Impressed with your effort, looking forward to the end product! Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:20 From: Hal Banks Subject: Re: About that book Is this a case of mixing metaphors: "...of reported distress calls had died to a trickle." Would this work better: "...of reported distress calls had dried to a trickle." Hey, I can't wait to buy the book!!! Hal Banks ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:08:55 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: About that book (Modified by Pat Thrasher) For Tom King How do you find news about the dig. I get the Pacific News online daily from Guam and have seen nothing. Jim Preston ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:10:52 From: Paige Miller Subject: About that book In general, Ric, this is a very fine introduction. It does make me want to read the rest of it RIGHT NOW. How long you gonna make me wait? Anyway, here's a few comments... Ric says: "Clearly there is a problem. Puzzles of far greater complexity are regularly solved in the fields of medicine, genetics, paleontology, law enforcement and dozens of other disciplines Why can't we figure out what happened to Amelia Earhart? The answer lies in the nature of the mystery. Like the quest for the Holy Grail, the search for Amelia Earhart is rooted in legend." I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with the comparison of "those other mysteries" to the Earhart case. I just don't see the connection. It sounds like "they solved that mystery, so therefore we can solve this one". Non sequitur. There are also a lot of mysteries that do not get solved. What is not stated in this paragraph or the ones that follow, other than indirectly, is that the scientific method is one of the keys to solving mysteries such as this. While you have to go "beyond the legend", you also need to use the scientific method in this search. Perhaps the intro to the book is not the place to go into detail, but somewhere in the intro it would be nice to make such statement directly. Such as: "We intend to use the scientific method to solve this problem; we will state hypotheses, and gather data to test those hypotheses." Ric says: "Having concluded that the plane was not on land, it followed that none of the alleged distress calls was genuine and further operations focused on areas of open ocean." Another non-sequitur if it appears to be stated by the author of a book about Amelia. If the statement says something like "The searchers concluded that the plane was not on land, and so they decided ..." then I'm okay with it. Ric says: "Today, the role of the radio distress calls in the Earhart saga is largely forgotten". Elgen Long devotes a portion of his book to the distress calls. In fact, the "281 North" message was used to direct the search by Itasca. I hardly think the radio distress calls have been forgotten. They have been dismissed by many, but forgotten by few. Ric says: "Compiling and comparing the data were only possible through the use of 21st century information management systems." I guess I have to be picky here. Way back in the 20th century (like say 1998) I probably could have done the same thing. But more seriously, I could have done this compiling and comparing manually in 1937, but it would have been EXTREMELY difficult. Once the database is available, it is EXTREMELY easy with today's software. Ric says: "With a database of the alleged receptions and an accurate and accessible record of all of the searchers transmissions, the question can be readily answered." How do you know you have all the records of the searchers? Another sentence saying that there were only a small number of searchers might help. But also, the sentence (along with the previous paragraph) changes abruptly from talking about receptions to transmissions, and I think it would be clearer if the cataloging of the transmissions by searchers is a separate sentence. The first time I read it, I missed the distinction between cataloging receptions and then cataloging transmissions. If cataloging transmissions has its own sentence, you can follow that up with something like "By comparing the alleged receptions of Amelia with the known transmissions of searchers, we can determine..." Hope this helps Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:11:23 From: Larry Glazer Subject: Re: About that book Ric, I've always thought that you are a very good critical thinker and very clear writer. The proposed intro doesn't change those opinions. I will buy the book, but then I'm a member of TIGHAR, so my propensities prove nothing of value. I think that you are already learning that it is a major mistake to invite editing by committee. What you get is a thousand little cuts, because each "editor" responds to your invitation by criticizing one part of your posted work. As I'm sure you are discovering, you need to put the manuscript in the hands of a ONE competent editor who is familiar with the demands of commercial publishing, and then you will just have one person to argue with. I have not published any books, but have had five articles accepted for commercial publication, and I quickly learned that each editor is a valuable teacher. LTM, now get back to work. Best wishes. LMG ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:48:52 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Go Directly to Jail? Yahoo News claims researchers will be excavating the jail where Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were held BEFORE their 1937 disappearance. They go on to report that no trace of the aviators and the Lockheed has ever been found. Some people have not been paying attention to what TIGHAR is doing. Book looks great! Gives those jail excavators something to think about. . . LTM (who told me to always pay attention) Karen Hoy #2610 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:26:24 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: About that book I really appreciate the many comments and suggestions forum subscribers have provided. I'll be using many of them but I won't be submitting revised drafts to the forum. If I got into that cycle I'd probably shoot myself before Marty could kill me. As I go along I may well run sections of text by the forum just to see how a line of reasoning flies. Thanks again for all the help. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:21:43 From: Malcolm Andrews Subject: Re: About that book Before I wrote the first of what now amounts to 26 books, I was warned never show the draft to anyone else. Just leave it for the publisher and his/her editor to decide what, if anything, should be changed. Otherwise there would be too much nit-picking. The comments from fellow TIGAR members on your introduction have proved to me that I was correct to follow that suggestion. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:22:06 From: Martin X. Moleski, SJ Subject: Re: About that book > From Ric Gillespie > > ... I won't be submitting revised drafts to the forum. If I got into > that cycle I'd probably shoot myself before Marty could kill me. ... Please let the record show that Marty was keeping his lip thoroughly buttoned up on this one. ;o) Like everyone else, I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product. Go, Ric! Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:11:48 EST From: Tom King Subject: Garapan Jail For Jim Preston You asked where to get news about the Garapan dig. I saw it at _http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp? id=20050329001909990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001_ which was forwarded by a Chuukese friend. I understand that an article ran in the Marianas Variety, too, whose on-line site is _http://www.mvariety.com/default.htm_ LTM (who's rolling her eyes) Tom ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:39:12 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: About that book (Modified by Pat Thrasher) Ric, will Putnam Books be publishing it ? Jimbo *********************** No. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:05:20 From: Art Carty Subject: RAC I just checked the Raising Amelia Corporation website to see what they are up to and there is nothing new there; anyone heard anything? http://www.raisingameliacorporation.com/ LTM (who can't believe they are already pitching the movie) Art Carty ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:36:57 From: Pat Thrasher Subject: Small changes in posting conventions I have been struggling with two different and mutually exclusive Forum conventions. If I post up mail from my address, stripping out email addresses and so on, it looks to the receiver like the mail is all coming from me. I get replies from people who are signed up for the forum but don't know my name accusing me of spamming them. OTOH, if I use the Listserv mechanism to post the mail, then it posts the email addresses. However, since the last time it came up, I've made some changes to the Forum signup; no one can sign up without being approved by me or Ric personally, and we refuse all signups that are the least bit suspicious in terms of where they come from. Also, the Forum subscriber list is not available to the public -- in fact, not to anyone except Ric and me. I'm going to try it this way for a while and ask people to notify me if they are getting any spam that clearly originates from the Forum. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:16:21 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: RAC For: Art At www.raisingameliacorporation.com/movies.html, they state that they will have a live satellite feed of the ongoing expedition in October 2005. Seems they pushed the expedition back 6 months.. Jackie ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:47:45 -0800 From: R. C. Sherman Subject: About that book-2 M.A. Appreciate your copying me on your comment to the forum about editing a book. It is of special interest to me because I have helped several 'amateur's [in writing] with their first books, mostly aircraft related] .. mostly anecdotes and technical matters, but never edited any of them. Primarily because I am not good at spelling, and it goes downhill from there. However I did suggest to two who were doing their first books to have someone look them over to catch spelling errors and other obvious items, in the belief that publisher's editors would quickly lose interest in manuscripts that were riddled with errors. I have written a number of papers and letters and after looking them over twice gave them to my wife who almost always found errors that I did not see ... did not have a computer with a spell checker in those days. Please tell me why you do not believe the scan of another to be worth the effort and in fact should not be done. Cheers, RC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:36:30 From: John Harsh Subject: EARHART FORUM Re: Small changes in posting conventions I get a lot of SPAM not associated with the forum. Lately I've been getting forum emails, but with different email addresses, and I assume this is the change you describe. Can something be added to the subject line so I can tell the forum emails from the multitude of junk I automatically delete? I have set up my message rules to so that forum emails from PT get saved, but under this latest change I will likely lose some postings. -JMH *************************** How's that? P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:46:03 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: EARHART FORUM Re: Small changes in posting conventions MMM, same thing here, Pat. A lot of postings from the forum are now coming "from" the person who sent the post. While many poster's names are familiar to me, others are not; and when this first started happening it took me a while to understand what was going on. I routinely delete mail from people I don't know. Now I have to be a little careful and actually read a little of the post to make sure it didn't come from someone on the forum. Kerry Tiller On Mar 30, 2005, at 7:36 PM, John Harsh wrote: > ------------------ > From John Harsh > > I get a lot of SPAM not associated with the forum. Lately I've been getting > forum emails, but with different email addresses, and I assume this is the > change you describe. Can something be added to the subject line so I can > tell the forum emails from the multitude of junk I automatically delete? I > have set up my message rules to so that forum emails from PT get saved, but > under this latest change I will likely lose some postings. > -JMH ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:28:04 From: Ken Tischler Subject: EARHART FORUM Re: Small changes in posting conventions Personally, I prefer the new way postings are being forwarded. I find it easier to follow who is posting and can decide which posts I want to read by determing who is posting. As for filtering email, I simply created a rule that sends all postings sent to EARHARTFORUM to a folder, which I can then peruse at my leisure. Ken Tischler ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:57:46 From: Bill Leary Subject: EARFOR: Re: Small changes in posting conventions >> Can something be added to the subject line so I >> can tell the forum emails from the multitude of junk >> I automatically delete? I have set up my message >> rules to so that forum emails from PT get saved, >> but under this latest change I will likely lose some >> postings. > > How's that? I don't like this much. It clutters up the subject lines and pushes the real subject way over to the right. If you're using message rules, you could use the one I've been using for a long time now. If "To:" contains "EARHARTFORUM" copy to "Earhart Forum" mailbox. Or, if you're not inclined to use a separate mailbox (folder) you can highlight them with a different color. Of course, people using simpler mail readers may not be able to do this, so... If you're going to use a subject line indicator, there are conventions. Usually two letters and some punctuation. Something like EF: would probably make them stand out enough to avoid accidental deletion, and would be a lot less intrusive on the screen. - Bill #2229 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:00:04 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: EARFOR: Re: about that book Let me add to R. C. Sherman's posting that today's PCs are equipped with automatic spelling control programs. The most sophisticated ones can check in a number of languages and even provide editing advice, including alternatives for sentences that are incorrectly constructed. That does not mean one does not have to be able to write in the first place... But it does help to correct misspelled words or write shorter sentences or lack words, verb or subject. In the old days I worked as a journalist for a newspaper. It was customary then to have a colleague read one's text before publishing because strangely enough one does not see own mistakes but sees them immediately in someone else's. Today spelling control has eliminated that procedure. However, spelling control can be a dangerous thing as it finds misspelled words but does not recognize words as such. If one writes "cat" instead of "catering" spelling control will not object. So watch out or you may wind up with an airline with at "cat department" instead of a catering department... When I was first confronted with the use of computers 20 years ago I found the expression "word processing" the ugliest the computer industry could come up with, being myself the product of a society that regarded the use of language something personal and almost an art. Since then I have learned that word processing is in fact one of the great inventions of our time and would not want to go back to the old typewriter. Still it is a good idea to have a book first read critically by someone else before seeing a publisher. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:25:26 From: Martin X. Moleski, SJ Subject: EARFOR: Re: about that book > From Herman De Wulf > ... it is a good idea to > have a book first read critically by someone else before seeing a publisher. I have a book coming out in May. It was read by at least fifteen well-qualified people before I submitted it to a publisher. They, in turn, had another three people read and criticize it. I learned something from each reader and did my best to incorporate their suggestions into the final text. Some suggestions were more helpful than others. All of these reviews were done AFTER I had done my best with the manuscript, working all alone by myself in countless hours at the keyboard. I encouraged Pat to keep Ric away from the Forum because I am convinced that creating a manuscript by committee is a formula for disaster. AFTER it's done, it is not that difficult to review criticisms and decide what to do with them. Ric has been working on this project for years. It is a magnificent study. I think we will all feel privileged to be able to say that we know the author of the book. Go, Ric, go! LTM & the boys. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:39:28 From: Dennis McGee Subject: EARFOR: Re: Postings Kerry Tiller said: "MMM, same thing here, Pat. A lot of postings from the forum are now coming "from" the person who sent the post. While many poster's names are familiar to me, others are not; and when this first started happening it took me a while to understand what was going on. I routinely delete mail from people I don't know. Now I have to be a little careful and actually read a little of the post to make sure it didn't come from someone on the forum." That is exactly what is happening on my end, also. I prefer getting all of the stuff with Pat's or Ric's name on it because I can temporarily park it in my "deleted" file and then go back and read everything later when I have the time. With Pat's or Ric's name all of the posting stay together and it is real easy to find them when I want to read them. With the postings coming from several different people it spreads the posting all around my "deleted" file and things risk getting lost. LTM, a big fan of CTRL-ALT-DELETE Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************** Well, I'm still trying to figure out the ins and outs of the whole system, and it is still under revision. Bear with me for a week or so and I think we can iron out all these problems. Pat ======================================================================== ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:51:21 From: Pat Thrasher Subject: EARFOR: off topic, but something to consider As I attempt to work through the technical difficulties I have inflicted on the Forum, it occurs to me that the folks who write the instructions for the ListServ ought to have to submit their copy to the Forum for critique and editing before making it public. Perhaps then they could come up with understandable copy. LTM, who can read and write English but is not too sure about Computerese Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:53:16 From: Andrew McKenna Subject: EARFOR: Re: postings One answer is to put everyone on the digest so we all get just one Forum posting. A. McKenna ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:16:07 From: Emmett Hoolihan Subject: EARFOR: off topic, but something to consider Hi Pat! Hear, Hear! What goes for ListServ also goes for Dell, Garmin, Lowrance, AOL, Chelton and other sort of "guidance" manuals. LTM(who didn't need a guidebook) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:31:05 From: Blake Herling Subject: EARFOR: Re: RAC Art Carty posted a few days ago that he had checked the RAC(Raising Amelia Corp.) website & had seen nothing new. I thought I'd throw this out there just for fun. Here in Denver our local power house AM talk radio station is 850 KOA. They have a part time traffic reporter working for them named of all things, Amelia Earhart. A few months ago the station did a story on her & here are the highlights. She is an english major student at the University of Colorado & is working part time for Premier Traffic which contracts with KOA to fly their traffic helicopter. She fills in when the regular traffic guy is out. In the report she stated that she is a distant cousin of AE & that her family was having their geneology done currently & that she would know the exact family connection within weeks of the report (dont know when the actual report was done though & havent heard anything more). She is also taking flying lessons from one of the local tv weather men, since she now has the flying bug. The big news came toward the end of the report though when it was brought up that she was helping in an underwater search for he famous namesake. They briefly described the upcoming Nauticos search & stated that Denver's Amelia could be gone for 6 to 7 months while the search is being conducted. The report gave some generalities as to where & how the deep water seach was going to be conducted & pretty much blamed the failure to find Amelia on their last search on equipment problems that caused them to cut the search short. Its interesting that Nauticos has asked her to be part of the expedition & I cant imagine that the collage english student has anything to offer the expedition, other than her name. She (Denver's Amelia) kind of closed the report with a synopsis of Amelia's last flight, as prepared by Nauticos I'm sure, because it validated where they are going to search & why. She closed by saying that her famous namesake was ridiculed for being a bad pilot, but that the media caused such distractions in her life, that her piloting skills suffered....Oh yeah & that she Quote " didnt know how to properly use her radio controls." Sure sounds like someone who has done alot of research into the subject doesnt it? Bottom line...looks & sounds like a marketing ploy by Nauticos to add another dimension to their all inclusive movie, satellite uplink, successful, deep water, Amelia Earhart extraviganza! Sad part is you really cant help but like the girl. She's very upbeat & energetic. I have toyed with the idea of sending my extra copy of Amelia's Shoes to the radio station in care of her, but wonder if by being involved with Nauticos if shes already too tainted to even give it a read. My other thought has been to donate the book to our local library system since they dont currently have it in there catalog. What do you guys think? Anyway it was kind of interesting, so I thought I'd just throw that to the forum for fun. Blake Herling