Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 20:31:59 From: George Werth Subject: Where were you on July 2, 1937? This OLD GEEZER was Eleven (11) years old living on a farm in Wisconsin with his ears glued to the Atwater Kent radio in the living room listening for news about Amelia Earhart. Cheers George R Werth Sunnyvale, Californ ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 21:51:14 From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: where were you on July 2, 1937 > This OLD GEEZER was Eleven (11) years old > living on a farm in Wisconsin with his ears glued > to the Atwater Kent radio in the living room > listening for news about Amelia Earhart. My father was thirteen and my mother was three. - Bill #2229 ********************************** Which, if nothing else, says something about the enduring appeal of the Earhart mystery! My parents were in ... let's see, maybe 10th grade? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:40:09 From: Jim Haight Subject: Re: where were you on July 2, 1937? I was just three years old -- but I'm sure my father, who was 34 and a second cousin of Amelia, was very interested in the news concerning her whereabouts. He knew Amelia as a member of the family he had met in gatherings of Earhart and Haight relatives. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:40:38 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Where were you on July 2, 1937? I was five, living in Columbus, Ohio. I didn't know she was missing. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:41:40 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Where were you on July 2, 1937 My parents were in 9th and 10th grade. They both should have been in 8th but had been "skipped ahead" in grammar school and I grew up hearing about how miserable this made them, especially during the middle school years. At 17 they wound up enrolled at the same college, living in dorms, met on a blind date and were married at 18. "It was the war, you know..." Anyway I don't think either gave a flying flip about AE. Funny thing though, my parents loved to travel. I'd been on 4 continents by the age of 14. At that age my own knowledge of AE was pretty much limited to the standard line, "Noonan got drunk, crashed 'n sunk." I do have a dim memory of when my mother flew as a passenger on a jet airliner for the first time. This was a Pan Am Boeing 707 in 1960, transatlantic, when she was 36 (she was 3 when Lindbergh did it for the first time and as I recall, she liked the Jimmy Stewart movie, along with "The High and the Mighty"!). She said she never did quite get used to looking out the window of a jet... no props! Ten years later we were on one of Lufthansa's very early 747 flights- I was 16 and remember wandering up the spiral staircase and sitting in the brand spanking new, empty bar, watching the so-professional German crew for an hour or so through the wide open cockpit door. Talk about back in the day! William Webster-Garman ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 10:40:08 From: Dave Porter Subject: July 2, 1937 Happy (US) Independence Day to all from Dave Porter in Detroit. On July 02, 1937, my dad was two years old and living in Dearborn, MI (where he would later attend Charles Lindbergh elementary school) and my mom was three years old and living on a farm outside of Frederic, MI. In an unrelated matter, I thought this might be interesting, since TIGHAR Central is on a street called Fawkes Drive. Went to the local convenience store for some fireworks last night, and found a huge package being sold as the "Guy Fawks" set, inexplicably with drawings of a pirate and a roman centurion next to the name. Anyway, I wonder if anyone who bought that set had any idea of who and what Guido Fawkes and the gunpowder plot was. I know it wasn't covered in my public school education in the 1970's. I read about it several years ago in a rather disturbing book called "The History of Torture." I also recently read a letter from an English correspondent on Jerry Pournelle's website about celebrating Guy Fawkes Day ,with firecrackers and such, in England when he was a child. Any thoughts from our British members on the forum? Or anyone else who learned about the Gunpowder Plot in school? Since it's off topic, contact me directly at xxxxxxxx. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:26:54 From: Alexander Gartshore Subject: Re: Where were you on July 2, 1937 I was but a glimmer in the minds eye of my father at this time ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:33:59 From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: July 2, 1937 > Happy (US) Independence Day to all from Dave Porter in Detroit. Happy (UK) "We got rid of those pesky colonies" day ;-) > Pournelle's website about celebrating Guy > Fawkes Day ,with firecrackers and such, in England when he was a > child. Any thoughts from our British members on the forum? Or anyone Guy Fawkes Day is Nov 5th in the UK and although it's not a public holiday as such, it's widely celebrated - by burning large fires usually made of old wood, furniture etc. and anything else that'll burn. There's sometimes a effigy of Guy Fawkes on top, and it's accompanied by plenty of fireworks. The story behind this 'celebration' is boils down to religious strife - the so called "Gun Powder Plot" of 1605 where a group of Catholics tried to blow up King James the First and the Parliament - both staunchly Protestant since the years of Henry the Eighth and the six wives saga. Love to mother (who would never marry Henry) Simon Ellwood #2120 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 13:39:50 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Where were you on July 2, 1937 The bigger question on this forum is where in the world was Amelia Earhart on 2 July 37 about 1000 am-12 pm, Howland time? Niku? Mili? Pacific? Uncharted reef? or still aloft? REB ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:02:51 From: Marcus Lind Subject: July 4 Cordial Greetings for all the American members of the Forum for July 4 - have a great Independence Day, and pleasant celebration! Kind Regards from this side of the Big Pond - LTM, sincerely - Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:03:14 From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Where were you on July 2, 1937 > The bigger question on this forum is where in the world was Amelia > Earhart on 2 July 37 about 1000 am-12 pm, Howland time? Niku? Mili? > Pacific? Uncharted reef? or still aloft? Sure, but most of us know the answer to the question in the subject line. - Bill #2229 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:03:37 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Where were you on July 2, 1937 I wasn't born yet but remember it well. You are all old f--ts. Jimbo ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 09:42:07 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Guy Fawkes I learned about it in school, but I went to Catholic schools (haha) Sort of puts a different slant on it. Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263CE > From Dave Porter > ... Or anyone else who > learned about the Gunpowder Plot in school? ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:13:02 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Guy Fawkes "Please do remember the Fifth of November Gunpowder Treason and plot. There is no reason why Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot". This were the lines I had to memorize in my English class back in the Fifties... It was remembered even in Belgium then that some bad guy had wanted to blow up parliament in London. Even though my school apparently was as catholic as Dan Postellon's we were taught that blowing up parliament was among things not done. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 12:15:03 From: Alexander Gartshore Subject: Re: Guy Fawkes i guess theres no point mentioning rosiecruxions & freemasons at this juncture!... lol its all off topic but it all ended up forming the united states you see before you today! What is tighar upto this summer ? ******************************** A team just came back from Yap, just ahead of a typhoon, in fact. Looking at Japanese aircraft from WWII for the government there. Van Hunn is about to leave for the Marshalls for the next round of diplomatic/regulatory permissions for the Devastator Project. We are still cleaning up loose ends on the book and also trying to keep the water out of the basement. Guess it's summer, huh? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 14:05:32 From: Ton Wood Subject: Re: Guy Fawkes Like a few other Catholics, as boys we enjoyed joining in without appreciating the story behind the plot: www.guy-fawkes.com/InterestingFacts.html In one or two towns in England today, on 5th Nov, you really might believe you are back in 1605 - anti-Catholic sentiment is very much part of the (admittedly) mock celebrations ! After quartering poor brave Guy the chances of finding any of his DNA to clone a repeat attempt is, sadly, impossible. Tony Wood #2717 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:18:58 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Earhart Research in the 1930s I've always been curious as to whether or not there was any private Earhart research going on in the late 1930s when the trail was still relatively warm. The mystery would have been no less intriguing back then as it is today, particularly to those who had been involved in the search effort and/or who had access to the official reports, radio logs, pilot debriefings, etc. and therefore would have had a better idea of the actual facts surrounding AE's disappearance, post lost radio signals, and the Navy's search efforts. I find it hard to believe that there wasn't at least one person back then with the necessary interest and investigative skills to undertake (on their own initiative and at their own expense) some sort of search for information that might shed more light on what actually had happened. Do we have any information on who some of the "pioneer" Earhart researchers were, when they started doing their research, or how they communicated and shared information with other researchers? Just curious. LTM (who never shared information with anyone) Eric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 12:08:32 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Earhart research in the 19302 Eric Beheim asks: > I've always been curious as to whether or not there was any > private Earhart research going on in the late 1930s when the trail > was still relatively warm. Yes, there was. It's all covered in "Finding Amelia - The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance" but, in a nutshell ..... After the government search was called off, based on Commander Thompson's grossly inaccurate, incomplete and misleading report "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight," the Coast Guard and Navy abandoned their earlier certainty that some of the post-loss radio messages were genuine. The official line was that the plane had probably gone down at sea and sunk without a trace. The self-serving government verdict was that the CG and USN ships had made a valiant effort but there was never a chance that Earhart and Noonan could be rescued. Pan American Airways saw it differently and submitted a "Proposed Joint Rescue Procedure" for future emergencies. The document (which has disappeared) apparently took the position that Earhart and Noonan had been alive and calling for help but poor coordination among the searchers had prevented their rescue. The Coast Guard commandant routed the Pan Am recommendations to the CG Hawaiian Section via Stanley Parker, head of the San Francisco Division. In passing the paper on to Honolulu, Parker appended his own comments blasting the assertion that any of the post-loss messages was genuine. It is Parker's vehement, but utterly unsupported and inaccurate, dismissal of the post-loss messages that has traditionally been accepted as "proof" that the messages were bogus. Putnam, Mantz, and many of AE's friends didn't buy the government line either. They remained convinced that Earhart and Noonan had landed on an island and might still be alive. They generally accepted the Colorado captain's assertion that the Phoenix Group had been thoroughly searched and, based in part upon Gene Vidal's recollection of his conversation with AE, focused their efforts on making a more complete search of the Gilberts. On December 23, 1937, the nonprofit "Amelia Earhart Foundation" was founded "to conduct an expedition to clear up the mystery surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart the lost aviatrix, and Frederick J. Noonan, her navigator, and to establish beyond a doubt whether they are still alive." The board of directors was made up of AE's friends and business associates. The National Sponsors Committee boasted Eleanor Roosevelt as honorary chairman and included Mrs. Juan Trippe, Louis Thaden, and a virtual who's who of New York society. Enough money was eventually raised to send Captain Irving Johnson and his yacht Yankee on a cruise through the Gilberts in the late spring of 1940. Johnson found the islands to be densely populated but nobody had any information about Amelia - except one report that a plane had been heard to fly high over the island of Tabituea back in 1937. On his way to the Gilberts, Johnson also took a swing through the Phoenix Group but, because he didn't have British permission, he avoided the three islands that had recently been settled - Sydney, Hull, and Gardner. That's a pity. He seems to have been in the Phoenix at about the same time that the skull was initially found on Gardner. > The mystery would have been no less intriguing back then as it > is today, particularly to those who had been involved in the search > effort and/or who had access to the official reports, radio logs, > pilot debriefings, etc. and therefore would have had a better idea > of the actual facts surrounding AE's disappearance, post lost radio > signals, and the Navy's search efforts. Two major problems. 1. Nobody, not even the government, had all the facts. The official reports contain many inaccuracies when compared to the real-time messages and logs. As far as we know, there were no written pilot debriefings. Thompson (Itasca's captain) did not submit the cutter's original radio logs. Instead, he put together a highly selective, and in some cases fabricated, report entitled "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight." The complete radio logs were kept as souvenirs by Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts and Radioman Thomas O'Hare. Bellarts had some, but not all of the logs. O'hare had the others. In 1973, Elgen Long got copies of the logs O'Hare had (O'Hare was retired and living in Mexico) and gave copies to Bellarts when he interviewed Leo later that year. After Leo died, his son gave the complete collection to the National Archives. 2. The was never an independent government investigation of the accident. The Bureau of Air Commerce had the authority and the responsibility - and conducted investigations of other losses such as the Post/Rogers crash and the loss of the Samoan Clipper - but no review of the Earhart disappearance was undertaken. Not until recent years has it been possible to assemble and sort all of the available primary-source data using digital information management systems. As it turns out, the true story of what happened in 1937 is very, very different from the accepted "facts of the case." For all these years, people have been running around trying to solve a fairy tale. It's hardly surprising that they haven't had much luck. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:22:51 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Earhart research in the 1930s Re 1930s searches, private I would also add that FDR sent out Kermit Roosevelt and Vincent Astor on the Nourmahal in spring 1938 to poke around the Marshalls ostensibly looking for Japanese buildup. In my opinion, Astor certainly would have kept his eye open for AE in the Marshalls, and envions. What with FDRs interest in AE and the recent disappearance, it was a perfect "spy" operation. Ron ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:08:18 From: Emmett Hoolihan Subject: Re: Earhart research in the 1930s It seems to me that then Secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, knew all about what happened, judging from the one half phone conversation with Eleanor Roosevelt that we know about. I believe that supervising the U.S. Coast Guard was part of his job as well. I've tried several sources, bios, letters and etc to find the missing one half but no luck. I'd certainly categorize him as one of the early ones "who knew." LTM, who was frequently one-sided herself. Emmett ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 11:22:05 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Ric's comments on Earhart research in the 1930s Wow! Ric, many thanks for taking the time to provide all this background information (most of which was new to me.) I now have a much better idea as to what was going on back then and can better understand why events transpired the way they did. LTM (who is still in the dark) Eric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 11:33:36 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Earhart research in the 1930s Emmett Hoolihan writes: > It seems to me that then Secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, knew all > about what happened, judging from the one half phone conversation with > Eleanor Roosevelt that we know about. I believe that supervising the U.S. > Coast Guard was part of his job as well. You're correct that the Coast Guard, at that time, was part of the Treasury Department. Morgenthau's conversation was not with Eleanor Roosevelt but with her secretary. Morgenthau had been personally briefed by Commander Thompson in Hawaii. (Morgenthau arrived in Honolulu with his family on vacation the same day Itasca returned from the Earhart search.) What Morgenthau "knew" was what Thompson told him, and Thompson's version of the whole story was a masterpiece of cover-yer-butt distortion, half-truth, and outright falsehood. > I've tried several sources, bios, letters and etc to find the > missing one half but no luck. You won't find the other half of the conversation. Phone calls were not routinely recorded. The only reason Morgenthau's side of the conversation was transcribed is because the phone call from Eleanor's secretary interrupted a budget meeting that was being recorded and the person taking shorthand notes just kept going. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:01:36 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Earhart research in the 1930s If you read J. Gordon Vaeth's report, (he was an Earhart researcher in the 60s and 70s at Washington DC) he interviewed Henry Morganthau. According to Vaeth, Morganthau said there was no spy mission, and he knew nothing of any Japanese capture. TIGHAR has this report published by NOAA, I think. Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:08:50 From: Peter Ferris Subject: Where sat Fred? This is my first posting to the TIGHAR list server. Sorry if anything here is "out of order" or against the grain of the usual. Though I haven't received official TIGHAR member confirmation yet, I "think" I'm a member! At least a sincere "wannabe"! Since this is a moderated list, I'll presume that if this posting makes it, then I'm either a member in good standing or I inadvertently hacked another L-Server! %^} Or if it doesn't make it, I did something wrong or it merited expungement from the postings. Onward... I'm particularly fascinated by the radio communication (and/or lack thereof!) aspects of this whole story . Also the navigational facets interest me, though I'll readily admit, beyond determining the azimuth/elevation of a satellite, or playing with a decent compass (a Brunton 8099 Pro Eclipse and a Silva SurveyMaster if anyone really cares!?), I'm somewhat navigationally challenged - but trying to change that. My 1937 edition of "American Practical Navigator" (Bowditch) has helped me see what navigation was like "back in the day". No GPS, no PDA's, etc. Guess you took a cut and consulted the "tables"! Ok, so much for background and disclaimers! :-) I've tried to read a fair amount of the forum highlights and archived editions. Some going back to '99-'00 or so. Some more recent. Following various threads, or just reading some stuff in sequence. All in all things are generally well discussed. I'm confused on a few points, and I have no doubts that soon I'll be "set straight" (ahem!) in my (mis)understanding. 1) Somewhere I read a posting that said that part of 'the problem' may've been due to in-flight communication probs between Fred & Amelia. Yelling was impractical because of the interior cabin noise, etc. One thing I read said they used a "stick" (broom handle or something?) to pass notes from his position to hers & vice-versa. So naturally, the notes would tend to be terse and to the point. Is this true? IF it is true: What was the stick? How were notes attached to it (tape? tacks? paperclips, etc.? YET, I've also read that Noonan also spent the majority of his time in the right-hand seat next to Amelia. Which version is correct? Did the situation change from "usual" to "something different" (and which instance was which?) on board the Electra for the around the world attempt? -OR-: Was the in-cabin noise so bad that they couldn't even communicate sitting next to each other?! If that's the case, I'm curious what Amelia (and/or Fred) THOUGHT they MIGHT'VE heard in their headsets (if noise was ever a prob). For example, have you ever run a vacuum cleaner & shut it down because you swear you heard the phone or doorbell ring only to discover you were "crazy"? :-) 2) A navigational question: I haven't found a good, simple, clean answer to this. What's the difference (or is there one?) between a Sextant and an Octant? Is it generally the same animal but one offers better 'resolution' (nnnth fraction of a degree, etc.?). Mr. Noonan used a sextant, is that correct? BTW, I believe Mr. Noonan was a top-shelf navigator and did his job very well! I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise. Mayhaps a bit of rumor / glurge / urban legend, etc. Nothing more. 3) I'm NOT presenting any hypothesis here, nor am I flaming any one else for their opinions, though I generally subscribe to the Niku hypothesis. I think the Plexiglass piece (shard?) is MOST telling.It may not be the "any idiot" artifact, but I feel it may be an underestimated 'smoking gun' - or at least smoke! ;-) Does TIGHAR feel it's research on this artifact has been exhausted (yet)? 4) Is Betty K still alive? Has there been any light shed on her notebook as far as some of the more ambiguous things go ("suitcase in closet" remarks, etc.)? I don't have access to the propagation & antenna analysis software but offhand, as a former broadcast engineer of a couple Class C FM stations and a DA AM station, off the top of my head, it seems entirely possible that she heard what she claims, at the very least on harmonic if not primary freq. Personally, I give the Betty notebook contents, as relates to AE/FN about a 85% reliability factor for what I've been able to read from various notes, postings, etc. I'd actually prob be more skeptical if it DID all make perfect sense - like a well crafted hoax. Sometime life isn't perfect and we don't always have the perfect recall, witness, or alibi - "Where were YOU on the night of July 7, 1974?" To digress momentarily: RF is really STRANGE stuff! I remember doing some Proof of Performance stuff (for FCC compliance administrivia). The notes I inherited from the previous engineer were very explicit by necessity. "Stand at the Mrs. Angel Watson (d.1963) headstone in the cemetery and face 173 deg. take a reading then proceed to (some other equally obscure place!)." You might get a different reading standing at Mr. John Watson's headstone 4' away or whatever! RF is crazy stuff I tell ya! Somewhat predictable, but no matter what anyone says, no one will convince me RF propagation a hard science! In cases such as Betty's I believe there are simply too many variables to DEFINITIVELY say with 100% certainty! Where were you? What was the weather like (at both the transmitter site & the receiver site)? Solar flares that day? How badly was the copper corroded on this or that connection, was that tall building you see now between the receiver and the transmitter there in 1937? etc. Etc., etc. But I think sufficient work has been done to give the Betty Notebook a "HIGH" confidence factor. That's just my opinion, your actual mileage may vary. Warning: Objects in mirror are closer than they may appear. Never run with scissors! Like everyone else here, I'm most eager to read Ric's new book. Sorry these first comments were "all over the place". Hopefully it'll be more coherent in the future! Constructive comments welcome & appreciated! Advance apologies please, if my opinions obfuscate the truth, or if I'm grossly altering the "signal to noise ratio" here. That's not my intent. Just wanted to say hi, introduce myself, ask a few questions, and tell ya a little about me. Got flames? Go for it! My lightning rod is firmly grounded and I'm wearing my asbestos tuxedo! ;-) I'm glad to be a member, and I look forward to hearing from y'all soon! Kind Regards, --Pete ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:39:21 From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Re: Earhart research in the 1930s > From Ric > > As it turns out, the true story of what happened > in 1937 is very, very different from the accepted "facts of the > case." For all these years, people have been running around trying to > solve a fairy tale. It's hardly surprising that they haven't had much > luck. That may be a profound lesson for all doing research. If persistent attempts to find answers to questions yields nothing, then maybe there's something wrong with the premises behind the questions. --Mike Z. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:40:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? Pete, welcome to the group. I can't answer all of your questions but I can give you some information. Octants used a 1/8th scale or 45 degrees whereas a sextant used 1/6th or 60 degrees. Both had significant variations but suffice to say the octant was more limited than the sextant. Noonan used both. No one will ever know where Noonan sat. The message on a stick idea was in case he was in the back of the fuel tanks and the stick allowed messages to be reached back and forth. Whether he ever left the right seat on the Lae/Howland leg will forever be unknown. I personally don't think he did as I can't think of a good reason to do so. As to Betty's notebook I know of no fact that refutes its authenticity. It flies with me but it would be nice if we could pin down the exact day that event took place. The problem I have is that the scenario Betty recorded fits a more frantic situation than the plane resting comfy on the broad reef at Niku. To me it sounds more like the first day of their survival rather than later on. The conflict is that if Betty's notebook was transcribed on the second of July it did not give our heroes time to get to Niku. If it occurred on the fifth of July as is suggested I can't imagine what has happened to create the frantic situation. Something isn't right. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:40:42 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? Pete wrote: > This is my first posting to the TIGHAR list server. Sorry if > anything here is "out of order" or against the grain of the usual. It's been a while since we've had such an enthusiastic first post. I'm sure that very shortly better qualified people will answer all of your questions, if they haven't already. I'd just like to thank you for joining TIGHAR and for sharing your questions with us. Welcome! Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:41:16 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? Hi Pete, Thank you for your message! You asked: "Was the in-cabin noise so bad that they couldn't even communicate sitting next to each other?!" i was lucky once to fly in the similar Electra (Linda Finch's one), including in pilot's cabin... it was fascinating.. but the noise from engines in the cabin is REALLY powerful and deafening. The pilot and i could not speak to each other at all without using phones, it is for sure... and even in phones the roar was most impressive. I always thought that such a conditions - a deafening, roar, vibrations etc. - during a long flight! - could significantly contribute into the sad outcome of the flight, as it certainly should produce a fatique in the crew and diminish their abilities to do their best in a critical situation. Best Regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:44:36 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? Pete wrote: > 1) Somewhere I read a posting that said that part of 'the problem' > may've been due to in-flight communication probs between Fred & > Amelia. Yelling was impractical because of the interior cabin > noise, etc. One thing I read said they used a "stick" (broom handle > or something?) to pass notes from his position to hers & vice- > versa. So naturally, the notes would tend to be terse and to the > point. Is this true? IF it is true: What was the stick? How were > notes attached to it (tape? tacks? paperclips, etc.? YET, I've also > read that Noonan also spent the majority of his time in the right- > hand seat next to Amelia. Which version is correct? Did the > situation change from "usual" to "something different" (and which > instance was which?) on board the Electra for the around the world > attempt? > > -OR-: > > Was the in-cabin noise so bad that they couldn't even communicate > sitting next to each other?! If that's the case, I'm curious what > Amelia (and/or Fred) THOUGHT they MIGHT'VE heard in their headsets > (if noise was ever a prob). For example, have you ever run a vacuum > cleaner & shut it down because you swear you heard the phone or > doorbell ring only to discover you were "crazy"? :-) Of course, nobody knows for sure to what extent AE and FN communicated by yelling back and forth. What we do know is that the noise level in the cockpit was very high; that notes were used; that Fred spent time both in the cockpit where there was a comfortable seat and back in the cabin where he had more room to spread out charts; and that during the times when Fred was in the aft cabin he used a long bamboo pole to pass notes up to AE (exactly how the notes were attached to the end of the pole hardly matters). Exactly how badly their hearing was effected by the time they got close to Howland is another unknown. We do know, however, that Merrill and Lambie (of the "Daily Express") were deaf for several hours after a similar amount of time in an identical airplane. > 2) A navigational question: I haven't found a good, simple, clean > answer to this. What's the difference (or is there one?) between a > Sextant and an Octant? Is it generally the same animal but one > offers better 'resolution' (nnnth fraction of a degree, etc.?). Mr. > Noonan used a sextant, is that correct? BTW, I believe Mr. Noonan > was a top-shelf navigator and did his job very well! I've seen > nothing to convince me otherwise. Mayhaps a bit of rumor / glurge / > urban legend, etc. Nothing more. I'll let others expound on the mysteries of celestial navigation, but let's remember that NOBODY KNOWS exactly what instruments Noonan had with him when he left Lae. We can make some pretty good informed guesses based on his past practices but we can't say for sure. > 3) I'm NOT presenting any hypothesis here, nor am I flaming any one > else for their opinions, though I generally subscribe to the Niku > hypothesis. I think the Plexiglass piece (shard?) is MOST telling. > It may not be the "any idiot" artifact, but I feel it may be an > underestimated 'smoking gun' - or at least smoke! ;-) Does TIGHAR > feel it's research on this artifact has been exhausted (yet)? I think we've taken it as far as it is practical to go. 1937 plexi is compositionally no different than 1944 plexi. What makes this piece of plexi interesting is the match to the color, thickness, and subtle curvature of the Electra cabin windows. What we don't know, and what is really not practical to find out, is whether there is any place on any of the windows, turrets, canopies, etc. on any WWII aircraft that also match the artifact found on the island. Smoking gun? No. Gunsmoke? Yes. > 4) Is Betty K still alive? Has there been any light shed on her > notebook as far as some of the more ambiguous things go ("suitcase > in closet" remarks, etc.)? I don't have access to the propagation & > antenna analysis software but offhand, as a former broadcast > engineer of a couple Class C FM stations and a DA AM station, off > the top of my head, it seems entirely possible that she heard what > she claims, at the very least on harmonic if not primary freq. > Personally, I give the Betty notebook contents, as relates to AE/FN > about a 85% reliability factor for what I've been able to read from > various notes, postings, etc. I'd actually prob be more skeptical > if it DID all make perfect sense - like a well crafted hoax. > Sometime life isn't perfect and we don't always have the perfect > recall, witness, or alibi - "Where were YOU on the night of July 7, > 1974?" Betty is very much alive and healthy. I entirely agree with you about the notebook's ambiguity arguing for its authenticity. The reported post-loss messages that were later exposed as hoaxes were very straightforward. Betty's notebook, by contrast, reads like the transcript of a modern 911 call. Some of the seemingly nonsensical entries may, in fact, be references to things only Earhart would know about. The "suitcase in the closet" is a classic example. "George ...get the suitcase in my closet ... Calf." Utterly nonsensical, until you know about a letter that AE wrote to her mother Amy on December 26, 1934. Amelia and George were aboard the Matson liner Lurline enroute to Honolulu with her red Vega lashed to the aft tennis deck. On January 11th she would make the first Pacific crossing from Hawaii to California. Amy was at the Putnams' new house in North Hollywood. The letter was newsy and very matter-of-fact, but toward the end AE wrote: "G.P. said you were an awfully good sport to stay alone in the little house. I said I had known that a long time. I have taken possession of the stuff in the zipper compartment of my briefcase. Put it away until I turn up and if I don't - burn it. It consists of fragments that mean nothing to anybody but me." So AE has memorabilia that she wants destroyed if she dies. It's in the zipper compartment of a briefcase that is in the house in California (they have another house in New York). She recognizes that her continued survival is somewhat in doubt (she's about to undertake a very dangerous flight). She directs the person living in the house to secure the briefcase (put it away) and burn the items in question if she doesn't "turn up." Two and a half years later she is once again in a situation where her continued survival is somewhat in doubt. Once again, she directs the person living in the house to secure the items to be destroyed if she doesn't turn up. She specifies that she means the house in California. The parallel is astonishing but it is admittedly not perfect - "briefcase" versus "suitcase." On the other hand, the same item might be described as either a briefcase or a suitcase, especially in 1937. Or did AE shift the items to a suitcase after she got home? Amy was instructed to "put it way." A closet seems like a natural repository. The phrase copied by Betty includes no explanations or instructions as there are in the letter. However, Betty transcribed only fragments of what she heard. Also, George is not Amy. He may know very well what to do with the potentially scandalous material if AE doesn't turn up. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:45:47 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Questions about the bones and artifacts Another question which I hope will be answered in Ric's forthcoming book: Why were the British officials in Suva so reluctant to let anyone know that bones, a woman's shoe and other items had been discovered on Gardner? Gallagher certainly "smoked" their significance right away, but his superiors advised him to keep the matter strictly secret. Even after these items were received in Suva, apparently no attempt was made to inform the American Consul in Sydney, even as a courtesy. Also, apparently none of the people who knew about these items ever discussed them outside of their inter-circle, even years after the fact. Were they sensitive to the fact that a better effort hadn't been made to grant American search parties greater access to the Phoenix Group in '37? Just curious. LTM (who never heard of Gallagher) Eric ********************************************** That will be dealt with in the second book, _Finding Amelia: The Castaway of Gardner Island_. Stay tuned.... Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:28:25 From: Monty Fowler Subject: Second Book? > "That will be dealt with in the second book, Finding Amelia: The > Castaway of Gardner Island. Stay tuned.... > Pat" *falls out of chair* P.S. - Is the Literary Guild still in need? LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189CE ******************************************* Absolutely. Here's the deal: About 90% of the chance of success with any book lies in how well it's publicized. All publishers know this, which is why you see full-page ads in TIME magazine and so on for books. The Naval Institute Press doesn't have that kind of money. Neither do we. But we DO have the capability of getting the word out in very specific ways, and ideas for other ways. One thing we are already setting up is a website for the book. It will be FindingAmelia.com. It's not up yet, but I hope to get most of it mounted in about two weeks. We also are printing a brochure, four-color, really nice glossy piece, that will be ready about the same time. So far we are looking at around $3,000 for everything connected with these two items. The Press has no money for travel, so if there is to be anything like a book tour we'll have to pay for that, too. If everyone who donated to the Literary Guild could do the same again, we would be in a fair way to having enough to hit some major markets and pay for the hard costs. Remember, all royalties from the book go to TIGHAR. If this book is a success, we will certainly follow it up with the next installment , and will be able to negotiate a better advance at the least. Any donation to the Guild is, in essence, an investment in TIGHAR's future income prospects. Also, if anyone knows someone who can get us on Oprah..... :-) Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:49:38 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Second book? Just an idea... I've bought a copy of Meryll Getline's book "The World at my Feet". Now this is an idea for Ric. Merryl has her own website. It's well done. In fact she is made of the right stuff and would have succeeded where Amelia Earhart failed, I believe. The site has links to order the book. Have a look It's worth the while. So is the book, which I am still reading... LTM ***************************** Great minds think alike. P ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:11:02 From: Eric Beheim Subject: FDR's window of opportunity Shortly after the 1940 Presidential election, FDR had Wendell Willkie (the unsuccessful Republican Candidate) hand-carry a letter to Winston Churchill in England. This letter, which Churchill later quoted in a radio address, implied that the U.S. (technically a neutral country) was supporting England in its war with Germany. FDR could just as easily have sent this letter via normal diplomatic channels, but chose to use Willkie (a private citizen) to do so. Is there any evidence to suggest that FDR used AE and the World Flight in a similar manner (particularly for those countries that were later our allies during W.W. II.?) As a VIP, she would certainly have met with top officials (or their aides) in the countries she stopped off at. These get-togethers would have provided a perfect opportunity for her to discreetly pass along a personal letter from the U.S. President (or receive one to carry back to Washington with her.) Nobody has ever mentioned anything like this happening, but then again, there is much about World Flight that is known to have taken place but is not general knowledge. Just curious. LTM (who only used the USPS to deliver her letters) Eric ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:51:23 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: FDR's window of opportunity Eric Beheim asks: > Is there any evidence to suggest that FDR used AE and the World > Flight [as a private diplomatic courier] (particularly for those > countries that were later our allies during W.W. II.?) In a word, no. Amelia Earhart was not a VIP in the diplomatic sense. She was a celebrity and the people she met with during the world flight were mostly local officials and fellow aviators. With the exception of Dakar (French), Karachi (British), and Bandoeng (Dutch), her stops were all in remote backwaters. There's no mention in any of the press reports of her meeting with senior government officials anywhere. And it was 1937 - a very different world from 1940. And besides, Earhart's relationship with FDR was certainly not that of a confidante. She was a celebrity, a friend of Eleanor's, and a political supporter, but not an insider in the Roosevelt administration. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:29:09 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: FDR's window of opportunity For Eric Beheim Research suggests that President Roosevelt did not use Earhart as a VIP during her World Flight. Some elementary research suggests that FDR would have been satisfied if the World Flight had not taken place at all during this time period. But President Roosevelt was un-matched at seizing opportunities when they presented themselves and would use them to his advantage. Her World Flight may have became one of those occasions. Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:29:34 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? For Marcus Lind, The high level of cockpit noise in an L10 A/C, could it be the reason AE was unable to determine "null" on her directional finding receiver at both Lae and Howland? Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:26:23 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? > From Tom Strang > > The high level of cockpit noise in an L10 A/C, could it be the > reason AE was unable to determine "null" on her directional finding > receiver at both Lae and Howland? Not addressed to me, but the same thing occurred to me when i read about the hideous noise level. You could not have paid me enuff to stay in that plane. I think i am safe in assuming the plane's radio receiver had no signal strength meter. So they had to rely on listening alone, listening for the signal strength low point, the "null". Given the difficulty of trying to get a usable, definite null from a shortwave station, in this case the Itasca, and the "artistry" required to pull this off successfully, and with battered hearing, i would say, i would not want to try it! Add to this, the stress of being lost, and running low on fuel, trying to get the DF to work, could be very frustrating! Maybe if you had 15 or 20 minutes to try it, and were NOT changing position at the same time - you might have some hope! -Hue Miller ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:27:32 From: Rick Boardman Subject: Re: FDR's Window of opportunity Is any background knowledge around about the picture of AE being "sworn in" at some military event, in the book "Lost Star"? ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:50:57 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Book club, diplomatic letters Hey Pat, sounds like you guys have been doing a great job over the past year. What's the deadline for joining the "book club"? So far as AE carrying diplomatic messages on her world flight or whatever, there's zero evidence it happened. Along with Ric's comments, her flight path also seems to discount it. One can't prove a negative but it's more than likely we'd have heard about something (a hint in a contemporary letter, a reference in FOI material etc) by now. I do agree that pre-war US/UK relations in the Pacific (especially having to do with the development of air bases) and the subsequent onset of hostilities in Europe (during which the US was technically neutral for the first two years) appear to have had something to do not only with the choice of Howland Island but with the cursory search of the Phoenix Islands and the response Gallagher got when he found the skeleton and other artifacts. Lastly, I must say Thompson's handling of both the landing attempt at Howland and his later search efforts look worse and worse as the years roll by and the primary sources emerge. This is not to scapegoat him, however. Naval aviation techniques were still rudimentary (and anyway, he was Coast Guard), he doesn't seem to have been trained for providing logistical and radio support to trans-Pacific flights and moreover, the ingrained professional culture he worked in seems to have encouraged his approach. I'd cite the letters of commendation he received in the aftermath, for example. Which is to say, don't attribute to hidden agendas what can easily be explained by cluelessness and inertia in the old boy network. William Webster-Garman ************************************** The Literary Guild will be, shall we say, open for business for quite a while yet. There is a LOT of promotion we can do if we have some money to spend, and we think it's a very viable investment. A lot of people will buy this book if they know about it! Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:51:38 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Second book Great News! Let me know as soon as you start to take orders for it as I will want to be in on the "ground floor." (Judging from the excerpts I've read so far, the first book should be an unqualified best seller!) LTM (who can remember when GONE WITH THE WIND was a best seller) Eric ************************************ It'll be a while. Right now it's just a twinkle in Ric's eye. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:05:54 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: FDR's window of opportunity Rick Boardman asks: > Is any background knowledge around about the picture of AE being > "sworn in" at some military event, in the book "Lost Star"? The photo was taken at Crissy Field at the Presidio in San Francisco in 1928, the year AE first became famous for riding across the Atlantic as a passenger. The award of honorary wings to Earhart by the 381st Service Squadron was purely a publicity stunt. The man in the photo whom Brink identified as "Maj. General Oscar Westover" is actually Col. Gerald Brant, commanding officer of Crissy Field. Oh, and the guy with Earhart in another photo whom Brink says is presidential adviser Bernard Baruch is actually Herbert Sharlock, VP for Corporate Communications at Bendix. And the picture of AE supposedly taken on Saipan was taken in Hawaii in 1935. The real challenge in Brink's book is finding ANYTHING that is true. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:15:41 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: FDR's window of opportunity It seems like we have come to the point that the only way forward is thorough book sales. I haven't seen anything in the past year or two to suggest that there are any plans to revisit the island, conduct scientific research on any of the artifacts recovered, or pursue any outstanding issues regarding AE. What I have seen is a call for support in writing the latest book (due out in Sept. this year) and lately a hint of a second book. If we have reached "the end of the line" in the practical sense of exploring the island for more artifacts wouldn't it seem prudent to conduct an "off island-deep sea exploration" to see if the plane is somewhere off the reef? This is the only area were TIGHAR hasn't spent it resources in the search. Sorry to sound so negative but the thrill of the search is waning if all we have left is writing books and waiting for providence to recharge the search. Ted Campbell ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:17:38 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: FDR's window of opportunity Ted Campbell says: > It seems like we have come to the point that the only way forward > is thorough book sales. Book sales alone will never fund further field work. What we're hoping is that the book will flush out a major sponsors or sponsors who will do that. > I haven't seen anything in the past year or two to suggest that > there are any plans to revisit the island, conduct scientific > research on any of the artifacts recovered, or pursue any > outstanding issues regarding AE. There certainly are plans to return to the island and there is certainly ongoing research on artifacts. The planning and the research do not necessarily take place on the forum. > What I have seen is a call for support in writing the latest book > (due out in Sept. this year) and lately a hint of a second book. You were among the many TIGHAR members who supported the writing of the book, and I very much appreciate that. You can expect to see a further call for supporting the promotion of the book. > If we have reached "the end of the line" in the practical sense of > exploring the island for more artifacts wouldn't it seem prudent to > conduct an "off island-deep sea exploration" to see if the plane is > somewhere off the reef? This is the only area were TIGHAR hasn't > spent it resources in the search. First of all, we have by no means reached the end of the line for work on the island. The 2003 expedition demonstrated that there are still important artifacts to be found in the abandoned village and we were only able to scratch the surface of Seven Site in 2001. As for searching the deep water off the western reef, there is nothing I'd like better. The trouble is that deep water searching is far more expensive than onshore operations. Like everything else, it's all about money. Right now, Finding Amelia is the best vehicle we have for generating the money that will get us back to the island. > Sorry to sound so negative but the thrill of the search is waning > if all we have left is writing books and waiting for providence to > recharge the search. Writing books is not something we do to pass the time while we're waiting for providence. I've been raising money for expeditions for over twenty years. Let me tell you how it works. To attract sponsors you need credibility and you need publicity. Credibility comes from good, sound research. Publicity comes from making news and nothing makes news like controversy. Finding Amelia is exhaustively documented and it will show that just about everything that has been accepted as the facts of the case for nearly seventy years is wrong. If that doesn't stir up controversy, I don't know what will. Hang in there Ted. I suspect there are plenty of thrills in store. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:18:26 From: Tom King Subject: Re: FDR's window of opportunity For Ted Campbell > If we have reached "the end of the line" in the practical sense of > exploring the island for more artifacts wouldn't it seem prudent to > conduct an "off island-deep sea exploration" to see if the plane is > somewhere off the reef? This is the only area were TIGHAR hasn't > spent it resources in the search. OK, I have to respond to this one. The only "end of the line" we seem to have reached regarding work on the island is the end of "easy" money -- as if there's ever been such a thing. We have plenty to do on the island, and it's actually fairly urgent that we do it. We just haven't yet been able to find anyone willing to put forward the necessary money to put an expedition together. Major things to do include: 1. Intensive exploration of the village area where the "dados" were found, to see if there are more plane parts there and to better understand the context of those we've already found. 2. Further work at the Seven Site, of which we've studied only a small portion, and which looks very much like the mysterious 1940 castaway campsite. Neither operation is terribly expensive in itself (as opposed to a deep water search of the reef face), but getting a team there to do the work, and keeping it there long enough to do it, is a more or less half-million-clam undertaking. We have well-developed research designs for both operations; we just need the money to implement them. There's also other work to be done in Fiji and other places to run down archival material and interview survivors of the colony, who may have critical anecdotal and documentary data. Meanwhile, the island is steadily eroding away as ocean levels rise, and the old folks we need to interview are dying. So the sooner we can get back to work, the better. Hopefully Ric's book will stimulate some interest and bring in some money. We hoped for the same when we published "Shoes," however, and it didn't happen -- in part, I think, because the book was published about a month before 9/11/01, and as a result never got significantly reviewed in the major media. That same event has been substantially responsible for drying up contributions -- people and institutions simply have other, more critical, things to spend their money on. Perfectly understandable, but frustrating. Anyhow, it's not a matter of having run out of things to do; it's a matter of running out (thus far) of the money needed to do them. LTM (who's broke) Tom ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:26:53 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? For Tom Strang: You wrote: "The high level of cockpit noise in an L10 A/C, could it be the reason AE was unable to determine "null" on her directional finding receiver at both Lae and Howland?" Not necessarily. i did not mean or say LITERALLY THIS. I rather meant that, in a more common sense, the intensive continuous powerful noise and vibrations - all in tight cramped place, and for hours - certainly leads to fatigue and can make a negative influence on the person's ability to concentrate the attention, and make a quick and optimal judgements and decisions - both in a narrow technical sense, and in a more common ones. As it seems, Hue Miller tend to agree with this... and several veteran pilots, with whom we discussed this aspect, also agreed. Best Regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:43:31 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: FDR's window of opportunity If money is the problem, why not ask the military? I'm sure they have some training scheme that might fit or can be made to fit. Look at the opportunities for training! I'm sure the Kiribati government won't object if it is explained properly what it is all about. I'm sure the US Navy would like to go looking for a Lockheed Electra as a training exercise for finding a sunken submarine. All it takes is one sympathetic admiral. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:04:15 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FDR's (and TIGHAR's) window of opportunity Ted, things have been a little slow for a while because of all the focus on the (first) book. That necessity doesn't mean the book is the final gasp. This is the time for all of us to start getting more innovative and put the life back in the search. NO search is over simply because of the scarcity of evidence or ideas. The Feds are still digging up possible sites to find Hoffa. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:06:00 From: Tom King Subject: Re: FDR's window of opportunity > I'm sure the Kiribati government won't object if it is explained > properly what it is all about. Right. Perhaps we could get the government of Iraq to intercede for us. > I'm sure the US Navy would like to go looking for a Lockheed > Electra as a training exercise for finding a sunken submarine. All it > takes is one sympathetic admiral. Well, not quite. The work we're doing with the Navy on the TBD project -- where the Navy has a very definite interest -- indicates that it's a good bit more complicated than that. That's without even considering whether the Navy has the kinds of expertise needed to do the kinds of search we're trying to carry out. Of course, there's always the Chinese Navy; that might be an angle..... LTM (who prefers civilian control) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:40:31 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: FDR's window of opportunity Herman asked, > If money is the problem, why not ask the military? Don't get me started. I think Tom King answered the question very well. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:48:12 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Window of opportunity I merely wanted to help. My suggestion was based on experience and the widespread Old Word belief that if the US can fly to the moon and back it can achieve anything. When the Brussels Air Museum wanted a WW II Lysander airplane for its collection the curator learned there was one lying about in a barn in Canada. It was in poor shape but he was told he could have it "if he came and get it". So he went to see the admiral commanding the Belgian Navy (which is very small and lacks the resources the US Navy has). Next the admiral said it would be a good idea to organize a "goodwill tour" to Canada and show the flag. Consequently a suitable transport ship (Godetia) was sent on her way across the Atlantic. The "goodwill tour" was a great success for the Lysander was brought back, free of charge. Actually it was a wreck but it has been restored to flying condition by a group of volunteers who didn't get any pay. LTM (who believes problems are solutions in disguise) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:08:38 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? For Marcus Lind, I appreciate your response to my question. The high level of cockpit noise in the L10 A/C I believe was the primary reason the crew of NR16020 was unsuccessful at using their RDF. Having flown long flights over blue water on very little rest under some what stressful conditions, fatigue is compensated by pucker power in the seat pan . Getting back on the subject of cockpit noise and determining RDF "null" in July 1937 on board NR16020. Marcus, have you taken a comprehensive hearing test lately? It can provide a wealth of understanding as to the ability to determine RDF "null " in a noise intense environment. Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:11:35 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Window of opportunity Hermann says, > I merely wanted to help. I know, and your good will is much appreciated. > My suggestion was based on experience and the > widespread Old Word belief that if the US can fly to the moon and > back it can achieve anything. The last time we did that was 1972, thirty-four years ago. > So he went to see the admiral commanding the Belgian > Navy (which is very small and lacks the resources the US Navy has). > Next the admiral said it would be a good idea to organize a "goodwill tour" > to Canada and show the flag. A novel concept. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:00:04 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Niku Tom King wrote: "Meanwhile, the island is steadily eroding away as ocean levels rise, and the old folks we need to interview are dying." Tom, have you seen evidence of the island eroding away on any of your trips there? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:57:37 From: Tom King Subject: Re: NIku Alfred Hendrickson asks: > Tom, have you seen evidence of the island > eroding away on any of your trips there? Absolutely. What we've seen over 18 years of periodic visits is a steady nibbling, sometimes gobbling, away at the "lee" shore of the island -- that is, the lee vis a vis the normal tradewinds, but this is the side of the island that takes the brunt of the really nasty southeasterly storms. We've lost -- at a guess -- maybe 10-15 meters of shoreline, including several house sites. This is consistent with the way islands go under from rising seas; the seas don't just gently creep over them, the storm waves just get a little higher every year or so, and chew a little further inland. Before somebody who gets irritated about such things jumps all over me -- this is not to say that the sea level rise results from human- induced global warming; it may well be that the warming trend and its resultant sea level rise reflects a perfectly normal cyclic pattern -- though it's hard to imagine that we're doing things any good by pumping gunk into the atmosphere. LTM (who suggests breaking out the life rafts) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:50:50 From: Rick Boardman Subject: Re: Window of opportunity The military may not be the best bedfellows for such a project, but if you're given the choice of wait for 500,000 dollars to be donated/collected/loaned, or get a sympathetic Admiral or two, I know which one I'd pursue. In these accusatory times, I'm sure several sympathetic high rankers would jump at the chance at the chance to prove once and for all that AEs Electra wasn't packed full of spy cameras etc courtesy of the 1930s military. There's your angle of approach to catch some nice retiring Admiral! Bet he'd love to put that on his CV as a swansong... Rick Boardman ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:51:13 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Niku Tom, I promise I wasn't going to jump all over you! :-) In a general sense, things just change over time. I have considered this issue before as it pertains to that island. I'm afraid that any stuff that remains on Niku that we need to get our hands on will not be there forever. The sooner we do another expedition, the better. You've seen dramatic changes in 18 short years. Heck, in another 18 years, many of us might not even be around! LTM, who is still wondering what the WOF was. Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:59:16 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Window of opportunity Rick Boardman writes, > The military may not be the best bedfellows for such a project, but > if you're given the choice of wait for 500,000 dollars to be > donated/collected/loaned, or get a sympathetic Admiral or two, I > know which one I'd pursue. Been there, done that. A few years ago we tried to get a Coast Guard C-130 ride from Hawaii down to Canton Island. (Bear in mind that the Coast Guard sends C-130s down there on a fairly regular basis on training and humanitarian missions anyway.) The squadron commander and his boss, the admiral, were all for it but the regulations wouldn't let them do it. I happened to be on pretty good terms with a certain Delaware senator and he looked into it to see if he could help us. No dice. The military can not provide services to civilians that could otherwise be purchased in the private sector. > In these accusatory times, I'm sure several sympathetic high > rankers would jump at the chance at the chance to prove once and > for all that AEs Electra wasn't packed full of spy cameras etc > courtesy of the 1930s military. I doubt that anyone in the Navy is losing sleep over that. There might be senior officers who would be sympathetic to our cause but one of the most feared accusations in these accusatory times is "fraud, waste and abuse." What we really need is a government no-bid contract to Halliburton/KBR to provide us with whatever we need to find Amelia. Where the heck is Jack Abramoff when you need him? Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:24:46 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? For Alan Caldwell: Alan, in your 7/8 comments to Pete you said, of Betty's notebook: > If it occurred on the fifth of July as is suggested I can't > imagine what has happened to create the frantic situation. Something > isn't right. I don't think it's at all hard to imagine what's happened. The mean high tide has been getting higher over the days since they landed, and by the fifth the Electra's beginning to bob around and drift toward the reef edge. Our heroes splash out and try to cope with the situation, including transmitting what they know may be their last message. LTM (who of course would not be frantic in such a case, but understands that lesser mortals might be) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:26:38 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Window of opportunity Ted Campbell wrote: > wouldn't it seem prudent to > conduct an "off island-deep sea exploration" to see if the plane is > somewhere off the reef? Like Tom I can't pass this up. My question to you, Ted, would be where do you suggest we search in the water? There is no reason to believe the only or most likely event was that the plane gently slipped off the reef and immediately sank to the bottom and that currents have not moved it in 69 years. The fuel tanks were empty and if the plane was undamaged could have floated out to sea for Lord knows how far or in what direction. We are only guessing about the landing spot. It could have landed elsewhere or even been taxied to another location. You are suggesting undertaking an impossible and terribly expensive task. But you are not alone. Many folks want to do an under water search. Elgin Long's group are still planning that as last I heard. They think the plane went down in a hundred square mile area. I think the real delineated area is around 600,000 square miles of possibility -- IF it actually went down at sea. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:35:05 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? For Tom Strang: Thank you for your comments! You wrote: "The high level of cockpit noise in the L10 A/C I believe was the primary reason the crew of NR16020 was unsuccessful at using their RDF" - I never tried this myself.. so can't be too definite about this.. but, just logically, very possibly you may be right! You wrote: " Marcus, have you taken a comprehensive hearing test lately? " - Sorry! - no, i hadn't.. never needed this! - as, since childhood, i always had a specially "sharp" hearing... :) and still have it... i don't think the flying in Electra could somehow influence it.. i just flew in it for too short time! Kind Regards - LTM, sincerely - Marcus For Ric: you wrote (about the moon flight) - "last time we did it 34 years ago..." - please don't be "decadent" and pessimistic - be sure you (USA) still CAN do it - anytime - if only such a goal will be really declared and set as a "national priority" - as it was in 60s... The same - about finding AE. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:35:59 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Window of opportunity > From Rick Boardman > > ... There's your angle of approach to catch some nice retiring > Admiral! ... If you have such an Admiral already in captivity, I'm sure TIGHAR would listen to your pitch. Going trolling for friendly Admirals on speculation is outside the norm of TIGHAR's research activities. Your advice reminds me of the old joke about tiger stew: Q: How do you catch a tiger to make tiger stew? A: Catch two and let one go. ;o) LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:07:11 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Window of opportunity If you want to save money I suggest you contribute to Woody Pearn and J . Michael Harris who know where the Electra is buried on Taroa, an easy dig. At least that is what Woody has claimed for years and in my conversatons with Harris. As I recall the Electra was unloaded there shortly after the Japanese left Jaluit... Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:47:59 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Window of opportunity For Ron Bright > If you want to save money I suggest you contribute to Woody Pearn and > J . Michael Harris who know where the Electra is buried on Taroa, an > easy dig. Wow! (slaps forehead) Why didn't we think of that? Funny that the detailed archaeological survey of Taroa funded by the U.S. National Park Service in the 1980s (admittedly not looking for an Electra) didn't turn it up. Must be a conspiracy. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:09:42 From: Peter Ferris Subject: Re: 1930s search Thanks Ric for providing some new (to me, at least) insight on the search efforts back in the day this was front page news, as well as others for subsequent insight. A question before I jump on the besmirch Commander Thompson bandwagon. I just want to be sure I "measure twice, cut once" before wholesale swallowing that "...Thompson's version of the whole story was a masterpiece of cover-yer-butt distortion, half-truth, and outright falsehood.". That may be Ric's opinion, and it's certainly valid (moreso than mine in some regards to be sure!), but can it be proven? I DON'T necessarily doubt Ric's characterization of Commander Thompson's "CYA" proceedure, but to me it begs a couple (at least) questions: 1) Other there any other (non AE/FN) instances of Commander Thompson "cooking the books" (falsified/"edited" logs, etc.)? Usually chronic liars have a track record of doing so. So is there any crew citations of Commander Thompson lying, etc; ie; Testimony from Seaman Jones saying "I could see the wing of an airplane clearly, near the 'Norwich City' wreck, but the Old Man dismissed it and didn't want to check it out...". 2) Any other incidents alluding to his character / morals that could have a bearing on how he might react in a "high profile" situation such as the AE/FN search? One reason I ask: It would seem to me that to a military man like Commander Thompson, I'd imagine this high profile case would be Commander Thompson's chance to "shine" . His 15 minutes of fame. He must've thought: "Man, if I found them, I'd be the hero of the ticker tape parade and could retire to a cush gig at the Pentagon!". Then again, maybe after a couple days of searching (or steaming in circles or whatever he was doing) whatever he might think "Man, it's a big ocean out there... They could be ANYWHERE..." Pardon me if this is forcing Ric's hand in revealing more of the book, that's not my intent. Excuse me if this has already been cussed & discussed on the forum. And I honestly don't mean to "tug on Superman's cape" or "spit into the wind" (insert other Jim Croce-isms here) but (as should be obvious by now!) I'm easily confused. LTM (who taught me that "Character Matters"), --Pete ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:12:24 From: Pete Ferris Subject: Re: Noise levels Hue Miller said: >> The high level of cockpit noise in an L10 A/C, could it be the >> reason AE was unable to determine "null" on her directional finding >> receiver at both Lae and Howland? > > Not addressed to me, but the same thing occurred to me when i > read about the hideous noise level. You could not have paid > me enuff to stay in that plane. Yeah, this is part of what I implied (meant to state more clearly) in my "If that's the case, I'm curious what Amelia (and/or Fred) THOUGHT they MIGHT'VE heard in their headsets" comment. Little doubt in my mind that this was a contributing factor to the end result. That, combined with lost antenna upon take-off, lack of CW/Morse knowledge, apparent lack of DF proficiency / training (perhaps caused by a certain apathy/ignorance towards 'things tech' on Earhart's part?) probably impaired hearing after 20+ hrs of flight made a recipe for disaster. Some may think I'm putting too much emphasis on the radio & internal cabin communication aspects. We'll probably never know for sure. But if you consider that in 1937 there was no GPS, ILS, etc; etc; it becomes clear that the radio was your critical link to the world (and vice-versa). And good DF skills were essential. I'm thinking (don't know if it's proven) that Fred Noonan had above average DF skills - with commercial carrier experience, etc. But I'm not sure it's known who was/wasn't using what equipment when/where. Was Fred sequestered in the back to play with his sextant and charts? Too busy to mess with DF? Couldn't hear it anyway? Probably 90% of what's known about the flight is from the (albeit dubious / wholesale edited at spots) radio logs (Itasca, etc.) and intercepts (e.g.; "Betty's Notebook"). Video exists of the antenna loss at Lae take-off. Yes, I've also seen an interesting argument for the "puff" being water spray. No matter, really. The antenna is there before/during take-off, and disappears later during the same take-off. I wonder if there are unexpurgated/unedited logs collecting dust in a Bekins warehouse somewhere. If I've made any unproven / grossly erroneous assumptions, please correct me! Comments welcome! Flames to xxxxxxxxxxx;-) LTM (Who always told me to turn that blasted racket down or I'd go deaf!), --Pete ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:12:52 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? OR, Tom, they could have moved the plane to a safer location or higher ground OR just got out and walked to a safe area. I still don't see the panic. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:33:50 From: Rick Boardman Subject: Re: Window of opportunity Surely it's worth a look near where the aircraft parts were seen by that witness? (Can't remember who or when, sorry). If you're going to buy into the Betty stuff, then you're picturing an aircraft on the reef, getting washed off it. This fits with the witnessing later of aircraft wreckage (chucked up by a later storm?), and yes the wreck would be smashed very quickly. But as one of you pointed out some time ago, the engines wouldn't wander very far, they'd stay put and become possibly part of the reef, relatively close to where the 'plane sank and broke up. And if we buy the wreckage sighting AND the Betty logs, you're also buying the possibility that the'plane didn't float off and sink far away from the reef edge... ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:53:52 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? For Alan Caldwell >OR, Tom, they could have moved the plane to a safer location or >higher ground Uh... how? Are you assuming the plane could roll, and that they had enough fuel to run the engines? Or that it could roll and they could just push it? Possible, I suppose, but the reef flat -- while generally pretty smooth out away from the boat channel -- is hardly a parking lot, and the likelihood of dropping a wheel in a hole or blowing a tire is pretty significant. There also isn't really much in the way of "higher ground" on the reef flat, and the closer inshore (and therefore marginally higher) you get, the rougher the surface becomes. >OR just got out and walked to a safe area. Oh, sure, if they were in the plane and had to get out for reasons of personal safety. But I doubt if anybody would hang around in an aluminum airplane on the Niku reef flat during the day; they'd boil. I'd be up on the beach under a tree, and when I saw the plane beginning to bump around like it was about to float away, I'd want to get out to it and salvage whatever I could, and get off a last radio message before I lost the opportunity to do so. Scrambling to accomplish these tasks in a plane that's bouncing around and filling with water could, I should think, induce a degree of panic. LTM (who, of course, never panics) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:34:42 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: 1937 search Peter Ferris writes: > A question before I jump on the besmirch Commander Thompson bandwagon. I > just want to be sure I "measure twice, cut once" before wholesale swallowing > that "...Thompson's version of the whole story was a masterpiece of > cover-yer-butt distortion, half-truth, and outright falsehood." > That may be Ric's opinion, and it's certainly valid (moreso than mine in some > regards to> be sure!), but can it be proven? I applaud your caution and I certainly do not expect anyone to decide whether or not they share my opinion on any of the issues addressed in the book until they've read the evidence. Let me also say that, while I'm happy to bore anyone who will listen to my opinions in private conversation, public interviews, or here on the forum; in the book I tried very hard NOT to assign motivations or draw conclusions. The book tells the story of who did what and who said what according to the documents and records generated at the time. When somebody later says something that conflicts with what was recorded, or fails to mention something important that was recorded, I point that out. > 1) Other there any other (non AE/FN) instances of Commander Thompson > "cooking the books" (falsified/"edited" logs, etc.)? Usually chronic liars > have a track record of doing so. So is there any crew citations of Commander > Thompson lying, etc; ie; Testimony from Seaman Jones saying "I could see the > wing of an airplane clearly, near the 'Norwich City' wreck, but the Old Man > dismissed it and didn't want to check it out...". We know only the basics about Thompson's career prior to his service aboard Itasca. We know he was born in Utah in 1886 and joined the Coast Guard in 1906. He was commissioned Ensign in 1908 and his rate of promotion up through the grades seems a bit odd (to this landlubber anyway). He made Lt (jg) just nine days after he was commissioned but remained in that grade for the next 12 years. He was promoted to Lieutenant in 1920 and to Lt. Commander in 1923. Seven months later he got his first command, the cutter Kankakee on the Ohio River at Evansville, Indiana. From 1925 to 1928 he did a tour at headquarters in Washington, DC. In August of '28 he was given the cutter McDougal out of Boston and he made Commander in July 1929. He spent 1930 to 1932 as CO of the cutter Gresham in Mobile, Alabama before being assigned to the Navy Department for the next three years. In May of 1935 he was given the cutter Saranac out of Galveston, Texas. In December 1936 he took command of Itasca, which had recently been transferred from the Hawaiian Division to the Southern Division in southern California. In June 1937, Itasca was unexpectedly returned to the Hawaiian Division to support the Earhart flight. (How that happened is a pretty interesting story involving some shenanigans by George Putnam. It's all in the book.) But to answer your question, no. There is no indication that Thompson had ever previously cooked the books. > 2) Any other incidents alluding to his character / morals that could have a > bearing on how he might react in a "high profile" situation such as the > AE/FN search? Remember that Thompson never had any intention or expectation of being involved in an Earhart search. His orders were to support the resupply of the Department of Interior colonists on Howland, Baker and Jarvis, provide weather information for Earhart's flight from Lae, and act as "plane guard" for the flight. He was not in charge of the expedition. That job fell to Department of Interior employee Richard Black. It was Black's responsibility to coordinate the various services being provided to Earhart for her flights to and from Howland Island (weather forecasting by the Navy, radio communication by the Coast Guard, aircraft servicing by the Army, etc.). There are many indications that Black and Thompson didn't get along. For his part, Thompson wanted as little involvement with the Earhart flight as possible. In the days before the flight, Black was having a terrible time getting information about what radio procedures Earhart wanted Itasca to follow during the flight from Lae. When the Coast Guard's San Francisco Division suggested that Itasca make recommendations to Earhart about what procedures would work best, Thompson very abruptly told them to butt out. > One reason I ask: It would seem to me that to a military man like Commander > Thompson, I'd imagine this high profile case would be Commander Thompson's > chance to "shine" . His 15 minutes of fame. He must've thought: "Man, if I > found them, I'd be the hero of the ticker tape parade and could retire to a > cush gig at the Pentagon!". Actually, his attitude seems to have been more like, "Oh sh-t! This stupid broad has gotten herself lost and probably drowned and I'm going to get blamed for it." > Then again, maybe after a couple days of > searching (or steaming in circles or whatever he was doing) > whatever he might think "Man, it's a big ocean out there... They could be > ANYWHERE..." He kept changing his mind about where to search but he decided very earlier on that the plane had run out of gas far sooner than it should have and was down in the water. He never budged from that conviction despite mounting evidence that he was wrong. The "281 north" debacle was a huge embarrassment and soon afterward he was put under navy authority. The entire cruise was a contentious and intensely frustrating experience for Commander Thompson. He clearly felt victimized and it left him bitter and defensive. The discrepancies between the real-time records and Thompson's later representations are there for anyone to see. I personally think that the truth, for Thompson, became what he wanted it to be. A lot of people get like that when things don't go their way. Immediately after the Earhart search (August of '37), Thompson was given command of the cutter Ingham out of Port Angeles, Washington. He died, reportedly of a heart attack, in Alaskan waters on September 1, 1939 at the age of 53. > Pardon me if this is forcing Ric's hand in revealing more of the book, > that's not my intent. No problem. I'm happy to answer your questions. I figure, the more people understand what's in this book, the more they'll want to read it. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:03:01 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Window of opportunity For Tom and Woody, Woody, King says digs have shown you guys wrong there ain't no Electra on Taroa. What say you Woody?? As I recall much like Brink, Woody has Army surveillance photos showing the plane!! The plane has got to be somewhere!! REB ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:11:56 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Window of opportunity For Ron Bright >Woody, King says digs have shown you guys wrong there ain't no >Electra on Taroa. What say you Woody?? No, Ron, that's not what King says. I said there had been a survey of Taroa in the 1980s by archaeologists working under contract with the National Park Service and they hadn't found any Electras. There's a big difference between surveys and "digs," and between "showing" someone wrong and simply not finding evidence indicating that the person is right. LTM (who like precision) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:22:01 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: 1937 search re Thompson If memory serves me right, CDR Thompson received a Coast Guard or Navy Commendation for the search efforts. It would be fun to read the content. Yes I know, like in Catch 22, the more you screw up, the more likely you will get a promotion or commendation!! REB ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:22:19 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Window of opportunity For Tom King, Ahha, so Woody may be right and the Electra is under a few feet of coral, etc. on Taroa. Your post infered the unlikelyhood the plane was there. I would hardly think it visible awaiting the recovery by the Smithsonian.. ron ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:33:57 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Window of opportunity For Ron Bright >Ahha, so Woody may be right and the Electra is under a few feet of >coral, etc. on Taroa. Yes, and those who think it's lurking in the Pacific equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle also MAY be right. >Your post infered the unlikelyhood the plane was there. If I were a betting man and had any money, I'd be willing to bet it's not there. >I would hardly think it visible awaiting the recovery by the >Smithsonian. It wasn't the Smithsonian. It was a team contracted by the RMI Historic Preservation Officer under a National Park Service program that my wife supervised. I reviewed the report. They were specifically documenting World War II features. Archaeologists tend to be pretty good at recognizing places where stuff has been buried, and this was quite a competent team. But certainly, it's possible the Electra's buried there. Or somewhere else. Or that it's not. Or that something else is buried there. Or..... ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:25:58 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Woody's photos Ron Bright writes: "Woody has Army surveillance photos showing the plane!!" Ron, do you know if these photos are web-hosted anywhere? I'd like to have a look at them. LTM, who was quite photogenic in her day, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:21:03 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Woody's photos Alfred, I think Woody monitors the Tighar channel. I doubt if he will cough them up. For a similar view and nearby revevment, see Brinks book. reb ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:19:23 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Window of opportunity Hey, the Navy just sent their recovery ship to Indonesia and found the long lost sub. The Longato I think last month. Jim Preston ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:22:33 From: John Harsh Subject: Carnauba airplane wreckage found The Johnson wax group searched for and found the Sikorsky 38 amphib used to source carnauba trees in the 1930s. Interesting story. LTM JMH <><><><><><><><> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060705/sfw050.html?.v=66 Carnauba Aircraft Wreckage Found Wednesday July 5, 12:01 am ET Johnson Family and Company Celebrate Rediscovering the Adventure RACINE, Wis., July 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, SC Johnson Chairman and CEO Fisk Johnson announced success -- the wreckage of the original Carnauba airplane, a 1930s vintage aircraft that is a beloved icon of SC Johnson's early history, has been found off the shores of Manokwari Bay, Papua, Indonesia in 90 feet of water in a debris field. Johnson was joined on this dive trip with his brother and sister, Curt Johnson, Chairman of JohnsonDiversey, Inc. and Helen Johnson-Leipold, Chairman and CEO of Johnson Outdoors and Chairman of Johnson Financial Group, as well as their mother, Gene Johnson, the widow of their father the late Samuel C. Johnson. After finding the plane, the Johnson family completed another dive and placed at site of the wreckage a granite plaque inscribed with the words: "I am Carnauba, my true home is not this bay but the hearts of all who love adventure." The stone symbolizes an important step in the long journey of the Carnauba and will serve as an inspiration to future divers. On June 27th, Johnson and his family embarked on an expedition to search for the wreckage of the Sikorsky 38 (S-38) plane. Johnson's late grandfather H.F. Johnson, Jr. flew the legendary amphibious plane 15,000 miles to Brazil in 1935, searching for a sustainable source of wax -- the Carnauba palm tree. After the expedition to Brazil, the plane was sold to a petroleum company and crashed off the coast of Indonesia shortly after takeoff during a flight in 1938. The pilot, not related to the Johnson family, swam to shore and survived but the plane was not recovered despite extensive searches including a 1997 Johnson family dive expedition. "Seeing the original plane for the first time, resting deep under the ocean, was magical," said Fisk Johnson. "We've all dreamt of the moment that would finalize Carnauba's incredible journey. Now that it's here, words simply can't capture this experience. It was as if Dad was with us. We could feel his spirit and his love of adventure. At that moment, the past and the present met: one adventure coming to an end, and the promise of the next just beginning." While plans for the wreckage have yet to be determined, Johnson has previously said that he hoped to be able to relocate part or all of it to the new building being constructed to honor his father. The building will display the replica Carnauba aircraft that Sam and his sons, Fisk and Curt Johnson, flew to Brazil in 1998 when retracing the famed 1935 adventure. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:17:21 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Carnauba airplane wreckage found Sounds to me like TIGHAR should offer congrats, as well as offering their expertise in historic aircraft recovery. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 CE LTM (who thinks all aircraft are historic, some more than others) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:17:48 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Pan Am Corporate knowledge From having provided regularly scheduled Clipper service to Asia during the 1930s, did Pan Am have any useful information (gleaned from its transpacific operations) to turn over to the U.S. Government at the start of World War II? Just curious. LTM (who always went by boat) Eric ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:22:59 From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: USS Lagarto Jim wrote: > Hey, the Navy just sent their recovery ship to Indonesia and found > the long lost sub. The Longato I think last month. It was the USS Lagarto (SS-371) and the wreck was found in May of 2005 by a local dive operator named Jamie MacLeod. The US Navy survey by USS Salvor (ARS-52) last month confirmed the identity of the lost submarine. By all accounts, it was well conducted operation and the Thai divers have been very respectful and cooperative. Here's a good source of info if anyone is interested... http://www.dbfnetwork.info/lagarto/ LTM, Russ ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:51:56 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? Tom, our speculation is interesting, futile or not but with the Forum kind of quiet I suppose it might generate some idle thoughts. I, of course, have no idea what actually happened but I could imagine what I might do in their "shoes" (Plug for your book). If the landing was successful, meaning the plane was still flyable I probably would want to try to secure it from the ocean and winds somehow. If searchers came upon me I could ask for fuel to fly the plane off Niku. By securing it I mean taxiing it to the safest place possible and tying it down. (I'm well aware you have actually been there and I have to rely on the video but I think it could be done) I'm sure there were no tie down ropes on board so vines or some innovative "rope" would have to be constructed. Clearly passage of time would be a factor. Initially I might expect someone to come looking on the very first day so I would be less likely to prepare for a long haul. By the second or third day I would probably start clearing usable stuff out of the plane and thinking more of survival than immediate rescue. If Betty's notebook is to be accepted the events DID take place during the morning and heat of noon and the early afternoon and they WERE in the plane. I could understand that on the 2nd as they had just arrived but days later I have trouble understanding what they were doing in the plane at that time. If we are dealing with the 5th of July -- three days after arriving -- they should have already emptied the plane and been in the survival mode but then I'm trying to think they were rational and practical of which there is little evidence. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:53:18 From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: USS Lagarto Yes, it is true. Our local Greensburg Tribune-Review interviewed the local widow of one of the men from around here that went down with the Lagarto! the article should be on the Tribune-Review www.triblive.com website! Best Wishes, --Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, # 2211 P.S.: I am still alive, despite a near-fatal discovery in May that I am a Type II Diabetic now. May 3rd was nearly my last night on earth, but I am now in the land of the living once again! ************************** Well, goodness! Glad you made it, Gene. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:31:34 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? For Alan Caldwell >If we are dealing with the 5th >of July -- three days after arriving -- they should have already >emptied the plane and been in the survival mode but then I'm trying >to think they were rational and practical of which there is little >evidence. Right, and of course it's all speculative. A couple of points, though: 1. The only way they could use the radio would be if they could power it by turning over an engine; ergo they'd HAVE to go back to the plane every now and then to try to send messages, if for no other reason. 2. I can't think of anything secure to which one would be able to tie a plane on the Niku reef flat, nor of anything one could secure it with -- other than, with luck, chunks of line from the Norwich City. 3. If, on landing, they dropped a wheel in a hole or crack, or blew a tire, they wouldn't be able to taxi anywhere no matter how much they might have wanted to. LTM (a speculative sort) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:47:05 From: Pete Ferris Subject: Salt and Batteries? Just Say "Charge It"? This has probably been asked, rehashed, etc; but forgive me, I'm new here! :-) And I don't want Ric to have to tip his hand since the radio facets play heavily into the new book, "But...". If: 1) I believe the Niku hypothesis... 2) And if what's I've read on this forum is true - and I believe the Electra had approximately 30 minutes of fuel when it landed / terminated flight at Niku. Then: (See if you can follow what I'm trying to say!). Has anyone "done the math" to see if the total transmit (and of course receive) time of believable/credible radio traffic IS IN FACT within the "window of possibility" within whatever battery life for the radios + 30 minutes engine rev time (they only had 30 minutes of fuel remaining with which to re-charge batteries, right?) + the final discharge time for the batteries (hey, if the plane's washing away, might as well send it away with dead batteries, eh?! ;-)). This makes me ask for a clarification from the forum illuminati: I've heard conflicting reports on this facet: Could the radios work (however briefly) >>WITHOUT<< the engines actually running if batteries ("batteries" are perhaps a presumption on my part). If not, then the question becomes much simpler (but perhaps not so much the answer!) : "Does the sum duration of "credible" radio transmissions exceed the approximate 30 minutes (of fuel remaining, required to run the engines?" LTM (who's a real Die-Hard in her own right!), --Pete ********************************************************* Way outside my pay grade. Radio Illuminati (good phrase) do your thing! Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:40:26 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? Good points, Tom but there was the WOF to tie it to wasn't there? I think we have dried this line up without any takers. They are all lurking with a bemused look waiting for us to say something sensible. Now, the White Bird landed somewhere near....................... Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:51:20 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Salt and Batteries? Just Say "Charge It"? Although I am jumping in on this I am clearly not qualified to answer much. The radio WOULD work off of battery but the question is how long? Our radio experts, I believe, can tell us what the radio drain would have been on the battery and what the battery capability was at full charge. That would answer part of your query. Next we need to know how much fuel is used to crank one engine and run it for the brief duration of a message or messages. The part we cannot know is how much fuel WAS remaining and so the answers to the previous questions get us nowhere. We have various estimates of their fuel usage and remaining fuel at 08:44 L Itasca time on July 2, 1937. Most of the guesses, I think, were between 138 and 150 gallons. Again we have a problem that cannot be solved. Although we know the distance between Howland and Niku we don't know where the plane was at 08:44 L Itasca time. There is excellent reasoning putting the plane considerably south of Howland thus shortening the time and distance to Niku. Where that position was is pure speculation although Randy's model appears most likely. Next you need to know what their fuel consumption was for that leg. I sure don't know but I suggest it was slightly below 38 GPH. So, yes, we can do the math but we have to speculate on some of the input data thus rendering it not all that useful. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:19:05 From: Ree Riddle Subject: Re: Salt and Batteries? Just Say "Charge It"? You also need to consider that Earhart might not have run an engine up, talked for a bit and then shut down. If it was me, I would have run the battery down as far as was safe, then run the engine to recharge the battery, and continued that cycle until fuel and battery were both gone. Starting the engine and running it for a few minutes likely was less efficient than running it, say, half an hour to recharge the battery. What we really need to know are the charge/discharge times on the battery, and how fuel efficient an Electra engine was at the power setting needed to recharge the battery. There is also the question of what Earhart knew about all of this...if she thought that you had to run the engine to run the radio, then it's a simple matter of how much gas she had and how much battery power was available to run the radio from a full charge. Simple. ;) Reed ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:52:22 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? Are there any vines on Niku? Maybe beach morning glory? Dan > I'm sure there were no tie down ropes on board so vines or some > innovative "rope" would have to be constructed. Clearly passage of > time would be a factor. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:52:52 From: Pete Ferris Subject: Re: Salt and batteries I probably should have clarified a little: Was there more than 30 minutes worth of credible POST-LOSS (MIA) radio transmissions. Obviously "PRE-LOSS" messages wouldn't count against post-loss radio / fuel useage calculations (if that's clear). All comments welcome. LTM (Who is never at a LOSS!), --Pete TIGHAR # "Pending" ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:54:11 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Pan Am corporate knowledge For Eric Beheim, Simply put yes, PAA Clipper service to Asia and other World areas provided the U.S. Government with useful information. But they never had to "turn it over to the U.S. Government at the start of world War ll". If you are truly curious, I suggest you research Pan American World Airlines. To pique your curiosity Eric. How did Pan American World airlines become the worlds largest airline during an economic depression? Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:07:44 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: charged up the forum - are we still looking or writing books To: Ric I am glad that my last post charged up the forum. I was pleased with the comments from the "insiders" that have been to the island and are in the "know" of what is in the works for future events. You see that is why I suggested many months/years ago that you guys put together a "top ten" projects that TIGHAR is pursuing and keep it updated from time to time. If the response to my posting is true i.e. there are plans to return to the island and look at the village and the 7 site then it seems to me that there should be an ongoing project to solicit funds to proceed with this plan. Absent of any known specific solicitation effort on behalf of TIGHAR with regard to this subject it seems to me that the response is somewhat a "rubber stamp". e.g. if anyone asks, we are always ready to go back but it cost money. Again, I suggest that a "top ten" project list be put together along with an estimated cost to accomplish each and the membership could select what projects they wish to support and contribute funds to that project's end. Corporate support would also have a specific project target as opposed to a general contribution to an organization that looks for lost aircraft. The books, speeches/ presentations, etc. could go toward the general support of the organization e.g. your salary, TIGHAR Tracks, etc. A monthly bar chart of what is required vs what has been received, would in my opinion, drive the fund rising efforts. Just some thoughts to ponder. Ted Campbell ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:24:34 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Pan Am corporate knowledge For Pat, Thank you for the corrected spelling, appreciate the help. You must have guessed my foreign language major was American English. Respectfully, Tom Strang # 2559 **************************** I can't help it. I was born with a very strong grammar and spelling gene. OTOH, my math gene is almost non-existent... Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:30:06 From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: PAA knowledge For Eric Boheim---Pan Am was able to turn over to the USNavy--an excellent operations plan/manual on how to run an overseas/overwater/ long distance passenger service... The Pan Am pilots and planes came under Navy control/Supervision and ran a marvelous efficient service--all over the Pacific--down to Australia/NZ...They trained Navy pilots to supplement their small numbers and all performed well... The political side--is open to question...Altho Pan Am went to many destinations and surveyed many places regarding bases...They always went into approved locations and didn't venture into other countrys territories without approvals...They didn't survey any Japanese locations and probably had no solid info... They may have turned over a lot of stories that they picked up along the way about these other places---but nothing the Navy could use...... The NATS- Naval Air Transport Service-contract was entered into in June 1942--and Pan Am conducted survey flights all over the Pacific using Navy PBMs and then continued to carry passengers/cargo until 1945.. John Krupnicks book-- Pan Ams Pacific Pioneers- The Rest of the Story--is a treasure trove of PAA info. LTM--who is still lurking out here with me--awaiting THE BOOK... Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:40:32 From: Pete Ferris Subject: Re: Salt and batteries? Thanks to all that have responded. Reed Riddle Wrote (say that 5 times fast ;-)): : You also need to consider that Earhart might not have run an : engine up, talked for a bit and then shut down. If it was : me, I would have run the battery down as far as was safe, : then run the engine to recharge the battery, and continued : that cycle until fuel and battery were both gone. Starting : the engine and running it for a few minutes likely was less : efficient than running it, say, half an hour to recharge the battery. Exactly! I never considered the former, only the later. I envision a period of use, a period of idling to recharge batteries, use radio until I had used their useful charge, then repeat until fuel AND battery were exhausted. : What we really need to know are the charge/discharge times on : the battery, and how fuel efficient an Electra engine was at : the power setting needed to recharge the battery. There is Well, my point was (I think) was to determine how much 'post loss' talk time there was. Not looking for extreme precision here, just a SWAG. Then determine if that jived with the fuel/battery cycling scenario. I guess tide enters the picture (e.g.; the plane potentially could have washed away BEFORE batteries and/or fuel were exhausted). "Tide waits for no man!" and all that! ;-) OTOH, just as a perhaps extreme hypothetical 'fer instance' of what I'm getting at: if there were guesstimated 30 minutes of fuel remaining, factored by proper charge/discharge/re-charge, etc; etc; that allowed for say 5 hours of radio air-time, yet there were over 100 hours of post loss radio messages. Then I might say "Niku, we have a problem!". BTW, for the sake of argument, I'd presume a 50-50 duty cycle (transmit/receive ratio). I don't know if her WE gear was tolerant of a higher cycle. Stay cool all, The Weather Channel is predicting 101 degrees (plus a heat index beyond that) in the Tulsa area for the weekend. LTM (Who always knew when it was her turn to talk!), --Pete P.S.: To Pat: I detect you are the resident Queen of Strunk & White :-) A question for ya: Is "batterys" plural of the same type, e.g.; two or more Duracell 9VDC's? And is "batteries" for multiple TYPES of them; i.e.; "Onboard the Electra there were multiple batteries - DieHard's, Duracells, Neverreadys, and so on...". In other words, is this a "fish", "fishes" thing, or other? Any hints, tips are appreciated... I'm blessed with an decent vocabulary but failed grammar on every occasion! ;-) My spell-checker seems to pass either and now that I've fretted about it, neither looks correct anymore! ************************************** Man with watch knows what time it is; man with two watches never sure. The Oxford English Dictionary says "batteries" -- always and ever. The original word is French, batterie. I wonder how a word that meant to pound on, and therefore the guns that pounded upon, came to be used for a device that stores electricity? OED mutters something about batteries hooked together like artillery firing together, all discharging... I dunno. Your spellchecker should be flagging batterys as a non-existent word. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:41:03 From: Tom King Subject: Re: charged up the forum - are we still looking or writing books For Ted Campbell Actually, Ted, we've put together a list of about the top 14 projects, with crude budget figures attached. Still being massaged, but should we have the opportunity, we are prepared to put together a variety of kinds of proposals. LTM (who believes in being prepared) ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:41:27 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Where sat Fred? For Dan Postellan >Are there any vines on Niku? Yes, but nothing terribly tough or rope-like, and the other problem with tying something down on the reef is a distinct lack of stuff to tie it to, without running the line some hundreds of meters in to shore to a tree. That'd take a lot of vines. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:16:21 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Salt and batteries? I know this one. Your basic 6 volt car battery has 3 cells, each producing 2 volts. There are multiple 'Cells" in a battery, like there are multiple guns in an artillery battery, or multiple cages in a farm that produces battery chickens. A 12 volt transistor radio battery has multiple cells (take one apart and find out). You AAA AAAA C or D "cell" is technically not a battery, but becomes part of one in you put a few cells in a flashlight, which is then "battery powered". Remember that the company is call "Duracell", not "Durabattery" Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 > The original word is French, batterie. I wonder how a word that > meant to pound on, and therefore the guns that pounded upon, came > to be used for a device that stores electricity? ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:05:15 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Re: Pan Am My thanks to Tom Strang and Jim Tierney for helping to answer my question as to whether or not Pan Am had any useful information that it made available to the U.S. Government at the start of World War II. Although Pan Am Clipper operations in Asia during the 1930s were general knowledge, there was bound to be some information that they had acquired that they would not have been as likely to share with their commercial rivals, both foreign and domestic. LTM (who had no commercial rivals) Eric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:13:20 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Question for Ric Some months ago, there was a discussion on this forum as to whether or not AE (had she been rescued) would have been able to get somebody to buy her another "flying laboratory" so she could repair the damage that had been done to her (carefully cultivated) "professional celebrity" image as one of the world's top woman pilots. I'm curious to know if Ric's book will speculate on how history would have regarded a rescued AE. LTM (whose place in history is assured) Eric *********************************************** No, the book does not deal with that subject at all. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:15:30 From: George R. Werth Subject: Howland Island Twas perusing a 'search' of Howland Island and found that HOWLAND ISLAND was once known as WORTH ISLAND (after whaling Captain George B. Worth, of the Nantucket whale ship Oeno, who discovered it about 1822). Captain George must have belonged to a little known branch of the "WERTH Family Tree" that insisted, wrongly, in spelling their Surname, 'WORTH,' instead of the West Prussian spelling, 'WERTH.' Howsoever, Amelia and Fred were hard pressed to find that tiny (about 400 acres) speck of Bat Guano covered flat coral island. George R. Werth TIGHAR Member #2630 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:57:57 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Howland island Oeno Island is part of the Pitcairn Island territory. There has to be a link here, but I don't know it. Is Oeno a Polynesian word? > From George R. Werth Twas perusing a 'search' of Howland Island and > found that HOWLAND ISLAND was once known as WORTH ISLAND (after > whaling Captain George B. Worth, of the Nantucket whale ship Oeno, > who discovered it about 1822). ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:24:44 From: George R. Werth Subject: Re: Howland island For Dan Postellon Yes, there is a connection -- Oeno Island was named after the whaling ship, OENO; it was sighted by the ship's crew on 26 JAN 1824. --http://library.puc.edu/Pitcarin/pitcarin/oeno.shtml George TIGHAR Member #2630 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:41:39 From: George Werth Subject: Re: Oeno Island For Dan Postellon You asked, "Is Oeno a Polynesian word?" In Greek Mythology Oeno, daughter of Anius, was the goddess of wine and had the ability to change anything into wine. > http:www.answers.com/topic/oeno< George R. Werth TIGHAR Member #2630 LTM -- who loved her glass of wine before going to bed! ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:09:30 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Oeno Island I guess that this wasn't a crew of Teetotalers then. I should have known this was Greek, but all those vowels confused me. It is also hard to think of those Seventh Day Adventist Pitcairn Islanders vacationing on an island named after a Greek goddess, and a goddess of wine to boot! Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 CE ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:15:40 From: Monty Fowler Subject: Wow what a cool movie! Got my WWII Relics of Jaluit movie today and all I can say is, Wow ... makes me want to polish up the custom scuba mask and go diving! But I have to ask, how do you pronounce Jaluit? LTM, who sucks at pronunciation, Monty Fowler, No. 2189CE **************************************** We are sending these out pretty steadily now, sorry for the delay, having office help troubles. Jal - oo - it. Stress on the first syllable. Pat ======================================================================== ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:50:44 From: Pete Ferris Subject: AE Ham Discussion Forum & Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand"? I've been trying to read some back issues of TIGHAR Tracks, etc; before posting tons of ridiculous questions (you believe me, don't you?!). A back issue (long since misplaced) had a little blurb in it (which I DID save) saying that there was a daily rendezvous of TIGHAR members / Earhart enthusiasts on 14.290 (20M) (presumably) on USB. I don't have any ham equipment at the moment (but I do have a license! ;-)). For several days I tuned a 'virtual receiver' to the freq at 1600 EDT (2000 UTC, 1500 Central) and so far have heard nothing. Not sure if the virtual receiver I'm using (Salt Lake City) is "deaf" or if the group has fizzled out. Anyone know anything further about it? =-=-=-=-= Next item: Any navigator / survival / ex or active Scouts / people in the audience ever heard this one? A friend taught me this eons ago, and it seems to be "fairly" accurate. To determine an approximate sunset time (presuming the sun is approaching sunset), extend you arm/hand full length, true with the horizon. Now, flip you wrist so that your fingers are perpindicular to your arm, forming a "L" (or is that a "7"?). Now count/guesstimate how many fingers from horizon to bottom of sun. "Borrow" fingers from the other hand (without moving the first hand, dooohhh!) if necessary. Each fingers width (at arm's length) represents about 10 minutes of clock time. Just for conveinence, I don't count/measure thumbs. Anyone else ever heard this? Just a rough rule of thumb (no pun I intended, ahem!). Is there a more precise way to calculate this; e.g.: each half inch of a ruler at arms length represents 10 minutes, etc.? Dumb question #938: Is this 10 "minutes" the same as "minutes" (degrees, hours, minutes, seconds) of arc? Thanks & 73! --Pete (N5KBD if anyone cares) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:24:43 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: AE Ham Discussion Forum & Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand"? For every 24 hour day, the Earth rotates 360 degrees; this equates to 15 degrees for each hour, or 1 degree every four minutes, or 15 arc minutes in each minute. The numbers here are not exact, since the Earth completes one rotation in a bit less than 24 hours. Also, a minute of arc is a measurement of an angle, while a minute of time is a measure of, well, time. In astronomy, we do use a "time angle" for some of our measurements. As a rough approximation, your closed fist, held at arms length, is roughly ten degrees across; similar measurements can be made using your hand, see http://www.austinastro.org/angles.html. So, if you want to calculate an approximate sunset time, you can measure the distance between the Sun and the point where it will go behind the horizon (which changes not a lot between each day but a lot over the course of the year). Reed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reed L. Riddle Thirty Meter Telescope Corporation Site Testing Program 1200 E. California Blvd., Mail Code 102-8 Pasadena, CA 91125 Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/ ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:25:14 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: AE Ham Discussion Forum & Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand"? That might work out approximately. Just using my measurements, my finger is .7 inches wide and it is 22 inches from my eye to my fingers held at right angles to my arm. arc sin(.7/22) =1.8 degrees. The earth turns 1.8 degrees in 7.3 minutes so if the sun were setting straight west then it would take 7.3 minutes to move one finger. When the sun is not setting directly west then it will take longer. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:01:55 From: Peter Ferris Subject: Re: AE Ham Discussion Forum & Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand"? Reed, et al; Thanks for the Most Excellent reference to the link at http://www.austinastro.org/angles.html -- that will be my bedtime reading tonight! Skimmed it moments ago, it looks exactly like the reference I was looking for. I will digest it as well as your response. At first blush it appears as if you did answer the question (or at least touched on) if "minutes of arc" equaled "minutes of time". But to be honest, this morning I'm fairly busy, so I'll meditate on your response tonight when I can absorb that, as well as the link content. Looks like it's exactly the, errr, ummm, "rules of thumb" I was looking for, if one had to make such SWAG's "by hand" (pun intended, sorry! ;-)). Advance thanks for the enjoyable read this evening! ;-) Still no answer on the ham radio group. Hearing nothing, I'll presume that group is defunct. Thanks for the help! --Pete ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:02:28 From: Pete Ferris Subject: Re: AE Ham Discussion Forum & Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand"? detail Gary, Thank-you, sir. I'll look at your and Reed Riddle's answers in greater detail this evening. Based on what Reed said, if my "skim" reading is correct - a minute of arc is not the same as a minute of (clock) time. I did a quick check of the link he referenced == http://www.austinastro.org/angles.html == and it appears to be dead on with the type of info I was looking for. I was also curious if anyone else had ever heard of that sort of "sunset time finger calculator" before. Evidently there is at least a good approximation that can be done. And that's "good enough" if you're without GPS, aren't familiar with the local sunset time where you are, etc. I've amazed my kids more than once by telling them (pretty darn accurately) after holding my hand out toward the sun - "You better hurry (playing whatever)... You only have XX minutes of daylight left!" They used to THINK the old man was crazy... ;-) Thanks & Cheers, --Pete ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:04:15 From: Pete Ferris Subject: Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand"? Initially this thread may not seem to have much to do with AE/FN. But I think what precipitated my thinking on this old "rule of thumb" was -- "What tools did Mr. Noonan have had at his disposal?". Now this is presuming he survived his landing and that he was cognizant of his surroundings... I firmly believe the first part, but not so sure about the 2nd part...). I've read of an empty sextant (or was it an octant?) box being found, so far no sextant. In any event, I'll presume FN had one or two good working arms / hands / fingers and probably knew about the 'finger sunset calculator' (or whatever we want to call it). In emergency situations, I believe people tend to gather what's closest to their profession or in their immediate frame of reference - what they make a living with - if remotely applicable to survival. Most applicable if you have tangible tools in your trade and not "services". For instance, if a carpenter were to crash on a Pacific atoll somewhere, might he not grab his toolbox off the plane thinking "I need my hammer & drill, etc; so I can build shelter...". A chef might tend to grab the food supplies, pots & pans and so on. If these "tools of the trade" are not available, then they resort to more generic survival needs. I could be wrong on this. Just a belief of mine. And, gosh, I don't know what a lawyer would grab, except maybe his "briefs"! (My apologies to the JD's in the audience). If our heroes were "clear headed" AND able to salvage anything from the plane, I would imagine FN would have gathered anything relevant to his navigational expertise - figuring out where he was, etc; so any equipment (sextant, etc.), charts, reference tables, book or two, etc; might have been snagged. At least anything he could carry in one exit of the plane (if it were in danger of washing away, sinking, etc.)! I think if someone found a copy of a 1937 (or thereabouts) copy of Bowditch "American Practical Navigator" or similar, on Niku, that would probably really clinch it for me. I s'pose if such an artifact were found some could argue that the Coasties could have left it behind or used it for target practice. If AE was the only clear thinking one, I don't know if she would have (had time or inclination to have) grabbed any of Fred's "stuff" or not, or focused more on general survival gear (any food, misc supplies, etc.). Seems to me there was something in the Betty log/diary that gave me the impression Fred may have been non compos mentis. I guess we'll never positively know if FN *knew* where he was (regardless of where he landed / crashed & sank, etc.)... Just idle speculation / pondering. Sorry I didn't present a more formal hypothesis and subject it to months of scientific debate as perhaps some may prefer. However when dealing with people sometimes "those d*mn human factors" keep entering the picture! Besides, the forum seemed a little idle and I thought it could spare me the bandwidth, even if I lowered the "signal to noise" ratio a little! ;-) I've learned something and had my mind expanded a bit. Hope I can help someone else out at some point! Regards to all! LTM (Who always knows where she is!) --Pete ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:38:03 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: AE Ham Discussion Forum & Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand?" Pete, this is a fascinating thread. I have been a little out of touch lately and "walked" in on this discussion apparently in the middle. I guess I'm missing something. Of what significance is this method of calculating sunset? why not just look at your watch when it sets? How would knowing the time of sunset help Noonan sitting on Niku? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:59:50 From: Pat Thrasher Subject: Finding Amelia The new website is now up and running: http://www.findingamelia.com Take a look. Pat Thrasher ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:22:16 From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Re: Finding Amelia Looking good! A few typos but still a great site. We need to inform Oprah, et al., in some way. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:46:27 From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: Finding Amelia Pat - when I click on the website, I get a message that "the specified server cannot be found". I'm now on an iMac too - ?? PMB. ******************************** That's weird. I just tested it again using the link that came back with your email and it was fine. Here it is again, just in case: http://www.findingamelia.com Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:47:57 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: Finding Amelia Pat and Ric: What a great website. And I want to compliment Ric on the very nice photo of himself, and also the perfect cover photo... A fine job....... You're book is one fascinating read, Ric. I can't wait... Is there any possibility of some of us getting a copy before its in the bookstores? To my way of thinking, patience is a bunch of sick folks in hospitals...... Thanx Jackie ******************************* I don't think we're going to get anything except a few review copies before the "official" release date, but I can try to find out. Review copies go to reviewers and press people to start drumming up publicity. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:01:22 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Finding Amelia This is really nice. A major milestone, the publishing of this book, is straight ahead! (Tell 'em to hurry it up a little!) LTM, who now knows what certain members of her family are getting this Christmas, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ************************* Right now they are still telling us September 19. If you want 'em to hurry it up, call and pre-order a copy or eight. Usually you can order from NIP on line but that section of their website is (inconveniently) down right now. The number is 800 233 8764. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:05:00 From: Craig Fuller Subject: Re: Finding Amelia I tried it earlier today and got the "The page cannot be displayed" error. Tried just now using both hyper links in the two e-mails and got the same error. Tried cutting and pasting the text of the hyper link got the same error. Tried typing in www.findingamelia.com and the auto search popped up and said it could not find the site. Craig Fuller AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research www.AviationArchaeology.com aair@aviationarchaeology.com Falcon Field Station Box 22049 Mesa, AZ 85277-2049 480-218-8198 ************************************ The DNS (Domain Name Server) change must be propagating in succession and not reaching everyone's server at the same time; it was just changed yesterday. Try again tomorrow. If it still doesn't work, let me know. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:07:33 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Finding Amelia Still no joy. I've tried three or four times . . . :-( LTM, who seeks new challenges Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************** Until the DNS change finishes propagating, try this: 208.55.3.147 --- just paste that number string into your browser address window. It's the actual physical "address" of the site. The DNS change apparently does take a while to finish going 'round the world -- or to Maryland. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:16:48 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Finding Amelia I've had roughly the same experience as Craig. I'm sure it's a great site, but it doesn't want to reveal itself to some of us. Must be a conspiracy. Incidentally, I passed out many flyers for "Finding" a couple of nights ago at the Virginia Air and Space Center while blathering about The Quest and signing copies of "Shoes." Over 250 people in attendance, very polite despite lots of embarrassing technical problems. AE's fascination seems to persist. ******************************** We now have a full-color letter-half brochure for the book. They will be stuffed with the new TIGHAR Tracks, but there are enough to send some to those who would like to have them for distribution. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:28:41 From: David Jeane Subject: Re: Finding Amelia I am unable to download it either. I tried both Microsoft Explorer and Opera browsers. David R. Jeane ************************************* It will probably be tomorrow before everything settles into its proper place. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:05:30 From: George Werth Subject: Re: Finding Amelia The new website comes up fine on CompuServe. > http://www.findingamelia.com/< Cheers George R. Werth TIGHAR Member #2630 LTM who says, HOOAH! ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:06:37 From: Rick Boardman Subject: Re: AE Ham Discussion Forum & Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand"? I'm surprised others didn't know this. I was taught this when I learnt orienteering as a teenager. I still get raised eyebrows on the drop zone when my response to "can we get one more lift in before the sun goes?", is to hold my hand up to the setting sun! To keep this on topic, I presume what you're really after is "would FN or AE have known and applied this rule of thumb if they had to, and would it have helped?" Rick Boardman ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:14:10 From: Pete Ferris Subject: Re: AE Ham Discussion Forum & Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand?" : Pete, this is a fascinating thread. I have been a little out : of touch lately and "walked" in on this discussion apparently : in the middle. No problem. Glad you enjoyed it. Things seemed a little quiet lately, so I thought I'd ask a few questions. As always the answers were forthcoming by gurus that know of what they speak! Other than this note, perhaps the thread is exhausted (or not, time will tell!). : I guess I'm missing something. Of what significance is this : method of calculating sunset? why not just look at your watch : when it sets? It can be a fairly accurate method (especially when considering the 'tools' required! ;-)). I've used it and with practice you can get pretty accurate. Often within 5 minutes (esp. if you're in the same area all the time while you're refining the technique). As Dr. Riddle said, this "changes not a lot between each day but a lot over the course of the year" - variables are slight but there nevertheless and cumulate over time. Another variable may need to be tweaked is your finger size! For me, about 35 miles SE of Tulsa, OK, I find about "10 minutes per finger" gets me pretty close. Let's say "close enough". Sure, I might be just a few minutes off or something, but it still generally answers the question at hand. The page Dr. Riddle referenced has some excellent info on using fist size, moon size, etc; to measure angles. Let me know if you missed his reference (hyperlink) and I'll send it to you. I don't have it at my fingertips (no pun intended, honest folks!), but I did save it. It's a great read for more on the subject. Perhaps you misunderstood something we wrote. This method does NOT determine clock time of sunset or take the place of a time reference (watch, clock, chronometer, etc.) at all. Rather, it is a rough rule to help you answer the question "How long (how many minutes) until sunset?" Handy if you don't have a watch *AND* HAPPEN TO KNOW LOCAL SUNSET TIME (as perhaps mentioned on the local news, Farmer's Almanac, etc.) perhaps, and want to know whether you have enough time to finish a task. Generally speaking, I usually have a watch or cell phone or something nearby to tell me the time, but if I missed the news, lost my almanac or for whatever reason don't know local sunset time (I wonder how many "average" people DO know their local sunset time on a daily basis?). Some real as well as hypothetical examples (let's presume I don't have a watch handy or even if I do, but I don't know local sunset time today): "Do I have 30 minutes to mow the back yard or am I going to get caught by the dark?" "Do I have enough time to finish working on this rain catcher or do I need to head back to camp?" "Do I have enough time to walk over to the other side of the reef to get ___ and come back?" . Put another way: Perhaps the method is useful if you don't have a watch (perhaps your Rolex got destroyed due to an abrupt landing of an aircraft or whatever) and don't know when local sunset is, but you want / need to know when the sun sets. Maybe you're living someplace that's "not-so-nice" after dark - crabs or rats or other critters like to come out and play at night and you want to have everything secured before "Oh-Dark-Thirty". So maybe its in the realm of possibilities that there could be one or two uses for this "rule of thumb" in 'the wild' as well as one's own backyard. True, any caveman can look and see the sun approaching the horizon at the end of the day and say "Uuhhh, it's gonna get dark soon!". But if you need a better SWAG as to "How many minutes until dark?", I like the finger method. Maybe we'll likely never know if FN/AE ever used this method or even knew of it. I'd bet FN was acquainted with it though. I might suspect such barebones / "guerilla skills" are taught in Navigation 101. : How would knowing the time of sunset help Noonan sitting on Niku? Sorry, I really don't have any idea how knowing the time of sunset would / could help Fred sitting on Niku. Perhaps someone more acquainted with celestial navigation could answer that question. *I could only speculate* that perhaps if he knew precise sunrise / sunset time (did he have an accurate time reference with him? Unknown to me!), maybe that might be useful info. Just speculation. There are others here more qualified than I to answer your question. Sorry, Alan! At the risk of continuing this thread another day or two... To the Celestial Choir I'd ask: Wouldn't FN need to know BOTH sunrise AND sunset to determine (approximate) his location? Perhaps he might be able to reference some tables (if they survived the landing) to give him an idea of where he was. I have no clue what his onboard library consisted of, or what, if anything was rescued upon "landing" (no matter how hard/soft it may've been, wherever it may've been). Hmmm... Being navigationally challenged, I'll have to go consult my ol' 1937 edition of "American Practical Navigator" and see what sort of info that was available 'back in the day' that might help. I believe they had a tide table for Gardner Island. But I digress... Dunno what he could have done even if he knew precisely where he was though. It might tell him which way to paddle if he wanted to try to head to a more inhabited area, but I'm betting he already had a clue on that! :-) I suspect FN was a MUCH brighter boy than some would have us believe. Thanks for writing! LTM (Who Always Knows How Many Minutes I Had Left To Finish A Chore!), --Pete ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:01:06 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Re: Finding Amelia FYI: I had no trouble getting to the site. WOW! It makes me glad that I had the foresight to join the Literary Guild, which entitles me to a first edition copy. (The first printing might be sold out before I could get to a book store!) LTM (who only joined the Book-of-the-Month Club) Eric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:57:50 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: AE Ham Discussion Forum & Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand?" > Wouldn't FN need to know BOTH sunrise AND sunset to determine > (approximate) his location? Actually, he would not need to know either. To determine your latitude, you can measure the altitude of any star on your meridian (the line that goes North to South in the sky). For longitude, you need a somewhat accurate clock reference (which is why Noonan waited a day for a time hack), and the celestial coordinates of an object. You can again measure when it crosses the meridian, and determine your longitude from that. Easy measurements...using a protractor, a piece of string and a rock, and an accurate watch I was able to get within about ten miles of my position for a college exercise (taking many measurements and averaging of course). I would expect Noonan to have nailed down their position, to within a few miles, on the first night they were stranded, if his instruments, books and charts all survived. If his instruments didn't, he should have been able to get within 50 miles using a protractor and a (somewhat accurate) watch; he would have remembered the coordinates of his favorite objects. If Noonan was down, the Earhart would have had to look at his charts and figure out their position. Reed ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:01:01 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Finding Amelia Pat, SAFARI on OS X works great. Some of the folks might have old computers with not enough ram or use slow modems. Jimbo ******************************************* Anyone still having trouble? www.findingamelia.com Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:03:19 From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Finding Amelia > www.findingamelia.com > Didn't work yesterday, works fine today, as expected. I'm using Opera 9, if you're wondering about browswer compatibility. - Bill #2229 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:03:49 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Finding Amelia FYI, I have no trouble with the website. None. Not even once. LTM, who, like me, had a Dell Latitude D810 with Windows XP Professional, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:49:50 From: Malcolm Andrews Subject: Re: Finding Amelia It's now reached Australia. No appearance yesterday - in glorious technicolour today. Can't wait to read the final product. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:51:34 From: Monty Fowler Subject: Re: Finding Amelia Ric ... and Oprah??? In the same small, confined area? Are we completely insane? He'd eat her alive. LTM, Monty Fowler, No. 2189CE ***************************** No, no, Monty! You don't get it. An appearance on Oprah with your book featured in her Book Club is a *guarantee* of a best seller. As in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of copies. This is a Good Thing and Ric would be Very Nice to her if it happened. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:52:12 From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: AE Ham Discussion Forum & Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand"? I too I'm surprised that the rule of thumb (or fingers, as is the case) is unknown to so many to the point it takes a website to explain. I was taught how to quickly estimate the number of degrees left or right of something when serving in the army as a National Service man. Just as reliable as using the binoculars we were issued with and less cumbersome. That was half a century ago! And even then it was old stuff to veterans... We were told that this was how Columbus discovered America. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:52:49 From: Monty Fowler Subject: Works for me Good job on the Finding Amelia website, Pat. Works in (NO laughing allowed) Netscape 4.8 and Internet Explorer 6.0. Note to self - Must send more money to the Literary Guild for promotional activities; what's another month of eating ramen noodles if it helps the cause LTM, Monty Fowler, No. 2189CE ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:53:50 From: Don Neumann Subject: Amelia, where are you? The website 'addy' works fine for me & my grossly underpowered WebTV...! What is somewhat confusing (to me) is the import of this current...'sun-up/sundown'... thread...? Should AE/FN have actually landed (wheels-down) 'safely' on the Niku reef-flat ...it would seem (to me anyway) a 'no-brainer' that they also had available all the 'tools' of FN's 'trade' , which he had been using throughout the flight, ...including all his charts & instruments, ...plus his ever-present chronometers which he maintained so carefully & accurately... Which has always raised the (to me) obvious question, ...IF as Reed Riddle suggests, ...that FN WAS sufficiently, mentally & physically able to ascertain the location of the flight's termination, ...using his available instruments & charts... why on earth didn't at least ONE of the (so-called) post-flight transmissions contain some 'unambiguous' reference to the Electra's terminal location...? Such as, ...'We've landed safely on a reef-flat of an island (Near a wrecked ship...?) somewhere in the Phoenix Island Chain, SE of Howland/Baker Islands'...? Have a great day...! Don neumann ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:55:00 From: Pete Ferris Subject: Re: AE Ham Discussion Forum & Sunset Calculation By (umm) "Hand"? Thanks for the reply and relaying the experience. : From Rick Boardman : : I'm surprised others didn't know this. I was taught this : when I learnt orienteering as a teenager. I still get : raised eyebrows on the drop zone when my response to "can we : get one more lift in before the sun goes?", is to hold my : hand up to the setting sun! Ha! Yeah, It's been intersting to stand around with a group of 4 or 5 adults working on a project outdoors and hear speculation about how much daylight remains. Guesses would vary wildly ("Oh I'd say about 2 hours...","No, I think 15 minutes..", etc.). Only to have me say something like (I'd say 30 minutes give or take 5...) and be right. : To keep this on topic, I presume what you're really after is : "would FN or AE have known and applied this rule of thumb if : they had to, and would it have helped?" Basically, Yes, in a nutshell. But I don't think I'd ask "...and would it have helped?". I think it's obvious (to me) it would have been at least handy to know. I won't go so far as to say their lives depended on it. Maybe put another way: "Was this technique of sun time (angle) calculation taught / or well-known (at least to someone trained as a pro navigator back in FN's day)?" If anyone knows the answer to that, I'd love to hear it. Other than that, I guess we've beat this thread to death! :-) Cheers, --Pete ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:55:39 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Ric and Oprah Pat said: "An appearance on Oprah with your book featured in her Book Club is a *guarantee* of a best seller. As in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of copies. This is a Good Thing and Ric would be Very Nice to her if it happened." Even a techo-challenged, no-neck, bulbous-lipped, overall-wearing, bare-footed, possum-eatin', turnip-chewing rube like me knows the value of being on Oprah. That is a BIG deal! When is he scheduled for his debut? I may break my recently enacted retirement rule on NOT watching daytime TV just to catch the show. Is he going to wear his pith helmet, bush shirt, and shorts, a la Jim Fowler of "Wild Kingdom" or Joan Embry of the San Diego Zoo, or is he going to wear a suit? I've know you guys since Day One and have NEVER seen Ric in a suit!! This is a BIG deal!!! LTM, who is not easily impressed Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ***************************** Relax. This is pie in the sky, not a reality. We are *hoping* to get some good ink and good air, but nothing is certain. The Dream includes The New York Review of Books, Oprah, the morning news shows, and (of course) The Daily Show. We'll see.... Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:56:35 From: Paige Miller Subject: Amelia, where are you? Don Neumann asks: > Which has always raised the (to me) obvious question, ...IF as Reed > Riddle suggests, ...that FN WAS sufficiently, mentally & physically > able > to ascertain the location of the flight's termination, ...using his > available instruments & charts... why on earth didn't at least ONE of > the (so-called) post-flight transmissions contain some 'unambiguous' > reference to the Electra's terminal location...? Such as, ...'We've > landed safely on a reef-flat of an island (Near a wrecked ship...?) > somewhere in the Phoenix Island Chain, SE of Howland/Baker Islands'... I have a partial answer, Don. Remember that not all of the so-called messages were complete, and not all were intelligible. Note: the so-called 281 message was not heard in its entirety; the receptions by Itasca and by Betty faded in and out; receptions by Itasca and on Nauru the very night of AE's disappearance were identified as her voice, but not intelligible. It is entirely possible that AE did indeed give information like you suggest, and they were missed or unintelligible. Paige Miller #2565 LTM (who was often unintelligible) ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:25:30 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Finding Amelia Bill Leary wrote, > if you're wondering about browswer compatibility The Findingamelia site also looks fine with Firefox on FreeBSD 6.0, William Webster-Garman