Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:06:01 From: Ron Bright Subject: Calms, tips on opening Ric suggests in the latest "Tracks" that maybe a jack knife was used to open the clam shells that appeared pried open. But here in the Northwest, the easiest and SAFEST way to open our clams, including the large razor clam on the Pacific beaches, is simply boil them or put them on top a fire. The clams open wide, and the meat is easily pulled out. Or as the seagulls do, drop them from about 20 ft. I am not sure how it was determined the clams were "pried open", unless there were pieces of the edge that were disturbed. I may be mistaken but after the Luke field ground loop they found in the inventory a recipe for New England clam chowder! LTM, Ron B Bremerton, Wa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:08:07 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Clams, tips on opening For Ron Bright Several of the clams in Clambush 1, the shell cluster we brought back in '01, showed clear signs that someone had tried to pry them open, sometimes from the pointed end of the lip, sometimes from the hinge. We also found a pointy piece of metal whose tip fit in the wound on one of the hinge-pried shells. We know that AE clammed when she lived in Massachusetts, and according to Julia Child, the way you open an eastern clam or oyster is to pry it on the hinge side. This is all discussed in "Shoes." Clambush 2, closely studied in '07 but not brought back, showed no sign of prying behavior. It may be (it's only a guess) that whoever pried and broke up the clams in Clambush 1 subsequently learned to just drop the suckers in the fire, and that produced Clambush 2. Or the clambushes may have been produced by two different (sets of) people -- one who knew how to open clams, the other who didn't. LTM (not a social clammer) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:45:17 From: Mike Piner Subject: Re: Clams, tips on opening Do we have photo of the clam shells ? I'd be interested in comparing what we have been discussing with what I know of "clams" LTM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:50:10 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Tips on opening clams For Mike Piner Mike, if you'll send me your email address, I'll send you images of all the clams. LTM (who insists we share our data and not be shellfish) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 15:47:36 From: Ron Bright Subject: The strange case of Yau Fai Lum's denial You discuss in your book, pp 158-159 the vehement denials by Lum, some fifty years later, that he , or "Howland" , K6GNW (Lum's call sign), heard Amelia at 2246, 5 July as well as adding Baker Island's report of hearing AE the night before. This message to ITASCA appears in the "smooth" radio transcript logs. The Thompson radio logs we have as you point out, page 69, merely show that " "8004 HOWLAND REPORTS HEARING KHAQQ AT 2246 HST 2340" , but make no mention of K6GNW sending it. You point out that Lum's recollection of that signal and his claim that Cipriani went aboard the ITASCA on 2 July is incorrect based on the deck logs and Black's report. No question that Cipriani remained at Howland tasked with trying to get a bearing on any signal. But I am looking for a possible answer to Lum's inexplicable "amnesia" in view of his rather impressive credentials as the Head of the Honolulu Police Communications Dept. How could one forget a momentous event such as hearing a post loss signal from AE?. Therefore, I am asking this question. Did the radio operators on Howland, specfically Lum, maintain logs or notes or journals of hearing AE's signal and notes that he transmitted this information to ITASCA, radio operator position 2, Radioman George Thompson. Did Cipraini keep any independent logs? Adding to the confusion is that Baker Island was manned by Paul "YAT" Lum, and hence when Yau Fai Lum saw the name of "YAT" on the log, he then believed the logs were "fabricated". Maybe a case of wrongfull attribution, but more later. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:16:24 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The strange case of Yau Fai Lum's denial Ron Bright says, >You discuss in your book, pp 158-159 the vehement denials by >Lum, some fifty years later, that he , or "Howland" , K6GNW (Lum's >call sign), heard Amelia at 2246, 5 July as well as adding Baker >Island's report of hearing AE the night before. This message to >ITASCA appears in the "smooth" radio transcript logs. I think we can be quite sure that the 2246 transmission on July 5 was sent by Yau Fai Lum. There were four licensed radio operators on Howland on July 5. Each had his own call sign. Coast Guard Radioman 2nd class Frank Cipriani was "NRUI 2" (ITASCA's call sign was NRUI). Dept. of Interior radio operator Yau Fai Lum's ham call sign was K6GNW. Dept. of Interior radio operator Ah Kin Leong's ham call sign was K6ODC. Dept. of Interior radio operator Henry Lau's ham call sign was K6GAS. Cipriani's transmissions to ITASCA were logged as being received from NRUI2. Yau Fai Lum's transmissions to ITASCA were logged as being received from K6GNW. Ah Kin Leong's transmissions were logged as being received from K6ODC. According to the Howland Radio Log, Henry Lau stood watches but his call sign does not appear in the ITASCA radio log so he apparently made no transmissions to ITASCA. The Thompson radio logs we have as you point out, page 69, merely show that "8004 HOWLAND REPORTS HEARING KHAQQ AT 2246 HST 2340", but makes no mention of K6GNW sending it. Commander Thompson's "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight" are not a radio log. They are Thompson's summary and interpretation of the actual log. The actual log entry is as follows: "NRUI DE K6GNW YES AT 2246 HRD EARHART CALL ITASCA ES BAKER HRD EARHART PLANE QSA 4 R 7 LST NITE AT 820 PM" Translation: ITASCA this is K6GNW. Yes, at 2246 I heard Earhart call ITASCA and Baker Island heard the Earhart plane strength 4 (out of 5), readability 7 (out of 10) last night at 8:20 PM. >You point out that Lum's recollection of that signal and his claim >that Cipriani went aboard the ITASCA on 2 July is incorrect based on >the deck logs and Black's report. No question that Cipriani remained >at Howland tasked with trying to get a bearing on any signal. And there is also no question that Lum's recollection of not hearing Earhart is incorrect unless you want to discount contemporary written documentation in favor of fifty year old memory. >But I am looking for a possible answer to Lum's inexplicable >"amnesia" in view of his rather impressive credentials as the Head >of the Honolulu Police Communications Dept. Lum's faulty memory is not inexplicable any more than mine is or yours is. People remember stuff wrong. We do it all the time. Credentials have nothing to do with it. >How could one forget a momentous event such as hearing a post loss >signal from AE? Because, at the time, it was not a momentous event. Look at it in context. At the time Lum heard the transmission it was generally accepted that Earhart was out there calling for help. Many years later Lum found himself questioned about his role in the proceedings and by then the event had become thoroughly mythologized. People who are participants in events that later become seen as historic often "remember" the accepted popular version of what happened. When Elgen Long interviewed ITASCA radio operator Bill Galten in 1973, Galten was astonished to learn that he had not logged Earhart as saying she only had a half hour of gas left. I strongly recommend "The Seven Sins of Memory" by Daniel L. Schacter, Chairman of the Harvard University Psychology Dept. ( Houghton Mifflin, 2001). Lum is a classic example of the what Schacter calls the "Sin of Suggestibility." >Therefore, I am asking this question. Did the radio operators >on Howland, specfically Lum, maintain logs or notes or journals of >hearing AE's signal and notes that he transmitted this information >to ITASCA, radio operator position 2, Radioman George Thompson. No, at least none that have survived. >Did Cipraini keep any independent logs? Not other than the Howland radio log. >Adding to the confusion is that Baker Island was manned by >Paul "YAT" Lum, and hence when Yau Fai Lum saw the name of "YAT" on >the log, he then believed the logs were "fabricated". Maybe a case >of wrongfull attribution, but more later. Did he say that? He certainly knew at the time that the Paul Yat Lum was the operator on Baker. They may have even been related. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:37:35 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The strange case of Yau Fai Lum's denial I agree recollections can be faulty ust as eyewitness accounts, and occassionally logs are tampered with or altered. Anyway, as I understand it, Lum 's radio was an amateur set shortwave, and according to Rafford could receive/transmit only on 7500 to 14000 kc and he could not hear voice on 3105. If true he himself couldn't hear AE. Rafford may not have this right. He says it was a 50 watt receiver with a three tube receiver. He was allocated a special frequency to communicate by Morse to the Coast Guard. I have a suspicion, but can't prove it, that it was Ciprani who heard Earhart and Ciprani had Lum send it to ITASCA. Comments. Ron ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:39:09 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The strange case of Yau Fai Lum's denial Ron Bright says: >Anyway, as I understand it, Lum 's radio was an amateur set >shortwave, and according to Rafford could receive/transmit only on >7500 to 14000 kc and he could not hear voice on 3105. If true he >himself couldn't hear AE. Does it matter? The night in question is the night of the 4th (not the 5th as you had it in your previous posting). At 2202 ITASCA tells K6GNW "Take bearings on any signal you hear on 3105 ...take bearing now." Lum and Cipriani are both there. Lum is doing the transmitting to ITASCA and, naturally, using his own call sign while Cipriani is trying to use the High Frequency DF to take bearings. At 2214 ITASCA asks "Do you hear anyone on 3105 now?" and Lum replies, "Yes, at 2246 (Howland time) heard Earhart call ITASCA and Baker Island heard the Earhart plane strength 4, readability 7 last night at 8:20 PM." >Rafford may not have this right. He says it was a 50 watt >receiver with a three tube receiver. He was allocated a special >frequency to communicate by Morse to the Coast Guard. It doesn't matter what transmitter Lum is using to communicate with ITASCA. It's abundantly clear that the Coast Guard receiver that is attached to the High Frequency DF has the ability to receive voice transmissions on 3105. What Lum can hear depends upon how he and Cipriani have their headphones set up. >I have a suspicion, but can't prove it, that it was Ciprani >who heard Earhart and Ciprani had Lum send it to ITASCA. Maybe you're right. Maybe Lum was simply relaying Cipriani's answer to ITASCA's question. That could explain why he had no personal memory of hearing Earhart's voice. Does it matter? What matters is that the log clearly states that at least one operator on Howland and one operator on Baker heard unambiguous post-loss transmissions that they believed were sent from the Earhart plane. These were two of the best, but by no means the only, occasions when highly credible signals were heard by operators in the region. Those who still cling to Crashed & Sank have to either allege a widespread conspiracy to falsify numerous log entries and official messages or postulate a well-equipped and pre-positioned hoaxer somewhere southeast of Howland who knew Earhart and Noonan would not reach Howland. I'm glad I don't have to try to make those arguments. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:39:40 From: Ron Bright I don't know why you always want to attribute a conspiracy to us crash and sankers. I was only exploring the seemingly inexplicable denial by Lum that he heard AE, and suggested it was most likely Cipriani, and Lum sending the signal in Morse to Itasca. You always want to cite facts, when there aren't any to support Lums receiver apacity,. blowing it off as "does it matter". It sure does. I was looking for an explanation of why he doesn't recall it. Not everything one should recall can be explained by your convenient explanation that LUm merely was falling in line with the conventional wisdom No big deal. But if you look at the rest of Lum's testimony, he doesn't recall meeting Cipriani and Black, and didn't stand watches with him, as you suggest. The Coast Guard portable radio could hear AE but not Lums. Lums recollection may be faulty in some areas,but there appears to be a logical explanation re the alleged radio reception. You should apply the "suggestibility" factor to many of the other ear witnesses that you cite!! And Lum indicates someone got his log mixed up with the other Lum, the Lum on BAker. Why was it signed "Yat" not "Yau"? Yes someone maybe heard that signal, but Lum and Cipriani don't provide contemporaneous logs to back up the claim something you always demand. How do we know that George Thompson didn't get it right. Ron ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:27:50 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The strange case of Yau Fai Lum's denial Ron Bright says: >I don't know why you always want to attribute a conspiracy to us >crash and sankers. I haven't heard you embrace a conspiracy yet, but it may be your only way out. The post-loss messages present a tremendous problem to Crashed & Sankers. If any of them are legitimate, then Crashed & Sank has crashed and sunk. >I was only exploring the seemingly inexplicable denial by Lum that >he heard AE, and suggested it was most likely Cipriani, and Lum >sending the signal in Morse to Itasca. It's a fine hypothesis but, as far as I know, utterly untestable. Why isn't Lum's denial of ever meeting Cipriani or Black equally inexplicable? He says he never stood watches with Cipriani and yet Cipriani's Howland Log clearly records that he did. Lum and the logs can't both be right. If Lum is right then the logs were falsified and you're stuck with a conspiracy. >You always want to cite facts, when there aren't any to support >Lums receiver apacity,. blowing it off as "does it matter". It sure >does. I was looking for an explanation of why he doesn't recall it. It doesn't matter because, as you acknowledge, it's obvious from the log that Cipriani's Coast Guard receiver could receive voice on 3105. It's also obvious from the log that Cipriani and the Coast Guard receiver are right there with Lum. Maybe Lum heard Earhart via the CG receiver or maybe he was relaying what Cipriani heard. There's no way to know, but it's clear that Lum's later recollections of the entire episode don't track with the contemporary written record. >Lums recollection may be faulty in some areas,but there appears >to be a logical explanation re the alleged radio reception. If it makes you feel better. >You should apply the "suggestibility" factor to many of the >other ear witnesses that you cite!! Like who? >And Lum indicates someone got his log mixed up with the other >Lum, the Lum on BAker. Why was it signed "Yat" not "Yau"? Have you not seen the log? Nothing was signed Yat. If either Yau on Howland or Yat on Baker kept radio logs they have not survived. All we have is Cipriani's transcript of his original Howland Log which may have been handwritten but is apparently also lost. In transcribing his own original log Cipriani simply got Lum's first name wrong. He had never met him until he came ashore on Howland and probably only knew him as "Lum." >Yes someone maybe heard that signal, but Lum and Cipriani >don't provide contemporaneous logs to back up the claim something >you always demand. >How do we know that George Thompson didn't get it right. Huh? Neither Lum nor Cipriani made any claims and, for whatever reason, Cipriani's Howland Log transcript does not cover the night of July 4th. George Thompson's log is the only record we have of these events, just as the ITASCA radio logs are the only record we have of what Earhart said as she approached Howland. I know of no reason think that George Thompson did not get it right. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:28:30 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The strange case of Yau Fai Lum's denial I would think our time better spent trying to prove messages are real than false. First of all it is easier. One merely goes with the known facts or evidence. (subject for another email ) To prove something is not true requires a lot of unsupportable speculation. That seldom advances the ball. Although said many times, it is not all that difficult to instill some doubt into EACH message but quite difficult to explain over a hundred hoaxes or false messages. We have to look at the totality of our subject. Granted it is certainly possible every single message is a hoax but that defies logic. If this were a court room I could easily take each message apart and propose an alternative explanation but not taken as a whole. The particular message issue at hand shows there are questions to be answered but I see nothing in the exchanges that suggests the message is a hoax or was misinterpreted or refers to anyone but Earhart having been heard on July 4th. If I have missed that please enlighten me. If I have not missed such evidence then I'm afraid I am missing the relevance of the questions. The issue I see is did someone hear Earhart transmit on the fourth of July? As I understand it there is reason to believe they did. To me that is the central issue and it matters not, except as a curiosity, who heard her or who transmitted what to whom. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:29:07 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The strange case of Yau Fai Lum's denial No it doesn't take a conspiracy but it could be alot of misconstrued signals.And you could be right that somehow AE made it to land, hence our continued interest in this project. But back to Lum. The ITASCA entry only says "...heard Earhart"..." It doesn't say "I heard Earhart", leaving room for Cipriani to have been the "Howland" source. I wonder why no further information was forwarded from Lum such as heard her call sign KHAQQ, position, SOS, dashes on 3105, etc., that would add some meat to the transmission. All petty vague. REB ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:23:11 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The strange case of Yau Fai Lum's denial For Alan, I don't buy the age old prosecutors arguement that it is the "totality" of evidence that makes it "true". If each single msg has an alternative explanation that it didn't come from AE, that must be taken into consideration. Ron ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:23:45 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The strange case of Yau Fai Lum's denial It it isn't just me that doubt the Lum transmissionand others, it was CDR Thompson, the Navy and the Coast Guard. They did have an opportunity to interview and resolve the ambiguous signals. Thompson blew them off. Tighar is trying to prove that he was wrong, an admirable project. REB ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:31:49 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The strange case of Yau Fai Lum's denial Ron Bright writes: >The ITASCA entry only says "...heard Earhart"..." >It doesn't say "I heard Earhart", leaving room for Cipriani to have >been the "Howland" source. I wonder why no further information was >forwarded from Lum such as heard her call sign KHAQQ, position, SOS, >dashes on 3105, etc Ron, I can understand wanting to have it correct but the issue is not WHO heard Amelia but rather that she was heard. I don't see the significance unless the idea is to put doubt that ANYONE heard Amelia. As to why no further information was forwarded I might offer this; 1. Maybe it was but we simply have not found a record of it. 2. The forwarder may have only forwarded what he thought was the essential information at the time. For example what would be the necessity of ALSO mentioning the call sign when everyone already knew what it was? Radio transmissions like telegrams are quite abreviated. 3. As to no position don't forget Earhart was lost. It is doubtful she KNEW her position. 4. After having not landed on schedule at Howland what would be the purpose of saying or sending an SOS? Of course they needed help. What else would anyone think? 5. Why would she give dashes on 3105? She had voice. Not during the entire world trip did she communicate with dashes. 6. All of her transmission may not have been heard. I don't see the mystery here but like you and everyone else more information would have been nice. I have always been curious as to the thinking of folks (not you, Ron) wanting to know why a lost person did not give positions. And given she was the only woman flying in the south position why the need to give her name or call sign. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:19:39 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: The strange case of Yau Fai Lum's denial Tom Doran Ron Bright writes: <> The prisons are full of men who dispute the validity of circumstantial evidence. <> What could that alternative explanation possibly be? Someone had advance knowledge of the time and area of AE's disappearance and pre-positioned a hoaxer with the right kind of radio? Wasn't it established a couple of years ago that there was no evidence (or was it little likelihood) of a capable radio in the region? When was the disappearance first reported, privately or publicly? Were there post loss messages before that time? How and when could a hoaxer have known she was missing? Did he/they monitor traffic all night from Lae, then assume when he heard no more traffic that she was gone? It seems the hoax theory has a lot to explain. Tom Doran, # 2796 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:54:17 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: The strange case ... Ron Bright writes: <> Which ones were they aware of? Had they heard about one or two? Or 15 or 16? At any rate, they probably would have gone searching to the north, given the local command's assessment of the situation. How much credibility would they have given to a report from a Hawaiian teenager? Tom Doran, # 2796 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:12:41 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The strange case.... Of course we will not know exactly what was going on in AEs mind, but in other signals , she was pretty precise. Namely Dana Randolph heard her call sign, and a position, southeast of Howland on a reef, as I recall. Heck she spent almost an hour, says Betty, describing her situation, etc! If AE is calling, she just ain't calling to say "hello"; she would, in my opinion ,give some other informationa about her plight. Yes you are right, perhaps there was a lot of data that Lum or Cipriani heard, but didn't forward the complete text to ITASCA. And the lack of any authentic post loss signals is not the sine qua non of a survival theory as maintained by Tighar and the Saipan theorists.. AE's radio could have been on the fritz shortly after her last signal at 0843, and yet she still could have flown to Niku in communicado. Of course if as you say there were signals coming as late at 5 July, that would be solid proof she was on land, more than likely NIKU. LTM, Ron ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:45:07 From: Ron Bright Subject: Thompson's Denial of Post Loss.Signals For Tom Doran, re: Post loss authenticity If you think the one entry made by Radioman 3rdClass George Thompson from Lum (or Cipriani) is questionable, look at how CDR Werner Thompson viewed the post loss events. CDR Thompson wrote in his official report to the Commander of the San Francisco Division on 19 July 37. All this was fresh and hot stuff. "Radio Transcripts of the Earhart Flight", page 104-105: " If Earhart was down and sending messages, the guards maintained by ITASCA, SWAN, SAMOA, HOWLAND, COLORADO, BAKER, PLANE 62C, WAILUPE, PAN AMERICAN, SAN FRANCISCO RADIO, HONOLULU COAST GUARD RADIO AND THE BRITISH stations in the Gilbert Islands should have intercepted legitimate Earhart traffic, whereas the only interceptions were by amateurs, with the EXCEPTION OF ONE WAILUPE INTERCEPTION" (my emphais) In his summary he added: "Extremely doubtful that Earhart ever sent signals after 0846m 2 July Wow!. His report INCLUDES the reported receptions by Lum on Howland, Lum on Baker, the Achilles reception, all professional grade radio operators. Yet based on his statement, he dismissed them entirely, including some amateur reports, such as Dana Randolph, that seemed to have an authentic ring. Thompson does add a caveat. "The ITASCA has been at sea our of touch with newspapers...the foregoing report was based entirely upon our discussion and study of the matter wlthin the ship. The ship's sole source of information is in the radiograms contained in this report". So why did Thompson reject the signals from Ciprani (Howland). Lum, and Lum on Baker re the various reports they submitted ? Surely all the officiers aboard must have had long discussions to analyse these signals. What Ric has done is to review those signals with fresh eyes, corrollated them with other receptions, some unknown to Thompson, and has attributed more authenticiy to many of the signals than CDR Thompson. Maybe Thompson had a "blind spot". In the superb documentary "BLIND SPOT" in which Hitler's secretary described her involvement with the progessively horrors of the Nazi regime, she concluded it was a psychological "blind spot" that caused her not to see what was going on. She commited suicide in Munich a few years ago. Could Thompson not see the forest because of the trees? Ric may know this, but was CDR Thompson ever interviewed after leaving the ITASCA? Did he ever leave any journal describing his search? LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:22:32 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Thompson's denials Ron Bright writes: <<"If Earhart was down and sending messages, the guards maintained by ITASCA, SWAN, SAMOA, HOWLAND, COLORADO, BAKER, PLANE 62C, WAILUPE, PAN AMERICAN, SAN FRANCISCO RADIO, HONOLULU COAST GUARD RADIO AND THE BRITISH stations in the Gilbert Islands should have intercepted legitimate Earhart traffic, whereas the only interceptions were by amateurs......... His report INCLUDES the reported receptions by Lum on Howland, Lum on Baker, the Achilles reception, all professional grade radio operators. >> I would not say that Thompson, based on this, considered the colonists "professional grade." In my military experience several decades later, many, if not most O-4's and O-5's completely disregard any information offered by someone more than two ranks below them. The radio operators on Howland and Baker were not commissioned officers. They weren't military. They were civilians, amateurs, teenagers, and Hawaiian. I would not be surprised if Thompson regarded anything they reported as less significant than a bug fart. This is not a particularly wise perspective but it is not limited to military officers in 1937. What regard does the modern doctor, architect, cop, or backhoe operator have for the insights of someone outside their field? Tom Doran, # 2796 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:38:44 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Thompson's denials Good posts, Ron. I've planned on posting some comments about "evidence," facts," and "proof" for some time but I'm not sure it is actually helpful. Each of those terms mean something different to each person depending on what they want to believe. For example, Ric believes the messages are real and that the number of messages are highly significant taken as a whole. I think that is good reasoning although I recognize it may not be so. Those who believe the Electra went to the Marshalls or simply crashed and sank necessarily do not believe ANY message is real. They can't and still hold to their own theory. To those folks they cannot accept that the number of messages in itself makes them so. Of course, on the other side of the coin the number of folks who believe in "crashed and sank" does not make THAT theory any more so either. The bottom line on the messages is that the ONLY possible proof of their authenticity could only come from Earhart and of course that's not possible. That means the nay sayers will forever be able to claim they are not truly from Earhart. They can never be proven true OR false -- ever - save actually finding the Electra. So the analysis must be one of best evidence and/or preponderance of evidence. Those adhering to the crashed and sank theory actually have the toughest job. There is no way to prove the messages are false but only to raise doubts. There is also no way to prove the plane crashed and sank in the ocean. On the other hand those who adhere to Earhart reaching land have, theoretically" an easier task. First of all they have a tiny fraction of the given area in which to search -- Niku and the surrounding waters. Crashed and sank folks have over 600,000 sq miles of ocean as their search area. That isn't even close to possible and none are even attempting it. The game is to win by default if they can continually shoot down other ideas. Well, they can't do that either but only raise questions and doubts. They are simply tilting at windmills. That's not to say Ric and company are home free. They have not proved their case either. Now I have to point out the Niku theory does NOT depend on post loss messages. The messages, if true, WOULD prove she made land -- Niku or someplace. If they are all fakes that doesn't disprove Niku. Earhart's radios may have been inoperative or out of range for each frequency. 6210 did not seem to work close in and 3105 did not seem to have much range so not hearing from her again doesn't prove she crashed. Our one big difficulty as I see it is everyone seems to have a motivation that somewhat clouds their perspective. Some like to discount some messages yet give credence to others. I think Thompson wanted out of the whole mess thus his motivation to discount the messages, assume she was lost at sea and go home with his career intact and drink a cold beer. Others had memory problems decades later which is certainly understandable. I think some just wanted to be part of the game. Generally contemporary memories are far more credible but motives must be taken into consideration. We can all think up possibilities to derail a given theory. For example the idea is that no one knew Earhart was going to be lost and so no one could rush out to the Pacific and quickly build a radio to perpetrate hoaxes. But there is another possibility. Everyone knew for months ahead of time she was flying around the world. Plenty of time for radio amateurs to put together a radio and preposition just for the purpose of listening to her arrival at Howland -- the most difficult and risky leg. Did one or more of them then hoax this event up? I suppose that's possible but clearly doubtful. The point is no matter what the issue we can muddy the waters with stretches of the imagination. That might be fun for some but it doesn't accomplish one blessed thing. So far no detractor has ever pointed out something to the contrary of the Niku theory that hasn't been thought of. Total waste of their time. Debunking is easy. It requires little or no effort, no research and can be done from the living room sofa. Trying to prove a theory is hard work and expensive. For what it's worth here is my position. So far over the decades I have seen not one single tiny piece of evidence that could disprove Earhart somehow reached land. Not one tiny scrap. so I see the theory as good. I don't know WHAT land -- maybe Niku or maybe somewhere else. I know of no evidence for the somewhere else but we have no smoking gun for Niku either. At least we have some pretty fair indications for Niku. Proof is tough and sometimes in the eye of the beholder. We admittedly have some puzzles. Betty's notebook for example. I know of no reason to disbelieve it but I worry about the date and time it was made. We can't pin that down and it's critical. I wish we could check at what distance Earhart's radios could be heard at 1,000' at various strengths. I think that could be done (yes, I know Long's folks have done that) and it could possibly answer a few questions. How close did she get to Howland? Where was the Electra on the last two accepted radio transmissions on the morning of July 2? SE of Baker? SW of Baker? North of Howland? And how far away? Elgin, if you're reading this, how far from Howland could she be heard at strength 5? that won't give away any of your significant search information. I think one of our guys estimated 80 miles. Is that correct? Ron, the message of Earhart being on a reef SE of Howland has curiosities. Why not SE of Baker? If she knew she was SE of Howland she also had to be SE of Baker. If she was lost how did she know that and not know the distance and bearing? The only reefs SE of Howland are the Winslow reefs. I think that's possible although Randy makes a Hell of an argument I'm wrong. I can't dispute him. I want to but I can't, Randy. I've read and reread the oral accounts of an airplane on the reef at Niku. I can't quite wrap my head around that information. I can't come to grips with the credibility or non-credibility of that. Were they motivated to say that or were those comments unsolicited and I should believe them. Tough. Other than the oral testimony it would not surprise me nor deter me if none of our artifacts came from the Earhart presence. The plane could have been washed away and taken everything with it. Obviously other stuff has washed up and been brought from other places. Here is where I center my thoughts. I would like to have a better handle on fuel remaining at Howland and where they were at the last two transmissions. I want to know how far south if that's the right direction they were from Howland at 0843 and still be received at the given strength. Why? So I can better estimate where they could have gone. If their fuel was really getting critical Earhart almost had to put the plane down on or near the first piece of dirt and rock she saw. She just couldn't fly off out over open ocean about to run out of gas. She couldn't do that. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:59:18 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Thompson's denials For Tom Doran I used the term "professional grade" but I should have used "experienced ham operators, if that makes a difference. You may be right that Thompson and Bellarts didn't think much of the Hawaiian operators. And RM Thompsons entry was probably a triple hearsay. Earhart to Howland, most likely Cipriani, Cipriani to Lum, and Lum to Thompson on the ITASCA. All on shortwave and in Morse. A possibility or an opportunity for the signal to get misconstued or misinterpreted, etc, like the rumor mill. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:28:12 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Thompson's denials Alan Caldwell said: "Here is where I center my thoughts. I would like to have a better handle on fuel remaining at Howland and where they were at the last two transmissions." Fuel consumption can be calculated based upon a number of reasonable assumptions, and several of us have done so. There was enough fuel for AE to reach Niku with those assumptions. As for where she was at the last two transmissions, good luck! Unfortunately, one can only model her flight path until she says "We must be on you but cannot see you"; after that, there is no information whatsoever as to her direction or speed of travel. A long time ago, I used Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the probabilities of AE's position at the time of that transmission, based upon some assumptions, known weather that AE didn't know about, etc. Whether the results are accurate or not cannot be proven, but the highest probability area was about 85-100 nmiles SW of Howland: short and south of the target. These are probably the best estimates of probability of AE's location about 2 hours prior to her last transmission, and they did include smaller probabilities at Howland itself. It turns out that the radio strength signals do not contribute greatly to the probability maps, as they are almost qualitative in nature and despite what Elgin Long says, are somewhat unreliable indicators. Bob Brandenburg performed a detailed study of the radio strength signals, and basically came to the same conclusion as I've stated above. LTM, who loves to beat the dead horse again and again...*G* ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:29:13 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Thompson's denial Ron Bright writes: >CDR Thompson wrote in his official report to the Commander of the >San Francisco Division on 19 July 37. All this was fresh and hot >stuff. "Radio Transcripts of the Earhart Flight", page 104-105: >"If Earhart was down and sending messages, the guards >maintained by ITASCA, SWAN, SAMOA, HOWLAND, COLORADO, BAKER, PLANE >62C, WAILUPE, PAN AMERICAN, SAN FRANCISCO RADIO, HONOLULU COAST >GUARD RADIO AND THE BRITISH stations in the Gilbert Islands should >have intercepted legitimate Earhart traffic, whereas the only >interceptions were by amateurs, with the EXCEPTION OF ONE WAILUPE >INTERCEPTION" (my emphais) > >In his summary he added: > >"Extremely doubtful that Earhart ever sent signals after >0846m 2 July > >Wow!. His report INCLUDES the reported receptions by Lum on >Howland, Lum on Baker, the Achilles reception, all professional >grade radio operators. Yet based on his statement, he dismissed >them entirely, including some amateur reports, such as Dana >Randolph, that seemed to have an authentic ring. You have the facts wrong. Although Thompson's report (page 69) includes an earlier report that Baker Island heard KHAQQ (Earhart) calling NRUI (ITASCA) and mentions Howland hearing KHAQQ at 2246 on July 4, nowhere will you find reference to Baker hearing the Earhart plane Strength 4, Readability 7 at 8:20 on the night of July 3. Both incidents are included in the same entry in the ITASCA radio log. If Thompson knew about the 2246 reception by Howland he had to also know about the Baker reception. Why did Thompson omit such as specific report of such a strong (QSA4, R7 is a "good, strong signal") reception from the Earhart plane by, as you put it, a professional grade radio operator? As for the Achilles reception, Thompson never did understand what was going on there. His misconceptions are documented in detail on page 129 of Finding Amelia. Thompson does add a caveat. "The ITASCA has been at sea our of touch with newspapers...the foregoing report was based entirely upon our discussion and study of the matter wlthin the ship. The ship's sole source of information is in the radiograms contained in this report". So why did Thompson reject the signals from Ciprani (Howland). Lum, and Lum on Baker re the various reports they submitted ? To cover his own butt. The only officers who had access to the radio logs were the Communications Officer, Ensign Sutter; the Executive Officer, LCDR Baker; and the captain, CMDR Thompson. Some indication of Thompson's determination to control the story is evident from James Carey's diary entry of July 4. Once the search was under way, the press was naturally eager to know what Earhart had been heard to say as she approached Howland. Aboard ITASCA, Associated Press reporter Jim Carey and United Press reporter Howard Hanzlick were pressuring Thompson to let them see the logs. Thompson refused. On July 4 Carey wrote: "...conferred with Cmdr Thompson and Lt Cdr Baker re this matter. Both seemed careful -- not caring for misinterpretation. Finally brought out the fact that they are preparing complete log Earhart messages and planned to send them to Washington bureau this night. Got OK for release there. Wired AP Brines info and instructing him inform Washington AP bureau to secure complete official release. Managed to get this wire off before the Itasca sent Earhart message data -- which will be priority. ?Cdr Thompson and L Cdr Baker appear concerned over last few messages received -- roughly, nine sent to Earhart in last three minutes since heard from -- all of which indicate something which might easily bring on queries under close interpretation of possibility of such rapid transmission. Apparently pressure being brought to bear official circles Washington on Coast Guard. Undoubtedly investigation will follow search -- her story would be enlightening -- explaining whether she heard Itasca also explaining if she sent position reports, none of which Itasca ever received." The supposed "complete log" that Thompson and Baker compiled and transmitted to Washington was wildly inaccurate. For a complete comparison of the actual radio log to what Thompson and Baker concocted see page 148-151 of Finding Amelia. Why would Thompson send Washington something different than was in the radio log? Because he never intended for anyone to compare the two. By that time it was apparent to Thompson that he had a real mess on his hands. The world's most famous woman pilot had gone missing on his watch and two and half days later he still had no idea where she was. The requests from the reporters were the least of his worries. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, was sending him messages demanding answers. The general attitude aboard ITASCA was that they had all been victimized by Earhart's incompetence and Thompson was not about to take the rap. When the search ended, Thompson did not turn in the ship's radio logs, nor was he asked to. Instead, he wrote a report entitled "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight" which enabled him to put his own spin on the story. He did such a good job that the Coast Guard didn't dare release the report for fear of trashing Earhart's reputation. The ITASCA's radio logs were never officially released. If Leo Bellarts and Tom O'Hare had not surreptitiously saved copies we wouldn't have them now. They only came to light in the early 1970s thanks to Elgen Long tracking down and interviewing Bellarts and O'Hare. >Surely all the officiers aboard must have had long discussions to >analyse these signals. Yes. That was part of the problem. From the beginning of the search, Warner Thompson was committed to the idea that Earhart had gone down at sea. Due to an unfortunate series of miscommunications, he was under the impression that the aircraft could send radio signals if it was afloat. For the first few days the consensus aboard ITASCA was that the post-loss signals were genuine. It was Thompson who interpreted the fragmentary "281" message heard by Navy Radio Wailupe as meaning that the plane was afloat 281 miles north of Howland. On the night of July 5 three things happened almost simultaneously: - ITASCA reached the point 281 miles north of Howland and there was nothing there. - Another unfortunate series of miscommunications resulted in the press thinking that ITASCA had rescued Earhart and Thompson was bombarded with embarrassing media requests. - Lockheed issued an adamant statement that it was impossible for the plane to transmit if afloat and that Earhart had no portable emergency radio she could use from a raft. The entire affair was intensely humiliating for Thompson. If the radio signals he had accepted as genuine were, in fact, legitimate then he had wasted days investigating his own erroneous interpretation of them. From that moment on he was quite sure that all supposed distress calls from the plane were bogus. >What Ric has done is to review those signals with fresh >eyes, corrollated them with other receptions, some unknown to >Thompson, and has attributed more authenticiy to many of the >signals than CDR Thompson. What we've done is conduct the independent investigation that James Carey thought would "undoubtedly follow search." >Maybe Thompson had a "blind spot". In the superb >documentary "BLIND SPOT" in which Hitler's secretary described her >involvement with the progessively horrors of the Nazi regime, she >concluded it was a psychological "blind spot" that caused her not >to see what was going on. She commited suicide in Munich a few >years ago. Could Thompson not see the forest because of the trees? To understand Thompson's behavior you have to understand what really happened during the search. That's why I wrote the book. It's all there, day by day, hour by hour, footnoted out the wazoo and the DVD saves you the trouble of going to the archives to check the sources. You should read it some time. The entire final chapter of Finding Amelia (Chapter 22, Banquo's Ghost - explaining failure) is dedicated to documenting how much of the information in the various reports and letters written by Coast Guard and Navy officers after the search concluded is contradicted by the logs and messages that recorded events as they happened. >Ric may know this, but was CDR Thompson ever >interviewed after leaving the ITASCA? Thompson was interviewed by Secretary Morgenthau who happened to be in Hawaii on vacation when ITASCA returned from the search. We've found no record of that conversation but it's not hard to imagine what Thompson told him. >Did he ever leave any journal describing his search? Not that we've ever heard of. Thompson died of a heart attack two years later while on duty in Alaska. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:29:43 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: After Howland where? Randy, you are probably correct all the way. I was one who figured fuel and got 138 gallons. Others were around 150 as I recall. In either case enough to get to Niku. I have your Monaco analysis and it provides a very good estimate I agree. You had them south and west. I had them south and east. I thought they might have over flown as the winds dropped off but wherever they were they had to have a lot of guts to take off out over open ocean not knowing their starting point. Then there is the question of what they did in the hour after arriving. If she, like you, thought they were south and drove north that could muddy our waters a bit. I still think radio strength could be important but I don't know how to test it. I know what Long's folks did but every radio is different. Propagation varies but the difference might be small enough we could get a reasonable estimate of distance at various strengths. What I would like to know is could they be 200 or 250 miles out and still blast into the Itasca radio room or did they have to be around 80 or less away. It's important. If they had to be close then they could not be on a line running through Howland. They had to be better than 20 miles short or long. Conceivably they could have been on course but over 20 miles short but thought they were way south. Then if they flew north for an hour they would be 120 miles further north and Niku would have been a tough row to hoe. I really believe Earhart would have put the plane down first chance she got. I just don't know where that could have been. I don't think she would have ditched. Obviously I'm saying what I would have done but she seemed to think a lot differently so my ideas are probably not hers. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:44:38 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Thompson's denials I won't comment on Alan's long ramble about what is and is not knowable and why people believe what they believe. I will comment on some of the questions he raised. >Everyone knew for months ahead of time she was flying around the world. Plenty >of time for radio amateurs to put together a radio >and preposition just for the purpose of listening to her arrival at >Howland -- the most difficult and risky leg. Did one or more of >them then hoax this event up? >I suppose that's possible but clearly doubtful. How doubtful? A replicable scientific evaluation of the post-loss radio signals (and I emphasize replicable) shows that transmissions on Earhart's frequency emanated from somewhere south of Baker Island and north of Samoa. Four of the six bearings taken by Pan Am and a fifth bearing taken by Cipriani on Howland place the transmitter in the western portion of the Phoenix Group. You can debate whether the Electra was there or a hoaxer was there, but somebody was there with a transmitter that could broadcast voice on 3105 (a frequency legally reserved for U.S. registered aircraft). That's a scientifically demonstrable fact that is supported by no fewer than five technical papers published on the TIGHAR website: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/52_ElectraRadios/52_ElectraRadios.htm http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/HarmonyandPower.htm http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/BettyProb182531a.pdf http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/49_PostLossSignals/49_PostLossSignals.htm http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/50_RDFAnalysis/50_RDFAnalysis.htm A hoaxer would also have to know that Earhart and Noonan had no sending key with them and could only send code by depressing the push-to-talk switch on the microphone (the Coast Guard didn't even know that). The hoaxer would have to know that neither Earhart nor Noonan was adept at sending Morse code and would have to be able to mimic Earhart's voice. Those are the requirements for Crashed & Sank to remain a viable theory. >Debunking is easy. It requires little or no effort, no research and >can be done from the living room sofa. Trying to prove a theory is >hard work and expensive. Debunking the post-loss signals is not easy. Radio signal propagation is not opinion, it's mathematics. Debunking the otherwise credible signals requires either showing how the calculations detailed in the papers are flawed, producing evidence that the signals could not possibly have come from the aircraft, or identifying a hoaxer who had the requisite location, equipment and capabilities. So far, nobody has done any of those things. >I wish we could check at what distance Earhart's radios could be >heard at 1,000' at various strengths. We can, within limits. The problem is that Itasca's receivers did not have strength meters so the estimates of signal strength, although expressed in numbers (1,2,3,4,5) are, in fact, qualitative opinions rather than quantitative measurements. Worse, none of the log entries for the in-flight transmissions prior to the 0742 "We must be on you..." message contain a strength estimate. The assignments of strength numbers to those transmissions appear for the first time in reports written weeks later after the search concluded. >I think that could be done (yes, I know Long's folks have done >that) and it could possibly answer a few questions. Long's folks treated those numbers as hard measurements and used them as the basis for detailed analyses of where the plane had to be from moment to moment as it drew closer to Howland. It's folly. You can't draw hard conclusions from soft data. >How close did she get to Howland? Close enough to be heard very loudly but not close enough to see the island. >Where was the Electra on the last two accepted radio transmissions >on the morning of July 2? SE of Baker? SW of Baker? North of >Howland? And how far away? No one will ever know for sure, but it's possible to make some informed guesses. We now have a good handle on which of the alleged post-loss transmissions were, in all probability, genuine. With that information we can test the hypothesis that the messages were sent from the reef at Nikumaroro. If the hypothesis is correct, the times of the credible signals must correspond to times when the water level on the reef was low enough to permit an engine to be run to recharge the batteries. Also, Earhart and Noonan have to be able to get back and forth from the airplane to the island at appropriate times. That can only be done when the tide is low. All the puzzle pieces have to fit. If they do, the odds that it's all just coincidence become vanishingly small. Knowing how often and for how long the engine had to be run to recharge the battery tells us how much fuel the plane had to have remaining aboard when it landed on the reef. That information gives us an arrival window that must fit the Itasca radio logs and the tidal information for the island. If we know to within a few minutes when and where the plane landed, we can make informed judgments about where it could have and could not have been between the last time it was heard by Itasca and when it landed. Before this most recent expedition we didn't have detailed enough information about tides and water levels on the reef to make these calculations. Now we do. Bob Brandenburg has been working this problem since we got home with the necessary data last August. He's putting the finishing touches on a new paper that will go up on the TIGHAR website as soon as it's finished. >Elgin, if you're reading this, how far from Howland could she be >heard at strength 5? that won't give away any of your significant >search information. You're asking the wrong guy and spelling his name wrong (it's Elgen). >I think one of our guys estimated 80 miles. Is that correct? Bob Brandenburg is the guy to ask and his answer will not be a hard-edged boundary. >Ron, the message of Earhart being on a reef SE of Howland has >curiosities. Why not SE of Baker? If she knew she was SE of Howland >she also had to be SE of Baker. Howland was the point of reference, her intended destination. >If she was lost how did she know that and not know the distance and >bearing? I thought you understood the theory. She wasn't lost in the sense of having no idea where she was. After exploring a short distance northwestward on the LOP, Noonan had her run southeastward because that was the only way he could guarantee that they would reach land of some kind. By the time they spotted Gardner they knew they may not have been sure what island it was but they knew it was SE of Howland. >The only reefs SE of Howland are the Winslow reefs No. All of the islands of the Phoenix Group have reefs. >I've read and reread the oral accounts of an airplane on the reef >at Niku. I can't quite wrap my head around that information. I >can't come to grips with the credibility or non-credibility of >that. Were they motivated to say that or were those comments >unsolicited and I should believe them. Tough. That's always the problem with anecdotal information. It helps when different people with no connection to each other tell similar stories. Whatever it's basis in fact, it's clear that, independent of TIGHAR's investigation, there was a tradition among at least some of the people who lived on Nikumaroro that there was an airplane wreck there somewhere when the first settlers arrived in 1938. >Here is where I center my thoughts. I would like to have a better >handle on fuel remaining at Howland and where they were at the last >two transmissions. I want to know how far south if that's the right >direction they were from Howland at 0843 and still be received at >the given strength. Why? So I can better estimate where they could >have gone. If their fuel was really getting critical Earhart almost >had to put the plane down on or near the first piece of dirt and >rock she saw. She just couldn't fly off out over open ocean about >to run out of gas. She couldn't do that. Have you forgotten all that work that was done a few years ago? The subject of fuel has been flogged to death. It is abundantly clear that they had enough fuel to reach Gardner. The question is, did they? There is zip evidence that they reached any other land and a large and growing body of evidence that they reached Gardner. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:57:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Thompson's denials >>I suppose that's possible but clearly doubtful. > >How doubtful? You misread. I was implying the presence and work of a hoaxer was doubtful. And as you further pointed out almost impossible. But it certainly kick started the forum. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:59:14 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Thompson's denial Thanks. I see the Thompson report doesn't have the Baker reception, but as you say he was fully aware of it from the Howland signal describing their alleged reception of Earhart as well as Baker''s reception the night before. Nice to have a fact checker! There is no doubt in my mind that it was Frank Cipriani who heard the Earhart signal on his portable Coast Guard receiver and passed it on to LUM, who passed it on to Thompson. Too bad Thompson didn't sit down with Ciprani when he rejoined the ITASCA and get the content of the Earhart signal if voice. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:18:49 From: Adam Marsland Subject: Last Post-loss message Ric (or anyone) -- What date/time do you think was the last probable authentic post-loss transmission from Earhart? IIRC the theory is that the Betty transmission was quite late, and I remember the reports of radio signals, died off dramatically at a certain point, but I was wondering if there was a point at which it could be credibly concluded they probably ran out of gas. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:44:54 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Last Post-loss message Adam Marsland asks: >What date/time do you think was the last probable authentic post- >loss transmission from Earhart? IIRC the theory is that the Betty >transmission was quite late, and I remember the reports of radio >signals, died off dramatically at a certain point, but I was >wondering if there was a point at which it could be credibly >concluded they probably ran out of gas. For several reasons, Betty's reception fits best on the morning of Monday, July 5 (Niku Time). If so, then the transmissions she heard may well have been the last ones sent. One of the most interesting things about Betty's reception is that it is the only credible post-loss radio event that occurred during hours of daylight at Niku. Conditions aboard the aircraft during the late morning hours would be brutal and radio propagation is not at its best during the day. Transmissions made at such a time imply a level of extreme necessity and desperation. The content of what Betty heard is also far more desperate in tone than any other reported message. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:06:05 From: Monty Fowler Subject: How does this change anything? For Ron Bright - I'm just curious, nothing more, about how your endless discussions over minutia advance the cause of figuring out what happened to our favorite female aviator? LTM, whose head hurts from all the circling, Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189CE ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:16:57 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: How does this change anything? Monty, I don't pretend to answer for Ron but in my opinion minutia often yields something of value. I could give you many examples but the forum archives are replete with them. I recognize we often beat dead horses and I am as guilty as anyone but we are constantly signing on newbies who may not be quite as well up to date as you and I. I've been at this since the 1950s and I am constantly finding something that's new to me. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:29:33 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Minutiae Monty , perhaps I am guilty of bringing up relatively unimportant details, but sometimes the "devil is in the details" or something like that. If you could name the "unimportant" issues that I have brought up, I might be able to give a better answer! I exchange a lot of posts, off line, with other members, such as Alan Caldwell, regarding trivia, unsolveable radio problems, and just speculations about the mystery, that are not now of interest for the entire forum. Most everything of substance regarding navigation, fuel consumption, radio equipment, Itasca's search, post loss signals, Niku explorations, has been published and brought up time and time again on this forum. Other than Rics recent work on Niku and testing, I haven't seen any really new material from archives, newly discovered documents or evidence, that is of interest posted by members; hence I often try to take a fresh look at some of the old or controversial subjects. But thanks for the tip... LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:07:44 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Opinions needed We're redesigning and expanding the TIGHAR website. Our goal is to make the website more productive for TIGHAR and the way to do that is to make it serve you better. Please take a moment to answer these few questions. You can send your replies directly to me at ric@tighar.org 1. If the TIGHAR website offered an audio version of Finding Amelia read by your-obedient-servant at a reasonable price, would you buy it? 1a. If the TIGHAR website offered an audio version of Finding Amelia read by your-obedient-servant at a unreasonable price, would you buy it? 2. Would you like to see the TIGHAR website offer rare and hard to find aviation history-related books for sale? 3. Would you like to be able to order rare and hard to find aviation history-related films such as "Flight For Freedom" and "China Clipper" on DVD via the TIGHAR website? 4. Would you like to see an on-line "TIGHAR Theatre" set up similar to iTunes? The TIGHAR Theatre would feature short historical films, video clips from TIGHAR Expeditions, interviews with expedition team members and historical witnesses, and special TIGHAR-produced videos such as the "Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro," "Betty's Notebook," and "Maid of Harlech Archaeological Survey." For each video you'd have the option of watching a free trailer, viewing (but not downloading) the entire video on-line for a buck via PayPal, and/or buying a download or DVD for some appropriate price. 5. What else would you like to see TIGHAR offer? Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:33:50 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Opinions needed Yes to questions 2 and 3. I think TIGHAR should concentrate on aviation stuff, mysteries. hard to find aviation books/movies, .And perhaps recommendations for the more technical details of , say fuel consumption, as related to the mystery; and of course our favorite, radio riddle problems. Or maybe those are not of general interest. REB ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:13:11 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Opinions needed Ron Bright says, >Yes to questions 2 and 3. I think TIGHAR should concentrate on >aviation stuff, mysteries. hard to find aviation books/movies, .And >perhaps recommendations for the more technical details of , say >fuel consumption, as related to the mystery; and of course our >favorite, radio riddle problems. Or maybe those are not of general >interest. Research materials such as those now in the "Documents" section and TIGHAR research papers such as those now in the "Research Bulletins" section will always be free. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:19:55 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Survey results Twenty-three forum subscribers responded to the recent survey about new services TIGHAR might offer. 7 (30%) were in favor of the idea of an audio version of Finding Amelia 17 (74%) were in favor of rare and/or TIGHAR-recommended books being available via the TIGHAR website, although several people recommended that we not inventory books but, rather, enter into a referral agreement with Amazon or the like. Good idea. 15 (65%) were in favor of rare aviation films being available via the TIGHAR website. 17 (74%) like the idea of a TIGHAR Theatre modeled on iTunes. We also asked what else you'd like to see and we had many good suggestions that we'll carefully consider. A big Thank You to everyone who took the time and the thought to respond. This is very useful input. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:15:23 From: Mike Piner Subject: Re: Survey results I admit I didn't respond to the survey, but I really like the results. Members of Tighar have great Ideas, and are very well informed in technology areas. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:33:06 From: Jack Thomas Subject: Bill Kurtis on Niku? For those who haven't seen it, here's a silly AT&T commercial that you may find amusing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U2NOhQlQR4 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:45:52 From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Bill Kurtis on Niku? I saw that commercial on Sunday and want to see it again so I can figure out what they are trying to say....Obviously AT&T is trying to sell something --but the spot was silly... On a beach--with a Lockheed aircraft--wrecked with 'Amelia' on the nose and an announcer in the foreground.. Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:22:52 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Bill Kurtis on Niku? >From Jim Tierney > >On a beach--with a Lockheed aircraft--wrecked with 'Amelia' on the >nose and an announcer in the foreground..>> Maybe this is evidence of TIGHR having some impact on conventional wisdom. If another view held sway the announcer would be in a deep sea submersible. Tom D., #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:36:34 From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Bill Kurtis on Niku? Of course when you think about it, thanks to the Earhart Forum, it's the Internet that is ultimately helping to find Amelia. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:17:41 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Bill Kurtis on Niku? A closer look at Curtis and the "Electra" you will see a tousled hair lady about 39 in the cockpit, looking at a AAA Map showing Howland 5 miles from the actual position. The map, dated Sept 36, was outdated. Anyway , it should end the speculation of post loss signals with the props sticking in the sand. REB ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:38:21 From: Hilary Olson Subject: Re: Bill Kurtis on Niku? Well I guess that solves it Betty heard the messages over the internet ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:08:07 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Bill Kurtis on Niku? Isn't that the profile of Diamondhead on the left in the distance? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:21:26 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Diamondhead Good eye. I had to go back and watch it again. It seems AE crash landed on the beach at Kapiolani Park, a few hundred yards short of the main runway at Hickam. Kerry Tiller >From Randy Jacobson > >Isn't that the profile of Diamondhead on the left in the distance? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:21:55 From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Bill Kurtis on Niku? Yes, I recognized the distinctive profile of Diamondhead in the background as well. In fact, on my TV at home the hotels of Waikiki are also fairly plain to see (but, more of a white blob on Youtube). I suspect that is a subtle nod to the lawyers who did not want it to appear as if AT&T were promising that their service would work in the middle of nowhere (like, say, Nikumaroro). Also, it looks to me as "Amelia" was piloting a Beech 18 (maybe they finally found Diane Keaton). LTM, Russ