Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:20:37 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Shoes? Or no? Can someone please enlighten me about the current status of our collective knowledge and thinking concerning the shoe fragments found on Niku? At this point, are these considered to be AE's, quite probably AE's, possibly AE's, or definitely not AE's? And why or why not? LTM, who fell asleep a while ago from lack of forum postings Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:31:40 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Shoes? or no? Alfred asks, > Can someone please enlighten me about the current status of our collective > knowledge and thinking concerning the shoe fragments found on Niku? TIGHAR Central is not the Vatican, so there is no dogma concerning the shoe fragments (or anything else). I can give you my personal opinion but I can guarantee that others within our organization have a different opinion. We argue about this stuff all the time. I think the shoe fragments found on Aukeraime in 1991 are probably not associated with the Earhart disappearance. We have fragments that appear to be from a blucher oxford style shoe that had a rubber sole and an American "Cat's Paw" brand replacement heel of a type that was manufactured in the 1930s. The identification of the shoe as a woman's shoe was based on the tightness of the stitching holes in the fragment of the rubber sole and upon a small brass grommet that may be shoelace eyelet. Issues of size aside, we know that Earhart had blucher oxford style shoes with her on the world flight. However, the available photos of her shoes shoe what appear to be leather, rather than rubber, soles and the heels were of a very unusual and distinctive two-tone style. The shoelace eyelets on her shoes also appear to be of a larger diameter than the one we found. In short, the blucher oxford we found is not like the blucher oxfords she wore. And it's in the wrong place. When we found the shoe parts in 1991, the story about bones and shoes being found on the island was just an uncorroborated anecdote. American shoe parts on a remote part of the island seemed to fit the story. Later we discovered the documentation that confirmed the story and. still later, we found what we are convinced is the place where Gallagher found bones and shoe parts, etc. That place (the Seven Site) is on the opposite side of the island from where we found shoe parts. If had to guess, I'd say that the shoe parts we found might date from the USS Bushnell survey in 1939. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:46:26 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes? or no? Ric's right that we argue about this all the time. In brief, I think: (a) We don't really know how many pairs of shoes Earhart had on the trip, what kinds they were, or how big they were, but news accounts at the time suggest that she carried a couple of pair. Were some bigger than others to accommodate big socks at altitude? Did some have one-tone rubber heels? Dunno. However, there's a photo of Earhart in the Electra's hatch with her foot next to some rivets -- different from the photos we've examined before -- in the Birthplace Museum in Atchison, KS, and I'd love to have somebody take a high quality digital image of it so we could check it out. (b) I don't think the fact that the shoe's at Aukaraime South rather than at the Seven Site is meaningful. The Seven Site isn't where we think -- and the evidence indicates -- that they landed, either. If you're walking from Nutiran (where we think they landed) to the Seven Site there are only two ways to go -- around the windward side or around the lee side. The latter takes you right past the Aukaraime Shoe Site. (c) As an old Navy guy, I don't want to speculate about what a Bushnell crew member might have been doing with a woman's shoe. LTM (who wears flip-flops) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 19:40:26 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Shoes? or no? I truly admire Ric for being so objective about the lapses in available evidence which could conclusively tie the Aukaraime shoe fragments to Earhart. Maybe he's only being way coy, which I can understand. From the moment I first read his evolved opinion on this a couple of years back, I've dealt with a peck of nettles bearing the notion AE would have left on a round-the-world flight with only one frickin' pair of shoes. While the evidence so far (photographic or otherwise) doesn't support a stark conclusion, in terms of probability (and echoing the thoughts of archaeologist Tom King), I'd like to know who else was stumbling around that so too remote, uninhabited, drought afflicted, meat-eating-crab-infested atoll during the late 1930s wearing a female's Cat's Paw replacement heel molded in America and attached to what appear to be blucher oxfords, spot on the kind of shoe Amelia was wontedly photographed wearing at the time. LTM, who had a closet full along with her suitcase William Webster-Garman ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 08:37:06 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes? or no? Tom, your comments are exactly why I revisit issues over and over. I think that sometimes we are too quick to come to conclusions. How do we connect a woman's shoe with Bushnell? But I gather from Ric's comments he is not convinced the shoe parts came from a woman's shoe. Perhaps not but not knowing what shoes she had with her, not knowing if the shoe WAS a woman's shoe, not knowing if there was a female with Bushnell, and not knowing what routes or events took place over time on Niku makes it extremely difficult to rule out the shoes. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 09:50:38 From: Tom King Subject: Ameliaschpiel opportunities I'll be teaching a class in Portland, Oregon on July 17-18 and in Seattle, WA on September 19-21. If there are any groups in those neighborhoods that would like to have versions of my ever-popular talk on TIGHAR's search for the elusive Earhart, please let me know at ******* and I'll see what I can work out. Vital statistics given below. LTM Tom The Archaeological Search for Amelia Earhart An illustrated lecture by Thomas F. King, PhD, co-author of Amelia Earhart's Shoes The 1937 disappearance of aviation pioneers Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan is a mystery that continues to fascinate. Several drastically different hypothetical answers have been provided to the question: "What happened to Amelia Earhart?" These include: Ran out of gas and crashed into the Pacific Captured by the Japanese and executed Captured by the Japanese and survived Hidden as part of an elaborate espionage operation by the U.S., Great Britain, or others Trapped in a time/space warp Became Tokyo Rose Returned to the U.S. and died in the 1990s and The Nikumaroro Hypothesis -- landed, survived for awhile, and died on Nikumaroro atoll in the Phoenix Islands. The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) has been conducting interdisciplinary scientific research testing the Nikumaroro Hypothesis since 1989, and may be coming close to an answer. Amelia Earhart's Shoes, first published in 2001 and republished in an updated paperback edition in 2004, recounts TIGHAR's adventures and presents the evidence. Thomas F. King, TIGHAR's senior archaeologist and co-author of Shoes, is available as a speaker to groups of any size and type. He provides a one-hour Powerpoint-illustrated lecture on TIGHAR's work and fields questions, comments, and arguments. To arrange for a talk, contact Dr. King at ************ To purchase Amelia Earhart's Shoes, visit the publisher at www.altamirapress.com To learn more about TIGHAR and its work, visit www.tighar.org For a project summary, see http://archaeology.about.com/od/pacificislands/a/king_ae.htm ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:07:21 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes? or no? For Alan Caldwell Needless to say I agree; we can't rule the shoe out -- but it's also true that we can't be utterly sure it's a woman's shoe; we have only the analysis performed for Ric by the Bilt-Rite guys to indicate this. Another peculiarity is the close association of the shoe parts with the remains of a fire (found in 1997), in which there was the can label with a bar-code on it, dating the can, and hence probably the fire, to sometime in the 1970s or later. We know there was a survey party from Tarawa on the island in the mid-'70s, that made specific observations on plant life on Aukaraime South. Did they camp there? If so, would they have tossed a shoe in their campfire? A 1930s Blucher-style oxford? There's also a series of names carved on a tree close to the shoe-discovery location. None of the names match the names of anyone on the 1970s survey team (listed in their report). All appear to be I Kiribati names. Who were they, when were they there, and did any of them wear (women's?) Blucher-style oxfords? LTM (who throws up her hands, but not her shoes) ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:10:13 From: Dennis McGee Subject: New data? Tom King said: "As an old Navy guy, I don't want to speculate about what a Bushnell crew member might have been doing with a woman's shoe." The USS Bushnell, isn't she the former USS Brokeback? That would explain things. LTM, who avoids movies about shepherds Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 15:22:40 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Tom wrote: > If so, would they have tossed a shoe in their campfire? A 1930s > Blucher-style oxford? Tom, I'm pretty careful with my shoes but I don't think a 1930s shoe is going to last decades. No shoe that is worn regularly will last 33 years even if only worn on outings. Also I would lean toward the Bilt-rite guys for expert opinion. Considering the coral terrain at Niku I could easily imagine tearing up a pair of oxfords in a short time back in 1937. Are we thinking someone saved a pair of oxfords for 33 years and then wore them out in a few days in 1970? I'm willing to stretch 139 gallons of fuel to reach Niku but I can't stretch the shoes that far. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 15:46:16 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Alan Caldwell That's an interesting point, Alan. First, supposing the shoe belonged to our heroine, is it reasonable to think it'd be preserved for 60 years at Aukaraime South? Of course, the best preserved thing was the rubber heel, which is pretty indestructable, but the bulk of the sole was preserved too. Is this likely? Probably not, but it's by no means impossible, particularly if the shoe got into a relatively anaerobic environment and stayed there for much of the time. Leather is found pretty routinely in waterlogged sites hundreds and thousands of years old. On Niku with its extremes of wet and dry, plus coconut crabs and rats? Tricky, though not beyond imagining. Here's a scenario. Earhart has a swollen foot, has to take the shoe off. Thinks she'll come back for it when her foot goes down. Stashes it in a hole in a tree to keep it from crabs. Never comes back. Tree grows around it, creates an anaerobic environment, Shoe is preserved. Tree is cut down in 1970s, burned, fragments of shoe wind up in remains of fire. Neat, huh? In other words, I'm stumped. Now let's suppose it belongs to a transvestite sailor from Bushnell. Well, the same thing could happen, I suppose. Stashed someplace, crabs don't get it, sealed up somehow, survives. Could it have walked in on the foot of one of the survey party in the 1970s? Yes, they might have been wearing second-hand (foot) shoes sent to Kiribati by some well-meaning charity in the U.K., and one (or two, considering the other heel found in '91) just wore out during the survey, was consigned to the fire. Seems a funny shoe for an I Kiribati surveyor to be wearing, but it's certainly no more remote a possibility than the Earhart scenario above. As usual, take any one line of evidence by itself and it's not at all convincing. Put 'em all together and they become pretty suggestive. LTM Tom ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 23:00:34 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Did we ever identify the American woman that was with Laxton in 1947 or 49(?) on Niku whilest he walked about the Island? Laxton's wife also was with him. Also from his account of the female natives on Niku, it seems that it is possible oxfords suitable for young women and ladies may have been imported there for their use. Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 23:30:45 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Ron, would those particular oxfords be the shoe of choice in 1947? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 10:25:08 From: Phil Tanner Subject: Obituary I read in The Guardian this week that June Knox-Mawer, who I recall coming up on the Forum a few years ago as author of a "what-if" novel based on Earhart, has died. Obituary here http://www.guardian.co.uk/ obituaries/story/0,,1766088,00.html Phil Tanner 2276 ======================================================================== = Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 10:25:41 From: Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Alan Caldwell <> If they were imported as the result of a used clothing drive put on in the UK by, say, the Catholic Church or the London Missionary Society, there's little way of telling what kinds of antiquated stuff could have wound up on the island. And, having no use for them, the residents might have used them to stuff up crab holes, or store pandanus seeds, or toss at a post in an island version of horseshoes. In response to Ron -- No, we never have identified the American woman to whom Laxton refers in his anecdote about the thunderbox toilet, and we don't know anything much about his wife's activities on the island. If we'd found other shoes of similar vintage elsewhere on the island -- notably in or around the village -- and if we didn't have the Bevington/Maude account of a "bivouack" site at the shoe location in October 1937, I'd be ready to reject the shoe as a piece of evidence (kick it off, as it were). But we've found only one shoe sole in the village, of later date, and we DO have the bivouack account, so -- I'd still like to get a good photo of the shoe portrayed in the Birthplace Museum. LTM (who kicks off her shoes at every opportunity) ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 11:47:38 From: Tom King Subject: Re: OBITUARY For Phil Tanner Yes, June Knox-Mawer, whose "Shadow of Wings" managed to have Earhart crash and sink, AND lose a shoe on Niku, AND be imprisoned by the Japanese (and also held as a sort of sex slave by a British colonial officer not at all like any of our dramatis personae), has died at her home in Wales. She was a very gracious correspondent, deeply knowledgeable about the colonial Pacific. Her "Tales from Paradise" is an interesting compilation of stories from, by, and about various colonial officials of the Western Pacific High Commission, the GEIC, etc. LTM (who would, I think, have liked Ms. Knox-Mawer had they ever met) ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 18:47:17 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Tom, I think that is a good answer. I mean alternate uses of the shoe (s). I remember reading about missionaries to Hawaii bound and determined to get bras on the women AND shoes and socks, which would have been quite a feat. (Pun intended) They were not successful getting shoes on islanders but sadly they succeeded with the bras. I agree that ONE shoe is highly significant whereas many would have been disappointing. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 10:26:59 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Hmmm. I keep thinking about the scenarios involving the shoes being worn out. I've worn out a few pairs of shoes myself. The soles wore out first, more specifically the heel part of the sole. It seems to me that if the heel were from a worn out shoe, it'd be impossible to read the Cats Paw name on it. But that heel was not used long enough to wear out. And, if the shoe wasn't worn out, why'd it get ditched? Well, it didn't. The owner, who was also our very own castaway, died with the shoe on. That's my guess. LTM (she said she's with me on this one), Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 15:10:59 From: Dave Porter Subject: A new AE hypothesis I ran across a new AE hypothesis while reading the very funny material found at www.chucknorrisfacts.com "Chuck Norris once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, traveled back in time, and killed Amelia Earhart as she flew over the Pacific Ocean in 1937." While this one isn't as amusing as some of the other "facts" on that site, it does illustrate the depth of penetration AE has made into pop culture. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:46:10 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? I think the shoes the Niku natives were getting were like the ST Vincent de Kiribati. I doubt if they had a Macy's branch there. As I recall, we wore blucher type oxfords or saddle shoes in the 50s, as cool collegiate guys. My impression is that some of the shoes came over from Australia??? R.Bright ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:46:31 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Alfred Hendrickson <> Ah, but this would require the castaway to have died at Aukaraime South, and the bones (plus part of two more shoes) were found catty-corner across the lagoon at the Seven Site. As long as we're spinning tales, how about this one? The owner, who was also our very own castaway, cut her foot on coral, aluminum, a crab claw, whatever, up at Nutiran where she and her mail associate were camped. The male got hurt too, and died there. The castaway buried him and then took off to find help, water, food, another place to live. Knowing that her injured foot might swell out of her shoe, she took her companion's shows with her. At Nutiran her foot got so swollen that she had to remove and discard her shoe. She put on her companion's shoe, threw away the other one and her own discarded show, and hobbled on. She eventually arrived at the Seven Site where she camped for some time but eventually died, leaving a man's shoe and a woman's shoe for Gallagher and the colonists to find in 1940, and a man's shoe and a woman's shoe at Aukaraime for Ric, Tommy, John and the gang to find in 1991. LTM (who gets a kick out of scenario-building) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:21:35 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Okay, okay, I like your scenario better than mine. In any event, the shoes were not discarded for reasons of them being worn out, and that is the most important point. A worn-out shoe heel would not, in my humble opinion, have had still-legible words on it. I just wish there were no other potential sources of oxfords on Niku. And this unidentified American woman who was with Laxton kind of bothers me. Ya see? This is what comes of having too many shoes! LTM, who only had two pairs Alfred Hendrickson #2583 **************************************** The only thing wrong with your hypothesis, Alfred, is that the still-legible words are embossed into the *inside* -- not the ground-contacting -- side of the heel. See the bulletin Shoe Fetish 1. http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/29_ShoeFetish1/29_ShoeFetish1.html Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:04:19 From: Art Carty Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Tom: I had this very discussion with Ric except I had Noonan dying and being buried at Aukaraime South; either way, it explains the shoe distribution. Also, I believe I heard somewhere that AE had hurt her foot/ankle (the Betty tape?). Art Carty ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:04:40 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Alfred Hendrickson <> As Mother said to Imelda Marcos. I appreciate your argument about the non-worn character of the heel, which does seem to suggest that the shoe was not an old hand-me-down donated to some charity in the UK, Australia, or New Zealand. The Cat's-Paw logo is certainly clearly visible. LTM (who never admits defeet) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 14:21:12 From: Jim Schiffer Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? To whom it may concern, After reading the many ideas as to where the shoe could have come from, it seems to me that there seems to be some avoidance of the evidence. It is AE's shoe, plain and simple. Sometimes we cannot see the forest for the trees or the feet for the shoes. It is proper to explore all avenues as to the source of the shoe, but it brings us right back to that old saying, "if the shoe fits, wear it". Regards, Jim Schiffer ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 18:24:18 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? "if the shoe fits, wear it". One of the issues, Jim. foot size. I did a brief research and found Earhart with a shoe size anywhere between 6 and 9 1/2 or 10. Muriel supposedly said she had small feet but the pictures show that is not so. One person who knew her said she was the butt of large feet jokes. The small slippers found were dancing slippers. Probably when she was a girl. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 18:24:50 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? > Jim Schiffer wrote: > It is AE's shoe, plain and simple. Sometimes we cannot see the > forest for the trees or the feet for the shoes. In my personal, family and friends "gather 'round the campfire 'n I'll spin y'all one of the strangest true stories y'ever did hear" opinion, I think it's Amelia's shoe but I'd never publish that. My publishable opinion would in effect be, "The shoe likely fits but we haven't proved it." LTM, who liked flashy two-tone heels and yellow Cord automobiles, too. William Webster-Garman ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 19:13:37 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Tom writes "as Mother said to Imelda Marcos." See, there's another of those darned coincidences, Tom. Someone once pointed out right here on this very forum that July 2nd, the anniversary of the AE disappearance, IS ALSO IMELDA MARCOS'S BIRTHDAY. Gives you chills, don't it? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:02:24 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Aha! And has anyone seen Amelia Earhart and Imelda Marcos together at the same time? Hmmmm? By the way, when Harry Maude visited Manra (Sydney Island) in early May 1939, Gallagher had been in residence there since late December 1938. Maude says he found Gallagher "busy and happy, though he had evidently had a tough time by the standards of civilization. His shoes, to give an example, had long succumbed to the sharp coral rock and his feet were bound up in layers of rags. If I remember rightly he wore size thirteen, so the provision of shoes for him was a perpetual difficulty" (Of Islands and Men p. 337). ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:02:52 From: Tom King Subject: Information transfer in 1941 Here's something to speculate about for those weary of shoes: Terrence Gallagher, younger brother of Gerald, was killed in a bombing raid on Malta in March 1941. How long do you suppose it took for word of his death to reach Gerald on Nikumaroro (or in Fiji, where he travelled in June 1941)? LTM (who worries about such things) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:03:10 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Jim S., Unfortunately the shoe doesn't fit. Wrong size. Check out the facts first. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:46:43 From: George Werth Subject: Tom King Click here: Profile: Thomas F. King http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/view_profile.php?userid=1260123 Whilst "Surfin The Net" recently, the SETI@home profile for Thomas F. King popped up. Way To Go, Tom! George R. Werth TIGHAR Member #2630 PS. My Desktop is working on Einstein@home for BOINC. 8-) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:52:13 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Ron Bright writes: > Unfortunately the shoe doesn't fit. Wrong size. Check out the facts > first. Ron, our own web site shows any size from 6 to 9 1/2 or so. Earhart's photos show she did not have tiny feet. The answer is we don't have a clue what her shoe size was. "It's still all very theoretical," admits Gillespie. But it does add credence to the evidence gathered so far from Nikumaroro by Gillespie and others -- most notably the shoe. "Foot size relates to height reasonably," explains Jantz. "You can take her height and ask what size foot she would have had. And we did that. The size of foot that a woman her height would have been expected to have fits pretty well with the size of the shoe that was found." "Muriel Morrissey maintained that Amelia had very small feet. Conversely, former U.S. Customs inspector Peggy Sledge, in her book The Littlest Smuggler and Other True Stories tells of frequent visits by Earhart and the standing jokes about her big feet." "Earhart's height, according to the information on her pilot's license, was 5 feet 8 inches. U.S. Army data for predicting foot size by height (useful in knowing what size shoes to stock) indicates that the average foot size for an American woman 5 feet 8 inches tall is 257mm +/- 9.03mm. In other words, if Earhart had "normal" size feet for her height they were between 248mm and 266mm in length. Her shoes, of course, would be somewhat longer." Alan= ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 19:45:31 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Alan Caldwell Alan, I think what Ron's referring to is Rollin Reineck's observation, subsequently confirmed by Jeff Glickman, that the shoe in the photo of AE on the wing, lined up near rivets whose spacing is measureable, is smaller than the Aukaraime shoe. The question that remains is whether she had other shoes aboard that were a different size. That's why I'd like to get measureable images of the photo in the Birthplace Museum, in case it shows a different pair of shoes. LTM (who asks, solefully, won't someone go snap some good digital images for us?) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:18:25 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Shoes? Or no shoes? For Alan, I doubt if AEs foot size ranged from 6-9 1/2 as you suggest, There must be better estimates. One of which is the shoe size card outside the formal dance shoes at Atchinson which reads 6 1/2. I asked the curator to check inside but he declined to examine the shoes. I wonder if there are any of AEs shoes still extant? Well we may never get the exact size, but as I recall that isn't the really the issue. Tighars' measurements of the heel and sole as photographed on the wing of the Electra at Lae as I recall were reexamined by Rollin Reineck a couple of years ago. Although my files are not available, I recall that the heel as measured by Tighar was in fact incorrect and RR provided the more accurate measurement. Tighar can fill you in on this as he spent considerable type using , I believe some, forensic photography. I know Rollin monitors the Tighar channel, and I hope he will forward his report. It boils down that there is really little credible evidence that the shoe was AE's.Laxtons American friend, the Norwich City boys, the Coast Guard guys, and other visitors could have been the source as well. Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:18:46 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Marcus Lind has a number of photos taken a year ago at the Museum, beside his own impression. He and another observer saw the 6 1/2 size but believed the shoes were larger in size, but the Curator was uncooperative to open the case for a definitive exam. Perhaps with your clout the Curator would do it. Alex also has hundreds of photos showing AEs shoes over a long period of time, They may be of value. REB ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:19:57 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? ...Just a little correction; the shoes in Atchison are presented not in AE Birthplace Museum, but in Atchison County Historical Museum. We was there once - with a friend - and very definitely the shoes looked for us both as not of 6 or 6.5 size (even despite the caption nearby), but significantly greater... i mean longer (although pretty narrow)... maybe even about 9 or something like this. Really long. My friend shared my impression about this, too. Would be good if somebody would be able to convince the exhibit curator to make exact measurement... best of all, just to photogaph the shoes with the measuring scale... LTM (who knows her size) - regards, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:33:33 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? We have no clout with the curator of the birthplace museum. A few years ago I gave an Ameliaschpiel for the KC 99s' Wright Day dinner (the '99s own the place), and visited the museum with the President of the organization; this didn't dissuade the curator for a moment from telling me what an unprintable something-or-other Gillespie was, and his organization too. As for the shoes -- it's really not so much a question of what AE wore in general as it is what she wore, or had with her to wear, on the last flight, and THAT we can tell only from photos taken during the flight, with her shod foot next to something measureable, like a row of rivets. That's what's so riveting (sic) about the big photo on the 2nd floor of the museum; it's probably at least as good as the one we've long had with her foot on the wing, but it just might show a different shoe. If Alex has shots of AE's shoes during the flight, THEY could be very useful. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 12:34:24 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Marcus Lind <> No, no, no -- please let's understand each other. The shoes in the ACHM are not directly relevant. What's relevant are good images of the shoes AE was actually wearing on the World Flight -- not something she wore before and elsewhere. It's such an image that caught my eye in the Birthplace. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 12:35:49 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? you may well be right, Ron. We will never know. I have discounted the little dance slippers as something a girl would wear not an adult. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 12:36:29 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Rollin's contribution Ron Bright said: "Tighars' measurements of the heel and sole as photographed on the wing of the Electra at Lae as I recall were reexamined by Rollin Reineck a couple of years ago." I thought Rollin's contribution was that in the pix of AE on the wing the heel of AE's shoe was two-tone, not a solid black as we'd assumed earlier. Pre-dating Rollin's observation I think the two-tone nature of the heel was dismissed as simply a reflection off of the aluminum. Nonetheless, it was Rollin who noticed the discrepancy and pointed it out to TIGHAR. LTM, who's tone deaf Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:47:36 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Marcus Lind, I tried last year to convince by telephone the Curator at the Atchinson Museum to open the case, measure, check the size, use a ruler, etc.., He was apparently upset by some researchers who earlier wanted to check the shoe. Despite my pleas, for some reason, he declined. I explained the reasons for our interest. I also wanted him to check out the history of the shoes, donation, etc. Anyway, I will try again. Others have observed the shoes and believe the card displayed by the museum case with the size 6 1/2 may not be correct. I can send a high resolution photo of them. For the ladies of Tighar, I would like to know what kind of shoes these would be called: formal wear, "dancing shoes?" LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:34:02 From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? > I can send a high resolution photo of them. For the ladies of > Tighar, I would like to know what kind of shoes these would be > called: formal wear, "dancing shoes?" It would depend on the era when they were worn. Then we'd know better what the fashions might have been and how old AE was. The 1910s? I'm GUESSING that a teenage girl's dancing shoe of that time would have a very modest heel, if any. Once we have the approximate date, I can start checking all my history-of-costume references. It could be they weren't dancing shoes at all, but "Sunday Go To Meeting" shoes. Or garden party. Another possible source would be old etiquette books, which used to be very thorough about a lady's wardrobe. (They're also huge fun to read!) LTM, who reminds you NOT to extend your pinky. It's rude to point with anything, dear. -- Amanda Dunham #2418CE ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:30:57 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Dr. Tom King You wrote: "It's such an image that caught my eye in the Birthplace" - - please which "image" exactly?... Some pic on the wall?... Please can you describe somehow, which one?... (i think i still remember the exposition in the AEBM quite well... so, hope to remember what you mean)... Best Regards! - LTM, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:31:15 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Alan Caldwell and Amanda Dunham Good points! - but here is a question.... please, who said this at all - and how it can be confirmed? - that the shoes in Atchison are AE's shoes from "teenage" time, not adult's ???... Apparently, i never saw anywhere any confirmation for this idea... as it seems, it was just proposed once by somebody as a guess... The exhibition in Atchison consist from artefacts from all periods of AE's life - including her nurse's aid uniform from 1918, some clothes from much later period (30s), etc... so, the guess that these shoes were somehow "lost" or "left" by AE the teenager in Atchison in 1910s, looks not properly substantiated... it can be from any period!... LTM - best regards, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 19:01:53 From: Tom King Subject: Re: shoes? Or no shoes? For Marcus Lind It's a big black-and-white print on the second floor, in a hall by a stairway, as I recall. Shows AE in the top hatch of the Electra, with her foot up on the rim of the hatch, hence lined up with a row of rivets. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 10:29:30 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Marcus, I've led you astray and I apologize. I'm guilty of the very thing I "attack" others for. I was not clear. I am the source for the "not and adult" shoe. I thought it was a dancing class slipper but clearly it is not. It is an adult shoe for whatever purpose -- parties, dances, etc. It is NOT a child's shoe and my take on the insole inscription is that it was formed on a #155 Last and was a size 9 or perhaps a 9 1/2. BUT............... this is just what I thought I saw with my graphics program. I cannot read through the shadow of the strap but only "LAS?" and "9?" Someone else may have a different take. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 10:30:27 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Dr. Tom King Thank you! - i think now i remember the picture... Best regards - sincerely, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 11:24:58 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? For Alan Caldwell Thank you for explaining your views! About what is written inside the shoes - i can tell you for sure, it is: "LAST 9"; no doubts about it... we (my friend and i) specially looked inside, in a most attentive way. The shoes there are in a glass box, but what is inside - especially the rear part, "over" the heel area - is still perfectly well visible. Very definitely i do agree with you it is NOT a child shoe... It looks like a shoe the adult lady can wear for some "glamour" event - like some formal dinner, "cocktail", or dancing party, etc... Very gracious and stylish, but pretty BIG... a bit unusual shape! - as it is pretty narrow in width, but it is really long in LENGTH... Many AE's photos that i have apparently confirms that she really had a pretty narrow, but quite "long" feet. LTM ! - Best Regards, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 11:26:08 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Where do we go from here? Now that the "book" is in the hands of the publisher (I can imagine what a relief that must be) where do we go from here? Are there any plans to go back to the island? Are we awaiting any analysis on the stuff that has been collected in earlier visits to the island? Where can we get a copy of the "annual report" of TIGHAR so we can see what's in the budget for next year and where this year's contributions went? What are the "top ten" projects that TIGHAR is currently working on? Do they include anything to do with AE? What specifically if anything? I am asking as an investor in this project and want to know were my money is going. Thanks, Ted Campbell ******************************************* From Pat Ted, Ric is out of town today but he should have a chance to address your queries this evening or tomorrow morning. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:42:30 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Marcus, I have done a little research on the dancing shoes. One of my friends suggested "last" meant that was the last of those shoes but such is not the case. The number 115 in the shoe is the style. And that style (#115) was still being made as late as 2004 and probably is still being made. They are definitely ladies ballroom dancing shoes. The word "LAST" most likely refers to the iron shoe form used to make or repair that size shoe. The "9" should refer to the size of the shoe or the "LAST" that was used. "LASTS" are numbered sometimes in the size of the shoe but I have also seen them numbered simply as a set and not referring to the shoe size. My grandfather had a set and repaired our shoes when I was a kid. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:33:07 From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? > From Alan Caldwell > > Marcus, I have done a little research on the dancing shoes. One of > my friends suggested "last" meant that was the last of those shoes > but such is not the case. The number 115 in the shoe is the style. > And that style (#115) was still being made as late as 2004 and > probably is still being made. They are definitely ladies ballroom > dancing shoes. > Alan, What's the manufacturer? -- Amanda Dunham #2418CE ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:34:42 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Where do we go from here? Pat, Maybe I missed this info, but will the next chapters 8 and on be sent to members? REB ************************************ Probably not, but a good bit of information about what is in the rest of the chapters is planned for the next issue. The book will be out the first week of September, so the wait shouldn't be *too* bad, and the publisher is concerned about premature "leakage" if you will. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:35:08 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? The term "LAST 9" refers to the inner shape around which the shoe is built, not the shoe size. As your recall Joe Klaas said he looked inside that pair of shoes in 1996 with his wife and the size was 6 1/2. Alex and a companion were unable to see the size from outside the display case, so it is unconfirmed. The curator has declined to help. Alex thought, as he has mentioned, that the shoes appear to be larger than a 6 1/2 but who the heck knows? Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 21:03:23 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? > As you recall Joe Klaas said he looked > inside that pair of shoes in 1996 with his wife and the size was 6 > 1/2. That's contrary to what Marcus said he and a friend saw in the shoes. He said he saw 9. How do we resolve the conflict? The shoes would not be filled toward the end. That would be a ballet slipper which these were clearly not. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 21:03:50 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Amanda, I don't know the manufacturer. The shoes in question were made by Israel Miller who started his business in 1926 in New York. The family owned store is now in Canada. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:19:46 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Maybe they were looking at it from opposite sides. One saw a 6 and the other a 9??? > From Alan Caldwell > >> As you recall Joe Klaas said he looked >> inside that pair of shoes in 1996 with his wife and the size was 6 >> 1/2. >> > That's contrary to what Marcus said he and a friend saw in the > shoes. He said he saw 9. How do we resolve the conflict? The shoes > would not be filled toward the end. That would be a ballet slipper > which these were clearly not. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:22:36 From: Pat Gaston Subject: The "last" word? All you guys are wrong about the meaning of "LAST." If Marcus had looked inside the other shoe, he would have seen the word "FIRST." It's simply an indication of the proper sequence for putting on the shoes. Just kidding. Actually, having done a little research of my own, I have to agree with Alan on this one (and he knows how much it pains me to say that!) The "last" determines the overall shape of the shoe, possibly but not necessarily including size. So "Last 9" could refer to the shoe size, or it could simply have been No. 9 in a set. As in: Last 8 for high insteps, Last 9 for skinny feet, Last 10 for narrow heels, etc. One would have to contact the manufacturer to determine what numbering scheme they used. What's frustrating is that this mystery could easily be solved if someone from the Atchison County Historical Society would tote said dancing pumps six (6) blocks to Hilligloss Shoes at 5th and Commercial, where they could be definitively measured with one of those slidey things. To guard against the elements, the shoes could be individually double-wrapped in weatherproof plastic bags available free of charge at any Wal-Mart. I will be happy to provide an armed escort if I can find my grandfather's squirrel rifle. Unfortunately the Society does not seem interested thus far. Pat Gaston PS Do not be fooled by the online mapping services; the museum isn't nearly as far south as they show. It's essentially at the intersection of 10th and Main; the shoe store is 5 blocks east and a block north. I have walked farther than that looking for a porta-potty during Ameliafest. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:23:38 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Alan, Thank you for the valuable update! - about the manufacturer - so, now we can say for sure at which "minimal age" AE could purchase these shoes... not younger then 29! - so, thus having a fully "adult feet"... LTM ! - best regards, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:23:56 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? I can confirm it with full responsibility, and very definitely, that neither my friend nor me were unable to find anything like "6 1/2" inside the shoes, in contrary to what Joe Klaas suggested. We observed it with most serious attention - the shoes are displayed in such a way that the area inside is perfectly visible - and all that is there is this "LAST 9", and also the manufacturers' label. NOTHING ELSE. I have photo. The memory plays quite strangge tricks sometimes... so, it was our guess that actually Joe Klaas remembered just that caption NEAR the shoes (but NOT INSIDE!) - that really says that it is "6 1/2"... but i would not treat it as a gospel, as the shoes looks DEFINITELY MUCH BIGGER. So we guessed that possibly - after many years - Joe Klaas' memory could be just confused about where exactly he saw this "6 1/2", and this is why he insisted on that incorrect statement. The memory plays such a tricks sometimes. But we (my friend and i) are really sure in our observation, confirmed by photo. LTM! - Best Regards, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:44:22 From: Rick Boardman Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? All those years ago, did the USA have it's own sizing, like nowadays? Or are you looking with this whole shoe issue at a European measurement? Maybe even a difference in how they were sized between states? LTM who probably had dainty European size 8 s... Rick Boardman ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:44:12 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Alan, Indeed Marcus and companion saw the "LAst 9" on the bottom of shoe. But Joe K says when he looked inside the shoe, right inner side, out of view of an observer, he saw "6 1/2". Now if we could get the curator to spend five minutes, we would have the issue resolved. Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:53:49 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Marcus, I wouldn't as of yet dismiss Klaas observation, From your photos you cannot see inside the right heel sort of under the leather rim of the rear. The size maybe worn now, and the ONLY was to resolve it is to have the curator take them out of the display case. It is not like we are asking for the use to try on to various aviators at the Amelia Earhart Ball. Ron B. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:41:04 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Ron, someone said there was a sign or placard that said 6 1/2. Is that so and if so is THAT what Joe saw? If as Joe said it was out of sight of an observer how did HE see it? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:41:26 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? I think a photo showing the whole case should easily allow us to determine the shoe length. We only need the vertical dimension of the front of the case. That means knowing the dimension of the case face opposite the shoes of course. If anyone has that info I will be happy to tell you the shoe length. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:51:58 From: Ron bright Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes Alan, Joe says the sign or placard was in front of the display case, but he and his wife had the curator open the case and he inspected the inside right rear of the shoe with his own two hands. As I said it is a hearsay report, and subject to easy confirmation. Ron ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:52:18 From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? We've been reading all these letters about the dancing shoes. Does anybody know if a photo of the exhibit is on the net so we can see what we're talking about? I searched Google Images with no luck. I know we won't be able to "see" inside the shoes, but a mental image of the shoes would be nice. Thanks for any help. LTM, Suzanne ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:06:31 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes? or no shoes? Ron, Joe could well be right but as someone queried was the shoe size noted in US or UK sizes? The shoe size 6 1/2 UK is the same as 9 in the US. You can verify this out at http://www.i18nguy.com/l10n/shoes.html#adult. The answer still is measuring the shoes or getting a photo and the case dimensions. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:22:20 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Where do we go from here? Ted Campbell asked: > Now that the "book" is in the hands of the publisher (I can imagine > what a relief that must be) where do we go from here? It is, indeed, a great relief but there is still much to do before publication. The next step will be reviewing the "page proofs" that will be produced once the editor turns in the edited manuscript (this week). Later this month we'll be in Annapolis for a meeting to discuss the DVD that will accompany the book. Setting up the DVD is a huge project in itself. > Are there any plans to go back to the island? We certainly know what we'd like to do, i.e. a search of the deep water off the western reef-edge for airplane wreckage and a thorough archaeological examination of the Seven Site. We're hoping that the book will generate wider recognition of the validity of TIGHAR's hypothesis and make it possible to raise the money to go back. > Are we awaiting any analysis on the stuff that has been collected > in earlier visits to the island? Not in the sense of waiting for a lab report, but we still have plenty of questions about some of the stuff we found. Despite years of research and queries, nobody yet has been able to identify artifacts 2-6-S-03A&B (the two little toothed devices we found at the Seven Site in 2001). In case anyone needs a reminder, they're pictured at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/help/help.html on the TIGHAR website. The other artifacts on that page are less mysterious. 2-6- S-43, 2-6-S-21F, and 2-6-S-32 are radio components almost certainly associated with the Coast Guard Loran station. They're probably from worn out vacuum tubes that the Coasties used for target practice. M-1 carbine shell casings found at the site appear to confirm anecdotal accounts that they did some shooting there on at least one occasion. Artifact 2-6-S-45 is the infamous "knob" that turned out to be part of the cap of what was probably a small can of gun oil (which fits nicely with the target practice scenario). Artifact 2-6-S-46 might be the handle of a small drinking cup. The most intriguing and potentially important artifacts still under investigation are the aluminum structures we initially thought might be "dados." The first and most complete example was recovered from the village during the initial TIGHAR expedition to Nikumaroro in 1989. Two more were found in the same area by the 2003 expedition. The current hypothesis is that they are "heat shields" mounted on the floor of the cabin between the fuselage fuel tanks and the heater ducts that run along the base of the cabin wall. The need to shield cabin-mounted fuel tanks from the heater ducts was confirmed by TIGHAR's examination of the wreck of another Electra in 2005. In that case, heavy asbestos matting was used to insulate one small auxiliary tank. Did NR16020 use much lighter, but more complex, "heat shields" to accomplish the same purpose? We have photos of the cabin of Earhart's Electra taken while it was under construction. One photo, taken just before the fuels tanks were installed, shows what appear to be wooden strips installed on the floor just where the heat shields would go (the free-standing structures were apparently nailed in place via a right-angle aluminum flange along the bottom). Photos of the cabin taken after the tanks were in place are of no help because the tanks mask the shields (if the shields were there). What we really need is a photo or drawing of the shields in place. It's possible that the other Lockheed 10E Special, c/n 1065 "The Daily Express" used the same type of shields. More research is needed. > Where can we get a copy of the "annual report" of TIGHAR so we can > see what's in the budget for next year and where this year's > contributions went? TIGHAR is a 501 (c)(3) pubic charity. We don't have shareholders or investors and we don't produce an "annual report" in the same sense as a for-profit corporation. TIGHAR is a board-driven, rather than member-driven, nonprofit. A volunteer board of directors is responsible for determining the direction of the organization and overseeing its management as carried out by a salaried Executive Committee (me and Pat). We make annual financial reports to the board. That said, I'm happy to answer your questions. TIGHAR operates on a fiscal year beginning July 1. In the current fiscal year - that is, since July 1, 2005 - TIGHAR has raised a total of $120,315. New memberships and renewals account for $21,715 of that amount. The Aviation Archaeology Field School at College Park brought in $3,500. Contributions specifically to the Earhart Project totaled $11,935 (almost all of that was for the Literary Guild). Contributions to the Devastator Project came to $70,745. The remaining $12,420 was an initial payment from Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia for a survey of WWII Japanese aircraft wrecks to be conducted by a TIGHAR team next month. We're currently working on the budget for fiscal 2006. As with 2005, the bulk of the contributions and expenditures will be for the Devastator Project - specifically for the Evaluation Expedition scheduled for October and the subsequent testing of recovered sample material. > What are the "top ten" projects that TIGHAR is currently working > on? Do they include anything to do with AE? What specifically if > anything? I wish we were big enough to have ten active projects. As mentioned above, the Devastator Project will be very active in 2006/2007 and, if Finding Amelia is well received, we'll be spending a lot of time on the Earhart Project trying to round up funding for another expedition to Nikumaroro. Research on Project Midnight Ghost continues and we periodically get new leads on Operation Sepulchre (although none have, so far, been worth field investigation). We'll probably do another Aviation Archaeology Field School in 2007 and more contract work, like the Yap project, may come our way. > I am asking as an investor in this project and want to know were my > money is going. The $100 you contributed to the Literary Guild helped pay TIGHAR's operating expenses while I finished writing the manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your support. You'll a get a free, inscribed copy of the book, as will the other members of the guild. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:23:54 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Marcus Lind has some excellent high def photos of the shoes in the display case. Perhaps he might share them with the Tighar group. Ron ******************************* If Marcus wants to send them to me I will mount them on our website and post the link. We have the Forum configured to reject attachments. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:43:47 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Where do we go from here? Ric wrote: > It is, indeed, a great relief but there is still much to do before > publication. The next step will be reviewing the "page proofs" > that will be produced once the editor turns in the edited > manuscript (this week). AND, I hope, creating an index from the page proofs! It's a lot of work, but well worth it for future reference. LTM & the boys. Marty **************************************** We are very fortunate in that USNIP has a professional indexer who will do the scut work on this. This is a Good Thing as I don't think my constitution could stand doing it. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:44:44 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Where do we go from here? Great to hear from you again on the forum. I've missed your inputs and humor. Like everyone else, I'm excited about the book and I hope it exceeds all expectations. Thanks again for all that you and Pat do for TIGHAR. Best wishes as always. LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:04:46 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Where do we go from here? Pat Thrasher wrote: > We are very fortunate in that USNIP has a professional indexer who > will do the scut work on this. This is a Good Thing as I don't > think my constitution could stand doing it. I'm glad that there will be an index! I've done two. The first nearly drove me insane (admittedly, a short trip). The second wasn't nearly as bad. I think I was better prepared for it. Marty ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:23:46 From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Where do we go from here? Thanks for the update summary. Can't wait for the book. So, in spite of the stupid stock market's mini crash this week, I'm digging into the retirement fund - $100 for the Literary Guild is on the way. blue skies, JHam ********************************** Many thanks, Jerry. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:34:08 From: Dave Carter Subject: Re: where do we go from here? Will someone nudge me when something actually happens around here? LTM, Dave ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 08:41:18 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Alan, when I go to the URL you sent for comparative shoe sizes, I get a clever little message about how I'm there as a result of pilot error. Am I missing something? LTM (who never falls into pilot error) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:05:01 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: shoes or no shoes? The shoes are displayed there in such a way that the rear area of it - inside - is exactly the area most perfectly visible... just these rear areas "over" the heels. But there is no any "6 1/2" there, for sure. If it would be there, undoubtedly we (my friend and I) would see it, even without opening the glass box... since we looked SPECIALLY for anything inside that would indicate the size! But there was only manufacturer's label, and this "Last 9"... nothing else. I am not sure if anywhere in the internet the clear photo of these shoes can be found. I really have some photos of it - made by me and others (scanned)... not all of them are really good about resolution, but one photo is really very perfect in quality. I will send it to Pat, as she suggested, and then she will be able to share it to everybody interested in the topic. Kind Regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:01:08 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Plan B? If the curator of the AE museum won't cooperate with TIGHAR's request for a closer inspection of the shoes, why not present the questions to the museum's board of directors? Even if there is bad blood between the curator and TIGHAR (or Ric, I'm not sure which) maybe the chairman of the BOD would be open to an official proposal from a known, respected, degreed, and published archeologist, such as our own Dr. Tom King. No subterfuge would be needed; he could simply present himself as TIGHAR's archeologist acting in the name of science. If the curator IS the chairman then maybe we could work on one of the other board members. LTM, who avoids dancing around issues Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:01:36 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Ron, Of course i wouldn't "fight to death" about this - you are right, the best way is just to have the shoes taken out from the box, at least for a minute, and MEASURED exactly... ONLY this, i think, would solve the question once and forever... Also, you are right that from that photo i sent for you, you can't see all the internal area of the shoes... but when being there we (my friend and i) looked inside from "different angles", and i still think we would see it if anything would be printed there. We just couldn't make a good photos of it from different angles, because of glass box reflection effects. For Alan Caldwell - about "photo measuring": good idea, but alas i am not aware about any photos of the shoes made with scale - or "against"/"with" any objects that would "give a scale" for sure... Since glass box is closed, you cannot place the scale just near it for photographing... and any other, "indirect" methodics, i'm afraid, will be too much "vulnerable" to measuremenet errors. We just really need the shoes measured... There will be a festival in Atchison soon... i guess some researchers will be there... maybe your cooperative efforts and argumentation will be able somehow to reconvene the Exhibit Curator?... LTM - Best Regards, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:02:03 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Would be a pretty reasonable guess! - if there would be just "9" (or "6") and nothing else... but the "problem" is that there is written - "LAST 9"... and it is difficult to confuse the letters written correctly with the ones "upside down" :) Best Regards - LTM, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:09:23 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Tom, I rechecked the URL and it is correct. I also checked the email I sent and clicked on the URL and it was still correct. I don't know why you would get something in error. Here it is again. http://www.i18nguy.com/l10n/shoes.html#adult Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:09:54 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Plan B? I'm sure we could get permission to shoot the shoe picture in the Birthplace Museum; I just need to have someone who's actually ready to go do it on a date certain, with a good camera, per Jeff Glickman's directions, so I can make the necessary pitch to the appropriate people. LTM (who'd do it herself if she lived anywhere near Atchison) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:10:40 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Where do we go from here? For Dave Carter in Fremont Rest easy Dave your in for a long nap. Hopefully your beard won't be too long when you wake. Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 > From Dave Carter in Fremont (#2585) > > Will someone nudge me when something actually happens around here? > > LTM, > Dave ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:11:03 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Here is the link that permits you to see how, just generally, that glass box and the shoes inside looks like: http://www.ameliaearhartmuseum.org/calendar/attract.htm Please scrool down and you will see the picture of the Atchison County Museum exhibit - with the girl staying near that box... the shoes are visible too... alas the picture is too small... but still gives some "general impression". LTM - Regards, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:12:03 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Marcus, the measuring method would be as follows: Let's assume the case is a rectangle. Measure the face that is the same as the face the shoes are on. Let's say it is 24 inches. Then you divide the face that has the shoes into 24 parts. Each of those parts will be a different size than the first face actually measured at the museum. That doesn't matter. You will now have the exact length of the shoes no matter what the angle of the photo. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:35:10 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Marcus, my measuring method will not work easily as the shoes are at an angle to the base. In Ron's photo the high heels did not show. It can still be done, however is the case is measured carefully. Alan ======================================================================== = Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:35:30 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Alan, Many thanks for explanation. I hope i did understand you right... but if so, it still seems for me that the measurement error will be pretty significant. The method, apparently, does not "consider" the aberrations created by the glass, and the phenomena of "perspective" - i.e., since the shoes are NOT just behind the glass but at some distance, it is impossible to "attribute" some really exact size (like "one inch") to the "unit of lenght" on the surface inside, onto which the shoes are actually placed... So, i am afraid, what we really need is the glass box opened, and the shoes measured directly... It would remove ANY doubts, and close ALL discussions - for sure! Kind Regards! - LTM, sincerely - Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:06:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? You DID understand me right, Marcus but I didn't understand the "case" the shoes were in. I thought they were in a case by themselves but instead they are simply on a small square platform along with other items and all behind glass. SOOOO, my idea would not work. you would need to know the dimensions of the little platform the shoes are resting on. The best idea I have heard is to get someone with proper credentials to go there and physically examine the shoes. Let's see.........who would that be? In the meantime I think it is pretty safe to say neither the shoes nor Amelia's feet are small. The various pictures show different. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:52:22 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Why not ask a local cobbler to go and have a look ? If that noble profession no longer exists I would look for a local shoe salesman. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:52:46 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Plan B? I wonder what the museum has to fear. Maybe a quid pro quo could be offered to them. Perhaps TIGHAR has some unpublished photo or the like that large glossy copies could be offered, in exchange for one of the museum's own people taking the shoes and tracing on paper the shoe sole, with side measurements also. -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:29:29 From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? I know why the first shoe-size URL didn't work. On the email I received, too, the URL had a space in it. I had to copy and paste the URL and take out the extra space. Suzanne ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:30:47 From: Pat Gaston Subject: Re: Plan B? Tom King wrote: > I'm sure we could get permission to shoot the shoe picture in the > Birthplace Museum; I just need to have someone who's actually ready > to go do it on a date certain, with a good camera, per Jeff > Glickman's directions, so I can make the necessary pitch to the > appropriate people. Tom, the shoes are not in the Birthplace Museum but in the Atchison County Historical Society Museum some 10 blocks away. If they were at the Birthplace Museum we wouldn't be having this problem. I have a 4-megapixel digital camera as well as a battered old Rolleiflex (bigger negatives, but probably still not as sharp as a modern digital photo). Back in my newspaper days I was considered pretty handy behind the lens. I also live 45 minutes from Atchison. If you wish to make an approach to the museum board, be my guest. Ph.D. always looks a bit less threatening than J.D. on the letterhead. I would suggest emphasizing that an accurate measurement of the shoes is important to >all< schools of Earhart thought. Further, if we can get a local shoe salesman there at the same time with one of those foot-o-meters, both the measurement and the photography could be accomplished inside of five minutes. Surely that isn't too much to ask. I did find grandpa's squirrel rifle in case hostilities break out. Pat Gaston PS Will somebody PLEASE tell me what those foot-measuring devices are called? PPS Speaking of Ph.D., do you know the origin of the term "fuddy-duddy"? Seems that back in the 19th century, learned Doctors of Divinity typically held dual degrees -- as in John Smith, Ph.D., D.D. Students back then being as irreverent as they are now ... ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:53:25 From: Jeff Lange Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? One thought to throw out-You keep mentioning using a "foot measuring device" to measure the shoe. I don't think that will do you any good as the device used in shoes stores is only used to measure the persons foot, sans shoes, not the external dimensions of a shoe. I don't think that any such measurements would prove useful. Then again, I may be way off course...... LTM (who always kept me on course) Jeff Lange # 0748C Saline, MI ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:57:21 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Plan B? To Pat Gaston: Please, please, please, for the third or fourth time, let me specify that regardless of whatever everybody else is interested in, I am not, repeat NOT interested in getting pictures of the shoes in the Atchison County Museum. NOT THE MUSEUM SHOES, OK? I'm interested, as I've tried very, very hard to make clear, in the photo on the wall of the Birthplace Museum, second floor, showing Earhart in the hatch of the Electra, during the World Flight, with her shod foot on the edge of the hatch next to a line of rivets. OK? The PHOTO in the Birthplace Museum, NOT the Shoes in the County Museum. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:27:53 From: Dennis McGee Subject: The Brannock Device Pat Gaston asked: "Will somebody PLEASE tell me what those foot-measuring devices are called?" http://www.brannock.com/ LTM, who's a size 13 Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:28:32 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Foot measuring Pat Gaston wrote: > PS Will somebody PLEASE tell me what those foot-measuring devices > are called? Pat, the shoe measuring device is actually a foot measuring device called Brannock Device -- foot-measuring device invented in 1927. The inside shoe measuring device which I have never seen is called a In-Shoe Length Measuring Device (LM 3074/1 and 3074/2). The former would not be of any help. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:29:03 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes or no shoes? Jeff, you are correct. See my reply to Pat. I also discovered something interesting in determining shoe sizes for women. The "common" formula uses barleycorns as a measuring unit -- in theory. The formula is LAST size divided by 1/3 inch minus 20.5. If you work the formula LAST 9 comes out to be a size 6 1/2. I hated to write that. 9 divided by 1/3 = 27 - 20.5 = 6 1/2. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:29:24 From: Squirrel hunting Subject: Squirrel hunting Heck with these old shoes, tell us more about that old squirrel rifle. Is it an Iver Johnson? LTM, who kept a fowling piece over the mantle Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:30:02 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Plan B If we all think about what tom said the shoe picture he is interested in just happens to have Earhart's foot in it pretty well confirming that it is HER shoe and she can get her foot in it. The other picture of the dancing shoes whether actually belonging to Earhart or not does not tell us she could wear or ever wore them. So even if we actually measure the dancing shoes all we will know FOR CERTAIN is their size. I don't know whether everyone has seen the picture Ron sent me of Earhart in dress and high heels standing in front of the (a) plane talking to a man on a ladder but that picture shows Earhart looking like she has fairly long feet. Just like the picture Tom is referring to the camera placement IS a factor. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:26:04 From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Plan B? In honor of Amelia's narrow foot size, the old Plan B will now be known as Plan AAA. LTM, who enjoyed an occasional joke, Suzanne ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 12:17:50 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Squirrel hunting Alfred, I just happen to have an old Iver Johnson 16 gauge single barrel. It was my grandfather's and the stock was made by my Dad. Alan *********************************** Alfred, Alan's email is **********. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 12:18:23 From: Monty Fowler Subject: Bolts I know, I know, this is NOT about the shoes. I am currently getting much warmer to procuring construction plans of the Norwich City (ex Normanby) as far as what materials various parts of the superstructure were made out of, particularly the bridge wings, which is where the ship's name MIGHT have been placed with metal letters, in addition to the bows and across the stern. Further strengthening my hypothesis that Ameila might have been able to read the Norwich City's name and that Betty heard that (admittedly odd-sounding to an American) as New York City, the Keeper of Maritime History for the area museum there advised me that common practice at the shipyard where the Norwich City was built was to use sheet brass or steel letters that were drilled for bolts, and then tapping holes for said bolts and bolting the letters to the hull. Or, if the builder was really, really cheap, the letters would have been hot riveted to the hull. Either way would provide a raised surface on which a contrasting color of paint could be applied, i.e., white letters on a black hull (which may have been the Norwich City's scheme at the time of her grounding.) In fact, he said the shipyards in that area were still using bolting or riveting the letters up through the 1960s - you have to love the English for clinging to their traditions. LTM, who always hurt himself while riveting in shop class, Monty Fowler, #2189CE ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 13:32:12 From: Rick Boardman Subject: Re: Bolts Traditions like shoe sizes??? ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 19:14:44 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Squirrel hunting That should do for squirrel hunting, or other purposes. > From Alan Caldwell Alfred, I just happen to have an old Iver > Johnson 16 gauge single barrel. It was my grandfather's and the > stock was made by my Dad. > > Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 09:34:45 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Squirrel hunting >> That should do for squirrel hunting, or other purposes.<< Yup, I guess that's it. Pat killed my Iver Johnson thread. Dead. Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 09:35:46 From: Pat Gaston Subject: Re: Shoes Tom King wrote: "I am not, repeat NOT interested in getting pictures of the shoes in the Atchison County Museum. NOT THE MUSEUM SHOES, OK? I'm interested, as I've tried very, very hard to make clear, in the photo on the wall of the Birthplace Museum, second floor ..." Well, gee, Dr. King, sorry to offend, but the >rest< of us have been talking for the past week about the actual pair of shoes in the Atchison County museum. Your May 18 post (which prompted my offer) said, "I'm sure we could get permission to shoot the shoe picture in the Birthplace Museum ..." I see now that I misunderstood it. You were talking about a picture of a picture, not a picture of the shoes. Have you tried contacting Lou Foudray, who runs the Birthplace Museum? I'm sure she would be happy to oblige. For everybody else: Thanks for the info on the Brannock Device, and for setting me straight. It should have occurred to me that the Device would not be of much use in measuring shoes -- especially pointy-toed women's shoes. For example, one chart I consulted shows that there is only a 2.6 cm (1 inch) difference in foot length between a women's US Size 6 and Size 9. Thus, a sharply-pointed toe that extends an inch beyond the apex of the foot would make the shoe appear 3 sizes larger than it actually is. For Alan: I think you have solved the mystery of why the (Atchison County) shoes are identified as Size 6.5. It looks like somebody performed that calculation before you did. I agree the shoes look bigger than that, but as suggested above, the pointed toes could account for it. As for the provenance, I will try to ask some questions next time I'm there. For Alfred: Hardly an Iver-Johnson. I think it's a Remington, and a gunsmith once told me the serial number indicated a manufacturing date of 1919 or thereabouts. It's a .22 auto and accepts ONLY .22 short cartridges. I call it a "squirrel gun" because I can't imagine killing anything bigger than that with a .22 short. I've also been told that it could be a child's rifle, or designed for use in a carnival shooting gallery. As you can tell, I know next to nothing about the subject. Pat Gaston ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 09:59:00 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes For Pat Gaston <> Next time you talk with Lou, try mentioning the words "TIGHAR" or "Gillespie" and note the reaction. Though maybe she's mellowed since I talked with her. It's not that she won't cooperate, under some duress, but she sure doesn't like it. LTM (who never means to offend) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 09:15:15 From: Hue Miller Subject: Elgen Long's Theory I am going by sketchy memory here, but as i recall, important to Elgen Long's picture of what happened, was that AE was confused by the tuning range switch on the Bendix homing adapter, thus was unable to get a directional fix on the Itasca's signal. However, looking at the Bendix unit, in its US Navy equivalent, I note that the top "band" or tuning range covers 4000 - 8000 kHz, which covers the "day" standard US aircraft frequency of 6210, the Lae field frequency, and the Itasca's 7500 kHz beacon. My point is, how hard is it to remember, "Just switch this here switch all the way over, to the end, and then turn this one to get the station in loudest" ? If she was shown once, to just put the Bendix unit's range switch in the far right position, that's not something i think would be easily forgotten, or easily confused over. Therefore i rate Long's picture as extremely unlikely. My own thinking at this point is that AE's ship did NOT have the Bendix unit onboard. I think perhaps the DF loop was the standard off-the-shelf Western Electric unit. My thinking is that for technical reasons this no-tuning loop when used above its usual, spec'd frequency range, did not act as a balanced loop, giving a "skewed" DF response pattern, which made it very confusing to use, and particularly so, if the operator was already otherwise distracted. I think ruling out the Bendix adpater makes it quite a bit easier to imagine how the radio wiring plan went, without the confusing factor of how the adapter aerial and receiver feed wiring went. As for the Bendix unit being a "secret Navy device", as was discussed somewhere back there in our posts, i note that the manual for the Navy equivalent says contract date Feb. 12, 1938, quite a while after the Howland flight episode. I think it's safe to assume the Navy did not take possession of any units for several months after the contract date, but i will try to verify this, if only for my own interest. It looks like by the end of 1939 the Navy had bought around 3600 of the units. I believe the Navy had abandoned the HF-DF idea as featured in this Bendix adapter, by mid-1940, altho i will pin that date down also. I am going to look for a no-tuning conventional DF loop contemporaneous to AE's 1937 equipment and try investigate the loop's performance above its manufacturer-rated frequency range. -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:52:47 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory Hue, I think Longs explanation of getting to the right band frequency is far more complicated than your recollection. I don't have the book at this site, but check it out to give Long a fair shake. As I recall Black did bring it aboard for use on Howland, but it was an "experimental" portable model, not necessarily a "secret" unit. I can't recall whether AE knew the unit was at Howland, anyone? I don't think there was any message traffic to support her awareness. LTM, Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 13:42:57 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory But didn't the navy use "huff-duff" (HF-DF) during WW2 to track U-boats? gl > As for the Bendix unit being a "secret Navy device", as was discussed > somewhere back there in our posts, i note that the manual for the Navy > equivalent says contract date Feb. 12, 1938, quite a while after the > Howland flight episode. I think it's safe to assume the Navy did not > take possession of any units for several months after the contract > date, but i will try to verify this, if only for my own interest. It > looks like by the end of 1939 the Navy had bought around 3600 of the units. I > believe the Navy had abandoned the HF-DF idea as featured in this > Bendix adapter, by mid-1940, altho i will pin that date down also. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 08:51:05 From: Hue Miller Subject: Elgen Long's theory and non-HF-DF > From Gary LaPook > > But didn't the navy use "huff-duff" (HF-DF) during WW2 to track U- > boats? Well, i should have said, "abandoned HF-DF by aircraft". Yes, HF-DF was used with great success against the U-boats. It was based on a large network of both land and ship stations for the heavy equipement, together with antennas larger and more complex than could be carried on a plane. ( A book, Kathleen Williams' "Secret Weapon, tells the HF-DF Atlantic war story. ) There WERE smaller HF-DF equipments, down to suitcase size, for one-man carry opertion; for example in WW2, the USN's model DAG tuned up to 18 MHz and the US Army's SCR-504 tuned clear up to 50 MHz or so. But these equipments came with their own dedicated, specialist trained operator. I have not seen any Navy text explaining just why aircraft HF-DF was dropped, but i will take a semi-educated guess and say that with a great number of new, young aircrews in military aviation, who didn't have a whole lot of experience behind them, in flying or radio, you didn't want to give them some tool that was still semi-experimental and variable in results. When you're flying and searching for some airfiield, you can't say, "Hmmmm....I can't seem to get a definite direction wtih this thing. Why don't we all take a break, then we'll come back and give it another try." -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 08:51:40 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory Ron Bright wrote: > Hue, I think Longs explanation of getting to the right band frequency > is far more complicated than your recollection. I don't have the book > at this site, but check it out to give Long a fair shake. I did quick-read the Long account. I don't see that there's more in this unit that would flummox the user. She said she couln't get a null, not that she couldn't get the station at all. Therefore, she had the right band setting AND the tuning was correct. If ieither knob setting is wrong, you get no reception. Some other factor interferred with successful outcome of its use. That's how i see it. I need still to find a low-frequency type untuned loop and check the performance at HF to see how my hunch checks against reality. Or is there something else to the procedure or Long's account I am missing? Don't have access to the book at present. > As I recall Black did bring it aboard for use on Howland, but it was > an "experimental" portable model, not necessarily a "secret" unit. I > can't recall whether AE knew the unit was at Howland, anyone? I don't > think there was any message traffic to support her awareness. Are you saying the Howland set was this same Bendix model? That had not occurred to me -Hue ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 19:29:56 From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Elgen Long's Theory Don't forget thr 'ANTENNA-LOOP switch that used to trip the unwary .. RC ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 09:05:51 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory For Hue Miller, Hue you stated: "Some other factor interfered with the successful outcome of it's use". Which I took as referring to Earhart's use of her direction finding equipment onboard NR16020, 2 July 1937. What would be the another factor that would preclude successful use of her direction finding equipment? Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:29:43 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory From: Mike Haddock Tom if memory serves, AE did a checkout flight before leaving for Howland and reported the RDF equipment was not working. Ric? Pat? LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:07:55 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory > From: Mike Haddock > > Tom if memory serves, AE did a checkout flight before leaving for > Howland and reported the RDF equipment was not working. Ric? Pat? If i may jump in: That is correct. At Lae. But as far as we know, it failed only the testing on the shortwave band, to the Lae airfield voice radio channel, which by the way was in the same frequency region as Itasca's shortwave beacon. -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:08:15 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory > Hue you stated: "Some other factor interfered with the successful > outcome of it's use". Which I took as referring to Earhart's use > of her direction finding equipment onboard NR16020, 2 July 1937. > > What would be the another factor that would preclude > successful use of her direction finding equipment? > > Respectfully, > Tom Strang # 2559 I'm just saying i don't believe the lack of success with the HF-DF can be at all blamed on the crew's confusion with operating it. I think it was more like the limitations of technology, i mean equipment and procedure, that was still experimental, tricky to use, and of doubtful reliability. I'd like to do some more experimenting with this. I know this is kinda old hat and been hashed over. Re-finding the Bendix manual recently and looking thru it, got me to thinking about these issues again. I am still puzzling over the scant clues to try to figure out the aircraft's cabin communications and navigation electronics, by juggling factors such as size of the equipment, length of cabling required, and time it takes to operate. I mean the mystery equipment, not what we already know for sure was onboard. Will that help understand what happened? I dunno. "Maybe". -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 08:44:59 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory For Tom Strang and Mike Haddock I still think there is some likelihood the RDF antenna (or something related to it) broke away on take-off from the turf field in New Guinea. For example, this could explain the interpretation that they acquired a DF signal but couldn't get a null on it. We have the motion picture film of an ominous little puff under the Electra as it begins its take off run but since we don't know much about the configuration of their antennas or even exactly what gear they had on board this involves too much speculation without more documentation on the innards of the aircraft that day. LTM, who is apt to turn blue when holding her breath. William Webster-Garman ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 08:45:20 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory For Mike Haddock, On Earhart's half hour check flight prior to leaving Lae, did she state that the RDF was inoperative or that she could not determine null? Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 08:45:41 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory For Hue Miller, Thank you for your responses, greatly appreciate your insight. I'll ask you the same question I have just asked Mike Haddock. On Earhart's half hour check flight prior to leaving Lae, did she state that the RDF was inoperative or that she could not determine null? Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 09:17:43 From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory On of the most common reasons for not getting a null .. especialy for the beginners, was not having the 'ANT-LOOP' switch in LOOP. The antenna position was used to get the strongest signal and identify the station!, 'micro' tune for sharpest signal, THEN, swith to loop to search for a null. Getting distracted, being new at it, being tired, are reasons that has resulted in every DF user having more than once tried to get a null in ANT position. Almost all then start checking things when unable to get a null ... to discover the switch still in ANT. Cheers, RC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:31:09 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory For William Webster-Garman Keep in mind that Earhart performed a check flight prior to her departure from Lae in which suggests she had difficulty using her RDF unit determining null. Fast forward to morning of 2 July 1937 inbound Howland Earhart indicates receiving Itasca radio signal while suggesting difficulty determining null to acquire direction to Itasca. Possible repeat performance? Keep in mind the ominous "little puff" was on departure takeoff roll after check flight. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:04:31 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory For: Tom Strang Tom, to be honest I don't remember the particulars of the checkout flight. I just remember her reporting that the RDF equipment wasn't working properly. Sorry. LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:12:16 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory I believe that even though she couldn't get a null on the test flight she ignored that result reasoning that she had been too close to the station. What I don't understand though is why she didn't try it again enroute to Howland, maybe 50 to 100 miles after departure from Lae and if it still wasn't working she should have returned to get it fixed. GL ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 19:42:16 From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory C'mon Tom, the loop was on the top of the plane RC > From Tom Strang > > For William Webster-Garman > > Keep in mind that Earhart performed a check flight prior to her > departure from Lae in which suggests she had difficulty using her RDF > unit determining null. Fast forward to morning of 2 July 1937 inbound > Howland Earhart indicates receiving Itasca radio signal while > suggesting difficulty determining null to acquire direction to > Itasca. Possible repeat performance? > > Keep in mind the ominous "little puff" was on departure takeoff > roll after check flight. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 19:42:51 From: Hue Miller Subject: Lae DF test > From Gary LaPook > > I believe that even though she couldn't get a null on the test > flight she ignored that result reasoning that she had been too > close to the station. If she had flown out say only 10 minutes, to not use up to much fuel, that would have put her about 20 miles from the airfield. I don't know what Lae's transmitter power was, but i don't think it was better than 300 watts input/ 200 watts radiated and was probably a fraction of this. At about 20 miles out that should not have been so strong any more as to prevent the DF procedure from working on it. Canning the checkout with that guesstimate conclusion was pretty lax. Maybe they were so confident they didn't really think they'd need to use RDF at all when looking up Howland, so they weren't much concerned over it not working, in this checkout. The fact that they couldn't get it to work at the Lae trial, i think, and the during the real thing, at Howland, seems to suggest a common cause. There was no stress during the Lae test. Did she just forget to throw the right switch both times,first due to just being too unconcerned, not taking it very seriously, then later because she on the other hand was overstressed and narrowly focused? They probably used their DF often enuff back in the States, so they weren't newcomers to the drill. Seems maybe more like a problem inherent to the DF system they were trying to employ here on the Pacific run, and the only difference from the States is the shortwave aspect of the direction finding process. The loop wasn't scraped off in takeoff at Lae, it was the main receiving antenna, or the DF-sense antenna, used only to resolve the 180 degree directional ambiguity problem, NOT essential to "getting a null". So- i think, problem with the equipment, aided by some shortwave propagation quirks.... > What I don't understand though is why she > didn't try it again enroute to Howland, maybe 50 to 100 miles > after departure from Lae and if it still wasn't working she should > have returned to get it fixed. You are absolutely right. This wouldn't have cost them any extral fuel expense or time. This would have been the ideal time to keep trying this, as they increased the distance from Lae. That would have been excellent practice. Looks like maybe they just weren't that seriously considering RDF as essential to their mission, more like a last-case fallback or even an experiment. Wrong time to experiment. -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 10:19:26 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Lae DF test I fully agree with Hue Miller. It is my take that it's at Lae the dice were cast. When Amelia Earhart found the DF wasn't working during the test flight she made this should have her sitting up and have this checked after landing. Instead she decided the DF didn't work because she was too close to the station and didn't( give it another thought. Her biggest mistake was when she failed to check the DF properly outbound of Lae after she took off for Howland the next day. She should have known how all important DF was going to be on the long flight over the ocean. Fred Noonan should have known too. After all he was the man who established the navigational procedures for Pan American that consisted of flying to a destination by conventional means (sun, moon, stars) until within range, then use DF to fly to the destination. It would have stood to reason that whether Fred Noonan was doing the navigating or not, Amelia Earhart should have checked the DF outbound Lae after take-off. Even Fred Noonan would have liked her doing this. Apparently he was unaware of the problem. Common sense says that when she/they found out the DF wasn't working they should have made about turn and landed back at Lae to have this checked. They didn't. This is where the trouble began. For some inexplicable reason neither of the two apparently gave it a thought. This is the part I don't understand. Any pilot on a flight across the ocean would like to check whether he was still on track by using checking his outbound route from Lae by using his DF. Or did they? If they did and the DF worked OK, then this could be an indication Amelia Earhart switched it off to save energy until needed for the approach to Howland, then forgot to throw the switch as had been suggested in this forum. LTM (who believes pre-flight planning is 99 % of the work) ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 15:23:28 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory For Bob Sherman Can not agree more with your statement. If one or both of the under belly atennas were lost I have never seen any good reason why you would loose the function of the loop antenna. In a way that was what I was trying to point out with the statement that the ominous "little puff" took place between check flight and the inbound Howland leg RDF event. Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 16:45:34 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory ...back out of the hospital again She said she could not get a null and attributed that to being too close in to the station. Alan ***************************** Man, Alan, you seem to be really getting into it these days. Too many bar fights for a guy your age! Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 16:45:59 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory > What I don't understand though is why she didn't try it > again enroute to Howland, maybe 50 to 100 miles after departure from > Lae and if it still wasn't working she should have returned to get it > fixed. Maybe she did and that's why she didn't return to Lae. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 20:03:07 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Elgen Long's theory >> What I don't understand though is why she didn't try it >> again enroute to Howland, maybe 50 to 100 miles after departure from >> Lae and if it still wasn't working she should have returned to get it >> fixed. > > Maybe she did and that's why she didn't return to Lae. To do this would have required Lae operator's assistance in holding down the microphone button for long counts while she did the DF thing. Wouldn't you think the Lae people would have reported this or recorded this somehow, post-loss? -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 20:03:33 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Lae DF test There's no energy to be saved by switching off the DF apparatus ( IF indeed there was any, separate from the main receiver ) while in flight- the gen is continuously powering the equipment and maintaining charge on the batts. AE's being comfortable or complacent with the Lae DF test result is puzzling, yes. I suppose you could either say she had tried this enuff times before, I mean specifically HF-DF, that she was confident it worked fine, and the Lae test was more a formality, a routine, and it proved the setup basically received, not to worry about a slight operational glitch peculiar to that afternoon. If on the other hand she hadn't thoroughly proven out the HF-DF previously, (and this seems most likely, lacking any reportage, i believe, along the way ), then it looks like she was very complacent with the Lae non-success. That seems to tell me that she felt the HF-DF was nonessential, optional; they were confident they would find Howland solely by visual. When that failed, and they fell back to radio DF, it wasn't there, then panic. I think possibly her navigator might be expected to have more cautious judgement, would have exercised a more cautious attitude, if matched with some other pilot, but here, wouldn't think of bucking the boss's attitude. But this is only my speculation. I am wondering if an ordinary off-the-shelf standard LF & MF broadband loop would work into the HF frequencies. The manuals i have looked at, the wiring diagrams, seem to tell me, yes. I want to verify this for my own interest. IF this is a yes, then i really don't believe she had the DF adaptor onboard. That would add another level of complexity for something that was just not central to the flight's plans. Removing the trailing antenna for 500 kHz was a big, big dummy move. When flying over water, or over remote places with not much LF beacon or AM band broadcasting activity, a lost aircraft could (on the HF ) request a bearing from a ground station ( "QTE" request ), then switch to transmit on LF, and the ground station would do the DF and give them a bearing. At Howland this would have saved her; forget playing around with the iffy HF-DF thing. This also would have off-loaded more of the location work to the surface station, reducing the number of things she had to attend to in the same critical time. This LF-DF bizness is why in WW2 just about every longrange, multiplace military aircraft, had LF transmit capability. Not HF-DF. Hmmm.... who was advising her about radio equipment? Who agreed with her taking out the 500 kHz? -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 20:04:07 From: Hue Miller Subject: 500 kHz DF I note that AE's plane having 500 kHz transmit capability required only the trailing ( reeled out ) wire antenna. It did NOT require a telegraph key, or knowledge of morse code, or whistling in the microphone, or counting numbers into the microphone. It DID require a counter on the reel or some way of spooling out fairly accurately the same footage of wire each time, and best if someone in the craft could watch a current meter on the transmitter, to be able to tell if the correct footage, within a few feet, was out. Then just to push the microphone button down for a few seconds at a time. You wouldn't want to hold the button down for minutes, as this might heat the transmitter up too much. The signal is strong enuff at the ship, and there's not so much 500 kHz traffic, that the ship does not need any special identifier sent by the plane. The ship could have a bearing for her in seconds. As to whether they could have a true direction also, i don't know. I am kinda thinking the shipboard DF receivers of this era didn't resolve the 180 degree ambiguity but for finding their own location needed to DF on 2 or more sending stations. Probably a few minutes flying, with her signal strength declining or rising, would have told the ship if she was running to or away. I also note the LF DF would have been free from the shortwave propagation quirks with multiple path signal that can make HF DF so confusing and frustrating. When nearing Howland, she could not "get a null", i wonder if she concluded that this was caused by the same situation as at the Lae trial: the signal "was too strong". That would seem, maybe, her likely conclusion. If so, when she was running north and south on a line, was she also trying to get the ship signal at a weaker level, so the HF DF would work? Was she dividing her attention both to visual searching and to trying to adjust, by distance, the level of the Itasca signal? -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 20:04:36 From: Terry Simpson Subject: Re: Lae DF test Big Al, would you have wanted to return to Lae with that much of a fuel load?.......Terry(2396) LTM ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 20:05:12 From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: Lae DF test I can't help but jump in on this one. As a navigator in the '50s, as I was outbound from the states to Guam, I wanted to drop pressure pattern readings. My instructor, a WWII vet, told me in no uncertain terms, that I needed to continue to take all the readings available to me. You never know. Look back at all the past evidence - we find AE quite cavalier regarding her navigation aids. Up until Lae to Howland, she had whole continents to aim for. This last time she totally (sadly FN too) and completely ignored the things that all of us (in retrospect) might have done to insure that everything available was working. Everything. Hindsight is still 20/20. I still feel nervous replaying FN's ETA, and no island in sight, and no radio contact either. Bummer...PMB #856C. ps - AE's trip, and that of LBG, was a good lesson to be taught to novice Navs - PMB. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 10:57:59 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Lae DF test I've forgotten, Hue. What was she trying to get her null on? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 10:58:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Lae DF test > Big Al,would you have wanted to return to Lae with that much of a fuel > load?.......Terry(2396) LTM Yes, Terry. there was no requirement to land immediately with it. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 10:59:26 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Alan's health > Man, Alan, you seem to be really getting into it these days. Too many > bar fights for a guy your age! I was released this morning. (Saturday). Surgery was Wednesday. Two months of no lifting, moving boxes, or pulling myself up. The last one is a super problem. I can't get up from my sofa or chairs. Eight months until full recovery. Dr. King thinks I may be able to play tennis again next year. The costal cartilage was torn allowing the lower two ribs to separate from the third and drop way down letting my liver push through and be exposed. Dr. King did not want to drill holes in the cartilage to suture it for fear of weakening it. Instead he used very heavy #2 suture and bound the bones together like this "IXI" and he did four of these. He said I had to be very careful for the next two months. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:25:41 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: 500 kHz DF I've never been satisfied that removal of trailing wire antenna was a mistake on Earhart's part. I'm sure that statement will garner comment from this forum. Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 13:14:33 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re; Alan's health Alan, I hope you heal up soon and get back to your tennis game in fettle form! William Webster-Garman ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:53:57 From: Charles Wood Subject: Re: 500 kHz RDF Provocative statement. Let's hear your reasoning. Charles Wood ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 11:01:37 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: 500 kHz DF > I've never been satisfied that removal of trailing wire antenna > was a mistake on Earhart's part. I'm sure that statement will garner > comment from this forum. > Tom Strang # 2559 I wish you would comment more on this. I believe that using the more conventional RDF procedure would have likely saved her life, or at least indicated defiinitely along which lines to search for her. Unfortunately none of my books are available now, but i recall the aircraft's transmitter was 2 channel, and channeled up on 3105, 6210, so i'm momentarily puzzled about 500 kHz - would this have required dropping one of the other channels. Still, that would have been do-able, and not a crippling sacrifice. Consider: The wire for the trail antenna adds practically no weight when inside. Once reeled out, it doesn't add that much drag. She listens on 3105 or 6210 to the Itasca. The Itasca tells her to send long dashes on 500. She switches transmitter to 500, and sends long dashes with the microphone button. She does NOT have to fool around with the DF loop while trying to spot anything visually. She does not have to crank ( yes, actually crank ) the receiver dial back and forth between the Itasca voice channel and the Itasca beacon frequency, being careful each time to try to get the dial on exactly the right position. (Receiver did NOT have pre-set channels. ) The experience would be like you using one of those all-band wonder, portable radios, with a VHF aircraft band. You tune in the area you expect the station to be, and IF it happens to be transmitting when you tune across it, voila, there you are. Am i right so far? If she has to voice communicate again with the Itasca, she simply switches the transmitter channel back to the voice channel - no cranking and searching, etc. I wonder what this aircraft HF-DF was all about. Did Bendix alone sell her on this idea? If so, they certainly deserve some good part of blame for the accident. -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 11:02:08 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Alan's Health All of this talk about AE's DF problems is a good review for those among us that get wobbly when the word navigation pops up. The review also highlights a couple of the biggest pilot killers know in aviation -- complacency and get-home-itis. Been there and done that -- and learned from it. LTM, who stays at home too much Dennis O. McGee #0149EC p.s. I'm glad to hear Alan is on the mend. Those biker babes can be tough, eh. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:03:22 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's health Dennis wrote: > p.s. I'm glad to hear Alan is on the mend. Those biker babes can be > tough, eh. There was only one, Dennis but despite her small size she was tough. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 20:48:43 From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Alan's health Alan, I took a photo of your biker chick and her pal. http://www.bikernewsonline.com/lib/biker-chicks.jpg Scary! Suzanne :-) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 08:59:28 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's health > http://www.bikernewsonline.com/lib/biker-chicks.jpg Suzanne, I think it was the one on the right. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 09:24:05 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Alan's health Alan said: "Suzanne, I think it was the one on the right." http://www.bikernewsonline.com/lib/biker-chicks.jpg Can you be more positive about that, sir? Number two, please step forward and turn to your right. How about now, sir, does she look familiar? Take your time we want to be certain about this. You've been the victim of a serious crime; take all of the time you need . . . . LTM, who lines up for good drama Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 14:29:21 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's health > Can you be more positive about that, sir? If she still had the moustache I would be at least 90% positive. Alan