Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:28:05
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: More on DNA from Ric

Many thanks to everyone who helped us meet the GIS Select Services $1,000 challenge. Your generosity and commitment has helped us move the process forward, but there's still much to do. Here's my understanding of where things stand. (Caveat: I am not a geneticist nor have I ever played one on television. I do converse with geneticists but they speak a language that is only barely mutually intelligible with English.)

The organic material from which human DNA has been extracted appears to have been contents of the intestinal track, but we don't know whether it was still in the intestine at the time of death or had previously been excreted. Obviously, if the latter, it could have been left behind by anyone who felt the call of nature while at the Seven Site. If the former, it was almost certainly in the castaway who died at the site and was left behind when first the crabs, and then Gallagher, removed the bones.

There is reason to suspect that the material, whether excreted or not, did come from the castaway. The human DNA that has been extracted came from the INTERIOR of the sample. Normally, only the EXTERIOR surface of material in the intestinal track would be expected to contain the person's DNA. The interior, logically, would contain only the DNA of whatever the person had been eating. One would not expect that to include other people (don't even go there). In this case, however, the scientists noticed distinctive rust-colored deposits in the interior of the sample. SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) analysis showed these deposits to be very rich in iron. This was good news and bad news.

The good news was that the presence of iron suggested that the deposits had once been pockets of blood. Blood in the sample would be evidence of a very sick person (such as, perhaps, the castaway who died there?) and might provide DNA. The bad news was that iron is an inhibitor that makes it really difficult to extract DNA.

Now that human DNA has been found in the interior of the sample, the challenge is to get enough of it ( at least two separate examples) so that it can be reliably "sequenced." Sequencing is what gives us the profile so that we can start to figure out who this person was. For example, there are particular characteristics ("markers") that are typical of Micronesian/Polynesian ethnic groups. If those markers are present, it would reduce the probability that the material came from a Caucasian. Only after we have cleared the possibly disqualifying bars will we be ready to ask for samples of Earhart and Noonan DNA for possible matching.

The inhibiting properties of the iron are formidable and the lab is still struggling to extract sufficient mtDNA for reliable sequencing, but they do expect to be successful. It's just taking longer than they thought it would. They're also still trying to extract nuclear DNA - a much more difficult task in such an old and degraded sample - but nuclear DNA might tell us whether the person was male or female.

I'll keep the forum advised of further developments but we're relying on you to make it possible to keep the research going. The $2,000 raised through the GIS Select Services challenge was a good start but the total tab for the DNA work, if it continues to go well, will probably be more like $20,000. You can donate using your credit card at https://tighar.org/cardform.html of via PayPal at http:// www.tighar.org/donate.html.

There's also a new TIGHAR Tracks in the mail. We think it's one of the best issues yet and it includes a great holiday sale featuring new TIGHAR products for both kids and adults. If you're a TIGHAR member, watch your mailbox. If you're not yet a TIGHAR member do yourself a favor and go to https://tighar.org/membernew.html and
get on board. The next year is looking like it could be quite ride.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 12:53:45
From: Mona Kendrick
Subject: Re: DNA

This organic material from an intestinal tract -- are we talking about the mystery object that was initially suspected to be a coprolite (remember all the forum discussion about coprolites back in December and January?)? If so, I'll stop trying to think of technological objects that would answer to Dr. King's description posted on 1 Jan. 2008.

-LTM,
Mona

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

Yup.
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:47:51
From: Ted Campbell
Subject: Re: More on DNA from Ric

Is there any record of the first colonist bring meat eating animals to the island e.g. pigs, dogs, etc. that could account for the DNA being on the inside of the feces?
Ted
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:16:20
From: Scott White
Subject: Re: DNA

Thanks for circulating the recent msg. on DNA and its source. I've had much training in Biology (though it's been years) and I thought Ric's explanation was very I have a few more thoughts on it, which may (or may not) be useful to you.

1. A person's DNA does get into his/her intestinal contents due (if I remember) mostly to sloughing off of cells inside the gastro- intestinal tract. I don't know, but I'd have though that food material (bolus) progressing through the GI tract (=gut) would mix quite a bit, and that these cells would not necessarily be restricted to the outer surface of the gut contents.

2. The presence of blood in the interior part of the sample would tend to confirm the above (i.e., the blood would have probably come from the person's intestinal wall, and mixing/folding the bolus moved it to the sample's interior).

3. Intestinal bleeding can be caused by many disorders (ulcers, hemorrhoids, colon cancer . . . ). I'm sure abdominal injury could also cause it. Obviously, traumatic abdominal injury would be consistent w/ the Tighar hypothesis, though it could be consistent w/ a lot of other castaway scenarios, too. Ric mentioned that there's a lot of blood in the sample. Perhaps it would be worth having your geneticist talk to a Gastroenteroligist or medical pathologist about the sample. You might learn something, like "that's far too much blood to come from common illnesses - it almost had to be caused by a ruptured spleen" [or something]). Depending on the results of that conversation, it may be useful to look further into Noonan's & Earhart's medical records.

4. I tend to suspect that the DNA comes from the blood and not from the diet. I think that for two reasons: First, we know that the person was bleeding internally, somewhere downstream from the stomach. Blood has plenty of DNA in it. Red blood cells don't have nuclei (i.e., they don't have chromosomes, or nuclear DNA) but they do have mitochondria. All the other blood cells (mostly white cells) have both nuclei and mitochondria. Second, I'm kind of doubtful that much dietary DNA (from an animal source) would survive intact past the stomach (cells and their contents are roughed up pretty badly in the mouth and stomach, except where they're protected by cellulose cell walls). But I may be wrong, and I'm sure your lab can tell you more about this.

Congratulations on the find and good luck w/ it. As always, keep up the good work.
Best,
-SW
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:11:08
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: More on DNA from Ric

>Ted Campbell asked:
>
>Is there any record of the first colonist bring meat eating animals
>to the island e.g. pigs, dogs, etc. that could account for the DNA
>being on the inside of the feces?

The colonists did have dogs and pigs. If I understand you correctly you're suggesting that the material collected may be dog or pig feces and that the dog or pig may have fed on human remains. Human DNA has been found on the exterior of the sample but that might be contamination from it being handled by us. So let's take a look at the possibility that dogs or pigs found and ate the body of the castaway.

First question: when might the first dogs or pigs have arrived? The first ten-man work party arrived December 20, 1938. There's no indication they had any animals with them. Their families (12 people) arrived on April 28, 1939. More settlers arrived on June 17, bringing the island's total population to 58 (16 men, 16 women, 11 boys, 15 girls). Again, no mention of animals but it's possible that they brought dogs and or pigs. By the time the skull was found in late April 1940 the only further additions to the island's population were an expert canoe builder and his family of four (this was Temou, Emily's dad) and two babies born on the island. So there could have been dogs and/or pigs on the island for at least a year before the skull was found.

Next question: The hypothesis requires that there be carrion present for the dogs or pigs to feed on. Our own taphonomy (rate of deterioration) experiments suggest that a human body on Niku would be reduced to dry bones in a matter a few months at most. For dogs or pigs brought by the first settlers to have found the body while there was still something there to eat would mean that the castaway survived until shortly before or some time after the first settlers arrived. That's at least theoretically possible but 1938 saw one of the worst droughts on record for the area.

Next question: What about the iron-rich deposits in the material that are thought to have been pockets of blood? Blood would have to be from the producer of the material and it's the blood that seems to be the source of the human DNA. If so, then the producer was human.

Next question: Why did this material survive? The abandoned village is not littered with fossilized pig and dog manure. Normally, any organic material breaks down very quickly on Niku. This stuff must have been subject to special circumstances that protected it until it was so dried out and hardened that it wasn't susceptible to the environmental effects that would otherwise have broken it down.

These questions are worth thinking through. Please keep the contributions coming so that we can continue to find the answers. https://tighar.org/cardform.html for credit card donations and http://www.tighar.org/donate.html for PayPal.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:11:58
From: Terry Thorgaard
Subject: Re: DNA

Wait a sec. We know the castaway was bleeding internally? Other than the fact that TIGHAR has found some possible blood in what may be stool, how do we know that?

>From Scott White
>
>4. I tend to suspect that the DNA comes from the blood and not
>from the diet. I think that for two reasons: First, we know that
>the person was bleeding internally, somewhere downstream from the
>stomach. ...
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:43:48
From: Ted Campbell
Subject: Re: More on DNA from Ric

Ric raises some interesting questions in this 11/3/2008 email.

He (most rightly) suggest that the time from AE/FN's possible arrival on the island to the time that the colonist may have brought dogs, pigs, etc. along may have been too long for the animals to find eatable flesh from the remains of the found castaway. However, if the feces found were from an animal that rooted up and ate the remains of a buried body the time factor may still be in play regarding the DNA issue.

I guess the question would be: Do we have any idea how the environment treats buried meat?
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:02:12
From: Ted Campbell
Subject: Re: More on DNA From Ric

This dang email got away from me before I was finished.

The fact that the feces was found in the area of the seven site seems to suggest that what ever deposited it there was something that found the site interesting enough to hang around long enough to deposit its marker.

Because we believe that the skeleton which was found "could have been that of AE" and not that of FN (keep in mind it still could have been some other castaway) then FN had to be somewhere else on the island.

Ted Campbell
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:42:56
From: Tom King
Subject: Re: DNA

For Ted Campbell

>I guess the question would be: Do we have any idea how the
>environment treats buried meat?

Not really, though I'd expect it to be taken away by insects and microorganisms in pretty short order.

One interesting thing is that even a little burial seems to discourage the crabs. I buried some lamb bones at various depths and then watched what the crabs did and didn't do; it appeared that if a bone was buried more than a centimeter or so, the crabs left it alone. Burial -- purposeful or accidental -- might help account for why the crabs didn't eat the waste item in this case, but it doesn't explain the lack of microorganismic action. Drying may be the answer there.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 21:56:26
From: Mona Kendrick
Subject: Re: DNA

For Tom King

>Burial -- purposeful or accidental -- might help account for
>why the crabs didn't eat the waste item in this case, but it doesn't
>explain the lack of microorganismic action. Drying may be the answer
>there.

Dr. King, I think I remember you saying the waste item was found near the remains of a campfire and had some charcoal flecks on its exterior (during the coprolite discussions in Dec.-Jan.). What can you make of that? Could it have been buried in campfire ash? Is there lots of charcoal on the outside, or just a few flecks of ash?

--Mona
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 22:09:54
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: DNA

Ted Campbell asked:

>Do we have any idea how the environment treats buried meat?

We have no experimental data on that.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 23:04:58
From: Scott White
Subject: Re: DNA

>From Terry Thorgaard
>
>Wait a sec. We know the castaway was bleeding internally? Other
>than the fact that TIGHAR has found some possible blood in what may
>be stool, how do we know that?

Sorry Terry - "The person" I was referring to was the person who left behind the DNA sample. We know she or he was bleeding internally because of the blood in the sample. We don't know that this person was "the castaway."
Best,
-SW
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 07:41:07
From: Tom King
Subject: Re: DNA

For Mona Kendrick

The fire feature is one of four we've found at the site (or five, depending on whether you regard one found in 2001 as a single fire or two overlapping fires). I can imagine several ways the item might have wound up in/next to a fire, either one currently in use or dead -- including the possibility that the individual involved died there, and the possibility that he or she deposited the item in the cleared space left by a previous fire, and perhaps scraped ashes over it. The surfaces of the chunks were not notably ashy, but the thing was badly fragmented and very fragile, so what's a surface today was not necessarily an original surface.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 07:43:20
From: John Barrett
Subject: Re: DNA

Here's a thought.... What would have happened to the sample if it hadn't been excreted by the donor and had instead remained inside their body after death? From personal experience I would think that it would most likely degrade and become liquified with the rest of the remains through decomposition as well as the acids already in the system, but I am certainly no pathologist. Given a dry enough environment, could the sample remain intact inside of the body as the body decomposes (or is eaten by the crabs) around it? Could this account for the degree of blood in the sample?

LTM- who may be glad that the donor didn't flush

J. Barrett
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:21:09
From: Jackie Tharp
Subject: Re: More on DNA from Ric

Hi all... Hope all is well with alll Tighars, and Life is good here :)

Ric I'm finding this DNA stuff fascinating to follow. I'm wondering if you guys remember that Amelia had stomach problems for many years and if I remember correctly, she suffered some dissentery during the trip. I wonder if this could be a possible source for blood in the sample? (I'm tryin' real hard not to get my hopes up too high on this, and I'm as always impatiently awaiting the outcome :) ) As to the sextant box: I'm not sure how long ago I joined Tighar, but it's been a few years. I remember a lot of debate on the forum about that box. At that time I was thinking things over, and distinctly remember a box that Paul Mantz found and retrofitted between the cockpit seats for Amelia's "stuff". When the forum was discussing the sextant box I kept wondering if we were talking about THAT box, as it was found near AE's bones. Hmmmm. I dunno, but it could be possible that Paul found or got an old sextant box from Fred to use between those seats. I DO remember "seeing" a photo or film of Paul installing that box, and it sure looked alot like that photo in Tighar Tracks in size and fittings. I don't recall it being black, though.

I've spent hours looking through all of my AE books (and I have many, many of them), photo's, and watched every video or movie I have involving her or her plane, but alas, to no avail so far. Ever since I was a new member of Tighar I've felt that the sextant box would one day prove to be a very important clue to the identity of our cast-away, and I sure hope I'm right about that. Our members have done some incredible research and detective work on this. To think that we started out with an old wooden box with a couple of numbers on it which has now evolved into an "F.E. Brandis" sextant box once owned by the US Navy, very much like one known to be owned by Fred Noonan in May of 1935, AND fitting into a Brandis-Navy chronological tools/inventory list..

Wow.... Well done guys :) :)

LTM, who says old age and memory lapses are NOT for sissies...

Jackie :)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:54:02
From: Mona Kendrick
Subject: Re: More on DNA from Ric

I echo Jackie's sentiments about the terrific job of sextant box research. Well done!

Jackie, what's your photo/source for the box installed between the seats by Mantz? That's a new one on me.

LTM,
Mona
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 13:16:02
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: More on DNA from Ric

>Jackie Tharp says,
>
>I'm wondering if you guys remember that Amelia had stomach
>problems for many years and if I remember correctly, she
>suffered some dissentery during the trip. I wonder if this
>could be a possible source for blood in the sample?

Earhart had recurring sinus problems ever since her bout with influenza in 1918. I'm aware of no mention of stomach problems. She was a bit nauseated during the first part of the South Atlantic crossing from gasoline fumes in the cabin caused by over-filling the fuselage tanks in Natal. The morning after they attended a traditional banquet in Batavia (modern day Jakarta) both she and Fred both felt the effects of spicy food. These minor incidents have been blown up by various authors into the myth that Earhart was suffering from dysentery.

A few months trying to survive on Niku would probably provide ample opportunity for severe intestinal trouble without a pre-existing condition.

>I remember a lot of debate on the forum about that box. At that time I
>was thinking things over, and distinctly remember a box
>that Paul Mantz found and retrofitted between the cockpit
>seats for Amelia's "stuff".

I don't recall mention of any such box. Do you have a source?

>Our members have done some incredible research and
>detective work on this. To think that we started out with
>an old wooden box with a couple of numbers on it which
>has now evolved into an "F.E. Brandis" sextant box once
>owned by the US Navy, very much like one known to be
>owned by Fred Noonan in May of 1935, AND fitting into
>a Brandis-Navy chronological tools/inventory list..
>Wow.... Well done guys :) :)

Thanks Jackie. Yes, I am constantly in awe of what our researchers can learn about even the most innocuous piece of evidence.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 13:58:58
From: Jackie Tharp
Subject: Re: More on DNA from Ric

>From Mona Kendrick
>I echo Jackie's sentiments about the terrific job of sextant box
>research. Well done!
>Jackie, what's your photo/source for the box installed between the
>seats by Mantz? That's a new one on me.

To Mona and Ric:

Hi Mona: Over the years no-one on the forum other than me has ever heard of or seen anything about the box between the seats... I know I didn't dream it, and it wasn't a figment of my imagination.. :) I have searched and searched everything I have to try and find it. But no luck so far.... I will keep looking, and as I recall, it was described in a book with a photo. The problem is I have so many, many books on the subject... I also remember setting it on my scanner to send into the forum, but my scanner died before I got around to it... Dam. Just my luck! Jackie
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 13:59:33
From: Ron Bright
Subject: Re: More on DNA from Ric

If you recall our old friend Jerry Berger, the US Navy enlisted man who was behind Amelia in the crash truck, also recalled that one of his friends in the squadron made a wooden box for AE to be placed forward in the cabin. I don't know if we ever followed up on that. I think Berger is gone now. The box as I recall without notes, matched the size of a sextant.

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:53:19
From: Ted Campbell
Subject: Antenna donut

If you move the donut along the intended track of AE and keep the area of strongest transmission/reception over Howland wouldn't this give you a min/max fix on AE when she missed the island? That is, we know that the ship picked up a "strong" signal when the donut passed overhead then the signal was lost for a short time then heard again on  the last transmission. What possible flight path(s) does this result in?

Ted
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:28:36
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Ted Campbell asked:

>If you move the donut along the intended track of AE and keep the
>area of strongest transmission/reception over Howland wouldn't this
>give you a min/max fix on AE when she missed the island? That is,
>we know that the ship picked up a "strong" signal when the donut
>passed overhead then the signal was lost for a short time then
>heard again on the last transmission.

I'm not sure you're understanding the graphic correctly. The "donut" represents where the airplane can be if Howland is hearing a maximum strength signal. The donut does not pass overhead the ship and there's no indication that the signal was lost for a short time.

The signals Itasca received at 0742, 0758, 0800-03, and 0843 were all reported to be at Strength 5 (maximum strength). During that period of time (roughly an hour), the plane had to be within the donut. At 0742 Earhart says "We must be on you but cannot see you..." so we assume she means that she has reached the 157/337 LOP but does not see an island. An hour later she is says specifically that she is on the line 157/337, running on the line north and south. Okay, so during that hour between 0742 and 0843 she is on the LOP that falls through Howland She can be on the line northwest of Howland or southeast of Howland but she can't be closer than 80 or more than 210 nautical miles from Howland.

>What possible flight path(s) does this result in?

There are several, but only one that makes sense. She hits the LOP at 0742 (or shortly before) roughly 150 nm SE of Howland. Not seeing an island she flies northwestward for a time but then, still not seeing an island, she backtracks along the line and at 0843-0855 says "We are on the line 157/337... running on line north and south." At that point she's probably near the extreme southeastern edge of the donut, heading southeast, and only about 140 nm from Niku.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:17:58
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

I would add to the mix that there is no evidence or necessity that the line she was on at any time went through Howland. She could have been 80 miles west or east of Howland although I would be more comfortable saying she could have been on a line around 20 miles east or west of Howland. I just don't believe Fred could have been more than 15 to 20 miles off on his east/west navigation. North and south was his problem. The only line that ran through Howland for certain was the one on Noonan's map. I do agree they were far south.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:18:24
From: Mike Piner
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

We keep coming back to signal strength to try to pinpoint AE location and I have often pondered why, AE made no mention of sunrise, which was to be a specific time. If you could tie any one of the transmissions to sunrise, then you could get an idea of how far east she came before she got on the LOP. About an hour flying at say 130 MPH with signal strength 5 translates into 75 miles nw towards Itaska, and 75 mi away from Itaska, that is probably 80 to 90 mi se of Howland. This is just a rank amateur guess, but it compares with 0614(1744) hours "about 200 miles out" to 0742(1912) hrs "must be on you" , a time of about an hour and a half, or 133 mph. LTM (who has heard the forum discuss this many times.)
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:18:46
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Ted Campbell asked:

>I may be missing something. Is the center point of the donut the
>location of the aircraft? If yes, I'll restate my question in a
>later email.

No. The center point of the donut is the location of Itasca.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:19:21
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: More on DNA from Ric

Ron Bright says:

>If you recall our old friend Jerry Berger, the US Navy enlisted man
>who was behind Amelia in the crash truck, also recalled that one of
>his friends in the squadron made a wooden box for AE to be placed
>forward in the cabin. I don't know if we ever followed up on that.
>I think Berger is gone now. The box as I recall without notes,
>matched the size of a sextant.

Thanks Ron. Yes I remember that. I don't know how we could follow up on it. It's one person's anecdotal recollection with no kind of documentation. I also don't see how it could have any bearing on the box that was found on Nikumaroro. That box was identified at the time as being a box for a mariner's sextant. A custom-made box, even if it matched the size of a sextant, would not fit that description, nor would there be any reason for it to have numbers on it.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:50:30
From: Reed Riddle
Subject: Re: Sextant boxes

Unless it was a box that was just laying around and was modified to fit into the spot...if it was just the right size then it could have been used for that. It's also possible that it was used to store the sextant Fred might have been using from the right seat. We need a picture to see if it was there before we go wild with rampant speculation.

						Reed
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:24:04
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Mike, the signal strength figure "5" is simply stronger than "4" and has no ability to give distance or bearing. Those are relative numbers and I would venture to say that the same strength signal might be given a different number by different radio operators.

This is the fallacy of the radio guys who worked with Long. They used these same arbitrary numbers and created bearings. We may never know how they managed that. <G> Another point that our radio experts will confirm is that every radio (though the same make and model) is different. I built and tested HF radios for Bendix back in the early 50s. I never found one exactly the same.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:05:49
From: Tom King
Subject: Re: sextant box

Ric writes:

>I also don't see how it could have any bearing on the
>box that was found on Nikumaroro.

True, but it would be interesting to find out what kind of fittings the box had, if any, to compare with what we've found at the Seven Site.

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

Everyone does realize we have *only* an old and very fuzzy anecdotal account from one person? No photos, no corroboration, no nuttin'?

Pat
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:06:12
From: Mike Piner
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

I failed to say it, but it seemed to me that those two legs, coming in to Howland, and searching on the LOP, were each in the "donut zone". If I were to guess, i'd say that the "200 miles out", was sunset.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:22:36
From: Tom Doran
Subject: Re: Sextant boxes

<<From Reed Riddle:
used to store the sextant Fred might have been using from the right
seat.>>

I thought FN was in a rear seat, separated from AE by a large gas tank. Did the Electra have a right and left seat in the cockpit?

Tom Doran #2796

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

The Electra was a two-pilot aircraft in its standard configuration. Noonan usually sat in the right seat, next to Earhart. There was a nav station in the rear of the aircraft with a table if he needed to spread out large maps. This was reached by crawling over the three large fuel tanks installed in the fuselage.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 13:04:49
From: Dan Ball
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Rarely can I input anything into these discussions, but this is one topic I "do" know a bit about. The signal strength "5" that I've heard discussed a bit in the last week comes from the old ACP 131 manual, meaning QRK 5, and is a relative term. In the early days of radio, since morse code was lengthy to type out, they wanted a standardized, shorter way of communicating. And, in typical military fashion, they created a series of acronyms (codes) to do this.

In the case of signal strength, the code was QRK, and it was judged on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the strongest. If a radio operator wanted to find out how strong his signal was, he would send out an interrogative message asking how strong his signal was being received, INT QRK. The receiving station would reply with QRK 5 when they heard it loud and clear, and varying degrees if it was noticeably weaker. Sometimes this is referred to as "fives", "fivers", "all fives" or all sorts of variations of that.

Thus, the strength of the signal was entirely dependant on the receiving operators interpretations of signal strength by listening to the clarity. Unless they had actual equipment to measure signal strength, you cannot guarantee it was a "strong" signal, it was simply someone's interpretations. I've had many times when one of my operators told me they had a good signal coming across (QRK 5), when I could clearly hear a lot of static in the transmission and would have put it at a QRK 3 or 4 myself.

COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS OPERATING SIGNALS - ACP 131.
http://www.armymars.net/ArmyMARS/DigitalOps/Resources/acp131-operating-sigs.pdf
QRK What is the intelligibility of my signals
(or those of...)?
The intelligibility of your signals (or those of...)
is...
1) bad.
2) poor.
3) fair.
4) good.
5) excellent.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 14:14:35
From: Dan Postellon
Subject: Earhart play

Just in from Chicago, another take on AE:
--------------------
'Earhart' plots a promising course; shaky 'Experience'
--------------------
By Nina Metz
Special to the Chicago Tribune
October 17 2008
"Amelia Earhart Jungle Princess" **1/2
The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-on-the-
fringe-1017oct17,0,73 22977.story
Visit chicagotribune.com at http://www.chicagotribune.com
Dan Postellon
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:50:01
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Mike, I believe you mean sunRISE. As I recall sunrise at Howland was 6:30 local. It was only about 40 minutes later they arrived at a position they thought was over Howland. I would imagine they had slowed down by then so as to make their chances of seeing Howland better. So arbitrarily if they were flying at 120 MPH IAS They could have been as close as 60 miles. In any case at 200 miles out it was dark. Probably even at 100 miles out. I meant to make this point long ago that in all likelihood Noonan had precious little time to shoot sun lines on the way in. clearly with the given weather in the Howland area they would have had to be down to 1,000 feet to do any sun shots or at least below the cloud bases.

If someone wants to take the time and knew what altitude they were at the particular time it could be determined where they were at first light. I.E. when the sun's disk first peeped over the horizon. Complicating this of course is not knowing what the cloud cover and their altitude was. Tilting at windmills?

BTW, "those two legs" could have been one and the same -- or not.

Long ago and far away we had a discussion as to whether Noonan flew directly in or offset. If he offset either on purpose or accidentally then turned to the LOP there would have been only one leg. If he flew directly in THEN searched on the LOP there would have been two legs. We may never know.

It is late and I have had a long hard day so if none of that computes cut me some slack. <G>

Alan

>From Mike Piner
>I failed to say it, but it seemed to me that those two legs,
>coming in to Howland, and searching on the LOP, were each in the
>"donut zone". If I were to guess, i'd say that the "200 miles out",
>was sunset.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:50:41
From: Rick Boardman
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Have been following all that you do for some time, and like many am getting far too excited about this DNA malarkey....

Full text of " must be on you" was " Must be on you, but cannot see you", is this correct? This would be an irrelevant thing to say in the dark, so surely at that point (0742), saying that she can't see the ship must indicate that it's light enough to see enough below to warrant that phrase, rather than "must be on you, but it's too dark right now". My ten cents. UK doesn't have cents, but M sent me some, which is why I say LTM

Rick Boardman
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 20:13:26
From: Mike Piner
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Thanks Alan, I saw I had written sunset instead of sunrise. Having seen the donut diagram it begins to make more sense that the incoming leg from time 0614 to 0742 ("200 mi out" to "must be on you") might have been in the southern part of the donut for Itaska to even hear them, then as they turned north on the LOP, they got even louder until they turned again to the south on the LOP, and this would cause them to not be heard as they left the donut area on the way to Niku. So being in the southern part of the donut puts them south of Howland, possibly substantially south maybe 210NM as Ric points out. It explains a lot of the signal strength. It then asks the question, why were they so far off course? Headwinds, cloud cover and not oportunities to get star shots. RIC, these are exciting times, and I want to say that I realized that if anyone looks for an authority on aircraft recovery and restoration, TIGHAR is it because of the guidance You and Pat and have given. As far as what happened to Amelia Earhart, Who has the VOLUME of documents collected, the ground work accomplished, and the perponderence of evidence written down for the world to see? Who?
TIGHAR.
LTM
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 20:13:48
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Rick, rest assured at her "We must be on you..." call it was daylight. Sunrise had occurred an hour and 42 minutes earlier.

That call has always intrigued me. There is good reason to believe Noonan had difficulty getting fixes that morning as one transmission noted "overcast." AND if my math is close he had very little time to get sun lines -- maybe only about 40 minutes or so.

The sun line process is shoot the sun, plot the data and time then shoot again, plot the data and time and measure the time and distance covered to get a ground speed. And a ground speed is all he gets -- no course or north/south position. Then, using his ground speed he plots ahead to see how much time it will take to get to his line running through Howland which we are calling his LOP. Keep in mind that line is ONLY on his chart. Geographically where he was when he thought he was there we will never know unless we find the plane and his maps.

That line on his map was oriented 157/337. We don't know his inbound course. Some of us think he purposely offset to the north so he would know to turn right at the expiration of his ETE. Some believe he was heading directly for Howland thinking he would have a DF steer. If he did that he would not know if he was north or south of Howland and would have to search.

Refining, the sunrise was 1:42 old at 7:42 having been at 6:30. That would give Noonan a little more wiggle room in shooting sun lines. Too close together and they are more inaccurate. Again he would have to be below the scattered CU deck to shoot the sun. That means below 2400 which were the reported bases somewhere in the vicinity. See the problem? We don't know enough about the WX.

Regardless, all he was getting were speed lines -- no course information.

My basic intrigue with the radio call is it sounds like they thought they had very good information on their position. "We MUST be on you..." I would have expected a call "We must be close" or "we think we are within 5 or 10 miles" or something of that nature.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 20:28:57
From: Russ Matthews
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Alan Caldwell wrote:

<< ...the sunrise was 1:42 old at 7:42 having been at 6:30. >>

Wouldn't that actually be one hour and twelve minutes (1:12) old?

LTM,
Rus
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:28:20
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Mike, as Ric and the guys and gals know I sometimes angle off from the beaten path. Our radio folks are outstanding experts in the field and you should listen to them rather than me BUT....... I have faith in Noonan's navigation and I think he got very close -- maybe within 20 miles or less. Having flown many times in similar circumstances I can well believe they could get within ten miles and not find the island. But that's not the important part. It's what they did after arriving in the area and what they did departing that is important.

I think most folks are comfortable with the Niku theory. There was no place reasonable to go other than the Phoenix Islands. Some would like to have them turn back to the Gilberts but Noonan had no navigation capability in that direction -- the sun was at his back. North and east there was nothing but open ocean. Only to the SE was hope of reaching land and Noonan had course lines to help navigate.

Randy produced a remarkable paper showing the strong probability our heroes were considerably south of Howland and short. His Monte Carlo scenario is well documented.

Others want our duo to be well short and to have turned back -- way back while some want them way north so they can reach the Marshalls.

You should read all of the theories and variations so you can better understand where TIGHAR is.

Alan

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

You can read Randy's paper at

World Flight Reconstruction

And it's not too bad an idea to peruse the entire Research Papers section of the website, and also the Research Bulletins and Documents sections.

Many questions can be answered, if not pounded to death, in these sections of the TIGHAR website.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:29:03
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Of course. I told you it was late and I had a hard day. <G>

Alan

>From Russ Matthews
>
>Alan Caldwell wrote:
>
><< ...the sunrise was 1:42 old at 7:42 having been at 6:30. >>
>
>Wouldn't that actually be one hour and twelve minutes (1:12) old?
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:34:52
From: Pat Thrasher
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

>You can read Randy's paper at
>
>World Flight Reconstruction
>
>And it's not too bad an idea to peruse the entire Research Papers
>section of the website, and also the Research Bulletins and
>Documents sections.
>
>Many questions can be answered, if not pounded to death, in these
>sections of the TIGHAR website.

I see the links didn't come through. Here are the URLs for the sections of the TIGHAR website I refer to:

World Flight Reconstruction:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ResearchPapers/Worldflight/reconstruction.html

Research Papers:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ResearchPapers/researchlist.html

Research Bulletins:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/ArchivedBulletins.html

Documents:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Documents_index.html

Have fun.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:17:43
From: Mike Piner
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Thanks Alan, So far I have read everything I can find on the site. I am in complete agreement with the Hypothysis. I was merely commenting on the point Ric was making with the donut that she & Fred was south of Howland , and this is consistant with what the Monte Carlo model had found. I researched, and found that Sunrise July 2, 1937 was 0745 local time found at aa.usno.navy.mil/data/RS-OneDay.php Thanks for the hand slapping.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:18:06
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Antenna donut

Good work, Pat. a lot of people did phenomenal jobs putting information together and everyone should read what has been written. Not just new folks but we "old hands" ought to review things now and then.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:03:06
From: Ted Campbell
Subject: Possible navigation error

Ric, I got to thinking the other day regarding the donut antenna theory and have the following question for you.

We have the original flight (from East to West) plan prepared for AE/FN but I don't recall seeing one going from West to East. I think I saw the original on Purdue's site.

Have we ever looked at the leg from Howland to Lae (the original plan) for a navigation error? My thinking is, did FN take the original and simply reverse the track for the leg from Lae to Howland - thus giving an error that could have taken way South of Howland?

Ted
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:12:16
From: Randy Jacobson
Subject: Re: Possible navigation error

The maps laid out for AE prior to the first flight indicated which zones had magnetic variations, and included only true course diagrams. It was up to AE to apply the magnetic variations according to which zone/area she was in. This eliminated any confusion as to direction.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:20:33
From: Ron Bright
Subject: Brandis box

It appears that TIGHAR is now abandoning the possibility that Noonan may have discarded at Niku a mariner sextant similar to his once owned Ludolf sextant now at the National Air Museum

Instead, TIGHAR ( Oct 2008 Tracks) sets forth in detail the possibility that the Gallagher box was a Brandis mariner sextant box.This is based on a photograph (undated) of a navigator's station on a PAA Clipper showing a Brandis box stored on a shelf near Eng Officer V.A Wright. Noonan did fly regularily as a PAA navigator and conceivably may have stored the Brandis on the self. Researchers found other Brandis boxes/sextants reflecting a possible serial number connection.

Here is where the date of the photo could support this claim. Noonan flew with PAA Clippers numerous times in mid thirties. His last flight on a Clipper was on 7 Dec 1936, and he was separated from PAA late Dec 1936. [1] If the photograph was dated prior to Dec 7, 1936, if he owned a Brandis, he may have left the box on the shelf as pictured.

If however the photo was taken after 7 Dec 36 , when he was not employed by PAA, then it is unlikely the Brandis box was his as we know he was accustomed to taking his sextant with him.

For example, according to a timeline of Noonan's flights [1] he was on PAA Clipper NR823M as part of the crew with Capt Musick and Engineering Officer Wright between 27-31 March 1935 landing at Oakland. This is the only date I could find that mentions Wright and Noonan on the same flight, although Noonan did fly many other times.

This was a much ballyhooded flight and it is possible this was when the photo was taken and would be solid evidence that the Brandis was Noonan's.

Is there a way to date this photo and also obtain other PAA Clipper manifests of the crew and dates. Were there other navigators on these Clipper flights, one of which could have owned a Bendis?

LTM,
Ron Bright
[1] Don Jordan, a Noonan scholar, time lines.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:36:04
From: Ted Campbell
Subject: Re: Possible navigation error

Randy,
Take a look at picture 667 (Flight data analysis, Howland Island) - page 2 - on Purdue's web site. Here you will find that not only the true course is given but so is the magnetic variations, the magnetic course and the 3 check points along the path from Howland to Lae.

We also know that the Lat/Lon for Howland was somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 miles off from its actual location. What I am wondering is, if you simply take the reciprocal course shown on the first attempt what happens to the 20 or so mile error in Howland's true location coming at it from the East? Would this error (?) be in the donut antenna area South of Howland and Baker Islands?

Ted
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:06:17
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Possible navigation error

Ted, your information is incorrect. The error between Howland's actual and mapped location is roughly 5 NM. It should have not been a significant factor.

Alan

>From: Ted Campbell
>
>Randy,
>Take a look at picture 667 (Flight data analysis, Howland Island) -
>page 2 - on Purdue's web site. Here you will find that not only the
>true course is given but so is the magnetic variations, the magnetic
>course and the 3 check points along the path from Howland to Lae.
>
>We also know that the Lat/Lon for Howland was somewhere in the
>neighborhood of 20 miles off from its actual location. What I am
>wondering is, if you simply take the reciprocal course shown on the
>first attempt what happens to the 20 or so mile error in Howland's
>true location coming at it from the East? Would this error (?) be in
>the donut antenna area South of Howland and Baker Islands?

=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:06:46
From: Randy Jacobson
Subject: Re: Possible navigation error

The radius for the donut of lesser radio reception is much greater than the 20 mile offset between the true and reported Howland positions.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:42:02
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Possible navigation error

Ted, to follow up and be more accurate the actual coordinates of Howland Island are 0 degrees 48' N and 176 degrees 38' W. The erroneous coordinates were 0 degrees 49' N and 176 degrees 43' W. As you can visualize that's only a mile north in error and 5 miles west of the actual position. Approaching the erroneous position they could have easily seen the actual position a few miles on beyond.

Noonan had a navigational CEA of about 10 or 15 miles so the plotting error would have had little impact.

The easiest screw up they could have done was plot the variation backwards. Although Noonan made errors we've found I can't recall him messing up variation.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:55:41
From: Wink Butz
Subject: Re: Possible navigation error

I've always have had this feeling that the time zone change of a day between Lai and Howland enters into a possible nav error either plotting the original course or when taking sightings with the sextant and re-adjusting along the flight path. I can imagine the stress of the flight and the possibility of Noonan forgetting to add a day or subtracting a day (forgot which way) when crossing the date line halfway thru the flight.

Wink Butz
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:40:43
From: William Webster-Garman
Subject: Re: Possible navigation error

Wink Butz wrote,

>I've always have had this feeling that the time zone change of a
>day between Lai and Howland enters into a possible nav error either
>plotting the original course or when taking sightings with the
>sextant and re-adjusting along the flight path. I can imagine the
>stress of the flight and the possibility of Noonan forgetting to
>add a day or subtracting a day (forgot which way) when crossing the
>date line halfway thru the flight.

Could have happened, but how could we ever know?

I do think the evidence, one way or another, most strongly hints at a sad string of mistakes and mishaps, the mix of lousy radio planning and training, maybe a lost antenna on take-off at Lai and taken with the slight botch in the published latitude and longitude of Howland at the time, dozens or even hundreds of cloud shadows which looked almost spot on like the dark sliver of flat coral rock which is Howland Island.

Meanwhile, as Tom King has brought up in so many words, Nikumararo's lagoon, within only a few miles of their last reported LOP, would have looked like a big, fluorescent green beacon from the cockpit of the Electra.

LTM, who could tell a few tales about cloud shadows in the open Pacific.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:41:37
From: Hilary Olson
Subject: Re: Possible navigation error

Obviously something happened to this flight en-route from Lae to Howland .In the same nature of your e-mail content I have a ,"feeling" long before Howland was nowhere to be found Fred Noonan checked his chart at least 100 times and his calculations . I have feeling he did that but no evidence. Hilary Olson
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:54:17
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: Brandis box

Ron Bright writes,

>It appears that TIGHAR is now abandoning the possibility that
>Noonan may have discarded at Niku a mariner sextant similar to his
>once owned Ludolf sextant now at the National Air Museum

Those silly TIGHAR people, always changing their story. Why can't they just make up their mind and stick to it like other Earhart researchers?

Ron, we don't abandon possibilities. We amend hypotheses if new information makes it seem reasonable to do so. Back in 1999, what struck us about the Noonan sextant box at the National Museum of Naval Aviation (not the National Air Museum, whatever that is) was that it had two numbers written on it (3547 and 173), and one of the numbers (3547) was similar to one of the numbers (3500) reported to have been on the Niku box. Not much to go on. We had no idea what the numbers might signify, but it seemed like there might be some kind of connection..

Instead, TIGHAR ( Oct 2008 Tracks) sets forth in detail the possibility that the Gallagher box was a Brandis mariner sextant box. This is based on a photograph (undated) of a navigator's station on a PAA Clipper showing a Brandis box stored on a shelf near Eng Officer V.A Wright. Noonan did fly regularly as a PAA navigator and conceivably may have stored the Brandis on the self.

>Well SOMEBODY put a Brandis sextant box on that shelf.
>
>Here is where the date of the photo could support this claim.

Yes, dating the photo is important. One of our researchers found that photo on a website (I've forgotten just where) but no date was mentioned.

>Noonan flew with PAA Clippers numerous times in mid thirties.

Let's be clear about this. Noonan was the navigator for ALL of the Pan Am Pacific Division survey flights. Here's the breakdown according to "Pacific Pioneers" by Jon E. Krupnick (2000, Pictorial Histories Publishing):

Survey 1 - Apr. 16-23, 1935 - Alameda/Honolulu - Sikorsky S-42 - Capt. Musick; 1st Officer Sullivan; Eng. Wright; Nav. Noonan

Survey 2 - Jun. 12-22, 1935 - Alameda/Midway - Sikorsky S-42 - Capt. Musick; 1st Officer Sullivan; Eng. Wright; Nav. Noonan

Survey 3 - Aug. 9-29, 1935 - Alameda/Wake - Sikorsky S-42 - Capt. Sullivan; 1st Officer Tilton; Eng. Wright; Nav. Noonan

Survey 4 - Oct. 5-24, 1935 - Alameda/Guam - Sikorsky S-42 - Capt. Sullivan; 1st Officer Tilton; Eng. Wright; Nav. Noonan

Flight 5 - Nov. 22 to Dec. 6, 1935 - Alameda/Manila - Martin M-130 "China Clipper"- Capt. Musick; 1st Officer Sullivan; Eng. Wright; Nav. Noonan

(This was the first transpacific air mail flight and the first flight by the Martin M-130 "China Clipper." Lots of hype. The photo in question was most probably taken as part of the pre or post-flight publicity.)

Flight 6 - Dec. 9-26, 1935 - Alameda/Manila - Martin M-130 "Philippine Clipper" - Capt. Tilton; 1st Officer Dahlstrom; Eng. Fiske; Nav. Ingram

Flight 7 - Feb. 22 to Mar. 9, 1936 - Alameda/Manila - Martin M-130 "China Clipper" - Capt. Musick; 1st Officer Sullivan; Eng. Wright; Nav. Noonan

Flight 8 - May 2-16, 1936 - Alameda/Manila - Martin M-130 "Hawaii Clipper" - no crew list available but photos do not show Wright or Noonan.

Flight 9 - Oct.7-24, 1936 - Alameda/Manila - Martin M-130 "China Clipper" - Capt. Dahlstrom; 1st Officer Lewis; Eng. Griffin, no navigator listed

Flight 10 - Oct.14 to Nov 2, 1936 - Alameda/Hong Kong - Martin M-130 "Philippine Clipper" - no crew list available 

Flight 11 - Oct. 21 to Nov. 4, 1936 - Alameda/Manila - Martin M-130 "Hawaii Clipper" - Capt. Musick; 1st Officer Gray; Eng. Wright; Nav. Noonan

>His last flight on a Clipper was on 7 Dec 1936, and he was
>separated from PAA late Dec 1936. [1] If the photograph was dated
>prior to Dec 7, 1936, if he owned a Brandis, he may have left the
>box on the shelf as pictured.

Flight 11 was Pan Am Pacific Division's first revenue transpacific passenger flight and the company's last transpacific trip in 1936. I can find no record of a flight on Dec.7. The next flight wasn't until March 17, 1937 when Musick departed Alameda for the first survey flight to New Zealand. Vic Wright was the engineering officer but the airplane was a Sikorsky S-42.

>If however the photo was taken after 7 Dec 36 , when he was
>not employed by PAA, then it is unlikely the Brandis box was his
>as we know he was accustomed to taking his sextant with him.

True, but if the box was not Noonan's, the photo had to be taken on a Martin M-130 flight on which Wright was the engineer but Noonan was not the navigator. I can't find such a flight. After Nov. 1936, Wright seems to have worked with Musick on the S-42 survey flights to the South Pacific. As the company's most senior engineer that would make sense. Fortunately, Vic was not on Musick's crew for the January 1938 flight when the "Samoa Clipper" went down on the approach to Pago Pago.

>For example, according to a timeline of Noonan's flights [1] he
>was on PAA Clipper NR823M as part of the crew with Capt Musick and
>Engineering Officer Wright between 27-31 March 1935 landing at
>Oakland.

NC823M was the Sikorsky S-42 "West Indies Clipper" that Pan Am used for Pacific Division training in the Caribbean in 1934. They brought the airplane to California in 1935 and modified it with long range fuel tanks. During the certification test flights in March the airplane was registered NR823M. The airplane was subsequently renamed "American Clipper" and once more became NC823M. The certificated modification was incorporated in later S-42s as the S-42B.

>This is the only date I could find that mentions Wright and Noonan
>on the same flight, although Noonan did fly many other times.

See the list above.

>This was a much ballyhooded flight and it is possible this was
>when the photo was taken and would be solid evidence that the
>Brandis was Noonan's.
>
>Is there a way to date this photo and also obtain other PAA
>Clipper manifests of the crew and dates. Were there other
>navigators on these Clipper flights, one of which could have owned
>a Bendis?

See above. I think it's pretty clear that the Brandis in the photo is almost certainly Noonan's.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:01:08
From: Tom Doran
Subject: Howland Island

The Wikipedia article on Howland Island has some new photos of Howland Island. They were posted in August of this year by someone named Joanne. She used a point and shoot camera so I'd guess that she is not a scientist or federal employee.

Her photos show the Earhart Light to be in pretty sorry shape. Another photo, titled Plane Wreckage, is interesting. The main object is a tank or pontoon of some kind which is maybe eight feet long. In the background is an airplane wing about 30 or 40 feet long, along with miscellaneous junk between them.

Several articles have stated that there is no evidence any aircraft ever landed on Howland. Would those writers claim that someone hauled a substantial amount of aircraft debris to Howland and dumped it there?

Has anyone from TIGHAR ever been to Howland?

Tom Doran, # 2796
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:34:27
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Brandis Box

Ric, do we know what the routes were for those flights? I would guess they are not non stop but I could be wrong. If they are I would guess they are pretty much point A to point B flights.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:34:52
From: William Webster-Garman
Subject: Re: Howland Island

Tom Doran wrote:

>The Wikipedia article on Howland Island has some new photos of
>Howland Island. They were posted in August of this year by someone
>named Joanne. She used a point and shoot camera so I'd guess that
>she is not a scientist or federal employee.
>
>Her photos show the Earhart Light to be in pretty sorry shape.
>Another photo, titled Plane Wreckage, is interesting. The main
>object is a tank or pontoon of some kind which is maybe eight feet
>long. In the background is an airplane wing about 30 or 40 feet
>long, along with miscellaneous junk between them.
>
>Several articles have stated that there is no evidence any aircraft
>ever landed on Howland. Would those writers claim that someone
>hauled a substantial amount of aircraft debris to Howland and
>dumped it there?
>
>Has anyone from TIGHAR ever been to Howland?

A Martin PBM was beached on Howland following an emergency landing at sea (engine fire) in June 1944.

This is noted in the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Howland_Island#cite_note-12

LTM
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:35:17
From: Dennis McGee
Subject: Re: Howland Island

Tom Doran said: "Several articles have stated that there is no
evidence any aircraft ever landed on Howland. Would those writers
claim that someone hauled a substantial amount of aircraft debris to
Howland and dumped it there?"

Well, if it is wreckage, I'd say the pilot didn't exactly "land." The proviso being that if he did walked away then I guess you would have to say it was a landing, which would be in keeping with the time-honored aviation axiom, "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing."

LTM, who always walked away
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:35:51
From: Ron Bright
Subject: Re: Brandis box

According to Don Jordan's timeline, Noonan did fly Nov 22-Dec 7 1936, Philipine Clipper, Manilla Flight. Does this square with your records? ( I haven't gone back to Jordan as of now) Noonan made at least six local test hops, say from Oakland to San Diego. Would Wright always accompany him on those types of flights? Did PAA furnish these expensive sextants as company property or were they always owned by the Navigator?

LTM,
Ron
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:36:12
From: Alfred Hendrickson
Subject: Re: Howland Island

Fascinating picture of the pontoon and wing. I love pictures like that. The wreckage could possibly have washed up on Howland's shore, but maybe the picture was not taken at Howland.

Hmmm.

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:51:02
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: Brandis box

>Alan Caldwell asked:
>
>Ric, do we know what the routes were for those flights?

Yes. Pan Am surveyed the route across the Pacific in hop-scotch stages. The first survey went non-stop Alameda to Honolulu, then returned. The next survey flight went Alameda to Honolulu to Midway and then back ton Honolulu and thence to Alameda. The third flight went Alalmeda/Honolulu/ Midway/Wake and return. And so on.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:32:43
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: Brandis box

Ron Bright says:

>According to Don Jordan's timeline, Noonan did fly Nov 22-Dec 7
>1936, Philipine Clipper, Manilla Flight. Does this square with your
>records? ( I haven't gone back to Jordan as of now)

I don't have a record of such a flight but the reference book I'm using focuses on "historic" clipper flights. A Nov 22 - Dec 7 run to and from Manila would be the second scheduled revenue passenger flight and might not necessarily qualify as historic so I can't say that Philippine Clipper did not make such a flight. However, if it did, and if Noonan was aboard, it would be the first time he flew as crew on a revenue flight aboard Philippine Clipper. If the flight did happen and if Noonan was the navigator, the question would be whether Wright served as engineer.

>Noonan made at least six local test hops, say from Oakland to
>San Diego. Would Wright always accompany him on those types of
>flights?

I don't know. If you're asking if it is possible that the photo of Wright in the navigation room of an M-130 was taken on a flight where Noonan was not the navigator - sure, it's possible. Wright usually flew with Noonan but we can't say he absolutely always flew with Noonan. What we can say is that Noonan's use of a mariner's sextant as a "preventer" was idiosyncratic and worthy of specific mention in Noonan's letter to Weems. To say that one of the other two or three Pan Am Pacific Division navigators also used an old mariner's sextant as a back up and happened to be flying with Wright the day that photo was taken is grasping at straws.

>Did PAA furnish these expensive sextants as company property or
>were they always owned by the Navigator?

I don't know but it seems reasonable that the company would provide the modern bubble octant essential to the flight. An idiosyncratic "preventer" might be a personal choice.

In any event, we do have Noonan's own statement that he used a mariner's sextant as a back up. A conventional mariner's sextant is of no use in an airplane unless you're carrying it strictly as a good luck charm, in which case a rabbit's foot is considerably lighter. By far, the most commonly modified sextant for aeronautical use was the Brandis, so whether the box in the photo is Noonan's or not, chances are his "preventer" was a Brandis.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:59:07
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Howland Island

Dennis, the full quote is a good landing is one you can walk away from. A Great landing is one in which the plane will fly again.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:59:34
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Brandis box

And the Alameda to NZ route would have been what?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:00:00
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Brandis box

You can see my obvious question on the routes. Were any of them routed near the Phoenix Islands? Clearly none of them were unless it was the NZ flight.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:21:28
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: Brandis box

Alan Caldwell asked:

>And the Alameda to NZ route would have been what?

Alameda/Honolulu/Kingman Reef/Pago Pago/Auckland

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:21:45
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Re: Brandis box

Alan Caldwell wrote:

>You can see my obvious question on the routes. Were any of them
>routed near the Phoenix Islands? Clearly none of them were unless
>it was the NZ flight.

The NZ survey flights passed just to the east of the Phoenix Group. There is no mention of any sextant boxes having been thrown out en route.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:24:48
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: New Bulletin up

The article "Numbers Game" from the latest TIGHAR Tracks describing the latest sextant box research is now up as a Research Bulletin on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ Bulletins/56_NumbersGame/56_NumbersGamePref.html

Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:42:23
From: Alan Caldwell
Subject: Re: Brandis box

That's not all that close to Niku. About 477 SM. I wasn't thinking of
the sextants but whether Noonan had an obvious reason to know much
about the Phoenix Islands. Maybe so maybe not unless there was a
known Anchorage there during that time. If you recall, on the first
attempt his map had Enderbury underlined although that doesn't mean
Noonan did the underlining or why it was so annotated.

Alan

>Alan Caldwell wrote:
>
>You can see my obvious question on the routes. Were any of them
>routed near the Phoenix Islands? Clearly none of them were unless
>it was the NZ flight.
>
>The NZ survey flights passed just to the east of the Phoenix Group.
>There is no mention of any sextant boxes having been thrown out en
>route.
>
>Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:35:19
From: Tom Doran
Subject: Re: Brandis box

>Alameda/Honolulu/Kingman Reef/Pago Pago/Auckland

Someone was going to land at Kingman Reef? From Google's satellite photo there doesn't seem to be enough dry land to stand on.

A seaplane might be able to land inside the (former) lagoon, if it is deep enough and long enough for a take off run. I'm not sure why they would unless there were a barge stationed there, loaded with fuel.

Tom D., #2796
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:31:23
From: Pete Backlund
Subject: Re: Brandis box

The web site below includes information on how Kingman Reef was used by Pan Am.

http://www.janeresture.com/kingman_reef/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:43:01
From: Dan Postellon
Subject: Re: Brandis box

Seaplanes were the general idea, with a Pan Am ship for overnight accommodations. I'm not sure if they ever pulled it off. There have been some ham radio DXing expeditions to Kingman reef. It looks like that scene from Pirates of the Caribbean. There is a sandbar with no vegetation, barely above sea level. I wouldn't want to be there in a storm.
Dan Postellon
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:43:24
From: Dan Postellon
Subject: Re: Brandis box

Here's a link to the DX expedition to Kingman reef, with photos from October, 2000. Nikumaroro looks a little less remote, and more hospitable, by comparison. Dan Postellon http://www.qsl.net/krpdxg/krpics.html
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:27:14
From: Ron Bright
Subject: Re: Kingman reef

As I recall Stewart Saunders, a PAA employee, was also a station manager at Kingman Reef before or after the time Amelia disappeared. I spent a year trying to locate him in Callifornia. He had written to Goerner that he had heard AE/FN from his Wake Island post the night she disappeared. Could never find any more information on him.
LTM,
Ron
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:43:01
From: Ric Gillespie
Subject: Sale at the TIGHAR Store

To save you money in these tough times and to stimulate the TIGHAR economy we're making a special offer on the new embroidered sweat shirts featured in the latest TIGHAR Tracks and on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR_Store/tigharstoreWU.html. These are really beautiful, high-end shirts with the TIGHAR name or the full color Niku image embroidered, not silk screened, on the front. There's also a small TIGHAR logo embroidered on the back up at the neck. Every Earhart Forum member needs one or both of these shirts.

The TIGHAR crew-neck shirts regularly go for $82 and the hoodies for $87, but if you order now we'll send you either style for $70.

The TIGHAR kid's hoody goes for $60. Sale price $50.

The Niku shirt sells for $94 and $99. You can have either style for $85.

Get both shirts in either style for $140 (a savings of $36 for crew necks, $46 for hoodies).

This is a fantastic deal but it's a limited time offer. Once we've sold 50 shirts at these prices the sale is over, so get your order in now. Orders received by December 1st will be delivered by December 21st.

To order, you can use the order form that came with your TIGHAR Tracks (just write "sale" on the order form and use the prices described above) or you can order on line at http://www.tighar.org/ TIGHAR_Store/tigharstoreWU.html (just use the new prices). And you can always just drop me or Pat an email, fax (302-994-7945), or call (302-994-4410). Remember to tell us what size and, for the TIGHAR shirts, whether you want light gray letters on a blue shirt or blue letters on a gray shirt.

Thanks & Happy Holidays
Ric
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:40:05
From: Marcus Lind
Subject: Happy Thanksgiving

...Sorry for "off-top" - but, Happy Thanksgiving to all members of the Forum! :)

Very sincerely - LTM, Marcus Lind