Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:23:01 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel aboard Randy, my fuel graphs were just separate charts. At planning I would graph out the mission using the performance charts and then in the air I would take fuel readings at level off and hourly thereafter. If we had special mission profiles I would take readings at all the change points. That data would be annotated on a parallel line on my graph and hopefully they would track. I wouldn't have any idea what Noonan and Earhart did and I think it serves no purpose to speculate. We know AE said her fuel was low and we don't know what that means in gallons. We also know that whether she also said she only had 30 minutes of fuel remaining it is certain that was not so. I believe the best information we have to go on is the Electra performance charts and the knowledge of the Daily Express flight. I don't think we have anything else. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:23:36 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: fuel aboard Also, at this point, she had flown the plane 3/4 of the way around the world. Assuming she kept track of the flight times on each leg and the fuel put aboard at each stop she would have a very good estimate of her fuel burn and fuel remaining. Gary LaPook ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:24:01 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: fuel aboard You can navigate to a known spot from an unknown spot using radio, as you suggest, but also using celestial. Of course this would take making a deliberate decision to go to that spot and doing the necessary work to do the navigation. Gary LaPook ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:24:48 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: fuel aboard Herman says: "Since no such equipment was present at Gardner or anywhere else in the Phoenix Island, one can safely assume that AE and FN headed for the islands hoping to stumble upon one of them" and then later Herman says: "One of the questions that keep haunting me is why AE, after having failed to find Howland and to establish contact with Itsca, never made a blind transmission on the frequencies available to her announcing to whoever was listening that she would divert to the Phoenix Islands." And then Herman follows this up with: "The very fact that she was able to still transmit long after her ETA had run out, indicates she had enough fuel to get to someplace. And that someplace can only have been the nearest land. Which, according to the theory TIGHAR is trying to prove, was Gardner Island." One does not have to "safely assume that AE and FN headed for the islands" ... It is entirely possible that they ran the 157-337 line to the southeast hoping they would find EITHER Howland, Baker or the Phoenix Islands. It may be that AE and FN thought they were far north of Howland and ran this line, as their only hope to find SOME land. That being the case, there was no reason to announce that they were heading toward the Phoenix Islands, as that was not their specific goal. Maybe the reason AE announced she was running North and South on the line (or whatever her exact words were) was because that matched her thought process at the time, that she wasn't specifcally looking for the Phoenix Islands, and she just happened to wind up there later. Finally, as I have pointed out many times, the nearest land to Howland is Baker. After that, the nearest land is McKean. So Herman, it is extremely unlikely that AE would DECIDE to head for Gardner. -- Paige Miller LTM ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:17:32 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Diverting Herman De Wulf pondered: > One of the questions that keep haunting me is > why AE, after having failed to find Howland and to establish contact > with Itsca, never made a blind transmission on the frequencies available > to her announcing to whoever was listening that she would divert to the > Phoenix Islands. I'd speculate it was her ego and ignorance. Pilots, as we all know, some times display an abundance of both - tragically, often at the wrong time. In her mind, I suspect she believed she'd already confessed" that she was lost when she radioed at 0742, "We must be on you but cannot see you." Knowing AE's proclivity toward sugar-coating her experiences, (i.e., the Dakar incident) it is easy for me to see her thinking that missing Howard was a temporary problem that Fred would solve and there was no need to make repeated broadcasts. Like others here, I also suspect she then began flying the 337/157 line on Fred's advice. Then she changed frequencies . . . . She didn't yet know that she was lost, and by the time she admitted to herself she was lost it was way too late. And she may have made blind transmissions on all of her frequencies, is it just that we know of no one who heard them. The reason she didn't "divert" to another location is because that concept hadn't yet been invented. My understanding of today's use of diverting is that after you arrive where you think you're suppose to be and for whatever reason are unable to land, you go to your alternate (i.e., divert) landing site. This is a planned maneuver, an alternate plan to execute in case of an emergency. This was not the way they flew in the 30s; airlines may have, but not individuals. It would be several more years before the "professional" approach of flying filtered down to the individual. LTM, whose life is a series of "alternates" Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:50:07 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Find us! We're lost! A fascinating thread. Nice to read some Forum activity! I have wondered, too, why AE did not, in her transmissions, make it clear and unambiguous that she was not sure where she was and that she was proceeding SSE on a heading that could put eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands. I've not ever really came to any "conclusions" about it. I've just kind of guessed that she DID make such transmissions, and they went unheard for any of a number of reasons. Thanks for the posting, Dennis, wherein you refer to her "proclivity toward sugar-coating her experiences". Ruminating about the possibility that she did not broadcast any clear & serious message indicating her situation and intentions makes me wonder when it really hit them, when it really became clear to them that they were not going to find Howland. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:23:14 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel aboard Good summary Paige. I would also like to point out that our heroes most likely were NOT on a line that ran through Howland, Baker and Gardner. If they were anywhere close that line would have run them across Howland or Baker. Line of sight at 1,000' is a little over 42 S. M. You can see that means their navigation had to be pretty far off. If they were not long or short they had to be SE but look how far SE they had to be. If they were only SE they were further SE than could be reasonably supported. They would have had to be so far SE that a turn to the NW and a short search leg would have still put them so far SE of Baker they could not see it. They would have had to be around 100 miles SE of Baker or 140 miles south of track assuming a NW search leg of 60 miles. I think that is irrational. I suggest they WERE SE but clearly not on an LOP that ran through Howland or Baker. How could that be? Easy. Noonan drew the LOP ON HIS MAP to go through Howland but unless his position and timing were accurate the airplane would not have been on his map line. The known data shows the winds changing from ESE to E and dropping off in velocity. Noonan would have had to have had a starboard course correction to account for the wind from his right. If he didn't pick up on the changes the plane would have drifted right of course and since the wind was less his ground speed would be higher putting him SE of Howland, east of his LOP. Now when he runs "north and south" he misses Howland and Baker. Where he went from that point on we don't know. He may have continued SE trying to get a fix and once he got it he was too far from Howland and Baker to return. That can be worked out on a map to see if it holds water. By that I mean run out his course from some reasonable point SE of Howland and Baker to a location you could say would make returning to Howland inappropriate. I've done that and the plane would have to be roughly 120 miles SE of Howland for it to be unreasonable to go back. I think that is not out of the realm of possibility or even probability. My concern is that IF he finally got a position WHY would he pick Gardner? Why not Canton? Why did he have Enderbury underlined on the map of their first attempt? How much did he know about the Phoenix Islands? If my speculation of them being south and long is correct wouldn't Canton be the logical target? No, not at all. He would be almost on a direct SE line to Gardner and sufficiently west of McKean to miss seeing it. That is if they were only around 20 miles beyond the Howland/Baker line. If they were 40 miles long they would have hit McKean and not Gardner. If so they had to make a decision to overfly McKean and hope to hit Gardner. Tough decision on very low fuel. Now if, instead they were SHORT and south they would miss Gardner altogether to the West. To have been close enough to pick Canton they would have had to overshoot Howland far more than is possible OR make a conscious decision to head to that Island. At this point let me comment on the Saunder's story. If there was an actual transmission saying they were 80 miles SW of Howland they HAD to know where they were and I see no reason they couldn't find Howland from that known position. To me that is a big indicator there was no such message. As to which Island to pick, Ric has commented several times before on that subject. I can tell you Enderbury was a flat area I would not have trouble bellying a plane in and of course Gardner has a good landing area. But, again, as several have pointed out "picking" probably didn't enter into the equation. Also if you will look at a map they could not get to Enderbury without passing over or near Canton. Comments? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:33:06 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Alfred says: "I have wondered, too, why AE did not, in her transmissions, make it clear and unambiguous that she was not sure where she was" What does AE's message at 0742 indicate to you? It certainly sounds to me like she was not sure where she was. Alfred then says: "... and that she was proceeding SSE on a heading that could put eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands." What does her message at 0843 about running north and south on the 157-337 line indicate to you? To me, that's a path that could eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands. Alan says lots of things which I cannot disagree with regarding how AE might have not actually been on the LOP through Howland. But I do quibble with his statement "As to which Island to pick, Ric has commented several times before on that subject. I can tell you Enderbury was a flat area I would not have trouble bellying a plane in and of course Gardner has a good landing area." I highly doubt that AE and FN had Ric's knowledge of the topography and possible landing places in the Phoenix Islands. In fact, I contend that in 1937, surveys of these islands were scarce, AE most likely did not have this information. If I remember properly, Ric himself did not know whether or not McKean or Gardner had areas suitable for landing until he went to those islands and looked. We certainly do not know what information AE had on this subject, but to me it is much more likely that she had NO information about these islands, and it is much less likely that she (or someone) had done the research to obtain the surveys that did exist and which probably didn't mention landing areas. Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:33:57 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Alan's ideas Alan Caldwell said: "Line of sight at 1,000' is a little over 42 S. M." Yes, in ideal conditions. But AE/FN weren't in ideal conditions. As has been discussed before, low hanging clouds casting shadows on the ocean can appear as land from even a short distance away. So "seeing" this island or that atoll would really be a misnomer because they could never be assured that what they were seeing was real, unless of course they flew directly over it or within close proximity to positively identify it. Thus, if their sighting was true then they could a) land, or b) determine where they were and plot a course to Howland or some other island. Once AE knew she missed Howland she also knew that she had limited time to find it or some other place to set down (duh!). Therefore it is my belief that she did run the 337/157 line as she said and the first island she actually saw (and identified) was Gardner. LTM, who runs straight and true Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:13:03 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Alan's ideas > From Dennis McGee > > Alan Caldwell said: "Line of sight at 1,000' is a little over 42 S. M." > > Yes, in ideal conditions. But AE/FN weren't in ideal conditions. As > has been discussed before, low hanging clouds casting shadows on the > ocean can appear as land from even a short distance away. ... I have often repeated an assertion picked up from this forum for which I have no documentary evidence but which I think is credible: someone said that Finch said that they did not identify Howland until they were about seven miles away from it. Anybody got a primary (credible) source for this assertion? I don't know anything about time of day for the flight or what the weather was like. At any rate, I find the claim believable and, if it is true, it backs up what you are saying about the difference between "ideal conditions" and actual conditions out in the Pacific. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:17:53 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Dennis is correct that absolute ideal conditions didn't appear to exist on that fateful day. I selected 42 miles as the outside limit they could see because I had no way of determining how much that distance was degraded. They may have only been able to see 20 miles or anything in between. As Dennis reminded the clouds cast shadows and it might have been quite difficult even at close range to spot Howland. As to running on the 337/157 LOP to Gardner the problem is we don't know where Noonan thought that line was. We know it was not running through Howland. If it was east of Howland it was usable if it was west of Howland he would have never seen Gardner. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:21:52 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Marty, I don't remember Finch's statement but having flown in those conditions I can assure you they could have gotten quite close and still not spotted the island. As I wrote Dennis, I selected 42 miles as the maximum. If I had said anything less I would not have heard the end of it. From my personal experience I would have suggested 10 to 20 miles as reasonable given the conditions. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:27:11 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Paige Miller wrote: > I highly doubt that AE > and FN had Ric's knowledge of the topography and possible landing > places in the Phoenix Islands. Paige, you may well be right. I base my thoughts that Noonan DID know something about the islands solely because of his PANAM connection and the fact that he underlined Enderbury on his first attempt map. What that means is pure speculation but I think it is a clue that can't be disregarded. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:49:58 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Find us! We're Lost! I agree with Alan. Fred Noonan must have been aware of the possibilities of Enderbury in case of a problem. Therefore I still believe that a diversion to the Phoenix Islands is and was an alternate in the back of Noonan's head, and probably Amelia Earhart's as well. However, as there is no proof the two planned an alternate, I believe that the decision to head southeast to the general area of the Phoenix Islands when they realised Howland was not where it should have been, was a last minute decision. It was a logical decision, not an educated guess, and based on the fact that they did not know where they were. They had reason to believe that heading SE along the 157 line should bring them to the general area and hopefully to one of the islands. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:01:15 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Find us! We're Lost! Ditto here Herman. If AE had gone NW on the LOP, Howland was her ONLY landfall. Beyond Howland there was nothing but open ocean. At least SE gave them a good shot at reaching SOME place to put down. Hence, the TIGHAR hypothesis. Good posts guys! LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:20:45 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: We're over here! Down and to the right! Paige, my posting reflects my puzzling about a few of these things, that's all. I said: > I have wondered, too, why AE did not, in her transmissions, make it clear and > unambiguous that she was not sure where she was. Paige said: > What does AE's message at 0742 indicate to you? It certainly sounds to > me like she was not sure where she was. I responded: > Fair enough, Paige. But it hardly matters what it indicates > to me. What mattered was what the folks waiting at Howland understood. I > think there was room for her to be clearer about it. I just wonder why she > did not say, "We're lost and we are going to plan B, which is such and > such." Then, the search effort for her would have been better focused. I then said: > ... and that she was proceeding SSE on a heading > that could put eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands." Paige said: > What does her message at 0843 about running north and south on > the 157-337 line indicate to you? To me, that's a path that could > eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands. I responded: > Oh, okay, Paige. I think differently. I think she could > have been clearer. It was many days before the Phoenix Islands were > searched, and even then, the search was not very thorough. And there was > much searching that went on in other directions, too. All of this indicates > to me that she did not make it clear at all to those who were in the area > that she was headed towards the Phoenix group. The 157/337 message was not, > in my opinion, a clear indication of her intentions. I just sometimes wonder > why she didn't say "I am gonna head towards the Phoenix Islands"? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:32:09 From: Mike Haddock Subject: We're over here! Down and to the right! For: Alfred Hendrickson Good post Alfred. I think the answer to your puzzlement about AE's unclear intentions lies in the fact that technically she was not a good pilot. She was a stunt flyer at best and her radio communication skills were also poor. Unfortunately, the lack of those skills probably cost her and Fred their lives. LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:32:51 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Clear and unambiguous Alfred said: > I have wondered, too, why AE did not, in her > transmissions, make it clear and unambiguous that she was not sure where > she was. Alfred, I think you're expecting present-day protocol and procedures to have been used in 1937. You've got to take yourself back there and get a feel for what aviators did and did not do. There were no regulations or institutional culture in the aviation community in 1937 demanding that they broadcast that type of information. Generally, speaking a guy or gal got in her plane, told a few friends that he/she was going to fly to Butte, Montana and then headed for Butte, Montana. Nobody thought of an alternate landing site; an alternate landing site was wherever you decided to put down if you ran into a problem, and due to the nature of early aircraft and their pilots, that could be anywhere. Also, if you look at AE's other flights you'll see that she didn't talk all that much on those either, so we really can't expect her to become a songbird overnight. The culture at the time was for pilots to be rough, tough, hard to bluff, and not afraid to die. And AE and most pilots of the era bought into that attitude. All of the professional pilots on this forum would, if you asked them I'm sure, be shocked and appalled at the lack of communications and the poor procedures these early aviators used. Heck, even private pilots are amazed at the loosey-goosey and sloppy planning and preparation AE did for this life-threatening flight. LTM, who is also amazed Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:33:18 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! I don't think Amelia Earhart ever intended to say she was lost. I think that at the time of her radio message "We must be on you but can't see you" she said just that, as if someone had mislaid Howland rather than that she and Fred Noonan had failed finding it. As it must have dawned upon them that Howland was not where they thought it was, they began flying a search pattern. That is all we know for sure. With hindsight we think, based on the next message in which she said they were flying along the 377/157 line, that they must eventually have decided to fly southeast along the 157 degree radial and try and get to the Phoenix Islands with dry feet. However, there is no proof of that because at no time Amelia Earhart ever announced such an intention. This is what remains unexplainable. Anyone who finds himself lost over the Pacific (or anywhere else) would like assistance from anyone that can offer help. Failing this one would at least say what his or her intentions are so that anyone who will start looking would at least know what they were doing. It therefore remains a mystery why she did not send a blind transmission announcing her/their decision to divert to the nearest dry land on the Phoenix Islands. I also agree that at that stage Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan could not have known they would hit upon Gardner Island. Being lost near Howland, the best they could hope for was to find one of the islands in the Phoenix Group. LTM (who says never to leave home without telling anyone where you are going) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:49:21 From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! paige miller, the usn had described recommended emergency alternate landing sites as two islands in the phoenix group - i believe they might have been biernie and enderburry - but i'm not sure and can't get to the source material at the moment. those recommendations were contained in one of the h.o. (usn hydrographic office) pamphlets published prior to earhart/noonan's departure on their r-t-w flight. with the significant and high priority assistance given by the usn, the department of commerce, and department of interior, it would seem almost certain that the alternate sites info (i.e., in the h.o. pamphlet) would have been given to them prior to departure. ron reuther ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:25:53 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Ron, is the USN pamphlet still in existence? I would like to see what it says. I'm not in my usual doubting mode rather I am interested in whether the navy gave reasons for picking those two islands and if they gave geographic information. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:26:14 From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! What specific information or logic leads to the conclusion that Noonan was familiar in any substantive way with the Phoenix Islands? blue skies, JHam 2128 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:27:33 From: Greg Moore Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! This is always am interesting topic for someone who is a former Navy RM, with plenty of CW experience in that huge Pacific Pond, a former Commercial Pilot (lost medical due closed head injuries/spinal disk herniations etc). and both an aeronautical and electrical engineer. Anyhow, been communicating for almost 40 years now, so I figure I can expound a little here So Here's my .02 for what it's worth... First, when the decisions were being made for that last flight, in fact, even before that last flight, the fateful radio decisions were already being made. The biggest and most fatal error was the total removal of the MF (500KHz or 600Mtr) capability, the removal of the trailing wire antenna, and the installation of that huge, ungainly homebrew loading coil (the Gurr mod)... this attempt to try to cram 600 down that Vee was stupid in the first place, since the Vee was never really tuned for any specific frequency used whatsoever. Getting rid of the trailing wire is somewhat like throwing one's life raft away before takeoff to save weight, because the transmitter would be unable to be loaded with any realistic output power on that Vee, all the power would be wasted in the inductance of that huge, apparently ungainly load coil (I, for one would love to see a photo of that thing). Second, It seems as if neither AE or Noonan were even marginally competent radio ops, I don't believe either of them knew CW (Morse) at more than very slow speeds, one single letter at a time, and, if I recall correctly, the key had been removed anyway, making the whole 500Khx/600Mtr point moot, for there was, and still is ( up to the official "end" of CW in maritime service in 1999, a stupid, suicidal idea, but not one for discussion in this forum) no "voice" AM/SSB or otherwise on 500 KHz. (There are. now, NAVTEX broadcasts in the vicinity, but they are digital in nature)... If one didn't pound the brass, one didn't get heard. period.. That one omission signed AE's death warrant. By restricting her to AM voice, she was, basically, cutting her transmit power by 75 percent, and also was not able to take advantage of some of MF's great propagation over water, as well as the ability of just about every ship and shore station to take DF bearings on MF signals, which they were NOT able to do with HF. If one reads the transcript, AE never once uses correct radio procedure, just babbles on and on, makes extremely short transmissions by "whistling" into the microphone trying for a fix, whereas, in actual practice, it requires a MINIMUM of 2 minutes of transmission to even ATTEMPT to try and get a fix on a distant station. OK, yes, there are exceptions to that rule, they happen every day, I've cut a few lines in about 5-10 sec (maybe less, I don't know, seemed like an hour) but I darn well knew that a guy was in real serious trouble and I had better get it right NOW.... Fortunately. the guy got a good fix, and everything turned out ok. Basically Fred Noonan was a good navigator, but AR was not a good pilot, a worse radio op, didn't know the equipment, procedure, or the basics of communications that might have saved their butts had they believed in the equipment and in themselves. IF they had bothered to keep the 500KHz capability and USE IT. IF she had used standard radio procedure in her callups and actually acknowledged messages to/from the Itasca. IF she had declared a "LOW FUEL" emergency, and started looking for a fix at that time, really looking not just whistling a few secs...they would have had a chance.... I also don't believe the had the slightest idea of how to use the DF loop, even if the sense antennas were torn away during the takeoff at Lae, the loop might have given at least that 180degree ambiguous null, and would have been another line to cross with the sun line, and further narrowed their position, considering that Fred Noonan would have had a DR posit as well, regardless of how inaccurate, which then could have been moved with the sunline and the radio DF.....IF she had kept her head, well, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion today.... Thus ends the .02 cents..... Greg "GW" Moore ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:28:02 From: Paige Miller Subject: Saunders' alleged reception Alan writes: " At this point let me comment on the Saunder's story. If there was an actual transmission saying they were 80 miles SW of Howland they HAD to know where they were and I see no reason they couldn't find Howland from that known position. To me that is a big indicator there was no such message." Well thank you, Alan! I tried to point out this inconsistency in the Saunders story a few days ago. I'm glad someone else also picked up on this inconsistency. Here's another one: if Saunders did indeed receive such a message, why did this message not make it to Itasca to direct its search -- especially when we know other messages, some of the spurious, did get reported to Itasca to direct its search. There are too many inconsistencies in the Saunders alleged reception to make this a plausible story. Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:29:23 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Ron, I'd like to see those USN Hydrographic Office documents that describe the two Phoenix Island emergency landing site possibilities, as I am not aware of them. Having poured over nearly everything in the National Archives in the US HO section, I would love to be able to say I missed something. But you know, I have also researched what was known about those islands at the time, and it wasn't much, and certainly not enough to recommend possible landing sites. The most reliable information came from a Hawaiian researcher, Bryant, but it was mostly on plants, animals, and climatology, and a little geology. Most of this info is in the ONI files, and not in the HO files. Even the maps available at the time of the islands of the Phoenix Island group were extremely poor, especially Gardner --- to the point of the island being unrecognizable on the map. Their general locations were adequate, but not the shape, size, or orientation. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:38:39 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Who can prove that Amelia and her sidekick Fred were lost? - They Just could not locate Howland Island on the morning of 2 July 1937 - Which has happened at least once since NR16020's last recorded flight. We forum gum shoes must resist forcing potential crime scenes scenarios to fit the crime - If we follow the facts, logic suggests that Amelia and her sidekick Fred had a plan and that they understood fuel loading and scheduling for each flight leg. One more question to kick the dog with - Would the outcome to the world flight of NR16020 have been different if the Itasca had remained on station at Howland Island past noon on 2 July,1937? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 20:21:04 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Jerry Hamilton writes : > What specific information or logic leads to the conclusion that Noonan was > familiar in any substantive way with the Phoenix Islands? Being a navigator with Pacific experienced since his Pan American days and having prepared Amelia Earhart's round-the-world flight one simply has to accept the fact that he was familiar with Pacific. It stands to reason that the maps he used showed all known islands in the Pacific, including those near the route he had planned for the flight. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 20:21:21 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Re: Howland sighting I think we have discussed this ad nauseum, which also included the fact that Itasca was "smoking", supposedly some hundreds of feet in the air. Photos don't seem to coroborate that as the smoke tended to lay down on the ocean. Obviously she didn't see Howland, even if she was three miles away. And didn't we discuss how far away the crew could hear the twin engine plane in calm weather?? Ron B. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:55:48 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Jerry has a good question regarding Noonan's possible educated knowledge of the Phoenix, or say the Gilberts. Did any strip maps presented by Williams, etc., have an other island groups. Did they include Baker, or Canton, the closest? Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:56:59 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's ideas You're correct, Ron. I think it was Thompson that was blowing smoke rather than the Itasca. I checked with a number of CAF flights about the distance those engines could be heard and all indicated they were loud enough to be heard for a long way off but no specific distance was suggested. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:51:01 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Alan's ideas I think we have discussed this already some time ago. Aircraft engines (and especially the aerodynamic noise produced by their propellers) can be heard a long distance and that was certainly the case with the Pratt & Whitneys of the Lockheed 10. One T-6 could be heard miles away. Two such engines even farther. However, the situation is different at sea. The waves make noise and so does a ship. Ships can be very noisy when they are under way. But even a stationary ship like the Itasca was still producing noise. Therefore I'm pretty sure they would have seen the Electra before they could hear it. If it passed at say 5 miles distance, I believe they would never have heard it. If the sky was clear they could have seen it. Since no one saw the airplane and no one heard it, it is my guess they missed it by perhaps 10 miles. At such a distance one cannot hear an airplane at sea. Even less so if the wind is blowing towards it. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:38:39 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Two comments. My friend served on the USS Maryland and was on board December 7, 1941. I asked him about noise on deck and he said it was very quiet. I wouldn't know. I was playing tennis one day and three T-6s flew over. They were flying about 1,500' and down wind. In less than three miles the sound was gone. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:45:23 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! > Alfred says: "I have wondered, too, why AE did not, in her > transmissions, make it clear and unambiguous that she was not sure > where she was" > > Paige says: "What does AE's message at 0742 indicate to you? It > certainly sounds to me like she was not sure where she was." > > Alfred responds: Fair enough, Paige. But it hardly matters what it > indicates to me. What mattered was what the folks waiting at Howland understood. > I think there was room for her to be clearer about it. I just wonder why > she did not say, "We're lost and we are going to plan B, which is such and > such." Then, the search effort for her would have been better focused. At 0742, there was no need for Amelia to mention plan B, whatever it was, because they were still looking for Howland, also known as Plan A. And to claim that Itasca didn't understand is just plain wrong. I don't see how anyone can think Amelia's message at 0742 could be misunderstood. The crew of Itasca knew the dire consequences of Amelia being unable to locate Howland, and the message at 0742 clearly indicated she could not find Howland. > Alfred then says: "... and that she was proceeding SSE on a heading > that could put eventually put her in the Phoenix Islands." > > Paige says: "What does her message at 0843 about running north and south on > the 157-337 line indicate to you? To me, that's a path that could eventually > put her in the Phoenix Islands." > > Alfred responds: Oh, okay, Paige. I think differently. I think she could > have been clearer. It was many days before the Phoenix Islands were > searched, and even then, the search was not very thorough. And there was > much searching that went on in other directions, too. All of this indicates > to me that she did not make it clear at all to those who were in the area > that she was headed towards the Phoenix group. The 157/337 message was not, > in my opinion, a clear indication of her intentions. I just sometimes wonder > why she didn't say "I am gonna head towards the Phoenix Islands"? Because at 0843 she didn't know she was headed to the Phoenix Islands? Because at 0843, she was still executing Plan A, which according to my official scorecard was the attempt to find Howland. As I read the transcripts of her words at 0843, she is still looking for Howland. Because, as Ric has explained on an occasion or two, she switched frequencies and her next broadcast, if there was one, announcing Plan B, if there was one, was never heard due to the fact that she simply was never heard clearly on 6210. Or maybe because by the time a conscious decision to head for the Phoenix Islands was made, she was so far away from Howland as to be out of radio contact with Itasca. Or perhaps because while AE continued to search for Howland, getting more and more lost, eventually led her to other land, without her realizing she was had been heading to the Phoenix Islands. Its really easy for us to look back 67 years and say "If Amelia had just said this one other sentence ... " Its really easy for us to say she should have told the searchers where to look. But I think it is quite likely that she didn't know where she would wind up in the hours after her 0843 message. Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:51:09 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Ron Bright wrote: > Jerry has a good question regarding Noonan's possible educated > knowledge of the Phoenix, or say the Gilbert's. Did any strip maps presented by > Williams, etc., have an other island groups. Did they include Baker, or Canton, > the closest? Ron, we know of no evidence of specific knowledge but we DO know Noonan underlined Enderbury on his map. That would at least imply he had SOME knowledge of the Phoenix Islands or specifically Enderbury. His route over flew the Gilbert's so his strip map may well have had those islands on it but we don't know since we do not have his map. Baker had a runway and he should have known that and Canton was NOT the closest island to Howland. McKean was AND also Gardner was closer than Canton. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:51:43 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Alan says: > Marty, I don't remember Finch's statement but having flown in those > conditions I can assure you they could have gotten quite close and > still not spotted the island. As I wrote Dennis, I selected 42 miles as the maximum. If > I had said anything less I would not have heard the end of it. From my > personal experience I would have suggested 10 to 20 miles as reasonable given > the conditions. Allow me to repeat something that someone named Ric posted in this forum on 25 Sep 2002. I have no idea if this Ric character is reputable or not, especially since he seems to have left this forum; nevertheless, here is what he said. "You may be thinking of Ann Pellegreno in 1967. I don't think we've heard anything about Finch's experience. (Odd that she didn't write a book, or did she?) "Pellegreno and the three men with her made an effort to arrive in the Howland area at the same time of day as Earhart. They actually hit the advanced LOP (with an intentional 45 mile offset to the NW) at 1855Z or 0725 Itasca Time and spotted the island about an hour later (after much difficulty and almost giving up) at an estimated 10 to 12 miles." Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:56:38 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! Good posting, Paige. All of this is a lot simpler than some folks want to make it. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:06:38 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives You are making an assumption that it was Fred Noonan that underlined Enderbury on the National Geographic map, now in the Purdue Libary. I believe someone has a picture of AE and GPP pointing to that map, dated before the first attempt. If correct, then FN was not even part of the team at that point in time. BTW, PAA's maps and information was no better than what was publicly available. That organization's knowledge of the Phoenix Islands was just as bad as the US Navy, as they had not surveyed that part of the world as yet. Juan Trippe did fund a yachting trip to Baker, Howland and Jarvis Islands in 1936, but that voyage did not include the Phoenix Islands. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:16:52 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Alan explains his theory futher: > As to running on the 337/157 LOP to Gardner the problem is we don't know > where Noonan thought that line was. We know it was not running through Howland. > If it was east of Howland it was usable if it was west of Howland he > would have never seen Gardner. Here again I plead ignorance of the capabilities of any navigational technique that Fred Noonan might have employed. Thus, my question: assume AE and FN are short of the LOP through Howland (in other words, they are to the west of the LOP through Howland). Alan says they would have never seen Gardner. But ... as AE is travelling SE along this westerly LOP, FN takes another celestial reading and decides that they must be somewhere to the west of the Phoenix Islands, and too far away to return to Howland, thus instructing AE to head east and towards Gardner and of course towards the rest of the Phoenix Island as well? Is this possible? Is this plausible? Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:22:52 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Remember that Enderbury was one of the few Phoenix Islands where the U.S. had any sort of presence. Here, for instance, is a note from the log of RCS Viti: > 1941 December 4 In the morning the ship paid a brief call at uninhabited Phoenix > Island. In the afternoon it stopped at Enderbury where Sir Harry entertained the four > U.S. Department of the Interior colonists aboard Viti with much appreciated tea and cake. > The ship sailed for Canton Island the same evening. In his book about his time in the Pacific, Sir Harry writes amusingly about these four guys, stuck all by themselves on a rock a million miles from nowhere. Point is that since Enderbury was an island to which the U.S. was trying to stake a claim (in much the same way it did with Howland and Baker), there might have been lots of reasons for someone to underline it, AND it would perhaps be the only island that anyone in the Navy would have suggested to Earhart and Noonan as a possible alternative landing site -- whether it was a particularly good one or not. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:46:59 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives > From Paige Miller > > Allow me to repeat something that someone named Ric posted in this forum on 25 Sep 2002. > I have no idea if this Ric character is reputable or not, especially since he seems > to have left this forum ... He's on assignment. Wait 'til you see the TIGHAR Tracks! ;o) > "Pellegreno and the three men with her made an effort to arrive in the Howland area > at the same time of day as Earhart. They actually hit the advanced LOP (with an > intentional 45 mile offset to the NW) at 1855Z or 0725 Itasca Time and spotted the > island about an hour later (after much difficulty and almost giving up) at an > estimated 10 to 12 miles." Much appreciated! I think that's the information that I was misremembering. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:48:20 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Unfortunately, Tom, by the time of the 1941 visit of the RCS Viti, the US became interested in the Phoenix Group (after the disappearance of AE and the Eclipse visit to Canton), and decided to "colonize" Enderbury and Canton, much like Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands. Prior to AE's disappearance (and the Eclipse expedition), there was almost no interest and almost no information about any of the Phoenix Islands in the US Navy or government. Both the Eclipse Expedition and AE's disappearance and subsequent brief fly-through by the Colorado (and the heated island grab in the area) accelerated the US' interest in these islands. To state plainly, the interest began after AE's disappearance, not before. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:49:08 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Whither AE? I don't know what your point is, Paige, but you like an argument so much, you'll create one where there is none. I did say, in my first posting, that I "guessed that she DID make such transmissions, and they went unheard for any of a number of reasons." You come now and, with different words, say pretty much the same thing: "was never heard due to the fact that she simply was never heard clearly on 6210. Or maybe because by the time a conscious decision to head for the Phoenix Islands was made, she was so far away from Howland as to be out of radio contact with Itasca." You believe AE had clearly gotten her points across: Point one, that she was lost and Point two, that she was headed towards the Phoenix Islands. You haven't convinced me, though. I don't think the group waiting at Howland immediately understood these things. After some hours passed, Point one became painfully evident, but how do we know that they understood Point two? If AE clearly conveyed in her 157/337 message that she was headed SSE, so that if she overshot Howland, she could find other landfall, why was the search effort not concentrated that way immediately? I'll tell you why, Paige: it's because they did not understand her intentions. (For that matter, we don't know now what her intentions were.) According to the TIGHAR hypothesis, AE at some point made a decision to change course. Along the new course, she could look for Howland and, simultaneously, be pointed generally towards some landfall, which would be her fallback position. I have wondered why, if she was going to do this, did she broadcast her intentions. I have read all of your enlightening arguments that seem to castigate me for wondering about this, and I still wonder about it. I am puzzled about why you wrote this: "Its really easy for us to look back 67 years and say "If Amelia had just said this one other sentence ... " It's really easy for us to say she should have told the searchers where to look." It certainly is easy for us to say all of that, Paige, but for the record, I did not say she should have done one thing or another. I simply said that it is something I have wondered about. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:23:18 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Paige Miller wrote: > Is this possible? Is this plausible? Absolutely, Paige. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:24:28 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Randy Jacobson wrote: > To state plainly, the interest began after AE's disappearance, not before. Well, that's plain, Randy, but I think it's wrong. Have you read Harry Maude's analysis of British and US claims to the Phoenixes, published by the WPHC in 1940? It certainly suggested (to me at least) that the two countries had been dancing around each other for some time over the question of who controlled the Phoenix and Line Islands, and that both were quite "interested" in them. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:25:39 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Alfred, I'm not trying to argue just to argue. You stated something that you wondered about, and I tried to explain that there were many reasons why I didn't wonder about the same thing. Specifically, I see numerous plausible scenarios in which AE arrives at Gardner or elsewhere in the Phoenix Islands and does not radio broadcast her intentions, or why if she does make such a broadcast it might not be heard. I have tried to describe some of those scenarios. I see no reason to wonder at all. Makes perfect sense to me. Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 20:55:44 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives As to AE making a radio call, what would she say? "I don't know where I am and I don't know where I am going to end up but I'm heading SE from some unknown position. Meet us there with a rescue boat." How would Itasca respond? Consider it a hoax? Take off SE just in case? Maybe AE is heading SE from some place NW of Howland. I don't know how anyone would react and I don't think AE would make such a stupid transmission. I think she would wait until she had something specific to say. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 17:42:57 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Alan adds: > As to AE making a radio call, what would she say? "I don't know where > I am and I don't know where I am going to end up but I'm heading SE > from some unknown position. Meet us there with a rescue boat." > > How would Itasca respond? Consider it a hoax? Take off SE just in case? > Maybe AE is heading SE from some place NW of Howland. I don't know how > anyone would react and I don't think AE would make such a stupid > transmission. I think she would wait until she had something specific > to say. Even if AE told Itasca that she plans to follow her present course SE for the next hour, which way does Itasca go to search? Depends, doesn't it? If AE was way far north of Howland then Itasca should search to the north. If AE was was far south of Howland then Itasca should search to the south. What if she was east or west of Howland? But ... neither AE nor Itasca knows this key piece of information. Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 17:43:17 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Alan's ideas Alan answers my question about a possible turn to the east by AE after she had turned onto the LOP west of Howland: >> Is this possible? Is this plausible? > > Absolutely, Paige. Excellent! So it is plausible to for AE to head east into the Phoenix group. You see where all this is leading, don't you? Heading east nicely supports my Paraguay hypothesis. :-) Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 17:43:58 From: Emmett Hoolihan Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives For Alan Caldwell I'd like to agree with your last post re Amelia's radio transmissions especially the part where she must admit to being lost. Obviously, neither she nor FN were sure of their position and rather than transmit a dubious message, they chose to say nothing. I think their thought processes were greatly influenced by the amount of flying time accumulated up to their last day. Think of it--flying two thirds of the way around the world in a confined space, the constant drone of the engines and nothing but pilotage and deduced reckoning with which to navigate. Talk about stress! I think the forum at large has skirted the fatal problem, mentioned it at times, but always in a "passing" manner. I'm referring to their lack of radio knowledge and accompanying procedures. Three items stand out in my mind: 1. In 1937, there were few if any radio procedures in place at the time. 2. FN & AE weren't knowledgeable of them. Radios in aircraft were in their infancy in 1937 and far removed from what we're accustomed to today. 3. By 1937, Amelia had garnered many records, publicity(thanks to GPP), and a belief by many to be one of the world's greatest pilots. She may have believed some of this to an unrealistic extent. If you include the above in the mix of what we already know today, it demystifies many of the radio questions being discussed by forumites. Add to that AE's lack of dependency on radio in her past record flights and I'd be surprised if the "last flight" turned out differently. On the average, how many communications did she make (air to ground) on her record flights? Anyone? Comments please. LTM, Emmett #2405S ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:29:19 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Alan's ideas I think the forumites have now uncovered a key to the Earhart puzzle, in that whatever Earhart would have tried to state as to what her intentions were, the Itasca folks would not know what to do. The reason being that not knowing where one is, one cannot definitively state where one is going to. This introduces ambiguities to the searchers as well. I wonder if Earhart realized all this at the time. Very intriguing spin and take on the situation. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:31:09 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives To: Emmett I'm relying on my memory here, so I might get into trouble... :) I agree with alot of what you believe about AE and FN's experience (or lack of) with the radio's, but there's just more to it than that... Neither Amelia nor Fred could use morse code, which I think is the most tragic problem they had with the radio. Amelia used her radio during her flight from Oakland to Hawaii, and found it to be more reliable than expected. She even enjoyed listening to reports of her progress and some soft music during this flight. But, I can't help but be left with the impression that she found the radio to be an annoyance, also. I say that due to the fact that she had fuel charts, notes to Fred on her fishing pole, notes for her book, etc plus all of her pilot duties to contend with. She only used the radio on the quarter and three quarter hour. I find that to be unusual, but what do I know about 1937 radio procedures? I would be wanting to talk on the radio to see if anyone was hearing me or in the area's I was flying over, just to keep some contact with the earth, but that's just me. Who knows what Amelia's thoughts were? The radio was also a detriment to the flight in some ways. The trained and experienced radio operator's aboard the Itasca didn't realise that Amelia wasn't recieving their messages. They seem to have copped an attitude that she wasn't answering nor following any instructions they gave her, when they should have been looking further into why she didn't respond. Also, because she mentioned "cloudy" in one of her messages, the Captain wasted alot of time searching in the wrong direction when they disappeared, among other problems. So Amelia and Fred weren't the only ones making fatal errors with the radio. I DO think that Amelia was really stupid not to learn morse code. She was sooo knowledgeable about every other part of that plane and its engines that I can't forgive her for this. Paul Mantz was very upset at her lack of time and lackadaisical attitude about learning how the radio, direction finder, etc. worked, and I agree with you that the fatal malfunction that ended this flight was due to radio problems. Such a shame... Jackie ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:12:18 From: Greg Moore Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives GM, Jackie, With close on to 40 years of radio experience behind me, both amateur and professional (I was RM2, USN) as well as both an aeronautical/electronics engineer and former commercial pilot (lost medical and am retired disabled, but that doesn't deter from my CV ;-) I believe I can support your views 100 percent. Since I happen to be a high speed CW operator, was one in the Navy, and have more than considerable experience in the big Pacific Pond, as well as a lot of experience from shore stations, working MF (500KHZ/600Meters) working Merchant traffic (I was extremely fortunate to have been stationed in Argentia Nfld, where the USCG Ice Patrol station used to be located, and the space was shared with the NAVCOMMSTA, we routinely sat each other's circuits, and thus I learned some very valuable skills.... OK, enough babbling about my past, I just wanted to establish my credentials... anyhow, I believe I posted not so long ago that I thought that the death warrant for that flight was signed in Burbank, when the MF capability was torn out with the removal of the key and trailing wire antenna, along with that eldritch Gurr mod with that huge load coil. and a lengthening of the vee slightly to attempt to force feed 500 into it..... A few well known facts: (A.) Nobody, even today, uses voice on 500Khz (600Meters), even though the "official" end of the CW era came to an end in 1999, and any of my rants about that are well known and I will not bring that up here, NOBODY would be listening for AM voice on 500. (B.) At that time, while all ships and most shore stations were equipped to take DF bearings . on MF, and did so routinely, they did not have the capability to do so on any HF freq.. (C.) The total ignorance of both AE and Noonan about radio, and the fact they held it in disdain, whereas, in that type of long over water flight, it would have been the only reliable way to cut a position before things really got pear shaped. ( D.) AE's complete lack of the use of correct radio procedure, including her apparent lack of acknowledging msgs from the Itasca, the stupid whistling into the mic for a couple of seconds (even in a well equipped, trained, and staffed facility, standard procedure when calling for a DF is at LEAST a 2 minute key down transmission. ) OK, that's the official line, and we won't discuss "extreme occurrences here".... Ok, let me sum up...Those two were done before they took off. They had no MF CW capability, They didn't know the darn code even if they did, they didn't know or use radio procedure properly, which IMHO confused the RM's on the Itasca. and the final indignity, is THEY WAITED TOO LONG. Just as one is taught in egress training about "delayed ejection decisions", they (AE/Noonan) committed the same fatal error by "delayed emergency declarations"... AE spent too much time babbling into the mic, then fooled around changing freqs, a real no no (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Propagation conditions in that part of the Pond are quirky, and as long as one has comms, one stays with what works.... I don't think she knew her equipment all that well, and who knows where she actually tuned the receiver., BOTTOM LINE: IF AE/Noonan had kept their collective heads, stayed on the freq that worked, acknowledged transmissions, and actually transmitted a carrier long enough for the Itasca to get a cut on the bearing (I believe they did have HFDF capability) they would have been close to being home free. They already had a sun line.....cross that with a DF bearing,, and one gets an estimated position, which then is adjusted by progressing the sun line for time, comparing with the DR position that Noonan, being a good navigator should have been keeping up, and at least they would have wound up with a rather small triangle of position on the chart.. From that point, they could have made good a course for Howland, or at least toward the Itasca, kept in comms, and if they had fuel exhaustion, stood a fair to middling chance of surviving a ditch and being picked up none the worse for wear, with one heck of an adventure to tell, and we wouldn't be having this forum today.. Just IMHO and my .02 from years of training and experience..... tnx much for listening to by long screed.. Greg Moore #2645 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:13:25 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Specific, not stupid > I don't think AE would make such a stupid transmission. I think she > would wait until she had something specific to say. I agree, Alan. I think she would most likely have said something specific, certainly not something stupid. Something more helpful, like say, "We must be on you but cannot see you." Sheesh! It ain't no wonder she got herself lost where no one could find her! LTM, who at least knew how to call for help. Alfred Hendrickson, #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:12:14 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives > From Greg Moore > > ... BOTTOM LINE: IF AE/Noonan had ... acknowledged transmissions ... The only little "fact" missing from your otherwise masterful analysis is that AE and FN seem not to have heard any transmissions from the Itasca other than the As on 7500. I believe the "fact" is supported by the Itasca's logged messages from AE in which she says that they can't hear anything from the Itasca on 3105. I'm packing for a week's retreat, so I don't have time to verify this assertion, but I think (if true) that it is an important part of the picture you are drawing of what went wrong. LTM & the boys. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:05:39 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Current thread The current thread on the forum has concentrated on Saunder's story saying the AE/FN were last heard from when they were 80 miles SW of Howland. That's a pretty big error, especially for a man of Noonan's experience. Which raises the question: Do any of Pan Am's logs reflect the navigational errors made by their navigators, particularly Noonan? My obvious reasoning is that if he was usually dead-on target all of the time, then the 80 mile error enroute to Howland, (if it is correct) is certainly a huge anomaly. We all make mistakes, but could Noonan really have been that far off? LTM, who seeks progress, not perfection Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:26:19 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Current thread Dennis, the claim was that AE was 80 miles SOUTHEAST. I was the one who questioned that and asked if it maybe was SW. I don't think there was a claim this was the last message heard. We didn't even get a time for the message. Most importantly, there is no confirmation there ever WAS such a message. There is some effort ongoing to make that determination. Until we have a copy of the actual message speculation doesn't seem to be productive. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:27:20 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Current thread Re: Dennis' question re Saunders Recent research by Matt Rodina at Univ of Maimi revealed a taped interview of a John Boyle who was a PAA airport manager 1936-39 at Midway Island. Boyle does rmention a Steward Saunders, but has him at Wake Island, not Midway. Saunders recollection as I have posted, should be taken with a grain of salt. It was some 30 years later, and was prompted by an article about radio in the SF Chronicle, unidentified. I think it was an amalgam of PAA receptions, that is Saunder's memory included the "sunline" reference, the 80 miles s.w., and the low on gas comment. All these were in different msgs, and I think Saunders just combined them into one "Noonan recollection". ( I don't recall AE making a specific reference to "sunline". No doubt he was at either Midway or Wake in 1937 or as we have seen Kingman Reef. But without the msg in hand or quoted, it is impossible to put much faith in the "80 mile" reference. I am looking for relatives in the SF area. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:57:41 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Can't get there from here Randy Jacobson wrote: > not knowing where one is, one cannot definitively > state where one is going to. Alan Caldwell wrote: > As to AE making a radio call, what would she say? 'I > don't know where I am and I don't know where I am going > to end up but I'm heading SE from some unknown position. > Meet us there with a rescue boat.' The general concept that one cannot navigate to a known position from an unknown position has been stated many times on this Forum. On one hand, it makes logical sense. But, it also oversimplifies things a bit, don't you think? Indeed, rigid adherence to this concept actually flies in the face of the TIGHAR Hypothesis. Ya see, if she did not know where she was, how could she get from there to Gardner Island at all? I know, I know, you're thinking I've lost it, but try this on, you'll see what I mean: FN: "Hey Amelia, I am fairly certain that we're lost!" AE: "If you will believe me, Fred, those very words were on my lips this instant. I can't see land anywhere down there, and we are supposed to be right on top of Howland. We are hopelessly lost. No doubt about it." FN: "What shall we do now?" AE: "I know; let's head for the Phoenix Islands." FN: "No can do, Amelia." AE [looking alarmed]: "Why not, Fred?" FN: Well, Amelia, that'd be a known position, and we are here at an unknown position. And [wagging finger], I have it on good authority (from the folks over there at the Earhart Search Forum) that we can't get to a known position from an unknown position." AE: [reaching for flotation device]: "Why, dad-blame it, Fred. I guess we'll have to splash and sink then." FN: "Mind if I smoke?" *** Hunh? Alright alright, I'll stop. LTM - she knew when to give it a rest, even if Alfred doesn't, Alfred Hendrickson, #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:58:55 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Current thread Looking at The TIGHAR map and the LOP again it stands to reason FN said they were 80 miles SE of Howland. The LOP did not run vertically through Howland North-South. It was a line heading 337 towards the NW and 157 towards the SE. Therefore it is possible Fred Noonan calculated their position to be 80 miles SE of Howland hitting the LOP. Which means they would find Howland it if they turned left and flew a heading of 337 degrees. Later, when they were flying up and down the 337/157 line they could again have been at 80 miles SE. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:59:16 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Current thread Dennis, Anything is possible. During WW II bombers are known to have bombed the wrong city because of a navigation error. And bombers were guided to their targets by well trained navigators 8. The simple truth is that we shall never know. Most flying accidents are caused by human error. In those days a frequent error was a navigation error. That was why airplanes used to crash into hills. At one time there was talk of on this forum of another message, saying the were "80 miles north of the line", whatever that meant. Could FN have been so confused after 20+ sleepless hours in the air that he thought the Sun was standing in the South although they actually crossed the Equator ? When people get tired they sometimes make surprising mistakes. It is therefore my "educated guess" that we shall never now until the wreck of Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra will be found. Only then will all parts of the puzzle fall into place. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:01:12 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Current thread Alan Caldwell said: > there is no confirmation there ever WAS > such a message, regarding the alleged Saunders message. Yes, I am aware of that, but my curiosity regarding Noonan's navigational accuracy was the point of my post. I guess I picked a pretty bad example to illustrate the question. Nonetheless, there has recently been a lot of speculation on the forum about how far off Noonan was when AE radioed, "We must be on you . . ." I was trying to establish whether or not there were any recorded instances of Noonan making any gross errors in navigation during his time with Pan Am. I know a thread regarding Noonan's abilities was beat flatter than road kill several months ago, but was wondering if we had reached any definitive conclusion to the issue. LTM, who is responsible for some road kill Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:40:43 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Can't get there from here For Alfred Hendrickson, It would appear that the forum has reached the fork in the road and we have taken it, to paraphrase Yogi. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:41:33 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Navigation Alfred said: > AE: "I know; let's head for the Phoenix Islands." > > FN: "No can do, Amelia." In your fictional AE-FN dialog I think you misrepresented the comments by Randy et. al. regarding the navigation issue. When they said you can't navigate from an unknown position to a known position the context of the argument was in finding a SPECIFIC landfall, not a gross landfall. If get lost in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean I absolutely know I can find North or South America (assuming I have the fuel reserves) by heading 270 degrees, but what I can't find is Ocean City, Maryland, or any other specific place in North or South America. LTM, who navigates by road Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:30:41 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Alfred Hendrickson wrote: > The general concept that one cannot navigate to a known position from an > unknown position has been stated many times on this Forum. On one hand, it > makes logical sense. But, it also oversimplifies things a bit, don't you > think? So, why didn't Noonan navigate to Howland Island? LTM, Bob Brandenburg #2286 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:31:06 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Of course we over simplify, Alfred. It makes for a shorter and more readable posting. And I guess I just over simplified. As others have pointed out generalities are not specifics and one CAN get some place specific from an unknown position by either luck or GAINING some location knowledge. I think the basic point of this is in offering another point of view as to why AE may NOT have transmitted. That is that she didn't have anything specific or helpful to say. Here are some possibilities. 1. She DID transmit and wasn't received. 2. She DID transmit and we haven't discovered the receptions yet. 3. She was too busy with the job at hand to transmit. 4. The radios weren't working at all. 5. The radios worked but 6210 could not be received in the short range from her to Itasca. 6. The radios worked but by the time she finally transmitted again on 3105 she was out of range of Itasca. 7. She didn't KNOW what helpful information to transmit. 8. She didn't HAVE any helpful information to transmit. Someone may think of other possibilities but these come to mind at the moment. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:34:21 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Current thread That is certainly one possibility, Herman. If, on arrival, he got a fix 80 SE of Howland he would then turn NW and see Baker then Howland. He didn't see them so the possibilities are: 1. There was NO such message. 2. There WAS a message but he didn't say that. 3. There WAS a message and he DID say that but his fix was sufficiently off that flying NW missed the islands. Any others? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:55:51 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Current thread I've seen all these sleepless hour comments for years. Why would anyone believe they didn't take turns napping? Our crew did across the Atlantic. Also is there some evidence they didn't reduce the noise with cotton in their ears? We've been painting possibly an unnecessary horrible picture of their flight. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:56:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigation Dennis McGee wrote: > If get lost in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean I absolutely > know I can find North or South America You're my kind of navigator, Dennis. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:57:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Bob Brandenburg wrote: > So, why didn't Noonan navigate to Howland Island? There was a cooler and a six-pack at Enderbury. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:39:05 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Bob Brandenburg wrote: > So, why didn't Noonan navigate to Howland Island? I don't know, Bob. I've always thought that, on the way to Howland, NR16020 simply drifted off course. Noonan did his best, I'm sure, but it was a long flight, and errors compounded. This is what I have thought, but, of course, I do not exactly know. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:40:06 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Alfred's screenplay My fictional AE/FN dialog was way outta line. It was Monday when I wrote it. Apologies to Alan, Randy, Paige, Dennis . . . heck, apologies all around. I'm done with that one (unless you guys want me to write a sequel). I did, however, get my latest TIGHAR Tracks. Plenty of interesting stuff in there. Pat, that picture of Ric, is that a silk aviators scarf around his neck, flapping in the breeze? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583 ************************************* Ummmmmm, no. P ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:44:08 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Alan, You forgot the most likely reason she couldnt transmit. She ditched into the ocean and couldn't transmit. So far no post loss msgs have been authenticated to a high standard of proof. REB ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:16:34 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Alfred Hendrickson wrote: > Bob Brandenburg wrote: "So, why didn't Noonan navigate to Howland > Island?" > > I don't know, Bob. I've always thought that, on the way to Howland, > NR16020 > simply drifted off course. Noonan did his best, I'm sure, > but it was a long flight, and errors compounded. This is what I have > thought, but, of course, I do not exactly know. My question was intended as a test of what I understood to be your implicit claim that one can navigate from an unknown position to a specific desired position. Bob Brandenburg #2286 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:17:28 From: Ron Bright Subject: Canton or Bust! Re: Noonan's possible alternatives (if enough gas and time) We have overlooked the Navy's "Pacific Air Pilot" , H.O. 184, that described the islands in the vicinity of Howland Island, such as Enderbury, Phoenix, Sydney, and Hull. Gardner was not mentioned, and Canton seemed the most promising. Goerner first mentioned the PAP, and Cam Warren pursued the lead with vigor. Ric Gillespie, he says, has ignored its significance. The publication is or was in the National Archives Record Group 37, Originally classified "Confidential" it was declassified in 1958. Randy Jacobsen may be aware of it. The Japanese , according to Capt Layton, captured a copy of the US Naval Air Pilot, Pacific Islands, 1936" on Wake Island in 1941. The book was Pubished by the Government Printing Office, 1935. Donahues book 'The British Connection" reproduces a copy of the first page of HO 184, page 146. He describes its value as describing various Islands in the Pacific. He found it at the Dean B Ellis Library at Arkansas State University. Warren says that this sole surviving copy has mysteriously disappeared. Warren can not be positive that FN or AE read this document, but says there is some anectodal evidence that she and presumably Noonan were allowed to view the contents unoffically in view of their flight to Howland. Warren cites the following as circumstantial evidence they read it. Here is an excerpt of a letter dated 15 Oct 336 from Capt A.C. Read, Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics to George Putnam: "...I believe the Navy Dept stands ready to assist you with arrangements for Mrs. Putnams flight in every way practicable...The reports that you refer to , viz' Climate Features of the Pacific Island Regions and "Detailed Information on Seaplane Anchorages and LANDING FIELDS [ Warrens emphais] are under the cognizance of the Hydrographic Office..." These were the two sections of HO 184. Whats does it mean? Just a guess on my part, but it suggests that Noonan may well have been aware of the Phoenix Islands as an alternative, and in particular the more desireable Canton Island, rather than Gardner. This knowledge and his PAA navigaton experience may have influenced his decision to fly southeast toward the Phoenix and perhaps seek out Canton. I leave the expert navigators to review this as a possibility and option. For instance even without radio contact, Noonan may have had other opportunities for a better estimate of his position enroute. Cam Warren can better articulate this possibility than I. But this is something to chew on. LTM Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:37:38 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Ron Bright wrote: > authenticated to a high standard of proof. We can't rule out that possibility at the moment, Ron and you were doing fine until the "high standard" comment. Tell me what, in your mind, would constitute a "high standard of proof?" Given any one of the 148 or so post loss messages tell me how we can prove it was authentic. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:54:15 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Another mystery? Ron Bright said: > Goerner first mentioned the PAP, and Cam Warren > pursued the lead with vigor. What ever happened to Cam, we haven't heard from him for over a year, I'd guess. LTM, who like to keep up on the latest news Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ****************************** What happened to Cam is that he is not a TIGHAR member, and if you will recall, only members are permitted to post to the Forum now. And boy, does it save me a ton of aggro! Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 16:41:47 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Another mystery Is he still lurking?? :-) Dennis ********************* Yes ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:16:45 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Maybe we can get there from here Bob Brandenburg wrote: > My question was intended as a test of what I > understood to be your implicit claim that one can navigate from an > unknown position to a specific desired position. I'm not sure I follow you. It is not my claim. But, pretend it is a claim. How are we gonna test it? I see that FN began at a known place (Lae) and ended up at a somewhat-unknown place (near Howland). He was lost, to be sure. He could not pinpoint his position on a map. But was he really at an unknown place? I say no. He knew something about where he was. For example, I think he could say that he knew that he was over the Pacific Ocean. I also think he could say he was not at Howland. He maybe even could have selected two radii, used them to draw two circles around Howland, and say he was inside the big circle, and outside the little circle. If we all believe that our duo changed course with the thought in their heads that they had a better chance of hitting landfall by heading SSE, then we cannot simultaneously say that they were at an unknown position. They had to know enough about their position to know that they had a chance of hitting the Phoenix Islands, didn't they? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson, PE TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:21:43 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Canton or bust Ron Bright wrote: > Warren says that this sole surviving copy has mysteriously > disappeared. What does that mean, Ron? Why "mysteriously" as opposed to lost, misplaced, packed up, or thrown away? Our heroes would have no interest in seaplane anchorages and there weren't any airfields so my first question would be what possible relevant information could the publication contain? I see nothing to indicate Noonan or Earhart were aware of or read the publication but the first order of business would be to look at the book and see if there is anything of value in it pertaining to the issue at hand. Where is there a copy? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:35:10 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Alan, I personally don't think any of the post loss msgs were authentic, and haven't seen any that would be considered authentic. Please tell me which one you think was authentic, beyound a reasonable doubt, or maybe just preponderance of evidence. I guess we must set up a definition of 'standard of proof", Alan. Yours and mine may differ, just like in a court of law. None of the principal players in July 1937 thought any were really signals from AE! REB ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:36:10 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Another mystery Dennis and Pat, I forgot he withdrew from his Tighar membership. He was always a thorn in Ric's side over a variety of issues. He lives happily in Reno with still one of the best archival collections of AE stuff that I have seen! I think he is most famous for believing there was more stuff going on at Miami than most of us think!! REB ***************************************** Cam Warren was never a TIGHAR member. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:36:28 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Canton or bust Alan, all good questions. "Mysteriously " disappears, who know why but we like conspiracy's don't we? The publication was at first "Confidential" which suggest that there could be some interesting information for cross Pacific air travel. I think the value of the HO 184 was that, as Donahue suggests, it described the various Phoenix islands re landing possibilities. Even some think that a lagoon landing would be better than a sandbar landing. I don't know. What I see in this is that just maybe FN was better acquainted with the Phoenix, Canton or Gardner or Hull, etc to take a shot at it. I bring this to the attention of you experts who may find something in that document to stimulate your thinking outside of Gardner. The doc exists, but I dont know where now, but I shall ask Cam Warren. Maybe someone in the forum knows how to go about finding a copy, if anyone thinks it is worth while. REB ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:38:04 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Let's try and find an answer to this eternal question. It is generally accepted that no one can navigate from an unknown position to a known destination. Or is it? When I was a young guy, I served in the air force. No, I wasn't a pilot yet. I was a conscript and conscripts were not allowed to fly airplanes. As a conscript one could become either a lieutenant or a sergeant, according to the needs and your abilities. Having turned down a commission because I wanted to stay near my hometown, I became an NCO. And guess what. One of my responsibilities was teaching soldiers how to find their way using maps and yes, that included getting from an unknown position to a known place. And you better found it or you would be in trouble. We were dropped in the woods at night without knowing where we were. We were given the coordinates of where a truck would be waiting until 1 a.m. to bring us back to barracks. The first thing to do was finding where the North was. Then march on in the general direction of where the target of the day (or of the night) was. Of course, it helped when you recognized the relief of the terrain on your map. So did the fact that you hit upon a road with a road sign... Then at least you had some idea of where you were. After some time we all found our way through woods. And we never missed the truck for no one wanted to walk back to barracks (which was about three hours away). What I want to say that given circumstances I believe it should be possible to find one's way from an unknown position to an unknown one, provided Fred Noonan could get a really good reliable fix on the stars, the Sun or the moon. That would have reduced his area of uncertainty. And from an area of uncertainty, one can try to find his target. After all, wasn't this what RAF bombers did at night over Germany in WW II? Navigation techniques being what they were at the time, no RAF bomber could find a target inside Germany by dead reckoning until around 1943. The best they could do was getting to an area some 50 miles from the target. It was only after introduction of radio equipment like Gee and radar that they began finding their way. I agree that they sometimes missed their targets by many miles and occasionally even bombed the wrong city. But as technology improved, so did crew experience. The famous Dam Busters of 617 squadron flew deep into Germany relying on dead reckoning and their eyeballs. They had no other means other than a target run over the Zuiderzee in Holland (which they had to find first). However, Fred Noonan's possibilities were more limited, I'm afraid. His maps showed water. His mathematics had failed. With his stopwatch and the Sun he should have been able to more or less determine the area of uncertainty they were in. Hence the message: "We must be on you but can't see you". I think we all agreed that at that time they must have been within some 50 miles from Howland, perhaps closer. With time on his watch, the compass showing the North and the Sun shining to check their latitude, their area of uncertainty could be reduced. Hence the other message: " We are flying along the 337/157 line". They must have known roughly where they were. From there on their luck was no better than that of RAF bomber crews over Germany at night from 1939 till 1943. The one unforgivable mistake was that neither of the two could work with radio. Earhart shouldn't have been frequency hopping. She would have been able to pick up a signal from Itasca and determine the direction from where the ship was signalling. She should have been transmitting long enough for the Itasca radio crew to get a bearing on the Electra and give them a course to fly. Neither of this happened. Which left the only way out: heading roughly SE and hope to hit upon some island in the Phoenix group. It was impossible at that time to "choose" an island. It certainly wasn't Gardner Island. If the got there, as TIGHAR is trying to prove, they must have been lucky. All indications are they found it. But it remains a mystery why the recce planes from the Colorado failed to find them or their airplane. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:40:45 From: Dennis McGee Subject: "Mysterious?" Ron Bright said: > Warren says that this sole surviving copy has > mysteriously disappeared. Alan Caldwell said > What does that mean, Ron? Why "mysteriously" as > opposed to lost, misplaced, packed up, or thrown away? Alan, if you knew Cam Warren then you'd know the answer; he tends to see conspiracies everywhere in connection with AE's last flight. I've lost track of the number of times he and his friends have insinuated conspiratorial shenanigans in connection with government reports, missing letters, etc. etc. etc. In the world of the conspiracy theorists, there are no coincidences, mismanagement, simple errors, human nature, stupidity, incompetence, or natural phenomena. Everything is connected by a vast watertight conspiracy to - usually - "hide the truth from the American people." Yadda-yadda. LTM, who believes in Murphy's Law Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:19:36 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here For Herman de Wulf Herman, when you say: "it remains a mystery why the recce planes from the Colorado failed to find them or their airplane," it seems to me you're forgetting a good deal of the thinking on that subject that we've kicked around on the Forum, and presented in "AE's Shoes" and elsewhere. Notably: 1. If, as we suspect, the plane had been washed off the reef flat over the edge of the reef by the time the Colorado pilots flew over, it wasn't there to be seen. 2. TIGHAR's 2001 helicopter survey, available to all in the DVD "An Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro," showed that at the probable altitude maintained by the Colorado planes, you can't see even the footprints of a large working party on the Nutiran beach, and can only barely make out a largish man (Bill Carter) in a bright white tee-shirt standing next to a big hole in the ground at the beach/scaefola interface. 3. There's no reason to assume that if AE and FN were on the island, they were in a location where they could have been seen at all. In the videotape of the helicopter tour, I can't be seen even though I was on a well-cleared trail through the Scaevola, jumping up and down and waving my hat. Back in the bush, people are simply invisible. Of all the red herrings that critics of the Nikumaroro hypothesis throw up to flop on the deck, the argument that AE and FN couldn't have been there because the Colorado pilots didn't see them is among the most crimson. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:20:55 From: Dennis McGee Subject: More navigation Herman de Wulf said: > What I want to say that given circumstances I > believe it should be possible to find one's way from an unknown position > to an unknown one, provided Fred Noonan could get a really good reliable > fix on the stars, the Sun or the moon. Herman, you just talked your way out of your own argument. Fred was lost "somewhere" near Howland. If, as you say, he "could get a really good reliable fix on the stars, the Sun or the moon" then he would be un-lost, wouldn't he? He now knows where he is and can now plot a course to Howland. In your example, you weren't exactly lost, you were simply in unfamiliar territory. The difference being you had numerous geographical and man-made features to guide you to your destination; Fred didn't. Just because Fred could have EVENTUALLY found Howland (assuming he had unlimited fuel, water, and food) does not mean he wasn't lost. Even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn. I can not for the life of me understand the argument that a person can navigate from an unknown position to a known position. It defies logic. Where's Marty? Maybe he can straight this out. :-) LTM, who mostly knows where she is at Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ******************************************* Marty is on retreat this week... or is that IN retreat from the Forum? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:22:50 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Noonan's knowledge of the Phoenix Group In reading the recent thread about Noonan's possible knowledge of the Phoenix islands, it might be helpful to recall that before his career as one of aviation's pioneering navigators who personally mapped several routes for Pan Am across the Pacific, he was a fully licensed sea captain who had served on and later commanded merchant ships on trips all over the world. So in my moments of idle speculation I imagine he knew at least something about Gardner's existence and if they did make it there, maybe he'd already heard about the Norwich City being beached on the reef. When and if he saw the huge wreck, Noonan may have known for sure they'd reached Gardner/the Phoenix group. For a real stretch, he may even have had memories of seeing the ship in various ports around the world. Regards, William Webster-Garman ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:23:48 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Canton or bust Are you sure of the title? There are quite a few libraries that are repositories for US government publications, and I can't find this in any of my ususal sources. Dan Postellon > From Alan Caldwell > > Ron Bright wrote: > >> Warren says that this sole surviving copy has mysteriously >> disappeared. > > Where is there a copy? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:24:20 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here So, Noonan doesn't find Howland. He keeps flying. Finds Gardner, which doesn't look like any island on his map. He doesn't have enough gas to go on, so he lands. Does this scenario make sense? Dan Postellon ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:25:36 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Can't get there from here For Ron Bright, Who do you consider as "principle players" in the 1937 search for NR16020? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:49:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here You are probably right, Ron that folks will differ on what constitutes authentication but since you mentioned it I am curious as to how a message could be authenticated to satisfy you. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:49:38 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: "Mysterious?" Dennis McGee wrote: > Alan, if you knew Cam Warren then you'd know the answer; he tends to see > conspiracies everywhere in connection with AE's last flight. Dennis, I was just hassling Ron as he well knew. Just like when I asked him what would be acceptable authentication of a post loss message to him. I am well aware there is no answer to that. Without AE to say that was her message and she transmitted it there is no possible way to prove the authentication of any one message and Ron knew that when he brought up the issue. For the crashed and sankers no post loss message could have possibly been authentic and there is no evidence that would ever convince them. I wouldn't even bother trying. The mystery will be solved only when the plane or a piece thereof is found. Of course we will be accused of planting it. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:59:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Can't get there from here As you all know, I can't afford to indulge in these daily debates and have any hope of getting this book finished BUT - Ron Bright says: > I personally don't think any of the post loss msgs were authentic, > and haven't seen any that would be considered authentic. Considered to be authentic by whom? Obviously, if you knew of a post loss message that you considered to be authentic you wouldn't believe that none of them was authentic. I think that what you're really saying is that you are not aware of a message that you consider to be authentic. Alan wrote: > Please tell me which one you > think was authentic, beyond a reasonable doubt, or maybe just > preponderance of evidence. I guess we must set up a definition of > 'standard of proof", How could we verify that any message actually came from Amelia unless someone could ask her if she sent it? To illustrate this point, imagine what might be considered a best-case "smoking gun" reception. Suppose a government radio operator who was in the search area and was familiar with Earhart's voice, logged an unambiguous identification of a transmission from the airplane long after it could no longer possibly be in flight. Compelling as such an incident might appear to be (there are at least two on record) there is still the possibility of fraud either by the sender or by the receiver. It is, however, possible to quantify the alleged receptions and identify patterns of distribution by time, geography, frequency, message type, etc. The patterns of some groups of signals suggest hoaxes. The patterns of other groups suggest authentic distress calls. The more closely those patterns fit what would be expected of legitimate messages, the more elaborate the hoax would have to be if they are not legitimate. Once you have pinned down where the hypothetical hoaxer would have to be, what he or she had to able to do, and what he or she would have to know, you can then make an informed assessment of how likely or unlikely it would be for such a hoaxer to exist. If you find the hoaxer too difficult to accept,you're left with the only other explanation for the signals - legitimate transmissions from NR16020. > Yours and mine may differ, just like in a court of law. None of the > principal players in July 1937 thought any were really signals from AE! Nothing could be further from the truth. From the evening of July 2nd until the Colorado handed off to the Lexington on July 12th the search for Earhart was driven by the post-loss signals. Itasca was directed to search where it did based on the reported post-loss signals before it was known that the plane could not transmit if afloat in the ocean. Colorado's search of the Phoenix Islands was based on the reported post-loss signals. The reason that the Lexington's search focused on the open ocean is because the captain of the Colorado reported that he had confirmed that Earhart was not on land anywhere within 450 miles of Howland. By that time, everyone knew that the plane had to be on land in order to send signals. If the Colorado had established that the plane was not on land, then the signals had to be bogus. That was the logic for shifting the search to the open ocean. After the search was called off without finding anything, everyone scrambled to distance themselves from the post-loss signals, but there is no doubt that for the first 10 days of the 16-day search they were believed to be genuine, or at least very possibly genuine, by the people directing the search. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:59:42 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Alfred Hendrickson wrote > I'm not sure I follow you. OK. Try this thought experiment. Assume that you are the navigator when AE tells the Itasca "We must be on you but cannot see you". Plot the course from your present position to Howland Island. What is the course? LTM, Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:56:35 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Canton or bust I have found some similar books in the Library of Congress www.loc.gov. Naval Air Pilot, US Hydrographic Office 1931 LC control# 44043092, call # 726.2.A4 Also, Pacific Island Pilot (1921) LC control# unk82079377 I think the Hydrographic Office was the predecessor to the Coast and Geodetic Survey. I doubt that any of this stuff was classified, but I guess you never know what the government might classify. If anyone is in DC, they might want to try the Adams and Jefferson reading room and see what they can find. This group of publications may be incompletely cataloged. Daniel Postellon ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:57:06 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Navigation The axiom, "You cannot navigate from an unknown position to a known position" remains true. But, in the examples we have cited, it seems that we can begin from an unknown position, look around, gather some information, realize that we do know a few things, and very quickly find ourselves in a somewhat-known position. (Dennis uses the word un-lost here. I'll buy that!) In these cases, the axiom no longer applies to our situation. It remains true; it just does not apply. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:08:45 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Bob Brandenburg wrote: > OK. Try this thought experiment. Assume that you are the navigator > when AE tells the Itasca "We must be on you but cannot see you". > Plot the course from your present position to Howland Island. > > What is the course? Come on, Bob. You're getting worse than me. Alan, who thought that was funny ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:09:57 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Un-Lost Alfred said: > The axiom, "You cannot navigate from an unknown position > to a known position" remains true. But, in the examples we have cited, > it seems that we can begin from an unknown position, look around, gather > some information, realize that we do know a few things, and very quickly > find ourselves in a somewhat-known position. (Dennis uses the word > un-lost here. I'll buy that!) In these cases, the axiom no longer > applies to our situation. It remains true; it just does not apply. It doesn't apply only if you're not lost. If the axiom is true, then you must concede that you are lost. If you are not lost, you have no need to invoke the axiom. A difference without a distinction, I guess? LTM, who's not distinct Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:11:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Canton or bust Dan Postellon wrote: > Are you sure of the title? There are quite a few libraries that are > repositories for US government publications, and I can't find this in > any of my ususal sources. Dan, if I recall correctly the minor disagreement had with Cam was a differing view of what constituted support or documentation. I think Cam always HAD some degree of support for almost everything he wrote. He was and is a good researcher. Sometimes it was just a little trying getting it out of him. As to the particular document in issue the title may not be entirely accurate but I'm sure Cam could supply that information to one of us if there IS such a document. In my early days in the service documents were often classified confidential for no apparent good reason so that doesn't surprise me. It WOULD surprise me if there was anything in the document relevant to our case. If you think rationally about it there were no landing fields and a seaplane harbor was of no interest. If AE had to ditch near an island she would just go ahead and ditch, seaplane harbor or not. The best we could hope for would be comments that one or another of the islands had a stretch of reef someone might make a semi crashed landing on. We already know that. There might possibly be information as to potable water or edible vegetation but that is quite doubtful. Even the current CIA data doesn't indicate such. If anyone can think of some relevant information such a document might contain let me know. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:13:26 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Bob writes: "Plot the course from your present position to Howland Island." Good exercise! I don't know how it could be done, Bob. For that matter, I also don't know how they could plot a course to the Phoenix Islands, but they may have done that. How'd they do that? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:47:37 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here For Alan, Authentication or proof of any msg may well be impossible in terms of "indisputable" evidence. The next best thing, is to publish those several msgs suspected to be authentic, and Ric has collected many, so that we can examine the evidence and give an opinion. For instance the alleged authentic post loss signals received by McMenamy at LA were pretty well disproved by Ric's research. As our President says, " bring 'em on". LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:47:52 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Canton or bust Alan, I tend to agree with you that there probably is nothing specifically relevant to our case contained in the document under discussion. The best relevancy I could come up with would be some general information about the Phoenix Island group e.g. how many islands, long/lat positions, height above high water, etc. It seems that if AE/FN had any more information from the document other than what I note above AND if the post loss messages have any value then I would have expected one of them to identify where they were or at least given some indication as to which island they believed they were on. Lastly, with the fix (no pun intended) that AE/FN found themselves in I doubt that based on possible data in the document they would start hunting for the "best of the breed" island to settle down on. If they landed in the islands I believe it was first come, first served! ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:10:17 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here For Tom Strang, I really think you know who I am referring to about the principal players during the search in 1937. As far as I know, that after the search was concluded, the Itasca radio personnel, the Coast Guard and the US Navy and Commanders, to my knowledge, didn't consider that any of the many msgs reported came from the Electra. As Ric pointed out, many signals intercepted during the search had to be considered authentic and the Itasca acted upon them. A good question would be did George Putnam, Manning, or any of the Earhart camp, believe that any were authentic after the Navy gave up? In my opinion, The US Navy would not have abandoned the search had they believed that a msg(s) was from AE. CDR Thompson concluded in his report he didn't think any were real. On the other hand some researchers today ( Klaas, Brink,et al) believe AE sent SOSs, positions, etc. as they evaluated the post loss msg records. Ric Gillespie believes that several were authentic. LTM, REB ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:40:19 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Navigation Bob, Alan, Dennis, Herman, Tom, Paige; help me out here, just a bit further: When AE broadcast "We must be on you but cannot see you", Noonan was lost. I understand that. He was at an unknown position. If we assume that Noonan ended up on Gardner, do you suppose he navigated himself there? If so, when he did navigate himself there, was he navigating himself from: A) an unknown position to a known position? Or B) an unknown position to another unknown position? LTM, who navigated about as well as I do, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:41:13 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Navy cooperation Ron Bright said: > In my opinion, The US Navy would not have abandoned > the search had they believed that a msg(s) was from AE. Interesting theory. How did you arrive at that conclusion? It is my understanding that the Navy wanted no part of this thing from the get-go, and after the Colorado's quickie search effort she was more than happy to hand off this assignment to the Enterprise. At no point did the Navy ever impress me with its willingness to go beyond the basics in their search efforts. By today's standards they did a haphazard and sloppy search, declared AE and FN missing, and returned to the all-important social life in Honolulu. My feeling is that the only way the Navy would've stuck it out would've been if they'd gotten a message from AE saying, in effect, "This is Amelia Earhart and Fred and I are on a island at ((coordinates))." I think Tom King's book and Ric's many footnoted comments on the forum have fairly well documented the lackadaisical attitude the Navy had during this affair. LTM, who really does like sailors Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:42:12 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Ron Bright wrote: > so that we can examine the evidence and give an opinion. That's what I'm trying to find out, Ron. What factors would you apply in order to give an opinion? You see, Ric is presenting not one message but 148 messages showing patterns as he wrote. The detractors will attack not the pattern or the 148 but each one individually. In anticipation of that I am asking what factors would provide satisfactory authentication. If there ARE no acceptable reasons for accepting ANY ONE message then it would be a total waste of time to engage in any discussion with anyone disputing the validity of a message. If you are going to have an opinion you MUST have a reason for giving it. Otherwise it has no value. Personally, I can't think how you could do that. It will break down like this. Those who think Earhart was captured by the Japanese or crashed and sank into the ocean will not accept ANY message as authentic. They can't. They will NOT give any credence to a "pattern." They will ONLY judge individual messages and dispute their authenticity because they cannot be proven beyond any doubt. Those who think she made it to land somewhere will look at the patterns Ric presents and make their judgment based on how rational that concept is presented. They will NOT deal with an individual message. No individual message can be proven beyond a doubt and therefore anyone giving an opinion on an individual message is wasting their time. Opinions don't move the ball. If there is to be a discussion of the post loss messages it HAS to be in terms of the entire body of transmissions, the patterns they present and the rationale for the implications the patterns represent. To that end, there will arise a number of factors to consider. Factors NOT opinions. Good and reasonable rationale. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:25:10 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Alan, We have waited some time for the analysis of a "pattern" of the post loss msg. How do we know if any pattern, whatever that means, will support a post loss msg? Maybe they will, but the point is that the forum wants to see that analysis. (Maybe that chapter is ready to be posted) But I disagree with your assumption that some kind of "pattern'' will be sufficient, compelling evidence to support the post loss msg. More relevant to good evidence Ric has given us the bare details of the at least one such reception, that I could be comfortable in accepting as a legit, although I don't know when it was received (time). Yes if a competent radio operator, who we know really was familiar with AE's voice, heard her yelling out some kind of SOS, position, etc., within say three hours of her last, I could accept that. The Nauru msg of many seems to support the post loss phenomena. But the big question remains. Without a point of origin or position, it may be of little benefit. Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:26:36 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigation We don't know, Alfred. No one does. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:33:45 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Navy cooperation Dennis McGee I am not sure that the right word of the Navy's effort was "lackadaiscal". Perhaps flawed , as mistakes were made in the search pattern, radio efforts, etc., but I believe that the Coast Guard and the Navy made a good faith effort to find them. Read the reports of the efforts, and the time and money. And from talking to the sons of Leo Bellart, the chief radioman, none were more saddened and frustrated than the crew of the Itasca. Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:34:14 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Alan Caldwell wrote: > Come on, Bob. You're getting worse than me. I'll take that as a compliment, Alan. Bob ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:15:20 From: Ron Reuther Subject: Alternates in the Phoenix Islands May 31, 1928 Kingsford Smith, Ulm, Lyons, and Warner fly Oakland to Honolulu in 27+1/2 hrs, Kaui to Fiji in 34+ hrs and 3,300 statute miles, then to Brisbane, Australia in a 3-engine Fokker 7b, Southern Cross. They landed at Brisbane on June 9 completing the first trans-Pacific flight. Cruise about 90 mph. Enderbury Island in the Phoenix Islands was planned alternate if they could not make Fiji from Hawaii. Their route took them slightly to the west of Howland Island. They had consulted with E.H. Bryan of the Bishop Museum in Honolulu who advised them about the Phoenix and other islands which he had visited previously. Sometime in 1934 a Fanning Island tidal flat airstrip about 1000 miles south and slightly west of Hawaii was prepared for trans-Pacific flights starting with Kingsford Smith in November and Charles Ulm in December of that year. According to Donohue, PAA set up a radio and weather station there in 1937. Earhart consulted with both Kingsford Smith and Ulm prior to their separate loss. Ron Reuther ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:20:10 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Ron Bright wrote: > How do we know if any pattern, whatever that means, will support a > post loss msg? You won't. The pattern doesn't support an individual message. As I have said several times if you insist on dealing with an individual message you are wasting your time. No message can be authenticated beyond doubt without Earhart personally telling you it was her and she transmitted it. The patterns indicate AE transmitted messages after she could no longer be airborne and thus had to be on land. You cannot make the pattern into proof of an individual message. I don't know how to say that any clearer. You cannot deal with an individual message. > (Maybe that chapter is ready to be posted) I understand some people are wanting the information posted but I know of no plans to post that chapter to the forum. The book is to be published for general consumption. It is not for the purpose of changing the minds of AES or anyone else who opposes the TIGHAR theory. If it does. Fine. I wouldn't expect it. I don't know when Ric is going to finish the book that will contain those messages. My guess is 2006. It is not going to change your mind or that of any of the crashed and sank or capture folks. I doubt anything will, save finding the plane. I have said this a number of times that no one should anticipate some big smoking gun or proof positive of anything. The bottom line is it will be published when it is published and anyone is free to buy the book and come to their own conclusions. > But I disagree with your assumption that some kind of "pattern'' will > be sufficient, compelling evidence to support the post loss msg. I've made no such assumption OR contention. Nor has Ric. Nothing can support an individual message. Nothing will be "sufficient" to convince some folks. There is no intention to do so. Alan ************************************** As things stand now, we are probably looking at manuscript deadline of October, publication date of April or so. The book is being serialized in TIGHAR Tracks in draft ms. form, about two chapters at a time. This is for the purpose of peer review. It will NOT be posted on the Forum or on the website. The first two chapters are in the current issue of Tracks which was mailed last week. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:22:40 From: Paige Miller Subject: Random Comments Some random comments about today's (received Wed 6/8/05) forum: Alfred, I do not consider anything you have said to be out of line. Certainly I don't consider anything you have said to be offensive, insulting or degrading. In fact, I viewed your screenplay as somewhat humorous while trying to make a point. I would have, however, changed Fred's last comment of the screenplay from "Mind if I smoke?" to "Pass that bottle of benedictine". In fact, I do agree with your later comments that Fred did have incomplete knowledge of his location (or he thought he did). He thought he was somewhere along the LOP running 157-337 through Howland. Given that information and enough gasoline, you certainly should find McKean or Gardner if you so desired, and assuming the information was correct. Pat, are we allowed to discuss the latest Tighar Tracks here in the forum? Alan, excellent comments as always. Ever notice how sometimes books mysteriously disappear? Other times there are messages reported that cannot be documented? Why doesn't that happen with TIGHAR's evidence? Just askin'... -- Paige Miller #2565 ***************************************** Absolutely you are allowed to discuss Tracks here. Perhaps it will generate some interest in joining . We did make the assumption that the Forum would be the focal point for a lot of discussion of the chapters as they appear. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:25:03 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Navigation Alfred Hendrickson wrote: > Bob, Alan, Dennis, Herman, Tom, Paige; help me out here, just a bit further: > When AE broadcast "We must be on you but cannot see you", Noonan was lost. I > understand that. He was at an unknown position. If we assume that Noonan > ended up on Gardner, do you suppose he navigated himself there? If so, when > he did navigate himself there, was he navigating himself from: > > A) an unknown position to a known position? > > Or > > B) an unknown position to another unknown position? Now we're getting somewhere -- no pun intended The answer is "none of the above". Noonan didn't navigate to Gardner, or anywhere else, from wherever he was at the time of AE's broadcast because he didn't know where he was starting from. Navigating is the process of proceeding from a known position to another known position. If he got to Gardner, he did so by executing a successful search -- a process that essentially requires traveling and looking out the window. LTM, Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:27:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Ron Bright writes: > Please tell me which one [post loss message] you think was authentic, beyond > a reasonable doubt, or maybe just preponderance of evidence. I keep repeating this but it doesn't seem be clear enough. NO ONE MESSAGE CAN BE PROVEN AUTHENTIC BEYOND A DOUBT WITHOUT EARHART TO COME FORWARD AND SAY SHE WAS THE ONE WHO TRANSMITTED THE MESSAGE. Anyone who wants to argue the authenticity of any single message is wasting their time and that of everyone on the Forum. It can't be done. Earhart is dead. There seems to be a great misconception about the post loss messages. Some seem to have the wrong idea about the post loss messages. The whole point of the post loss messages and the ONLY point is that if just one of them is authentic Earhart made it to land. The crashed and sank and capture folks have to have ALL 148 messages to be hoaxes or they are out of business. The post loss messages don't tell where they were transmitted from. There are not 148 intercepts to follow. They don't tell where the Electra was at any time ever. They don't tell where the Electra was going. They don't tell where the Electra ended up. Ron wrote, "The Nauru msg of many seems to support the post loss phenomena. But the big question remains. Without a point of origin or position, it may be of little benefit." This is an example of what I mean. If Ron is correct that the Nauru message supports post loss the case for survival on land is made and we don't have to pursue the issue any longer. The point of origin or position is not the big question. It is not relevant. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever what the point of origin or position was. NONE. Is there anyone who can't get this through their head? If I sound frustrated I am. I have said this over and over and over and I still get postings questioning the authenticity of a message, where they originated from and how they can tell us where the plane was or is. Once more and I won't discuss this further. No single message can be authenticated beyond a doubt. If any one message is authentic Earhart made it to land and the crashed and sank and capture people can find another puzzle to while away their time. The messages do not tell where the airplane was at any time during or after its flight. They don't tell anyone anything other than did she or did she not make it to land. Nothing else. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:27:48 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Navigation For: Alfred Hendrickson Hopefully you understand and appreciate the emptiness of that area of blue water which surrounds Howland and Baker Islands. This is the neighborhood Amelia and her sidekick Fred were trying to reach on 2 July 1937. Aerial navigation in 1937 was only precise enough to get them to the neighborhood, which is suggested they believed they had accomplished by your reference to "We must be on you but cannot see you" quote. Fred Noonan up to his last recorded flight had his hand in writing the art of aerial navigation as it was being practiced in the mid to late 30's. This suggests to me he had the ability to get to the Howland Island neighborhood and would have considered the possibilities of other land areas to navigate to if Howland was not located within a reasonable time, fuel load permitting. The Phoenix Island Group appears to be a logical choice to divert to under the circumstances present on the morning of 2 July 1937. As Mr. Brandenburg pointed out, being in the neighborhood AE and Fred would be unable to find Howland with their navigation skills alone. They required communication with Itasca to locate Howland. To help you understand the difficulty facing AE and Fred research Ms. Ann Pellegreno's re-enactment flight of 1967 in regards to locating Howland Island. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:28:27 From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Navigation > He was at an unknown position. If we assume that Noonan > ended up on Gardner, do you suppose he navigated himself there? If so, > when he did navigate himself there, was he navigating himself from: > > A) an unknown position to a known position? > > Or > > B) an unknown position to another unknown position? Apologies if I've had an irony bypass here and I may not have taken the thread in fully, but can I suggest that in terms of latitude and longitude we can discuss such a thing as C) starting from a semi-known position? ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:29:02 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Maybe we can get there from here Well it is time to put this one to rest. The problem is that the statement was too general. The proper statement is that you can't navigate from an unknown position to a known position by dead reckoning. Dead reckoning is a "position keeping" system meaning that you keep track of your position by calculation of distance flown and course followed starting from your starting position. Any error in the location of the starting position is carried forward. If you are ten miles north of your assumed starting position any position then derived from dead reckoning will also be in error by the same ten miles north. The possible error or uncertainty in the new position will also grow due to uncertainties in maintaining course and speed and complicated by the effects of the wind. Several rules of thumb for estimating this increase in uncertainty are 10% of the distance flown per AFM 51-40, 5% of distance flown per Weems or, according to Air Navigation, U. S Navy Hydrographic Office Publication 216, 20 miles per hour flown plus 1% of the distance flown. This works out to be 21.3 NM of uncertainty per hour flown for a 130 knot airplane. See http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/dr-accuracy.html. However, radio, celestial, LORAN, DECCA, Transit, VOR, ADF, and, now, GPS are "position finding" systems. This means that you can start out with no knowledge of your position and still be able to then find out where you are. Some general idea of your position might reduce the time required to find your position but it is not absolutely necessary. For example, you could be blindfolded, put in a plane, flown for some time and then pushed out with a parachute. You land with no idea of your location. You reach into your pocket, pull out a GPS and within a few minutes you will know you position to an accuracy of several meters. With that knowledge you can then navigate to a known position. The same can be accomplished with celestial but not quite so easily. Gary LaPook ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:30:09 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Noise on deck For Alan: Thank you very much for interesting comment from your Navy friend... Just a thought however... The USS Maryland (BB46) was a big battleship, and when you were on her deck, you were separated from her engines, boilers, steampipes and other specially noisy equipment by several decks, part of which were thick and heavily armoured ones... good distance and good "noise protection". It could be not so aboard the unarmoured and much smaller Itasca. Also the battleship had a somewhat higher freeboard, and much wider hull... that should somewhat reduce the noise from other principal source - the surface of the sea - for the people on the deck... especially for ones who was staying near the centerline of the wide hull, or on the superstructures and upper bridges. Enough different from Itasca, a relatively small cutter aboard which - to wherever you would go - there were a few places on which you would be separated from the sea surface by more then, let's say, something like 20 feet distance. In short, i tend to think that the deck of the Itasca was probably a significantly more noisy place then the deck of the USS Maryland. LTM - kind regards, Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:30:40 From: Monty Fowler Subject: One word -- WOW Just got my issue of TIGHAR Tracks and devoured the first two chapters of Suitcase in My Closet. To paraphrase a famous quote, Houston, we have a winner here. And just as soon as I can sell a few more units of plasma at the local center, my check for the TIGHAR Literary Guild will be in the mail. LTM, Monty Fowler, No. - ahhhh, it's somewhere around here! ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:31:13 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! For Mike Haddock: With all my sincere respect to differing opinions, it seems difficult for me to agree with the statements like that as if AE was not a good pilot but a stunt flier etc. At first, who said at all that to be a stunt flier means to be not a good pilot?... I strongly suspect this specific "despice" is just a canonized popular opinion of the first generation of airline pilots of 30s... who were jealous that the people's admiration and the media attention is captured by record-breakers and stunt fliers, but not by them - the real workhorses of a new industry. Just emotionally, their jealousy can be understood... but of course is it still not a proof that those stunt fliers were really a "bad pilots". IMHO, to be a stunt flier and survive for 26 years of the flying career very certainly means to be a technically GOOD pilot. This question what is good pilot, what is bad one, etc. was discussed many times on this respected Forum... And, frankly, i never saw any real factual argument that would prove why AE was a "bad pilot". Her relatively few and mainly minor accidents seems are not an argument at all, as i am pretty sure you would not find ANY active pilot in those times who had no accidents. After all, Lindbergh lost at least 4 planes in the air and jumped fwith a parachute... So was he a "bad pilot"?.. Naturally no. It was just such a time, and such a period of development of aviation. During her years of flying career, AE did many really noteworthy and record flights, particularly in the night, alone, in difficult weather conditions, and over the water. Definitely, i do not believe that a "bad pilot" would survive at these conditions. The "special lack of the stupid ones" can work once.. but not repeatedly. As far as i could see, the comments about her "lack of competence" in flying were inspired mainly by purely emotional reasons of some people, not connected with AE's own technical skills at all. It was, particularly, an irritation of some of her competitors by somewhat pushy actions of the GP publicity machine, that worked perfectly well for her but not for them. So - in short - it was a jealousy. The good example were some Elinor Smith's discrediting statements about AE, that are continuously repeated in many sources... strangely, few people remembers that it was Smith who considered Vega as a dangerous and difficult plane and broke one at landing in NJ... By the way, it was the same Vega that was later repaired, bought by AE and used in the 1935 transpacific flight. Another reason for such a baseless comments, that were almost "canonized" since 30s, could be a trivial sexism... as, for to say it straight, the "flying community" is enough conservative one... and was pretty chauvinistic then in 30s. There were many competent aviators and aviation specialists however who claimed very definitely that AE was a really good pilot. They were Wiley Post, general Leigh Wade, Kelley Johnson, and many others. LTM - Regards , Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:45:01 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Alan's frustration Alan Caldwell said: > Is there anyone who can't get this through their > head? If I sound frustrated I am. I have said this over and over and > over and I still get postings questioning the authenticity of a message, > where they originated from and how they can tell us where the plane was > or is. I'm with you, big guy. I've been reading you 5X5 on this issue for the last few days. The concept is about as simple as operating a hammer; a) swing hammer, b) hit nail. Did I miss something between a) and b)? LTM, who believes TIGHAR has it nailed Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:45:20 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noise on deck Marcus, thanks for the good posting about the difference in noise level between the Itasca and a much larger ship such as the USS Maryland. Point well made. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:45:51 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigation Phil Tanner wrote: > but can I suggest that in terms of latitude and > longitude we can discuss such a thing as C) starting from a semi-known > position? Phil, is that anything like being a little pregnant? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:38:33 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's frustration Thanks, Dennis. I was being a bit hard but it was late. I understand the equal frustrations of Ron and others who want something out of all of this they are not getting....precise, acceptable answers. I wish that were possible. If it was we would all be in the NE looking for the White Bird instead. Many here are working from a position of less knowledge and/or information than some and that makes comprehending a few of the aspects quite difficult. Most folks, for example, don't know what all of the messages say, although much of that traffic has been posted and or talked about for years. What we have now that we really didn't have before is a comprehensive analysis and compilation of the messages in one body of evidence. Rather than looking piecemeal at individual messages we can now see them as a whole scenario encompassing a given period of time. Gigantic difference. Some, I know, want or expect the post loss messages to produce big clues as to where the plane was when the transmissions occurred and bearings to the plane to indicate a flight path, location or general position for its final resting place. That isn't going to happen. They will be sorely disappointed when they finally have access to the book to find that information does not and never did exist. The book is not a post loss message book. That part merely shows the high probability Earhart reached land. And I know enough about the post loss subject to say that "probability" is an understatement. To believe 148 messages are ALL hoaxes one would have to be in complete denial of reality. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:38:58 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's frustration I would like to add that in addition to the known 148 or so messages we have there may well be others not yet discovered. Ron, for example, brought the 80 mile SE message to our attention. That issue has some conflicts but hasn't been laid to rest yet. It is my belief that for every such bit of "evidence" there is at least some small grain of significance buried in it of we can only ferret it out. Ron has done a lot of frustrating research on that particular issue and has found at worst it might be a compilation of bits and pieces that produced it but it could actually be valid in some form or another. I don't know how many radio receivers were scattered around the Pacific that conceivably heard Earhart that we have not discovered. Missionary locations, for example, or just anyone who might have heard a transmission during that time. Due to propagation anomalies it would be hard to define an area of probability I am sure. How to go about this is beyond me. Maybe the time has passed. Without specific knowledge I would imagine all official sources have been checked. Right? Or at least most. The point is that there is a lot of work not done and the game is still afoot. So sayeth Sherlock. Alan, #2329 or whatever ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:40:41 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! For: Marcus Lind Hi Marcus. I am perfectly okay with differences of opinion. I don't appreciate your term "baseless comments" but that's okay. I stand on my comment that technically she was not a good pilot and her lack of communication skills and a rudimentary understanding of the equipment she had on board probably cost her and Fred their lives. I have been around pilots all my life and have had this discussion with my father many times. He flew 35 missions over Germany in a B-24 in 1944 and was decorated 12 times--and not for sitting behind a desk. Ric and I have also had this conversation and I think it's fair to say that Ric agrees with my assessment. While I certainly don't agree with your response, I don't consider your opinions baseless. LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:00:49 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: navigation I think Bob Brandenburg's explanation is probably the best. Noonan continued down the compas course of 137 southeast, not knowing what longitude he was on. Then after giving up on Howland, some three hours later, looked out the right side of the window and saw Gardner Island. Land on that reef and Bob's your uncle!! (no pun intended) REB ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:28:20 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Pat, Will the Appendix with the post loss msg analysis be included in our Tighar Tracks? For Alan, I don't need absolute proof that is from the mouth of AE that she sent a signal. I am looking for, and Ric has produced prior to this, some tantallizing if not compelling evidence that AE made a couple of post loss signals. I just haven't seen the details. Such as who was the operator, how was he familiar with Earharts voice, what was transmitted, frequency, and if corroborated by another operator. Those may well sufficient, and lead a reasonable person to accept the authenticity.... Ron Bright PS It would have been nice, of course, if a iTASCA operator heard "ITASCA, FROM EARHART KHAQQ WE ARE ON A SMALL ISLAND,PHOENIX GROUP, NEXT TO A OLD SHIPWRECK.. GEORGE GET MY SUITCASE...." **************************************** Only the text and footnotes will be included in TIGHAR Tracks. The second half of the book is the analysis section; many messages will be quoted there. The book, when published, will include a DVD with all relevant documents, including the 184 post-loss messages. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:28:42 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Navigation Thanks all, for your replies. I believe I understand this. It would seem that a person can GET from an unknown position to a known position, but it can't be done by the process of navigation. It'd have to be done by "a process that essentially requires traveling and looking out the window". Now THAT is my kind of traveling! :-) Paige; good call on the Benedictine. I'll edit my screenplay to reflect that ... LTM - she always had the window seat, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:04:56 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Alan's frustration Alan, your words that there was a high probability that AE reached land is music to the AES group/forum, Goerner, Briand, Reineck et al, that have contended she did reach landfall and survived. Those researchers believed, based on a large number of eyewitness accounts, AE made it to Mili or thereabouts, not Gardner Island. Same basic theory, different island!!!! If you believe Brink, McMenamy, as I recall, even heard AE exclaim that a Japanese group was approaching her Electra, and was an Admiral. One would expect at least an Admiral to welcome here! R Bright # forgot ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:49:43 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigation We're starting to bog down and repeating so let me pose this question. We generally believe Earhart arrived somewhere reasonably close to Howland around 07:42 AM local Itasca time. It appears from her transmissions she looked for Howland in some fashion for an hour. We don't know what she did in that hour or what she did AFTER 08:43 AM local Itasca time. We also generally believe she may have had somewhere around 139 to 150 gallons of fuel remaining at the latter time. The TIGHAR theory is that she then headed SE and ended up at Gardner. Here is my question. Why would she head out into open ocean not knowing her position? Why not hang around searching until Noonan could get a fix then set up a search pattern similar to Lambrecht's until they located Baker or Howland? Searching for one of the Phoenix Islands presented an even tougher task in that there was no one at any of them. They WERE larger but I don't see that as that significant. One possibility, of course, is that for whatever reason they decided getting a fix was not possible or at least not imminent and so struck out hoping to hit one of the Phoenix Islands. Seems pretty iffy to me as they were not clustered close enough together to insure hitting one. I don't understand why they could not fix their position. The scattered CU was based at about 2,400' and if they had that much fuel they could have climbed up to clear air. Also keep in mind they had just descended from 10,000 feet so why did they not have a good fix already? It was NOT overcast. Noonan had adequate celestial bodies to get a good fix. What am I missing? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 15:11:53 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's frustration Ron Bright wrote: > Those researchers believed, based on a large number of eyewitness > accounts, AE made it to Mili or thereabouts........... Those researchers cannot advance a rational theory as to HOW to get the Electra to Mili. It couldn't fly there. Not enough fuel nor was there ANY rational reason to fly there. No seaplane tender to pick it up and get it to Mili. They have a far bigger problem than we do. They won't even attempt a rational explanation. Like many folks with off the wall ideas they must start with an insupportable contention....that the Electra for no rational reason was many hundreds of miles NW of Howland. They say that SOLELY because that is the ONLY way they can get around the lack of sufficient fuel. Using THAT technique we can make the result anything we want. That's a silly game and nothing more. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:25:29 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Alan's frustration To: Ron Bright Good point! It seems there are only two theories after all 1) crashed and sank and 2) landed on land. The only problem for the "landed on land" groups is to determine what land! TIGHAR's theory has at least 2 or 3 directional bearings pointing in the general direction of Gardner what do the others have? ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:25:57 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Can't get there from here For: Ron Bright Thanks for your response - Expected your point of view - As "no two cowpokes view the landscape the same", one's principal players in this saga may differ from anothers - Again thanks for your response. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:27:15 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Alan's frustration Ron Bright wrote: > McMenamy, as I recall, even heard AE exclaim that a Japanese group was > approaching her Electra, and was an Admiral. One would expect at least > an Admiral to welcome here! This was a misunderstanding. She was met by a poor Japanese pearl diver, who was none the less polite and helpful, so much so that Amelia called him "ADMIRABLE". Dan Postellon ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:27:45 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Navigation Alfred says: > When AE broadcast "We must be on you but cannot see you", Noonan was > lost. I understand that. He was at an unknown position. If we assume > that Noonan > ended up on Gardner, do you suppose he navigated himself there? If so, > when he did navigate himself there, was he navigating himself from: > > A) an unknown position to a known position? > > Or > > B) an unknown position to another unknown position? We all like to speak in absolutes. Either Noonan was at a known position, or an unknown position. In fact, he did have some information ... he believed he was on the LOP through Howland. This is incomplete information. We know that because AE told us that she was running that 157-337 line north and south looking for Howland. If, from wherever they were, AE and FN wanted to find Milli Atoll, they cannot do it with the information they have. If they are in a certain area north of Howland, a course of 281 might take them there. If they are anywhere else along the 157-337 LOP through Howland, 281 is a death sentence. They do not have enough information to make a decision about how to get to Milli Atoll. If, from wherever they were, AE and FN want to find another point on the 157-337 LOP through Howland, such as Gardner (and maybe if they are lucky find Howland along the way), they have the information to do so (maybe not enough gasoline, but enough information). They know which way to go. Hope this clears things up. -- Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:28:36 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Noonan's alternatives Several people have commented that Fred Noonan's previous experience with Pan Am and as a ship captain would have given him knowledge of the Phoenix Islands which might have helped him. I find this highly unlikely. The Phoenix Islands were mostly unknown in 1937, they had not been thoroughly surveyed by 1937, and more importantly, we do not know if those few surveys of these islands that were done looked for landing sites. We also don't know if any of those few surveys made it in front of FN or AE's eyes. More importantly, experience with some Pacific Islands, which FN most definitely did have, does not translate into experience with other Pacific Islands, despite what some have claimed. Unless FN saw those surveys, and those surveys showed landing sites, he could not have known where to land in the Phoenix Islands. In fact, way back in 1989, a party of researchers visited McKean and Gardner. They most likely tried to find whatever surveys were available of those two islands before their visit (I don't know for sure that they did, but I would have to believe they did some research; maybe one of them will chime in and tell us). After visiting McKean, they learned that there was no place for an airplane to land. They did not know that prior to their visit! How could that be? They had to visit McKean and look around to know this. Amazing! Next, the same party of researchers went to Nikumaroro. They looked around. And they learned (again by looking) that it *might* be possible to land a plane on a portion of the reef flat, but probably not anywhere else. They did not know this beforehand; their research didn't tell them that. I find it inconceivable that Noonan's knowledge of other Pacific Islands could have led to any concrete knowledge of where to land in the Phoenix Islands. Others didn't know where to land until they actually went and looked. -- Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:29:55 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! Of course i respect the differing opinion, and i assure I did not want to offend you. At least you could see i tried hard to explain why i consider the "AE as bad pilot" opinion as baseless... and you could see i operated by pure facts, not any impolite arguments of personal nature. I still tend to think that this opinion about AE as a "not good pilot" is rather a display of the very usual thing that i prefer to call as "post-factum knowledge syndrome". It sounds so easy - AE and FN did not complete their flight - so they were not a good pilots/navigators. I.e., regardless to the sad fact that we actually still do NOT know why exactly the flight was not completed successfully, we are alreeeady ready to blame people who cannot speak for themselves any more and explain their actions. What is completely forgotten however is the fact that AE and FN completed a larger part of their route - in a big hurry, in a difficult weather conditions, and without any significant accidents... so there is no any visible base to be so much sure that the flight was so much doomed to be fatal... certainly, i think they really could count to complete it successfully. And if they would do it, i am pretty sure nobody would say any word about "bad skills", "bad preparations", or "rudimentary" (???...) knowledge of equipment. It is so easy to trash the fallen ones who are not here anymore... but nobody would blame the winners! Too bad... but such is life. I must admit the reason of the comment about "rudimentary understanding" in AE looks enough unclear for me, and not substantially based. I would say, it is probably based rather on our own GUESSES of what could happen.. but not on any real knowledge... as such a knowledge in fact dos not exist. Neither me, nor you, Ric, or anybody else was in cabin with them... only AE and FN. So whether it is reasonable to base a radical conclusions on the base of guesses - in my personal opinion, not so much. And i simply do not buy some derogatory comments of Paul Mantz on the subject... because Mantz alas had a strong personal agenda for such a comments, being "left out" of the the very last stage of preparations, that naturally hurt his ego and ambitions enough painfully. Many other people, however, claimed very definitely that AE ewas a very good pilot, and understand her equipment and technique properly. About the lack of communication skills - i.e. lack of training - if even it really took place, it rather belongs to qualification of radio-operator, not a PILOT... Here we are going again to purely philosophical discussion about what is a criteria of "bad" or "good" pilots, which skills must be considered, etc. etc. etc.. It can be interesting discussion, but - just personally - i really don't believe any agreement can be reached on this soil (as we will have too many differing opinions from many experienced -people - each of them will have own mind and own experience and criterias!) ... and it seems for me that such a discussion probably would not be too useful for the goal of this research. Respectfully - best regards, LTM - Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:30:24 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Alan's frustration Ron Bright says: "But I disagree with your assumption that some kind of pattern will be sufficient, compelling evidence to support the post loss msg." Alan has pointed out a number of reasons why this statement is inaccurate. But there is a bigger problem here. This dismissing of "pattern" as valid evidence flies in the face of accepted scientific research methods. Many, many scientific studies rely on "patterns", in other words, a multitude of data that supports an hypothesis. Scientists know that a single data point is too easily dismissed, but a pattern of data points that support an hypothesis is much more difficult to dismiss. If you are trying to imply that patterns can not yield compelling evidence that AE was broadcasting from land, then that is simply anti-scientific. It may or may not be that Ric has compelling evidence that forms such a pattern, but you cannot a priori claim that patterns cannot form compelling evidence. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM, who loved her quilting patterns ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:42:31 From: Dennis McGee Subject: LOL -- Landing n Land Ted Campbell said: > TIGHAR's theory has at least 2 or 3 directional > bearings pointing in the general direction of Gardner what do the > others have? Ted, I fear you are ignoring the Caldwell Cantankerous Conclusion (:-)) that we can NOT look at the post-loss messages (and any DF bearings of them) singularly or in isolation and that they must be analyzed in total. We also have DF bearing that are at least 90 degrees off of Gardner, so the other LOLs (Landed on land) groups can always point to those as proof the post-loss messages did NOT come from Gardner. LTM, who's happy to land on her feet Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:36:49 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Latin lesson Paige Miller said: > . . . but you cannot a priori claim that patterns > cannot form compelling evidence. My Latin is a tad rusty, but I'll assume "a priori" is kind of equivalent to "out of hand." Paige is absolutely correct. Back in my Intel days we were taught that patterns are one of the major indicators to finding the bad guys. In cop-talk I think they call that "modus operandi" (more Latin!!), AKA m.o. LTM, whose m.o. is evolving Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:37:08 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: More navigation Let me try to explain this again. No one is completely lost. When one doesn't know where one is, at least you know roughly in what area one is. Given the fact that the Phoenix Islands were on Fred Noonan's maps(s) and that h knew he was in the general Howland area, with the help: of the Sun, the Moon and perhaps God, he would have been able to stipulate a more or less reliable course from a position he was not very sure about to the Phoenix Islands, which is a large area with plenty of islands to hit upon. Someone earlier on wrote that perhaps at a given moment he or Amelia Earhart exclaimed : " Hey, here's an island. Let's land here". There is no proof of that but it is conceivable. What they did wrong was not sending a blind transmission telling anyone who was listening (hopefully Itasca) what they intended to do. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:56:21 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Lost in space Herman de Wulf said: > No one is completely lost. When one doesn't know > where one is, at least you know roughly in what area one is. Wrong. Using that description then no one is ever lost because we all know we are on the planet Earth in the solar system of -- whatever we're called. Herman de Wulf said: > Given the fact that the Phoenix Islands were on > Fred Noonan's maps(s) and that he knew he was in the general Howland > area, with the help: of the Sun, the Moon and perhaps God, he would have > been able to stipulate a more or less reliable course from a position he > was not very sure about to the Phoenix Islands, which is a large area > with plenty of islands to hit upon. Noonan did NOT navigate - i.e. set a predetermined course to a specific point -- to Gardner. He stumbled on it only because he knew that if he followed a particular heading he had a CHANCE of finding SOME land. He also had a chance of not finding land. I reiterate, even a blind pig can occasionally find an acorn. I fail to understand your continued insistence that you can navigate from an unknown position to a known position when empirical evidence and the experience of several well-seasoned professional navigators have explained why you can not. Go figure. LTM, who is not lost Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:36:10 From: Tom King Subject: More records Here's a little something different, just in from a history list. Perhaps someone will want to search the service records of the Colorado's crew. 2. NARA SET TO OPEN MILITARY RECORDS On 11 June 2005, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) National Personnel Records Center in Overland, Missouri will unseal the first release of what is expected to be a "a mother load" collection of interest to military historians, biographers, and genealogists. The center houses the military records of some 56 million individuals, beginning in the 19th century and extending into the 20th. A total of three batches of individual records are slotted to be released: Navy enlisted men from 1885 until 8 September 1939; Marine Corps enlisted men from 1906 until 1939; and the first 150 of about 3,000 Americans identified as "persons of exceptional prominence." Included in the last category are the military records of generals George S. Patton Jr. and Omar Bradley; African American sports hero Lt. Jackie Robinson; President John F. Kennedy; author Herman Wouk; actors Clark Gable, Audie Murphy, and Steve McQueen; and, yes, entertainer Pfc. Elvis Presley. Until recently, NARA was merely the physical custodian of these records that were open only to the veteran, the next of kin, or the individual's service branch. In 1999, however, the Pentagon and NARA reached an agreement that would begin the process of systematically opening these records. According to Bill Seibert, chief of the archival operations branch of the records center, the records now "cease to belong to the military and instead belong to the American people...They're public documents." After lengthy discussion with Pentagon officials over several years, NARA was able to negotiate an agreement that provided for all such military records to remain sealed 62 years past the date an individual left active service. That means that most World War II records, for example, will remain closed for several more years. In addition, because of a fire at the records center back in 1973, some files of Army and Air Force veterans will be withheld even longer - until 2023. Coast Guard records will probably not be available until 2026, and because some individual files contain fragile or crumbling paper, such files will probably be kept on hold for some time. Persons interested in accessing the collection should contact the National Personnel Records Center, 9700 Page Avenue, Overland, Mo. 63132; phone: 314-801-0850. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:58:47 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! For: Marcus Lind Thanks for the response. There is a rather clear and disturbing incident the day before or day of the last flight that AE took the airplane up for a quick checkout. She discovered that the RDF (radio direction finder) was not working and she opted to proceed. In my humble opinion that was reckless and irresponsible. And let me assure you that for a lot of reasons I am a big fan of AE. I have no intensions of deliberately trashing her reputation on this Forum. I just don't share your opinion about how good a pilot she was. That was the device that she could have homed in to Itasca's radio transmissions with and would have allowed her to fly right to them. I consider that reckless at best. As my father used to say "there are old pilots and bold pilots but no old, bold pilots". Respectfully, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:59:28 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Lost in space De Wulf is absolutely right, You always know where you are. The real question is "do you know where you are to the precision necessary at the moment?" and knowing you are on earth eliminates 99.999999999999999999999% or more of the Universe. For example, knowing you are in Chicago eliminates 99.99999% of the earth but is not precise enough to get you a chicken dinner. Knowing you are on 71st Street in Chicago eliminates 99.999% of Chicago. Knowing you are crossing Jeffrey Street on 71st Street eliminates 99.9 % of 71st Street and that gives you the precision necessary to pull into the parking lot of the KFC. You just need to keep adding more information until you narrow down your position to the point that it is useful to you at the moment. When flying or sailing great distances across the ocean you do not need to know your position to any greater precision than a couple hundred miles in the middle of the journey (assuming no reefs nearer than that to the course line) but as you approach your destination you then need to know your position to greater and greater levels of precision. Eventually you need to find the channel into the harbor or you need to find the airport. When flying on instruments, courses only need to be followed within 4 NM while en route but when landing on instrument you eventually have to be able to know you position within 50 feet. Navigation systems have always been designed to give greater precision when necessary, such as light houses when approaching the land, and buoys to find the exact channel for boats and VORs for enroute and ILSs for instrument landings. So, Noonan did know where he was but apparently not to the precision necessary to find Howland. Gary LaPook ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:00:04 From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! Re: Noonan & Phoenix Is. FN came from PAA Miami to its Pacific Division as the lead navigator and initial navigational instructor. During 1935 and 1936 he flew the Clippers from San Francisco (actually Alameda Is.) to Manila. The route was SF to Honolulu to Midway to Wake to Guam to Manila. Then return. Fly some local test/instructional hops, then off again to Manila. He did that, more or less continuously, from March '35 until he left PAA around December, '36 or January, '37. The Clipper route he flew did not go anywhere near the Phoenix area. He was called in to meet with GP and Manning about the RTW flight on March 12,1937. Then announced as part of the AE effort the next day. He went on a test flight the same day and didn't like Manning's octant. The Navy sent one that arrived the 16th. They took off for Hawaii the next day. Obviously, Noonan's only contribution to flight planning at that point was the choice of octant. They got back to Burbank on March 25. Noonan went off to get married. AE said he was the navigator for the next attempt on March 28. He was still on honeymoon into early April. By mid-May the plane was out of the repair hanger and AE decided to fly the RTW flight in reverse. They took off for Oakland without Noonan on the 20th. Came back, picked him up, and headed east on May 21. If Noonan did any planning beyond Manning's original work, he had about a month between mid-April and mid-May to work with. The last years of his merchant marine career he lived in New Orleans and probably shipped out most often on South American routes. I don't know of any information that puts Noonan together with the Phoenix Islands in any meaningful way blue skies, JHam ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:00:27 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Noise on deck For Alan Caldwell: Alan, thank you for your kind reply. It represents just my opinion... but still supported by some experience too, as i was aboard many ships - big and small ones, and both when on anchorage and underway - and it was always my impression that the smaller ships are certainly more noisy places... probably because of these reasons I tried to formulate. Kind Regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:00:40 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Lost in space Re Flight to the Phoenix Dennis, If in fact Noonan had the Phoenix islands on his charts, could take a position from his instruments as Herman said during the many hours flying down the announced LOP, why wouldn't he navigate to Gardner. Why would anyone just fly 380 miles south hoping to "stumble on an island in a group" of widespread atolls. You guys are the navigation experts, so what gives here? Or have I added to many assumptions here in this scenario. REB ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:00:58 From: Ron Bright Subject: Patterns Paige M has a good point that "patterns" in many scientific circles may yield good strong evidence to support a theory. Whether those patterns will emerge from the msg matrix is yet to be revealed as of now. I fear we will end up with conflicting patterns of bearings, content,frequencies and data which will make it even more difficult to make an case .. Yes 'patterns" even of human behavior, ordinarily subjective, are used in criminal cases when prior bad acts are so similiar and are admitted so that a reasonable man would conclude the "guy is guilty". A rapist leaves a telltale artifact during a series of rapes, for instance. Ron B. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:03:05 From: Paige Miller Subject: ... the suitcase in my closet First of all, let me congratulate Ric on the introduction and first chapter of his new book "...the suitcase in my closet". I found this portion of the book fascinating, and very well written. I cannot wait for more. There isn't much meat in the book for us to chew on yet, however two things about the work intrigue me. 1) The title has no capital letters 2) The title is a phrase written down by Betty when she was allegedly listening to Earhart on short-wave radio shortly after Earhart's disappearance on July 2, 1937. Why did Ric choose this particular phrase? My speculation is that this information, about a suitcase in Earhart's closet, as heard by Betty, can somehow be corroborated by other evidence; that there is a reason to believe that this could be a legitimate phrase that Earhart would use, but that the general public would not know. What do you think? For those who want a little more meat, let me remind the readers of this forum that Ric did indeed discuss, right here in this forum on 5 Dec 2002, some of the first post-loss messages. Ric describes these in great detail. The responses over the next few days are very interesting to read, including one I wrote on 9 Dec 2002 (pat on my own back...) in which I try to show these message were extremely unlikely to be hoaxes. -- Paige Miller #2565 **************************************** And the link to those Forum postings, in .txt format, is http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forum_Archives/200212.txt ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:15:23 From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: Lost in space Dennis, I'm afraid you miss the point. I never said on can navigate from an unknown position to a known position. What I did say is that when one is lost at least one knows roughly in what area one is flying. That is what pilots refer to as the "area of incertitude". Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan knew they were near Howland but they couldn't find it. When they gave up looking for it they apparently decided (at least this is what TIGHAR believes) to head SE knowing that was where the Phoenix Islands were. I never said Noonan provided Amelia Earhart with a course to Gardner. If he knew it existed he had no idea how to get there. But they both must have known (at least that is what TIGHAR believes) they stood a chance to hit upon one of the islands of the Phoenix group. TIGHAR believes they hit upon Gardner Island and I believe TIGHAR is right. To Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan it was probably not clear which island they had hit upon. Did they find out later? One of the supposed post-loss radio signals seems to indicate Amelia referred to a stranded ship, she believed to be the New York. To me this sounds as if at that time they still were not sure which island they had reached. Let me try to explain things in an other way. Three hundred years before ship captains were able to determine longitude one Christopher Colombus set sail to China sailing West from Spain. In those days, the way to navigate was to sail to the known latitude of the destination, then head for it and wait until you make landfall. Columbus headed west for South East Asia. At no time did he know his exact position. All he knew was his latitude and he expected to make landfall in Asia. We all know he hit upon a Caribbean island he named Hispanola, not realizing he was in America. He called the natives Indians because he believed to be somewhere in what was later called the Dutch East Indies. Did he sail from an unknown position to an unknown position? He certainly did. At no time during his three months at sea did he know how far from Spain he was because he had no chronometer. Therefore, he did not know what his exact position was. Neither did he know how far China was. He would find out. That is how sailors have been crossing the Atlantic until the late 18th century and the invention of the chronometer, which told them what time it was in Greenwich. Comparing Greenwich time to the time the Sun told them it was noon, they were able to pinpoint their position at sea using both latitude AND longitude. Columbus was mistaken about China. He did not find Gardner Island either. He hit upon America and this navigational disaster is remembered every year on Columbus Day. This is roughly what TIGHAR believes Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan did in 1937. They did not know their exact position when they decided to give up looking for Howland Island and fly SE. However, they knew they were somewhere near Howland. By heading SE, they hoped to hit upon the Phoenix Islands. They certainly never intended to fly to Gardner Island. IF they got there (which is what TIGHAR is trying to prove) they found it by chance, more or les the way Columbus hit upon Hispanola (today the Dominican Republic). Today no seasoned navigator would sail across the Atlantic the way Columbus did. Yet, their forebears did for the next 300 years. Today no one is completely "lost" in an airplane because there is plenty of radio equipment telling pilots exactly where they are. However, when I was much, much younger, I got lost in the air as we all did occasionally when learning to fly. Being "lost" meant that when looking at the landscape one realised that what one saw did not correspond with what was on one's map... Knowing what course one had flown and for how long, one knew roughly in what area one was "lost". We were too proud to ask for a QDM to or a QDR from the nearest airfield. We avoided flying west because we didn't want to find ourselves over the sea and headed north instead because that was where the Great Rivers were. Anyone watching on radar must have wondered what we were doing. Well, we were trying to "fly from an unknown position to an unknown position" until we knew exactly where we were. It took time but it worked. At least, I'm still alive and so are all the guys who learned flying with me. I never said that Noonan gave Amelia Earhart a heading to fly to Gardner. That was impossible for him to do. I did say that with luck they stood a chance of finding the Phoenix Group of islands. And hopefully a place to land before they ran out of fuel. LTM (who learned flying in a part of the world where on an average day the ceiling is at 2,000 feet and visibility limited to three or four miles) ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:16:11 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Lost in space Ron Bright wrote: > If in fact Noonan had the Phoenix islands on his charts, could take a > position from his instruments as Herman said during the many hours > flying down the announced LOP, why wouldn't he navigate to Gardner. If all your assumptions are correct, Ron, a better question would be why wouldn't he navigate to Howland? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:16:42 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: patterns > I fear we will end up with conflicting patterns of bearings, > content,frequencies and data which will make it even more difficult > to make an case .. None of that has any significance. All the messages are to show is that they made it to land rather than crashed at sea. They are NOT going to show anything else. Nothing. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:17:50 From: George R. Werth Subject: Post-Facto Knowledge Syndrome Marcus Lind uses that phrase when talking about AE and FN -- specifically the tendency to damn those that aren't around to defend themselves. Another example of PFKS concerns George Armstrong Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Since he lost the battle, he must have been a 'Bad Soldier'. One of the books I have about Custer's Last Stand has the descriptive title, "Kick The Dead Lion." It was written by Charles du Bois and focuses on the performances of Custer, Benteen and Reno at the Little Big Horn. It has been my experience that people tend to Beat The Drums Loudly about their own views. George R. Werth TIGHAR member # 2630 LTM who says "If is a little word with a long tale." ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:18:14 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! For Jerry Hamilton, Are you dismissing Cam Warren and Donahues assertion that FN/AE more than likely were breifed on HO 184, the Pacific Air Pilot, that described the Gilberts, some of the Marshalls and yes, the Phoenix Islands (although silent on Gardner). I agree that there is no direct evidence, but they make a very strong circumstantial arguement that the Navy so actively involved in the flight might very well have brief them? Well lets say its iffy, but what would be your opinion of FN having the skinny on the Gilberts? LTM, Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:19:05 From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Lost in space > If in fact Noonan had the Phoenix islands on his charts, could take a > position from his instruments as Herman said during the many hours flying > down the announced LOP, why wouldn't he navigate to Gardner. Why would anyone > just fly 380 miles south hoping to "stumble on an island in a group" of > widespread atolls. I suppose because they had already learnt the hard way that they could be almost "on" - in their terms - an individual island and still not find it. Flying down the line would give them options to spot islands out of both sides of the plane, no? For me the lesson of the flight is that while they didn't know it, they were essentially trying to achieve the impossible without instruments which either a) worked properly or b) they knew how to use. In other words, by relying on the methods they did to arrive in the general area of Howland, plus eyesight for the final identification of the island. Phil Tanner 2276 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:19:49 From: Paige Miller Subject: The Caldwell Cantankerous Conclusion Dennis McGee says: > Ted, I fear you are ignoring the Caldwell Cantankerous Conclusion (:-)) > that we can NOT look at the post-loss messages (and any DF bearings of > them) singularly or in isolation and that they must be analyzed in > total. We also have DF bearing that are at least 90 degrees off of > Gardner, so the other LOLs (Landed on land) groups can always point to > those as proof the post-loss messages did NOT come from Gardner. Let's take this a step further. Let's examine the entire TIGHAR hypothesis, not just the post-loss messages. I would contend that the post-loss messages themselves cannot be viewed in isolation from the rest of the evidence TIGHAR has collected or is aware of. This includes the skeleton found on Gardner in 1940 with sextant box, woman's shoe and benedictine bottle, castaway at the 7 Site, the airplane parts on Niku that do not appear to be from WWII airplanes, the navigational logic, the signs of recent habitation by the Colorado pilots; etc. (I hope I haven't forgotten something) Just as you shouldn't really view one single post-loss message by itself, you shouldn't be viewing the post-loss messages without the other supporting evidence TIGHAR has. This accumulation of evidence can come about via two mechanisms that I can think of: 1) The obvious and easy explanation, that AE and FN and NR16020 account for all of these pieces of evidence; 2) They occurred randomly 3) Other To me, the most likely scenario is #1. Number 2 seems so unlikely as to be impossible to me. None of TIGHAR's critics has yet proposed a plausible "Other" mechanism. But convincing people to look at the big picture has been difficult. When someone argues, for example, that no one has proved that the skeleton found in 1940 was either AE or FN, I get frustrated because they are missing the larger picture. They either don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, the larger picture. I personally haven't found a way to move the discussion back to the larger picture. You can't simply dismiss the person's concerns about the skeleton and say "Oh, but you are missing the big picture". -- Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:57:10 From: Dan Brown Subject: Naval Air Piilot Naval Air Pilot: Pacific Islands. U.S. Hydrographic Office Publication 184. U.S. G.P.O., Washington, D.C. 1936. 677 p. with maps, includes index. Available from another academic source besides the Arkansas State University - Jonesboro library. I have requested loan through my institution, will keep you informed. Dan Brown, #2408 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:58:23 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! Mike, Thank you for your kind reply. I am a big AE fan too so i really hope we can have a good base for some sort of agreement. About the RDF issue, I still tend to think that such a definite opinion about her actions - as "reckless" etc. - SEEMS obvious... but please remember they seems obvious first of all because of the tragic outcome of the flight. I bet if the flight would be completed successfully, then to fly without RDF properly tuned would be rather commented as "so risky but courageous decision that proved to be right!", or something like this. This is what I meant mentioning the "post factum knowledge syndrome" in us, modern people. After all, even without RDF, AE still had a highly experienced navigator aboard, and could count on his skills and experience -- in those times, as I tend to think, the radio-navigation had not yet such a "royalty status" as it is having today. And, also, certainly I would not say that such a decision shows AE as "not a good pilot" -- It says more about her character and readiness to risk, but not about the professional flier=92s abilities in my view -- as neither her readiness to risk in this particular case, nor the possible lack of training with RDF still has nothing at all with her real practical piloting skills, that were highly commended by many deserved professionals and firmly proven by many flights of her. So i would rather say - maybe - about too risky and not optimal decision in this particular case -- However remember please that the general "standards" of safety and acceptable risk in aviation of 30s were pretty different from modern standards -- especially in record-breaking aviation -- The things that looks reckless and even insane in modern aviation, with its thousands of safety rules and regulations, were pretty ordinary in those days -- So let's not judge those pioneers by our modern standards -- They had their own - and were ready to pay for it hard - and it is why they were able to do what they did -- And, IMHO, without those brave people like AE - who made those risky and sometimes fatal decisions, and by whose blood and lives the modern experience is factually bought - we would not have this safe and effective aviation today... Have a nice Sunday! - kind regards, Respectfully - LTM, Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:15:25 From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! For Ron Bright I am not aware of the details or specifics of their evidence supporting their assertion. Therefore I have no point of view on Noonan and HO 184. If the argument rests primarily on "navy involvement", without anything more specific, I would be inclined to dismiss it. One thing I've learned researching this mystery is that lots of people have lots of interesting scenarios and theories, many even logical. But few have done the serious historical research necessary to dig out the truth. If you have the details, I'd be interested in hearing about them off-Forum (jham@mindspring.com). blue skies, JHam ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:15:40 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Lost in space For Alan, Yes it would seem FN could navigate to Howland, but I was under the impression he was well down the LOP, say 200 plus miles, after missing Howland, and hence with the gas an issue, could in fact navigate to one of the Phoenix islands. Tighar surmises that they made it to Gardner, and hence I was wondering if charts, etc., along with his navigation skills may have helped on the last 100 miles in or so. Who knows... Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:16:03 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Naval Air Pilot Dan Brown, Cam Warren will buy you a steak dinner, at my expense, if you can lay your hands on a copy of the HO 184. It may well tell us more than we ever expected. Nice work. Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:16:27 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Naval Air Pilot That must be the real title. I will also try to get one locally. Dan Postellon ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:17:39 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Patterns For: Alan Caldwell You made the following statement as if it where fact - " All the messages are to show is that they made it to land rather than crashed at sea. They are NOT going to show anything else. Nothing." How do you know this to be fact without Ric having release his analysis of the 184 post-loss messages he is building his book around? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:18:15 From: Emmett Hoolihan Subject: Re: Lost in space Bravo Gary LaPook!!! What a wonderfully simple way to view our present position?! Keep up the good work! LTM. who always knew where I was! Emmett Hoolihan, #2405S ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:18:59 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Noonan's navigation Ron and Alan debate: >>> If in fact Noonan had the Phoenix islands on his charts, could take a >>> position from his instruments as Herman said during the many hours >>> flying down the announced LOP, why wouldn't he navigate to Gardner. >> > If all your assumptions are correct, Ron, a better question would be > why wouldn't he navigate to Howland? The only reason I can think of to not go to Howland was that FN decided he was too far away from Howland to fly there. In that case, Ron, the proper question would be: "why wouldn't he navigate to McKean?" I see no reason for FN to pick Gardner, as McKean is approximately 50 nautical miles closer to where FN was. -- Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:20:25 From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Find us! We're lost! >>> Are you dismissing Cam Warren and Donahues assertion that FN/AE more than >>> likely were breifed on HO 184, the Pacific Air Pilot, that described the >>> Gilberts, some of the Marshalls and yes, the Phoenix Islands (altho >>> silent on Gardner). >> >> I agree that there is no direct evidence, but they make a very strong >> circumstantial arguement that the Navy so actively involved in the >> flight might very well have brief them? > > Well lets say its iffy, but what would be your opinion of FN having the > skinny on the Gilberts? He was a pioneer long-haul commercial air navigator with Panam. He had a professional interest in the Pacific islands and he was about to fly across the Pacific, two lives including his own hanging on him not fouling up. He was obviously going to draw on any source on offer, why not? What would be noteworthy if he had sought/been offered a briefing? Phil Tanner 2276 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:29:02 From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Noonan's navigation > Are you dismissing Cam Warren and Donahues assertion that FN/AE more than > likely were breifed on HO 184, the Pacific Air Pilot, that described the > Gilberts, some of the Marshalls and yes, the Phoenix Islands (altho > silent on Gardner). > >> I agree that there is no direct evidence, but they make a very strong >> circumstantial arguement that the Navy so actively involved in the >> flight might very well have brief them? > > Well lets say its iffy, but what would be your opinion of FN having > the skinny on the Gilberts? He was a pioneer long-haul commercial air navigator with Panam. He had a professional interest in the Pacific islands and he was about to fly across the Pacific, two lives including his own hanging on him not fouling up. He was obviously going to draw on any source on offer, why not? What would be noteworthy if he had sought/been offered a briefing? Phil Tanner 2276 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:34:34 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Noonan's navigation For Phil Tanner, re: HO 184. "Pacific Air Pilot" 1936, pub by the US government in 1935. The document did exist we are sure of that, but if AE/FN read it or were briefed on it is probably impossible to determine. As far as I know she didn't refer to this document in "Last Flight", just charts, maps , etc., generic stuff. There is an implication form Capt Reads letter in 1936 to George Putnam about Pacific Island Regions and Seaplane Anchorages in the island groups that GP may have seen it and gave it to AE. Speculation only. I think one of the forum members is trying to track down a copy which may well have indicated a distribution list. LTM, Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:35:50 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Lost in space Ron, you don't want to buy into "impressions" or our speculations, even mine. We don't know how close they came at the 0742 AM local Itasca time. (I always write it that way since Itasca was 30 minutes different than Howland) Here is the best information we think there is. The radio guys estimated they were probably within 80 smiles gauged by the radio strength. Remember the Itasca radio operator said AE was so loud it almost blasted them out of the radio room and he looked outside as he thought he should see the plane. Randy and I estimated the plane was slightly south and long. He didn't put a distance on it to me but I estimated between ten to twenty miles and closer to ten. We made those estimates on the basis of applying the predicted winds and then again with what little actual weather we had. There is no information that could support any other location. That doesn't mean they weren't somewhere else. It just means that for them to BE somewhere else it could only be an unfounded speculation. As to Noonan's capability to navigate there are two possibilities. Either he got a sun shot or he didn't and if he did we don't know when. Keep in mind he could only fix his position by longitude not latitude. So if he got a sun shot he had a course line running NW/SE and he could move that east/west if he could get enough sun lines to get a ground speed. The sun was all Noonan had so he is not going to get a latitude or a position north/south however he could navigate on the LOP to Howland as well as to Gardner. That leads me to believe he didn't get a sunline for whatever reason. That's puzzling. There is no weather information that would preclude the sunshot. We don't know what he had on his charts. He had to have the Phoenix Islands on his chart to have any chance of navigating to them. He had Canton and Enderbury on his chart for the previous attempt but I don't know what other islands. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:36:09 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Patterns Tom, AE never gave a position after the 0843 AM transmission. If she had we wouldn't be here. She didn't tell where she was or where she was going. I don't think she knew. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:37:25 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Naval Air Pilot Copies are available at the Arkansas State Univ. in Jonesboro and at UCLA. The are the only two copes listed in the world library catalog. Dan Postellon > From Dan Brown > > Naval Air Pilot: Pacific Islands. U.S. Hydrographic Office Publication > 184. U.S. G.P.O., Washington, D.C. 1936. 677 p. with maps, includes > index. Available from another academic source besides the Arkansas > State University - Jonesboro library. I have requested loan through my > institution, will keep you informed. > > Dan Brown, #2408 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:27:54 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Lost in space Sorry, Alan Caldwell, but my estimates of where they ended up at 0742AM local time was not south and long, but south and short. The estimates were based upon Monte Carlo runs of flight path, winds, etc., which plots out a statistical probability map of where AE and FN might be at the time. I sorta like south and west of Howland. Here's why... Suppose AE and FN searched in the area of when they where when AE said "We must be on you and cannot see you". Even running up and down the LOP would be fine. SPECULATION FROM HERE ON OUT. When they gave up, Ric and TIGHAR want them continuing on the 157/337 LOP. I don't think they had to continue on that line. I suspect any rational navigator, when giving up on Howland, would return to the starting position of their search. FN sees a large clump of islands to the SE, the Phoenix Islands. He knows he has navigational errors, since they could not find Howland. He plots a line from where he thinks he is that bisects the Phoenix Islands and tells AE to fly this line. The island group is well over 100 miles wide, so by plotting a line that bisects it, he can have +/- 50 mile navigational errors perpendicular to the 157/337 line and still go to one of the islands. Hey! That's good! Following the bisect line, he'll end up in the center of the island group. If he really was on the line that goes through Howland but is North of Howland, then following the Phoenix Island bisect line, he'll end up east of the center line when he gets there; if he is south of the bisect line, he'll end up west of the center line. If AE and FN ended up on Gardner, that tells me one of two things: one, that they were originally west of where they thought they were (consistent with Monte Carlo simulations), or FN neglected to account for easterly winds during the Howland search and subsequent flights, which would push the plane west a few 10's of nautical miles. Now many people presume they followed the 157/337 line. My argument suggests that's not required. Just because Gardner, Baker, McKean and Howland are close to this line is simply coincidence. Suppose the Phoenix Group was not close to 157 from Howland, but more like 120 degrees. Would FN advance his LOP so that he could follow the 157/337 line down to the Phoenix Islands? Yes, if he was able to get another sun shot, but that wasn't necessary. The key to all of this is the width and extent of the Phoenix Islands, which was well more than any navigational error Fred could expect upon arrival at Howland. By navigating to the center of the Phoenix Islands, he maximized his chances of finding land regardless of the direction of his up-to-then navigational error. Someone else coined this method the "Catcher's Mitt" approach on the forum. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:50:37 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! For: Marcus Lind Good points, Marcus. Again, I have no intentions of trashing AE's reputation. I do admire many things she did. But in truth, if you asked me would I fly with her, the answer would be no. Thanks for your insightful response. Respectfully, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:45:23 From: Ron Bright Subject: The Professor and the Navigator Perhaps this has been reviewed before, but a LA article written 20 Aug 01, reports the calculations of Caltech Professor Fred Culick of the Earhart flight with AE ending up northwest of Howland. He based his calculations after a four year study on Lockheed fuel consumption data, Lockheed engine and aircraft performance, along with data from wind tunnel tests, headwinds, etc. The article only gives his conclusion. I wonder if anyone on the forum or Ric G has looked at his data to corroborate his findings. He is a professor of mechanical engineering and jet propulsion, and did the study for free. Reportedly Nova stimuated his research and I believe Nauticos is using his data for underwater search. Also mentioned in the same article is TIGHAR who was then heading to Niku relying on "satellite images showing a rust colored shape that members hope indicate the remains of Earhart's plane...(and) the spot is exactly where a former Niku resident said her father once pointed out an airplane wreckage on a reef at low tide." As I say, I wonder if anyone has obtained and reviewed Prof Culicks data? Obviously he proposes a radically different theory of gas consumption than Tighar's and calculations made by some of our forum, such as Alan Caldwell. Maybe Culick's data is readily available. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:27:49 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: the professor and the navigator Regardless of how Fred Culick analysed the data, the unknowns are a major problem. If you just assume that they were somewhere near Howland at the time of the "We must be on you" transmission, this gives you an enormous area of ocean to search if they "crashed and sank" and relatively few islands if they managed to land. If the post-lost transmissions were valid, they landed. The red areas turned out to be red algae. Go figure. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:29:07 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Ron Bright wrote: > He based his > calculations after a four year study on Lockheed fuel consumption data, > Lockheed engine and aircraft performance, along with data from wind > tunnel tests, headwinds, etc. While I have no reason to say my calculations are absolutely perfect or correct, they are based on the Lockheed Electra 10E performance charts. Those charts were created by exhaustive testing of the aircraft and engines. I don't know how many years went into creating those charts but no one needs to do a subsequent four year study when that was already done for them by Lockheed. Wind tunnel tests are not relevant. They were done prior to the aircraft being certified. I also have Kelly Johnson's 1935 and 1936 test flight data on the 10E. Johnson designed and built the plane. Headwind information would certainly be interesting but no such data exists for AE's flight. I might also remind folks that wind does not blow on airplanes in the air. Only on the ground. In the air airplanes fly through a block of moving air. I would be eager to see what the good professor has come up with if his material still exists. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:45:04 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator I would love to get ahold of Cusicks material. Then you guys can iron out the differences. It amazes me why many researchers looking at supposedly the same kelly Johnson figures, headwinds, etc all come up with a different result. Here 139 gallons if your right. I suppose, as Dan P point out, too many variables.... Who knows where Cal tech is?? REB ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:48:01 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Lost in space Randy Jacobson wrote: > Sorry, Alan Caldwell, but my estimates of where they ended up at 0742AM > local time was not south and long, but south and short. Randy, I apologize for misstating your estimate. I was half right. We both picked south. > I sorta like south and west of Howland. Here's why... When they gave up, > Ric and TIGHAR want them continuing on the 157/337 LOP. I don't think they > had to continue on that line. I agree, Randy. First of all since they did not find Howland they had to suspect their LOP did NOT run through Howland and Baker OR they were far to the South or somewhat north. In the hour they searched after 0742 they still didn't find the islands so now they know they are not as close north or south as they hoped OR they were short or long. As I pointed out earlier that hour doesn't give them much of a search. The question is now what do they do? > I suspect any rational navigator, when giving up on Howland, would return > to the starting position of their search. I don't thing so, Randy, and here is my reasoning. In the past when the erroneous "circling" was mentioned I made the point that they couldn't circle or randomly search. Noonan HAD to keep track of his position. At least the only position he had no matter it was in error. If he didn't he was totally without a clue where he was. So he had to plot what AE flew in that hour. For example if she turned NW after 0742, the turn needed to be a half standard or standard rate turn so he could plot that turn accurately on his chart. Then he would plot her leg NW until she made a similar turn 180 degrees to the SE. He would plot that turn and leg, always having his "position" on this chart. Now, when they give up on Howland, if in fact they did, Noonan would have no reason to return to his starting point but merely start from wherever he thought he was. He could plot his route to bisect the Phoenix Islands equally well. Another point is at 0843 we are having them leave the Howland area either continuing on the LOP still hoping to find Howland OR starting off to find a Phoenix Island. That is not necessarily so. We don't know what they did. Maybe they stayed and hunted Howland for another hour or maybe 30 minuets or so. Both Randy and I think they were south so they could do that and still make Gardner. > FN sees a large clump of islands to the SE, the Phoenix Islands. He knows he > has navigational errors, since they could not find Howland. He plots a line > from where he thinks he is that bisects the Phoenix Islands and tells AE to > fly this line. The island group is well over 100 miles wide, so by plotting > line that bisects it, he can have +/- 50 mile navigational errors > perpendicular to the 157/337 line and still go to one of the islands. Again, Randy, I agree that they must have done this although the island group is slightly over 200 miles wide looking from a position SW of Howland. Drawing lines to the Phoenix group you will see "holes" ranging from 40 to 60 miles wide. Not bad but still somewhat of a risk. Not a sure thing. My question is why head off over open ocean rather than stay and look for Howland and Baker 40 miles apart? I can see two possibilities. Either Noonan never got a fix on his position OR by the time he got one he was too far SE to reasonably return to Howland. So where would he have to be to make that decision? Well, he would have to be so far from Howland or Baker he couldn't get back to them and significantly closer to Gardner, if that's where they went. If he is close to Howland when he decides to take off on a course that bisects the Phoenix Islands a glance at the map shows they would have never come close to Gardner unless they turned to Gardner on purpose AFTER getting a fixed position. That would suggest to end up at Gardner they DID get a fix and altered on purpose OR they were far to the SW and did not ever fix their position. Where SW? If they were 140 miles SW of Howland a bisecting course would take them to Gardner. Is that a good probability that Noonan miscalculated his position by 140 miles? My estimate was that they ended up SE of Howland but within 10 to 20 miles. Pure speculation on the distance but my reasoning on the SE part is based on the winds shifting from ESE to E near the end of the flight, the wind velocity dropping off and the plane down at 1,000 feet. IF (what an overly used word) Noonan didn't pick up on the wind speed and direction change he would have a slightly greater ground speed and when his ETA ran out he would have traveled further than he thought. He would be holding a a heading correction to the starboard and an undetected wind shift counter clockwise would allow the plane to drift off course to the right or south of track. Both changes were minor and would not have resulted in a great error. That's why I put them in fairly close. Now if Noonan takes off on a bisecting course from THAT position he MUST fix his position at some point in order to end up at Gardner. Here's the problem with Noonan getting a fixed position. He has only the Sun to work with which will ONLY give him a LOP generally aimed SE/NW. It will not give him a position on that line. Noonan has other ways to do that but he has little time to mess around with different headings or getting LOPs sufficiently spaced to get a cut on his position. Doubtful I think. Thus it would appear to me that Randy's estimate of short and south is easier to support than any of the other suggested positions. It appears highly unlikely our heroes could have been north of Howland. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:49:29 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Lost in space Randy Jacobson explains his theory that FN was south and west of Howland when she said "we must be on you". Randy, aren't we back to the same old problem about navigating from an unknown point to a known point? How does FN know that the proper course to set is 120? Wouldn't that presume that he knew he was south and west of Howland? Why doesn't he assume that he is south and EAST of Howland which would require a coure of 170 or 180? I realize what you wrote was clearly labelled as speculation, but before my mind can accept this as a possibly valid scenario, I would like to know what thought process of a lost navigator would wind up with 120 as a course instead of 180. -- Paige Miller, #2565 LTM, who was perpetually lost ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:45:01 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! For Mike Haddock: Many thank you for your kind reply. Of course I respect your views, be sure. If about me, just personally, I would go fly with AE readily -- my view on this topic is rather close to the one of the reporter Claire Stebbins from Zanesville, who flew with her once -- here is a story from Doris Rich's AE bio -- When AE stopped at Zanesville, " -- she took reporter Claire Stebbins for a ride. Before they took off, he was asked to sign away his rights to sue in the event of an accident. "If any death warrants are to be signed" Stebbins wrote, "they couldn't be issued under more desirable circumstances"-- end of quotation. Btw... here is one more story about AE as a pilot that looks as good competent evidence for me -- The quote is from Doris Rich's book again: "After being manhandled by fans at an air show in Buffalo in the night of March 26 [1929], she flew for most of the next day in several airplanes that were new for her, among them a new trainer intended for the army by its maker, Major R.H. Fleet, the head of Consolidated Aircraft. She was accompanied by Fleet's test pilot, Leigh Wade, veteran World War aviator and later a major general in the Air Force. Wade had been a pilot of the "Boston", one of tree Army-Air Service planes in the first round the world flight in 1924. The trainer he was demonstrating for Fleet was designed with "neutral stability" to respond any change of the controls, good or bad, on the part of the student pilot. When Amelia took off into a strong southwest wind, Wade braced himself to take over quickly in case she made a mistake. She did not. "She was a born flier", he said, "with a delicate touch on the stick". Sorry for long quotations! - i just thought if some members are not having the Rich's book, or read it long ago and could forget these places, it could be interesting for them to review it -- Best regards, and sincere greetings for Flag Day! LTM -- Respectfully, Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:45:45 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Ron Bright wrote: > amazes me why many researchers looking at supposedly the same kelly Johnson > figures, headwinds, etc all come up with a different result. One reason for the differences, Ron, is that we don't know what the headwinds were. There are no such records. Also some may be using the fuel schedule that Kelly Johnson suggested to Amelia as opposed to simply looking at the performance charts to see what the plane would actually do. Another problem is that not all the players have her flying at 150 mph TAS but at other airspeeds contrary to what I used and what Amelia said she was going to fly and what she actually flew according to the few notes we have from her. Unless the known facts are followed the results MUST come out differently. But not knowing what the winds were negates the whole exercise. I can use a low headwind or a high headwind and just change her TAS and come out exactly the same. Let's add one more factor to the mix. We know she left Lae probably at 10:00 and at 07:42 said she was over Howland. You can see we now have a specific flight time. Unfortunately we don't have a position for that latter time and therefore no enroute distance. We cannot compute her ground speed and thus we cannot compute her headwind component. We CAN go into the performance charts and apply that data to her flight time and say what amount of fuel is left IF, I repeat IF, we knew how much she started with. We don't know that figure. Callopy and Chater gave us different amounts. Not only are each of us coming to different conclusions there is not enough data for any of us to be correct. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:47:07 From: George R. Werth Subject: Re: Cal Tech For Ron Bright; Cal Tech (California Institute of Technology) is at two (2) locations -- Pasadena and San Luis Obispo in KAH-LI-FORNIAH. For complete information go to: http://www.caltech.edu/ ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:15:38 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! For: Marcus Lind Very interesting information. I am familiar with the "Boston" and the first around the world flight. However, wasn't the Boston the first one to crash in bad weather? Or am I confusing it with another of the planes? The History Channel just aired a wonderful hour-long show about the flight. Excellent. Thanks for your input, Marcus. Regards, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:59:22 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Lost in space Paige, I only used 120 degrees as an example. The angle FN would have taken was dependent upon where he *thought* he was, even knowing it was not accurate enough to find Howland. By taking a course to the middle of a large island group, he maximizes his chance of finding any one island in the group (not one specific island) by using the fact that the spread of the island group is larger than his estimated error at the time he left the search area. I'll give a real-life example. I was on an oceanographic ship 2/3rds of the way from San Diego to Hawaii. We had completed our work, had both engines on line, and told the bridge we can head home. Nothing happened. The captain went up to the bridge to find out why the ship wasn't moving. The 3rd mate was busy calculating the course necessary to return to San Diego. The Captain yelled at him: "head due east" and correct the course later (meaning in 20-30 minutes time). By heading east and not correcting, at least you know the ship will hit land, although it may not be the exact location you want to hit. This is what Noonan was trying to do: get someone where he could land without specifically going from a known position to a known position. You actually can go from an unknown position to an unknown position, given general information about where you are, and knowing generally where the land is. You just don't end up exactly where you expected to go. Does this make sense? ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:56:05 From: Ron bright Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Re: Headwinds Didn't Amelia report several times her est headwinds? No file material handy here. REB ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:56:21 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Cal Tech For George Werth Thanks, I will try to contact the Professor at CalTech and see if he would make available his data sheets re all his variables. Unless someone is located in San Luis Obisbo? REB ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:57:27 From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! Ah - so sad that cockpit piloting skills get substituted for airplane mission management skills. AE may have indeed been a wonderful stick/rudder person (and that is in question) but look at the larger picture. The radios and their management (timing and frequency). The disregard on her part for certain checks that might have had a bearing (no pun intended) on the all-important end-game at Howland. The apparent lack of alternatives when Howland doesn't appear off the nose. As a former navigator, my hair stands on end as I relive what may have been the last moments in the cockpit. I'm at my ETA, there is no destination in sight, AE (not to waffle about decisions) has to do something. And as her navigator, what am I to do? Interesting discussion of plots to the Phoenix Islands. And AE was not one to admit to errors - are we surprised that she doesn't tell anyone what her intensions are? I think she could have sent messages after landing, but couched them in a way that said "oops - just a little mistake - no big deal". That was certainly her modus operandi. Just speculation - PMB #856C. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:32:39 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator No, Ron. In only one message did she mention wind but didn't say whether it was a headwind or tailwind. Before you tell me she didn't have a tailwind keep in mind that 300 miles east of Lae there was a pressure system and depending which point she traversed it she would have had a tailwind OR a headwind during passage. Lows where she was rotate clockwise so if she was above the center she would have a tailwind and if she was below the center it would have been a headwind. Her route took her northward so there is little doubt she had a tailwind at that point in her flight. Only a tailwind explains the anomaly in her positions. At no other time did she mention the wind. At no time was there actual upper air wind information for where AE was. I located 1937 weather for the Lae area in Brisbane a couple of months ago. No upper air data ever existed and NO weather data existed much beyond Lae to the East. There were no reporting stations. Enroute there was weather balloon data from Nauru and Ocean but neither occurred at the relevant times. The Ontario had surface data as did the Itasca and that means up a few thousand feet. That's how I know the winds tapered off and shifted clockwise near the end of the flight. Other than that no weather data ever existed except for Honolulu's predictions. Even they reminded that they had no enroute information and were forecasting generally over a large distance without reporting stations. You well know how inaccurate forecasts are. Some used what they want you to believe is standard weather for that area and that time of year. Absolute bunk. Ron, if there existed weather data I could tell you where the plane went and where it was at specific times. No one can do that. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:33:15 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! Peter Boor wrote: > The apparent lack of alternatives when Howland doesn't appear off the > nose. Peter, there weren't any alternates. None. No airfields anywhere that were reachable. The plan was to land at Howland, period. Think 1937 instead of 2005. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:33:56 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: We're over here! Down and to the right! Peter, I couldn't agree more. I learned flying in the stick and rudder days. When I retired the A320 and A 340 cockpits were large computers that had taken over from man. No more stick and rudder flying today. Or stick and throttle if you prefer. Just push buttons and the computers will fly the plane for you, programmed to avoid doing anything dangerous and making sure you get to where you want to be, including full automatic landings should visibility be too bad... Gone are the days when a crew consisted of a captain, a co-pilot, a navigator, a flight engineer and a radio operator, working as a team. Today there are just two pilots, one being there for obvious safety reasons and to share work with the PIC (Pilot In Command). Ric once said that future airplanes will have a crew consisting of a pilot and a dog : the dog will be trained to bite the pilot if he touches anything... In 1937 mankind flew in real airplanes. Airmen and airwomen flew them physically, without assistance from hydraulics, actuators and the like. They had to use their brain all the time to navigate, not just watch computer screens (called CRT or cathode ray tubes) . They had to make their own choices, not rely on ATC. They had to make their own decisions. People today simply do not realise how different flying was in 1937 (and into the Fifties) from today's. LTM (who prefers flying an airplane to a computer) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:03:45 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Alan, If the wind was moving clockwise around the system, wouldn't that indicate they could actually have drifted south of their planned route ? In that case they could have wound up somewhere SE of Howland, which is something many of us believe, for an obvious reason. This would also explain why, at FN's suggestion, the began flying up and down the 337/157 radial. Herman ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:31:42 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Herman writes: > If the wind was moving clockwise around the system, wouldn't that indicate > they could actually have drifted south of their planned route? In that case > they could have wound up somewhere SE of Howland, which is something many of > us believe, for an obvious reason. This would also explain why, at FN's > suggestion, the began flying up and down the 337/157 radial. Herman, I'm a stickler for accuracy because even tiny errors or misstatements mislead and confuse, particularly the new members or those who, for whatever reason, elect not to read everything on the web site. The weather system in question was only 300 miles east of Lae moving eastward at about 50 miles a day. It was 250 miles east of Lae the day before. That is still within the land masses east of Lae and they passed during daylight hours capable of navigating visually. There is no reason that system resulted in anything other than effecting their ground speed. Secondly, it is misleading to say they were "flying up and down the 337/157 radial." To be correct they radioed they were ".....on the line 157 337..." You should not attach any significance to the order of the two bearings. You cannot necessarily take that transmission to mean they headed first 157 then 337 or just the reverse. It would not make any difference anyway. Since we don't know their inbound course we don't know what angle that LOP represented. It has usually been thought they would hit the LOP first north of Howland and turn right but there is nothing to support that contention. There is only speculation as to where they were at 0742. It is safe to say they were not directly over Howland because no one heard the plane. In spite of the noise on the Itasca the plane would have been heard if it was close. It would be interesting to know how far away they could be heard. Another possibility may exist. They had been at 10,000' and at 0742 reported at 1,000' so the question is did they descend with the throttles at idle and what sound would the engines make at idle? the Electra descent procedure is to descend at 120 MPH but with low fuel AE may have pulled the power completely off. If they were a little long and sailed over or near the Itasca at idle how far away would they have been heard? No one saw them so the question may be moot. I think it is also safe to say they were NOT on an LOP that physically ran through Howland and Baker unless they were way south of Baker. They only had an hour to search initially. If they turned NW first they would have had to be about 80 miles SE of Baker to fly 60 miles NW and still not see Baker before turning back to the SE. If they first flew SE thinking they were north of Howland they had to be around 10 to 20 miles at least SE of Baker. If they were out of visual sight of Howland either east or west they could have been almost anywhere north or south, of course. Randy's estimate of them being SW is supportable IF they never got a fixed position OR they got one too far from Howland/Baker to return. I say that because they thought they were over or near Howland so picking a bearing that would bisect the Phoenix Islands and still get them to Niku would require that they were SW of Howland. I have been saying Noonan only had the sun to work with but in actuality he also had the moon and Venus in theory. I have said that because I don't know for certain if they could see the moon or Venus. The cut on the sun would have been sufficient to get a fixed position. The moon was waning at about 36% of it's full size but I have not yet been able to determine how visible the moon and Venus were. If someone can I would appreciate the information. I also know of no reason Noonan could not shoot a fix. The plane may not have been a very stable platform at 1,000' and the scattered cloud cover could have been an aggravation. I don't know the tops of the CU so I don't know whether getting on top was a possibility. I don't see fuel as a reason NOT to climb to clear air. The bottom line is that I see no rational reason Noonan couldn't get a fixed position. Here is what he would need. 1. his charts to cover the relevant area. 2. pencil 3. accurate watch (chronometer) 4. working Octant/sextant 5. reasonably stable shooting platform (the plane of course) 6. adequate visibility to the celestial bodies. (a shot is usually 2 minutes but anything in an emergency) 7. errorless computations 8. his celestial tables. Missing ANY one of those, other than the pencil , would be fatal. Someone will say Noonan could have been incapacitated but if that were the case AE would have said so. I have not the slightest doubt about that. Herman suggests many have estimated the Electra's position to be SE. I have, of course, but if they never got a fix on their position that can't be unless they got one too far from Howland/Baker to return AND picked Gardner on purpose. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:57:21 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here For Alan and Ric, We have waited patiently for several years for the Post Loss analysis, and the "proof" or cumulatiave evidence that some were genuine after the 0843 signal. At least you are now providing a "teaser". Yes a "smoking gun" scenario may well support a post loss reception. But we on the forum need to get the details. You say, for instance, that a government operator in the search area and who was "FAMILIAR" (my emphasis) with Earhart's voice, logged an unambiguous identification of a transmission well after the plane couldn't be in the air. That may be "compelling", but Ric you must publish that reception in detail for us to review. We must ask what you mean by "familiar". Who was the operator? How many times had he heard AE ? What was the signal strength? Could he distinquish a man from a woman's voice on that frequency? Was it heard by a co- radio operator? Lots of external and internal conditions may influence the operators perception, including downright fraud as you mention. Yes the post loss analysis is a must but we don't have that yet to make the kinds of judgement you are making. Clearly I meant that after the search was concluded none of the principal players, Navy and Coast guard personnel, in 1937 thought that those msgs originated from Earhart . Of course they had to accept as a possibility that many of the signals were from AE during the search and so acted upon them. (The 281 msg for example) But lets get to the meat of this post loss msg research. Lets agree that several msgs were authentic. Where do they lead our research? What area did they come from ? Gilberts? Marshalls? Gardner? Content of value? Time? Unless we can estimate a point of origin, even authentic msgs may be of little value. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:57:45 From: Ron Bright Subject: AE's last hours Re: Alan's guess why AE didn't transmit Well of all the nutty ideas I have read on AE's radio silence after 0843, is Alan's supposition that Earhart didn't transmit anything on any of her frequencies because she couldn't give them a precise position report. According to this reasoning, when you are hopelessly lost you may as well keep quiet about it until you determine where you are - at which time , of course, you would no longer be lost. So the arguement here is that, apparently, AE wouldn't embarrass herself by radioing "Mayday, can't find Howland, lost!" She made an earlier transmission when she thought she must be at Howland, which as we learned was a guess of her estimated position. I would think she would have continued to contine transmitting to assure Itasca she was still attempting to find the Island, pleading that they keep on smoking. Or on the other hand," we believe we are much further south because of headwinds, now heading towards the Phoenix island group for a landfall on 157 degrees at 140 mph as our best chance of landfall" This would certainly reinforce a search of the Phoenix searcg, In other words, AE most reasonable course of action would be to give the Itasca some idea of her situation, gas, weather, altitude, malfunctions, etc., even hoping for perhaps a bearing if Itacsc sent out a signal. Any little bit of information would be better than nothing. Silence, I can't believe. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:12:46 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator re: Tailwind Alan, Didn't her position report to Lae [ the FIX] at 0718 indicating a pretty slow airspeed of 103 knots, suggest she was running into headwinds of 23 Knots, the number she transmitted, not tailwinds? REB ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:47:05 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Alan says: > It is misleading to say they were "flying up and down the > 337/157 radial." To be correct they radioed they were "...on the line 157 > 337..." You should not attach any significance to the order of the two > bearings. You cannot necessarily take that transmission to mean they headed > first 157 then 337 or just the reverse. It would not make any difference > anyway. I was not in Amelia Earhart's cockpit on 2 July 1937. None of us were. With hindsight one can say that if Amelia Earhart said she was "on the 337/157 line" it does mean something. There was a navigational logic. That line was the LOP (Line Of Position) that Fred Noonan had drawn on his map. That line went through Howland Island. When they reached it they knew Howland would be either left or right, depending on the offset chosen by Fred Noonan. That was the way airplanes navigated in those days. That was the way Noonan had operated since his days as a sea captain. And that was the way he navigated when flying the Pan American flying boats. They would turn either left or right to Howland, depending on the offset chosen. Navigating was no different in 1937 from what it is today, but for the lack of all the state of the art navigation equipment airplanes have today. All Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan had to find their way was a compass (two actually), a map, a stopwatch and a Radio Direction Finder (RDF). Plus Noonan's sextant to shoot the Sun, the Moon and the stars and his computer to calculate. The "337/157 line" was their LOP and that line is normally hit at a 0 degree angle. In other words, when they reached a point on that line they would have to turn either left or right according to the offset they had decided upon. That is how airplanes navigated in those days. And that is what pilots are still taught in basic training. If she radioed they were on the "337/157 line", I understand she meant they had reached the LOP and were steering a course of 337 degrees. That means they hit the LOP southeast of Howland and had turned left. It stands to reason this is why she mentioned 337 first. That line had 157 degrees as reciprocal course. Should they have reached the LOP northwest of Howland they would have turned right, heading SE on a course of 157 degrees. In that case she would have said they were on the 157/337 line. From the very words she used and knowing the logic pilots have, one can assume (there will never be 100 % proof) they were heading northwest 337 degrees, having reached the Line of Position that they expected to lead them to Howland island. There was no need for mentioning 157 before 337. This is also the point when Amelia Earhart would operate the RDF, which as we know was U/S. It is one of the mysteries of this doomed flight and I'll never understand why Earhart, discovering the RDF wasn't working during the test flight she made at Lae the day before, decided to embark on the Pacific crossing without making sure the RDF was working properly. But as we all know by how, she expected Itasca to give her a heading (in today's phraseology pilots would call that a QDM). However, Itasca was unable to do so because Erhart's messages were too short to read the direction from where she was transmitting. And that, in a nutshell, is why they got lost. In the past this flight along the 337/157 line has been the subject of discussion on this forum. At one time it was understood that not seeing Howland when time had elapsed, they made a 180 degree turn left or right. Did they fly "up and down the 337/157 line"? Perhaps. Perhaps not. We shall never know. They probably made a wide turn that would bring them nearer to the "actual" LOP as they accepted the fact that they had overshot or undershot the LOP. However, this is speculation. It is a conclusion people came to who try to reconstruct what happened 68 years ago. But it was also what the US Navy was thinking as early as July 1937. It was also decided on this forum that when it was clear to them that Howland was not where they expected it to be, Amelia Earhart , Fred Noonan or both, must have decided to keep their feet dry and head for "known" land. The only land they could reach with the fuel remaining having failed to find Howland, was the Phoenix group of islands to the southeast of Howland. And the 157 line ran through it. Without being sure of their exact position, but knowing they were in the "area of incertitude" that included Howland, they flew southeast, almost certainly on the heading of 157 degrees, hoping to hit upon one of the islands in the Phoenix group. At least, that is what TIGHAR believes and is trying to prove. That is what I also believe. Otherwise I wouldn't be on this forum. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:45:26 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Can't get there from here > From Ron Bright > > ... the post loss analysis is a must but we don't have that yet to > make the kinds of judgement you are making. ... I hope Ric will abstain from answering your question here in the Forum. The full details are in the book that he is writing. If he stops to debate all those details in the Forum, I fear the second half of the book will not see the light of day. If people have comments about the first two chapters in TIGHAR Tracks, I hope that Pat will make a list of the suggestions and show them to Ric only AFTER the first draft of the whole manuscript is completed. LTM. Marty #2359 ******************************************* This was an older posting sent by Ron again by mistake, but it does bear mentioning again that Ric does not see these posts at all. I only forward comments that are germane to factual matters currently being written about. It looks like we will have an October 15 deadline for a MS. Which is VERY tight. So the nose is to the old grindstone. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:46:10 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator > From Herman De Wulf > > ... It is one of the mysteries of this doomed flight, and I'll > never understand why Earhart, discovering the RDF wasn't working during the > test flight she made at Lae the day before, decided to embark on the Pacific > crossing without making sure the RDF was working properly. Until we get a chance to interview AE in person, e'll never be able to answer that question definitively. Everybody gets to fill in the blank as they wish. Some possible factors: Hubris Exhaustion Get-there-itis ("4th of July or Die!") Misunderstanding of the "test results" ("I was too close to get a null" vs. "My RDF doesn't work"). Confidence that Plan A would work (bearing from the Itasca). > But as we all > know by how, she expected Itasca to give her a heading (in today's > phraseology pilots would call that a QDM). However, Itasca was unable to do > so because Erhart's messages were too short to read the direction from where > she was transmitting. And that, in a nutshell, is why they got lost. You left out one step, I think: they could not tell her to give them a two-minute signal because (for whatever reason) she seems not to have heard any of their transmissions on 3105 kcs. > ... Without being sure of their exact position, but knowing they were in the > "area of incertitude" that included Howland, they flew southeast, almost > certainly on the heading of 157 degrees, hoping to hit upon one of the > islands in the Phoenix group. For at least part of the time on the 157-degree heading, they were probably also searching for Howland and perhaps Baker. Everything that happened in their minds and in the air after the last transmission is unknown and (barring the discovery of Amelia's Last Diary) unknowable to us. > At least, that is what TIGHAR believes and is > trying to prove. That is what I also believe. ... Me, too, most of the time. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:49:24 From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Alan, in all my navigation days, we never used the sun/moon for a fix. The reason is that they appear in almost the same plane - that is, a cut for a fix is highly unlikely, since their azimuths are either near the same or 180 degrees apart. This kind of cut amplifies small errors. Other reasons for not using the moon are its relative size (do you shoot the center, or the limb) and relative speed, all of which add up to much error amplification. This is not to say that FN didn't try (anything is possible), but if he did, it might well have amplified his already serious problem. Perhaps Gary La Pook can clarify - PMB. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:51:17 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Cal Tech Cal Tech is in Pasadena. California State Politechnical University is in San Luis Obispo. Jimbo ************************************** And Reed Riddle, astronomer and Forum member, is at Cal Tech and is going to look up Dr. Culick and see if he can talk to him about the Earhart study. More to follow, one way or the other. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:51:59 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: AE's last hours Ron, Itasca already knew she was low on fuel and lost. Itasca ALREADY knew her situation. Itasca knew her fuel was low, that she was lost, that she was at 1,000' and Itasca already knew what the weather was. And WHAT malfunctions? Where did you get that from? This has nothing to do with precision positions or someone being embarrassed. This has to do with common sense which you are not demonstrating in this post. Just exactly what could she tell them that they could institute some kind of positive response? I can answer my own question. There was nothing they could tell Itasca. Your suggestion they say they were heading 157 degrees at 140 mph tells Itasca nothing they can use. Heading 157 degrees from where, Ron? From SW of Howland or perhaps NW of Howland or maybe SE of Howland? Tell me where the other end of that heading is so we can tell Itasca where to go or tell them to stay put because our heroes are INBOUND to Howland from the NW? Itasca already knows they are at 1,000' because AE told them. What is she going to tell them about her fuel? She already said it was low. Tell them it is now lower? What would Itasca do in response? Suppose she said she had five minutes of fuel left? What would Itasca do about that since they have no clue where in hundreds of miles around Howland or wherever they are to even begin to look? I'll stand by my statement. She has her hands full and is desperately trying to work out of it and only SHE and NOONAN can do that. There is NOTHING Itasca or anyone else can do to help. She would have to be an idiot to waste valuable time making foolish transmissions on the radio. Earhart is not going to chat just to be chatting. THAT would be nutty. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:52:45 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Ron Bright wrote: > Didn't her position report to Lae [the FIX] at 0718 indicating a pretty slow > airspeed of 103 knots, suggest she was running into headwinds of 23 Knots, > the number she transmitted, not tailwinds? No, Ron. She did not say she had a slow airspeed of 103 knots or any other speed. She did not report headwinds. She did not give a fix at 0718. At 0718 she made her last and final transmission that was received by Lae. It said, "Position 4.33 S 159.7 E height 8000 feet over cumulous clouds wind 23 knots" Given their usual reporting they could have been at that position as much as 45 minutes earlier, at that time or not have reached it yet. That's how Noonan worked. There is no data that could possible tell anyone what their ground speed was at any point in the entire flight because the only position we have for certain was breaking ground at Lae. We have NO OTHER POSITION from then on including to this very moment. You can only guess whether 23 knots was a headwind or a tailwind or if it was really knots or MPH. All we know is what the radio operator thought she said. Remember it is fairly certain he copied her previous position incorrectly. Given the presence of a significant weather system 300 or so miles east of Lae she had as much chance to have a tailwind for a while as she did a headwind. Ron, we have gone over all this dozens of time. There is only one place we know AE was at and that was at Lae. Even the two sets of coordinates she gave are not certain. Is that where they were actually or where they computed they were? Can you tell me that? Where were they at 1030 hours GMT? Over Ontario. Over Myrtlebank? Somewhere in sight? Or were they over one of the many other ships in the ocean? Tell me where they were at any given time? No, Ron, you can't compute a speed of 103 somethings or any other speed because the data necessary to do that doesn't exist. No one EVER had that information. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:53:34 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Herman De Wulf wrote: > That line was the LOP ( Line Of Position) that Fred Noonan had drawn > on his map. That line went through Howland Island. Herman you are correct that Noonan probably drew the LOP to go through Howland on his map. The problem is we don't know where they were when Noonan's ETA occurred and so we don't know where that LOP WAS in relation to Howland. They are not flying a line on the map but an imaginary line in the air. I know you know this but some don't. I don't know why AE said 337 157 rather than 157 337. I don't think anyone does but we can all have opinions about that. I don't see that has any significance. I say that because we don't know where they were in relation to Howland so we don't know where a 337 heading or a 157 heading would take them. We don't know when they departed wherever they thought Howland was or where they were when they did that. We don't know what heading they departed on even. As to navigational logic I don't know what AE's was but the normal way to give a bearing is to say what radial you are on. If I am heading into Howland from due west I will say I'm on the 270 degree radial but of course I'm heading 090. In this case rather than a radial it is an LOP and I am sure there is some official way to pronounce the LOP direction but I have no idea if AE knew what that was or if she did that she did it according to Hoyle. We just read the LOP from left to right just as we read anything else. So the LOP would be 337/157 no matter which way they headed first. The LOP was named when it was put on the map not when they finally got to it. Again you have arbitrarily decided Noonan flew an offset when that fact isn't known. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Since we don't know what their inbound heading was we will never know that. OR which way he should have turned. You ARE correct that if you offset to the left you turn right at the expiration of your ETA whatever number of degrees that is needed. If you offset to the right you turn left. We have no idea if he offset at all let alone in which direction. We cannot make up facts and then have a sensible or productive argument about such speculation. It doesn't get us any where. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:54:19 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Facts VS Speculation Lately there have been postings in which there were made up elements and then those elements were used as a basis for argument. That's not a realistic approach to this subject. For example assuming AE had made a decision to head in a particular direction at a particular speed, change her altitude, have aircraft malfunctions and new weather and then arguing she should have transmitted those "facts." That makes no sense at all. I agree IF those events occurred she should have told Itasca but there is nothing to suggest they happened so they cannot be the basis for the argument. In another case there was an assumption Noonan flew an offset and then that "fact" became the basis for an argument. There is no logic or common sense to this. It was also assumed that because AE mentioned 337 first she turned in that direction but LOPS are normally read left to right. Even if they were read right to left there is nothing to suggest AE picked 337 for any particular reason. Such speculation is useful to "game" out possibilities but they cannot be used as facts and then made the basis of an argument. Taking the radio transmission issue as an example, we have been trying to come to grips with why we do not have transmissions from AE immediately after 0843 AM local Itasca time. The only answer is that we don't know. However, there are a number of possibilities... maybe endless possibilities. 1. Her radio malfunctioned. 2. Having switched to 6210 it could not be heard in the immediate vicinity just as it wasn't heard near Lae. 3. She had nothing significant to say that could have helped her or anyone else. This sticks in Ron's craw. He wants her to transmit just for the sake of transmitting. Certainly it would have put some minds at ease to know she was still out there somewhere but she had already given Itasca all the information. They knew her altitude, they could look out the window and see the weather, they knew she was low on gas and it didn't take a rocket scientist to guess it would get lower. Itasca did not know if she had aircraft problems but if she had she would have told them when she said her gas was low. I can only assume that but common sense would agree. She's lost and Itasca already knows that. Should she take time away from trying to figure her way out of this predicament to tell them all that again? I think not. Ron argues she did not tell Itasca where she was headed. He assumes without any basis in fact that she knew. He also assumes she didn't transmit that information and we don't know that. All we know is that we haven't found anyone who heard such a transmission. Big difference. 4. I'm sure we are all innovative enough to think up all kinds of possibilities Maybe the airplane just crashed or they were busy putting out a fire or whatever. The bottom line is we can't make up facts. We have to use what we have. We can play IF games all day but we can't argue speculation as facts. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:55:16 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Availability of the moon In response to Alan's question about the availability of the Moon. The "cut" of the LOPs derived at Howland Island on July 2, 1937 for the sun and moon lines varied between 59 degrees at 1830 Z to 125 degrees at 2100 Z and back down to 69 degrees at 2400 Z which would provide acceptable "cuts" for accurate celestial fixes at anytime during that period. These cuts were not all the prefect 90 degrees but all are well above the minimum 15 degree cut stated in "Weems" 1938 edition on page 281. There has previously been a concern stated that the moon was too high in the sky to be measured with the sextant as it was above 75 degrees when they arrived in the vicinity of Howland. However, by 1945 Z its altitude was below 70 degrees and got progressively lower as the day progressed while the altitude of the sun got higher. Both of their altitudes stayed below 70 degrees between 1945 Z and 2400 Z (presumably the tanks dry point); both were below 65 degrees 2015 Z through 2300 Z; below 60 Degrees 2030-2230 Z; and below 55 degrees 2100-2200 Z. The only time of the day on July 2, 1937 in the vicinity of Howland that a moon shot would have produced a 157-337 LOP was between 1620 and 1626 Zulu or 0450 and 0456 Itasca time well before the arrival of NR16020 in that vicinity. This makes it very unlikely that AE was referring to a moon LOP. Gary LaPook ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:56:01 From: Tom King Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator > Until we get a chance to interview AE in person, > we'll never be able to answer that question definitively. Or until we find her comprehensive diary, buried at the Seven Site in a bottle. Never underestimate the power of archaeology. LTM (who, like all of us, can dream...) Tom ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:39:35 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Marty writes: > I hope Ric will abstain from answering your question here in the > Forum. The full details are in the book that he is writing. I agree whole heartedly, Marty. There is nothing to be served by posting the post loss messages. The folks who disbelieve they are authentic will not be convinced by seeing them. There is no evidence whatsoever that could ever convince them. I don't think Amelia back form the grave would do the trick. They are not seeking proof but only substance to attack. Nothing more. Truthfully I am a bit offended that someone would have the gall to DEMAND anything on this Forum. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:40:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Peter, you are quite correct. We didn't shoot the moon ever but we DID shoot the sun a lot. ALL of our day time celestial consisted of sun shots of course. The sun and moon WERE too close for an ideal cut normally but at the relevant times for Noonan they were 97 to 120 degrees apart giving him a nice angle. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:40:56 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Availability of the moon Gary LaPook wrote: > The only time of the day on July 2, 1937 in the vicinity of Howland > that a moon shot would have produced a 157-337 LOP was between 1620 > and 1626 Zulu or 0450 and 0456 Itasca time well before the arrival of > NR16020 in that vicinity. This makes it very unlikely that AE was > referring to a moon LOP. That's correct, Gary. I have pointed out before that it was possible the LOP was a moon shot but only if Noonan could not get a sun shot on the way in. If that was the case that very early moon shot would not have produced a very accurate LOP. I agree that it was unlikely. Some of our data disagree but the essential point is that there WAS a reasonable cut between the sun and the moon. What it actually was I'll leave to Noonan. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:41:45 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator > From Tom King >> Until we get a chance to interview AE in person, >> we'll never be able to answer that question definitively. > > Or until we find her comprehensive diary, buried at the Seven Site in a > bottle. Never underestimate the power of archaeology. > > LTM (who, like all of us, can dream...) I agree completely. I imagine that if AE and FN landed on Gardner, one of the first things rescued from the plane would be AE's notebook. I imagine that she would have kept it up to date as long as she could. I fear that it was in the sextant box rather than a bottle. But only more research on the island will tell. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:42:03 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Marty, In a nutshell : all we have to do is find Amelia Earhart and/or Fred Noonan and ask them..... Herman ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:27:55 From: Tom King Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator > In a nutshell : all we have to do is find Amelia Earhart and/or Fred > Noonan and ask them..... Herman, haven't you learned by now that we can never trust anecdotal accounts? LTM (who trusts no one) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:28:22 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Alan Caldwell wrote : > Herman you are correct that Noonan probably drew the LOP to go through > Howland on his map. The problem is we don't know where they were when > Noonan's ETA occurred. Precisely. We do know Noonan's LOP was a line Fred Noonan drew on his map and went through Howland. However you are right when you say that we do not know where Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were when they thought they had reached that line. From that precise moment on they should have been able to use their RDF. But as we all know it was U/S. Since no one on this forum was sitting in the cockpit of Earhart's Lockheed Electra on 2 July 1937 we don't know what exactly happened. But we DO know they MUST have flown an offset course for the simple reason that this was the way airplanes navigated in those days. It was the way Fred Noonan got the Pan American flying boats to their destinations and therefore that must have been the way he worked on 2 July 1937 to get Amelia Earhart to Howland. I don't believe the theory that he had opted for a straight line to the target as some do. That was an impossibility after 20 hours flying. That is simply not realistic. It is contrary to the way airplanes navigated in those days. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:29:03 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Boston For Mike Haddock: Many thanks for your kind reply -- As far as I remember, it was the plane called "Seattle" that crashed into the mountain in Alaska, but its crew survived. The "Boston", piloted by Leigh Wade, had a technical problem- a failed oil pump - and made a forced landing in the Atlantic Ocean -- This plane was replaced by a new one, called "Boston II", and the flight continued... and this is why it is usually considered that the flight was completed by "three planes" -- This is what i can remember now... please correct me anybody if I am wrong! Kind regards sincerely, LTM Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:29:35 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator > From Herman De Wulf > > ... In a nutshell : all we have to do is find Amelia Earhart > and/or Fred Noonan and ask them..... LOL! That's it, exactly! Even if TIGHAR finds persuasive evidence that the Niku hypothesis is true, we won't know how they navigated there (if they navigated there) until we talk to AE and FN personally. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:09:15 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here To Pat and Marty, Yes you folks are right, and I sent that plea out accidently. I know that the post loss stuff will be forthcoming, it was just taking longer than I thought. As I understand it, the Post Loss will be included where appropriate, but all the msgs and evals will be in a CD or appendix. 'Thanks, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:09:37 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Cal Tech Thanks, sounds as if Reed Riddle can make contact with Prof Culick. He must have some hard data available, and hopefully he would share his variables and calculations. But I have the sinking feeling that he has shared his work with Long or Nauticos, and may well want to keep the "splash point" secret! We shall see. REB ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:10:04 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Alan, You make this flight a lot more shadowy then every other researcher. Of course noone knows exactly where she was in the air at a specific time, but we know roughly she was on the route to Howland from the Nauru intercepts, got within a 100 miles or so, at least she thought she was there and close. Many researchers call that lat/long a "FiX" for illustrative purposes. Of sourse the only known absolute position was at Lae, but don't you think it is fair to say that her route in general has been pieced together and that she got close to Howland? It is not worth arguing about. REB ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:10:41 From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator For Herman De Wulf: In all my research of Noonan I have found no evidence that the standard PAA navigation method was to use an offset. I would be most interested in the information you have which I don't. blue skies, jerry De Wulf says, > But we DO know they MUST have flown an offset course for the simple > reason that this was the way airplanes navigated in those days. It was > the way Fred Noonan got the Pan American flying boats to their > destinations and therefore that must have been the way he worked on 2 > July 1937 to get Amelia Earhart to Howland. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:11:25 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Facts VS Speculation To Alan Caldwell May I remind you this forum is intended often for infomal dicussions, not formal scientific white papers. We are accustomed to share opinions, guesses, speculations, etc from the few facts we do know. We try to make sense of them. Yet you continue to challenge every single non proven fact, which we are all aware of, in an insulting, arguementative way. Your hubris is unparelled. It makes posting by many of us uncomfortable. I still say the craziest explanation that AE maintained silence for four hours is that she had nothing of value to say, and that the Itasca knew everything ect. Nuts. Yes her transmitter may have been out, radio propgation, and a multitude of othr reasons may have prevented a transmission, but because she didn't want to give any updates is preposterous. Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:11:46 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Can't get there from here For Alan, There you go again!! Claiming that no amount of evidence would convince us that she made a post 0843 msg. For me it certainly could, hence we are waiting. And we have waited pretty patiently. Where do you come up with this garbage? REB ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:12:23 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Boston Marcus Lind wrote: > and made a forced landing in the Atlantic Ocean -- Marcus, do you know what happened to the plane AFTER it made the forced landing? Did it sink right away or what? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:24:44 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Can't get there from here I don't post much anymore, but I read everything! I certainly agree with Ron Bright on this message stuff. I am a "Crashed and Sanker". I believe that Earhart and Noonan were both incapacitated in the hard ditching at sea, and both went down with the ship! Probably not more than a hundred miles or so from Howland. But show me a genuine message from them that was transmitted after 08:43 in the morning, and I'll switch in a heartbeat! My ultimate goal, as should be everyone's, is to find out what happened to them. Not just prove a pet theory. I don't believe that any of the messages are from the Electra. But I do think they all should be analyzed properly before making that determination. But at this late date I don't think any of the post loss messages can be verified. Ultimately finding the Electra, or a piece of it, is going to be the only thing to prove what really happened. Don Jordan Cal City, CA ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:48:13 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Can't get there from here > But at this late date I don't think any of the post loss messages can > be verified. Maybe I can relieve Ric of the need to respond to this one for the umpteenth time. Nobody expects to verify any single post loss messages. What may emerge from the sort of comprehensive analysis that Ric and his colleagues are doing is a PATTERN suggesting that some of the messages are most plausibly accounted for as genuine transmissions from Earhart. This study of patterning within a large data set, as opposed to relying on individual bits of data that by themselves "prove" something, is what folks do in all the sciences all the time, but it's never been done before with the post-loss radio data. LTM (whose taste in patterns runs to plaids) Tom ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:55:54 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Ron Bright wrote: > don't you think it is fair to say that her route in general has been > pieced together and that she got close to Howland? Of course you are right, Ron. My legal influence on details, facts and evidence shows I know but I take this quite seriously. A lot of money has passed by the board and I would like to solve this mystery and force Ric to get a real job. Well, maybe it IS a real job but it's time to go after another mystery like the White Bird or digging up Jimmy Hoffa. OOps! Hoffa didn't fly. Maybe Kingston Smith. It bothers me to see misstatements and speculation that is not labeled such. The speculation is usually misused. It needs to be done as a gaming exercise to see if some idea works or doesn't. If I have the energy tonight I'll do a quick recap of what we know and don't know. You're right that a lot of this stuff doesn't matter. Take Herman's offset issue for example. whether Noonan offset or not doesn't change anything important. I think most of us agree they got close and we all know they didn't see Howland. Offset or not that doesn't change. For that matter nothing that occurred prior to 0742 makes any difference to what occurred next. We can argue how much fuel they had left and we can come to a fairly precise answer IF we knew what they started with but even then we are dealing with an amount the doesn't change our basic premise that they had enough to go to Niku but not enough to go elsewhere, meaning the Marshall's or the Gilbert's. Both are argued but no one is putting up big bucks to go there and search. We clearly need a break through on evidence to narrow our search but it will come I'm sure. I would be disappointed if we cannot get the Professor's work but if it is paid for by Long or Nauticos we won't get it. It's a tired day, Ron and I've exhausted myself working out in this heat. One O One yesterday and close today. Later. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:00:30 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here You're right Tom but mark my word. The pattern will not be attacked. They will only try to discredit the individual messages in spite of our repeated caveats. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:03:47 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Can't get there from here Tom King wrote: > Nobody expects to verify any single post loss messages. I couldn't get this across but I hope you have better luck, Tom. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:46:04 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Facts VS Speculation I can't make sense of Ron's tirade but there seems to be some confusion about the purpose of the Forum. The TIGHAR theory is that Fred and Amelia missed Howland and flew to Niku. THAT's the theory. Most of us are trying to support that theory. We are not trying to prove it wrong but some are. From some I see only a negative approach and that is a waste of time. totally. If someone feels insulted because I am not interested in their constant attempt to undermine the TIGHAR theory then so be it. That's their problem not mine. Now if someone wants to challenge what TIGHAR considers a fact, that is fine but not by opinion or speculation. That's nonsense. Challenge with a rational well thought out posting if you can't come up with actual evidence. This Forum is NOT a debate of competing theories. We are here to discuss facts not opinions. I couldn't care less what someone's opinion is. If they think a fact is not so then they need to support their contention. I am also not interested in idle speculation that has NO support behind it. All of us have been around long enough to get the posted information correct. Posting erroneous information is getting tiresome. It is sloppy and lazy. I only ask that folks think things through before posting. Make certain of the information before posting it. The web site has all the background so check it out. If you want to game out an idea make sure you say that's what you are doing. For example as we have recently done with the speculation as to where our heroes were at 0742. If you think they were north of Howland explain why using known information. If there is no information on which to base that idea don't bother posting it. Don't make up "facts" for the sake of arguing. That's a waste of time. That doesn't preclude trying to determine whether a particular speculation can hold water. If it can't under any set of facts we can discard the idea. If it can under some set of circumstances we need to test those circumstances to see if they could be valid. If folks are going to engage in these kind of discussions there IS a formal scientific methodology by which to do that. To, instead, randomly and loosely discuss an issue you are not advancing the ball. You are just filling up mail boxes with idle and useless chatter. Do that privately rather than waste everyone's time. You need to have fun on this Forum but posting stupid drivel is not fun for anyone. I try to stick to known information and I'm not very tolerant of posters too lazy to make sure their information is correct before posting. I am not at all tolerant of folks who make up things to support their arguments. Support your arguments with facts. If you have no facts say so and offer your reasoned rationale instead. For those who can't manage this at least try but in any case try to have fun and enjoy the search. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:17:24 From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator For Jerry Hamilton I think we have to dig into history books. In WW I pilots found they missed their target on the ground when steering straight to it because when they arrived at it, it was hidden by the engine cowling in front of them. They found it more practical to have it appear to the left or to the right for identification. That is how offset navigation was born. Up to the introduction of RDF in the Thirties (around 1931-32) pilots were using their compass, a watch and a map to find their destination, using navigation techniques developed in WW1. When Alcock and Brown achieved the first ever crossing of the Atlantic by airplane in May 1919, their target was actually their LOP: the Irish coastline. When they had reached it they would choose a suitable place to land (eventually they landed in a bog). Even Charles Lindbergh in 1927 used the Irish coast as an LOP on his way to Europe and Paris. When he hit upon it he discovered he was almost exactly where he had calculated to arrive. When Pan American began operations as an airline in December 1925, pilots still relied on classic navigation techniques. There were no radio aids. In "History of Pan American World Airways" (published in 1973) P. St.John Turner writes that operating the transpacific route was possible only by using radio direction-finding equipment because the classic techniques were insufficiently precise: "Navigation over the thousands of miles of featureless ocean was to be based on radio direction-finder aids, backed be celestial navigation methods". Many lessons learned from Captain Edwin Musick's proving flights with the S-42B "Pan American Clipper". They were passed on as modifications to the three Martin M-130s flying boats that would fly to China. Turner writes : "These particularly applied to the radio and navigational equipment. Small direction finders were installed aboard the aircraft which enabled distance from a ground station as well as degree of bearing to be ascertained". However, this equipment had its limitations. In "Quest for All-Weather Flight" (published in 2002) Tom Morrison writes: "The radio range was a major advance in blind navigation (...) but it had serious limitations and defects. Once an aircraft deviated from the range equisignal there was nothing to tell the pilot how far off track he was, nor was there any means of homing to the range station other than along the equisignals". And here it comes : "Radio beams seen as an aid to, never a substitute for dead reckoning". In other words: RDF was used alongside the classic navigation technique. Pilots would still rely on dead reckoning and the stars, using an LOP on their maps that went through their destination. They would switch on their RDF when within range. But they would fly VFR (Visibility Flight Rules) and had to see the islands before landing. Perhaps here we find the answer to the question why Amelia Earhart said she "could not obtain a null". She could have been out of range. She could have deviated from the beam. Or the equipment wasn't working at all, as had been the case during her test flight at Lae prior to their take off for Howland. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:18:55 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Betty's Notebook and Post Loss Messages Is the content of Betty's Notebook being considered a single "post loss" message or a series of messages in Ric's analysis? That is, as Betty has explained before, she recorded all the text during a continuous period from when she got home from school until 6:00 or so in the evening (on the 5th of July 1937 if I recall Ric's best guess on the date). I would think that the way her recordings are considered in the analysis - one message or a number of messages - would greatly influence the "pattern" conclusion that Ric is working on. For example, IF Ric is right in his guess that Betty's record was taken down on the 5th and only Betty's notebook record is the one heard that day then how it's considered in the analysis would be important. One entry would suggest that all communications from AE ceased abruptly whereas if they are considered as a series of messages then it implies a more prolonged last attempt to reach out to someone listening in - sort of like a last resort try on AE's part. The handling of this information in the analysis would be important in comparing how AE used her air time e.g. short, periodic (on the quarter hour) and crisp information transmittal or long and rambling, random time period and general information about her condition and what's going through her mind during the last days. Secondly, I am trying to put together a message content matrix based on Betty's notebook. This matrix will concentrate on words that sound alike but recorded by a listener using her best efforts to interpret what the words spoken meant. For example: the number 3 sounds like the word "Marie" that is recorded often in the notebook: There are also numerous references to the number 3 noted in Betty's record, do these refer to something substantive? The number sequences that Betty recorded can only be added into the matrix if one knows how they were spoken. For example the number "58 338": Was this fifty-eight three hundred thirty-eight or was it five, eight, three, three, eight? To illustrate: Five could be "alive" followed by Eight which could be "wait" - which AE often used to signal a pause in her transmissions. Three could be "we" followed by the second three which could be "see" followed by eight which could be "late." Therefore the sequence could be: --- alive, wait. We see ----- late, "Send us help" as recorded in Betty's notes. Whether or not this leads anywhere is anyone's guess but it just might help fill in some blanks in Betty's notes and/or overlap other recorded words from other sources in the same time frame. Hopefully Betty can still recall how she heard the number sequences these many years later. Way too much time on my hands now adays! ***************************************** The transmissions contained in Betty's notebook are being treated as one message. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:01:03 From: Dennis McGee Subject: No, no, and no Don Jordan said: > But show me a genuine message from them that was > transmitted after 08:43 in the morning, and I'll switch in a heartbeat! Well, that's generous. For the last several weeks the emphasis here has been on the fact that no single post-loss message will confirm or refute the TIGHAR theory. Yet, so many of the "crash-and-sankers" start their posts to the effect, "Show me one post-loss message . . . " What part of "no" do these people not understand? LTM, who knows her limits Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:18:51 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator > From Herman De Wulf > > ... Perhaps here we find the answer to the question why Amelia > Earhart said she > "could not obtain a null". ... She could have deviated from the beam. I'm not a radio operator, although I do have the lowest form of a HAM license (KC2NEB), so you may take what I say with a grain or more of salt. As I understand it, the Itasca was not providing a "beam" for AE and FN but just a beacon. In the "beam" system, if you drifted off course in one direction, you heard Morse for A in your headset; if you drifted off the beam in the other direction, you heard the code for N; in the middle of the beam, you heard a continuous tone. These systems required two beacons to work, I think. All that the Itasca was trying to give Amelia (or get from her) was a single bearing that would help her to decide the proper track to fly to Howland. This is a much simpler proposition than providing a "beam" to follow. Two things were necessary for the Itasca to guide her to the island: 1. She had to transmit a signal that they could home in on. She failed to give them the standard 2-minutes transmission necessary for them to "find the null" in her signal. 2. They then had to be able to relay the information to her. It seems that her audio receiver was not working correctly. The only transmission she acknowledged hearing was the string of A's on 7500 kcs. For me, this is the most significant link in the accident chain. If they had been able to establish two-way communication, it would have been easy for her to provide the proper signal and to have received the guidance she needed. I don't think finding the wreckage of the plane will decide why her radio let her down. Two things were necessary for her and Fred to guide themselves to the Itasca: 1. They had to transmit a signal she could home in on. She asked for, and received, such a signal on 7500 kcs. The Itasca gave her what she asked for. (I imagine they gave her a signal of sufficient duration.) 2. She had to "find the null" in the transmission. From that information, she and Fred could have reasoned to the correct bearing that they would need to fly to Howland. For reasons that are now shrouded in obscurity, barring new discoveries about her equipment, she was not able to "find the null" and derive the needed bearing. Did she ask for the wrong frequency for her equipment? Did she tune the machine incorrectly? Was her hearing not sensitive enough to detect the null? Did some other part of the equipment fail (the lost antenna? the hacked-up antenna?). LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:17:22 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator In all of the radio protocol messages between AE and the Coast Guard (including the first and second attempt), no mention was made of the time duration necessary to obtain radio bearings. In fact, I don't believe any discussion of providing radio bearings were made until AE was at or near Lae, New Guinea. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:55:46 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Our theory, right or wrong? Alan wrote: > The TIGHAR theory is that Fred and Amelia missed Howland and > flew to Niku. THAT's the theory. Most of us are trying to support that > theory. We are not trying to prove it wrong. It is my understanding that TIGHAR is testing a hypothesis, not supporting a theory. If the results of the tests prove the hypothesis right, fine. If the results prove it wrong, so be it. We're not necessarily TRYING to prove it wrong, but we're not avoiding that outcome, either. Alan wrote: > You are just filling up mail boxes with idle and useless > chatter. Alan, forgive me for being blunt here, but you are among the more prolific posters on this forum, and you post your own share of useless chatter, too. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:09:54 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator > From Marty Moleski > >> From Herman De Wulf >> >> ... Perhaps here we find the answer to the question why Amelia >> Earhart said she "could not obtain a null". ... She could have >> deviated from the beam. > > I'm not a radio operator, although I do have the lowest > form of a HAM license (KC2NEB), so you may take what I > say with a grain or more of salt. > > As I understand it, the Itasca was not providing a "beam" > for AE and FN but just a beacon. You're right, the Itasca's equipment was not capable of providing a "beam." The Adcock beam transmitter uses four tall radio towers covering many acres. The Adcock transmits four equal signal signals spaced about 90* apart but this is variable as are their azimuths. They were set up to define airways between cities so the orientations of the beams were set to define these routes. This required placing the antenna towers in the right orientations and then could not be moved or changed. You could tell when your were "on the beam" by the constant buzz in your headphones but once off to one side you could not tell how far off to the side you were. There was a standard pattern you could fly to figure this out but it took some time to accomplish, I won't go into the details. Using a RDF, radio direction finder, in the airplane only requires that the ground transmit a signal that the RDF was equipped to utilize, a constant signal or beacon. The loop antenna mounted on the top of the fuselage is directional, meaning that it provides a powerful signal to the radio on one orientation but when turned the signal strength changes. Because of the gain in the receiver and the sensitivity of the ear it is much easier to discern accurately (plus or minus a couple of degrees) the lowest signal strength than the strongest. The pilot tunes the receiver and identifies the station. She then rotates the antenna slowly until the signal drops off to its lowest point, sometimes it completely disappears. The pilot notes the azimuth readout on the antenna orientation scale. She turns the antenna further and the signal reappears or gets stronger, she notes the azimuth scale. A couple of adjustments back and forth between these points and she has a good reading of the azimuth, or bearing, to the station. This is the "null." She can then add this relative bearing (the azimuth of the antenna to the longitudinal axis of the plane) to her heading at the moment and determine the course to fly to get to the station. AE couldn't get a "null," meaning that the antenna did not exhibit a directional reception pattern, because she was attempting to use it at 7500 KHZ and the antenna was not designed to work at the high of a frequency. This could also be worked in reverse with the airplane transmitting and the ground equipment used to get a "null" on her signal then the ground station could transmit to the plane the course to fly to get to the station. gl ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:33:53 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Herman, that was a good summary of aviation history. something to save in my files. Do we have any evidence of any kind that Noonan used an offset at any time on the round the world flight? I honestly don't recall. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:46:06 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook and Post Loss Messages Ted, sounds like good solid work you are doing. Betty's notebook is, of course, a little controversial but if it is what it purports to be there is no telling how many good clues may be there. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:08:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: No, no, and no Dennis McGee wrote: > What part of "no" do these people not understand? Dennis, thank you, thank you, thank you. In fairness, although I have been far from fair to Ron and others about that issue, you have to understand how they will go about this and it is certainly a legitimate method. Without putting words in their mouths they are going to say that if they can show that each and every message has no credibility or cannot be authenticated then the whole body of messages must collapse. I think we can all understand that concept. However, THAT is not the way such material is analyzed. It is done by pattern just as Ric is doing and just is done a thousand times over with similar data. You saw a small and semi analogous example in the Jackson trial where the prosecution could not prove a single allegation but tried to show a pattern. He failed not because the individual complains couldn't be proven but because all of his witnesses were shown to be liars and with ulterior motives. In this case the individual messages cannot be proven to be authentic but they cannot be totally dismissed because of lies or lack of credibility of their source. That's not going to deter the crashed and sank group but hopefully some of can see their position better. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:48:27 From: Dave Porter Subject: Official search and post-loss messages Ron Bright, you posted a few days ago regarding the post-loss radio receptions, stating that after the end of the official search in 1937, the principal players (Coast Guard and Navy) concluded that none of the post-loss receptions were genuine, yet during the search they tried to follow up on some, notably the "281" message. I believe that TIGHAR has contended, with supporting evidence from ship's logs, crew newsletters, and official reports, that the dismissal of all post-loss receptions as not genuine was due more to their lack of success in the search than a systematic examination of the receptions. In other words, "we didn't find her, so none of the alleged calls from her could have been real." You don't have to be Socrates to see the holes in that line of reasoning. If AE was alive somewhere and Itasca/Colorado/Lexington didn't find her, their search was an admitted failure. Everything I've read about the military during the 1920's and '30's leads me to the belief that nobody who had an interest in their own career would ever admit to mistakes or failures of any sort. "We executed a flawless search across a huge area that didn't turn up AE, so obviously she wasn't there to be found, therefore none of the receptions are genuine." All very tidy and official; good marks for all on Officer Evaluation Reports, but clues made public by TIGHAR suggest otherwise. Before anyone objects, let me say that I'm NOT slamming the Coast Guard or the Navy. What I'm saying is that at that time they knew almost nothing of modern search and rescue type operations; the pressure was on to cover themselves in roses before professional rivals suggested a more malodorous covering; and both of those factors combined with depression era military budgets reduced the search of the Phoenix Islands (which the Navy originally considered a very likely landing destination for NR16020--one of the very reasons TIGHAR was convinced to begin searching there in 1989) to a very cursory affair. Ric has hinted that TIGHAR's exhaustive, systematic examination of the post-loss receptions reveals patterns which lead a reasonable person to believe that some of them are genuine. Two further items can be drawn from this: (1) if ANY post-loss messages are genuine, AE didn't run out of fuel, ditch/crash, and sink (2) if among those messages judged to be genuine there is occult information, (information that would only be known or meaningful to AE and her close associates) then such could be considered a "smoking gun" by those whose constitution requires one. It's no secret to Forum regulars that I was convinced by the preponderance of the evidence unearthed and made public by TIGHAR very shortly after I came aboard in early 1999. TIGHAR has no "secret proofs," no hidden agendas. Our research and conclusions are made public for any and all to examine, question, and/or refute. Thus far all alleged refutations have rested on improvable assumptions or claims of secret evidence whose claimants wish us to believe in without telling us what it is. All of our work is funded by member support, private donations, and corporate gifts-in-kind. The fact that it goes forward speaks volumes for the quality and integrity of the leadership, the membership, and the organization as a whole. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:58:12 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook and Post Loss Messages Thanks Alan. I hope I get the info from Betty that I requested. With regard to using Betty's notes as a single transmission I'll have to give that some thought. On the surface (no pun intended) three hours of transmissions seems to be an awfully long time compared to other "post loss" transmissions that have dribble out onto the forum. It's hard to believe that if others were listening and recording transmissions from AE shortly after her disappearance this 3 hour segment would go unnoticed - or did it? Again, assuming Ric's best guess that Betty's notes were on the 5th, were there any other notes recorded on that day? If so these could also help fill in the blanks in Betty's notebook. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:58:40 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Official search and post-loss messages Well said, Dave. This IS a dedicated group although not all are dedicated in the same direction but that's OK. I think we are heading in the right direction and whether folks want to consider what we're doing a theory, a hypothesis, an idea, a conjecture or pure folly it matters not to me. I nitpick when someone posts erroneous information or makes up "facts" with which to argue but this is not a body of scientists. We use terms loosely and whether we should is not up to me. For information purposes a theory comes in two flavors, supposition and conjecture. The former has no support while the latter has some. A hypothesis STARTS with evidence the hypothesis is formed to try to explain it. A hypothesis cannot be proven. It can only be confirmed or dismissed. Those are the technical definitions although not the only ones. In our case the evidence did not come first as is required of a hypothesis. That would have been true if someone on Niku called the papers and said there was a wrecked airplane there and then we try to find an explanation for the plane being there. But that didn't happen. We started with a theory which was more of a supposition that has evolved into a conjecture. None of that matters. We all know what we are doing and what has led us to this point. Call Niku a hypothesis if you want or a theory or an idea or whatever. It changes nothing. I spend a lot of my time pursuing this both here and with the EPAC group but in a positive manner. I also spend a lot of time here in what has been termed idle chatter. I can only assume that refers to my constant attempts to keep the information correct and to refer folks to the website so they don't get things confused. Alfred is right. I shouldn't have to do that. no one should. It wastes our time but if not done all kinds of wild stuff gets posted without being corrected. Newer people are then confused and it makes it hard for them to contribute sensibly. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:00:36 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator I am going to have to stick up for Alan Caldwell here. While I don't particularly think he has been "insulting" or "argumentative", I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, I do support his continuous willingness to challenge people and to speak up when someone says something that is not correct or speculation stated as fact. I do this myself, but certainly not as often and as continuously as Alan seems to do. I do find it extremely frustrating to see the same repeated mistaken beliefs stated over and over again by forum members. Those mis-statements need to be challenged; if they are not then there will be some folks who will eventually believe that these mistaken beliefs are in fact the truth. So, when I see, time after time, that Ric's new book will attempt to prove that a specific post-loss message was really from AE, we must speak up! When I see, time after time, that AE flew into headwinds, or that AE's fuel tanks were virtually dry at 0843, that must be challenged! When I see someone state that AE couldn't find Howland so she made a conscious decision to find Gardner, that must be challenged! I cringe when someone again asks the question "why didn't AE tell us she was diverting to the Phoenix Islands?" You keep up the good work Alan (and Tom King and many others as well). P.S.: I propose a ban on any future posts in which a person claims Ric's new book will prove that a specific post-loss message was really from AE. Seriously. Add it to the FAQ, and then enforce it. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM (who always drove around with the gas tank on empty) ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:59:39 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Official search and post-loss messages Dave Porter, I am not sure I am the one to answer this, but I think your reasoning is probably right in many respects. I wouldn't buy entirely that the reason the Coast Guard and Navy, et al, thought that none of the msgs were from AE was based soley on their fruitless search. Maybe so, and Thompson was pretty specific. Maybe he had the most to lose. Some msgs were outright fraud, others were giving confusing positions, others seemed to be ships and stations getting each other, some were Japanese signals, some were just dashes, some were indistinquishable, and of course the March of Time confusion. Thus some in these categories were thrown out and may have influenced the possible legitamcy of other signals. Anyway, I don't know their rationale, but that is what Thompson concluded. An intesting question is whether Thompson was aware of the post loss Nauru reception about 6 hours after her 0843, and what,if any, significance he put in it. [ It was never totally explained, nor the operator identified, but he is as I reall the one that said the voice sounded like the voice he heard the night before.] Maybe he wasn't aware of that, but some forum members may have researched that. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:38:24 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Official search and post-loss messages Thompson was aware of the Nauru intercept, as it was included in his summary of radio messages. That doesn't mean, however, that he interpreted it as such, or was even personally aware of it. The 120+ pages of radio transcripts was probably assembled by someone else, and signed by Thompson. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:38:28 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Noonan used the offset method when AE and he crossed the Atlantic. > Do we have any evidence of any kind that Noonan used an offset at any > time on the round the world flight? I honestly don't recall. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:06:09 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Boston For Alan Caldwell: Thank you for kind reply... Yes, the plane sunk, after some unlucky attempts to rescue it... It was in the area near Faroe Islands... Please review these links... as it seems it gives enough detailed description of that loss and the flight in general: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/dwc/dwc.htm http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/dwc/dwc139.htm http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/dwc/dwc139a.htm http://www.wingnet.org/rtw/rtw001d.htm Kind Regards - have a good weekend, LTM - Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:05:30 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Definitions Alan wrote: > For information purposes a theory comes in two flavors, > supposition and conjecture. The former has no support while the latter > has some. A hypothesis STARTS with evidence the hypothesis is formed to try > to explain it. A hypothesis cannot be proven. It can only be confirmed or > dismissed. Alan, where do these definitions come from? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:05:01 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Randy Jacobson wrote: > Noonan used the offset method when AE and he crossed the Atlantic. Thanks Randy. That was coasting in on North Africa, right? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:04:23 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Paige Smith wrote: > Those mis-statements need to be challenged; if they are not then there > will be some folks who will eventually believe that these mistaken beliefs > are in fact the truth. Thanks, Paige. That was exactly my point. I don't care what anyone believes. I know Ron and others are seriously fervent in their beliefs and that's great. I hate wishy washy folks. I don't think we have any yes men or women. No one is going along with Ric just because he is a good guy (and there is a question there ) We have been equally critical of our own ideas just as we have been of others' ideas. No one escapes our wrath. I don't have much of a problem with alternate theories. It is mostly misstatements and fact creation I think is totally unnecessary. I DO have to say that the definition of a theory is that it must be testable. And that's the ONLY problem I have with crashed and sank. It is not testable. It would seem the only viable approach is to try to discredit any other theory so that crashed and sank wins by default. Unfortunately that's not how it works. If you have a theory you have to prove it. It's like saying Jimmy Hoffa is still alive because you can't prove he is dead. That doesn't fly. You have to PROVE he is alive. I'll give an example of an alternative theory and how it should be treated. Bill Shea, has presented me with a scenario he believes in and I differ with but it is a good, well thought out idea and Bill does a good job supporting his idea with logic. We are discussing his idea back and forth off Forum. That's productive. We have just gone though a discussion on Forum of where AE was at 0742. That has been an excellent discussion. I think as a result of that thread we have learned a few things. The discussion did not contain misstatements or made up facts and everyone that contributed did a good job using well reasoned arguments and known facts. I was going to post a brief summary on what we know and don't know but I think instead I'll pose a few simple questions that can easily be answered if not from memory then from looking at the TIGHAR web site. Anyone can answer the questions or ignore them if they want. I think the response will be interesting. Here goes. 1. What time did the Electra take off from Lae and what is the confirmation of that if any? 2. How much fuel was on board when theory taxied out at Lae? What is the source for your answer? 3. What time were they at 150.7 E 7.3 S? 4. Was the position given in question 3. 150.7 E or 157 E? Support your answer. 5. What time were they at 159.7 E 4.33 S? 6. In one of those two positions AE reported "wind 23 knots." Was that a headwind or tailwind? Support your answer. 7. Where were they at 1030 GMT? 8. Did AE say they saw lights ahead or a ship ahead? 9. A crew member of the Myrtlebank reported a plane overhead. What weight do we give that anecdote? Support your answer. 10. A person reported a plane overhead in the Gilberts. Over what island? What weight do we give that anecdote. Support your answer. 11. At 0742 AM AE reported they thought they were over Howland. Where do you think they were and why do you think that? There is no right or wrong answer on this question. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:03:40 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook and Post Loss Message Ted, I can't answer for Ric as to why Betty's notebook was considered as one message but I can tell you I would have done the same as I can't 100% confirm what Betty heard. I guess it is a weight thing. I think your question is were there any other transmissions that occurred at the same time as Betty's receptions. I'll leave that question for Ric when his book is published. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:33:36 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Definitions Alfred the definitions I posted came from Internet research but you left out the important part. I said, "Those are the technical definitions although not the only ones." You are free to define the terms any way you please. Different disciplines have their own variations. I took what seemed to be the most used and what appeared to fit our purposes best. I also said I reserve my nitpicking for misstatements and such not terms such as these so I'll not get into a back and forth on them. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:48:05 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: More navigation > From Dennis McGee > > I can not for the life of me understand the argument that a person can > navigate from an unknown position to a known position. It defies > logic. > > Where's Marty? Maybe he can straight this out. :-) > > ******************************************* > > From Pat: > > Marty is on retreat this week... or is that IN retreat from the Forum? I think the people whose expertise I respect have hashed out the possibilities pretty thoroughly in my absence. Even if I'd had e-mail on retreat, I don't think I could have added anything to the debate. IF--and that's a big "if"!--TIGHAR ever finds indisputable evidence that AE and FN landed on Gardner or another Phoenix island, we probably still won't know how they got there (by deliberate navigation or by luck). I love TIGHAR and I love the Forum. If I ever "retreat from" either, I'll let Pat and Ric and EPAC know why. From time to time, demands from family or academic or religious life make it hard for me to keep up with the discussion. Please don't take any silence from me as a commentary on TIGHAR or the Niku hypothesis. It is an honor and a thrill to be part of the dialogue. Pat, I think you have my credit card number. The expiration date is now 02/07. You may renew my membership with all the old information. Count me in! LTM & the boys. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:17:07 From: Richard Metzger Subject: Re: Definitions There are investigators and there are guessers. Its the guessers that want to be investigators that piss-off the true investigators that deal in facts and a firm hypothesis. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:27:54 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Re: Alan Questions Nice questions and of course those are the most relevant areas of research we are interested in on this forum. Data and information on these subjects have been compiled over the past 68 years, but to address all those questions would require a book in itself. Mayve one question at a time! With a question as a title of a chapter would make a nice monograph. Ron B. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:11:49 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Betty's Notebook (her page 3) - A coincidence or a clue To: All the Navigation Gurus with nothing to do I've been doing some trigonometry noodling based on the reference to "South 391 065 Z or E" noted in Betty's notebook (see ref above). Using latitudes and longitudes for Howland and Nikumaroro (Niku) - today's GPS base and AE/FN's Hawaii to Howland position given by Williams - I see what appears to be a strange approximation to AE/FN's final resting place based on the "South 391 065 Z or E" notation. How? Draw a right triangle around Howland and Niku with the following parameters: The base (a); running north from Niku to the same latitude of Howland but due east of Howland The leg (b); the straight line running east of Howland The hypotenuse (c); running directly from Howland to Niku and The ANGLE (A); between the base and the hypotenuse Givens: Howland according to Williams was located at Lat .82N Long 176.72W - GPS data Lat .80N Long 176.63W Niku - GPS base - Lat 4.66S Long 174.53W (we are not sure what FN may have had). Now a little distance calculations using lat/log values. Hold the latitudes constant at Howland's .82N using William's figure (assume FN didn't know if he was north or south of Howland when they got lost) and calculate the distance from Howland to Niku using longitude (you can use either William's figures of 176.72W or GPS of 176.63). This distance is the hypotenuse of the triangle drawn above. I calculated a hypotenuse of between 407.4 and 403.9 statue miles. VERY CLOSE to the "South 391" portion of Betty's notes. Next hold the longitudes constant at Niku's 174.53W (FN should have been able to get a good fix on his longitude while standing on the beach) and calculate the distance from Niku north to the line running east from Howland (the leg of the triangle). I calculated a base of between 378.6 and 377.0 statute miles. Solve for the angle (A) at Niku using the base and hypotenuse, I got between 69 and 69 degrees 20 minutes. VERY CLOSE to the "065 Z or E" in Betty's notebook. In summary: Could the "South 391 065 Z or E" be referring to; South of Howland 391 miles and 065 degrees East of Howland (the angle along the hypotenuse from Niku back to Howland) - a little island called Gardner (Nikumaroro)? PS I do realize that this is a rather unconventional way to describe one's location but this whole flight was unconventional! ******************************************************** For those who may not remember, the link to Betty's Notebook is http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:12:16 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Yes, "coasting" in along the peninsula that juts out into the South Atlantic, where Dakar sits. Very sneaky...since the coastline goes northeast and southeast from Dakar. So, whenever AE and FN hit the coastline, they knew what direction to head for Dakar. Unfortunately for them, the area was fogged in and they couldn't see the coast until they headed up the LOP and broke out of the fog, and saw the land below them and ocean ahead. They were on an approx. 40* heading, so they knew they were north of Dakar. Since Dakar was socked in, they headed along the coast until St. Louis and landed just before dusk. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:11:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Funny, Ron, but I think you're right. Those few questions DO encompass a great part of the mystery. That was my intention but I guess I didn't think it through well enough. It does require too much to deal with each one. I thought of doing it multiple choice but that would be me imposing my ideas of the answers and I didn't want to do that. I think I was hoping folks would do a search on the web site But most of us don't really have that much time. Let's just skip the test. If anyone one wants to take any one question to deal with that might be OK. Thanks for putting this in a better perspective, Ron. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:11:40 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator > From Tom King > > Or until we find her comprehensive diary, buried at the Seven Site in a > bottle. Never underestimate the power of archaeology. POWER TO THE TROWEL! LTM (who paid for my archaeological education and now wonders why I can't support her in her old age) Kerry Tiller ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:12:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Randy, thanks for refreshing my memory with the details of their flight into St. Louis. It would be interesting to know what weather information they had coming inbound. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:13:33 From: Andrew McKenna Subject: First attempt LOP For Alan and the celestial gurus Out of curiosity, has anyone figured out what his LOP would have been for the first attempt flight in March? I think the answer to what Fred knew about the Phoenix Islands may lie in the planning for the first attempt. Would be interesting to see what LOP he would have been expecting to use on the flight that never happened. Andrew McKenna > Alan Caldwell wrote : > > "Herman you are correct that Noonan probably drew the LOP to go through > Howland on his map. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:15:00 From: Jack Clark Subject: Re The professor and the navigator To Alan Caldwell Alan re your question No 3, I am of the opinion that the 150.7 E 7.3 S position report was a local noon (0200z ) fix calculated by a sun shot. I base this opinion on the fact that it was customary for a navigator to take a sunshot at noon to establish Latitude. Longitude would be brought forward from the last known position by DR methods. I think this was referred to as a running fix. FN would need to get a fix as soon as possible as they appear to have gone out to sea in order to avoid cloud shrouded mountains along the New Britain coast the presence of which is indicated by the rainfall figures for that day. This would enable Fred to set a course to put them back on track for Howland. I feel we can trust Eric Chater's report as being correct. As I understand it he was responding to a request from the United States Government for information. I think he would make sure he got his facts right. The only trouble I have with the position given is wether he meant 170.7 degrees E 7.3 degrees S or 170 degrees 7 mins E 7 degrees 3 mins S. The difference I think is 42 nautical miles in Long. and 18 nautical miles in Lat. Jack Clark #2564 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:15:44 From: Jack Clark Subject: Re The professor and the navigator To Alan Caldwell Sorry Alan. I think I garbled the last sentance in my previous posting. I believe the difference in the two readings should be 35nm Long 15nm Lat. Jack Clark #2564 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:18:01 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Betty's notebook and post-loss messages > From: Ted Campbell > To: All the Navigation Gurus with nothing to do > > I've been doing some trigonometry noodling based on the reference to > "South > 391 065 Z or E" noted in Betty's notebook (see ref above). Ted, I commend you on digging into this pile of numbers in Betty's diary and trying to make sense of them. However, I also need to state my skepticism over your conclusion at this time. One reason for my skepticism is that it is very easy for humans to think there are meanings in a set of numbers when in fact none exist. The entire field of numerology, which I happen to be very skeptical of, does exactly that. Example: some claim the height of the great pyramid at Giza was exactly 1 millionth the distance from the Earth to the Sun, and this proves (or provides evidence for) extraterrestial origin of the pyramid. For me to be less skeptical of the meaning of your calculations, I would need more evidence linking them to the meaning you claim. One such way to provide meaning is an example that navigators such as FN knew of and used this method of describing a position. Without such evidence that this was a method that navigators such as FN would have used, I would ask the question why did they not simply report latitude and longitude, which FN knew how to compute and which was a widely used and widely understood method. I'm not 100% skeptical here. I can see a scenario where maybe it makes sense for AE to report this information. Perhaps these are intermediate calculations done by FN to arrive at his lattitude and longitude. Since I have no knowledge of what is involved in celestial navigation, I guess that this is a possibility, but I don't know for sure. So perhaps one plausible scenario is that when AE was getting desperate and panicky (and Betty was listening), she picked up FN's calculations (which were still in the sextant box) and read them verbatim into the microphone. I could envision this scenario, but someone more knowledgeable with celestial navigation would have to chime in and say that such triangle calculations are indeed part of the steps FN would go through. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM (who was always panicky whenever she navigated somewhere) ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:19:02 From: Marty Moleski Subject: RDF and volume adjustments I received the following note from R. C. Sherman about another variable to be considered in AE and FN's failure to find a null on the fatal flight. RCS says he posted this kind of analysis a few years ago. I guess it's already in the Forum archives then, but I think it is worth reprinting. I wrote that AE may not have drawn the right conclusion from her test flight at Lae. She said, "I was too close to get a null." I suggested that she may not have considered other interpretations--that she made a mistake in the use of her set or that the DF equipment itself was not working correctly. RCS wrote me: > ... FYI ... and you may never ever get to test it ... > > Once a signal is tuned and identified, the Volume Control is the 600 lb. > Gorilla. > > The width of the null is adjusted with the volume control [and a number > of times during DF process] -- simple but very important, and does > require a bit of practice to get the hang of it. One can get a null > 45 deg in width, with the signal just discernable, to no null with too high > volume. The volume increases and the null width decreases as one gets > closer to the station, requiring a number of volume decreases; otherwise one > could lose the null [fly thru it without realizing it ] -- dangerous because > if one loses the null near a station it will take a bit of doing to regain > the null, then do the '90 offset' to determine if the station is to the > right or left. > > If I recall correctly AE made one statement that was undoubtedly > correct, then offered a reason that may well have been fancy. She did > not get a null, but that could have been a problem with the loop, or a problem > with her use of the volume control. If it was because of being too > close, she could have done a 180, then tried again in two minutes. Tracking > a null away from the station until not even high volume can keep a null is > used to track a course away from a station, and by comparing heading to > keep the null with the desired course, one has the wind angle. If too > close, continue for a few minutes to get to the other side -- ergo > her reason may just have been a sop for not really caring. > > To expand on the 'my opinion' statement, she was not interested in Joe > Gurr's help back at Burbank despite his numerous offers, because she > thought she would not need her DF. Another example is removal of her > ADF. She thought she didn't need it. One can't just refuse help because some > of it might be useful, but she thought she already had the answers to > finding Howland--the Itasca would have an HFDF to take bearings on her, and if > that failed she had an HFDF to get bearings on them. > > Let's test that: Itasca log 0645-46 "Pls. take bearing [on us] & > report in 1/2 hr; will make noise in mike." No bearing recvd. Then > what came next? Just over an hour later, Itasca log 0758, "Go ahead on > 7500 with a long count" Itasca log 0800-03 "We recvd. your > signal but unable to get a minimum. Pls. take bearing on us and answer on > 3105 will send long dashes." Back to, you take bearing on us. +++++++++++++++++++++++ I hadn't realized how critical adjustment of the volume might be in finding a null. It is conceivable that neither AE or FN understood that principle--or that, under the stresses of the long flight and the apparent receiver failure, they neglected to use that technique to help them out of their predicament. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:40:24 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Betty's notebook and post-loss messages To: Paige Miller Thanks Paige. I am not suggesting that FN used my method to calculate his location but rather using the method I did gives a fairly close approximation to the numbers recorded. However, the numbers recorded could be something completely different from that of a position report I was only trying to find a pattern they may fit. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:41:56 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Alan, Don't give up to soon, those are the fundamental questions that researchers have taken a shot at. At one question at a time , fully explored, would end up with a heck of an encyclopedia of cites, references, explanations, and finally some reasonalbe conclusions. Look at the material available, controversial, on just the topics of the Achilles intercept, the Nauru intercepts, etc. It may be more appropriate to set forth those topics for a book, chapter titles. Interesting way to approach the mystery. And with 100 minds putting in some input who knows what new angle may develop. LTM, Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:38:37 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator For Alan Caldwell, Several years back I believe Mr. Moleski equated the AE Forum to a one room schoolhouse - Alan, your AE last recorded flight questionnaire tends to prove his analogy quite correct. We must recognize that we students of Earhart lore operate at different levels of knowledge on the subject of NR16020 and it's crew's last recorded flight - Hopefully your questionnaire will serve a useful purpose of leveling that field of knowledge - But we must guard against becoming intolerant of differing opinions while at the same time protecting the forum's flow of information from the virus of fallacious reasoning. LTM : "A pot must exercise caution went calling a kettle black, for we at times all live in glass houses." Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:40:56 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Alan Caldwell says: > Paige Smith wrote: > > Those mis-statements need to be challenged; I feel compelled to challenge your misstatement. My last name is not spelled S-m-i-t-h On a more serious note, I would like to issue a clarification on something that Alan said (this is my clarification; it may or may not be what Alan thinks). He says: > And that's the ONLY problem I have with crashed and sank. It is not > testable. Those of you who think AE crashed and sank are believing in a reasonable possibility. My clarification is that crashed-and-sank is a reasonable and plausible theory. It simply is not testable. -- Paige Miller, #2565 LTM (who never believed in any reasonable theories) ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:38:25 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Tom Strang wrote: > But we must guard against > becoming intolerant of differing opinions Nicely said, Tom. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:24:51 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Where did I get "Smith?" Sorry, Paige. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:25:13 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator OK, Ron, I'm game. I'll post them one at a time. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:25:39 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Question Number one. With a little encouragement for Ron and others I'll continue the "test." One question at a time. When you're tired of one we'll go to the next one if there is sufficient interest. 1. What time did the Electra take off from Lae and what is the confirmation of that if any? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:26:44 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator > From Paige Miller: > > ... Those of you who think AE crashed and sank are believing in a reasonable > possibility. My clarification is that crashed-and-sank is a reasonable and > plausible theory. It simply is not testable. Some folks have put some money down already on testing their version of C 'n' S. If they get enough fresh money, they're planning to go out again this fall, I believe. If they find the remains of the aircraft, they will have provided pretty good evidence of the validity of their hypothesis. If they don't find it, the hypothesis still remains in play (maybe their equipment wasn't good enough; maybe the course was a bit off; maybe their search field wasn't large enough; etc.). Of course, even if they find the aircraft within their search field, it may not show how it got there. The Japanese could have dumped it there after stripping it of its super-secret, advanced spy technology--or the U.S. government could have dumped it there to protect "Irene Bolam's" secret. Etc. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:27:52 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Betty's Notebook (her page 3) - A coincidence or a clue For Ted Campbell I think your thinking exercise is brilliant. It is by using unconventional methods that wars have been won and I think your approach had brought us a step further.. As for the Z in "391 065 Z or E", I think the answer lies in the fact that Americans pronounce Z as ZEE. The Brits would spell it ZET. Hence the possibility (and I am almost sure this IS the answer) that what Betty heard was EE, but being unfamiliar with navigation in general and latitudes or longitudes in particular, she wrote it down as Z. I think that with Ted's unconventional method TIGHAR has hit upon an interesting way of seeing the problem an has further proof it has been right all the time that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan probably DID land on Gardner island (now Nikumaroro). LTM ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:37:40 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook (her page 3) - A coincidence or a clue To: Herman De Wulf Whoa, I am not there yet! I still would like to hear from some of our navigators to see if these numbers (not my math but Betty's notebook numbers) make sense in terms of figuring out where you are using 1930 navigation techniques. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:10:30 From: Dennis McGee Subject: I'm all in! Alan Caldwell said: > Without putting words in their mouths they are > going to say that if they can show that each and every message has no > credibility or cannot be authenticated then the whole body of messages > must collapse. Well, under that scenario TIGHAR has to be correct only once, whereas the nay-sayers need to be correct 148 (or whatever the number of messages) times. I like our chances - I'm all in!!! :-) LTM, who knows when to hold 'em Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:33:19 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Destroyer Lamson The former acting medical officer of the Navy destroyer Lamson, which participated in the search for AE/FN, died last week. George Weise was 102. Here's the obit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701482.html ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:29:09 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re The professor and the navigator I've reposted Jack's note as it didn't get a response and I thought it should. Jack makes some good points and as the first response to question three there should be some discussion I think. His idea that the position given at 0519GMT might well have been a noon sun shot is certainly food for thought. If the coordinates are accurate AE could have arrived there at local noon perhaps. That brings up the question as to why she didn't transmit that position until around five and a quarter hours after take off. Another point I have never come to grips with is the manner of writing down the coordinates. Jack is the first I recall mentioning that and it has concerned me from the start. The decimal notation of 7.3 S is confusing. Does, as Jack questions, that mean seven degrees and three minutes or does it mean seven and three-tenths of a degree? Can anyone resolve that? In Jack's note he mistyped the 150 Longitude as 170 but it is clear what he meant. There is more to this question #3 than Jack has addressed. Alan > From Jack Clark > > To Alan Caldwell > > Alan re your question No 3, I am of the opinion that the 150.7 E 7.3 S > position report was a local noon (0200z) fix calculated by a sun shot. > I base this opinion on the fact that it was customary for a navigator > to take a sunshot at noon to establish Latitude. Longitude would be brought > forward from the last known position by DR methods. I think this was referred > to as a running fix. FN would need to get a fix as soon as possible as they > appear to have gone out to sea in order to avoid cloud shrouded mountains > along the New Britain coast the presence of which is indicated by the > rainfall figures for that day. This would enable Fred to set a course to put > them back on track for Howland. > > I feel we can trust Eric Chater's report as being correct. As I understand > it he was responding to a request from the United States Government for > information. I think he would make sure he got his facts right. > > The only trouble I have with the position given is wether he meant 170.7 > degrees E 7.3 degrees S or 170 degrees 7 mins E 7 degrees 3 mins S. The > difference I think is 42 nautical miles in Long. and 18 nautical miles in Lat. > > Jack Clark #2564 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:54:39 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Lawyers' views? We may have run this exercise earlier, but I'm wondering what the lawyers here at the Forum think of our mostly circumstantial "evidence" regarding the AE mystery. Do we have enough to for a Yea or Nay opinion for a criminal trial? How about a civil trial where the evidentiary rules are less stringent? LTM, who walks the line Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:16:38 From: Adam Marsland Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook (her page 3) - A coincidence or a clue I actually went through Betty's Notebook on a similar errand a few years back, and the startling thing is that there is a recurring set of numbers throughout that are consistent with the LOP, off by one degree. Look at how many times all or part of the numbers 158 and 338, as they would be read phonetically (e.g. if you hear the middle part of 338 you might write down 30, e.g. three-thirty-eight) are in there. They're even bang together at one point, less the "one" in 158. Nothing conclusive but it is very interesting. > Ted, I commend you on digging into this pile of numbers in Betty's > diary and trying to make sense of them. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:35:03 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator 7.3* S is even more puzzling, since that is well south of the intended flight path from Lae (at 7.00*S) and Howland (0*48'N). I've always assumed that it was not heard or written down correctly. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:35:31 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Betty's Notebook (her page 3) - A coincidence or a clue Ted, I'm looking at it this way. Suppose Fred Noonan, having escaped with his life after having landed somewhere, takes his maps, his sextant and his watch and tries to find out where exactly they are. As I explained in a previous posting, navigators have been sailing the Seven Seas since the 15th century with latitude as their sole information on their position. They tried to get to the latitude of their destination as soon as possible, then sail east or west along that latitude until they made landfall and find out where they were. It is only since the 18th century that longitude was added thanks to the invention of the chronometer, which told hem what the time was in Greenwich. Using latitude and longitude they could establish their position more or less precisely. Using his sextant FN was able to establish their latitude, shooting the Sun at noon. Using his watch he knew what time it was in Greenwich and find out what their longitude was but comparing it to local noon. Next he would have taken his map and draw the vertical line you refer to as their meridian. He could see that line passed east of Howland on his map. He would then draw that horizontal line you refer to. By using trigonometry as you did, he could calculate their position. It did not have GPS precision but it was the best he could do with the state of the art navigation equipment at his disposal in 1937. According to Betty's notes, neither Fred Noonan nor Amelia Earhart mentioned Gardner Island. This may be an indication Fred Noonan was not sure what island they were on. Even if he had known, it stands to reason that as a navigator he would rather transmit their position than the name of the island that sailors might first have to look up. Using the Electra's radio, he transmitted the information he had gathered. This must have been the information heard by Betty. You conclude that he had an idea of their position but did not know the name of the island for he did not mention it. Amelia Earhart also transmitted. She said something about a stranded ship. Neither she nor Fred apparently knew they were on Gardner Island when they made their radio transmissions. If they had known, they would have said so. The more you look at it, the more one realizes they were actually giving indications to the outside world to come and save them, trying to provide ships with the best information possible to do so. The fact that no one heard the transmissions but Betty is the tragedy of the story. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:15:46 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator I've never heard of a flight navigator doing a noon sight for latitude, it is technique used only by marine navigators. I will review all of my references tonight to see if any of them ever suggested this technique for use in flight. But I can tell you now that it is not on the Flight Navigator's examination as spelled out in FAR part 63, Appendix A. Here is a link to this Federal Aviation Regulation: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11feb20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/janqtr/14cfr63.61.htm (In reviewing this regulation I noticed that paragraph (e) 18 on the flight test, requires that the navigator have an average DR accuracy of 5% of the leg flown from the last fix with no errors exceeding 10%. Since this is required on the flight test, if it could not be reliably achieved then nobody would be able to obtain a Flight Navigator Certificate from the FAA! We can then reasonably expect that Noonan could achieve this level of accuracy!!) The reason that it had a traditional use on ships is because it could provide an accurate latitude even with some unknown error in the chronometer or even without a chronometer!!! you only need a calendar to figure your latitude by noon sight. The noon sight was used for centuries before the invention of chronometers. It is a special case in that you do not do the usual calculation but use a special very simple and easy calculation involving only addition and subtraction. The noon sight was used by many, many marine navigators who couldn't master the necessary trigonometry to calculate LOPs at other times than noon. But, this only works at the slow speed of a ship. Longitude was determined by a "time sight" taken earlier or later in the day when the sun bore straight east or west ("on the prime vertical"). An airplane moves so fast that its movement makes it impossible to determine the traditional point of "noon" so any latitude determined from a noon altitude measured from a moving aircraft may be significantly in error. Can you take a sun sight near the time of noon? , sure but there is nothing special about such a sight, and you do the calculation and plotting as with any other sun line. Any of you flight navigators ever do a noon sight while in flight or heard of anybody else doing one? or know of any flight navigation text or reference that proposes this technique? Gary LaPook ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:16:07 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator I agree Randy but I have always suspected the weather system reported as 250 miles east of Lae and then the follow up the next day which they may not have received showing it at 300 miles east of Lae was the reason the went the route that indicated. By doing that if you plot the two positions out allows them to skirt some high formations such as Mt. Balbi (if I got that right off the top of my head) if the weather was not VFR. I haven't had a problem with that but I wonder if the longitude was 150.7 E or if it was really 157 E? If you say one fifty ....seven it might be interpreted either way. I lean toward 157 E because of the time 0519 GMT. The 150.7 E puts them only about two hours out instead of five and a quarter hours out. But for the life of me I can't come to grips with the decimal notation. The next report muddies the water even more with a latitude of 4.33 S. That indicates a precision they couldn't have if it was decimal. I can buy 4 degrees 33 minutes easier. could this be similar to the way Europeans write phone numbers? Like I write 512-327-8462 but Europeans write 512.327.8462. That's NOT a decimal even though it looks like one. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:43:10 From: Paige Miller Subject: Betty's notebook and post-loss messages Ted Campbell writes: > I am not suggesting that FN used my method to calculate his location > but rather using the method I did gives a fairly close approximation > to the numbers recorded. However, the numbers recorded could be > something completely different from that of a position report I was > only trying to find a pattern they may fit. Ted, I would encourage you to continue digging into this. I would also encourage you to come up with an hypothesis about what these numbers represent. Then, test your hypothesis by seeing if there is a pattern in the data consistent with your hypothesis. So, for example, to continue with my somewhat frivolous suggestion that AE, in a state of panic or delirium, was reading into the microphone all of FN's intermediate calculations, that is the hypothesis. If other numbers in Betty's diary represent additional calculations that FN would have had to make to determine latitude and longitude, now we have a pattern that fits the hypothesis. Sometimes, people formulate their hypothesis before examining the evidence. Other times, the hypothesis is determine after an initial look at the evidence. Either method is fine. Good luck. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:44:07 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Alan, Your are right about the dots between European telephone numbers. They are not decimals, just stops to make easier reading. For domestic use the numbers are shorter as for international use there is an international prefix. That prefix is followed by an area code. Then follows the number. And that can be written according to local tradition. As an example I can cite my own telephone number, which is 32-2-460.23.02. In that number 32 stands for Belgium, 2 for Brussels and 460 stands for the automated telephone exchange at Wemmel which handles my calls. The last four figures are my actual telephone number. Some areas have fewer telephones than others and telephone numbers therefore are shorter. In these areas people tend to write their numbers in groups of three figures. There is no rule for it, just local tradition. The national code number and area codes are separated by a hyphen for clarity, dots are put between the remaining figures for easier reading. The dots can be put anywhere according to local habit. For domestic calls no use is made of the 32, only the area code, which is 2 for Brussels but becomes 02 in domestic use. UK telephone numbers look just jas confusing but actually follow the same logic and the same goes for other countries. Free numbers begin with 800 like in the US but watch out for number beginning with 900 ! Those are expensive pay phone lines used by companies who want to make extra money... As a rule one should avoid them. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:44:30 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator For Gary LaPook When I mentioned the noon shot I never wrote that this was aviation practice. It was a technique use at sea for centuries before the chronometer was invented. Let me add an amusing anecdote. When longitude was "invented", noon was indicated by a metal ball falling down a mast on the rooftop of the Maritime Academy at Greenwich. All ship captains watched the ball to set their clocks. Today there are no more ships sailing from London and captains have much more reliable time signals by radio. But the ball stills falls (not at noon but at 1 p.m.) to amuse tourists. When it does a gun is fired from the sailing ship "Cutty Sark" nearby, also to please tourists. I'm not suggesting that airplane pilots ever set their watches on the falling of the ball at Greenwich! LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:45:42 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Noonan appeared to have taken a noon sighting on the Atlantic crossing.... > From Gary LaPook > > I've never heard of a flight navigator doing a noon sight for latitude, > it is technique used only by marine navigators. I will review all of my > references tonight to see if any of them ever suggested this technique > for use in flight. But I can tell you now that it is not on the Flight > Navigator's examination as spelled out in FAR part 63, Appendix A. Here > is a link to this Federal Aviation Regulation: > http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11feb20051500/ > edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/janqtr/14cfr63.61.htm ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:46:07 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator I never did a noon sun shot nor did my navigator nor was it ever required on a standardization examination. Would I be correct that in this case Noonan would have to shoot straight up at noon? If so how would he do that? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:48:08 From: Jack Clark Subject: The Professor and the navigator To Gary LaPook Re Noon Latitude Shots, Gary in "American Air Navigator" by Charles Mattingly published by Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation there is a section titled "Latitude by Meridian Altitude" which I think describes the technique I am referring to. Unfortunately I do not have the whole section and the bit I do have does not specifcally mention noon sights but if one celestial body can be shot on the observer's meridian why not another ? I believe we should be careful in comparing modern navigation methods with what was done in 1937. Because a method was not a part of the licencing requirements for a navigator does not I feel prevent a navigator with experience of the method from using it and Fred of course was a very experienced marine navigator and could I believe have used any method at his disposal. Jack Clark #2564 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:15:08 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator > From Jack Clark > > ... Because a method was not a part of the licencing requirements for a > navigator does not I feel prevent a navigator with experience of the > method from using it and Fred of course was a very experienced marine > navigator and could I believe have used any > method at his disposal. Agreed. We're not imagining that the airplane was still in the air at noon, are we? Shooting a noon sight from the island seems to me (a non-navigator) a possible course of action Fred might have taken, if he and the instruments survived the landing. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:14:43 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Thanks, Herman. Is that same notation used for geographic coordinates anywhere? I'm convinced for the time being that the Lae received coordinates represent degrees and minutes and are not decimal. If anyone has reason to believe otherwise I would like to know that. It was the 4.33 S that leads me to that conclusion. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:33:02 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Marty, what started the "noon shot" thread was the suggestion that the 0519 GMT position might have been a noon sun shot. So, yes, it was supposedly an airborne sun shot. I wondered how Noonan could sight on the sun directly overhead. If I remember correctly some celestial instruments were limited in their vertical angle of sighting. Don't hold me to this as it has been a long time since my celestial days. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:25:31 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Alan, > Marty, what started the "noon shot" thread was the suggestion that the 0519 > GMT position might have been a noon sun shot. So, yes, it was supposedly an > airborne sun shot. I wondered how Noonan could sight on the sun directly > overhead. Ah. Sorry. You mean the first noon of the flight, I guess, not noon on the day of the loss. > If I remember correctly some celestial instruments were limited in their > vertical angle of sighting. Don't hold me to this as it has been a long time > since my celestial days. No problem. I think you might also have to take into account the sight lines from the Electra. Seems to me it did not have an overhead bubble. LTM. Marty ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:27:09 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: The Professor and the navigator As I said I would do in yesterday's post, I went home last night and checked my reference books. Mattingly, published in 1944, does mention a noon sight and describes a complicated technique to accomplish it involving making successive estimates of your longitude based on time, ground speed and track to establish just when the sun should be on your meridian and so the time to take the sight. Though this is interesting for a technician interested in navigation and trigonometry, I doubt that anybody would use it in practice since it is much more complicated than just working the sight in the normal way. The traditional reason for using the noon sight for latitude is because it is computationally so easy, without the necessary of any trig or any tables other than the almanac, nor any necessity for even plotting an LOP. In the olden days, many ships captains and navigators could do this simple calculation but were never schooled enough in trig to do the more modern LOP type of computations. Flight navigators are. In addition, more modern navigation tables make the computations easier to do. Even after the invention of chronometers many captains still practiced "latitude sailing" where they sailed north or south until reaching the latitude of their destination then east or west following the latitude to the destination since this was all they could accomplish with the noon sight. AFM51-40 mentions a "noontime fix" which describes getting a fix at about noon by shooting the sun shortly before noon and then, again, shortly after noon. Since the true azimuth of the sun changes rapidly at the time that it is crossing the meridian (noon), it is possible to get acceptable "cuts" of the two resulting LOPs to work out an accurate fix (actually a running fix.) The method describes working both of the sun lines in the normal fashion and does not utilize the special case, easy "noon latitude" procedure. H.O. 216, the 1967 edition. does mention it for historical interest. The prior edition (about 1940, I don't have it with me) doesn't mention it at all. It is not mentioned in Weems either in the 1938 or in the 1943 edition. It is not mentioned in the army manual of 1940 for air navigation. Another post says that Noonan did a noon sight on the Dakar leg. I don't have access to that data but it is most likely that he did a normal sun line near the time of noon and did not use the "noon sight" simple proceedure. I would like to see that information so that I ccn evaluate it further. Any body able to email it to me? So, I stand by what I said, it would make no sense for a flight navigator to attempt to make a noon sight for latitude since it is harder to do than using the normal procedure. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:28:30 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: The Professor and the navigator Sure he could do that from an island but if one of his chronometers also survived he could work out a noon fix from two sun lines, one before and one after noon. Then they could transmit their exact postition to rescurers. Gary LaPook Marty Moleski wrote: > From Jack Clark > >> ... Because a method was not a part of the licencing requirements for >> a >> navigator does not I feel prevent a navigator with experience of the >> method from using it and Fred of course was a very experienced marine >> navigator and could I believe have used any >> method at his disposal. > > Agreed. > > We're not imagining that the airplane was still in the air at noon, > are we? Shooting a noon sight from the island seems to me (a > non-navigator) a possible course of action Fred might have taken, if > he and the instruments survived the landing. > > LTM. > Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:29:03 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The professor and the navigator Yes, Marty, the first noon of the flight. And you are right. The ability to shoot from the Electra was not the greatest as there was no bubble. Also there is the problem with navigating back to the Gilbert's. The sun would have been behind the plane. They could always turn 90 degrees for a few minutes for the shot but fuel was more critical going west as the winds were now lighter and the distance too far. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:30:23 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: the professor and the navigator Is this where they got the idea for "dropping the ball" at midnight, New Years, in Time Square? > Let me add an amusing anecdote. When longitude was "invented", noon was > indicated by a metal ball falling down a mast on the rooftop of the Maritime > Academy at Greenwich. All ship captains watched the ball to set their clocks. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:31:13 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Betty's notebook and post-loss messages Herman DeWulf, in two posts on 20Jun2005, manages to confuse me greatly. > As for the Z in "391 065 Z or E", I think the answer lies in the fact that > Americans pronounce Z as ZEE. The Brits would spell it ZET. Hence the > possibility (and I am almost sure this IS the answer) that what Betty > heard was EE I don't follow this at all. What is the significance of AE saying "EE" versus what Betty wrote down? Why does a British pronunciation enter into your logic if neither AE nor Betty was British? > I think that with Ted's unconventional method TIGHAR has hit upon an > interesting way of seeing the problem an has further proof it has been right > all the time that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan probably DID land on > Gardner island (now Nikumaroro) Why didn't AE transmit her latitude and longitude instead of these triangular co-ordinate deviations from Howland as Ted Campbell is proposing? > You conclude that he had an idea of their position but did not know > the name of the island for he did not mention it. Another possibility is that Betty just didn't hear the portion of the broadcast that said they were on Gardner, or on the coast of Paraguay, or whatever. So I conclude nothing from this yet. > Amelia Earhart also transmitted. > She said something about a stranded ship. Is this a fact, that she said something about a stranded ship? Or is this something that people have come to believe without any evidence to back it up? What is the source of this claim? > The more you look at it, the more one realizes they were actually giving > indications to the outside world to come and save them, trying to > provide ships with the best information possible to do so. The more I look at it, I can't possibly understand why they would give triangular co-ordinate deviations from Howland. Unless of course some with navigational experience wants to tell me that this was a reasonable thing to do. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:32:06 From: Jack Clark Subject: Re: The Professor and the navigator Re Noon Latitude Shots. I believe the suns declination at the time was around 23* N AE/FN were(in my contention) around 7' S. Would this not enable Fred to take a sun shot from the port side window amidships? The sun would be at its highest point at noon on that meridian but not I think overhead. If it was overhead then of course my whole opinion is sunk because there was no astrodome on that aircraft. Jack Clark #2564. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:57:53 From: Pat and Ric Subject: About the Forum, PLEASE READ **************************************** From Alan Caldwell Paige, I'm taking off for Ireland in the morning for a week. I was worried about what would happen in my absence. After reading your latest posting I will fear not for Paige is on duty. Alan ************************************** Well. Actually. There isn't going to be any Forum for the next two weeks. Ric and I are taking our first real vacation EVER. In over 20 years. We are going to Scotland for two weeks. We are leaving Wednesday afternoon (tomorrow) and will be back the 6th. The Forum will resume on the 7th. I will try to post the Forum tomorrow morning for those who just can't stand it. Meanwhile, review the Archives: http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forum_Archives/archiveindex.html Pat ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:26:25 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Betty's notebook and post-loss messages Paige, It's my guess that Betty didn't hear the Z, only the vowel E. This has nothing to do with neither of them being British. It why the radio alphabet was invented later. In today's phraseology airmen would say ZULU. That would be a lot less confusing. As for why Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan did or did not a number of things, your guess is as good as mine. Unless we can ask them we shall never know. As for the transmission in which Amelia Earhart would have said something about a stranded ship, this was also posted on this forum. Whether it is true or not, I don't know. But these are things that need to be looked into. After all this is what the police do when they investigate crime: all information is welcome but it has to be filtered and proven... LTM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:26:52 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: the professor and the navigator Whether the ball at Times Square has its roots in the ball on the rooftop of the Maritime Academy at Greenwich, I don't know. It could well be someone took over the idea. LTM