Date:         Thu, 3 May 2007 13:51:52
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      A Helpful museum

I don't know if this will be helpful or not, but some printed
material from the era in question is likely available.

My employer does HVAC service work for the Detroit Historical
Society, including the Dossin Great Lakes museum on Belle Isle, where
I have worked several times in the last few months. To access one of
the mechanical equipment rooms, I have to go through a storage room.
In that storage room are stacks of Naval Institute Proceedings going
back to the early 1930's that I just happened to notice as I went
by.  I have established a good rapport with the curator and I'm
reasonably certain that I could arrange for TIGHAR to borrow the
issue that might have details of the Navy's AE search.  Perhaps we
already have that data, I don't know.

I also saw some old books from the teens and twenties dealing with
shipping losses.  Don't know if they cover worldwide ( and would then
have some Norwich City data) or just Great Lakes.

Ric, if you think that any of that might be worthwhile, I can ask the
curator myself, or put you in touch.

LTM, who might've made a decent docent,

Dave Porter, 2288
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 May 2007 14:15:00
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: A helpful museum

Dave Porter says,

> In that storage room are stacks of Naval Institute Proceedings
> going back to the early 1930's that I just happened to notice as I
> went by.  I have established a good rapport with the curator and
> I'm reasonably certain that I could arrange for TIGHAR to borrow
> the issue that might have details of the Navy's AE search.  Perhaps
> we already have that data, I don't know.

I don't know whether Proceedings carried anything about the Earhart
search or not, but it's a good thought.  Maybe you could find out
whether there's anything there of interest. The Naval Institute is,
of course, our publisher for Finding Amelia and it seems like they
should have their own archive of back issues.

Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 May 2007 20:29:21
From:         Tom Doran
Subject:      Howland Island

After reading the forum posts for several years, I finally got around to
joining a couple of weeks ago. Hopefully, I've guessed correctly at the
method of posting to the forum.

By and large, I'm pretty impressed with TIGHAR's efforts on Amelia and
other searches. Recently, the forum seems to have an excess of posts
simply trying to be argumentative or taking potshots at the group or its
members. Maybe that will end soon.

The discussions over the years on Howland island prompted me to search
out all I could find on the Internet about the place. It seems both
tiny, isolated and a bit grim. Trying to find this little flat rock in
the middle of nowhere seems incredibly optimistic on the part of AE and
Noonan. Given the tools they had it may have been foolishly optimistic.

I wonder why it didn't occur to the skipper of the Itasca to send up
some flares when they heard, "I can't see you." He might also have
dumped a couple of quarts of oil in the engine to send up some smoke.

The only way to silence the critics of TIGHAR's theory will be to bring
back a chunk of something identifiable. It's hard to say what that might
be. Could there possibly be something made of steel which might be found
with magnetic locators? I'm thinking of the relatively inexpensive
locators which surveyors use to find property corners. They are much
more sensitive that the devices beachcombers use.

If the wreckage has slipped or drifted down to deep water it's more
problematic. You'd need more elaborate equipment mounted in a
significant boat. You'd also be likely to get false positives from junk
from the Norwich City, errant steel drums, etc. Are there provisions for
magnetic locators of any kind on the next trip?

Good luck and keep up the good work.

Tom D. # 2796
Atlanta
***************************************************
From Pat

> He might also have
> dumped a couple of quarts of oil in the engine to send up some smoke.

See http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/itasca.htm

> Could there possibly be something made of steel which might be found
> with magnetic locators?

The aircraft was primarily aluminum and therefore not visible to
magnetometers.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 8 May 2007 15:12:51
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Niku V team

I am proud to be part of an organization that can field an expeditionary group
that has the breadth and depth of qualifications reflected in the TIGHAR Niku
V team composition.  Thanks for the bios and pictures published on the web.
Good luck and Godspeed to all.

Rick J #2751

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

The photos Rick is referring to are at

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/NikuVteam.html
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 9 May 2007 08:12:43
From:         Mike Piner
Subject:      Clues in Betty's notebook

This is my first post, #2777  I hope I am not throwing out a new
subject.  In Betty's notebook, about line 19, there is a group of numbers,
"58 338"  This set of numbers was not significant until I calculated
the line fron Gardner back to Howland I. and it came up 338 degrees.
I remembered the numbers in Bettys notebook.  If you supply a "1" in
front it becomes "1"58/ 338.  Having landed there Fred may have
measured back to howland and found that angle. The 157/337 was a sun
line that missed Mckeon on the west and missed Gardner on the east.
Also You should employ Google Earth to Measure any distance.  "earth"
is a great tool.  I have calculated right angle trigonomety using
latitude and Longitudes.  I also calculat that AE was approx 30 to 40
mi south of Baker Island such that they could not see the island.
One of the first pieces of information AE gave was "cloudy and
overcast"  If this was the case, Fred may not have been able to get a last
fix on some stars, so they could have been off course because of Wind.
     Mike Piner
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 10 May 2007 13:56:28
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Can we check out the ifs

When Balfour reported that AE took a 30 minute test flight, to check
out the Lockheed after maintenance and radio work at Lae, he said AE
reported that she couldn't get a minimum on the DF.
AE assumed she couldn't get a minimum because the transmitter on Lae
was to powerful and to close to the aircraft.

If's
If Balfour gave her a "long dash" on 3105 wouldn't this have been
similar to Itasca sending AE A's on 3105?

If Balfour said AE took a 30 minute hop and AE was traveling at
approx. 130 knots for 15 minutes out/15 minutes back in wouldn't this
give a maximum distance out from Lae of approx. 32 miles?

If AE's experience of not getting a minimum near the Itasca was
similar to her experience near Lae wouldn't she have assumed a
similar reason for not getting a minimum i.e. to powerful and to close?

If the above If's are probable wouldn't this lead one to assume AE
was within 30 + - miles of Howland at some point before heading out
for Gardner?

How do these If's square with other assumptions in the Gardner
hypothesis? e.g. range remaining in fuel supply, time on the LOP
running north and south, eye sight range at 1000 feet, etc.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 10 May 2007 16:30:00
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Can we check out some ifs

Ted, the math is good but.................

There is no way to know what Earhart assumed. Her actions don't tell
us and you can't assume this means she was close to Howland because
she couldn't get the DF to work. Either too close or it wasn't
working and maybe other reasons.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 10 May 2007 17:26:11
From:         Ray Brown
Subject:      Re: Can we check out the ifs

> From: Ted Campbell
>
> When Balfour reported that AE took a 30 minute test flight, to
> check out the Lockheed after maintenance and radio work at Lae, he
> said AE reported that she couldn't get a minimum on the DF.
> AE assumed she couldn't get a minimum because the transmitter on
> Lae was to powerful and to close to the aircraft.
>
> If's
> If Balfour gave her a "long dash" on 3105 wouldn't this have been
> similar to Itasca sending AE A's on 3105?
>
> If Balfour said AE took a 30 minute hop and AE was traveling at
> approx. 130 knots for 15 minutes out/15 minutes back in wouldn't
> this give a maximum distance out from Lae of approx. 32 miles?
>
> If AE's experience of not getting a minimum near the Itasca was
> similar to her experience near Lae wouldn't she have assumed a
> similar reason for not getting a minimum i.e. to powerful and to
> close?
>
> If the above If's are probable wouldn't this lead one to assume AE
> was within 30 + - miles of Howland at some point before heading out
> for Gardner?
>
> How do these If's square with other assumptions in the Gardner
> hypothesis? e.g. range remaining in fuel supply, time on the LOP
> running north and south, eye sight range at 1000 feet, etc.

Ted,
I think it has been established that the Electra's Direction Finding
set could not obtain a bearing on a signal of 3105 kcs.
The frequency range was between 400 and 1400 kcs.
The Itasca's homing beacon was sent, at AE's request, on 7500 kcs.
Again, outside the freq. range of the equipment.
So the situation on the test flight at Lae was the same as that on
the approach to Howland Island.

LTM ( Who was always careful not to go beyond her limitations. )

Ray Brown # 2634.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 May 2007 10:49:29
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Can we check out the ifs

To: Ray Brown

Thanks for the reply.  What evidence do we have that shows Balfour
sent his "long dash" to AE on 7500kcs thus making the two situations
(Lae and Howland) the same?  Do we have info. that says that Balfour
didn't send his long dash on 3105?

Ted
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 May 2007 10:49:52
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Can we check out some ifs

To: Alan Caldwell

Alan,
I don't argue with your reply.  However, we do know that her DF did
work, albeit not in accordance with its design.  She did hear and
acknowledge that she heard Itasca's A's but she couldn't get a minimum.

Seems to me that if she experienced the same problem near Howland
that she experience near Lae then her mind set (rational) of why it
failed would be the same.

Finally, as I asked, let's assume the two situations were similar how
does this fit with the Gardner hypothesis?

Ted
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 May 2007 13:31:40
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Can we check out some ifs

> Finally, as I asked, let's assume the two situations were similar how
> does this fit with the Gardner hypothesis?

Ted, you are certainly right she DID report hearing Itasca but
whether she thought that meant she was too close we'll never know. If
she DID I would have thought she would have tried again. It appears
to me she was putting no stock in the DF capability.

   I can't see any connection to the Niku theory whether the two
situations were alike or not. Whether they were close to Howland or
not the Niku theory does not change. If you are concerned about the
337/157 direction they were running on and figuring if they were NOT
close that line would not reach Niku you've missed the point.

We only know they were SEARCHING for Howland on that line. We have no
idea where that line was geographically or what direction they took
to get to Niku. Unless they were ON the line running physically
through Howland and so far southeast their 337 leg did not get within
sight of Baker they HAD to navigate to Niku on some other unknown
heading.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 May 2007 09:51:19
From:         Ray Brown
Subject:      Re: Can we check out the ifs

  From Ray Brown

> From: Ted Campbell
>
> Thanks for the reply.  What evidence do we have that shows Balfour
> sent his "long dash" to AE on 7500kcs thus making the two
> situations (Lae and Howland) the same?  Do we have info. that says
> that Balfour didn't send his long dash on 3105?

Hi Ted,
During the air test at Lae Amelia tested her transmitter on 6210 kcs
with Lae replying on 6522 kcs. Ref. "Finding Amelia" page 74. AE
could hear Lae  on this frequency, but  could not get a bearing with
the D/F set. She attributed this to being too close to the station.
I do not know how Lae transmitted the homing "beacon". My feeling is
that it was not a "long dash" , that is, with a key. Mr Balfour was
transmitting speech,  so it seems to me that AE would try to take a
bearing on that..
She could not " get a minimum " because 6522 kcs ( like 3105, 6210
and 7500 kcs) was outside the operating range of her Bendix D/F set.
Prior to the air test  Balfour conducted a ground test of the
Electra's radio equipment, presumably  handling the radios himself.
He tested the receiver on 500 kcs but it is not known whether he
tried to take a bearing on the station with the Electra's D/F set.
Given the crucial importance of Radio Direction Finding to the
conduct of the Lae to Howland leg I feel that he would have done.
The similarity of the Lae air test to the approach to Howland
Island ? In both cases Amelia was trying to get a D/F bearing on a
station that was transmitting a signal on a frequency that was
outside the operating envelope of her D/F equipment.
Finally a correction to my other post. Amelia's Bendix D/F set had an
operating range of 200 to 1500 kcs.

Regards to all and LTM
Ray.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 May 2007 17:42:18
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Can we check out the ifs

There's no reason to think the Lae test was sent using other than the long-
dashes. It would have been tiresome for the the Lae operator to count
numbers into the microphone when it was unnecessary - an AM transmitter
always sends a "carrier wave", whether audio is going on or not. "Long
dashes" would be practical, i would think ( the deadly "assume" ) because
it seems reasonable (at least to me ) that Lae field would have either
an AC-powered station, or at least a system where the motor-generator
ran continuously. Therefore using the microphone button wouldn't involve
the jerky complications that it would for AE's radio setup. The "long dashes"
idea i believe was a conventional way of doing things, i believe the point
was only to provide a break in the signal as a kind of indentifier for the
listening station. Because the "high duty cycle" ( on-air time compared to
off-time)  certainly wouldn't allow enough down time, for it to be done for
reasons of allowing the cooling down of the equipment.  Therefore the
long-dashes approach was strictly speaking not even absolutely
necessary.

I wonder who hyped AE on this HF-DF business. Someone "back there"
in the States must have explained the idea - i don't think this would have
evolved somehow during the flight, or????  And IF the idea was agreed
on, back in the States, wouldn't they have tried it out, there? I mean, as
Mike E. pointed out, the radio setup had to have been somehow wired to
allow the loop to hook up to the "communications antenna" connection on
the receiver.  That is not a "stock" configuration.

AE's surmise that "the signal was strong" (Lae) is clearly a wrong surmise-
unless she restricted her test flight to right around the field. The ground
transmitters of those days were not all that powerful - i guesstimate a remote
field like Lae having a transmitter power in the range 50 to 200 watts, maybe
less. I know that's a guess but it would be possible to cite examples of
other contemporary stations. Unlike trying to DF on a AM broadcast station,
at this Lae power, you don't have to go very many miles at all, before the
signal strength is down. Others have speculated that the "automatic volume-
leveling" switch (AVC) had forgotten to be switched off by AE.  That assumes
she made the same forgetful mistake at both Lae and Howland. More likely
something basically was wrong with the HF-DF operation of the radio.
-Hue Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2007 17:26:48
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Long's DF theory

The Longs wrote in "Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved", (paraphrased from p
63) that the new state of the art Bendix RA-1 receiver was used with a
standard Navy RDF-1-B loop.  A DF coupler control box was custom made to
connect the loop to the  receiver, using a selector switch to select frequency
band 1,2,3,4, or 5.  Likewise, the receiver had a 5 band selector switch;
however, these bands did not select the same sets of frequencies.  The
frequencies on the control box were labeled on the inside of the box, not on
the outside cover.  Before the first world attempt, Cyril D Remmlein instructed
Manning in the use of this control box, and reminded him that the DF
capability was only from 200 to 1430 KC.  Earhart did not attend this meeting,
so its lessons were not passed on to subsequent crew members.  The Longs
attribute this as the cause for the failure to obtain any DF's.

Does TIGHAR have any information that the above is not accurate; e.g.,
that perhaps that equipment was replaced before the second attempt? Have
we ever evaluated this part of the Long's thesis?

Rick Jones #2751
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 May 2007 18:24:35
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Long's DF theory

> Earhart did not attend this meeting, so its lessons were not passed
> on to subsequent crew members.

Rick, you might ask Elgin Long how he could possibly know the above
statement is true.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 May 2007 13:54:54
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Another search group

Two items. One you'll see in the news the 99's have opened an Earhart
museum in Oklahoma. AP reported it. <G>

Two, one of my friends in my military pilot's fraternity, Order of
Daedalians, is going to New Britain next month on a WWII airplane
search. No, not David's Electra. I think they are only doing ocean
search in the nearby waters.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 22 May 2007 16:17:38
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Quick update

Ted Campbell asks:

> Would you please give us a quick up date on the progress of the up
> coming expedition to Niku in July.
>
> How do you stand on funding?

Our total budget is $330,000.  To date, we have just about $200,000
in hand or pledged.  We've borrowed another $110,000, so we need to
raise another $20,000 to complete the budget and we need to raise
$130,000 to complete the budget and get out of the hole.

> Any new equipment being taken this time around?

Yes.  We have the loan of two state-of-the-art Sokkia SRX Robotic
Total Station surveying systems for mapping and managing the
archaeological sites.  We'll also be using Kite Aerial Photography
(KAP) for visual searching and mapping.  This is much more than just
hanging a camera on a kite.  It's a fairly hi-tech system that
provides us with a way to get good low-level aerail photography of
areas of interest.  For clearing the Seven Site we'll be using
compressed air-powered "loppers" developed by one of our Earhar
Project Advisory Council (EPAC) members. We'll be drawing the
compressed air from scuba tanks rather than from a compressor powered
by a generator.  Very ingenious.

> What's the latest count of "sponsor team members?"

We have three Sponsor Team Members, two of whom are long time TIGHAR
members and have participated in field work before.  I originally set
aside five berths for Sponsor Team Members but decided to cut that
back to four because I needed a berth for the team physician.
Officially, there's still one STM berth available - $50,000.  (The
line forms on the right.)

> Any news/documentry organizations going along?

As presently planned, news coverage of this expedition will be
extensive. I'll be making daily satellite telephone reports to the
Associated Press and uploading photos and possibly video clips.
They'll put out daily stories on the internet and on the AP wire for
pick up by newspapers worldwide. I'll also be making daily reports to
Pat which she'll write up for the TIGHAR website.  We haven't made
any kind of deal for television documentary coverage, nor do we
intend to. Instead, we plan to have our own professional cameraman
aboard to document the expedition.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2007 11:23:22
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: quick update

David Billings asks,

> You say your total budget is US$330,000.00., for the projected
> experience in a couple of month's time.
>
> So why have all the other Niku Expeditions been rated at a budget
> of US$600,000 ?
>
> Please explain.....

First, since when do I need to explain anything to you?  You're not a
TIGHAR member and you've never contributed a penny toward our work.

Second, when did I ever say that our previous expeditions cost $600,000?

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2007 11:41:32
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Methodology on Nikumaroro this summer

Niku Expeditionaries and other interested parties --

Especially for new folks to the project, it may be useful for me to
lay out some of the basic archaeological principles we try to adhere
to, and the methods we try to employ, as well as to list the tools
everyone ought to procure for themselves.

1. Principles.  Perhaps above all, we need to subscribe to the
medical credo of first doing no harm.  We don't want to hurt the
island, its animal and vegetable inhabitants, or its archaeological
sites.  This is particularly important now that the Phoenix Islands
Protected Area (PIPA) has been set up; Niku is part of a biological
preserve, on its way to being listed as such in the World Heritage
List, and needs to be treated with special care.  We'll be receiving
guidelines from the PIPA administration -- we don't know yet what
these are, but can anticipate that they'll say, at base, no messing
with the wildlife, corals, or plants (beyond, we trust, basic brush
clearing).  They probably won't say anything about the archaeological
sites, but we apply the same basic rule to them: no unnecessary
disturbance.  By "archaeological site," I mean anything created by
human beings that wasn't literally put there yesterday.  The colonial
village is an archaeological site, the Seven Site is an
archaeological site, and so is any other expression of human activity
other than our own.

By way of background regarding specifically archaeological rules, I'm
attaching a paper that will be coming out in the next year or so as
part of an "encyclopedia of archaeology," discussing archaeological
ethics (a subject on which I've duped some of my colleagues into
thinking I'm an authority).  Our ethics are largely driven by our
prime motivation for conducting our research -- we're trying to learn
something about the past through the systematic study of material
remains on and in the ground.  Much of what we learn is not learned
from the things themselves but from their locations, their
surroundings, their spatial relationships with one another.  As a
result, we need to be very, very careful about recording the
locations, surroundings, and character of everything -- and do this
BEFORE we pick anything up and carry it away.  The precision with
which we need to do this recordkeeping varies, but the bottom line is
this: IF YOU FIND SOMETHING IN THE BUSH, OR ON A SITE, OR ANYPLACE
ELSE, DON'T MOVE IT.  LEAVE IT IN PLACE, MARK IT; THEN LET'S LOOK AT
IT AND MAKE A CORPORATE DECISION ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH IT.

A related principle is that nothing on the island belongs to us, and
we don't take anything away but data.  When we do take samples or
remove artifacts, they're held by TIGHAR in trust for the government
of Kiribati, under a long-standing agreement we have with the
government.  As individuals we don't collect anything for ourselves,
except that in the past, some of us have collected a shell or two
from the beach, perhaps a pretty piece of coral or a sea urchin
spine.  This may still be OK or it may not; we'll have to follow
whatever guidelines PIPA provides.

2. Methods.  At the Carpenter's House and vicinity, our main target
in the village, we'll initially clear the site as much as it needs to
be cleared, and then sweep it with metal detectors, plotting hits.
Based on this search and what we can see on the surface, Gary and his
team will lay out some sort of pattern of squares to be excavated --
each probably a meter on a side.  Excavation in each square will
occasionally involve shovel work, but more often work with a trowel,
whiskbroom, and dustpan, either in 10 cm. levels or following
observable natural stratigraphy (the latter is unlikely to occur).
Excavated soil will be put through 1/4 inch screen.  The locations of
stuff found will be recorded by excavation unit, level, and sometimes
more precisely in terms of X-Y-Z coordinates.  We'll record
everything we find, but take away for analysis only stuff that looks
relevant to our research; everything else will be returned to the
excavation unit from which it came, which will be physically marked
for future reference.

At the Seven Site, our main jobs are to further excavate "the hole"
-- where we think the cranium may have been buried by the colonists
and then dug up by Gallagher -- and to very carefully search the
slope of the surge ridge above it, down which the cranium may have
rolled, shedding teeth.  We'll also try to update and correct our map
of the site, and as time permits explore areas beyond those we opened
up in 2001.  One specific location of interest within the ridge-slope
search zone is a fire feature with brown glass shards, found late in
the 2001 project but not excavated.  Another area of special interest
if we have time to get to it is the neighborhood of Clambush 2 -- the
Tridacna cluster we left in place in 2001, which has an adjacent fire
feature.  We'll probably mobilize to attack the Seven Site in the
buka forest just northwest of the site itself, then cut into the
scaevola to re-clear the hole vicinity.  Moving upslope from the hole
we'll be virgin territory, so will have to lop and remove scaevola
with great care; the surface of the site has stuff on it, and much of
it is fragile.

We'll clear out the hole, removing the stuff we left there in 2001 to
mark the bottom of our excavation, and then continue digging it, in
about the same way as at the Carpenter's House except that our units
will probably be bigger; we'll decide that when we get there.  "Soil"
will be passed first through 1/4" mesh, then through 1/8" mesh, and
then scanned with ultraviolet, in which teeth ought to glow blue.  We
know that the cranium had no teeth in it when Gallagher dug it up.
If it had teeth when it was buried, they ought to still be in the hole.

Upslope from the hole, we plan to lay out a grid of 1-meter squares,
probably using a square of PVC pipe that can be moved systematically
across the site with reference to control points.  Within each square
we'll scan the surface with ultraviolet, hopefully using the scanner
that John Clauss is designing.  If we don't find anything this way,
we'll decide whether to do anything else, like skimming the surface
and screening the first 10 cm or so of soil/rubble.  We'll also
decide at this point about digging more fire features or whatever
else has turned up on the slope.  We'll pretty surely dig the burn
feature we know is on the slope, as usual in 1-meter squares, 10 cm.
levels, with trowels, brushes, dustpans and screens, recording
everything.

Anything that looks like a tooth, a bone, or anything else that might
retain DNA must NOT be touched with bare hands; we'll have latex
gloves on site for recovering such items, into clean ziplock bags.

Meanwhile, one of the robotic total station teams will be re-mapping
the site, and Josh will be locating, describing, and coring trees,
living and dead.

The Long Range Reconnaissance Team (LRRT) is in a way going to face
the greatest challenges, working with sites whose locations and
overall character haven't yet been clearly defined, if they've been
defined at all.  The Arrowhead, for example, is a total unknown and
is going to require the application of special techniques.  But the
same principles apply to the LRRT's work as to everyone else -- it's
location, location, location.  Leave things IN their locations,
RECORD locations, put locations in context.  GPS is going to be
important to the LRRT, but we shouldn't rely on it to the exclusion
of good field notes, photographs, and ranges/bearings from landmarks
(where there are landmarks).

Speaking of notes -- we'll have standard daily record sheets that
everyone is to fill out daily (duh), recording what you did, what you
observed, and where.  We'll be doing measured drawings and sketch-
maps and other special records as needed.  And Skeet is supplying us
all with waterproof notebooks, which I encourage you to use to the
max.  The more recording, the better.  In writing up our work, I
often find myself not only going back to the organized, formalized
notes, but to my own and others' notebooks.  Those of you(us) who are
bringing laptops should make good use of them, too, to supplement
notes, maintain journals, and so forth.

3. Tools.  Everyone should have the following basic archaeological
tools:
      Mason's or pointing trowel (flat-bladed; NOT a garden trowel).
3-5" blade, solid shank, NOT soldered or welded.  Most archaeologists
in the U.S. prefer "Marshalltown Iowa" brand; some like Goldblatt.
      Metric tape measure -- 3 to 5 meters.
      Compass.

Beyond these basics, it never hurts to have your own whisk broom, a
small magnifying glass, maybe a 2" paintbrush.  We'll also supply a
bunch of markers to put in photographs to help identify what you're
shooting, its scale, and where north is; these are critical pieces of
information to include in record photographs.

I think that's about the size of it.  Feel free to email questions,
suggestions, and comments to Ric, Gary, Kar, and/or me.

LTM
Thomas F. King Ph.D.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2007 13:00:14
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Methodology on Nikumaroro this summer

> ... We know
> that the cranium had no teeth in it when Gallagher dug it up.

I think it had 5 teeth when Gallagher found it.

Only 4 teeth were observed in Fiji.

The lack of teeth is one of the reasons that I doubt
the skull would have been used for initiation rites
in a secret society.  It would not have been aesthetically
pleasing.

What, if anything, does the loss of teeth suggest about
the age of the skull?  Would crabs pull the teeth?  Is
it normal for the teeth to fall out as part of the
process of decay?


> Beyond these basics, it never hurts to have your own whisk broom, a
> small magnifying glass, maybe a 2" paintbrush.  We'll also supply a
> bunch of markers to put in photographs to help identify what you're
> shooting, its scale, and where north is; these are critical pieces of
> information to include in record photographs.
>

Sounds like you expect people to bring their own
cameras, too?

				Marty
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2007 13:27:32
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Methodology on Nikumaroro this summer

<<I think it had 5 teeth when Gallagher found it.>>

Nope; he specifies that the teeth were in the mandible -- the lower jaw.

<<Only 4 teeth were observed in Fiji.>>

True; one went by the boards somewhere en route.

<<The lack of teeth is one of the reasons that I doubt
the skull would have been used for initiation rites
in a secret society.  It would not have been aesthetically
pleasing.>>

The cranium we observed in the Suva Masonic Lodge had no teeth, and
was pretty ugly.  It did have its malar/zygomatic bones in place,
however, so it wasn't the one we were looking for.

<<What, if anything, does the loss of teeth suggest about
the age of the skull?>>

Probably not much, under these circumstances.

<<Would crabs pull the teeth?>>

They'd probably wreak havoc with the delicate bones of the maxilla,
wherein the teeth would be located.

<<Is it normal for the teeth to fall out as part of the
process of decay?>>

Not uncommon in my experience, but my experience is mostly with
skeletons ranging from 500 to 2500 years old, buried in the ground,
with no coconut crabs in residence, so it's not entirely germane.

> Beyond these basics, it never hurts to have your own whisk broom, a
> small magnifying glass, maybe a 2" paintbrush.  We'll also supply a
> bunch of markers to put in photographs to help identify what you're
> shooting, its scale, and where north is; these are critical pieces of
> information to include in record photographs.
>

<<Sounds like you expect people to bring their own
cameras, too?>>

No demands, but at the team/EPAC meeting we all pretty much took it
as given that there'll be a lot of digital cameras in evidence.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2007 17:20:07
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Methodology on Niku this summer

I will gladly defer to Kar on this, but historic skulls that I have
worked with have teeth that fit closely in their sockets, but they
can be easily shaken loose.  There is not anything that "glues" them
into the socket after death.

Dan Postellon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2007 18:30:59
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Niku Visit

Tom King said: "No demands, but at the team/EPAC meeting we all
pretty much took it  as given that there'll be a lot of digital
cameras in evidence."

And DON'T forget the batteries!  Several dozen AA -- or appropriate
size -- Lithiums should hold the crew for a couple of weeks.  And a
spare mega chip might come in handy also, as I assume you'll not be
downloading/viewing ALL your photos on-site.

And for our Latin I friends, what number Niku visit are we up to
now?  VI, VII, VIII?

LTM, Amo, amas, amat
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

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

This is officially Niku V.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 May 2007 18:51:29
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Methodology on Niku this summer

For Tom K.,

I hope this is not a dumb question , but would the archealogical
inspections also include the outer reef, crevices,cracks, holes etc
in which an aircraft part could have washed into wedged into and
remained over the years despite time and tide?
Maybe this has been done already,
R. Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 26 May 2007 10:15:09
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Methodology on Niku this summer

For Ron Bright

<<I hope this is not a dumb question , but would the archealogical
inspections also include the outer reef, crevices,cracks, holes etc
in which an aircraft part could have washed into wedged into and
remained over the years despite time and tide?
Maybe this has been done already,>>

The simple answer is no, we're not planning any reef work this trip,
other than some mapping and acquisition of tidal data.  We've
visually searched crevices, cracks, holes, etc. over most of the reef
edge and face down to about 150' on expeditions in '89, '91, '97,
'01, and '03, and done side-scan sonar over a lot of the reef face to
greater depths in '91.  It's certainly possible that things remain
lodged on the reef, at least down below the 150' level, and they
might get coughed up from time to time to land in cracks, crevices
and the like, but we don't think it's a good use of our limited time
to do further random searching on this trip.  We plan to focus on the
more likely areas of the village and the Seven Site.  Of course, if
we cruise up the island and see a wing sticking out of the reef edge,
we won't ignore it.

LTM (who wants her children to stay dry this time)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 26 May 2007 10:39:01
From:         Rick Jones
Subject:      Re: Methodology on Niku this summer

Please fill us in on the scheme for aerial photography this trip. I think it was
described as a parasail device.  Will it be towed by boat, tethered? What
type of equipment (camera), swivel mount, wireless control, etc. Will the
photos be used to adjust ground priorities?  What was used last time that did
not work out?  RC helicopter?  Was wind a problem?

Rick J #2751
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 26 May 2007 14:08:11
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Methodology on Niku this summer

Tom wrote:

> Of course, if we cruise up the island and see a wing sticking out
> of the reef edge, we won't ignore it.

Or the NW lagoon.

LTM, who kept her eyes peeled.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 May 2007 14:12:38
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Grace McGuire and Howland


     For those following the Earhart saga the past 30 years, Grace
McGuire's name appears now and then, primarily because she has become
an impassioned devotee to Amelia. Quick summary.

   McGuire  purchased an original Electra 10E years ago to restore
and duplicate the flight. I think it is the only one in existence
coming from the factory, S/N 1042 built in 1935. I think Ric G
confirmed this. McGuire has not always co-operated with researchers
over the years perhaps because she has been fighting Lyme disease for
years or she didn't want to share her plans.  But she has attended
Atchison Earhart celebrations many times, the 1982 Smithsonian
symposium, and had befriended Muriel Morrisey a sometimes traveling
companion.

   Anyway she consented to talk with me last week over her plans and
a number of other issues, including the unscientific claim by some
researchers that she is Amelia's biological grand daughter. Grace was
born in 1945 in the UK, Scotland, and raised near Holy Loch. McGuire
became a pilot late 1960s and her interest in Amelia and Amelia
accomplishments spurred her to attempt a duplicate World Flight using
the original equipment, the 10E, hopefully sometime in 2008. The
location of the aircraft is a secret, she said.
.
  She is well  now having fully recovered from the Lyme Disease.She
was quite friendly, candid and forthcoming about her future plans.
She is sort of an Amelia "wannabe" and it  has been fueled by the
media who thought she looked like AE. "Me, look like Amelia", she
said, "no way at 5' 11"..

  She then considered the claim by a few researchers that  Earhart
had an out of wedlock daughter in 1924 in the US and that this
daughter eventually ended up in Scotland. There in 1945 Grace was
born to this daughter, thus a granddaughter to Amelia. She described
this claim as "silly nonsense" based on her known adoptive and
parental history in Scotland in the early 1920s. They are all
deceased now. Because of this myth, she has delivered her DNA to a
trusted friend in the US for backup proof.

  McGuire took some credit in "solving" the disappearance mystery.
She said in addition to radio problems she found that while studing
AEs  coordinates of Howland Island, they were some 6 miles off,
something AE didn't know.When AE radioed that "we must be on you",
she believed that Noonan got her spot on, but that the sun glare and
the small elevation made it impossible for them to see. Thus AE went
down in search of Howland. This is why she wants  to duplicate the
flight using the basic same equipment including perhaps an PAA
navigator!

    Comment: As I recall Ric believes the true coordinates were known
to AE befoe she left Lae, although there was no documentary evidence.
Ric?

In sum, she was pleasant to talk to and I hope to maintain a
relationship with her. Questions?

LTM,

Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 31 May 2007 21:35:32
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: Grace McGuire and Howland

Ron:
    What a fascinaing story.  I kinda wish she IS AE's
granddaughter.  And to own an original Electra 10E, wow wouln't that
be great....  Lucky Grace...
    My only question is "Did you encourage her to join
Tighar?  I think she'd be interesting to chat with on the
forum.
     I agree with her that AE's maps were off on the
coordinates for Howland, and that Noonan did his
job well.
    Thanks for sharing that, Ron

LTM, who loves to meet new AE enthusiasts
Jackie Tharp #2440