Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:46:37 EST
From:        John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: History Channel Crib Sheet

Ric wrote:

>- Crouch, "We have a list of serial numbers of everything on that airplane."
>He's talking through his hat.  The engines and props had serial numbers and
>the airframe itself had a constructor's number.  That's about it.

Ric, wouldn't all of the radio equipment have also had serial numbers on the various 'units'?

   John Rayfield, Jr.

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

From Ric

I don't know (and neither does Crouch).  How about it Mike Everette?  Would a W.E. 13C or 20B, etc. have serial numbers?  I do know that none are recorded in the airplane's surviving paperwork.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:07:53 EST
From:         Don Jordan 
Subject:      Re: Document of the Week

>Every week we'll mount a new primary source document related to the Warhart
>disappearance. ...

Is Warhart her brother?  I don't think we can afford another search.

Sorry Ric. . . .just had to!

****************************************************************
From Ric

Ya got me.  (I gotta stop doin' this stuff when I'm tired.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:12:49 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: The Curse of the Lady Be Good

> Right now you're probably asking yourself,
> "Why does Ric keep posting this totally off-topic LBG stuff when he is much
> tougher on other off-topic threads"
>
> Answer:
> 1. Because so many forum members seem genuinely interested and, after all, it
> is a lost (or rather, formerly-lost) airplane.
> 2.  The postings, while off-topic, are not stupid.

Ric:  They are off topic, but tangential to our search, since they point out various effects of weather on aircraft and artifacts, former hardships encountered in searching in a remote and hostile environment (ie the first failed search for the bodies), and how the media can turn it into a really good story. Think of the same scenario with AE/FN waiting to be found and their "ghosts" released from bondage.  We are in the archeological business and I think anything that adds knowledge for our readers/subscribers is On Topic.

LTMovies,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:10:12 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Randomness of Nature

Ric:  I'll add my two cents worth about the randomness of MN (mother nature) - I was a teenager when hurricane Carla hit Galveston Island.  Many tornados hit the island and did a lot of damage.  I, too, saw a "doll house", but don't remember any particulars on it.  The one that I remember most vividly was the house that was nothing but rubble scattered about the whole lot.  My mother walked over and lifted a door that was still in its frame, but laying flat on the ground.  On the backside was a full length bevelled edge mirror - intact and unharmed!

LTM,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:17:10 EST
From:         Vern Kleine
Subject:      Re: Post-crash radio contact

Pondering the imponderables.

>From Ric
>
>1.  It's important to note that there was no true triangulation on any of the
>post-loss signals.  Bearings were taken on different signals by different
>stations.  Several of these separate bearings cross near Gardner. On no
>occasion did two or more stations take bearings on the same signal.

It may be worth mentioning the more positive sort of speculation about this. IF any two of those bearings were, in fact, taken on signals from the same transmitter location, then the triangulation would be valid.  The fact that the bearings were taken at different times would make no difference.

Several bearings indicate a source in the DIRECTION of the Phoenix Islands from the DF station.  The source could be anywhere along the bearing, near or far, but the Phoenix Islands area is on each of the lines.  If any two bearings were on signals from the same transmitter, the intersection is very close to the Phoenix Islands.

It gives one some basis to feel this MIGHT be real, but that's about all.

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

From Ric

Agreed.  Certainty is a rare commodity in this business.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:02:22 EST
From:         John Thompson
Subject:      AE Centre(Ireland)

> I presume the Amelia Earhart Centre has all the books and any
> other photos that may available.

My apologies for my seeming absence from discussion,  but illness and now this problem have been pre-occupying my time.

I regret to inform you and other members that the Amelia Earhart Centre in Ireland will close on 31 March 1999 due to lack of funding.

It is a matter of national embarrassment, not to mention personal sorrow,that the local " Powers that be" seem not to appreciate the unique and momentous achievements of AE.

Would it be presumptive for me to ask members of this Forum to consider individually registering their concern by emailing letters to the Editors of local media here?

John Thompson
****************************************************************

From Ric

John, we'll certainly help any way we can.  Some more information will help us help.

1.  How does this sort of thing work in Ireland?  Do you have to rely on government funding or can you appeal to local businesses and individuals?

2.  Do you have any sort of status as a recognized entity?  In the U.S. you can become a recognized nonprofit organization and be exempt from some taxes and contributors can get a tax deduction.

3.  Surely you have value to the community as a tourist draw.  How many visitors to you get in a typical year? They all have to sleep and eat.  Do you charge admission?

4.  What level of funding do you need to keep going?

5.  Let us have email addresses for local media and we can certainly let them know how many of us would definitely make a point of visiting the Amelia Earhart Centre on a visit to Ireland.  There are 575 subscribers to this form. We can fill up a lot of mail boxes.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:23:41 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Post landing signals

Still pondering the imponderables.

>From Ric
>
>...The question we have asked ourselves is - How likely is it that Earhart and
>Noonan were able to RECEIVE signals while on the ground/reef/whatever at Niku?

We know they were NOT receiving when approaching Howland.  If they got down relatively intact on Niku, they may have soon found why the receiver had not been working.  It may have been something as simple as the antenna lead being disconnected from the receiver.  In my opinion, those push-type terminals used on the receivers and transmitters of the time are not well suited to aircraft usage.  It's just too easy to simply pull the wire out of the spring-loaded connection.  It would not be easy to see this in that "rats nest" of wiring.

We, and the Russians, have lost a few spacecraft because the last person to work on some part of it disconnected something and failed to reconnect it.

I believe it's been determined that there is no problem in receiving broadcast station signals on Niku, such as from Hawaii, etc.

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

From Ric

That's right.  And there are at least three reported incidents when simple, easily repairable failures caused a loss of communication aboard the aircraft.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:28:10 EST
From:         Dennis Mcgee
Subject:      Creating evidence

Sactodave said:

>TIGHAR's job, as you put it, is to create
>evidence.

Dave. please believe me, I am NOT picking on you.  But, really Dave, you've got to learn to be more careful with the English language.

TIGHAR does not create evidence.  Create means "to bring into existence."  I think the word you wanted is "locate", or "discover," or "find" etc.  There are dozens of applicable synonyms for this process, but create is not one of them.

Creating evidence is fraudulent, and if TIGHAR "created " evidence it would have been out of business years ago.  The group's major asset is its credibility, and if you create evidence -- and the fraud is discovered -- your credibility disappears (*snap*!) -- like that!

This is not the first time you have done something like this. Your credibility on the forum is quite low because of the above statement and others similar to it.  I don't know if you do this intentionally, or if . . .well, never mind that.

But, please, pay closer attention to what you say if you want us to respect any future postings.

LTM, who was a math major
Dennis McGee, #0149
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:32:29 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Post crash engine running without a prop...

I still think if you run an engine with a constant speed prop configuration, if you removed the prop you would shoot oil to the next island out the hole in the end of the crank shaft.

The only radial engine I ever worked on was the R-985 in Vietnam, so I am not an expert and don't claim to be.  (Where is Bruce Y. when you need him)?But I seem to remember if we took a prop off an engine we always stuck a rag in the end of the crank to cover up the oil hole.  The pitch change of the prop was made possible by the oil pressure in the engine.

It has been a few years. . . I hope I am remembering my 67J20 class at Ft. Rucker.  Anybody else?

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

From Ric

I think John Clauss has provided adequate reaming on this subject.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:35:42 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Earhart myths

> 6.  Spend the next six months trying to figure out why the ring wasn't where
> you thought it would be and explaining to the international press why you're
> quite sure that it really is there somewhere.

Ric,
Sure, hog all the excitement...
ltm
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:38:21 EST
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Starting the Engine without a Prop

Like you I have felt that it would be next to impossible to start and run most aircraft engines without a prop attached.  None the less, we do know that most helicopters have aircraft engines that start without a prop or flywheel attached.  After starting the engine the rotor system is connected by way of a clutch or belt drive to the rotor blades.  Thus I have to rethink my position on the engine starting and running.  Test stand props do serve as a flywheel and provide cooling air but are they required?  I don't know.  The whole point is really unimportant.  Special tools and stands would have been required to remove the 10E prop which Fred and Amelia would not have had.  Any landing damage to the prop causing it to depart the engine would certainly damage the engine to the point it could not be operated.  If the engine was operated to charge the batteries after landing almost certainly it was with the prop attached and the landing gear extended.

Dick Pingrey 0908C

A & P Mechanic
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:41:07 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: History Channel Crib Sheet

>From Ric
>
>I don't know (and neither does Crouch).  How about it Mike Everette?  Would a
>W.E. 13C or 20B, etc. have serial numbers?  I do know that none are recorded
>in the airplane's surviving paperwork.

I just took a look at an old BC-696-A transmitter that I've got laying out in the shop, and it has a serial number on it.  When I made the other post, I was at home and couldn't check this one out.

John Rayfield, Jr.

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

From Ric

Serial numbers are like DNA.  Doesn't do you any good without something to match it to.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:08:26 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: AE Centre(Ireland)

In my sheltered existence I had no idea there was an AE Centre in Ireland.  What a shame that it has to shut down.  Can anyone advise what arrangements have been made for their collection/materials/etc?
ltm,
jon 2266

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

From Ric

The arrangements are that TIGHAR and the Earhart Forum are going to do all we can to keep the Earhart Centre in Ireland alive lest the ghosts of Frederick Joseph Noonan and Gerald Bernhard Gallagher rise up from their very graves and ask each of us in the blackness of the night why it is that they must lie beneath Pacific sands without there being at least one place among the green hills of Donegal where they are remembered.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:21:16 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: Starting the Engine without a Prop

Re -Starting Helo engines--- Dont the driveshafts go into a gearbox which would absorb some loads and then at the proper time,speed and temp the rotor is  clutched in to start rotating for takeoff,etc.

I am going to have to go back to my manuals and look..
Jim Tierney

****************************************************************
From Dave Bush

QUESTION:  How does the starter engage the engine if it doesn't have a flywheel?  Every engine I have ever seen (tho, admittedly, I haven't seen them all) has a toothed fly-wheel that the starter engages.  This is a BIG metal thingamabob and has to be to handle the forces to spin the engine.  BY THE WAY - off topic tho it may be - why are 18 wheelers called 18 wheelers when they actually have 21 wheels (not including spare tires).  Don't forget to count the steering wheel, fly-wheel, and fifth-wheel.  I win $20.00 bucks from every truck driver when I bet them their 18 wheeler has 21 wheels.  What'd WC Fields say - There's a sucker born every minute (he was using remote viewing when he said it, too, I'll bet).

Love to motors,
Dave Bush
#2200
*****************************************************************

From Ric

That was P.T. Barnum.  W.C. Fields said, "Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump."  He said it in the film "Poppy" (1923) but the saying was originated by Edward Francis Albee.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:27:46 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: AE Centre(Ireland)

Ric-By all means- Get us more info and addresses.........

I had already slotted the centre on my schedule for my next trip to Ireland...
Jim Tierney

*****************************************************************
From Herman De Wulf

An AE Centre in Ireland ? Where is it ? How do I get there ? What does it have to show ? Ireland is only minutes an $ 100 away (by plane) from where I live.

Herman De Wulf
Belgium

*****************************************************************
From Ric

John Thompson can tell you much more, but I can tell you that it's in Derry, very close to the field (Gallagher's Field) where Earhart landed in 1932.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:44:33 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      questions on forum stuff

Loved the lightbulb joke, keep 'em coming.  I'm going to drop Reader's Digest a line about the article in Discover Archeology magazine in particular, and TIGHAR in general.  Hopefully, publicity, memberships, and funding will result.

On the forum, just whose mother is everyone sending love to?  Each to their own?  All to Ric's mom?  To Ric himself as (no offense Ric) the "mother hen" of TIGHAR?  Perhaps to AE, as she is "the mother of all" aviation mysteries.  Please clarify.

Do I understand correctly that there are feral canines on Niku?  If so, I humbly offer my services to accompany the Niku 4 expedition as a shooter to keep the project from going "to the dogs".  That's providing, of course that the Prime Minister/President/whatever of the nation of Kiribati doesn't object to my "Michigan coyote rifle", a sweet little Marlin lever-action that fires .357 magnum pistol bullets at velocities handgunners can only dream about.  (don't be alarmed, I'm not a militia/gun nut type, just a humble collector trying to weasel my way to Niku)

When (not "if") TIGHAR and the AE/Niku projects are ultimately successful, those folks who write books attempting to harmonize our own real history with the fictional one of "Star Trek" will need to revise their storylines.  There was a "Voyager" episode wherein the trekkers discovered AE alive and mostly well in the "delta quadrant".

Best snide remark about non-believers of alien/trek mythology came from Capt. Janeway speaking to AE:  "in your time the most scoffed at theory of your disappearance was that you had been abducted by aliens."  For the record, to limit further postings about it, the episode aired in 1998, starred Sharon Lawrence as AE, and portrayed FN as having a drinking problem.

LTTF (love to the forum)

Dave Porter

P.S.  I know that this is a pretty disjointed posting, and I apologize. It's just the way my brain works.  Friends who know me say its a pity I couldn't use by brain for something useful, like memorizing sports statistics.
**************************************************************
From Ric

Heyyy......just what we've been looking for!  A guy with a disjointed brain and a sweet little Marlin lever-action that fires .357 magnum pistol bullets at velocities handgunners can only dream about.

Sorry to spoil the fun, but there are no feral dogs on Niku.  A few years after the colony was aboandoned the authorities went in and left poison bait for any dogs that had been left behind.

Here's why we say Love to Mother.

A few years ago, a woman named Patricia Morton was doing Earhart research at the National Archives and stumbled upon a telegram dating from 1945 which contained a whole list of messages to friends and relatives from internees at a recently-liberated camp in China. One was addressed to Mr. G.P. Putnam, 10042 Valley Spring Lane, North Hollywood, California  The text reads:

Following message received for you from Weihsien via American embassy, Chungking:

Camp liberated; all well.  Volumes to tell.  Love to mother (*).

The (*) is explained at the bottom of the page as meaning signature omitted. The State Department forwarded the message to Putnam via SpeedLetter (a type of quick-notice letter) on August 28, 1945.  The letter was sent by Eldred D. Kuppinger, Assistant Chief, Special War Problems Division. The document has no stamp to indicate that it was ever classified, nor does it have a stamp indicating that it was ever declassified.  Anyone who has ever obtained formerly classified documents at the National Archives knows that they are real careful about that. There appears to be no indication that the document was ever classified.   That's hardly surprising given the explanation of what a SpeedLetter is, which appears in the upper right corner of the document; "This form of communication is used in the interest of speed and economy.  If a reply is necessary, address the Department of State, attention of the Division mentioned below."

In Putnam's reply he merely updated his address and asked to be notified if anything else was heard.

Weihsien was not a prisoner of war camp. It was a Civilian Assembly Camp - an internment camp.  According to a 1995 letter by one of the American soldiers who liberated Weihsien on August 17, 1945 there were no Japanese military personnel in charge of the camp.  It was run by a Mr. Izu of the Japanese Consular Service.  All internees were well documented.  Amelia Earhart was not there.

On the 18th a general inspection was made of the camp and twelve internees were hospitalized and selected for early departure due to poor health.  They were evacuated by C-47 on the 28th, the date of the telegram and the SpeedLetter.

Why was such a message sent to Putnam?  Sadly, it was most likely a hoax.  In the years following Amelia's disappearance GP was beset by dozens of false leads and scams.  Some were financially motivated.  Others were apparently just cruel jokes.  Whether the Weihsien message was a joke or a mistake, it's quite clear that it was not from Amelia Earhart.  Nonetheless, the letter is frequently held up by conspiracy theorists as evidence that Earhart was "captured" by the Japanese, held prisoner, and returned to the U.S. after the war.  This telegram and the nonsense which has surrounded it in recent years has prompted those of us most involved in TIGHAR's Earhart research to adopt the "Love to mother" closing as a reminder to keep our objectivity and skepticism intact when evaluating any new evidence.

Love to mother,
Ric

You can order your very own Love to Mother shirt and refrigerator magnet on
the TIGHAR website at

http://www.tighar.org
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:47:48 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Technical Remote Viewing

Vern Klein wrote:

> Can anyone suggest a good do-it-yourself book on reading
> chicken entrails?

As some of you may know, for some years years I flew search and rescue missions (not CAP). We flew about 22 hours a week. One of the other pilots was quite religious and always used to say that "God drove his airplane". He was quite committed in his belief too, so it should be fitting that he would be the one who would find this one particular group of Cuban refugees one Saturday morning.

That day, off the coast of Florida, a group of Cuban refugees was adrift in a tiny homebuilt raft. On board was a Santeria Priestess (this is sort of a Cuban variant of Voodoo mixed with Wickan lore and a touch of Catholic faith as well). After three days at sea, there were in pretty bad shape and probably would not have survived another day.

In their desperation and with their last chance of survival rapidly slipping away, they asked the Santeria Priestess to do some of her magic. She pulled some chicken's feet out of her little bag, and laid in with a black magic chant, waving them around over her head. At exactly that moment, this fine pilot friend of mine spotted them, dove down on them in his plane and... they were saved. A day later, I had the opportunity to meet with the Priestess and her cohorts -- as you can imagine, they were all true believers in Santeria. It was a miracle, they said, the way she had "summoned" the plane.

I think she probably still has those chicken feet somewhere, so if you want me to give her a call, we'll have the whole AE thing solved in no time I'm sure. For all I know, she may have written a good book about it by now -- it is, after all, the "American Way".

Just doing my best to help move the whole psychic viewing thing in the right direction (all of the above story, by the way, is true).

Thomas Van Hare
****************************************************************
From Ric

We'll try to think of some way to repay you.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:51:35 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: "Battery Power"

Ric wrote:

> The main battery was in a well beneath the center section and the
> aux battery was in the aft cabin.

If the plane was "landed" on the reef, would not both of these batteries have been underwater with the first tide? And with the rapid corrosion and destructive effects of water (salt water in particular), they probably would not have been able to have been recharged, ne c'est pas?

Thomas Van Hare
****************************************************************

From Ric

Ever stand up next to a Lockheed 10?  Big sucker.  A 4.5 foot tide might threaten the aux battery in the aft cabin, but just barely.  The main battery up under the center section would be high and dry.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:31:06 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Tides at Niku

Wouldn't the fact that there is such an abrupt drop-off at the edge of the reef, into extremely deep water, also effect both the timing/level & velocity of tidal movements at Niku?

Don Neumann

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

From Ric

I don't know.  I do know that the shallowness of the passages into the lagoon greatly dampens and delays the tidal effect along the lagoon shore.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:38:43 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Smartening up a chump

The first talking motion picture was 1927, so how could WC Fields say that in the movie in 1923?

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

From Ric

Duh. Just goes to show that even Bartlett's can have a misprint, unless there was a stage play called Poppy.  I know I've seen the film.  Gotta be 1933.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:53:55 EST
From:         Ted Whitmore
Subject:      Post Crash engine operation

This post crash engine removal and run is worse than WAG data, definitely not Scientific WAG data, so it  must be TWAG (Tongue WAG).

Anyone that thinks AE and FN could dismount, move, re-mount, attach fuel lines, batteries, etc. etc. should try just taking the engine out of their car with nothing but a few hand tools and bare hands with main strength and awkwardness.

My sympathy to Ric.  Ted W. #2169  <\\\><

*****************************************************************
From Bob Sherman

Dave Bush wrote:

> QUESTION:  How does the starter engage the engine if it doesn't have a
> flywheel?

The starter on that and most other radials engages in the planetary accessory drive gears in the back of the engine.  They drive the mags, oil & fuel pump, & others stuff like genarator, etc. if installed.

For what it's worth, the engine could be started without a prop! However engine oil from the prop govenor would pour out the end of the prop shaft, depleting the engine oil supply in short order, which would bring the operation to a screeching, shuddering halt.  Moving the throttle too far above idle would be a thrilling experiece.  As for charging the battery, would three to five minutes  do it any good?

RC  941

****************************************************************
From Chuck Jackson

Is it possible to run P&W radial w/o prop? YES!  Not many P&W experts around any more.  DAYAIR at Stockton ,CA(SCK) MUNI  is one of the few remaining rebuilders -- Ray Anderson said, predictably, "I wouldn't recommend it!!".  But, has it ever been done?  "YES, call Tom Cheers (at SCK).  Tom said that an oldtimer told him to NEVER run one without a prop. Having an old 985(cousin to 1340) around, he couldn't resist! Says successfully started and ran it 15 times UNTIL IT BACKFIRED AND BLEW ITSELF APART.  Said it ran very smoothly, until... Said first time he had it hanging from a chain... AND it bobbed like a yoyo, got to tie her down tight! Asked Ray if it could tolerate a bent prop? NO -- very sensitive to slightest unbalance. "Chances of AE and FN removing prop without special tools?"  NONE!

****************************************************************
From Don Iwanski

You can run the engine up to ground idle without the prop.  Test Shops typically install a dummy prop to check the seals on the gearbox and to allow higher than idle RPMS when testing the engine.

Don I.

*****************************************************************
From Bob Lee

Sorry I meant to respond to this earlier, but the radial engine will not run without a prop, the engine will try to run backwards,  The only way for it to run without the prop is if AE/FN knew enough to change it to fire after "top dead center"  instead of before TDC.

Regards

****************************************************************
From Bruce Yoho

Helicopter engines do have flywheels. The fly wheel is most often part of the cooling fan assembly.

Test clubs provide cooling air near the center of the engine where the cylinders are attached. This is why a test club is made with 4 blades and very short, but it also is one that has a lot of weight to provide a flywheel effect for the engine.

To Don  Jordan

Yes, as Ric stated John Clauss did enlighten the group to running an engine without a prop. There are many reasons, as a lot of them have been stated, that an engine would not run without a prop or with one damaged to the extent a wheels up landing or prop strike would cause.

Yes, if you remove the prop oil will shoot out the propshaft for over a hundred feet probably. If you attempted to run the engine with a damaged prop even at idle the viberation would be so bad that the engine would come loose from its mounting, that you may have configured, as was suggested.

I do not think you could even get it to start without a prop. The power stroke would be so violent that the piston would be driven to Bottom Dead Center without any inertia to carry it up and threw the other strokes of the Otto Cycle.

To end this question for the forum I do have an engine at School we will remove the prop and attempt to start it and I will post a step by step accounting as to the results.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

(oh no)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:09:40 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Post-crash radio contact

Some facts to consider when considering post-crash radio signals.  Measured errors from Itasca on 3105 kHz as determined by PAA Honolulu were on the order of 20 degrees.  There is a big assumption stated below that IF there was a single transmitter, then two bearings made at different times makes a triagulation.  Radio hoaxes and transmissions from afar were commonplace; the Itasca chased a series in November, 1936 to no avail.  No signals were intelligible, nor could any be accurately ascertained to be 3105 kHz exactly.  Finally, and this is my speculation, but a good bet, is that everyone knew that the signals were coming from the general area of Howland, so all DF's were "tuned" to that general direction.  I suspect that there is some of 180 degree ambiguity involved.  Considering the uncertainty in bearings, and the numerous (approx. 10+) ships on radio traffic, plus Itasca continuously broadcasting for every ship to be on the watch for 3105 kHz, the chances for a random ship to hoax is high.  Personally, after studying all available radio fixes and transmissions purported to be from Earhart, I cannot convince myself that any of them were from her.

Love to Rocket and Morgan.

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

From Ric

The post-loss radio signals are a case of the glass being half-full or half- empty.  Even finding the airplane won't solve that riddle.

(Rocket and Morgan are TIGHAR's resident cats.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:11:27 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: The Curse of the Lady Be Good

Dave Bush wrote:

>> Ric:  They are off topic, but tangential to our search, since they point out
> ((..omitted..))
> adds knowledge for our readers/subscribers is On Topic.

It also adds data for when we have debates with people.  If someone makes some comment about "plane was perfectly preserved in that desert crash, why isn't Earharts plane just sitting there?" we can draw comparisons between the circumstances.

    - Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:15:15 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: AE Centre(Ireland)

Nice Thoughts regarding FJN and GG-and the ghosts thereof...
Jim Tierney

****************************************************************
From Ric

I thought you might appreciate that, your name being Tierney and all.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:56:42 EST
From:         B. Conrad
Subject:      Re: "Quicksand"

Is there any signs of "quicksand" on the island?  What I'm driving at is something that my wife brought up tonight.  We were talking about batteries and the idea that you said that her plane was big enough that it wouldn't sink in the water.  She, though brought up the point about the crash of the plane that landed in the muc and quicksand of the Everglades.  Is this a possibility of happening.  I know you said that the reef is flat and is dry as a bone.  But, is it possible of happening.  Also, I know alot of people are thinking this can happen.  But, in all cases how fast can two people disassemble a plane; to keep them from falling into the hands of the enemy or somebody.

Let's just say, that you landed a plane in adverse weather conditions, and on your entry say a couple thousand feet, you notice a Japanese patrol boat in the distance.  As you approach land, can a person disassemble that plane; take what they need and let the rest float off into the ocean.  It's possible that they got off the post-crash radio messages.  But, in a war-time situation such as Vietnam...to keep yourself from falling prey to the enemy...You either shot yourself...destroyed or disassembled your weapons...or ran.  If you say that plane is as big as it is...Then I'll buy the guy the first six-pack that can go there whenever and tell me that plane isn't there!  How deep is that reef anyway?  Too, are we for sure that she was able to land the plane, and didn't try to take off again, and then ended in fate.  O.K! I'll stop while I'm ahead.  Anyway, there are alot of things adding up that haven't been looked at lately.  Anyway, sooner or later a puzzle will be solved and completed!

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

From Ric

Well, if your intent was to stop while you were ahead, you missed by quite a bit.

There is no "quicksand" on or near Niku.  The reef-flat surrounding the island is rock hard coral.  The beach sand can be quite soft but in the same way the beach sand is usually soft.

All this talk of "the enemy" is a not-uncommon problem in addressing the Earhart disappearance.  In 1937 Japan was not the enemy.  There were no Japanese patrols.  The closest Japanese were over a thousand miles away in the Marshall Islands where, contrary to legend, they had no secret fortifications, or airfields, or aircraft carriers, or anything that was in violation of the League of Nations mandate. (Later they did, but not in 1937.)  Had Earhart and Noonan seen a "Japanese patrol" approaching they would have been delighted. Had any Japanese, civilian or military, come upon them no matter where - Nikumaroro, the Marshalls, Truk, Saipan, or Tokyo - they surely would have rendered assistance and notified U.S. authorities.  There were numerous other incidents when they did just that.

The very fact that speculation about Japanese involvement in the Earhart disappearance is always characterized as her "capture" is a dead give away that it is based entirely upon erroneous assumptions about the historical context.  If an American were to disappear today in Japanese territory we might wonder if he or she had been "detained", "arrested", "taken into custody", or even "abducted", but we would not say "captured."  The entire myth about Japanese involvement in the Earhart disappearance is a relic of World War II.

And let's not even talk about disassembling a Lockheed 10.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:52:57 EST
From:         John Clauss
Subject:      Starting the Engine without a Prop

I haven't been around that many helicopters.  Most of the ones I remember have fans to cool the engine and other rotating components that provide the mass to substitute as a flywheel.

I would also agree with you on the need for special tools to remove the prop and the fact that a prop strike would damage the engine.

It is fairly obvious that for AE to broadcast at any length the right side of the plane had to be substantially intact and the engine capable of being run.

LTM
John Clauss 142CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:00:56 EST
From:         G. Spruyt
Subject:      Re: Post-crash radio contact

Tom Van Hare wrote:

>Of course, the engine could run pointing skyward from the ground,

Was the engine injected? An engine without injection or a pressure carburetor could not be run if it was pointing skyward, could it?  And would the lubrication system still work?  And what about all the accessories on the back of the engine?  There would be a thusand pounds resting right on top of them.

Oh yeah, I had a two stroke engine without a flywheel.  No starter either, someone stuck an electric motor with a hex on the end into the crank and pulled it out when it fired.  Same basic setup as indy cars use 
****************************************************************

From Ric

The engine was not injected.

I think that we have pretty well established that if that airplane was sending radio transmissions it was essentially intact.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:08:49 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Post Crash engine operation

Thank you Bruce. . . Can't wait to hear what happens.  And, to make it more realistic. . . take the prop off with with the same kind of tools AE and FN had. Maybe this will put an end to this nonsense!
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:00:05 EST
From:         John Larrabee
Subject:      Re: Smartening up a chump

>Duh. Just goes to show that even Bartlett's can have a misprint, unless
>there was a stage play called Poppy.  I know I've seen the film.  Gotta be
>1933. 

I know it's off-topic, but out of respect to Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Fields:

1923: Fields appears in the stage play POPPY, a Broadway hit.
1924: Silent film version, re-titled SALLY OF THE SAWDUST.
1936: Sound version of POPPY.

Solid proof that you are a master at making logical conclusions based on the available evidence.  Except the 1933 part.

John Larrabee

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

From Ric

It actually is an interesting example of the process we go through all the time - not just me - all of us.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:05:49 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      AE Radios

In response to Ric's question regarding serial numbers on Western Electric equipment:

I have never actually seen either a WE 13CB or 20BA receiver, in the flesh, but can offer these educated opinions, or speculations, about what sort of information would be found on them.

Yes, the receiver and transmitter -- and very likely, also, the remote control heads -- would carry serial numbers.  More than likely these would be in the form of brass nameplates, square or rectangular, about 1 or 1-1/2 square inches in area, with the lettering in natural brass, raised, and the background in an enamel finish, probably black.  The serial number would be stamped with a die, into a raised brass "pad."

This pad would, probably, contain the WE logo, which was the company name "Western Electric" in stylized letters resembling lightning bolts.  For a sample, look on the handset of almost any phone manufactured by Western Electric, even through the 1980s.  The plate would also contain the radio equipment model number, i.e., 13CB (transmitter) or 20BA (receiver).

These number plates would probably be found on the radio chassis, rather than the covers or housings; but perhaps not.

If Western Electric did not use number plates, the serial numbers would probably have been paint-stamped onto the chassis, in black paint.

Bear this in mind:  without some sort of record, somewhere, to indicate which serial numbers were installed in that aircraft, the numbers themselves don't mean much.  Perhaps Western Electric's archives may produce something... or maybe Purdue University may have a bill of sale, a work order, whatever.  I don't have time to search for these things right now; anyone want to try?

As for removing the radio gear and battery, stringing an antenna, etc... The whole idea is LUDICROUS.  For one thing, the WE 13CB transmitter was, according to the technical information I have studied (which includes the tuning procedure) a boogerbear to make work properly.  If the antenna characteristics were at all different from what was on that airplane, the likelihood of it being able to put a signal out was none to slim.  It would take a good-- no, a REAL good -- technician to make it work under such conditions.  AE and FN probably do not meet this criterion.  And without a bunch of special tools and test gear, they'd never make it go.  Despite the fact that the stuff drew so much primary current from the battery that battery life would have been measured in terms of a couple of hours, max, with a good hot battery to begin with.

It takes a lot of tools to do this kind of work.  Just removing a battery from an aircraft can be a major job... yes, I have done it, including on a Twin Beech which is something near to a 10E Electra.  The darn things are heavy... and not at all easy to manhandle out, either.

Making this gear work is not as simple as pulling it out of the plane, hooking up power and throwing an antenna over a tree limb... not by a long shot. I think a lot of people are looking at this like the radio gear of that time was as neat and user friendly as the stuff we are used to in the Age of Solid State.  No way.  This stuff was Late Medieval.  Lots of boxes, lots of accessories (all required), and above all, lots of cable ans connectors which one just does not "remove" from the aircraft.  Ric addressed the problems well the other day.

I myself have made a great many items of radio gear work in a different manner from which they were intended, and this includes quite a bit of ex-aircraft equipment.  It is not simple at all.  There is a lot of cut and try, as well as luck and good radio horse sense involved in doing it.  I think we can say with a 100% assurance factor that this did not happen on Niku.  If there were messages sent after a landing, they were sent from the aircraft... ON DRY LAND.

If the plane was in the water, the batteries and the dynamotors (motor generators which supplied the high voltage power to run the receiver and transmitter) would have been submerged.  Quite likely the cockpit would have been waterlogged, because the weight of the engines would cause the plane to float in a nose-low attitude.  Remember, the receiver was mounted on the cockpit floor... glug glug glug.   And if sea water shorted out the battery in the belly (as it would have within minutes), remember that the auxiliary battery in the aft cabin was connected in parallel with the main... so they would both have been shorted out.  Zap.  End of story.

73 88 AR
Mike E. #2194:
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:10:16 EST
From:         Bob Heine
Subject:      Re: Post Crash engine operation

Reading the comments about running an engine with bent prop and looking at the mystery photo got me thinking.  Say AE had a hard landing at Niku and damaged the right gear and bent the prop.  They try starting the right engine to charge the batteries.  The engine then tears itself off its mounts and drops onto the reef in shallow water.  A couple days later the plane is pushed back amongst the coconut trees, destroying what remains of the right gear, but keeping the left gear and engine intact, as seen in the photo.  Even if they knew the prop was bent badly I think they still would have tried running the right engine to charge the batteries, because they would have had no choice.

-Bob Heine

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I dunno.  It would take a lot of shaking to rip an engine right off its mounts.  If we're going to rip the engine off the airplane, isn't it easier (i.e. more logical) to attribute that to the same forces that throw the rest of the wreck up into the bushes?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:25:22 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Smartening up a chump

Ric wrote:

>I know I've seen the film["Poppy"].  Gotta be 1933. >>

"Poppy" was released by Paramount Pictures in 1936 (according to the Internet Movie Database).  That ought to smarten you up.

  LTM,
  Russ
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Yup.  Now we have to work on you.

I drew the wrong conclusion because I didn't test my alternative hypothesis.

You confirmed that my conclusion was wrong but you failed to explore my alternative hypothesis.  Consequently, you and I both reached the erroneous conclusion that Bartlett's had misprinted the date.

John Larrabee was the only one thorough enough to discover the real answer to the mystery.

Lesson: When things don't add up, try to think of all of the reasonable explanations and then be sure to investigate them before drawing a conclusion. Follow through, follow through, follow through.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:25:02 EST
From:         Alan Faye
Subject:      Re: Technical Remote Viewing

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez !   Nuff already - - -

Sorry I ever mentioned Remote Viewing.  Kill it NOW before it multiplies.

Thanks.  Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:35:25 EST
From:         Alan Faye
Subject:      Re: Post-crash radio contact

One should consider that HF radios are very cantankerous, just getting them tuned.  The antenna has to be just the right length to get a "null" for a tuned antenna.  Without the "null" the radio transmission output is virtually nil.

I used to ferry light twins across the Pacific from Calif to Hawaii and Australia.  I used a trailing-wire antenna for HF radio contact.  (HF being the 3105 kc and higher freqs).  To get radio propagation, I had to lengthen or shorten the antenna trailing-wire just right or no null and no contact.

Do you think AE & FN could have stretched a a length of wire just the right length to get a null and be able to transmit? I don't think so.  Further, at ground level the tuning and propagation can be next to impossible.

They probably had some pre-tuned coils in the aircraft installation for each frequency, instead of trailing an antenna wire. However, you have too many changes in impedance and resonance when you take the wire and coils out of the aircraft and try to hang it on a tree or whatever.

I hated the HF radio. It was subject to so many atmospheric and ionospheric changes.  They should have stayed on 3105.  That was always a good freq.

You all keep beating the "engine-generator" theory to death. Try postulating that they could have used just battery power alone for quite a few calls IF they had an antenna that could be tuned. I had a 40-ft sailboat and would go (trans-Pacific) for days without running the engine to charge batteries.  However, I called home every night on the Pacific Maritime Net on the HAM bands (HF - 14,305khz and 7285khz).  With batteries alone you can talk quite a bit before they go down and need to be charged. And I tuned my backstay for an antenna.  And it was quite technical.  Not a lay-person's bag.  AE or FN technical on radios?  I doubt it.

Aloha from a retired, tired pilot.  (No more ferry flights for me. They just lost one yesterday going from Honolulu to Hayward, CA.  Ditched and went submarine.)

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

From Ric

Having just extricated yourself from the Remote Viewing stewpot you seem intent upon crawling into the radio stewpot.  Trust me.  There are guys on this forum who really do understand HF radio and they'll make you wonder how you ever managed to talk to anybody.

Let's just leave it that your decision not to ferry light airplanes across the Pacific is a sign of great intelligence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:18:05 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      AE Radio/ post-landing contact:

Would not the fact that the Electra was transmitting from a stationary, ground-level position (assuming a successful, wheels-down, undamaged landing on the reef flat), have a significant bearing on the direction & range that could be expected from it's radio transmissions, as opposed to such transmissions broadcast while still aloft?

Since there appears to be no record of any transmissions being received, (following the last transmission recorded by the Itaska) during the time frame while the plane was presumed to be still airborne and making the assumption A.E. was still transmitting or at least attempting to transmit messages enroute to the Phoenix Island Chain, why would such transmissions suddenly occur after the plane is determined to have landed?

I guess my point is (not too well explained), since aircraft radio systems are designed to operate primarily from airborne aircraft, why would such transmissions suddenly occur after the plane is presumed to be down, from a more remote location than when the plane was airborne (unless, of course, the listeners were trying to transmit while A.E. was transmitting)?

Don Neumann

*****************************************************************
From Ric

You're thinking VHF such as is used in modern aircraft.  Those signals travel line -of-sight so that the higher you are, the farther you reach.  That's not true of HF frequencies such as Earhart was using.  I'm sure that our resident radio gurus will hasten to elaborate, but the bottom line is that NR16020 should have been able to transmit from the ground nearly as well as from the air.

I do think that it's safe to assume that Earhart continued to transmit after the last message received by Itasca.  Their failure to hear her seems most likely to have been caused by the skip characteristics of the frequency to which she changed (6210 kcs).  They may also have "stepped on" her transmissions with their own attempts to contact her.  The logs show that they were doing a lot of transmitting.  How long Earhart would have continued to send transmissions in the face of no replies is an open question.  At what point do you say, "What's the point?  The thing is obviously broken."?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:35:40 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Request from Ric

We're (finally) setting up a LINKS section on the TIGHAR website and we'd like suggestions from forum members for good links to good sites.  Too many links only serves to hide the good stuff, so we're going to be very selective and include a brief review of the site with each link.

We're specifically looking for good research sources, air museums, Earhart- related sites, specialty bookstores - that sort of thing.

Send your nominee to Pat at TIGHAR@mac.com and please check the link or URL before you send it.

Thanks,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:34:42 EST
From:         Sandy Cates
Subject:      Search

Has there been any answers as to why the navy or coast guard didn't send search parties to the Pheonix Islands. It seems that if one of the search planes saw evidence of "recent habitation" and with the post loss radio transmissions gave a vague triangulation to the same group of islands wouldn't the lack of any other tangible leads to go on give them cause to pursue the ones that did have? It just seems to me that they should have pursued any leads knowing that the last place they wanted to do was ditch at sea and that they were on a defined bearing with some land masses within range. Just my two cents worth - Thanks for the opportunity and I really look forward to getting to work in the morning and reading what has happened on the forum - it really gets my day started off right.
Sandy Cates
***************************************************************
From Ric

Try to put yourself in the shoes of the captain of the USS Colorado (probably about size 10 1/2, brown).

This is your final trip as captain of the battleship.  It's the annual ROTC training cruise and you started from the West Coast with 196 college kids and 4 university VIPs.  You sailed to Hawaii and stopped at Hilo where they threw a big farewell party for you.  Your next job will be at Pearl Harbor as assistant to the admiral who is in charge of the 14th Naval District. (There's a rumor that Pearl will soon be made the home of the Pacific Fleet.) At the Lahaina Roads firing range you let the kids fire the ship's big guns and then you tie up at Pier 2 in Honolulu for four days of liberty.  Just as most of the ship's company heads into town, the word comes down that Amelia Earhart has gotten herself lost someplace 2,000 miles to the south and the Navy is going to try to find her and - guess what? - yours is the only capital ship in the Pacific.  Swell.

You round up your people, call your airplanes back from scheduled maintenance at Fleet Air Base, and move the ship over to Pearl for fueling.  Meanwhile, you get together with other senior officers and try to figure out where you should look.  Everybody agrees that she should be somewhere on the line of position she said she was on.  As you prepare to get underway you find out that you'll be bringing along a bunch of newspaper reporters too.  The next day you head south at flank speed, slamming through heavy seas and taking water over the number two turret.

For the next couple of days, as you travel south, half the world seems to be hearing unintelligible distress calls from the lost airplane.  At one point, the Navy in Hawaii interprets one message to mean that the Electra is floating in the ocean 281 miles north of Howland.  The Itasca and a British steamer are sent to check it out but find nothing.  Then Lockheed says that if the plane is transmitting it has to be on land.  Pan Am says that some of the signals seem to be coming from the Phoenix Islands.  This reinforces your original opinion that the plane is on the line of position but now you decide that it makes the most sense to search land areas rather than the ocean.

After about six days at sea you finally reach the area of the first possible land to be searched.  Something called Winslow Reef is supposed to be right over that way a few miles.  You don't get too close because you don't want to risk putting this battleship aground on a reef so you send the airplanes out to check it out.  They come back and report that they can't find the reef. You send them out again, and they still can't find it.  The newspaper boys are loving this.  These pilots are supposed to find Amelia and they can't even find a reef that's on the map.

The next day (July 9, a full week after the disappearance), having given up on finding Winslow Reef, you launch the planes to search McKean Island, Gardner Island, and Carondelet Reef (if they can find them).  While that search flight is going there are some real festivities aboard the Colorado.  A couple of days ago you crossed the equator and you have all these people aboard (pollywogs) who need to be initiated into King Neptune's Kingdom.  At the very time when the airplanes are over Gardner island, the ship's company is busily whacking the living daylights out of anybody who has never before crossed the equator.  When the pilots return later that morning they make their report to you and you somehow get the impression that they saw no sign of anything.  And that's what you later put in your written report.  But when the Senior Aviator writes up an account of the flight for the weekly newsletter of the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics he says that he saw "signs of recent habitation."

The search continues with more flights that afternoon and the next day with everybody hoping that the Electra will turn up on the next island. But it doesn't.  Meanwhile, all these kids and VIPs were supposed to be home by now and the romance of this voyage is rapidly wearing thin.  You're greatly relieved when the aircraft carrier Lexington arrives to take over the search and you can head home.

That's the way it happened.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:44:09 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Aviation links

Ric asked for:

>We're specifically looking for good research sources, air
>museums, Earhart-related sites, specialty bookstores - that sort of thing.

As usual, you have demonstrated once again the weakness of your Scottish heritage: Not knowing when to let well enough alone.

"Good research sources" are like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.  The most obvious first stop, I think, would be the Aviation Ring at  www.intertex.net/aero/airring/html  .  The good (?) news is that the ring has nearly 1,000 aviation-related links.  The bad news is that a lot of it can be pretty piss-poor stuff, i.e. Joe's love affair with his 1946 Taylorcraft, Mike's visit to the Darwin Airshow etc.

The ring does have a lot of stuff on it but like any good research, it takes a while to find it.  I have found some excellent resource sites for everything from Brewster Buffaloes to F-111s, Vulcans, Lancasters, B-52 etc. I guess, you just gotta dig.

(I think I have too much time on my hands.)

LTM
Dennis McGee, #0149

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

From Ric

I agree.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:51:27 EST
From:         Gary Moline
Subject:      AE Stepped on

You stated that possibly the Itasca "stepped on" AE's transmissions with their own transmissions. Doesn't that theory assume that they were both on the same frequency?

LTM,
Gary Moline

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

From Ric

Assume nuthin'.  They WERE transmitting on the same frequency.  It's right there in the log.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:13:53 EST
From:         Gary Moline
Subject:      AE TV Mystery

I know that we've talked a lot about the History Channel special that was shown again this week and your crib sheet was almost excellent! The show goes into detail about how the Japs wanted that airplane so badly for the new technology that they supposedly promoted two Jap officers to Admiral for capturing the plane! Let it be known that that theory is totally false as the Japanese government had purchased their own L-10 the year before!

A few weeks back there was another special (25 minutes worth) on the Learning Channel about the mystery. They don't mention a rumor of a hard landing in Hawaii but they do go on to say that the repair work performed after the take off accident was an opportunity to install spy gear for the next attempt. They say that there was discussion of swapping planes for an XC-135 (of which they say there was only one built and it is in a museum). What is an XC-135, circa 1937? They then follow the journey eastbound and mention two new theories that I had never heard. One is that she was sick in the mornings and might have been pregnant! (Oh no, a pregnancy theory!!) and the second was that her crash position was identified from a long post crash radio transmission to have been located in the Mali atoll located in the Marshall Islands. They say that this is some 600 miles northwest of Howland and in Japanese held territory. Another radio message states that she and FN were located about 280 miles northwest of Howland. This message was supposedly received by Pan Am folks in Wake Island.

The show says that GP went to Saipan after the war and searches for AE but finds nothing. The show concludes that they feel that the airplane ran out of fuel and crashed into the ocean near Howland Island. They do mention that the spy mission stuff was impossible in that the L-10 had no cameras aboard and that they islands that were to photograph would have been hidden under the cover of darkness. There is a lot of good video of the airplane and AE, especially while the airplane is being repaired after the Hawaii accident.

Did you see this show?

LTM,
Gary Moline

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

From Ric

I'm not sure which show you saw.  There's so much junk floating around out there now and I guess that we're probably responsible.  We uncover new evidence and get good press, so the TV types want to capitalize on the popularity of the subject and they fill out their shows with anything they can find (it's called "balance").  All it takes to establish a new Earhart theory is for somebody to make an allegation, no matter how stupid and unfounded. Bingo - it's on television and it's instantly part of the legend.

Briefly:
The one and only XC-35 is in storage at the Smithsonian's Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland.  I've crawled all through it.  It was an experimental Lockheed 10 with a pressurized fuselage and it won the Collier Trophy in 1937. It wasn't secret and it never had anything to do with Earhart.

The "pregnancy theory" was started by photogrpaher Al Bresnick (now deceased). It's too stupid to even talk about.

One Pan Am radio bearing on a post-loss signal passes close to Mili Atoll in the Marshalls, thereby obviously proving that Earhart was Hirohito's mistress.

The "281 message" was not heard by Pan Am at Wake but by U.S. Navy Radio Wailupe in Hawaii.  It is, perhaps, the most interesting of the post-loss signals and can, in fact, be construed as evidence that the plane was on Gardner.  But it's not proof of anything.

As I recall, GP may have been at Saipan briefly toward the end of the war in his capacity as an intelligence officer, but it didn't have anything to do with Amelia.  She had died back in 1937 ya know.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:13:55 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: AE TV Mystery

Any idea which L-10 model the Japanese bought?  I bet it had the same "more powerful" Model 12 engines that were secretly installed [NOT] on AE's L-10...

Seriously, do we know which one they got?

ltm
jon 2266

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

From Ric

Fully realizing that after that last posting about the blucher oxfords, nobody is ever going to believe another thing I say...

On March 26, 1935 Lockheed delivered Electra 10A c/n 1017 to Okura & Co. of NY who exported the aircraft to Japan.  Japanese records show that Okura & Co. was acting on behalf of the Imperial Japanese Navy.  The airplane was equipped with the 450 hp Pratt & Whitney R985-SB "Wasp Jr." engines that were standard for the 10A.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:35:40 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Search

Are you saying the official Navy search report and debrief does not reference signs of habitation? What exactly was the weekly newsletter? What was the time difference between the flight (official report) and the newsletter article? And is this strong evidence suggesting the Navy screwed up big time because they were caught up in seagoing celebratory festivities?

blue skies, -jerry

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

From Ric

13 July 1937
Subject:  Resume' Earhart Search by USS Colorado
From:  Commanding Officer
To: Commandant, Fourteeth Naval District
By: Wilhelm L. Friedell, Captain, USN

EXCERPT:
"No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation."

16 July 1937
Subject:  Weekly News Letter - Aircraft Search of (sic) Earhart Plane
From: Senior Aviator, USS Colorado
To: The Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics
Via:  (1) Commanding Officer, USS Colorado
      (2)  Commander Battle Force, U.S. Fleet
By: John O. Lambrecht, Lieutenant, USN

EXCERPT:
"Here (Gardner) signs of recent habitation were clearly visible..."

Draw your own conclusions. I'm just quoting the sources.  The newsletter was an aviator to aviator publication within the Navy, but Lambrecht's write up was clearly routed through Friedelll.  How closely Friedell read it, if at all, we have no way of knowing.  Friedell had already written up his report three days before Lambrecht wrote his and the captain may have been hesitant to go back and amend his version, especially to include what, in retrospect, might be interpreted as a stone left unturned.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:00:09 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Search

Being Naval uniform shoes, would those have been Blucher Oxfords???

ltm
jon 2266

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

From Ric

Yes.  Few people realize that throughout the Depression, as a cost cutting measure, all captains of capital ships were issued women's blucher oxfords (the Navy got a great buy on a Macy's overstock).  As a further economy measure, regulations specified that worn out heels had to be replaced.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:41:37 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Post Crash engine operation

From Ric --

> I dunno.  It would take a lot of shaking to rip an engine right
> off it's mounts.  If we're going to rip the engine off the airplane,
> isn't it easier (i.e. more logical) to attribute that to the same
> forces that throw the rest of the wreck up into the bushes?

An unbalanced prop (bent, etc.) will absolutely rip an engine right off the mounts. It has happened, many times in history. I can remember a Beech 18 crash where the prop hub threw a blade, the engine vibration then tore the whole mount off the wing, and the blade punctured the gas tank in the nose and starting a blazing fire into the cockpit. This was right after takeoff. Flames in the cockpit and all, the pilot ditched it in the water and survived (lots of injuries).

German ace Max Immelmann shot off part of a prop blade early in WWI and subsequently crashed to his death. The vibration ripped the engine off the nose of his Fokker E.III Eindecker (Oberursel 100hp engine). Don't quote me on the horsepower numbers, etc., as I haven't researched Immelmann in some years.

Anyway, you could probably go on an on with actual real world examples. Suffice it to say that vibration from an unbalanced prop can be VERY
destructive.

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:39:41 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      XC-35 and sons

Ric said:

>The one and only XC-35 is in storage at the
>Smithsonian's Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland. ... 
>It was an experimental Lockheed 10 with a
>pressurized fuselage . . ."

Indeed it was and the Collier Trophy it won was for its advances in pressurization technology. One of the stories (unsubstantiated, as far as I can tell) we docents used to tell about the aircraft was how the Lockheed engineers solved early problems of the fuselage not holding pressure.

It seems that early in the program the engineers rolled the modified aircraft out of the hanger to test the pressurization system. They fired up the engines and activated the pressurization system but determined that the fuselage was leaking, but they didn't know where.

Allegedly, the best engineering minds could not come up with a simple solution, until a assembly line worker suggested they cover the fuselage with soapy water.  So the engineers got a few buckets of soapy water, fired up the engines, pressurized the fuselage and tossed the buckets of water on it.

Sure enough, every seam and rivet hole that leaked emitted a small stream of soap bubbles as the pressurized air from inside the airplane squirted out the holes and "foamed up" the soapy water.

After marking each hole and driving a few more rivets into the fuselage, it was finally air tight and, as they say, the rest is history.

For our nonairplane-oriented forum members, the importance of pressurization in aircraft can not be overstated.  The major benefit of this technology is that is allows the cabin to be kept at a constant air pressure (equivalent to about 6,000-8,000 feet above sea level) and temperature (maybe in the 60s-70s). By maintaining a constant air pressure and temperature, the crew could get rid of its bulky and cumbersome flying suits, oxygen masks, electrically heated socks etc. giving them complete freedom of movement and comfort within the pressurized area.  This was an important consideration in war planes, such as the W.W.II B-29, that flew long (10-16 hours) missions at high altitude where the air is thin and temperatures routinely are around MINUS 50 degrees Fahrenheit.

Improvements in the technology lead to pressurizing the entire cabin area, not just the cockpit, and made possible the pressurized airliners of today.  Today, nearly all scheduled airlines have pressurized aircraft.

All of which is why you can now fly New York to Los Angeles without asphyxiating and freezing to death -- unless of course you do it in winter in a Yugo.

LTM, who carries her own oxygen bottle
Dennis McGee #0149
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:57:31 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: AE TV Mystery

Ric wrote:

> The "281 message" was not heard by Pan Am at Wake but by U.S. Navy
> Radio Wailupe in Hawaii.  It is, perhaps, the most interesting of
> the post-loss signals and can, in fact, be construed as evidence
> that the plane was on Gardner.  But it's not proof of anything.

What was the text of the "281 message". I would love to read it.

Thomas Van Hare

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

From Ric

Oh Lordy, have you just opened a can of worms.  Okay, here we go.

Early on the morning of July 5th the following message was sent from the Commander of the Coast Guard's Hawaiian Section (COMHAWSEC) to the Itasca:

FOLLOWING COPIED NAVY RADIO WAILUPE 1130 TO 1230 GCT QUOTE 281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF UNQUOTE KEYED TRANSMISSION EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND CARRIER FRAGEMENTARY PHRASES BUT COPIED BY THREE OPERATORS

We've only spent about a gazillion hours working on this particular puzzle but I won't say anything about our observations until the forum has had an unbiased crack at it.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 21:04:24 EST
From:         Bette Norlund
Subject:      Re: AE TV Mystery

I have been patiently following comments made the last few weeks and finally have to add this-OH NO!  The next thing you know there will be someone showing up on the scene claiming to be AE's offspring and wanting a share of the estate and then we we'll be into one long soap opera! LTM  also.
Bette
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 21:08:29 EST
From:         Gary Moline
Subject:      Re: AE Stepped on

My recollection is that you said that AE switched freqs and that's when the Itasca could no longer hear her. I agree that she could have been stepped on with the original freq as the Itasca was recieving her, but if she switched and then could no longer be heard how could there be any stepping on?

LTACM
(Love To A Confused Mother)
Gary Moline

****************************************************************
From Ric

AE said she was switching to 6210 kcs.  Let's assume she did that and continued to try to call the Itasca.  Meanwhile, the Itasca starts trying to call her on 6210 kcs.  If they happen to be calling at the same time she was calling they were "stepping on" her and wouldn't be able to hear her.  We'll never know whether that actually happened.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Mar 1999 21:10:02 EST
From:         Gary Moline
Subject:      Re: AE TV Mystery

Along with being Hirohito's mistress, don't forget that AE was also the voice of "Tokyo Rose"!

LTM,
Gary Moline
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:58:30 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Search opinion

You have consistently either stated or implied that the Colorado pilots performed incompetently on their air search, leading one forum visitor to assume that "they were looking for an airplane" and ignoring any humans (or sign of) on the beach.  Now you'd have us believe the skipper of the Colorado was too busy throwing parties to pay any attention to the pilot's reports. I know you are so totally convinced that Amelia & Fred landed on Nikumaroro (nee Gardner) that you refuse to accept that the Navy did not see ANY signs of airplane or crew, but don't you feel a tad guilty about bad-mouthing them so consistently?  Won't you admit the possibility that a Colorado pilot would probably given his right arm to find the missing fliers?  And don't you think that the skipper felt the same way?  So I think it's a 1000-1 shot you'll ever find Amelia on Niku, but if you want to pursue a will-o-the-wisp that's okay with me. And if you find ANYTHING identifiable as an Electra part (with or without serial numbers) I'll applaud your incredible perseverance. Meanwhile, just BACK OFF insulting anyone that disagrees with you.

Cam Warren

****************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not clear about just who it is I am supposed to have insulted.  Our job is to discover the truth about the Earhart disappearance. If, in the process of establishing the facts of the case, it turns out that some traditional viewpoints have been in error, so it goes.  If the holders of those viewpoints feel insulted when they are shown to be wrong, there's not much I can do about that.

We think that the flight ended on Nikumaroro because that's where all of the available evidence seems to point.  If further research leads us somewhere else, we'll go there - and gladly.  We've done it before.  We searched in Maine for the While Bird (1927 French transatlantic attempt) for eight years before shifting our operations to Newfoundland.  In our Earhart investigation we started with a hypothesis that suggested two possible islands - McKean and Gardner.  Further research enabled us to eliminate McKean and the closer we've looked at Gardner (Niku) the more evidence we've found to indicate that it might be the right place.

I've never impugned the competence of the Navy search pilots.  I think they were good aviators who carried out their assigned duty with integrity.  My representation of their attitude toward the search and the general atmosphere aboard the Colorado is drawn from contemporaneous documents. Three pilots participated in the aerial search of Gardner Island on July 9, 1937.

Lt. John Lambrecht flew aircraft 4-0-4
Lt. William Short flew aircraft 4-0-5
Lt. Leonard Fox flew aircraft 4-0-6

Lt. Short kept a personal diary of sorts during the voyage in the form of a letter to his father to which he made daily additions.  Here are some excerpts:

"Monday, July 5, 1937 (enroute southward from Hawaii)

"Friday afternoon (July 2) I went into town (Honolulu) with Bill Williams, had lunch with them and thence back to the ship to change clothes as we were all going to a cocktail party that little Edna (daughter of the commander of Fleet Air Base, Pearl harbor) was giving for her house guest - her old roomate or something.  We no sooner got out there than the news broke that the Colorado might be designated to search for the missing Earhart plane.  That kind of put me on a spot as you can well imagine - with the planes all out of commission and everybody scattered all over the place on liberty. ...  We finally got everything aboard and underway at 1 p.m. on Saturday (July 3) afternnon, with the firm conviction that even if they were still alive they would probably die of old age before we could arrive on the scene. ...  This whole business is certainly a royal pain in the neck - not but what I welcome this opportunity for a cruise down to this part of the world, mind you, but it's the principle of the thing.  First place I can't see it as anything but a publicity stunt. "Flying Laboratory" indeed!  Even if she had been successful what would have been proven thereby except that she was the first woman to fly around the world?  As it stands now she has only demonstrated once more that long flights over water in a land plane are foolishly dangerous.  It is my own personal opinion that she should never have been permitted to attempt this flight or, having once started it more elaborate measures safeguarding it should have beeen established."

"Thursday July 8th
(Commenting on the failure to locate Winslow Reef.)
"What's the answer? -- Your guess is as good as mine, - or anybody's.  In any case you can imagine what a nightmare it is for the Captain in command of one of the U.S. Navy's best battleboats charging around in waters where the latest charts and Sailing Directions provide such reliable information.  Tomorrow we expect to look over the westernmost islands of the Phoenix group McKean I., Gardner I., and carondelt Reef and possibly Hull I.  We at least ought to be able to find the islands - I hope.  The ship crossed the 'Line' yesterday (Wednesday) afternoon but due to the search operations His Majesty, King Neptune Ruler of the Raging Main postponed His arrival on board to greet His loyal subjects and to mete out just punishment to the lowly polywogs, until tomorrow morning.  As the schedule calls for an early launching for us I will probably miss most of the fun.  However, if I can only keep my date with Amelia it will be worth it!"

Friday, July 9
"Well, the search continued as per schedule - we were catapulted at 7:00 this morning, went directly to McKean I. thence to Gardner Is., on down to Carondelet Reef and back aboard about 10:45.  We found nothing, but this was none the less a very encouraging flight for we at least had the satisfaction of making our landfalls as expected. ... Gardner was... a ring of land surrounding a lagoon about 2 1/2 miles long by about a mile wide.  Almost completely covered by short bushy trees including two small groves of coconut palms.  There was the wreck of a fairly large steamer - of about five thousand tons hard up on the beach - her back broken in two places and coverd with red rust, but otherwise fairly intact.  Apparently it had been there less than ten years."

Of the visit to Hull Island later that afternoon Short says, "Johnny Lambrecht landed in the lagoon and talked with the white overseer in hopes that he might have heard or seen the plane passing.  He had not even heard about the flight in the first place - lucky fellow! .....All the pollywogs were converted to shellbacks in due form this morning and now they are all going around sitting down as little as possible and that very gingerly.  I can well sympathize with them as this constant exposure to a parachute for three hours at a clip has much the same effect."

But was Short's attitude unique among the pilots?  The irreverent tone of Lambrecht's write up for the Bureau of Aeronautics Weekly News Letter brought this comment from C.C Bloch, Commander Battle Force, United States Fleet in a letter to the Commander-in-Chief, United States Fleet dated 27 July 1937:

"Certain undesirable features of this correspondence, including the informality of expression in certain portions, are being taken up with the Commanding Officer, U.S.S. Colorado, in separate correspondence."

And finally, an indication of the crew's view toward the search can be obtained from the ship's newspaper The Colorado Lookout.  The issue dated July 22, 1937 is headlined PLANE SEARCH HALTS CRUISE.  Sub-headline; "Colorado Departs From Honolulu To Search Area At Equator".  Sub-sub-headline; Three Planes Cover the Phoenix Group.  Other front page stories: "Domain of Neptunus Rex Entered By Colorado - Pollywogs Initiated In Proper Mode by Shellbacks" and "Civilian Guests Comment On Cruise."  All of the seven photographs that appear in the publication depict scenes from the initiation celebration.

Cam, you ask if I don't "feel a tad guilty about bad-mouthing them so consistently?" I don't feel a bit guilty about trying to reach an historically accurate assessment of the atmosphere in which the Colorado's search was carried out.

You also ask if I will "admit the possibility that a Colorado pilot would probably (have) given his right arm to find the missing fliers?"  I certainly think that the pilots were doing the best job they knew how, but I do not think that the available evidence indicates that your characterization of their attitude is justified.

And no Cam, I will not back off.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:03:28 EST
From:         B. Conrad
Subject:      Re: "Possible Landing Sites"

This morning I was glancing at the picture of the island and was wondering if there are any pilots out there; if given the proper coordinates at the time of AE last transmission and you are close or near the island...Where would you sit the plane if you had too.  I think that you and the Tighar staff members should do a mini research and find out people's opinions if they were placed in this situation.  I myself personally would take the most left part of the island(which is the left-side of the picture.  Mainly, because you have enough take-off speed and enough feet in distance for landing.  Another thing that you may also be able to do is simulate a scenario in which two people can sit in a makeshift simulator of the Electra and given the situations, try to land the plane under given circumstances.  From this data and people observed and researched, you might have a good idea where the plane could have been landed.  Anyway, hope to see more people get excited about this search.  It's getting excited by the moment.

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

From Ric

All the activities you describe would be a lot of fun but would not yield anything but a lot of opinions.  Opinions we got, in abundance.  What we need are facts.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:22:26 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Wreck photo

Even though the dialog about AE and FN pulling an engine off the Electra, or removing radio equipment was interesting reading,  I hope we are through with it.  Anyone with common sense and a knowledge of the radios of the time (or even now for that matter) knows it would be next to impossible to make one work.  I doubt if an average pilot could take the radio out of the average Cessna of today and make it work.  Yes, there are those who could!  But not many.

As for this engine nonsense. . . forget it!  They did not pull and engine off the Electra. . . they did not pull a bent prop off and start the engine. . . . no way in H---!

I expect to get jumped on from the "Were you there"? crowd.  Go ahead. . . make my day!

I have to admit. . .it was interesting reading.

Ask Bruce Yoho to describe, step by step how to remove a radial engine.  And don't forget the oil tank. . . it's a dry sump.

Here is a more logical question I would like to ask.  Did anyone make a computer model of the crash photo engine.  Then make a computer model of the Electra engine in one of the Lae photos.  If you superimpose one onto the other, wouldn't that kinda tell us if we have an Electra engine?

I would think there are different kinds of two bladed props. Different cowl opening and so on.  I'm not sure what it would prove, but might be interesting to try.  Maybe do the whole wreck and see if the firewalls would line up.  Maybe this has been done.

Bruce. . . did you get that engine running yet?   How did you stop the oil leak out of the crank shaft?

Ric,  my renewal is on the way.  It's been a good year!

****************************************************************
From Ric

The Wreck Photo is too dark too permit us to see much inside the engine cowling so there's not much we can do with that.  I'm not sure what you mean by "computer modeling" but we certainly have done a great deal of very hi-tech digitizing and enhancing and measuring and comparing.  There is nothing in the photo from which we can derive a known scale but we do know that the ratio of prop length to cowling diameter is correct for a Lockheed 10E and that the appearance of the prop hub is consistent with a Hamilton-Standard 12D-40 hub such as NR16020 had.

And let's all agree that a couple of non-mechanics with no tools on a Pacific island could not take an engine off an airplane.  I don't think we need a step-by-step description of the procedure.

Thanks for your renewal - and yes, it has been and is going to be a very good year.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:33:34 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: AE TV Mystery

Gary Moline wrote:

>Along with being Hirohito's mistress, don't forget that AE was also the
>voice of "Tokyo Rose"!

Also don't forget, she was healthy and well and living in New Jersey in 1979! (whatever happened to that lady, anyway?)

LTM
Tom #2179

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

Irene Bolam died of cancer in 1983.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:38:53 EST
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Electra Prop Blade

Electra Propeller Blade Found in North Carolina Lake may be Amelia Earharts!

Sorry about the header, but I was trying to figure a way to make this posting on topic, and it came to me while standing in the checkout line at the supermarket...

A friend of mine is working on an archaeological survey of a PBJ (USN B-25) that crashed in a North Carolina Lake. She was contacted by a local resident who has a propeller blade that he dragged up from a nearby lake.Tracing the part numbers on the blade Hamilton Standard had this to say:

"The blade number you describe is the same as those manufactured at Hamilton Standard from the mid 1940's to the mid-1950's.  The specific blade number (-A8) indicates that it was most likely used on a Lockheed 10A Electra, or a Lockheed 12A Electra.  The -A8 nomenclature on the latter part of the blade number indicates that the tip of the blade was cutoff by 4 inches from the basic 6531 blade, resulting in an 8 inch reduction in diameter on the aircraft.  Our records indicate that while many 6531 blades with various cutoffs in diameter were manufactured for installation on various aircraft, the 6531-A8 blade was used only on the Electra."

I was wondering if any of our know-all forum members have knowledge of any 10A or 12A Electra accidents in or around North Carolina. The blade is bent back as if from a crash. No other parts were found in the lake so the blade could have been from a gear up landing at an airport and  found a second life as a boat anchor.

For those interested in the PBJ project, newspaper articles can be found at:

http://www.Charlotte.com/observer/0211lake.htm

http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/features/people/airplane.htm

Craig Fuller
****************************************************************

From Ric

Nice try Craig.  Incidentally, the blades on NR16020 were 6095A-6s.  The 6531
blade came along later.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:55:12 EST
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      GP, Intelligence ??

Ric stated,

>As I recall, GP may have been a Saipan briefly toward the end of the
>war in his capacity as an intelligence officer, but it didn't have
>anything to do with Amelia. She had died back in 1937 ya know.

 What was your source for that statement ?

George Putnam an intelligence officer ??

Every impression that I have of GP is that he was a promoter, a pitch-man, from the hats he tried to get AE to endorce to the luggage. I expected him to have a job in the USO or with Bob Hope in WWII,  not in intelligence.  What this looks like is that somebody had something to tell GP that was secret. To make sure of his silence, they brought him into the faternity and put him under oath.

 You said his trip to Saipan at the end of WWII had nothing to do with AE. In 1960, Paul Briand in his book made reference to the Saipan story as told by Dr. Casimer R. Sheft, the Navy dentist. In 1946 Miss Blanco told Dr. Sheft the story. From what I understand the 1960 book would be the first PUBLIC knowledge of the Saipan story, it is likely the Navy could have learned of the Blanco story as early as 1946 from Dr. Sheft.

If GP was an intelligence officer, there seems to be a scenario here that has the correct time line for his trip to Saipan.

With GP being an intelligence officer also casts a different light on the LTM Speedletter, it could have had nothing to do with AE, hoax or not. The Speedletter has every characteristic of an open code, not classified, says nothing, only the sender and receiver know the meanings of the words.

Daryll

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

From Ric

Well Daryll, I'll say this for you - you're consistent.  You present me with a classic example of the kind of dilemma that gets me into trouble with Cam Warren and his ilk.  (I'll bet you didn't even know he owned an ilk.) How do I point out that your suppositions are uninformed and wrong-headed without insulting you?  These days the politically correct thing to do is to make condescending statements about how everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The trouble with that approach is that stupidity goes unchallenged and is given equal status with sound reasoning.  If nobody ever says that anything is stupid, then nobody is ever forced to really defend a position and we end up with television shows about UFOs and websites about Technical Remote Viewing, and - most tragically - classrooms full of kids who grow up without the tools to tell fact from fiction.

George Putnam enlisted in the spring of 1942, despite being in his mid-fifties, because he wanted to do what he could for his country.  He graduated from the Army Air Force Training School in Miami Beach, Florida on October 17, 1942 and went from there to the Air Intelligence School in Harrisburg, Pa. where he was commended for his "superior performance."  In March 1943 he was transferred to the 468th Bombardment Group, a new B-29 outfit then based at Salina, Kansas.  As Intelligence Officer for the unit, he went with it to India and then to China from which the first raids on the Japanese home islands were mounted.  During his visit to Saipan in 1945 he was very much aware of the many rumors circulating about Amelia having been "captured" and held for a time there.  According to Mary Lovell's biography of Earhart ("The Sound of Wings" 1989) he "drove all over the island making extensive inquiries about the white woman flier but got no answers that gave him any hope that Amelia had ever been there." (page 326)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:02:21 EST
From:         Darll Bolinger
Subject:      Re "281 message"

Can anyone on the Forum lay out a 281 degree radial course line from Howland and identify any land masses along that line?

Daryll

**************************************************************
From Ric

Doesn't sound like such a difficult task.  Why don't you do it yourself?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:28:35 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      This And That

Weems Air Navigation

Sometimes this internet stuff is magic. I decided to try for my very own copy of Weems' book. Got lucky. Scored the 1931 first edition (and I assume original book). Wonderful. Has the heft and comfort of a well worn hymnal. Of course I hoped a previous owner had left his name (say FJN just for the heck of it). But, alas, my copy apparently spent most of its days at the Groton public library, probably collecting dust on a back shelf. Having paged through it, I was struck by a couple of things:

1) Avigation and avigators - at first I thought this was a typo. But no, its even in my dictionary. Aerial navigation. Guess it didn't stick too well. Weems uses it throughout the book. Was he still using it for the 1938 edition?

He also uses aerology, what I call meteorology.

2) Chronometers - A 14 page chapter on timepieces. Weems says he suggested to the Navy that they could use a "movable second-hand dial" to facilitate setting a watch to exact (to the second) time, which they developed and designated the "Second Setting Navigation Watch" (gotta love military naming protocol). A picture shows the latest commercial-type chronometer, a wrist watch made by Longines. He recommends that, "The best position for the watch during actual air navigation is on the left arm, carried as an ordinary wrist watch." Noonan carried two watches in 1935, one a (you guessed it) Longines second-setting watch. So, if you find a Longines with movable second hand dial on Nikku....

3) DF loops - He calls it the radio compass, and says, "A radio compass is merely a useful application of the well-known directional characteristics of a loop antenna." So much for the radio stuff being secret military experimental equipment. He says the RC or DF in a plane may be rotatable or built into the wing. Also that, "...radio beacons and radio stations have been found more useful than radio compasses installed in the plane itself." He gives the procedures for working with US and International RC stations. I didn't realize that radio navigation was this far advanced in 1931.

Hard Landings

Butler, in East To The Dawn makes the claim that Mantz was flying the landing in Honolulu and, "The landing was terrible - so hard in fact that the impact weakened the landing gear." She says Mantz and AE were not getting along well and implied AE may have thought the hard landing led to the takeoff mishap. She gives as source an unpublished AE biography (Lady In The High Wind) by Janet Mabie, an AE journalist friend, which is in the Schlesinger Library at Radcliffe; chapter 13.

blue skies, -jerry

*****************************************************************
From Ric

It doesn't surprise me that Butler tells this story.  Her biography frequently glosses over or provides excuses for Amelia's mistakes.  Butler's account of the landing (attributed to Mabie) does not agree with Dwiggins' (Mantz's biographer).  The most compelling reason to believe that no damage was done to the Electra is that the Army's subsequent inspection didn't find any.  It's also hard to beleive that Paul Mantz botched a landing that badly.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:30:37 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Search

The explanation by Ric on the Lambrecht report and Search Report timing is good, and to add icing to the cake, the Colorado was only in Honolulu for about four hours on the 16th, when the reports were turned over to Commander, Mine Battle Group (Senior Officer Afloat) and 14th Naval District, Respectively.  Hardly enough time to revise a typewritten long document.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:58:42 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      281 message

I interpreted the 281 message to read:  [We are] 281 [nautical miles] north [of] Howland.  [Our] call[sign is] KHAQQ. [We are] beyond north ((i.e north-northeast, northeast??)). Dont ((hope for, vs. hold with?)) us much longer.  [We are] above water, shut[ting] off [radio].

If in fact this was from AE/FN and they were floating, I am amazed at the sudden accuracy of FN's navigation.  While he had 4-5 hours to find Howland after he missed his first ETA, he still couldn't locate it.  But now he has a real good idea where he is, exactly 281 miles -- not about 280 or around 300, but exactly 281 miles, north of Howland.  I'd be suspicious of that, it's too accurate.

Also, the comments by the Coast Guard Commander in Hawaii, who was relaying the message to the Itasca, don't jibe with reality.  My interpretation of his comments are: [This message was a] KEYED TRANSMISSION. [It was] EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND CARRIER [wave]. [The message consisted of] FRAGEMENTARY PHRASES BUT [was] COPIED BY THREE OPERATORS 

If we are to believe that the keying was "extremely poor" then I would have to question the accuracy of the text even if it was copied by three operators.  My experience in copying code -- or more accurately, watching it being copied and analyzing the results -- would lead me to believe that with three ditty-boppers copying the same "extremely poor" keying,  I would probably end up with three different versions of the text.  All three operators will not hear the same exact thing.  Just as the operator on the Itasca changed the text of some of his messages, the same would apply here.

I have often witnessed multiple operators copying the same signal and when things -- the signal itself or the keying -- starts to head south, the operators usually enter their best guess.  ((I've even seen them peek at the other guy's copy and then type that in!)) Consequently, the same text can vary significantly from operator to operator.

The text presented by the Coast Guard was probably a consensus between the operators and their supervisors of what everyone thought they heard.  This does not question the integrity of the Coast Guard or its personnel, it simply recognizes human reactions (we all want to do a good job) and reflects a common practice (as documented earlier by TIGHAR).

I don't doubt that the Coast Guard heard something, but I don't think it was AE/FN.

LTM
Dennis McGee #0149

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

From Ric

The trickiest thing about the 281 message is separating out the "fragmentary phrases" which are all run together in the reporting message.  Note that the message does not come from the people who actually heard the message - Navy Radio Wailupe - but by the Commander of the Coast Guard's Hawaiian Section. In other words, this is second hand information.  Where is the original transmission of the report from Wailupe to ComHawSec?  My guess is that the information was passed from Wailupe to ComHawSec by telephone.  They were both right there in the Honolulu area.  Maybe the guys at Wailupe just phoned the Coast Guard and told them what they had heard.  At any rate, we don't know what words go together and that makes it a lot tougher to fill in the blanks.

Here's my best guess on how the phrases break down:
.....281 north.....
.....Howland call KHAQQ....
.....beyond north.....
.....don't hold with us much longer....
.....above water......
.....shut off.....

If this is not a genuine message from Earhart or Noonan then it must be either a misunderstood message from someone involved in the search, or an outright hoax.  I can't think of any other possibilities.  This message was circulated to virtually everyone associated with the search and was widely reported by the media.  No one came forward to say, "Hey guys.  That wasn't Amelia.  That was me." Also consider that any experienced operator would not send a message that was poorly keyed.  I think we can say that the likelihood of it being a misunderstanding is remote.

That leaves two possibilities - a genuine communication or a hoax.  Let's consider whether it might have been a hoax.  What would a hoaxer have to know to perpetrate this stunt?  He'd have to know AE's frequency and call sign - but those were easy to find out.  He would also need to know that neither AE nor FN was adept at sending code and that a believable message from them would have to be extremely poorly keyed.  At that time practically no one knew that AE and FN could not send code smoothly.  If this message was a hoax, it was perpetrated by a real insider.

But the most interesting coincidence about the 281 message is the number 281 itself.  Any navigator with an almanac can establish his latitude with considerable accuracy merely by noting the elevation of the sun at local noon. Longitude is a lot tougher, but latitude is a piece of cake.  Latitude is nothing more than distance from the equator.  281 nautical miles is 4 degrees 41 minutes.  Go to that latitude north of the equator in the Central Pacific and you better be on a boat because there's no land on that line.  But go to 4 degrees 41 minutes (281 nm) south of the equator and you'll find one place where you can stand on dry land - Gardner Island, Aukeraime District, right in the same area where we found the shoes in 1991 and one of the places where we suspect Gallagher found the bones, shoes and sextant box in 1940.

With that in mind you might want to take another look at those fragmentary phrases.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:03:56 EST
From:         Dave Leuter
Subject:      the curse of the Lady Be Good

Lets set the record straight at last. According to Allmovie.com the movie "Sole Survivor" was made for TV in 1969 and was directed by Paul Stanley.

Here is the cast list:
Lou Antonio          - Tony
Richard Basehart  - Brigadier General Russell Hamner
Alan Caillou          - Corey
Larry Casey          - Gant
Brad David            - Elmo
Vince Edwards      - Major Michael Devlin
Noah Keen            - Major General Schurm
William Shatner     - Lieutenant Colonel Josef Gronke
Brinke Stevens       -not listed
Patrick Wayne       - Mac

OK guys, lets get on with it!  Enough of the anecdotal evidence!

I'm sure that Ric would agree that the real curse of the Lady Be Good is to take up precious time and resources in forums such as this one!

Love to Movies
"X never ever marks the spot"  Professor Henry Jones
Dave Leuter
PS I wouldn't be surprised if Ric posts no more on this including this message!

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

From Ric

I wouldn't want you to feel insulted.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:02:01 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Kiribati

Not Earhart-specific, but it does go to the current priorities of the government hosting her plane, as they might say in a US courtroom drama. This is from the Radio Australia web site:

The Pacific country of Kiribati has proclaimed a nationwide state of emergency following prolonged drought. Radio Kiribati quotes President Teburoro Tito as appealing for international help as most of the underground fresh water supplies have dried up. The report says because of the dry weather most islands in Kiribati have become dustbowls, making the estimated 81,000 population prone to airborne viruses.

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

From Ric

This is also of concern to our research team who are scheduled to visit Tarawa later this year.  We'll want to make sure we have our immunizations up to snuff.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:08:46 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Don Jordan  wrote:-

>Here is a more logical question I would like to ask. Did anyone
>make a computer model of the crash photo engine. Then make a computer
>model of the Electra engine in one of the Lae photos. If you
>superimpose one onto the other, wouldn't that kinda tell us if we have
>an Electra engine?

I did a fair amount of comparison work on engine sizes - quite some time ago now - between what we see in the photo and the L10E.

One of the reasons I had for favoring the Tachikawa Ki-54 (spar holes notwithstanding) over the L10E was the relative diameters of the engine compared to the bulkhead right behind it.

The photo seems to show an engine which is of similar diameter to the bulkhead (that's my interpretation).  Take a look at the L10E with it's cowls off though (pictures of AE's Hawaii crash are good examples), and you will see that the engine appears substantially larger than the bulkhead.

You could argue that maybe the cylinders have been removed from the engine in wreck example - but my feeling is that this would result in an engine core diameter much SMALLER than visible in the wreck.

The ring cowl also bothers me considerably.  Sure - the theory that reverse flow of water (strong wave action on the reef perhaps) could peel the rear of the cowlings outwards so they break leaving only the securely fastened ring cowl is plausible, but I can't believe that this process would leave a pristine and undeformed ring cowl - no warps, bends etc. and it's rear edge appears absolutely sharp as if it's a manufacturer's edge.

Just picture trying to bend a curved piece of metal (say a bean can with a couple of slots cut in it lengthways) and you'll see what I'm getting at.

Simon #2120

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

From Ric

All fair concerns - but I will say that upon close examination of a real "killer" scan in Photoshop 5.0, the rear edge of the ring cowls do appear somewhat ragged.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:38:07 EST
From:         Tom Ruprecht
Subject:      batteries vs flooding

Regarding "The main battery was in a well beneath the center section and the aux battery was in the aft cabin.", how does this relate to the depth of water at high tide after the landing?  Would there be any possibility of the aux battery getting shorted and damaging anything when the water flooded the lower tail section?

T
*****************************************************************
From Ric

The aux battery (assuming that it was still where it was prior to the first attempt) was mounted in a box secured to the floor of the cabin on the starboard side just about opposite the cabin door.  With the airplane in the three-point attitude, the floor at that location is about 3 feet off the ground (assuming normally inflated tires).  With a four or four and a half foot tide, that raises real doubts about whether the aux battery would be usable.  Was it still there on the second attempt?  Could they have moved it to protect it?  Could they have simply disconnected it and used only the main battery?  We can speculate, but at this time we just don't have any way of knowing for sure.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:06:21 EST
From:         Dave Baker
Subject:      Re: Search opinion

That's right, Ric. All you have to do is publish the opinion of one disgruntled Navy Lt., and that means they all think that the search for Amelia is a poor utilization of Naval forces, and they all will expend as little effort and expertise that is necessary to fill a square. I notice you went out of your way to get opinions from other crew members. Have you ever been in the service? Then you would know that there are bad attitudes, adverse opinions about everything, and just plain sloth that is displayed by certain people. There are also dedicated professionals, duty bound and respectful of authority who perform the daily operations of the Navy without questioning or complaining. Mr. Cameron is correct, TIGHAR is focusing on the opinions of a single sailor to cast doubt on the thoroughness of the Naval search efforts.

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

From Ric

Cameron is his first name.

I most certainly did not focus on the opinion of a single sailor.  Not only Short's letter , but the tone of Lambrecht's article (which brought official reprimand), and the entire tone of the ship's newspaper make it clear that, in general, the men of the Colorado saw the Earhart search as an interuption of their primary mission (PLANE SEARCH HALTS CRUISE).  Being good sailors, they made the best of it.

That there is a significant discrepancy between what Lambrecht says he saw on Gardner Island and what the captain says Lambrecht saw, is absolute fact.  In any review of any search, that sort of thing deserves attention.

My main purpose in reviewing the available information about the atmosphere in which the Colorado's search was carried out was to dispel any notion that the searchers felt that they were on some kind of holy mission to find Our Lady of the Skies.  They were just doing the job they had been handed.  Sure they wanted to find her and their efforts were certainly not half-hearted, but neither were they completely thorough.

And yes I was in the service.  I'm not automatically impressed by military officers because I was one.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:10:48 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      281 message - a 2nd try at it

O-o-o-o-o-o, am I ever embarrassed!

My first hack at guessing -- and that is what it was -- at the meaning of the "281 message" ignored a few salient facts.

1.  The message was copied over a period of one hour, "1130 to 1230 GCT"

2.  There is no indication that any part of the message was ever repeated.

3.  There is no indication that it was copied "by three operators" simultaneously.

4.  The Coast Guard said the message was "fragmentary phrases."

Assumption:  The message was in voice, not Morse code, because neither AE or FN could copy code worth a damn.

The Coast Guard copied a total of 17 words (those between quote and unquote) in one hour that could be spoken in 15-20 seconds.  It is obvious that a lot was missed.  Because there is no indication of any repeated data, whatever it was may not have been a "formal" message, as opposed to someone simply talking into an open mike.

It would not be unusual to have three operators taking turns at listening to the message.  With the bad signal and poor keying, their ears would get tired in a hurry.

I am surprised the CG commander didn't include other pertinent data in his message to Itasca, such as gender of the voice, if discernable; the frequency used; the strength of the signal; noticeable breaks in the transmission, as if the CG was hearing only one side of a two-sided (or more) conversation; that the "fragmentary phrases" were all run together as if they logically followed one another.

It is a tantalizing clue, but with only 17 words in one hour? It could just as easily be someone talking about current events in Des Moines and the CG picked it up on a weird skip or other atmospheric anomaly.

Close, but no cigar.

LTM, who is eating crow right now
Dennis McGee #0149

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

From Ric

The message was not voice.  It was "keyed" which means it was ent in morse code. It was "extremely poor keying" which means that whoever was sending it was not adept at sending code.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:36:43 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Wreck Photo

It looks like a flying boat to me.

Forgive this intrusion if the point has already been discussed, but just how was the Grumman Goose ruled out?

My first impression on looking at the photo was very definitely that this was a former Goose.  In fact it looks remarkably like several photos, and one real life Goose I have seen that were lost due to hard landings.  There is a photo in the book "Zanek!" of a Goose that crashed in the Dead Sea which shows an almost identical breakup pattern. The fuselage is cracked just ahead of the wing, and one engine has carried away.  This damage was the result of a heavy landing on the water.  The crew walked (or waded) away.

The Goose had (originally) R-985s and mechanical constant speed propellers.  It had an immensely strong center section (typical of Grumman, the rumor was that Grumman had hired engineers who first worked on the Brooklyn Bridge).  It had a center post windshield.  It had boat hull planing surfaces starting at the lower nose.  These features are all consistent with the wreck photo.

I read the analysis of the photo relating to the cowl diameter based on prop length.  Were other critical measurements compared, such as engine spacing, fuselage width at cockpit, wing spar thickness, etc.?

Robert Klaus

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

From Ric

The Goose was eliminated because:

1.  All Gooses (Geese?) had a big hatch on the top of the nose section that very clearly isn't there in the Wreck Photo.

2. The nose looks way too short for a Goose.

3. The ratio of prop length to cowling diameter is wrong for the R985s of the Goose.

Other ratios, such as engine spacing and cockpit width were not calculated because of the time and expense involved.  You wouldn't believe the mathematical gyrations Jeff Glickman at Photek went through to do the prop/cowling calculations.  It's a complex process involving corrections for plane and angle and it took weeks of work that were all donated time.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:22:14 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: 281 message

> .....281 north.....
> .....Howland call KHAQQ....
> .....beyond north.....
> .....don't hold with us much longer....
> .....above water......
> .....shut off.....

What if it says:

<281.....>   miles south of equator
on <.... north ...> end of island
xxx miles south of < ....Howland>
<call ...> ing Itasca <... KHAQQ....> calling Itasca
we are on island <.....beyond north.....> end of peninsula
batteries <.....don't (won't) hold with us much longer....>
we are on beach, well <.....above water......>
to conserve fuel and batteries we will end transmissions and <....shut
off.....> engine in 20 minutes

Just my take on it.  There are endless possibilities and probabilities, and without the original logs showing gaps and time, it is made even more difficult.

LTM,
Dave Bush
#2200

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

From Ric

Not bad.  You're right that there are many possibilities, but there are some interesting generalizations that can be drawn from the few words we have.

The fact that these fragmentary phrases were copied over the period of an hour raises the possibility, if not the liklihood, that it was a set-piece message that was sent repeatedly and only little bits of it came through.  If that was the case, then the beginning of the message could be somewhere in the middle, as in "KHAQQ calling Itasca, KHAQQ calling Itasca" which could come out as ".....call..........KHAQQ...".

You've also figured out that it is almost impossible to construct a grammatically correct sentence in English which contains the phrase "don't hold with us much longer."  The word was almost certainly "won't."  Morse code for d is dah dit dit and w is dit dah dah - a simple transposition.

The phrase "beyond north" is interesting.  North, in this case, can not refer simply to the compass direction because it is impossible to be "beyond North." North, in this case, must be an adjective modifying a noun (you suggest "end of pennisula").  Why would the message include such a phrase if not as an attempt to describe where the searchers should look?  If so, then they must be in a place that has an identifiable feature that has a north side that they can be "beyond."

The phrase "above water" would seem to describe a location or a condition.  It would hardly seem necessary for them to point out that they were not underwater (duh).  I strongly suspect that the three phrases "won't hold with us much longer", "above water", and "shut off" are all part of the same attempt to convey and explain a sense of urgency and concern about an impending event.  Before much longer, rising water will force them to shut off.

Your reconstruction of the "281...north....Howland" portion seems reasonable but requires a lot words to be missing and giving the distance from the equator and from Howland seems a bit redundant.

You see what I mean about this message being a can of worms - but it's also very intriguing.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:31:32 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Cutting one-liners

As some of you may have noticed, I have stopped posting many of the cute but pointless one-liners that various subscribers are prone to offer in response to more substantial postings.  My reason for doing so is not to pass judgement on your wit but to try to hold down the sheer volume of postings generated. Every week we lose people who just can't deal with the volume of messages and a smartass one-liner takes up just as much room in somebody's in-box as does an interesting or useful observation.  I don't want the forum to be any less fun than it is, but we do need to make more efficient.

Thanks,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:47:15 EST
From:         Jack
Subject:      Re: This And That

Just read your Weems info and very interesting.

Two comments:

1. The word Avigation is still used today. Jeppesen & Co. calls their charts Avigation Charts.

2. Re. hard landings... I read AE's in Hawaii was caused by a tire blow-out.

I'm not sure where I saw that but will see if I can find the item. There are so many different slants on the stories, it's hard to weed out the junk and end up with the facts.

Regards,
Jack

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

From Ric

Aviation etymology is a fascinating subject.  When I was learning to fly (1965) stunts were still called "acrobatics", a term that was soon replaced by "aerobatics."  And, as we've previously discussed, airplanes with "conventional gear" became "taildraggers."  The "stick" used to be the "joy stick" (although I'm not sure any pilot ever really called it that) and "elevators" were once "flippers" believe it or not.

A blown tire as the cause of Earhart's wreck in Hawaii was the excuse that Amelia gave at the time.  The Army investigation found that the tire blew as the result of the groundloop, not the other way 'round.  AE had a long history of blaming her pilot error accidents on mechanical failures.  It was not simply to protect her own ego.  She and GP made their living by promoting Amelia as the world's best woman pilot and failures of piloting skill did not fit the image.  Similarly, delays caused by maintenance or equipment problems were often blamed on the weather.  That's show biz.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:57:04 EST
From:         Jack 2157
Subject:      Re: GP, Intelligence ??

On your reply to Daryll, you left yourself open for a broadside and I going to take the shot.

You censure Daryll for his comments and reference to Paul Briands book and then you use Mary Lovells Bio to substantiate your comments. Is one book better than the other?

Come on Ric.

Dog six king,
Jack, #2157

*****************************************************************
From Ric

That's not a broadside or even a shot.  Of course one book can be better than another.  Secondary sources must be judged by the extent to which they support their information with citations referencing primary sources.

Briand's book has no footnotes and cites no sources other than anecdotal allegations. Lovell's book is extensively footnoted and references numerous primary sources.  Her treatment of GPs military career references various contemporaneous letters and records.

This is basic stuff for any researcher.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:59:04 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Search opinion

Cam Warren wrote:

> ((..omitted..))
> Meanwhile, just BACK OFF insulting anyone that disagrees with you.

Ric wrote:

> I'm not clear about just who it is I am supposed to have insulted.
> ((..omitted..))

Nor am I.  I suppose his agreement (with qualifications) with those of us who observed that Amelia had problems landing aircraft were insults to her or us?  His opinions and comments of the pilots and captain seemed to be drawn from solid historical data.  I recall in an earlier message (last year?) his comments on the difficulty these people faced searching those islands from the air.  Overall, I sense an air of frustrated understanding rather than insults of any form.

    - Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:02:54 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Request from Ric

I'd like to see a section with links to sites that convey other points of view.  Perhaps broken into sections, like three "The Japanese got her" sites along with a link to a TIGHAR page on why we think they didn't, and perhaps another with "no land" sites and again reasons why we think she didn't ditch in the ocean.

    - Bill

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

From Ric

I think that's a great idea, except I'm not aware of any websites that provide any explanation of any of the other theories.  Anybody know of any?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:07:26 EST
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Consistency

Ric wrote:

>Well Daryll, I'll say this for you - you're consistent.

You Might Want To Give It A Try Sometime !!!

RIC said:

>As I recall, GP may have been a Saipan briefly toward the end of the
>war in his capacity as an intelligence officer, but it didn't have
>anything to do with Amelia. She had died back in 1937 ya know.

Then Ric said

>During his visit to Saipan in 1945 he was very much aware of the many
>rumors circulating about Amelia having been "captured" and held for a
>time there........ he "drove all over the island making extensive
>inquiries about the white woman flier but got no answers that gave him
>any hope that Amelia had ever been there." LTM,

What this Forum needs is a Forensic Historian !

Daryll

****************************************************************
From Ric

...or a kindergarten teacher.

There is no evidence to suggest that GPs visit to Saipan had anything to do with Amelia but while he was there he did take the opportunity to try to check out rumors about her. (sigh)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:10:31 EST
From:         Mark Kreitz
Subject:      Re: 281 message

For those of us with little knowledge of celestial navigation techniques, how difficult is a NORTH/SOUTH determination 281nm from the equator?

****************************************************************
From Ric

Good question.  Any celestial navigators out there?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:14:54 EST
From:         Ted
Subject:      About Being Off Topic

I love the "off-topic" conversations.  Yes, they can be useful as comparisons to the Earhart mystery, but as I get  my early morning collection of the previous day's forum, those added bits of conversation add some "spice" to the readings especially after just reading the specs to the turboshaft of a General Electric T700-GE-701.  Maybe I shouldn't use the term "spice" - there are other areas on the internet for that.

Up,Up and Away,
Ted

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

From Ric

It's like the rest of life - all about striking the right balance.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:01:47 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

What's the chance of getting a high-res scan of the wreck photo?  Maybe TIF on a CD - how's this - include some of the other pictures from the web site, and perhaps some that are either rare or which illustrate support of the evidence (ie:  close up of the Blucher Oxfords) and that sort of thing.  I'd pay a reasonable amount for that.  Also, may we Tighars use images from the website for personal use?  I confess I copped the logo, and have the image installed in my Windows waving banner screen saver (showing my colors).  And the aerial photo of Niku makes a great "desktop" - although I had to stretch the image to get it
to fill the screen.

Unrelated to the pictures, I was puttering around on the 'net for a while last night and ran across a site with what is purported to be a letter in a bottle written by Fred Noonan, found on the Washington coast in 1996 by a guy named Chauncy Doty.  Have you heard anything about this?  My first reaction is HOAX. The letter can be found at:
http://www.angelfire.com/ut/tennant/ .  Text of the document is not included, and I have not pursued it - I wanted to check with you first - but there are some photographs, including some close-ups of segments of the letter.  It is written in pencil, in block style lettering, and is signed with the initials F.N.  According to the info on the site, there has been some comparative analysis with known samples of Fred's handwriting as recorded on charts in the library collection at Purdue, which are also block lettering, but it says there is not a sufficient quantity of known samples to get an analysis.  Did Fred always write in block letters?

LTM
jon  2266

****************************************************************
From Ric

Your suggestion about a Wreck Photo CD and possibly other rare and interesting Earhart Project related photos on CD has prompted a serious discussion here. At present, the only CD we are putting out is the Earhart Research Library CD, Vol. 1 which we outsource.  If there is sufficient interest in other TIGHAR CD products it would make sense for us to buy the hardware and do the production in-house.  We're going to do some research into hardware and I'd be interested to have feedback from the forum about what you'd like to see.

The issue of the use of the TIGHAR logo and images is a difficult one.  While I like the idea of TIGHAR images being used as you described, the fact is that they are copyrighted and if we give blanket permission for their use, the horse is out of the barn and we can never get it back.  A TIGHAR Screensaver and Desktop CD is just the sort of product we may want to market.  Worse yet, envision a day when Earhart's airplane is in a museum and the TIGHAR logo is as famous as the NIKE swoosh.  It would be a bummer for it to be in the public domain because we haven't policed its use.  Sorry 'bout that.

The Noonan letter-in-a-bottle is a crude hoax.  I have known about it for a couple of years and I have seen the complete text - although I can't disclose it because I agreed to keep it confidential as a condition to helping ascertain its possible authenticity.  I'm disappointed that its still being touted as being possibly genuine.  Both the handwriting and the content are about as unFred as anything could be.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:09:32 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: batteries vs flooding

Ric wrote:

> With a four or four and a half foot tide, that raises real doubts
> about whether the aux battery would be usable.

Someone else made a very astute comment that sea water hitting the aux battery would have created a short running the full circuit, meaning that it would have shorted out the other battery and the radio gear as well (please note that for this reason, it is hard to imagine broadcasting from a floating airplane with water coming in).

> Could they have simply disconnected it and used only the main
> battery?  We can speculate, but at this time we just don't have
> any way of knowing for sure.

This assumes that our intrepid expert radiographers suddenly have the skill, knowledge and foresight to disconnect the aux battery. After landing, for a time they try using the radio but without luck. With the battery running down, they restart an engine and charge it back up. Then, they work their way off the reef and onto the beach, look back at the plane sitting there and begin to discuss their predicament.

It is quite hard to imagine something on the order of the following....

AE: Fred, looks like the tide is coming up.
FN: Hmmm, you're right. From back in my days flying on the Clipper, I recall that the tides on this island go up 4.6 feet. We should go back out there and retrieve some of the gear just in case the surf wipes out the plane.
AE: OK, good thinking. You know, while we're there, let's disconnect the AUX battery system. The AUX battery is only 3.2 feet above ground level and if the seawater hits it, it'll short out the whole system, killing our radios.
FN: You're right, I know just which wires to pull. (FN takes a pair of pliers out of his pocket and snips them a couple of times in the air to emphasize his point.)
AE: OK, Fred, let's do it.... (the two figures run back through the rising surf to the plane and get to work).

Thomas Van Hare
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Pretty ridiculous alright, but would seawater hitting the aux battery cause a short that would run the entire circuit?  And was the aux battery still mounted on the floor during the second world flight attempt?  And was there still an aux battery aboard at all?  I don't know.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:17:51 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Even though neither AE or FN were good with a key, even I (who knows little more than SOS and V) could, having written out  a message ahead of time (with the aid of a book - or a morse table attached to the radio?), send (albeit poorly) a keyed message.  Does my (again limited) memory serve correctly in that a morse transmission could be less power consuming than a voice transmission?  Likewise, even if some equipment were damaged (ie: headsets or microphones), it seems like it might be fairly simple to jury rig (touch two wires together?) a morse transmission system.

Just a thought.
ltm
jon 2266

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

From Ric

You are correct on all of the above. The simplest way for AE or FN to send code would be to just key the mic.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:16:42 EST
From:         Alan Faye
Subject:      281 message

From my own experience with my aircraft sextant (USAF bubble-type MA-2) an early morning or sunset sun observation would give me Longitude (N-S lines) and a noon sight would give me Latitude (E-W).  At sunrise, assuming he could see the sun, FN could have obtained a reasonable Longitude that he could carry forward in a "running fix" along his DR "course line" to the point where the Longitude line would run through Howland. He should have flown an intentional "offset course" so when he had flown out to the Howland Longitude he would know to turn either left/right to start a search pattern for the island.  If he could have shot a noon sight, he could have confirmed Latitude of Howland.

Actually shooting the sun to get a "sun-line" is a piece of cake, compared to stars or moon sights.  You can actually shoot the sun through clouds if not too thick.  Latitude north or south of the equator has little to do with it.  Using sight reduction tables, we take out the effects of Latitude.
Happy landings !  :-) Alan

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

From Ric

Uh... I'm not a celestial navigator, but from your description I don't think you are either.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:23:20 EST
From:         Harold Mendelson
Subject:      Reducing Forum email volume

For some time now I've been turning over in my mind how to suggest a way for you to reduce the overwhelming volume of communications on the Tighar Forum.  From your statement just posted today ("It's like the rest of life - all about striking the right balance"),  I suspect that you, too, are been concerned  about this matter.  When I returned from a one-day trip this week, in addition to other emails,  I found 40 or more from Tighar.

Having served a military tour of duty on Canton Island  less than 5 years after AE's disappearance, I am fascinated with  this subject and appreciate the good work you and Tighar are doing.  But more and more when I find a long list of message to read, I mentally groan,  say "Oh no!" and  find myself just skimming most of the postings.   I wish I could give you a solution.   The only suggestion I can make is that while I realize you prefer not to be dictatorial or to exercise censorship, perhaps you should consider being  a bit less indulgent with the off-topics, and with the redundant  and overly-long letters.  I don't envy your devilishly difficult job.
Harold Mendelson
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:36:24 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      wreck photo and AE myths

Please forgive me if this is ground you've covered previously.  The following aircraft bear superficial resemblance to a L10.  Since they aren't "glory machines" (fighters or heavy bombers) my books don't give info like # of prop blades which would make it easy for an amateur like me to rule them out.  Also, to my admittedly untrained eye, the detached nose section of the wreck photo appears to show "greenhouse glass" panels similar to those used on late '30's and early '40's era bomber noses.

USAF manual 355-10 Aircraft Recognition for the Ground Observer (march 1955)
page 122, C-45 transport
page 116, C-60 transport

US Bombers, Aero Publishing, 1974, Lloyd S. Jones page 119, Lockheed Vega B-34 & B-37 light bombers

Combat Aircraft of the World, 1979 Putnam(!) paperback edition, John W. R. Taylor pages 513-514, Lockheed Ventura & Harpoon naval patrol planes

In addition to critical dimensions, etc. I'm sure you have records showing if any of the above listed machines were lost (perhaps during WWII) in the area in question.  Related to that, is the wreck photo fairly accurately dated, i.e. is the photo definetly pre-war. If so, the above aircraft would (I believe) all be ruled out.

RE: AE myths
I've recently gone back to my bookshelf and re-read the AE section of "Great Mysteries of Aviation", Alexander McKee, Stein and Day 1st paperback edition, 1986. In it, the author asserts the following:

1.  AE & FN were on a spy mission, carefully planned with US Gov't. help, such help to include the construction of 3 runways on Howland. (page 132)
2.  FN had a drinking problem. (page 134)
3.  (best, or worst, of all) AE, while searching for Howland, transmitted in MORSE CODE! (page 136)

Weren't these "facts" known to be false by 1986?

LTM, Dave Porter

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

From Ric

I do believe that most of that ground was covered in the TIGHAR Tracks articles available on the website.  To briefly recap:

- what you're interpreting as a greenhouse nose are panels of skin torn out with underlying stringers and bulkheads visible.

- the C-60, B-34, B-37, Ventura and Harpoon are all the Lockheed Model 18 with 3 bladed props.

- the C-45 Twin Beech has R95 engines and does not have a windshield centerpost.

We do not have an accurate date for the Wreck Photo.

Yes, all the myths you mention were well known to be myths by 1986. Publishers will publish anything they think will sell.  Truth does does not enter into the equation.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:41:56 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Kiribati

I just made an effort to locate an address to which contributions can be sent to help Kiribati in its time of crisis, but to no avail.  The Kiribati web site, rather ominously, has been closed.  If anyone else finds a way to be of help, please share it with the Forum.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:46:16 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Mark Kreitz wrote:

>For those of us with little knowledge of celestial navigation techniques,
>how difficult is a NORTH/SOUTH determination 281nm from the equator?

Bowditch, American Practical Navigator 1938, says, "No navigator should assume that his position is not liable to some error for which a reasonable allowance is about 2 miles." That's with a sextant and aboard ship. Less error on stable platform (land). A bubble octant is less accurate than the sextant.

blue skies, -jerry

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

From Ric

Okay.  We can assume that if this message came from Fred he had taken his sighting on land with his trusty old nautical sextant. (Now let's see.  Where did I put that box?)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:02:20 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Mark Kreitz wrote:

> For those of us with little knowledge of celestial navigation techniques,
> how difficult is a NORTH/SOUTH determination 281nm from the equator?

Determining your position 281 miles north or south of the equator is easy. Find your latitude with a sun shot or star sights at night.  Then figure out how far you are from the equator (latitude =0).

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I think Mark was asking how difficult it is to tell whether you're 281 miles North or 281 miles South of the equator.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:20:44 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Reducing Forum email volume

There is a solution to the email volume, and also could help minimize Ric's time spent replying to each and every one.  How about TIGHAR setting up a bulletin board?  Check out www.netbabble.com (good, but very slow at 4-8PM) for their services.  People can post directly to threads, skip the threads they are not interested in, and Ric can pop in his comments when he wants to.  There is a slight cost to Tighar for running a bulletin board, but in the long run, it might be worth while.  What say you other Tigher-readers?  Good idea or no?

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

From Ric

Randy has some great ideas, but this isn't one of them.  What he's talking about is an unmoderated newsgroup.  The messages wouldn't come to you.  You'd have to go the list of messages.  And there wouldn't be any subscribing or unsubscribing.  Anybody in the world could post anything they wanted to say. (Talk about off-topic.)  A little over a year ago National Geographic set up an  arhart "forum" on their website that was in reality an unmoderated news or discussion group.  It was soon taken over by the goldarndest parade of conspiracy buff/nutcases you'd ever want to imagine.

I think the reason TIGHAR's forum has been so successful (and it has been VERY successful) has been due almost entirely to the balance we've been able to achieve between serious research, humor, and good-natured debate.  Balance doesn't happen by accident.  It takes time and effort.  Pat and I give that to this forum and the forum gives back tenfold.

I would like to find a way to trim the sheer volume of postings without compromising the things that make the forum so good.  That will probably take more work, not less.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:53:00 EST
From:         Brad McLeod
Subject:      Re: Cutting one-liners

Ric - I wholeheartedly support you on that. I have been considering dropping of the forum for that very reason, but have not because buried amongst the pointless chit chat ("Dear Ric, I love the job you are doing, keep it up") there are discussions that I find very interesting.

Sincerely, Brad McLeod (TIGHAR number unknown)

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

From Ric

You're member number is 1233 and your point is well taken.  What's the old expression?  "Don't applaud.  Just throw money."
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 09:00:16 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Reducing Forum email volume

I agree with avoiding an unmoderated newsgroup.  One of the things we need to keep in mind is, with as many members as there are (and hopefully growing all the time), we are bound to have more postings rather than less.  The thing is, many of the postings - even the "one liners" - sometimes make me stop in my tracks (tighar tracks, that is) and say "hmmm" or "I wish I'd said / thought of that".  By allowing an essentially free exchange of ideas, thoughts, and philosophies (even the negative stuff), we all learn, grow, and (in my opinion) come closer to the truth.  I know I have, and I think you're doing a bang-up job. Maybe, in order to minimize some of the redundancy, you could add a brief FAQ to the Forum Highlights section, to deal with the repetitive types of questions that seem to pop up from new folks every month or two.  Just a thought.

Have a good weekend.
ltm
jon 2266

***************************************************************
From Ric

Good idea.  At one time or another the forum has dealt with a lot of issues in considerable depth.  We could go back into the archives, pull out, and categorize those discussions so that when somebody - say - asks about the Morgenthau transcript I could just say "Go to the FAQ section of the website and look under Morgenthau."
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 09:27:31 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      "281 Message:"  Poor keying

Here is the reason for "poor keying" as mentioned regarding the purported post-loss message.

Aircraft radio transmitters of this age were vacuum-tube designs.  They needed both low-voltage power, from the battery (also known as the "A" voltage) to operate the tube filaments (heaters, if you will) and the relays in the control circuits.  They also required high-voltage DC power (also known as the "B-Plus" voltage) to operate the vacuum tubes.

The B-plus voltage was provided by an electromechanical power supply known as a dynamotor.  This is a DC motor-generator set.  The battery voltage drives the motor; the generator is on the same shaft (opposite end) as the motor.

Dynamotors are big current eaters.  In the case of the Western Electric 13CB transmitter in AE's aircraft, the dynamotor output voltage was around 1050 volts at about 200 milliamperes... that is, close to 200 watts DC power output.  Dynamotors have a typical efficiency rating (input power vs. output power) of no more than 50% and probably more like 30% (energy is converted from electrical, to mechanical, back to electrical... go figure). Therefore, the dynamotor for the 13CB draws about 800 watts from the battery... assuming a 14-volt battery, this means the dynamotor alone will draw about 40 amperes... when it is running, under load.  Starting surge current can be over 100 amps for a fraction of a second, but the surges still eat the battery up.  Plus, the tube filaments probably draw at least 4 more amps.  Lots of current.

Anyway... the control circuits of aircraft transmitters in those days were generally designed to keep the dynamotor on standby as much as possible.  In VOICE mode, the dynamotor would only be running while the transmitter was on the air... that is, the push-to-talk button on the microphone not only "keyed" the transmitter, but also activated a relay that started the dynamotor.  When the button was released, to change from transmit to receive, the relay opened, and the dynamotor power was cut off.

In CW (morse code) mode, the dynamotor would be normally be running continuously, even during "standby" (receive) periods.  Reason:  The dynamotor takes a fraction of a second to get up to speed, so that the transmitter is not up to full power the instant it is keyed on.  If the dynamotor is running, we don't have that problem.  Plus, the dynamotor starting surges are minimized, and the dynamotor doesn't come on and go off with each dit-and-dah of Morse.  If it did, the changing voltages would also make the output signal's "note" as heard in a distant receiver sound very unstable.

If AE and FN were transmitting morse by keying the mic button, therefore, the result would indeed be "extremely poor keying."  In short the signal would "chirp" or "yoop" for a few hundred Hertz all around the transmit frequency.  The "note" as heard in a receiver would warble like a 500-pound canary bird and the frequency would be a bit unsteady, even with a crystal controlled transmitter like the 13CB.

But... BUT... BUT!

I took another look at the circuit diagram of the 13CB, specifically the control circuits.  While its instruction manual specifies that this transmitter can be used for keyed continuous-wave signals, that is "CW" or Morse code, it IS NOT really designed for such!

The control circuit is wired in such a manner that the dynamotor will not be running in any standby period... whether in Voice or CW mode.  The transmitter control circuit uses two relays:  one to switch the antenna from the transmitter output to the receiver input ("T/R' or antenna-changeover) and another to energize the control circuit.  This contro relay does the following jobs:  energizes the antenna-changeover relay AND the dynamotor starting relay AT THE SAME TIME.  It is impossible to separate the two.

In short... when the key is "open" the dynamotor input power circuit is broken.  In all cases.

This transmitter was NOT designed for CW use.  Oh yeah, it could, theoretically, be used to produce a CW signal... just barely...and that would not be a CW signal of acceptable quality standards (stability, purity of emission, "cleanness" of keying etc.)  even for the mid to late 1930s.

The dynamotor starter relay would be clicking on-and-off with each closure of the key!

Dynamotor starter relays are something like the big solenoids that energize the starter in an automobile... I am thinking specifically of the ones used in Ford cars, which are separate from the starter motor.  They are big, and do not accurately follow a telegraph key.  They switch big amounts of current on and off.  Trying to "key" one will burn out the contacts of the solenoid in short order because breaking high-current circuits like that produces arcing at the relay contacts.

Yeah... I bet that signal really was poorly keyed.  Probably sounded like (as an old-time ham operator I knew once said) "cow-drop hittin' a flat rock...."  And combined with poor proficiency on a telegraph key... or someone trying to send code with a mic button (not easy to do, considering how strong the button-springs are in some of those old aircraft mics; they are real thumb-busters!) it is a wonder the receiving operators could understand anything at all.

Sorry this is so "technical."  But, if I did not explain it, those who didn't understand a brief otuline would probably butt heads over it and pick it to death.

Hope it helps.

73
Mike E. #2194

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Verrry interesting, and possibly another argument against this message being a hoax.  Somebody would have had to go to a lot of trouble to fake all of that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 09:37:12 EST
From:         Catherine
Subject:      Banana cans

Howdy, TIGHARs, from a new forum reader -- not (yet) a member. I've read up quite a bit since joining, but I've undoubtedly missed something, so please bear with me if I repeat what has already been said.

Just a few comments about the can label:  I agree that since it appears to be modern, it is a pretty low priority.  But I still think it would be interesting to know something about where it came from, because that might suggest something about who's been on the island since 1970.  Wouldn't prove anything of course.

Also I got the impression that not many here have ever seen a can of bananas.  I never had, so last night I visited a Chinese grocery store.  They had two or three brands of canned bananas in syrup, as well as a couple of brands of canned banana flowers.  I believe they were all canned in China or Taiwan.  Also saw lots of EAN barcodes if anyone still cares.  I saw no labels (on bananas or anything else, not that I examined every can in the store) that resembled the label fragment.

Oh, and one dumb trivia question.  The one of my atlasas that shows Nikumaroro at all spells it two different ways -- the map labels it Nikumororu, but the index entry for it is spelled the way TIGHAR documents spell it.  Is the other spelling a known variant, or just a mistake?

Catherine
****************************************************************
From Ric

I think it's just a mistake.  I've never seen any other spelling. In Tungaru tradition, Nikumaroro is the mythical home of the goddess Nei Manganibuka who was said to have come from a beautiful island to the southeast of the Gilberts that was covered with Buka trees.  When the first delegation of Gilbertese elders saw Gardner Island during an evaluation trip with British officials in October 1937, they saw a beautiful island to the southeast of the Gilberts that was covered with Buka trees.  They believed that they had discovered the legendary Nikumaroro, home of Nei Manganibuka - and they were right.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 09:41:11 EST
From:         Gene Dangelo
Subject:      Re: 281 message

You know, though some folks may feel that the number 281 may seem too specific to be genuine, it occurs to me that with a really skilled navigator who has a sextant and a chronometer right in hand, that degree of specificity might be exactly what one might expect, especially if that navigator is hoping to provide as accurate coordinates as possible in the event of a ditching. (How's that for one long sentence?) Some hoaxer may not know enough about navigation to come up with some odd number, unless their really thorough hoaxers. An amateur might look at some garden variety Mercator projection map, and simply pick a number printed on the latitude/longitude grid, and transmit that. It all depends on one level of sophistication. But there may have been a reason that Fred could've been THAT certain. That may merit some investigation---what circumstances could make him THAT sure of his position?

Then, there's the ethical question, rather like pulling a false fire alarm, or yelling "fire" in the crowded theater. In the 1930's, what would any hoaxers hope to accomplish by sending out a deliberate false signal? To divert the search and possibly seal AE's doom? To risk FRC (now FCC) detection via triangulation and thus fines or imprisonment? I am not so naive as to think that it could NOT happen, but one has to wonder, given AE's celebrity, why anyone would go out of their way to impede the search for a celebrated stranger, who was fighting for her life? True, we can only speculate on both sides of the fence, but an occasional fresh look at the known facts with an eye to other possiblities may yet yield new avenues to investigate.

Love To Meridians
Dr. Gene Dangelo  #2211  :)

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

From Ric

The mind and motivations of a hoaxer are hard to fathom, but the sad fact is that they are, and were, plentiful.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 09:16:25 EST
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Reducing Forum email volume

I like the Forum quite a lot just the way it is.  Maybe I just like getting e-mail at work that is unrelated to my often-dull job.  I visited the National Geographic AE bulletin board once and was amazed at the vast numbers of lunatics out there with access to computers.  Ric is certainly correct about the very limited utility of a bulletin board.

My suggestion to reduce the amount of Forum messages is to take the "junk mail" (movie casting fantasies, one-liners, sayings about "good landings", remote viewing, etc.), lump it into a single message, and post it once every few days.  If it was labeled "Junk Mail" in the subject line, one could just hit that good old Delete key straight away and save a little time.

Certainly, I trust Ric's judgement (after all, I do send money occasionally) to separate useful postings from "junk mail", which he does pretty well already.

LT Delete things;
Tim Smith 1142C
P.S.:  Where's my Electra model??

*****************************************************************
From Ric

The Prototype arrived for review and correction about a month ago.  (Photos of it are now on the website at http://www.tighar.org/model.html)  We sent it back right away with corrections noted (there were quite a few) and we expect to receive the final accurate (we hope) Prototype very soon.  Once we've signed off on that, production of the models will begin.  It has been a too-long and often frustrating process to get a really accurate model produced but it's like the old saying, "Do you want it right, or do you want it Tuesday?"

Your suggestion of a periodic "Junk Mail" posting is interesting.  On the one hand, it would be a way to indulge off-topic excursionists and would-be comedians.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that anyone would be pleased to see their offering labeled Junk Mail.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 09:50:39 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: 281 message

I agree with Alan.  Fred could tell within 20 miles (longitude) where he was at sunrise.  He would not be able to get a latitude reading until noon which unfortunately for them was too late.  If he had flown a repeated box pattern they should have been able to find Howland assuming his dead reckoning navigation during the night was not too bad.  Even if his dead reckoning was off Fred could have easily checked latitude during the night using the sextant and stars.  It was done all the time.  Any nivigator with Fred's skills could have flown over a match box in the Pacific during that era. It was not necessary for them to have radio contact with the Itasca to find Howland.

The cause must lie somewhere else such as the entire area was totally overcast above 12,000 feet or?

Regards Bob Lee
*****************************************************************

From Ric

There was no overcast.  We know that from the weather observations taken and recorded aboard Itasca and ashore on Howland.  And yet the flight failed to find Howland.  that would seem to leave us with three possibilities:

1.  Noonan did not have the expertise we think he had.
2.  They never intended to find Howland and it's all a conspiracy.
3.  Your statements about celestial navigation are not correct.

I have some big celestial navigation guns I can call in on this if necessary but I was hoping we had some real navigators out there on the forum.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 10:11:47 EST
From:        Alan Faye
Subject:      Re: 281 message

So who are YOU to judge who is or who isn't???  What the hell do YOU know?

I seriously doubt that YOU are a clelestial navigator to make your insidious judgement that I am not.  I have navigated 8 transpac airplane deliveries OAK to HNL and one OAK-HON-Kwajalein Atoll- Tarawa- Port Vila, Vanuatu.  Plus four trans-pac sailboat trips, Calif to Kauai & return and Honolulu to Tahiti.  ALL with either Air Force sextant or my Weems & Plath sextant. And using the Air Almanac or Nautical Almanac and HO 249 (airborne) or HO 211 (ocean-borne).

Go back to your editing but don't judge what we know or don't know.

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

From Ric

Please accept my apologies.  I have never claimed to be a celestial navigator but it has not been my impression from talking to many who are that it is possible to get an accurate Longitude from an early morning or late evening sun shot.  A good line of position, yes.  That's what Noonan seems to have done on the morining of July 2nd.  The sun rose at 67 degrees and he was able to establish a 337/157 degree LOP (90 degrees to the sun), but that's not the same as nailing down a line of Longitude.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 10:23:18 EST
From:         Alan Faue
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Someday, when you have a chart in front of you,  I'll show you how to do an intentional offset on a flight to a distant island.  When you use celestial navigation there is always the chance that when you fly out your course line out, there is NO island there at your ETA.

For my first ferry flight of a Cessna 310 from Oakland to Honolulu, my Air Force navigator trainer had trained me to fly a course offset so when I got near Honolulu, if there was no island there, I would turn right to look for Oahu.  So, when I passed my half-way point, which was "Ocean Station November" (a Coast Guard Cutter stationed at 30 North by 140 West) I made an intentional course change of 5 degrees left of course.  When I got near Honolulu, sure enough, it was on my right.  The point is, if you DON'T fly the offset, you don't know whether to turn left or right, to do a search pattern for your island.  Shucks.  Maybe this stuff is too technical for you.  Go check with someone else who has done airborne navigation over oceans.

And I used my Air Force sextant for the first time.  Celestial all the way.

Love to my Guardian Angel(s), who saved me on some hairy trips.

Aloha from the Garden Island

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

From Ric

It has often been assumed that Noonan off-set his approach to Howland but we're aware of no evidence that he did.  It's not a technique that Pan Am used.  That's why they had Radio Direction Finding (Adcock) stations on their destination islands, to provide navigational assistance to incoming flights. Itasca was at Howland, in part, to provide just that service to Earhart and Noonan.   By the time they figured out that they weren't going to get any help from radio, AE and FN were too close in to do any kind of off-set.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 11:09:19 EST
From:         Max Standridge
Subject:      "...on coral...we are cut..." written source

I've communicated w/Ric about this topic a 2 of times--does anyone on List have any ideas or info. as to a written source for a reported or alleged AE post-crash message which included the phrase, "...on coral...we are cut..." (garble).

I've seen the source at one time, and recall it as fairly cautious and basically TIGHAR-friendly. I believe it was either a review of Briand's or Lovell's book, or a section in a foreword in another book on AE. For some reason, I didn't make a written note at the time--or have misplaced it. I've been trying to backtrack my steps and haven't been able to find it again; been looking for c. 2 yrs.

I'm somewhat intrigued w/message and source gave some info. suggesting it came w/in a time frame reasonable for equip. limits of various kinds. Not an endorsement by me of message validity, (but am curious), nor was author of piece endorsing, merely pointing it out. Anyone w/info on this source?

 --Max S.

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

From Ric

I've done some digging and this is the best I've come up with.

In 1986 a man named John Luttrell put a monograph he had done entitled "Winslow Reef - Amelia Earhart's Crash Site?" on file at the National Air & Space Museum library.  Luttrell says that when he was in the Air Force he was "taught the fine art of deciphering transmissions" which he describes as "tear(ing) apart a seemingly insignificant message into many parts and then analyzing each part to help give a 'bigger picture' so to speak." (Same sort of thing we've been doing with the 281 message.)

Luttrell picked 12 alleged Earhart post-loss messages and filled in the blanks with his guesses.  Unfortunately, he doesn't provide sources for the messages or what times they were supposedly heard.  Here is what he came up with.  I have put his insertions in parentheses.

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

July 2
Msg. No. 1     "Land in sight ahead"
Msg. No. 2     "Plane on reef (200) miles directly south of Howland - both are O.K.  Plane has one wing broken"  (This message came from a short wave listener in Eureka, CA.  U.S. Coast Guard said it thought it was 200 miles directly etc....).
Msg. No. 3     "Earhart calling.....NRUI-NRUI- calling from KHAQQ.  On coral southwest of unknown island.  Do not know how long we will..."
Msg. No. 4      "KHAQQ calling.  KHAQQ... we are (cut) a little......."

July 3
Msg. No. 5     "Ship on reef south of equator..."

July 4
Msg. No. 6    "133 (degrees Baker)"  (this message was picked up by a listener in Kentucky.  This listener said message read "133 acres.")
Msg. No. 7    "(157) miles (SE Baker)"
Msg. No. 8    "...281 north (Hull Island) ..."  (Of all the messages picked up after Amelia's disappearance, this one was probably the most misunderstood and, as it turned out, the most disastrous.  The listener reported this message read "...281 north Howland...".  If the reader will speak aloud "Hull Island" you will see how much it sounds like "Howland.")

July 5
Msg. No. 9    "...call KHAQQ....Beyond (equator) north (Mckean)...don't hold off with us much longer.  (Reef is barely) above water... shut off".

July 8
Msg. No. 10    "...225 NNW (Canton)..."
Msg. No. 11    "...(200 miles south)east Howland...lights tonight...must hurry....can't hold...."

July 9
Msg. No. 12    "All's well" (This is a strange message but could be authentic. About this time the Coast Guard ship Itasca as well as the battleship Colorado and her scout planes were in the area of the crash site and Amelia possibly saw one of them.  Unfortunately, the searcher did not see her.)

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

Luttrell is clearly backing into his theory that the plane came down on Winslow Reef which, unfortunately for him, is underwater.  He has also missed the fact that the 281 message was recieved in code, not voice, so his Howland vs Hull Island hunch doesn't work.  Whether any of these messages was genuine is, of course, anybody's guess.

Still no message of "...on coral.....we are cut...".

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 11:27:56 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      AE in Ireland

Here's a description of Earhart's 1932 arrival in Ireland by John Thompson, curator of the threatened Amelia Earhart Centre in Derry.

******************
Amelia Earhart in Derry

It was a fine spring Saturday afternoon. James Mc Geady and Dan Mc Callion were mending fences in fields close to their home at Shantallow, just outside Derry. They became aware of a small red plane, an uncommon sight in those days, coming from Moville direction. The plane began to circle. A mile away in the Shantallow House local publican, Barrett, jumped up from his newly acquired crystal radio set, grabbed a white sheet, ran outside and began waving furiously at the little plane. Suddenly the plane began to descend, so low that it clipped the hedgerow. The pilot regained control, circled Mc Geady's house three times and landed uphill in the field not ten yards from where James and Dan were fencing coming to halt in front of two little cottages owned by the Mc Callion and Mc Laughlin families.

James ran to the spot and in a mixture of fear and curiosity approached the plane. For a while nothing happened, then all of a sudden the pilot emerged unscathed. The date was May 21 1932, the pilot was Amelia Earhart and she had just created history as the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic.

"We thought she was a man "recorded Mc Geady in later interviews " dressed in jodhpurs with tight curly hair....".

After asking Mc Geady to extinguish his cigarette as a precaution against a fuel leak she made her way to the nearby cottage owned by Hughie McLaughlin.

"Where did you come from, Fella" asked a bemused Mc Laughlin "From America" replied a female voice which then asked, "Where am I."

"You're in Cornshell" stammered the dumfounded Hughie indicating the field.

Earhart, who had been aiming for Paris, would have been content with the name of the Country!

The Mc Callion family in a typically Irish manner was in the process of offering her a cup of tea when Robert Gallagher the owner of the Field and some of his farm hands who had been working in the nearby yard arrived on the scene.

"I 'd like to make a phone call" said Earhart.

There was no time for tea at the Mc Callions as Robert Gallagher whisked her off to his house for the all-important phone, where as luck would have it the operator could not be contacted. Robert then drove her to the Post Office in Derry where She phoned the Press Association.

"Hello, this is Amelia Earhart speaking" she said. "I've done it, although I had to land here in the pastures outside Derry. I'm not a bit hurt and I think the plane is all right. I had trouble with my exhaust manifold was had burnt out. I had this trouble for about ten hours, and for a lot of the way I was flying through storms - rain, mist and a little fog. On this go I was flying low the whole time and had to rely on myself. I am afraid I'm a bit deaf after the terrible roar of the engines in my ears all the time, but at any rate, I've done it. In addition the petrol gauge had broken, probably in the storm of the night and there was a little leakage, so I decided to come down. I landed in an open field a mile or two from the town of Derry The first one to greet me was the owner of the field. My first thought on getting here was to ring up the press association so that my safe landing would be made known without delay.

"To my friends in New York I want to send this message: 'I am very glad to have come across successfully, but I am sorry I did not make France. I am going to speak to my husband as soon as I can by Atlantic phone to find out what I shall do.'"

Amelia was also keen to contact her husband, the famous publisher, George Putnam so she also used the opportunity to send a cablegram.

Recognised as the world famous aviatrix from current newspaper photographs, she was besieged by well wishers and sought refuge in the Northern Counties Hotel where she was soon in contact with Putnam by phone.

Local Postmaster Mr. W. Thomas and his staff were inundated with congratulatory cablegram from all over the world, including one from U.S. President Hoover:

"I voice the pride of the nation in congratulation you most heartily upon achieving the splendid pioneer solo flight for a woman across the Atlantic Ocean. You have demonstrated not only your own dauntless courage, but also the capability of women to match the skill of men in carrying through the most difficult feats of high adventure."

Hundreds of cablegrams, including one from Amy Johnson and her Husband Morrison offering to fly her from Derry to Glasgow were rushed to the Hotel where Earhart gave impromptu interviews, received transatlantic phone calls, and made periodic appearances at the hotel entrance much to the delight of the well wishers and autograph seekers who now thronged the streets and even climbed onto the city walls to catch a glimpse of the transatlantic aviatrix.

Meanwhile the little field at Shantallow had become a Mecca for sightseers. Hundreds of people made their way to Shantallow on foot, trap, cart and motor cars. Cornshell became an unofficial and improvised airport for the international photographers and journalists who came to record the historic landing. The local RUC(police), fearing for the safety of the plane, cordoned off the area. An unfortunate dog caught in the propeller blade of a plane had to be shot by one of the RUC officers.

Not to be outdone by the international press, one enterprising local chemist and amateur photographer, Mr. A. E. Dickson rushed to the scene, took photographs and within three hours had them on display in his window in Waterloo Place, including one signed by Earhart herself. By Monday morning he also had an advertisement in the local press for cameras.

Anxious to return to the scene of her landing, Robert Gallagher managed to spirit her away from the Northern Counties and drove Earhart back to Cornshell where she requested local journalists to witness the removal of the all important barograph which was removed by Sergeant Sawyers, RUC, Victoria Barracks for transport to the National Aeronautic Association in Washington together with a certificate of landing which was subsequently issued. Local customs officials, Mr. T. Millen and Mr. R. Sloane examined the plane and its contents and having perused the logbook issued a certificate of clearance.

Earhart had brought 50 letters; stamped and dated in New York as well as a copy of the "Telegraph-Journal" St. John N. B. dated 20th May 1932. Which she signed and presented to a local journalist.

A log book, 50 letters, a newspaper and 10 dollars were her only companions on that 2000 mile, 14 hour 30 minute solo journey across the Atlantic from Harbor Grace, Newfoundland to a green field in Ireland with only a flask of tomato soup for food.

In the world of James Mc Geady "She was a game girl."

During the course of her stay in Derry Earhart gave a number of interviews in the Northern Counties she understated her achievement by remarking " I just did this flight for fun". Questioned about her husband's attitude to her activities she replied " He does not interfere with my flying and I do not interfere with his publishing.

Her success, she said, disproved the assertion by Lady Heath that no woman should attempt to fly the Atlantic alone and that twelve would fail before one would succeed. Earhart was well aware of the risks. Four women pilots had already died in previous attempts.

Declining various offers of accommodation She returned the Gallagher house when she retired for the night. After only 7 hours sleep she arose at 6.00am on Sunday morning to be again greeted by hundred of well wishers who had already gathered at Cornshell, keen to catch sight of the heroine. At 9.00am a Paramount News Company plane arrived to fly her to London. Earhart reenacted the final "taxiing " moments of her flight and initial conversation with her Irish hosts for the benefit of the Movie cameras. The owners of the little cottages at Cornshell were asked to replace their furniture with wooden boxes to add to the remoteness of the landing. By 12.00 noon Earhart was ready to leave Such however was the crowds not to mention the flotilla of small planes that had landed close by that she was unable to take off.

Asked by reporters if she would ever return she relied in the affirmative but added

"I think you had better get an airport here before you invite people to come by air."

At 1.45pm only 24 hours after she had arrived Earhart was gone. 

John Thompson August 1996
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 11:54:43 EST
From:         John Thompson
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart Centre, Ireland

Further to an email I have received from the Tighar Airhearts asking how they might help in our difficulties.

(Note from Ric:  The TIGHAR Airhearts are a fifth grade group who are part of  pilot program for a major educational initiative using the Earhart disappearance as a multi-disciplinary vehicle for teaching scientific method, critical thinking, math and technology.  The program is headed by TIGHAR's Development Director for Education, Barb Norris.)

I attach a copy of my reply.

Forgive my presumption, but perhaps you would also consider asking Forum member, and others interested parties, to contact the local media here.

A transatlantic Radio Programme link with the BBC might be mutually beneficial to both Tighar and ourselves.

Briefly explained.

The AE Centre built in 1986, in the field now within Ballyarnett Country Park, is owned By Derry City Council.

Due to financial difficulties( or lack of real understanding/interest) the Centre remained unopened until 1991 when we, as a local history group, agreed to manage it under an employment/training programme for local long term unemployed.

That scheme, and the associated funding is now to be axed, as will the Centre unless the local  "powers that be"  DO something; that something being provide money. Time is not on our side. 26 March is D day.

I have asked Council to provide alternative funding and that request is being considered. Perhaps a little transatlantic interest/pressure may tip the balance in our favour.

IMO, it is a national scandal if this building, located on the very site where Earhart made history in 1932, were itself to become an historical relict.

John Thompson
Amelia Earhart Centre
NORTHERN IRELAND MEDIA EMAIL LIST

*Newspapers*

Derry Journal: derryj@sol.co.uk
Irish News: Internet@irishnews.com
Belfast Telegraph: Editor@belfasttelegraph.co.uk.

*Radio*

Radio Ulster
BBC Radio Ulster's award winning daily phone-in programme.

Monday to Saturday just after the mid-day news, with Presenter David Dunseith.

Each day's, Talk Back  is available on the Internet in Real Audio.

Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/nca-talkback.shtml

Programmes can be heard either live just after 12:00(noon) (GMT), or streamed on demand for the following 24 hours.

Email: talk.back@bbc.co.uk

Radio Foyle, Derry:  radio.foyle@bbc.co.uk
**************************************************************

From Ric

Thank you John.

Okay Earhart Forum, here's your chance to make a difference.  Let's let the Irish media know that a whole bunch of American, Englishmen, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Belgians, etc., etc. who are rich enough to own computers think it would be a terrible shame if there was no Amelia Earhart Centre in Derry for them to come and visit and spend tourist dollars.

I'll contact the radio stations and see if I can set up an interview. Meanwhile, it would be wonderful if every forum subscriber would take just 2 minutes to blast off an email to:

Derry Journal: derryj@sol.co.uk

Irish News: Internet@irishnews.com

Belfast Telegraph: Editor@belfasttelegraph.co.uk.
saying something like:
**********************
I understand that the Derry City Council intends to cut off funding for the Amelia Earhart Centre effective March 26, 1999.  At a time when worldwide public interest in Amelia Earhart is greater than it has ever been since she vanished in 1937, and when recent discoveries have raised genuine hope that that the mystery of her disappearance may soon be conclusively solved, it is certainly shortsighted and contrary to Ireland's best interest to deprive itself of a prime tourist destination.

I sincerely hope that the Derry City Council will reconsider its decision.
*****************
Go get 'em TIGHARs.

Love to Mither,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 11:58:03 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      PARALLEL BATTERIES

but would seawater hitting the aux battery cause a short that would run the entire circuit?

YES!  Any charge, discharge, or load across any battery in a parallel arrangement will be reflected upon each battery in the hook up in proportion to it's internal resistance.  Briefly, charging one will charge the other(s) as will discharging; a short circuit is a really heavy discharge.  The above is why each battery in a parallel arrangement should be of similar 'size' and characteristics to avoid damage to one of them under unexpected charge/discharge conditions.

Not to pair a man & a boy in harness....  RC

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

From Ric

Okay.  Next question.  Are multiple batteries in airplanes traditionally wired in parallel or in series?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 12:06:16 EST
From:         Suzanne Tamiesie
Subject:      Mail Volume

I think you have struck the right balance of submissions included on the Forum. For those who find it too much, I suggest they try receiving it as a digest. Then one can quickly scan the topics and decide which to read.

I would always opt for too much information rather than too little-with the latter, readers can sort out that which they choose not to read-with the former, one never gets that chance.

A very satisfied Tighar member,
Suzanne Tamiesie #2184

****************************************************************FrFrom Ric

Thanks Suzanne.
It is true that any forum member can reduce their daily forum email count from dozens to 1 simply by sending this message:

SET EARHARTFORUM DIGEST

to this address:

listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com

But the fact is lots and lots of people don't do that, or they try and forget that they originally signed up under a different email address so the listserv computer doesn't recognize their request.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 12:22:58 EST
From:         Stephanie
Subject:      Re: Reducing Forum email volume

I prefer the way Ric sometimes combines lots of short email msgs into one long one when all relate to the same topic.  Maybe this could be done a little more often??

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

From Ric

That seems to work fine unless the message gets too long.  I've had at least one complaint that some email systems can't handle a message with more than a thousand lines and automatically truncate the message.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 12:24:58 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Reducing Forum email volume

Actually, there is software available for bulletin boards that restrict access to postings to those with legitimate userid and passwords.  You could use the TIGHAR Forum subscription mechanism for that purpose.  Those that subscribe and become obnoxious can be removed from the list by TIGHAR. Of course, you cannot restrict access for reading to anyone.

I am curious to find out what the others who read the forum might say on this subject.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 12:31:43 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: 281 message

From Ric

> The mind and motivations of a hoaxer are hard to fathom, but the sad fact is
> that they are, and were, plentiful.

In reply about hoaxers:  why would a gifted computer user degrade himself by inventing and spreading viruses?  Why would a noted journalist spread false stories.  THEY ARE SICKOS.  Which for the average person that is mentally well balanced is hard to understand.  When you have been around enough of them, you will realize they are motivated differently and have a different set of moral values.

LTM,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 12:34:00 EST
From:         Tom Ruprecht
Subject:      My Vote

Don't change the Forum.  You may be more aggressive with not posting off-topic messages and comments like this one.  Don't waste your valuable time even replying to this one.  A password will exclude non-TIGHARs who just may have information that will turn out to be useful (I think it has already), and limit the membership recruitment effects of the Forum.  I believe that I have been a member of mailing lists that allow reading but not posting, and it's done by the server without the moderator's constant input.  This is how Sactodave should be handled.  For what it's worth...
Rupe
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 12:36:29 EST
From:         Bob Perry
Subject:      Can label

The can label pigment is being analyzed further by an independent lab on a low-key basis,  now that the bar code has been confirmed.  Frankly, I doubt that much more will be forthcoming from  chemical and optical analysis that will give us any more insight on the can and its contents.  TiO2 is an extremely useful component of many paints and coating pigments that is especially useful in dating, but unfortunately, it has been determined that it is absent in the subject label.  Thus, the other pigments present don't really tell us anything (as yet) relevant to our study.

Bob
Tighar member # 2021
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 14:16:01 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      More on "Poor Keying"

In my last posting I made a typo:  The Western Electric 13CB transmitter's dynamotor would draw about 500 watts from the battery, not 800.  The primary power requirement for the dynamotor would be 12 to 14 volts DC (12 volt battery, charging generator putting out 14 volts, so the system is considered as 14 volts), and about 40 amps of current to run the machine under full load. (By Ohm's Law, Volts x Amps = Watts; or, 12 x 40 = 480.)

In case some may have missed my point about the transmitter, it was this. The rig was NOT really designed to be "keyed" for morse code transmission, despite any claims to that effect in Western Electric's sales literature, specifications, or instruction manuals.  Reason:  there was no way to separate the dynamotor starter relay from the control circuit.

When the mic button was pressed, a control relay was activated inside the transmitter, which in turn enabled the antenna changeover relay AND the starter relay for the dynamotor. On voice, the dynamotor was, therefore, not running on standby.   For the radio to transmit CW (Morse) effectively, the dynamotor would have to be running all the time, even with the keying (push-to-transmit) circuit open for standby.  This made sure that the full voltage output of the dynamotor was instantly available, without waiting for it to rev up to rated speed (which takes about 1/2 second at least).

When an operator uses a mic, on voice, there is always a slight lag between the time he or she pushes the button and beginning to speak.  There is time for the dynamotor to come up.  On CW, when the key is pressed, you are actually sending the message in dits or dahs, right then. The transmitter needs full supply voltage, instantaneously.

The 13CB had no provision for allowing the dynamotor to run continuously in a CW mode.  The only time it was on, was when the "keying" circuit was closed.  This was done either by the mic button, or a telegraph key connected in parallel with the mic button.

It just is not practical to try to "key" a starter relay for a dynamotor. These big relays are not "limber" enough to follow a telegraph key at more that a couple or three words per minute (which is VERY slow).  Even then, the wear and tear on the relay contacts from arcing when the high-current circuit to the "motor" part of the dynamotor is repeatedly and rapidly broken, and the wear and tear on the dynamotor itself from constantly starting and restarting, will cause the power supply to self-destruct rather quickly.

Add on to that the poor signal quality resulting from the fluctuating voltages put out by a dynamotor which isn't up to speed when the key is pressed each time, and you have a really rotten situation.

Additionally, this transmitter used "screen-grid modulation" on voice. There was no provision to change the operating parameters of the final amplifier stage so that maximum power output would be achieved in CW mode. Screen modulation is a form of "efficiency modulation," and without voice on the emitted carrier wave, the power amplifier output is about 30% of the input power (that is, for 100 watts input, we get 30 watts out).  On voice peaks, the efficiency may be a bit more than 70%. To achieve maximum power output on CW, the voltage applied to the screen grids of the final amplifier tubes would have to be increased in that mode.  There was no method of doing this in the 13CB transmitter.

There was no "Voice-CW" mode switch or control circuit function on the Western Electric 13CB transmitter.

It was NOT designed for true CW operation.

Hopes this adds more to the understanding.

73

Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 6 Mar 1999 14:24:41 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: PARALLEL BATTERIES II

>   Are multiple batteries in airplanes traditionally wired
> in parallel or in series?

Sorry about that.  YES! For a number of reasons they are wired in parallel.   and don't ask why.  There is no need to know.

RC

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

From Ric

Okay.  So we have this Electra with two batteries - one high and dry, and one low and potentially wet at high tide.  At low tide we can use the radio and even run an egine to recharge the batteries, but at high tide we have make sure everything is shut down or we fry the whole system.  You might say that if we can't keep it ABOVE WATER we must SHUT OFF.

Question:  Any reason we can't let the aux battery get wet at high tide as long as we dry it off before we try to use it when the tide goes back out?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 10:42:17 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Celestial skill

>..Fred could have easily checked latitude during the night using the
> sextant and stars.  It was done all the time.

It would indeed take starS (plural) since Polaris would just about be on the horizon.  I'm sure that he did that and it probably verified that they were very near the equator; so far, so good....

>Any nivigator with Fred's skills could have flown over a match box
>in the Pacific during that era.....

A good laugh for a navigator .. similar to the response from a B-17 crew on the, 'pickle barrel accuracy' of the Norden bombsight...

Just one of the variables:  4 seconds in time can be a naut. mile.

RC
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 10:49:30 EST
From:         Gary Moline
Subject:      Battery Power

Are there any pictures of the inside of the cabin door area where I believe you said that the aux battery was stored? Would it have been mounted inside some sort of a box (probably metal) that might have protected it somewhat from salt water intrusion into the cabin? I would think that the main problem would be salt water getting inside of the battery. It might be very possible that to shut everything off and maybe even disconnecting the batteries and then drying them off as the tide goes out might have kept them/it okay for a while. Did they have any tools with them that you know of? How big and heavy were these things? How hard would it be to disconnect the cables? Could the low battery have been moved to higher ground, like the cockpit and then be reconnected?

The "281" message is starting to sound a little more plausible now that we have been dissecting it. Any way to match the time of the reception of that message versus the tide (high/low) at Niku?

LTM,
Gary Moline
*****************************************************************

From Ric

No photos that show battery location for second attempt.

For first attempt aux battery was installed in a box (presume metal) with a lid fastened down with wing nuts.

These batteries were bigger than a car battery and probably quite heavy. Disconnecting and moving should be possible but would be quite a job. We don't know just what tools they had with them.  Probably safe to assume a basic kit but nothing fancy.

You haven't been paying attention to the tide discussions.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:04:06 EST
From:         Bob Conrad
Subject:      Re: PARALLEL BATTERIES II

These batteries that were from Exide that were in the Electra; were they the type that you could service yourself?  You know kinda of like the old car batteries that you would have to put water in to keep running.  I agree with you one hundred percent when you said that it would be alright if you could dry the battery off if if got submerged from time to time.  But, the question is was it a maintenance-free type of battery or was it one that you had to check yourself.  Also, what would happen if you had to put salt water in a battery?  I know that I work at a battery-manufacturing and I've never seen it done..But what if?  (O.K! I just called my Q.A. manager at work and he told me that if it came down to a situation in which they would have to put salt water in the battery or batteries that it would cut down the performance of the battery in half, due to the chemical reaction of the sodium chloride with the lead-acid.  He did go on to tell me that if they had regular water or had some way to distill water then it would be O.K!) Also, RC made a point when he was talking about batteries that are hooked up in parallel or series.  At my job we find out daily, that if you hook batteries in a series, and one goes bad then it creates problems with the whole series getting charged.  Also, Ric do you know how many volts those batteries had, how many amper hours they were, and what kind of longevity did they have.  I'm kinda of curious to see how long does it take to recharge one of those.  I've never seen one up close.  Besides, I wasn't even born yet.  Maybe you could show the picture, so everyone knows what they look like.

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

From Ric

I thought I posted this before.  The batteries were 85 ampere-hour.  I'm not sure what the voltage was.

The forum distribution software won't support attached files (like photos).
***************************************************************
From Cam Warren

>From Ric
>
> Okay.  Next question.  Are multiple batteries in airplanes traditionally wired
> in parallel or in series?

Parallel, of course, otherwise you double the voltage.  Did't you stay awake in
high school physics?

Cam Warren
(Right as usual)

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

From Ric

What makes you think I went to high school?

***************************************************************
From Bob Sherman

> From Ric
> Question:  Any reason we can't let the aux battery get wet at high tide
> long as we dry it off before we try to use it when the tide goes back
> out?

No,  IF the water can not get through the cell caps.  Don't know when the hole in the vent caps gave way to the sealed aircraft battery. All that need be dry is the surface between the terminals.  The bat could set in water.   RC

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

From Tom Cook

Ric:  Salt (sea)  water is an exelent electrical conducter, (much better than fresh water,) if both the positive and negative  connectors  were immersed in salt water the battery would short out.

TC  2127

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

From Ric

Zat right?  Other opinions?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:06:34 EST
From:         Dick Strippell
Subject:      Re: GP, Intelligence ??

<<  one book better than the other>>

--of course Lovell's book is researched. Briand's is fiction and rehash.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:20:06 EST
From:         Dave Kelly
Subject:      Re: Reducing Forum email volume

If you do this, there will be one more nail in the "Cult Coffin" Remember that TIGHAR has not found AE's airplane after four expeditions to Nikku. So much money spent with no results opens the door to inquires about the validity of TIGHAR's theory. Remember also, that the tax exempt status of TIGHAR is a government (that's our government) advantage given to charities. If anyone cares to question these expenses, then as a citizen, taxpayer, and enthusiast, whatever, one should have a means to address their concerns. This forum is an excellent media for that purpose.

****************************************************************
From Ric

Tell you what Dave.  I'll happily refund every penny you've given to TIGHAR. We're not going to make any fundamental changes in the forum but I will do what I can to cut down on superfluous and off-topic postings.  You needn't worry though.  I will continue to post the stuff that you and others like you submit because it's so reassuring to know that this is the best our critics can come up with.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:54:18 EST
From:         Dave Kelly
Subject:      Re: 281 message

There is hope for the forum....Ric actually apologizes to a non-member forum contributor. (And here I was about to give up.)

It would seem to me, Ric, that given the distance involved on this leg, and the large time/distance segment at night prior to having any DF capability, or sunline,  that one would tend to offset their course, and then utilize all available navigation aids to locate the island once the LOP was established. It has been my theory that winds at her altitude were south easterly, and the offset was not sufficient to prevent the aircraft from drifting northwest of Howland. After daybreak, and the eventual establishment of the 157/337 LOP by Fred, they turned northwest and flew too long in a tailwind condition, at low altitude, to search for the Itasca. Once a certain amount of time had elapsed (My guess is an hour) Fred directed a reversal of course, now with a headwind component. With dwindling fuel, low altitude, a headwind, and no real DF capability, the flight was doomed to ditch.
*****************************************************************

From Ric

Your theory seems to be based upon three assumptions for which there is no evidence.

1.  That there was a southeasterly wind during the latter portion of her flight.  The forecast called for easterly and east-northeasterly winds along the second half of their route.  The log of USS Ontario, stationed midway along their route, records light easterly and east north-easterly winds at the surface at the time the flight should have been nearby.

2. That Fred was unable to detemine his position and correct their course for wind (whatever the wind was) during the night by means of star sightings.  The strength of the voice signals received by Itasca the next morning would seem to indicate that the flight arrived in the general area of Howland with considerable accuracy, although not close enough to locate the island visually without the assitance of radio navigation.

3.  That any kind of course off-set was made.  Noonan's writings on navigation and his maps from earlier portions of the world flight give no indication that he used this technique.

The scenario you describe could have happened, but there I see little reason to think that it did.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:58:33 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re Wreck Photo scan

Jon 2266 wrote:-

>What's the chance of getting a high-res scan of the wreck photo?

My web site still contains a scan of the 'Wreck Photo'  together with various pictures of the L10E and the Tachikawa Ki-54.

If you want a large scan of the Wreck Photo, click on the small image and you'll get a larger one.
LTM
Simon #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 12:00:24 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: More on "Poor Keying"

To Mike Everette

If the equipment was not set up to handle CW Morse Code, how was AE to use the equipment prior to her crash in Honolulu when she did have a telegraph key?  Are you implying a different set of equipment during that time?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 12:06:44 EST
From:         Ned Johnston
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Let's assume that AE and FN landed safely on Niku, and that FN took sights and figured out where they were (281 miles south of the Equator). Does that mean they also knew the name of the island? Would their charts have identified Gardner Island by name?

LTM,
--Ned Johnston

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

From Ric

Good question.  We don't know what maps they had with them.  If, by chance, they did have the currently available map that showed the outline of Gardner Island they would have been really puzzled when they came up overhead.  The map at that time was based on an 1872 survey and showed an island that bears almost no resemblance to the actual place.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 12:09:05 EST
From:         Max Standridge
Subject:      Re: "...on coral...we are cut..." written source

Thanks. I think msgs. 3 and 4 for July 2 are probably the source, insofar as they are what was repeated in the written source I saw. I don't think the piece I read was written by Luttrell, but I think it's highly likely he was referred to in it. Also, the 281 message was, I believe, referred to, and I think they also mentioned that it was possibly received as a keyed or Morse code message as well as or instead of as a voice message.

That gives a time frame of after 1986 but probably not long after--say, by 1991. National Air and Space Museum may give me a lead to check a couple of places out. OCLC, Article First and local university and lending library websites have not led to specific source. National Air and Space Museum publications or magazines/journals/writers/authors that pull from them might be one other possible source. It also sounds as if there's been a good bit of confusion in the past as to what was keyed and what was voice. I just hope this hasn't gotten so hopelessly garbled that it can't be found out. But even if it could, just this data alone can't, I wouldn't think, answer all the questions, though perhaps it's a start of sorts.

Thanks again.----Max S.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 12:19:32 EST
From:         John Thompson
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart Centre, Ireland

> Okay Earhart Forum, here's your chance to make a difference.

Your help and that of Forum members is very much needed and appreciated.

Many, Many Thanks.

John Thompson

*****************************************************************
From Chuck Boyle

I did as you suggested.

Lee (Chuck) Boyle     2060

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

From Ric

For anyone who missed it, here's the info again:

It would be wonderful if every forum subscriber would take just 2 minutes to
blast off an email to:
Derry Journal: derryj@sol.co.uk

Irish News: Internet@irishnews.com

Belfast Telegraph: Editor@belfasttelegraph.co.uk.

saying something like:
**********************
I understand that the Derry City Council intends to cut off funding for the Amelia Earhart Centre effective March 26, 1999.  At a time when worldwide public interest in Amelia Earhart is greater than it has ever been since she vanished in 1937, and when recent discoveries have raised genuine hope that that the mystery of her disappearance may soon be conclusively solved, it is certainly shortsighted and contrary to Ireland's best interest to deprive itself of a prime tourist destination.

I sincerely hope that the Derry City Council will reconsider its decision.
*****************

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 12:22:30 EST
From:         Barb Norris
Subject:      Lockheed sounds

I came across a CD of airplane sounds in The Discovery Channel Store yesterday called "Round Sounds" that has a recording of the Lockheed Electra (from the cockpit) for anyone who is interested. Might be kind of enlightening to hear what Amelia and Fred heard as they flew over those vast expanses of land and sea.

LTM,
Barbara Norris #2175
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 12:28:20 EST
From:         Dick Strippel
Subject:      Re: GP, Intelligence ??

> As I recall, GP may have been a Saipan briefly toward the end of the
> war in his capacity as an intelligence officer, but it didn't have
> anything to do with Amelia. She had died back in 1937 ya know.

  What was your source for that statement >>another Briand myth?

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

From Ric

C'mon Dick.  You know me better than that.  Lovell says he was there (page 326) but she doesn't provide a source.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:02:31 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      e-mail volume and 281

Well yes, I second the motion re an FAQ listing, and was about to suggest same. Hopefully, you'd stick to factual answers; not TIGHAR-boosting interpretations.

Case in point - the endless discussion re the "281" message, which you have spun into an endorsement for a Nikumaroru landing ("gosh, looky there! Niku is exactly 281 miles south of the equator!!").  OK, I guess it is, but you are forgetting to mention that Cmdr. Anthony, acting COMHAWSEC at the time that message was reported, emphatically denied that ANY "post-splash" message was proven to have emanated from the Electra (on land or sea).. Anthony, to refresh your memory, was highly respected in his field (communications/DF) and his opinion is independently backed up by other sources. (Navy/Coast Guard records, etc.) The HMS ACHILLES "land in sight" message, of which much was made of in the contemporary press, fizzled out when it turned out they had the date wrong.  And, before you make a wisecrack about the competency of the press, remember the observation of a distinguished journalism professor, who said "news stories are the first draft of history" (I'm quoting from memory here).

Cam Warren

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

From Ric

I'm aware of no contemporaneous report or written statement by Anthony.  If there is one I'd like to know about it.  Carol Osborne's book "Amelia My Courageous Sister" (page 280) includes a partial transcript from a 1984 interview in which Anthony castigates Earhart's radio procedures, but it contains no reference to the post-loss messages. Let's put the Coast Guard's dismissal of the post-loss signals in context.  It would not surprise me, however, if Anthony held the view that none of the messages were genuine. That was the official Coast Guard position. Osborne's book also mentions an August 26, 1937 Pan American System Report entitled Proposed Joint Rescue Procedure which was sent to the Coast Guard. I've never seen that report, although we've looked for it.  Based on the withering response it brought from the Stanley V. Parker, Commander of the Coast Guard's San Francisco Division, it would seem to have been a suggestion that Pan Am and the Coast Guard develop a joint rescue procedure so that they could respond to emergencies like the Earhart disappearance more efficiently and rescue people before they died.  In his reply, dated March 22, 1938, Parker is highly critical of Earhart and is adamant that the Coast Guard didn't do anything wrong because there was never any chance of finding Earhart.  This letter is the source of the oft-quoted statement "NOT ONE (emphasis in the original) of the amateur reports received during the  Earhart search was accurate, and all reports of receipt of signals from the Earhart plane were definitely known to be false.."   The rest of the sentence is always omitted, "....as the San Francisco Division had a continuous intercept watch at three separate locations guarding 3105 and 6210 kc using beam receiving antennas, with better equipment than is available to amateurs, and no signals were heard other than those of the ITASCA on 3105."

In other words, "If we didn't hear it, it didn't happen."  The statement is patently untrue.

On another point, I was not aware that the "land in sight" message was alleged to have been recieved by Achilles.  The only mention of it I have ever seen is in Goerner's book.  Achilles was in the general neighborhood at the time and heard other things that may have been, but probably weren't, from Earhart - but I had never heard the "land in sight" message attributed to them.  Do you have a source on this or are you quoting from memory again.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:05:52 EST
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Batteries in Series or in Parallel

The batteries need to be in parallel to maintain the voltage the same as a single battery (in a 12 volt system 2 batteries in parallel are still 12 volts).  If connected in series the voltage is additive so our 12 volt system is now 24 volts and if we have two 24 volt batteries the voltage is 48 volts in series.  The two batteries in parallel have double the current capability of one battery so that is why we might go two a two battery system when there is extra electrical equipment.  The system would work with either battery in the parallel system removed or disconnected.  If sea water did not leak into the aft battery at high tide then it should be usable at low tide as long as the damp connections didn't short out. The aft battery could be removed and located in a position where it would keep dry and then reconnected when using the batteries at low tide.

Perhaps another possibility would have been to taxi the airplane close to the shore line and swing the tail up on the beach so the entire airplane would be in flying attitude and every thing except the landing gear, was above normal high tide.

Dick Pingrey 0908C

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

From Ric

Trouble is, the reef flat tends to get deeper and much rougher close to the shoreline.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:08:17 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Celestial skill

I do not doubt FN's skills as a navigator. He was carefully selected for his skills. But I do have doubts about accuracy of navigation by the stars back in 1937. That "anyone with FN's  skills could have flown over a matchbox in the Pacific" sounds a bit doubtful to anyone who watched state of the art navigation at work six years later. Which is my case. I grew up as a kid in occupied Europe (Belgium) during World War II and therefore I share RC's comment on "pickle barreled accuracy" of Norden bombsights. Add to that the accuracy of dead reckoning and that explains why one sunny day in 1943 a formation of B-17s missed the Schaarbeek (Brussels) marshalling yards by five miles ON A SUNNY DAY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT. Ric is right. If FN's watch was one (or two) seconds slow they didn't stand a chance. They missed the island, let alone a matchbox.

Love to all navigators
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 19:12:30 EST
From:         Nomex
Subject:      Re: GP Intelligence

Has anyone actually checked into GP military record (DD214?), to confirm or deny his whereabouts during W.W.II. Couldn't the "Love to Mother" letter be some type of message from an operative to GP, If he was in Military Intelligence this could be a plausible explanation? In what year did GP pass away?

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

From Ric

GP died in January 1950.

I'm don't know if anyone has ever checked his service record.  I do doubt that he had a DD (Department of Defense) file of any kind.  It was the War Department back then.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 19:34:46 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      ANTHONY & 281

The trouble with e-mail, as you well know, is that it's a spontaneous medium - like a telephone call - that doesn't really permit detailed information. We (nearly always) respond in a "shoot-from-the-hip" fashion, as one would respond to a question from the floor during a symposium.  It's not possible to lug huge files around, and despite modern computers, I haven't yet completed my proposed system of a second computer readily at hand, with stacked CD-ROMs containing every scrap of Earhart info. So I answer a query with a quick ball-park reference, sincerely and in good faith. If you choose to characterize me (and my ilk) as (a) conspiracy freak(s) I guess that's your perogative, but it seems that the Forum is the loser.

I  DO happen to have a bad photocopy of the New York Herald-Tribune ("Late City Lift" edition of  3 July, 1937) at hand. The headline reads "Earhart Radio Heard by Warship . . . ." It refers to the "HMS ACHILLES, cruiser of the New Zealand Navy . . . ." and adds that she was "10 [or is it 19?] degrees South, 160 degrees 50 minutes West, which is approximately 1200 miles directly southeast of Howland Island . . . ." Admittedly that story - what I can read of it [I'm ordering microfilm copies] does not mention "281" specifically, but I recollect reading that in the Trib (and/or somewhere else) in addition to Goerner's book.

As for Anthony, what's available as I write this is a letter to Joe Gervais, dated 21 August, 1967. "That message [referring to one quoted in an article in PARADE magazine in April] did not originate from ITASCA, but from CG San Francisco, and the info therein, as it was in each and every report from a hundred & one unqualified sources, was 180 degrees out of phase [that being a popular Anthony remark, and a synonym for "dead wrong!"]. I never left the CG headquarters in Honolulu [in the Aloha tower] for five days - and I investigated every report." Somewhere in my files I have corroborating info from Anthony and (I'm pretty sure) other contemporaries.

Time permitting (and I'm currently running about 6 months behind on Earhart) I'll dig out all I have on this, and send copies (or at least citations) to you.

Cam Warren

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

From Ric

The nice thing about email is that it's not like a telephone call or a symposium.  You have time to look up a reference and refresh your memory so you don't have to shoot-from-the-hip.

I'm looking at a photocopy of a U.S. Naval Communication Service message form dated "3 July 37" received at Tutuila Radio (Samoa) from Commanding Officer HMS Achilles.  The message reads:

At 0600/3 GMT AN TELEPHONE TRANSMITTER WITH HARSH NOTE WAS HEARD TO MAKE PLEASE GIVE US A FEW DASHES IF YOU GET US.  A SECOND TRANSMITTER WAS THEN HEARD TO MAKE DASHES WITH NOTE MUSICAL STRENGTH GOOD.  FIRST TRANSMITTER THEN MADE KHAQQ TWICE BEFORE FADING OUT.  THE EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT EITHER TRANSMITTER WAS THE AIRPLANE ITSELF.  WAVE FREQUENCY WAS 3105 KCS

Goerner never claimed that the "land in sight" message he said he saw in a U.S. Navy file was heard by Achilles.

I'll be surprised if Anthony ever claimed that he personally checked out all of the hundreds of alleged post-loss radio messages.  A few reports by ham operators were checked out by San Francisco Division and are so documented in the radio traffic cataloged and data-based by Randy Jacobson.

No need to reply to this until you've had a chance to check your sources.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 19:37:43 EST
From:         Alan Faye
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Re offset navigation.  The leg from Lae to Howland was probably their most hallenging navigation exercise.  Although Fred may have not normally used offsets for navigating between large land masses, a fly speck in the ocean is a different ball game and requires the most in the navigator's bag of tricks.  Which then brings in the need for offset-navigation.

OK, OK.  AND the Air Force navigator trainer of mine was joined by Jack Kroupa (who navigated Pan Am flying boats around the world.)  Jack taught me to always use celestial to back up electronic nav-aids in case electronics went west.  And that also meant to also use the offset technique, which really paid off.  While I was ferrying light twins from OAK to HNL, there were a number of H-18S Twin Beechcraft that were ditched a hundred miles or more  NORTH of my island,  Kauai.  They used the direct flight (Rhumb line) course to HNL and missed.  I used the offset course (put me in line with OGG  - Maui) and my final tracks always came out quite a bit closer to Molokai and Oahu (North!).  Still a mystery to me.  [As if the islands aren't where they are supposed to be.]  Must have been a half-dozen Twin Beechs (Japan Air Lines trainers) that ditched North of Kauai.  And other ferry flights too.  Had they all taken offets left of course, they might have found Oahu.)

And oftentimes the nav-aids didn't help  beyond a given range.  Vortacs and NDBs.  Broadcast stations were so-so.  The ADFs in many of the light twins are very minimal at best.  I wonder how good  the DF or ADF  was working for Amelia and Fred. ????  When ferrying OAK to HNL, the Coast Guard cutter "Ocean Station November" would turn on their NDB about an hour before your flight plan ETA over the ship.  But if you were more than 50 miles North or South of the ship, you wouldn't pick it up.  A very weak signal and with very minimal ADFs.  Their radar only went out about 25 miles max,

I fully sympathize with Fred and his navigational challenge.  And finding that speck in the vast ocean.  Amen !! Been there and feel a part of them.

Love to Navigators
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 19:48:57 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      AE Radios Again

Someone asked whether I was implying that AE may have had different equipment on the second flight attempt, than that used on the first, because I expressed the opinion that the radio equipment wasn't designed for CW use.

No... The equipment was the same, so far as I can determine.

Let me try to clarify some things.

The WE-13CB transmitter was NOT designed with CW (morse) transmission in mind.  However, it could put out a (sort of) CW signal... as can ANY transmitter; just key it up by pushing the mic button and don't modulate it(speak into the mic), and that unmodulated carrier wave is the same as a "CW signal."  What this radio was not designed to do, is to be keyed with a morse key.

The circuit diagrams I have studied cover the entire 13-series... this includes the 2-channel, high-frequency-only model; the 5-channel, high-frequency-only model (which AE did NOT have, apparently); the 3-channel, high-frequency-only model; and the 3-channel model MODIFIED to incorporate LOW-FREQUENCY operation in place of one of the HF channels (which AE did have).

All these transmitters use the same control circuitry.  There are no "CW-Voice" mode switching provisions.

The standard Western Electric modification to provide low-frequency operation (i.e., 500 KHz) was only concerned with replacing the crystal and tuned circuit elements in one of the channels of the 3-frequency model, with parts enabling transmission on 500.  It did not have anything to do with modifying the control circuitry to separate the dynamotor starter relay from the existing wiring and enable the dynamotor to run continuously in CW mode.

However... it would have taken a fairly simple (on paper) modification to accomplish this.  The first thing that would have been necessary would be to install a switch, to put power on the dynamotor starter relay continuously when in CW mode.  Doing this would have made a huge improvement in CW operation, and the quality of the signal transmitted.

The other modification, to raise the output efficiency of the transmitter's amplifier stage in CW mode, would have been a little more complicated, but certainly not prohibitively so.  An additional relay could have been added to switch the amplifier's screen-grid power to a higher voltage point in the transmitter, and disable the voice modulator stage.  The same switch used to turn on the dynamotor relay could control this one, which we could call the mode selector (CW-Voice).

The modifications could have been made by any competent radio technician. The sole limiting factor would be, whether there was sufficient space inside the equipment to put the relay and switch.  Given the general nature of aircraft radio gear in this era (I have not actually seen a WE-13 series transmitter, but have had my hands on and in plenty of other such gear), it might have been tight... but certainly not out of the question.

I don't know exactly what the implications of performing such mods would have been vis-a-vis 1937 Bureau of Air Commerce regulations.  Today, there are all sorts of prohibitions in FAA rules against doing things like this. Everything must be done in accordance with Technical Standard Orders (TSOs) and any mods must get all sorts of official endorsements.

Were such mods made to AE's transmitter?  We may never know.  I would bet that they WERE NOT.  I would bet that no one questioned the capabilities of the equipment.  AE and FN did not particularly want to use CW, to begin with.  And, after all, Western Electric gear was widely considered to be "the best there is," in those "pre-Collins" days (and yes, I have a great prejudice in favor of Collins Radio Co. gear...!).

The attitude toward the radio gear may have been, "If the book says (and it did) that this radio can be used to transmit CW, it will do so."  The operative words here are:  CAN BE USED TO....   Note, this does not say the radio was really designed to do it.  It does not say HOW WELL it will do it. My feeling is, most pilots and other non-radio people would take statements like this at face value,  and ASSUME it will do anything.  (ASSUME:  make an ASS out of U and ME.)

As for aircraft batteries in series or parallel:

Aircraft generally use either a "14-volt" (12 volts battery, charges at 14 volts) or a "28-volt" (24 volts battery, charges at 28) system.  Depending upon the batteries used (physical size, determined by the number of cells, size of the cells etc -- and cell size determines the storage capacity in ampere-hours), the average 14-volt system used one single 12 volt battery. In a larger aircraft like the Electra, a second (auxiliary) battery would be employed, wired IN PARALLEL with the main... so the system voltage is still 12 volts.  In a 28-volt system, two 12-volt batteries could be used in series, to get a system battery voltage of 24 (remember the GENERATOR puts out 28 volts to charge it).  Two larger-size 12-volt batteries would be used to get the extra cell-size, and extra battery capacity, which would make an auxiliary battery unnecessary.  A high-capacity 24-volt battery is a big, heavy beast; so handling is made easier by using two 12-volt batteries in series.

The Lockheed 10E had a 14-volt electrical system.

73
Mike E. #2194

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

From Ric

I think we have to consider the very real possibility that Earhart's 13C was modified to permit the efficient transmission of CW.  The preparations for the first world flight attempt included modification of some kind by Bell Labs in New Jersey and there were two telegraph keys aboard the airplane - one beside the copilot's seat (I got a picture of it) and one back in the cabin. Remember, her first navigator Harry Manning was very proficient at code.  For the second attempt, Earhart reportedly left both keys behind.  Now - what would THAT do to the equation?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 7 Mar 1999 19:54:49 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Batteries

All this talk about batteries makes for good reading and keeps the Forum lively, but like the engine removal theory you must use logic when there is no way to prove what actually happened.  I don't claim to be an expert on anything except my opinion, but using logic, here are my thoughts on the subject.

A series or parallel connection?  Series would double the voltage. If you had a 24 VDC system, then two 12 VDC batteries in series would be be fine.  I have only flown 12 volt airplanes.  I simply do not remember what the voltage of the U-6B was that  I was trained on for Vietnam. But I seem to recall it was a 24 VDC system.   And, I seem to recall we had two 12 VDC batteries wired in series to produce that 24 VDC. However, the batteries were located very close to one another and as close to the engine as possible.  The longer the wires, the more resistance.  The more resistance, the less battery voltage or amperage available for cranking the engine.

Therefore if the Electra had a battery in the aft cabin or tail section, it would seem that it was for emergency use only and could support the aircraft electrical system with the exception of the starter motors. Or perhaps to help balance the airplane. It certainly couldn't be any good for cranking the engines.  I would think the heat in the wires alone from all that amperage would be a fire hazard.

If it was just a backup battery, then there would be some sort of isolation circuitry so that a charge could be maintained while the generator was online.   Sort of an electrical check valve. If there wasn't some sort of isolation circuit, then a short or fault in the either battery would take out the entire electrical system. Airplanes are just full of safety and backup systems to prevent that sort of thing.

Therefore I would think that a rear battery would be for emergency electrical system use only and could not be used for starting the engines. I would think that its loss due to submersion would be countered by some sort of manual isolation circuitry.  I don't think that AE or  FN would have the knowledge, forethought or physical ability to move a battery from one location to another.

As for a parallel connection between batteries,  if it was a 24 volt system and they had two 12 volt batteries, they would be wired in series.  But not one in the front and one in the back.  They would be as close to each other as possible.  If it were a 12 volt system and they had two 12 volt batteries,  they would be wired in parallel.

Now it really gets confusing.  If they had a 24 volt system and they had four 12 volt batteries, two in the front and two in the rear, it would be wired in a series/parallel circuit. Again, I'm no expert, but I think that is how it would work.

All in all, what's the difference?  All we really want to figure out is, would they have use of the rear battery if it got submerged and then dried out.  Not likely!  I think I read somewhere that sea water and battery acid don't mix.  Sea water most likely would get into the battery and short out the plates or at the very least, flush out the acid.  On top of that, the fumes in the cabin would probably kill them if they tried.

Now, if the airplane was only in a foot or two of water periodically (tide close to the tree line)  not enough to get the batteries wet, they might be able to use the radio for brief periods now and then without running an engine.  I don't know how long they would have use of the radio, but with two batteries, they could probably listen for an hour or so.  That doesn't take as much power as transmitting.  Now that I think of it. . . they were listening all the way across and didn't hear anything.

We keep talking about a tide of four feet.  That wouldn't necessarily mean there was four feet of water under the plane.  If she did make a successful landing on the tidal flat, I don't think she would have left the plane way out from the tree line.  I would think she would taxi in toward shore, maybe up on the beach.  So maybe the tide is irrelevant too.

Now a question.  Wasn't there a severe storm in that area between July 2, and July 9, 1937?  Also, what frequency were the ships and search planes using? If could be that some of those overheard radio calls were actually search planes or ships.

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

From Ric

The storm was on the night of July 2 and was north of the equator.  There was a concious effort, and orders, on the part of the searchers not to use 3105 kcs.  That, of course, does not me that mistakes didn't happen.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:24:07 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Is there any possibility that AE tried to land the plane in the lagoon at Niku.  Just curious as to what would have happened had they tried to ditch in the lagoon in that type of plane.  How deep is the lagoon, could the plane have stayed above water for a few days before sinking out of sight.
Regards
Bob Lee

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

From Ric

A lagoon landing is certainly a possibility unless and until we find the airplane somewhere else.  Lockheed 10s have been ditched quite successfully. As recently as 1967 a 10E was landed off the coast of Massachusetts with no injuries to crew or passengers.  It floated for all of eight minutes, but of course, it didn't have the empty fuselage fuel tanks that NR16020 had.

Then again, if the plane ditched in the lagoon it could not have sent any radio calls and there shouldn't be any wreckage on the reef flat or in the oceanfront treel line as has been reported by former residents.  In other words, to accept that scenario we have to reject some of the purported evidence.  The same is true of the crashed-and-sank-near-Howland theory and the captured-by-the-Japanese theory.  As always, the problem is to sort out what is evidence and what is not.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:31:41 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Forum digest works!

I requested the Digest format awhile ago & find getting one post per day (containing all the messages at once) a much more convenient & efficient time manager than receiving messages all day long.

If I want to "save" one or more messages for individual response or printing purposes, I simply "cut,copy & paste" such individual messages into my own e-mail format for such purposes & I find it works just great!

Don Neumann

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

From Ric

Once again - to receive the forum as a single daily email rather than a mailbox-swamping string of individual messages, send these words (and ONLY these words):

SET EARHARTFORUM DIGEST

to this email address:
listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com

Be sure to use the same email address you used to sign on to the forum in the first place.  (You'll be communicating with a computer and the thing isn't very good at solving the mystery of who you really are and what you really mean.)

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:36:25 EST
From:         C02
Subject:      Re: Lockheed sounds

I would be very enterested if you could send me a down load of those sounds!

Sincerly,
Co2w@aol.com

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

From Ric

You misunderstood Barb's posting.  Recordings of various radial engines (including a recording taken from the cockpit of a Lockheed 12, Electra Jr.) are available commercially on a CD called "Round Sounds."
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:51:03 EST
From:         Dick Strippel
Subject:      Re: "...on coral...we are cut..." written source

If all else fails, try  ITASCA RADIO LOG. Ric sells this but I don't think he's read it -- too much like "research."  Otherwise, try the famous N.Y. TIMES.

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

From Ric

Yes, Ric (TIGHAR that is) will sell you the Itasca Radio Log along with some 3,000 official U.S. government radio messages relating to the Earhart flight, disappearance and search - all meticulously cataloged and corrected for time zone by Randy Jacobson and presented on a CD with a wealth of other data. This is the Earhart Project Compact Disk Research Library, Volume 1.  Just go to http://www.tighar.org/Projects/CDad.html

But you won't find the  "...on coral...we are cut..." message referenced in the Itasca log.  I don't know if it's in the N.Y. Times.  I haven't looked for it there.  (Too much like "research.")  Of course, neither has Dick.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:57:25 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart Centre, Ireland

How about correcting the misspelling of conclusively?  It would look odd if everyone cut and pasted the same thing!

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

From Ric

Yeah, good idea.  Or maybe they'll just think that it's just the American spelling (color/colour, program/programme, beverage/Guinness, etc.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:24:26 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Wreck Photo, Naviguessing, etc.

Thanks to the good offices of Simon and his web site I have been converted to the low wing land plane camp.

The larger scan of the photo clearly shows the remnants of the fuselage over the wing.  It also shows the #2 engine firewall and engine carrier locations in a decent degree of detail.  How does this match up with the Model 10 firewall
and carrier?

Of the available candidates I think the wreckage resembles the Ki-54 more closely, but I wouldn't swear to it in court.

Now to the details of aerial navigation.  First, my qualifications, I am not a navigator, or a pilot.  I did teach pilots and navigators for sixteen years as a flight simulator operator, and worked closely with the nav for seven years as a C-130E Flight Engineer.  Our aircraft were old enough that they still sported sextants and sight reduction tables as part of there equipment.  Navigators were required to remain current on, and demonstrate proficiency in celestial navigation.  Some of our navs were really quite good.  The could get accuracy as good or better than the radio nav, inertial nav, or doppler fixes.  GPS did better, but didn't always work.  (This is one reason our guys worked on their celestial nav so much, our airplanes were built in the sixties, and are a trifle worn.)

Chronometers are absolutely critical.  Mention has been made that FN had two.  The problem here is that if they disagree you don't know which is right.  Did AE have a chronometer, or a common watch?  Is there any indication that FN was in the habit of getting Naval Observatory time hacks?

From the discussion, and my own reading I have the impression that FN probably plotted a direct course for Howland, and depended on RDF at the other end, just as was done in the Clippers.  This was apparently still common practice in W.W.II, deliberate offset becoming standard practice later.  Does someone have navigator training material from W.W.II to check this?

Wind drift is critical.  Is there a record of briefed versus actual winds?  From his Pan Am records is there any indication how good FN was a estimating winds?

The 281 message.  281 miles just sounds too precise.  281 degrees, on the other hand, sounds like something a navigator would plot.  From any of the possible landing sites is there another island, or prominent feature at 281 degrees (or back course 101 degrees)?  This could fit into a message as  "we are on coral shoal 281 degrees from unknown island"  or "we are on unknown island, second island at 281 degrees".

And last, the battery.  Auxiliary batteries are usually not hooked up in parallel or series.  They are not hooked up to the system at all.  The purpose of an aux, emergency or backup battery is to supply power in the event of the failure of the normal power source.  They are therefor not connected to the power user until needed.  If they were connected all the time they would run down along with the normal battery.  For that period, the arrangement would probably have included a heavy rotary or knife switch to select which battery is used.  This would normally prevent the batteries from working in parallel.  If they were paralleled after the main battery had failed, the larger normal battery (now dead) would suck down the aux battery and prevent it from supplying full voltage to the radio.

Given the scenario in question, they rising tide would have shorted out and destroyed the aux battery, but not harmed the main battery or the radios.  When the battery is shorted out it will produce copious quantities of  hydrogen and sulfur dioxide gases.  The hydrogen is a source of explosions, the sulfur dioxide causes lung damage and can affect the brain.  This was a serious problem when any sort of leaking occurred in submarines of the period.

Sorry if this is a bit long winded.
Robert Klaus
****************************************************************

From Ric

Hmmmm....yes, that all makes sense to me (but I'm easy).  I keep thinking about our piece of aircraft skin (Artifact 2-2-V-1) which we can't seem to place precisely on the Electra but still fits the Lockheed 10 better than it does any other type.  The two locations where it seems to fit best are under the centersection (near the main battery) and under the aft cabin (near the aux battery).  This section of skin was clearly blown outward by a low-grade fluid force  - fuel/air explosion, impact of water from inside the aircraft, or maybe a hydrogen explosion?

As for the Ki-54 - we eliminated it based upon the structure of its forward wing spar as shown in engineering drawings at the Smithsonian Garber Facility. In brief, the spar of the Tachikawa is solid where the Wreck Photo shows big lightening holes that are present in a panel behind the leading edge of the Lockheed 10.  The shape of the base of the windshield centerpost is also wrong on the Ki-54. You'll find photos on our website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin10_10_98.html

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:40:12 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      military records

Re: my previous message about GP's military records;

Finding the correct page for WWII records from http://www.nara.gov is an exercise in frustration. Go to http://clio.nara.gov/regional/mpr.html, scroll down a little bit, and you'll see "Download Standard Form 180".

Once again, you need Acrobat Reader to view the form, which can also be downloaded from the same site.

If you still have trouble, go to Alta Vista, or your favorite search engine, and search for "Download Standard Form 180". Alta Vista took me right to the correct site.

LTM,
Tom #2179
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:46:49 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: GP Intelligence

>From Ric
>
>GP died in January 1950.
>I'm don't know if anyone has ever checked his service record.  I do doubt that
>he had a DD (Department of Defense) file of any kind.  It was the War
>Department back then.

WWII military records can be ordered for free from the National Archives http://www.nara.gov.

Generally one must be a family member to request records, but if there is no immediate family, a genuine historical researcher such as Ric or Tom Van Hare might be able to get them. You need Standard Form 180, which can be downloaded and printed (requires Acrobat Reader).

The fine print on the form states:

"Release of information is subject to restrictions imposed by the military services consistent with Department of Defense regulations and the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, and the privacy act of 1974. The service member (either past or present) or the member's legal guardian has access to almost any  information contained in the member's own record. Others requesting information from military personnel/health records must have the release authorization in Section III of this form signed by the member or legal guardian, but if the appropriate signature cannot be obtained, only limited types of information can be provided. If the former member is deceased, surviving next of kin may, under certain circumstances, be entitled to greater access to a deceased veteran's records than a member of the public. The next of kin may be any of the following: unremarried surviving spouse, father, mother, son, daughter, sister or brother."

Ric, do we know any kin of GP who would be willing to sign the form?

LTM,
Tom #2179

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

From Ric

GP's son and grandaughter are both TIGHAR members and friends of mine.  I am not ABOUT to ask them to participate in any investigation of any stupidass (French term meaning unfounded) spy theories.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:00:52 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Ric getting too tough?

Ric -- If you don't mind my saying so -- oh, hell, whether you do or not -- it seems to me that you're getting pretty cold with a lot of the folks who write in and, like Cam, haven't taken the time to check things fully, or seem to be coming from wierd places.  You know, busy as the Forum keeps you, it IS a bit easier for you to check sources than it is for other people, and even if it weren't -- well, I can understand your frustration, but I worry about cutting off noses despite faces.  I know, I'm a great one to talk.
TK
*****************************************************************
From Ric

It's the old question of balance.  Is our purpose here to have a nice pleasant chat about Amelia or to try to make real progress in finding her?  I don't want to be dictatorial and I certainly don't want to stifle or discourage new ideas and information.  Neither do I want to condone the kind of stupidity that has kept Amelia lost for 62 years.   Let's have some more input on this, because it's important.  Am I getting too grouchy or intolerant?  I count on you guys to keep me on course.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:10:51 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: PARALLEL BATTERIES II

From Cook wrote:

>Ric:  Salt (sea)  water is an exelent electrical conducter, (much better
>than fresh water,) if both the positive and negative  connectors  were
>immersed in salt water the battery would short out.

The above is true, and the entire system would have been shorted out if the batteries were wired in parallel.

I'm having trouble analyzing this aux battery discussion. What was the purpose of the aux battery in the airplane? Was it just for emergencies? If so, I suggest that there would have been a selector switch somewhere to switch between it and the primary, and possibly a meter to ascertain battery condition.

And if they were hard-wired in parallel, why were they so far apart? Hard-wiring two batteries in parallel, to double current capacity, is done all the time, but generally the batteries are right next to one another. Otherwise you get unnecessary voltage drop in the long cables.

I'm not an A&P mechanic, nor do I play one on TV, so please enlighten an ignorant land-lubber.

LTM,
Tom #2179

******************************************************************
From Ric

Well, I'm neither an A&P mechanic, an electrical engineer, nor an expert researcher (although I occasionally play one on TV), but I think that you and new-poster Robert Klaus have hit upon a very logical explanation for why the batteries were where they were and how the aux battery could have been toast without effecting the main battery.

***************************************************************
More from Tom Robison

Don Jordan writes:

> I think I read somewhere that sea water and
>battery acid don't mix.  Sea water most likely would get into the
>battery and short out the plates or at the very least, flush out the
>acid.  On top of that, the fumes in the cabin would probably kill them
>if they tried.

I'm no chemist, nor do I play one on TV, but my college-sophomore daughter who is a chemistry major claims that if salt water gets into the battery (assuming they are lead-acid type) in sufficient quantities, the battery will "out-gas", i.e. emit a deadly gas. It also might burst, and if just the right conditions are met, will explode.

LTM
Tom #2179

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

From Ric

Yeah, that's what I'm thinkin' too.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:10:31 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      "Aim Off" Navigation (longish, important)

Ric, in a recent reply to a "281 message" wrote:

> It has often been assumed that Noonan off-set his approach to
> Howland but we're aware of no evidence that he did.  It's not a
> technique that Pan Am used.

Ric, in my recent efforts to acquire new data for the effort, I have been purchasing and reading through books in related fields and areas. And so, I have recently found this interesting quote from the book, "China Clipper", by Robert L. Gandt -- it is a publication of the Naval Institute Press in 1991, ISBN: 0-87021-209-5. Since it really has nothing to do at all with Amelia Earhart (making brief mention of her once in its 214 pages), I don't really believe that the quote is not accurate, but perhaps we should contact the author to check the source.

The thrust of the quote is that Fred Noonan and Pan Am did in fact use "aim off" navigation, for which you used the terms "off-set his approach". The book describes the first flight of Pan Am's China Clipper and goes into some detail, including notes about the flight enroute to Wake Island. In it, there are several short references to Fred Noonan, the navigator for that first China Clipper voyage under the famed Pan Am captain Ed Musick.

Here, quoted from page 104 of "China Clipper":

"At dawn the China Clipper was again westbound. There were no signposts marking the 1,260-mile route to Wake. After Kure Island, only twenty minutes past Midway, there were a thousand miles of trackless ocean. No landmarks, no chain of atolls pointed to the destination. There was only Wake Island -- two-and-a-half square miles of sandspit -- barely awash in the Pacific.

"It was the most demanding feat of aerial navigation in the world. There were no alternate landing sites and not enough fuel for a return to Midway. The only aids to navigation were the sun, sometimes a glimpse of Venus, the driftsight, the navigator's own dead reckoning, and the Adcock Direction Finder, a capricious device not fully trusted by navigator Noonan. (4)

"From his bag of navigational tricks, Fred Noonan produced a technique called "aim of." "Aim off" was a tricky but effective way to ensure that a vessel or aircraft did not overshoot a tiny target like Wake.

"The navigator would deliberately fly a course to one side of his destination. Then, when he had intersected a precomputed line of position he would obtain by sun sight, he would turn and fly down the sun line to his target. "Aim off" was not infallible, but it solved half the navigational problem -- that of knowing on which side, north or south, the China Clipper might be from Wake. (5)"

And to complete the passage, here are the related End Notes:

(4)  Captains Horace Brock and Marius Lodeesen described the difficulties and techniques of navigation aboard the China Clipper. The problem was compounded by the flying boat's tendency to wallow, even in smooth air. According to Brock, the China Clipper "was unstable in all three axis."

(5) "Aim off" was described by Australian navigator Harold Gatty, who flew round the world with Wiley Post in 1931.

In short, what I am trying to say is that if this book's research is accurate, and I believe it is, we can say that Fred Noonan was not only familiar with "aim off" but used it to find Wake Island on the Clipper's first flight and, by inference, that "aim off" was a navigational technique used on Pan Am's Clippers by at least one of their navigators -- their most senior one who set the standard for the rest to follow. That record-setting flight commenced out of San Francisco on November 22, 1935. Notably, in the search for Wake Island, it involved a similar navigational challenge as finding Howland Island for Amelia Earhart. This would lend strong evidence that Fred Noonan would have done the same thing on that fateful morning just a few years later when Earhart and Noonan somehow missed Howland Island and disappeared.

Furthermore, the quote about Noonan distrusting the Adcock Direction Finder is more than a little interesting. If accurate, he would have probably mistrusted it for the flight with Earhart as well, particularly in that the operators were not Pan Am staff but lesser experienced US Navy personnel. The comment about his distrust of the DF also implies to me that he had more than a passing familiarity with its operations though this should be open to discussion and debate.

Assuming that the quote in "China Clipper" is accurate, the question I would now pose is whether Fred Noonan would have applied "aim off" to the north and turned south or done it the other way around. I feel that given this new information, there can be little doubt that he would applied "aim off" in the flight. So, here is the discussion:

A. If Noonan applied "aim off" to the north, he would have flown over open ocean, acquire the line of position, and turned south. He would then pass near to Howland and if he missed it, he would have then encountered the Gardner Islands.

B. If he applied "aim off" to the south, he would possibly flown over the Gardners in the morning, giving him a better navigational fix to use in subsequently locating Howland.

C. The question also involves fuel considerations. If you were scheduled to arrive with four hours of fuel in the tanks, you might just fly it with "aim off" to the north in that you could then fly south and, if winds were stronger than projected and you found the Gardners, you would then turn around and fly back up the line of position to Howland knowing exactly how far you had to go in miles. If, however, you were scheduled to arrive with less than an hour or so of fuel, it might make better sense to apply "aim off" to the south, in hopes of spotting one of the other islands first and then flying more directly to Howland from a known point in the ocean.

D. And in considering applying south side "aim off," it would seem to me a bit excessive to apply that much that you might fly over the Gardners first -- after all, it is quite a few miles south. So, I ask the celestial navigators this question: how much "aim off" is now and was then customary for this distance flight?

E. Also, "aim off" considerations first and foremost involve forecast winds. Is the forecast for that morning that Noonan would have used known?

And as a final note, I would like to reiterate that although this one quote from "China Clipper" is interesting and involves new data for us all to consider, it is but one source document and is not verified as of yet. Next step, contacting the author, Robert L. Gandt -- shall you leave this to me or is there another willing volunteer?

Thomas Van Hare
***************************************************************
From Ric

It's because this sort of thing happens that I phrase sentences like "It has often been assumed that Noonan off-set his approach to Howland but we're aware of no evidence that he did."

This is very interesting Tom.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:23:08 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Ric getting too tough?

Ric said:

>Am I getting too grouchy or intolerant?  I count on you guys to
>keep me on course.

Don't ever change, Ric. We love you (well, kind of) just the way you are, and we will continue to respect you in the mornings.

LTM
Dennis McGee #0149

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

From Randy Jacobson

>Am I getting too grouchy or intolerant?  I count on you guys to keep me on
>course.

Yeah, a little bit.  You need to cut some slack to people.  Your curt replies, such as "you're not a navigator", etc. cut a little deep beneath the skin, and are unncessary.  It is the price one has to pay to be polite in today's society.

******************************************************************
From Bill Leary

When the problem is that the persons hadn't taken the time to be informed, I'd prefer that Ric not chew up cycles on the issue, other than perhaps giving the individual a pointer to where the information may be available. Politely, when the original poster is polite, perhaps with a bit of an edge, when the original poster wasn't pleasant.

The recently discussed idea of a FAQ sounds good.  When someone jumps in with an oft-discussed idea, and especially when the content implies they haven't really done their homework, pointing to "often discussed idea # 12" would be a good way to encourage being informed and cover old ground with a minimum of traffic, another thing some have been objecting to of late.

    - Bill
******************************************************************
From Ric

I've also received a couple of off-forum opinons along much the same lines as the above. It sounds like a kinder, gentler moderator is in order.  I'll see what I can do.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:30:42 EST
From:         Joseph Bachus
Subject:      FAQs

Could the TIGHAR Student Wing be utilized to help answer/research questions? Could be good experience to delve into data piles.  Especially might be helpful in responding to questions that are minor derivations of previously asked questions.  The turn around time would be slower but the fact that they could see themselves slowly becoming expert on the process and subject might be very rewarding to them.  There could be logistics problems in getting them to the data.

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

From Ric

I think that the most efficient way to handle FAQs is for me to go back through the forum archives and pull out discussions of Frequently Rehashed Subjects (FRS) and mount them on the website with an index.  It'll take a few days but it will pay off in a more streamlined forum in the long run.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:45:33 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      ANTHONY & 281 cont.

Well, you (Ric) hear what you want to hear, and vice versa. In your response, you state "I'll be surprised if Anthony ever claimed he personally checked out all of the hundreds of post-loss radio messages".  If you'd re-read my Anthony quote, he clearly stated "I investigated every report".  Now I would not interpret that to mean EVERY crackpot transmission, heard by some joker on his Atwater-Kent, carefully tuned to 1450 kc, etc. etc., but only the more reasonable ones. Anthony also told Carol Osborne much the same thing. But have it your way.

Re ACHILLES; I thought we were talking about the 281 message.  No, I couldn't turn up any direct reference in the files I scanned that confirmed in writing that the ACHILLES had received that message, although it may turn up eventually. Joe Gervais, whom I just talked to, had a similar recollection.  Yes, I have a copy of the same message to which you refer; the "give us a few dashes" one, which apparently prompted the NYHT story.

Did I claim Goerner reported "land in sight" was reported by ACHILLES? Who's on first?

But the point is, none of the "post-loss" messages checked out, unless of course, Anthony and the US govt. were in on the alien conspiracy to suppress everything, so we wouldn't know Elvis was behind the whole thing.  Read Safford's FLIGHT INTO YESTERDAY, Chapter 4, in which he does a good analysis of the "hoaxes".  (You can hardly classify the good captain as a "nut", but probably will!)

And as far as references for recent subjects discussed on the forum, here's a few sources for you to check out; I'm sure they're in your library:

The Effect of the Heaviside Layer on the Apparent Direction of Electromagnetic Waves, by T. L. Eckersley, RADIO REVUE, (England) Vol 2, p. 260 (1921)

The Errors of Direction Finders, E. Bellini, ELECTRICIAN (England) Vol 86, p. 220

The Radio Direction Finder and its Application to Navigation, F. A. Kolster, SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF THE US BUREAU OF STANDARDS (Washington, DC), Vol. 17, p. 529

Wireless Direction Finding, R. Mesny, ANNALES DE POSTES, T&T (France), (1923), Vol. 11, p. 1240

Direction Finding in Aeroplanes, P. Franck, L'ONDE ELECTRIQUE (France) Vol. 3, p. 65 (1924)

A Unicontrol High-Frequency Direction Finder, F. W. Dunmore, SCI> PAP> BUR. STAND. #525, Vol. 21 (1926)

A Radio Direction Finder for use on Aircraft, W. S. Hinman, Jr., BUREAU OF STANDARDS JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, (USA), Vol. 11, p. 733 (1933)

Accuracy of Bubble Sextant Observations, P. V. H. Weems, AERO DIGEST (England?), Jan. 1936

The Pan-American Airways Direction Finder, S. B. Smith, AERO DIGEST, April 1937

A Short Wave Adcock Direction Finder, R. H. Barfield, JOURNAL OF THE INSTITUTION OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS (England), Vol. 81, p. 676

and finally, in WIRELESS DIRECTION FINDING by Kern (Iliffe - London), 1938 edition, we find descriptions of two portable HF/DFs, covering up to 7.7 mc. Maybe AE really meant she wanted a homing signal on 7.5 mc???
I think so.

Cam Warren

write if you and your "mother" find honest work

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

From Ric

I will.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:48:09 EST
From:         G. Spruyt
Subject:      Winds at altitude

Ric wrote:

> The log of USS Ontario, stationed midway along their route, records
> light easterly and east north-easterly winds at the surface at the time
> the flight should have been nearby.

If the winds were easterly at the surface, then the winds at altitude would have changed diection as heaight increased towards north.  This is because of a reduction in friction with the ground causes winds to veer (change direction clockwise) and increase in speed. This would make a it rather unlikely, that they had a southeasterly wind.
*****************************************************************

From Ric

Does that hold true south of the equator?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:52:13 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      "KEY"

Vern Klein sent a circuit diagram to me, for a WE 13CB Transmitter (three xtals; 1 of which is for 500 kcs) It has a 4-prong socket, marked  J-12*   Away from the main diagram is a dotted line rectangle showing a plug marked, "plug for J12".  It is wired to a DPDT switch , & to an arrow head against a line that is grounded.  The drawing has on it "Courtesy Western Electric Co.", in their corporate italic font.

Botom line:  The xmtr. shown had provisions for a plug in key.

*In WE's vernacular, male & female connectors were called, Plugs, (P) & Jacks (J).  If Vern has no objections I'll send you a copy of it, and the WE 20 B recvr.  I do not have Mike's address.    RC 941
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Mike's address is mike.everette@*******
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:54:54 EST
From:         Stephanie
Subject:      Re Wreck Photo scan

Thanks so much Simon!  I went right to the site and saved each image to my hd, then proceded to open up Photoshop and make some adjustments to the levels and contrasts on the Wreck Photo to make it more clear.  I also took the Wreck photo, a photo of the Lockheed 10E, and a shot of the Ki-54 and zoomed in on the engines until they were all about the same size, and put them side-by-side on my screen.  Two things struck me at once.  Not being familiar with planes at all, I have to ask this one. On the Ki-54, I noticed some lines (sorry for my ignorance here) coming from where the prop is to the outer edge of the cowl (I think that's what its called! :), and that these are not present on the Wreck Photo. Is this conclusive enough to rule out the Ki-54? Also, although I know this is not up to Tighar's scientific standards of proof :), the Wreck Photo engine and the L10E engine seemed to be of the same proportions (when zoomed in to the approx same size), but the Ki-54 engine, also zoomed in until it was apporx the same size, appeared to not match the proportions in the Wreck Photo, especially in realtion the the length of the prop, which looked too short on the Ki-54.

My point is that though nothing I discovered was conclusive, it did convince me that NR16020 did not end up at the bottom of the ocean.  I am even more inclined than before to believe that Tighar's theory is the correct one.

Thanks again Simon!
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:59:19 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Ireland Fly-In

 (From Ric - Herman copied the forum in on this letter to John Thompson in
Derry.  What a fantastic idea!)

Dear John,

Thinking of finding a way of putting the Amelia Earhart Centre on the map I've com up with the idea of organising a fly-in. Has this been tried before ? First question : is there an airfield at Londonderry ? Does it have any radio facilities and/of DF ? Can it provide fuel for perhaps 50 aircraft ? Are there any hotels in the area where participants could stay ?  Fly-ins are poplar in Europe these days and all fliers want is an excuse of going places. So Derry might be ideal. Friends of mine flew to Ireland last summer. I'm pretty sure the Veteran Aircraft Club over here people would love to fly there in their SV-4, Piper Cubs and Luscombs. Plus other clubs looking for a club outing. Please let me know and I'll see what I can do this side of the Channel.

                                                        Herman De Wulf
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:02:43 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: GP Intelligence

Ric wrote:

> I'm don't know if anyone has ever checked his (GP's) service record.
> I do doubt that he had a DD (Department of Defense) file of any kind.
> It was the War Department back then.

If he served in any way, there will be records. We have complete and access to all of this information. My question is, is this some sort of wild goose chase? These research efforts are very time consuming and costly, which should be factored into the discussion. We do these sorts of veterans research pieces several times a month, usually for family members who are trying to get a better picture of what their father or uncle did in the war -- they get everything: mission orders, mission maps, aircraft and crew photographs, base diagrams, debriefing documents, intelligence reports, bomb damage assessments, etc. They run into the thousands of dollars in research time.

Thomas Van Hare
******************************************************************
From Ric

Tom, all I can tell you is that if we thought there was any reason on earth to research George Putnam's service record we'd have done it ourselves years ago.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:09:46 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Conclusively

Randy wrote:-
> How about correcting the misspelling of conclusively?  It would look odd if
> everyone cut and pasted the same thing!

The correct British and presumably ( - that word again !!) the Irish speeling is as Randy has it above.

Source - Oxford English Dictionary

LTM
Simon #2120

****************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah but maybe "conclusivley" is the GAELIC spelling.  No.  That would be "chonnchlleuseighbhlaigh."
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:11:42 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: PARALLEL BATTERIES II

Wouldn't being submerged also cause the battery acid to be contaminated/ diluted?  Although I don't know, I would doubt that the batteries in the Electra were sealed.
ltm
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:16:16 EST
From:         Antonio Gomez
Subject:      Women's International Day?

To all members of this honorable forum:

Since today (march 8) is the International Women's Day  I did not want to pass the opportunity to mention Ms. Earhart.

I think she and all women aviators are probably the most valuable women on the planet.

May Ric and collaborators unsolve the mistery soon.

My respect and admiration to all of you

Atentamente

****************************************************************
From Ric

Muchas gracias.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:26:19 EST
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Moose and Squirrel attitude

Greetings to Ric;

Ric wrote:

> ... stupidass (French term meaning unfounded) spy theories.

You have called people in the intelligence community, SPIES, and in the past SPOOKS. Why don't you lean back and put up your feet and tell the Forum how you cultivated this Moose and Squirrel attitude.

Daryll

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Hokey Smoke Daryll.  Chill out.  It not the spies and the spooks that are - well - what I said.  It's the theories.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:21:17 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Sextant Numbers

I don't know if anyone has pursued this quite this way, maybe it's old ground, but I was thinking about the sextant boxes, and the numbers recorded on them 3500 and 1542 on the one Gallagher found, and 3547 on the other in the museum.  What went through my mind was, if these were Pan Am sextants, they might have been assigned to a particular airplane, and the numbers written on the box might have been the last 4 of the N number.  I checked the Clippers (Hawaii Clipper - NC14714, Phillipine Clipper - NC14715, and China Clipper - NC14716), and of course they don't match.  But maybe some other aircraft (earlier registration numbers?) were used for over water (ie: out of Dinner Key, etc) with numbers which MIGHT correspond.  Anybody got a list of those airplanes that you know of?  Might be worth a look.

During the same foray into the 'net, I ran across a reference to the 1936 film _CHINA_CLIPPER_.    Any chance that FN may have been a consultant to that picture?  Hiring someone like Fred is just the sort of thing a studio might do.  That type of affiliation could have led to his meeting his actor friend (I can't remember his name off the top of my head, and don't have the time to look it up just now, but you know who I mean).  Since the brief reference I found does not list all the cast members (I'm sure) is it possible he may even have been in the film?  Just a thought.  Even if he wasn't, if FN was working around studio people, they could have met.
LTM
jon  2266

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

From Ric

Interesting theories.  Where can we find NC numbers for the Sikorskys that operated out of Florida?

Was Gene Pallette in CHINA CLIPPER?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:35:41 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Off-set Fred

You have made a couple of statements that FN did not use the offset method to navigate.  I'm sorry to differ, but the Atlantic crossing did seem to indicate that he used the method: the plane was heading southward of Dakar when he gave the message to AE to turn in about 30 minutes or so.  I cannot swear that the offset method was deliberate, since there were so few navigational marks on the chart, and they were flying in cloudy conditions.  Nevertheless, on the face of it, it does seem that he used the method.  It makes sense, since whatever landfall he made in and around Dakar, he knew where to go, since Dakar was on a peninsula on the west, and the coastline is NW/SE south of Dakar and NE/SW north of Dakar. 

Love to Morgan and Rocket.

******************************************************************
From Ric

With Tom Van Hare's discovery and this information, I think it's clear that we (I) need to amend our thinking about the probability of Fred using some kind of off-set on the approach to Howland.  I have no problem with that.

(Next somebody is going to find Amelia's fingerprints on a sake cup in Tokyo.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:48:11 EST
From:         T.Naugle
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Has anyone counted the stringers on the lower nose of the wreck photo and compared them with an L10?  The wrech photo has one extra stringer that an L10......?

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

From Ric

Very astute observation. I think I see what you're talking about.  The line that bisects, fore and aft, the biggest chunk of missing skin seems to be an "extra" stringer.   I can think of a three possibilities:

1.  the airplane is not a Lockheed 10, in which case, what is it?
2.  what appears to be a stringer - isn't.
3.  there are longitudinal stiffeners in a Lockheed 10 nose that are not riveted to.

I suspect the latter case.  I have a Lockheed photo of a Model 10 under construction in the fuselage jig and all the nose stringers are not yet in place, but it looks like there's provision for a stiffener in that area. Unfortunately, the photos I took of the inside of the nose of the Lockheed 10 at the New England Air Museum don't show that particular area (ain't that always the way?).  If it's a stiffener not riveted to the skin, that could also explain why the skin came off the way it did.

We'll have to check it out next time we have a chance to crawl into the nose of a Model 10.

***************************************************************
From Don Jordan

Ric,

That computer model program I mentioned earlier is where a computer can scan two images and then make ghosts out of them or make them transparent.  You then superimpose one on top of the other.

You can enlarge or reduce one to make it fit on the other.  You can also rotate them proportionately so that they are both equal in size. Lay one on top of the other and see if you can get the wreck inside the Electra so to speak.

I saw a demo of this program some time ago but I don't know the name of it or where to get it.  Surely someone out there has heard of it.

*****************************************************************
From Don

The wreck photo is not Earhart's aircraft.  The nose cowl is not the right size and the skin pattern of the wreck photo is not consistant with Lockheed 10E.  Additionally, the two round holes in the wingbox is not identical to the picture that claims to prove that it is. No big mystery here.

****************************************************************
From Ric

Now...I don't want to upset you or insult you - but I feel that I need to inform you, as gently as possible, that if you expect your opinion to be seriously considered by this forum you need to present something more than misspelled and grammatically incorrect categorical statements using the wrong terminology.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:55:19 EST
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Sextant Numbers

I don't have the N numbers for the Pan Am's Florida planes, but I do have the N number for the Sikorsky S-42 used on the 4 1935 survey flights (our FJN was Navigation Officer on all four): it was NR 823 M.  Yeah, I know, that was a BIG help.

Reference:  Stan's Cohen's "Wings to the Orient" 1985, pgs. 204-205.

LTM,
Tim Smith 1142C

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

From Ric

Hey, it's a start.
*****************************************************************

From Don

Name of Pan Am Clippers:

Clipper Alaska NC16735 Sikorsky S42B 1936-1946	Scrapped

Clipper Antilles NC15374 Sikorsky S42B 1935-1946	Scrapped

Bermuda Clipper NC16735 Sikorsky S42B 1936-1941	Lost/HongKong 1941

Clipper Betsy Ross NC16736 Sikorsky S42B 1937-1943	Lost/Manaus 1943

Brazilian Clipper  NC822M Sikorsky S42 1934-1946

Clipper Columbia  NC822M Sikorsky S42 1937 - 1946

Dominican Clipper  NC15376 Sikorsky S42A  1936-1946	Scrapped

Hawaiian Clipper  NC14714 Martin M130  1936-1938	Lost/Enroute Pacific 1938

Clipper Hong Kong NC823M  Sikorsky S42 1937-1944	Lost/Cuba 1944

Clipper Hong Kong (2) NC16735  SikorskyS42 1941-1941	Unknown

Jamica Clipper  NC15373  Sikorsky S42A  1935-1935	Lost/Trinadad

Pan American Clipper  NC823M  Sikorsky S42  1934-1937	Renamed Hong Kong Clipper

Pan American Clipper NC16734 Sikorsky S42B  1936-1938	Lost/Samoa 1938

Pan American Clipper NC 16736 Sikorsky S42B 1937-1943	Renamed Bermuda Clipper

Philippine Clipper   NC14715  Martin M130  1935-1943	Lost/California 1943

Samoan Clipper  NC16734 Sikorsky S42B 1936-1938	Lost/Pago Pago 1938

Clipper West Indies  NC823M  Sikorsky S42 1937-1944	Renamed Pan AM Clipper

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

From Ric

Thank you.  What's the source?

Anybody see any correlation here between the airplane numbers and the numbers on the sextant box?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:58:26 EST
From:         Stephanie
Subject:      Re: Ric getting too tough?

Much as I agree with Tighar's theories, Ric, and from what I can see are doing an incredibly difficult job very well, for very little in return, I would have to say that Tom is correct.  I have on several occasions considered sending a msg to the same effect, but refrained from doing so thinking that maybe you were just having a bad day.  I understand that this forum can be a tremendous frustration to you, and that you deal with a lot of bull that in a perfect world you would not have to, but - it isn't a perfect world, and no one who reads this forum is perfect either.  I have noticed that even with new subscribers, who are trying to find out a little more about the whole issue, you tend to be a little too curt lately.  Maybe just a redirect to the web site with a friendly suggestion to do some reading would suffice?

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

From Ric

I hear ya.  Thanks Steph.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 09:06:39 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: Sextant Numbers

Here are the NC  numbers--
S-40 aircraft---NC 80V, 81V and 752V
S-42 aircraft---NC 822M,823M,824M,15373,15374,15375,15376,16734,16735,16736
M-130 aircraft-NC 14714,14715,14716
B-314 aircraft--NC 18601 thru 18612 of which 3 were sold to BOAC in1940/41.

Regarding China Clipper and Gene Pallette- I dont think so but will have to check in my Movie Books downstairs

Its me again--

My Halliwells -12th edition lists Pallettes films and China Clipper is not one of them... Maltins Guide lists Pat O'Brien,Humphrey Bogart,Beverly Roberts, Ross Alexander and Marie Wilson in China Clipper-1936.. No Pallette--Saw the film once and it wasnt bad for a 60 year old movie...

Jim Tierney

*****************************************************************
From Don

In regards to the numbers on the Sextant box:

1542
3500

Those numbers look more like calibration numbers for the instrument itself, to be determined accurate between those flight levels.  I havent found anything to back this up, but it is a hunch.

****************************************************************
From Ric

You may be absolutely correct, but it seems a bit odd to me that a nautical sextant used as a "preventer" would be calibrated for accuracy between flight levels expressed as 1542 and 3500.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:06:55 EST
From:         Gene Dangelo
Subject:      Re: PARALLEL BATTERIES II

I would suspect that the high salinity of the sea water would seriously and adversely affect the electrolyte in the battery if it was able to penetrate the casing in any way.

Best wishes,
Gene Dangelo # 2211
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:13:18 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Winds at altitude

I believe Gspruyt has the direction slightly wrong.  Yes, winds do increase with elevation, and they do change directions.  However, they tend to veer very slightly from easterly to ESE.  This means that if FN did not adjust for the wind at elevation (my speculation is that a good navigator would know about this effect, and PAA spent a lot of time and money obtaining weather info at heights above the islands, including Howland), the plane would have been driven slightly northward.  The wind direction after the plane passed the Ontario is more important during the flight than before, since we know that AE saw either the Ontario or Myrtlebank, which each were on the great circle path to Howland.  By the way, Wind directions are always FROM; water currents are always in the TO direction.  Meteorologically, the equator is the intertropical convergence zone, located in June/July about 5 degrees North.  This is the location of the "infamous" storm that the PBY encountered, and is almost always present as a location of nasty weather.  The ships that passed through it for the search encountered it each and every time, even up to the 20th or 21st when they returned home to Honolulu.

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

From Simon Ellwood

gspruyt wrote:-

>If the winds were easterly at the surface, then the winds at altitude
>would have changed diection as heaight increased towards north.  This is
>because of a reduction in friction with the ground causes winds to veer
>(change direction clockwise) and increase in speed. This would make it rather
>unlikely, that they had a southeasterly wind.

Surely an Easterly wind that veers (i.e. clockwise) becomes a South Easterly - at least initially before swinging through South ?

Simon #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:26:27 EST
From:         Dick Evans
Subject:      Tides at Niku

(Note from Ric - Dick is a veteran of Coast Guard Unit 92 and was stationed on Gardner Island during 1944/45.)

There seems to be a lot of confusion about tides in general and how they are affected by life on a South Sea Island Paradise.

In the first place, tides are very imprecise even under the best circumstances. When the experts say that a High Tide occurs at a certain minute, they are only talking about the exact minute the moon has the greatest pull on the water. This does not take into consideration the affect of wind, undertow, or currents on the height the water reaches. Anyone who has ever stood on a beach at Flood Tide knows that if the wave that runs up the beach at the exact moment the experts say is high tide also happens to be the one that runs up the furthest, that is a happy coincidence the experts can celebrate for days. The same goes for Ebb Tide and the water running down the beach.

Another part of the problem on Gardner is that the coral reefs are so flat that at high tide you can walk out near the edge and only be in water up to your knees. At Low Tide near the edge, the water is still up over your shoes. All the rest of the time the depth of the water is somewhere between these two extremes and is affected, sometimes, by waves or ripples only 1 or 2 inches high. So the main effect of the tide has little to do with the depth of the water but is enormously important when it comes to how much of the reef is above water level. Even here consideration must be given to the hundreds of small to large puddles in small to large depressions on the reef. Contrary to popular belief, the reef is not as flat as a pool table.

Another thing we noticed is that the position of the moon affected the water levels in opposite direction on opposite sides of the island. The moon always approached from the east. Strangely enough, that is the way it seems to work here in Pennsylvania. But the effect on Gardner was that as the moon approached the island (also approaching the time of high tide) it seemed to lower the water level on the windward reef and raise it on the leeward side. As it moved on to our west, it had the opposite effect. Now remember, this was only an inch or two in depth but made a big difference in the amount of reef exposed during mid-tide.

The preceeding paragraph, of course, should be totally ignored because the experts tell me it is dead wrong and impossible. They tell me the amount of tide is the same for all parts of the island at any given time; that the tide is either low or high all over the island at the same time. Since the experts say it, I am sure this is the case. But then I have trouble trying to understand why it was that on our Northern Slave on Baker Island, which is flat and circular, they made their landings working around the island hitting whatever beach had the most water on it. But far be it from me to argue with the experts. I am sure they are absolutely right. All I know is what I saw.

The other consideration is the "fingers" on the edge of the reef. The easiest way to understand this is to picture the palm of your hand on top of deep water. What we refer to as the edge of the reef would be where your fingers meet your hand. The Fingers on the reef stuck out into the water as your fingers stick out. They extended out 20 to 30 feet and were about 4 to 6 feet apart. Near the edge the water was, maybe, up to your knees. By the time you reached the end of the finger, the water was up to your waist and the waves, no matter how calm the ocean, were breaking onto your chest.

Now I hope nobody thinks we were stupid enough to walk out on these fingers just for the thrill. But twice while we were there, diesel oil was delivered. The only workable way to get the stuff ashore was to tie 6 or 8 of the barrels on a line, tow them in to the end of the fingers, and throw a line to the guys on shore standing at the end of the fingers in waist deep water. For us the danger was that a wave would knock us off the finger into the water between them, which dropped down thousands of feet. The most dangerous thing was that the coral on the under side of the fingers receeded and they had water under them. That meant you would probably be caught under the finger with no way to get out of the hole. To prevent this we formed a line with each guy grabbing the belt of the man in front of him. When we caught the rope line thrown to us by the guys on the boat  we passed it back the finger to the guys nearer the edge who pulled it back until they could attach it to the truck and tow the load onto the reef. Then we would turn around, grab the belt of the guy now in front of you, and walk back up onto the reef.  Then we loaded the barrels onto an Athey wagon, and then went back out onto the finger to take another line of barrels. Great fun.

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

From Ric

I agree with Dick's descriptions of the reef for the area down around the Coast Guard station.  I too have been out on that reef and I can tell you that there are indeed areas - big areas - that are very regular and smooth.  Maybe not like a pool table but you could certainly ride a bicycle with no problem. The depth of water on the reef at low tide appears to vary depending upon where you are and, perhaps, the time of year.  I've never been there in July but in Sept. and Oct. you can walk around on the reef on the windward (northeastern) side without getting your feet wet.

And I'm totally in agreement with Dick about that island having little regard for the opinions of experts.  For example, you can read climatic reports that say that the temperature never gets above the 90s.  Tell that to anyone who has ever been to Niku.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:36:48 EST
From:         Mark Cameron
Subject:      Re: Search opinion

Ric wrote --

>Cameron is his first name.

Thank you, Ric, for correcting another of sactodave's misconceptions.

As you know, Mr. Warren's opinion of TIGHAR'S efforts and conclusions are as opposed to my own as is the location of the name we share.

LTM
Mark J Cameron
******************************************************************
From Ric

Aye, there's a wee difference there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:32:31 EST
From:         Dick Evans
Subject:      Search

Ric, in his usually imaginative way,  has given you a pretty good understanding of what the Captain of the Colorado was up against. You ask why others, including the CG, didn't send searchers to Gardner. As a long time bureaucrat, I can tell you in short order: The Navy had already taken the positon that AE & FN had crashed at sea several hundred miles to the west of Howland. Before ANY naval officer of any importance would have contradicted that position they would have had to be able to say that one of their observers had seen a woman standing on a beach holding a sign that said, "I am Amelia Earhart. Please come down and rescue me." In the absence of at least that, the officers would have agreed that the Navy position is, and forever shall remain, absolutely correct.

Dick Evans
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:31:17 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      NC REGISTRATIONS

Here are all NC registrations used by Pan American Sikorsky S-40/41/42 you requested. Some of the aircraft had names, reflecting the areas in which they were operated. Aircraft named Pan American Clipper were used on survey work.

Sikorsky S-41
NC-3V                                           delivered 27/8/34
NC-41V                                                    26/9/30
NC-784Y                                                      6/31

Sikorsky 40
NC-80           named American Clipper          delivered 10/10/31
NC-81V                Caribbean Clipper                   16/11/31
NC-752V               Southern Clipper                    30/8/32

Sikorsky S-42A
NC-822M                 Brazilian Clipper                  5/6/34
                       renamed Colombian Clipper
NC-823M                West Indies                           2/34
                       renamed Pan American Clipper
                       renamed Hong Kong Clipper
NC-824M                                                      5/32
NC-15373                Jamaica Clipper                      7/35
NC-15374                Antilles Clipper                    12/35
NC-15375                Brazilian Clipper                    2/36
NC15376                 Dominican Clipper                    4/36

Sikorsky S-42B
NC-16734                Pan American Clipper II               9/36
                       renamed Samoan Clipper
                       renamded Hong Kong Clipper II

NC-16735                Bermuda Clipper                       9/36
NC-16736                Pan American Clipper III              1937
                       renamed Bermuda Clipper

Sikorsky S-43 (most delivered to Panair do Brazil subsidiary)
NC-15063        to Panair do Brazil                           1/36
NC-15064                id                                    1/36
NC-15066        remained with Pan American                    3/36
NC-15067        believed to Panair do Brazil                  3/36
NC-15068                id                                    3/36
NC-16926                id                                    6/36
NC-16927        Pan American                                  9/36
NC-16928          to  Panagra                                 10/36
NC-16930        to Panair do Brazil 1938                       1936
NC-16931        to Panair do Brazil 1937                      11/36
NC-16932        to Panair do Brazil                           12/36
NC-16933        believed to Panair do Brazil                  12/36

(as there were many accidents two or three S-43 continued in service with Panair do Brazil until about 1937)

In addition to the Sikirsky flying boats there were three Martin flying boats around

Martin M-130
NC-14714        named Hawai Clipper                        30/3/36
NC-14715                   Philippine Clipper             14/11/35
NC-14716                   China Clipper                   9/10/35


I hope this will help you in your research

Herman
****************************************************************

From Ric

Thanks Herman.  It would be good to know the source of this information.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:34:54 EST
From:         Deb
Subject:      Re: Sextant Numbers

Ric, according to IMDb, Gene Palette wasn't in "China Clipper", not even in an uncredited part.

Deb

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

From don

The source comes from Pan Am, you can visit their website at:

http://www.panam.org

There is a listing of all their aircraft.

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

From Ric

Thanks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:38:02 EST
From:         Harold Mendelson
Subject:      Earhart Forum Digest

I received my first Earhart Forum Digest, and find that for me it's far easier and  faster than accessing the individual postings.   I read the Forum deligently, but never knew that this was an option.   You might consider again occasionally posting the instructions for changing to the Digest.  I agree that the idea of  putting FAQ on the Tighar web page would help cut down on repetitious emails.  We're heading in the right direction to overcome my complaint about the Forum being overloaded.

One more comment:  The discussion of the offset method of navigation was most interesting,  and a clever idea.

Harold Mendelson
Tallahassee, Florida

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

From Ric

And once more ---

to receive the forum as a daily digest just send this message:

SET EARHARTFORUM DIGEST

to:

listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:42:45 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      L-10E batteries

My knowledge of electricity begins and ends with a light switch, so I'm probably stepping off the deep end here . . .  .

My assumption is that the main and auxiliary batteries on AE's 10E would be on different circuits running through a common three-way switch -- "Main," "Aux.," "Off" -- simply to prevent exactly what everyone was talking about, one battery shorting out the other.  Also, I assumed the auxiliary battery was just that, i.e. a spare, something constituting a reserve, and was not intended to be used to increase the power of the main battery.  In order to maintain the integrity of the reserve, it would be on its own circuit.  Therefore, if one battery failed it wouldn't take down the other one also.  (Kind of like the dual braking systems on today's cars, if one fails the other has the capacity to stop the vehicle.)

Aren't there schematics from Lockheed showing the wiring of the 10E or at least of the 10-series?

The technical explanations of the electrical workings -- and navigation -- are WAY over my head but I enjoy reading them knowing that the authors (mostly) have their stuff wired pretty tight.  So it is a relief knowing that someone understands the complexity of everything.

LTM, who is occasionally a little dim
Dennis McGee #0149

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

From Ric

The standard Model 10 did not have two batteries and we don't have a wiring diagram for NR16020.  Bummer.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:45:12 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: "KEY"

Ric, Bob, Mike

>Vern Klein sent a circuit diagram to me, for a WE 13CB Transmitter
>(three xtals; 1 of which is for 500 kcs) It has a 4-prong socket, marked
>J-12*   Away from the main diagram is a dotted line rectangle showing
>a plug marked, "plug for J12".  It is wired to a DPDT switch , & to an
>arrow head against a line that is grounded.  The drawing has on it
>"Courtesy Western Electric Co.", in their corporate italic font.
>Botom line:  The xmtr. shown had provisions for a plug in key.
**************************************************************************
From Vern

I certainly have no objection to passing the diagram on.  It's from the TIGHAR radio study by Frank Lombardo, page 4-10.  Ric has the original.

Ric,  the part of the diagram Bob speaks of looks to me like part of the original WE diagram.  Do you see any reason to think otherwise?  The mating connector in the main circuit is surely original.  I've not tried to trace out the circuit to see just how all this would work.  Could the dynamotor be kept on while keying?  It looks to me like the DPDT switch is marked "M" and "CW."

Of course, this leaves the question of the key itself (an assembly of the parts shown in the dotted box).  If that was not on the plane, then none of this makes much difference.  They would have had to use the push-to-talk button on the microphone and try to allow for the delay in the transmitter coming on.  That's REALLY keying the hard way!  Very difficult to send code in readable fashion, even for an experienced operator.  And very difficult to read correctly at the other end... assuming it was keyed correctly in the first place.  If the transmission is real, I think what we have could contain a lot of errors.  I don't think we can hope to make anything of it. It's just one more thing that MAY suggest they had made some kind of landing... somewhere.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:51:04 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

I'd like to comment on some recent postings about the Wreck Photo - here's my two cents worth....

Stephanie wrote:-

>On the Ki-54, I noticed some lines (sorry for my ignorance here) coming
>from where the prop is to the outer edge of the cowl (I think that's
>what its called! :), and that these are not present on the Wreck Photo.
>Is this conclusive enough to rule out the Ki-54?

The lines that Stephanie's talking about are the engine valve push rod sleeves. Yes, in one of the Ki-54 photos, these are very visible, and appear to be metallic in colour. On the L10 (i.e. PW 985 and 1340) these seem to be painted black or some dark color, and are much less visible. In the wreck photo, these features are just visible, though appear very dark. Bear in mind though the effects  of light / shading and also possible corrosion discoloration of the engine in the wreck. I don't think you can rule out the Ki-54 on this alone - take a look at the other Ki-54 pictures which seem to have been taken in similar "high contrast" lighting, and see that the sleeves aren't visible in those either.

It strikes me that the wreck photo has a very high degree of lighting contrast, ranging from very bright over exposed areas such as the top surface of the nose and the tops of the palm trees in the background, to areas of deep shadow - near the bases of the undergrowth and under some sections of the wreck. The the front face of the engine lies in such an area of deep shadow, making it difficult to see these sleeves - they are however visible (barely) if you look.

Stephanie also wrote:-

>Photo engine and the L10E engine seemed to be of the same proportions
>(when zoomed in to the approx same size), but the Ki-54 engine, also
>zoomed in until it was apporx the same size, appeared to not match the
>proportions in the Wreck Photo, especially in realtion the the length of
>the prop, which looked too short on the Ki-54.

The prop definitely seems to be a better match to the L10E than to the Ki-54 - no argument there.

However, I disagree that the engine itself is a good match for the L10E. Just take a look at a photo of AE's L10E with it's cowls off  (a good example is one at Hawaii after the accident, featured in Tighar Tracks Vol.11 No.3 page15).  The overall diameter of the engine is clearly considerably greater than that of the bulkhead immediately behind it. On the wreck, however, the bulkhead is at least as big, and possibly a little larger than the engine. Check it out.

TNaugle wrote:-

>Has anyone counted the stringers on the lower nose of the wreck photo and
>compared them with an L10?  The wrech photo has one extra stringer that an
>L10......?

To which Ric replied:-

>Very astute observation. I think I see what you're talking about.  The
>line that bisects, fore and aft, the biggest chunk of missing skin seems to be
>an "extra" stringer.   I can think of a three possibilities:
>1.  the airplane is not a Lockheed 10, in which case, what is it?
>2.  what appears to be a stringer - isn't.
>3.  there are longitudinal stiffeners in a Lockheed 10 nose that are not
>riveted to.
>
>I suspect the latter case.  I have a Lockheed photo of a Model 10 under
>construction in the fuselage jig and all the nose stringers are not yet in
>place, but it looks like there's provision for a stiffener in that area.
>Unfortunately, the photos I took of the inside of the nose of the Lockheed 10
>at the New England Air Museum don't show that particular area (ain't that
>always the way?).  If it's a stiffener not riveted to the skin, that could
>also explain why the skin came off the way it did.

To my mind, the "biggest chunk of missing skin" sections in the nose that Ric mentions above indicate a series of 3 roughly parallel stringers (obviously converging towards the nose), one at the top of the missing sections, one bisecting them (mentioned above) and one at their bottom edge.

I think (just my opinion) the size and width of these missing sections is just too regular for there NOT to be a stringer above and below. Now, checking the out the photo of the L10 nose interior from the New England Museum which Ric mentions above, the central stringer discussed by Ric above is indeed just out of shot behind an aluminum panel - so no help there. However, the upper (top) stringer which I have inferred might also be present in the wreck photo - this area IS in our field of view in the L10 nose photo, and there is NO stringer in this area. Very circumstantial at best - I know, but this is just one of many small problems I have with the L10E fitting the wreck. Not much on its own, but add them together and one starts to have doubts.

Finally, don wrote:-

>The wreck photo is not Earhart's aircraft.  The nose cowl is not the right
>size and the skin pattern of the wreck photo is not consistant with Lockheed
>10E.  Additionally, the two round holes in the wingbox is not identical to
>the picture that claims to prove that it is. No big mystery here.

I agree entirely with Ric's comments about this posting. I've spent many hours studying the photo, but make no categorical claims. Indeed, who can until we find it ?

LTL10E
Simon #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:36:17 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

The thing about the wreck photo that nags at my mind most is that I can't find the landing lights.  Okay, maybe they're underneath, but even so, the whole tip of the nose of the L-10 is a hinged hatch, and I can't find it.  That and the more I look at that pile of sheet metal, the more it seems to be just too long to be the nose of an L-10.  Enlighten me, o wise one!
LTM
jon 2266

****************************************************************
From Ric

Elementary Watson (sorry, couldn't resist).  The nose hatch of the Model 10 starts at Fuselage Station 8 - in other words, eight inches back from the tip of the nose.  That portion of the aircraft in the Wreck Photo is obscured by vegetation.  I suspect that the hatch itself is gone - along with the lights installed therein.

Is the nose too long?  Here's a very rough but simple test you can do at home. The width of the Lockheed 10 cockpit from the left side windshield post to the right side windshield post, is equivalent to the length of the nose from the base of the windshield centerpost to Station 8 (where the nose hatch begins). You can verify this from various photos of Lockheed 10s or from the Electra model add on the TIGHAR website.  In the Wreck Photo it's quite easy to tell where the right and left windshield posts once were and you can certainly see the centerpost and the end of the nose (Station 8, if this were a Lockheed 10).  Check it out.

Again - this is hardly a scientific measurement, but it does provide a feel for the general proportions.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:39:40 EST
From:         Bryan Curry
Subject:      Trader Jon?

As a new forum reader, I am not fully aware of a lot of things that have been discussed on the forum already. If the subject of this posting has already been discarded as false information, please forgive me. About 6-8 months ago, (before I ever heard of the Earhart Forum or TIGHAR), I came across a web page containing information about a man nicknamed "Trader Jon", and the "fact"? that he had come across a skeleton on a beach on some island. He further stated that he investigated further and found an airplane a short distance away, completely submerged, sitting on the bottom in several feet of water with another set of remains inside. Then he went on to say that he believed these remains to be that of AE & FN, her on the beach, and him still in the plane. I don't remember the evidence he had to arrive at the conclusion it was them, unless it was her Electra, that he identified by some kind of markings, or part numbers.

I came across this page after typing AE's name on a search engine. I read the page, mulled it over in my mind, then went on to something else and forgot about it until I was reading postings on the forum. I searched for and tried to access this page again, clicked on the link, and kept getting the message that my server did not contain this file. Here is the page address if needed------
virtualpcola.com/TraderJons/amelia.htm

  Brian Curry
*****************************************************************

From Ric

I seem to recall something about this.  I don't think anyone here took it at all seriously.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:47:03 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: NC REGISTRATIONS

Ric- I got my numbers and Herman probably got his numbers from-

Pan Am-An Airline and its Aircraft  -- by R.E.G. Davies Illustrations by Mike Machat-- Orion Books-New York 1987

Jim Tierney
****************************************************************

From Ric

Thank you sir.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:45:20 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Nav Accuracy

Re: various postings regarding navigation accuracy.

Mr. Noonan says in his 1935 letter to Weems (after the first SF - Hawaii flight) that, "The accuracy of fixes was very gratifying. By that, an accuracy of approximately ten miles is implied. My experience is that such a degree of accuracy is about the average one may expect in aerial navigation." He also says that long range DF bearings were less accurate then using stellar observations, although he said the DF accuracy increased at shorter range. In another document from the same time period he says, "While the use of (DF) bearings will not insure extreme accuracy in navigation, they are nevertheless of inestimable value and will always serve as a dependable homing device." Too bad he wasn't more prophetic.

May you always know where you are. Blue skies, -jerry

*************************************************************
From Ric

But no mention of Aim-Off.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:54:51 EST
From:         Max Standridge
Subject:      coral

I would even go so far, in keeping with my earlier comments on this subject, to say that, the phrase could even be altered to say: Once on coral, we are cut.

                        --Max S.
*****************************************************************

From Ric

We have more experience with the coral on the reef at Niku than we would prefer to have.   Any fairly coordinated person can move around on it quite easily and safely at low tide.  Messing around out on the flat when there's a surf running is a different story.  It can be slippery and treacherous, and if you do fall or step into a hidden hole (as I have done) you're going to come up bloody.  If you don't hit the scratch or cut immediately with peroxide or alcohol you're also instantly infected. Nasty stuff.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:59:39 EST
From:         Dick Evans
Subject:      Re: Shoe deterioration

Don't forget that all shoes are not made alike. We found that the combination of salt water and live coral created some sort of acid. This very quickly caused the deterioration of the twine and thread. On one occasion a couple of us had just had new shoes shipped in from Canton and found that the soles appeared to be made from reclaimed tires. That is, the soles were rubber with a lot of threads woven thru them - like a tire. These soles came apart after one day unloading diesel fuel on the reef. From then on we made sure the guys who were buying the shoes - usually someone on Canton for dental treatment - were certain to get soles that were 100% rubber. These held up much better. in fact, it was usually the thread holding the soles to the uppers that went first, causing the soles to break away from the uppers, but after a much longer time in use. So one of the questions you would have to try to find answers to if you are going to try to date shoes by their condition is, How much time did this pair spend soaked in  water on live coral?

        Dick Evans

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

From Ric

The separation of soles from the uppers certainly matches what was found by Gallagher and TIGHAR.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:05:22 EST
From:         Dick Evans
Subject:      The dozer that didin't die

You referred to the CG losing a bulldozer off the edge of the reef in 1944. This is not accurate. The incident you refer to happened when a crew came to replace a direct-current generator with two alternate current generators.

Getting loaded landing barges off the reef was always a real problem. Whenever this became necessary our machinist mate would push the barge off the edge of the reef with the bulldozer. Most of the time they came in loaded and when the loads were removed the barge would bob up into the water and could be backed off under their own power.

On this occasion the replaced generator was loaded onto the barge and it would not float.  The machinist, Joe Guerra, tried to push it off. It was so heavy he was having a lot of trouble as the barge kept turning sideways forcing Joe to go around the barge and push from the other side. Slowly he moved it toward the edge of the reef but now the reef fingers became a problem. He came too close to the edge of a finger and the dozer tipped partially on its side lifting the right side tracks off the coral. This meant he had no traction.

At this point the net-tender that was servicing the operation came as near to shore as they could safely get and fired a line ashore. This was attached to the barge and they pulled it off the reef. But the tide was coming in and there was no chance to get the dozer out of the hole. 

Next morning I went on duty with the 8 Am watch while the rest of the crew went down to salvage the bulldozer. By the time I came off watch at 12 Noon the dozer was back at the base in operating condition. I was told that they were able to attach a rope to the dozer and pull it with the weapons carrier until the tracks made contact and Joe could back it out of the hole.

Don't bother spending any more time looking for the bulldozer in 2000 feet of water. It ain't there. It probably ended up in Japan as part of a post-war shipment of scrap iron.

Dick Evans

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

From Ric

Well I'll be ....
Thanks for straightening us out on that Dick.  Just goes to show how easy it is for an incident to get garbled and mythologized.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:39:58 EST
From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:      Domestic dogs/Human remains

Ric wrote something to the effect:

>Someone must have written a master thesis on the "Distribution of human
>remains by domestic dogs"

Someone has indeed studied this (I am not sure about the master's thesis). I am not suggesting that the following information tells us anything about the human remains found on Gardner Island. I offer it as evidence that the relationship between human remains and domestic animals (mostly dogs and cats) has received some attention in the literature.

Reference No. 1.  Dr. Gary Peterson,  Minneapolis, Minnesota Medical Examiner, City Pages, Oct. 1, 1997, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Reference No. 2.   The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Death to due attack from Chow Dog, Robert C. Bux and John McDowell.

Reference No. 3.  Dr. Scott Line, Animal Behaviorist, University of Minnesota,  City Pages, Oct. 1, 1997, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

There are many documented cases of domestic dogs exhibiting  anthropophagi (anthro from the Greek word for man, and  phagein from the Greek word for eat). Yes, that is correct...domestic dogs eating people.  In most cases it is their dead owner.  This occurs when a person who lives alone dies in their home and is not found for many weeks. The pet dog (and in some cases cats) get very hungry after a few days.  They will then begin to eat their dead owner.  If the death occurs outdoors, a whole host of animals can be involved.  See Reference No. 1.

Pet owners who are very much alive have also been attacked by their pets. See Reference No. 2.

According to Dr. Scott  Line, the idea that cats and dogs would be naturally restrained from [eating you] is probably a human emotional interpretation of how they [a human] would respond to the situation.  See Reference No. 3. Your pet, deep in this genetic program will kill anything alive to satisfy its hunger (in the right situation).

So, if there were feral dogs on Gardner Island (maybe left behind by Arundel?) and they were very hungry, they might feed on a dead human. Many of the smaller bones would undoubtably be carried away by rats and crabs.

LTM

Kenton Spading

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

From Ric

Man's best friend indeed.

Were there feral dogs left over from Arundel's operations in 1892?  Seems a bit unlikely to me.  Nobody who came along later mentioned any dogs (Maude, Bevington, the NZ survey party, etc.).  It also seems unlikely that laborers (as opposed to settlers) would bring dogs.  If dogs are responsible for the scattering of the bones on Niku, they are - in my opinion - most probably dogs brought to the island by the first permanent settlers in 1939 and the dogs found, scattered, chewed the bones sometime during the year or so between their arrival and the discovery of the skull sometime around April of 1940.

If that is what happened, it raises another very interesting point.  According to our resident forensic anthropologist, Dr. Karen Burns, human remains in that environment would be reduced very rapidly to a dried out state that would not be of much interest to dogs.  In other words, if the bones were Earhart's and she died in 1937, by the time dogs could reasonably be expected to be on the island 2 years later the bones should be too far gone to be of interest to them.  So the reasoning goes like this:

1. IF dogs scattered the bones, and
2. IF the dogs didn't arrive until 1939, then
3. the bones/remains were still fresh enough in 1939 to be of interest to the dogs.

That logic suggests that the castaway(s) of Gardner Island (whoever they were) did not die until - oh - maybe the fall of 1938.  Something to think about.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:52:25 EST
From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:      Recorded Tide data for Nikumaroro

There has been some discussion on the forum lately regarding the tides at Niku.  Phil Tanner, Rick Nigh and others have offered comments on this. I am not a tide expert.  I do not claim that the following information will help in the effort to determine the Niku tides in July 1937. Hopefully, someone more familiar with tides than me can use the data (some of which is in the deck log of the NAI'A).

Prior to departing on the NIKU III expedition, I knew the tides at Niku were an issue.  So,  soon after I arrived at Niku I went up to the bridge of the ship (the NAI'A). I asked them to record the time of the high and low tide each day using a large piece of coral that was sticking up the reef (and some other visible indicators, they used binoculars). I made sure they recorded all the times in the ship's log book in case anyone wanted to use the data later. After we had a few days of data I sat down with a crew member and we compared the Niku high and low tide times to various tide tables.

The tide table for Tokelau (approx. 600 stat miles SE) was too early for Niku.  The ship did not have a tide table for Apia, Samoa (approx. 700 stat miles South) so we tried the table for Pago Pago, American Samoa (approx. 850 stat miles SSE). The Pago Pago table worked straight up for all practical purposes.  (no adjustment needed).  The predicted tides for Pago Pago matched the tides at Niku very closely.

Love to Mother
Kenton Spading

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Hmmmm.... that's why we bring Kenton along on these little outings.  Okay, if the tides for Pago Pago (pronounced Pahngo Pahngo by everyone except Dan Quayle, who calls it Pogo Pogo) work for Niku for a week or so in March of 1997, is it reasonable to extrapolate that they would also work for July of 1937?  I can think of one way to test that hypothesis. We know that the photo taken during the overflight by the Colorado's planes on July 9 shows a highish tide.  We don't know for sure what time the photo was taken but we can certainly narrow it down to between, say, 08:00 and 10:00 local time.  We also don't know whether the tide was coming in or going out at that moment.  Still, it would be interesting to see what the tide at Pago Pago was doing during that time frame.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:36:34 EST
From:         Catherine
Subject:      FAQs and OED

As a newcomer, I agree it would be great to have some lists of frequently asked questions.  I see it from both sides -- I began reading the stuff on the TIGHAR web site just about a week ago, and already I have seen questions here whose answers I have read there.  And then there are things I am sure have been discussed that I'd like to find out on the web site, but it is hard for a newcomer to be sure where to look.  Some other things I think about FAQs:

- Ric shouldn't necessarily have to do it all, if it's feasible to have others here help and they'll volunteer.  (In the interests of putting money where mouth is, I will consider helping with this, if there is an area where I won't make someone else spend more time answering my foolish questions than it would have taken them to just do it themselves.)  It may even be better to have relative newcomers do it, since we have a different perspective than those of you who have been immersed in this for a while, and newcomers are the primary target.

- I think it would be nice to have the complete forum archives available on the web (in addition to the highlights, which serve a different purpose).  Already I have had to request the same one over a couple of times because I thought I was done, deleted it to save space, then wanted to look something up.  (Hope L-Soft -- the mailing list host -- doesn't charge TIGHAR per file retrieval.) If it were on the site it would be searchable.

- I am clearly not the only one confused about the wreck photo.  In my case, at least, it is because I don't know much about the insides of airplanes.  As a result, I'm having a hard time understanding what's what and where the missing parts would be if they were there. I think an annotated photo might cut down on misunderstandings in this area if someone has the time & facilities to do one.  I'm envisioning a (preferably large) copy of the photo with outlines sketched on to show the missing parts, and labels showing what are thought to be key features.

A note about the OED (Oxford English Dictionary).  I have seen it quoted as authority two or three times.  The OED user's guide makes a point:  "Contrary to the popular view of the OED as an authority on the 'correct' usage of the language, the Dictionary is intended to be _descriptive_, not _prescriptive_; it records, non-judgementally, the history of the language as mirrored in the written words..."  Most of the time this won't matter in the case of the dictionary; but I think in general, understanding the intent behind any source of information is essential to interpreting the information found.  I also think everyone here knows this but it seemed worthwhile to mention.  This is something that might fit into the teaching tools being developed: how to evaluate information you are given.

Catherine

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

From Ric

Lots of good suggestions here.

Assembling FAQs for the website -
What needs to be done is for the archives of the forum to be perused for discussions of particular subjects.  The postings need to be edited to weed out the irrelevant stuff and assembled into discreet documents on specific subjects which can then be mounted and indexed in a FAQ section of the website.  If there are forum members - newbies or otherwise - who have the time and interest to help with this project I'd sure like to hear from them. We'll want to organize this in such a way as to minimize duplication of effort.

Forum archives on the web -
L-Soft does not charge us for file retrievals, so retreive to your heart's content.  We do get charged for storage space over a certain limit so we have to periodically remove the oldest months.  We, of course, keep copies of them here. We also have to pay for the size of our website and putting all the forum archives up on the site would be vey expensive.  I think that doing the FAQ section will be the best way to approach that.

Annotated Wreck Photo -
Yes, I can see how that would be very useful.  It will also take some messing- with to create.  I'll put it on my list.

Good point about the OED.  Fortunately, we don't have anything akin to the French Academy to assure and preserve the purity of the language.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:48:45 EST
From:         Dave Leuter
Subject:      Radio Question

I remember a prior discussion where you point out that AE had damaged a trailing wire antenna which, I believe, was mounted on the underside of the aircraft.  Was this a receive antenna only?  I believe that it was said that this was the antenna for the direction finding radio.  My question is twofold, first was this a receive only antenna, and if so, where physically were the transmitter antennas located?  If they were on the underside of the machine and if any of those post loss messages are authentic then the antennas must have been high and dry in order for any signals to get out.  I am sure that Mike E will concur that no radios that I know of are capable of transmitting with their antenna immersed in salt water.  Kind of shorts them out!

Just wondering, and engaging in pure unadulterated speculation

Dave Leuter

*****************************************************************
From Ric

The trailing wire antenna was not on the airplane for the second world flight attempt.  There was an belly antenna mounted on masts along the underside of the airplane and this is the antenna that may have been damamged during the Lae takeoff.  We're not certain of its purpose but it may have been a receiving antenna or a sense antenna for the direction finder.

We do know that the tramsmitting antenna was the dorsal V on the top of the airplane, and that would have been high and dry.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:56:23 EST
From:         Dick Strippel
Subject:      Re "281 message"

> ... along that line?

I DID-USING "PCGLOBE" PROGRAM IF YOU HAVE IT, WORK IT OUT. I CAN'T SEND MY RESULTS, BECAUSE ALL MY RESEARCH IS IN "WORDPERFECT,"  I HAVEN'T LOADED ON THIS MACHINE BECAUSE IT'S TOTALLY INFECTED WITH Y2C THE INFORMATION I DERIVED AGREES WITH THE PAN AM 'BEARINGS!
--DICK
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:59:59 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Trader Jon?

Bryan Curry wrote:

> About 6-8 months ago, (before I ever heard of the Earhart Forum or
> TIGHAR), I came across a web page containing information about a man
> nicknamed "Trader Jon", and the "fact"? that he had come across a
> skeleton on a beach on some island. He further stated that he
> investigated further and found an airplane a short distance away....

I just took a moment to call the person who manages the top level site at that URL. We chatted about TraderJon. The developer, a very nice fellow by the way, was absolutely unequivocal -- the story was total fabrication from the get-go. Furthermore, the TraderJon site was pulled down due to a failure on the part of the client to pay for the monthly hosting fees.

Looks like the fat lady just sang on the TraderJon story.

Thomas Van Hare
*****************************************************************

From Hugh Graham

When you see the word "virtual" with regard to historical context it probably indicates a "virtual" history" buff.  This is where actual historical events are modified to satisfy the author.  Some people need a life.  LTM,
HAG.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:58:27 EST
From:         Herman DeWulf
Subject:      NC REGISTRATIONS

I found the NC- registrations in "Pictorial History of Pan American World Airways" by P. St. John Turner. Incidently, besides the Sikorsky fleet PanAm also operated 14 Consolidated Commodores at that time, all acquired on 15/9/30 when Pan American took over NYRBA. Their registrations cover the whole series from NC-658M to NC-670M plus NC- 855M. They al went to Panair do Brasil but four were later returend to PanAm to be used for training (NC-658M, NC-661M, NC-666M, NC-667M).

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Herman.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:02:18 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Domestic dogs/Human remains

Dogs do not always eat their dead owner. Sometimes they eat them alive. Over here two rottweilers killed a six months old girl two weeks ago and had her for lunch while the girl's father was having a nap. Since then the law has been adapted and they are now considered "dangerous weapons" and must be registered like a gun.  I guess rottweilers come under reference 2. Does anyone know what kind of dogs roamed Gardner Island ?

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

From Ric

Smallish dogs that looked a bit like a Jack Russell Terrier.  Not Rottweilers (thank God).
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:15:16 EST
From:         Bob Perry
Subject:      Provisions on Niku

Ric wrote:

>That logic suggests that the castaway(s) of Gardner Island (whoever they
>were) did not die until - oh - maybe the fall of 1938.  Something to think
>about.

An interesting idea. Concerning food other than Niku animal/vegetable sources from 1937-38, what about the wreck of the Norwich? I know it had been there since 1929, but canned goods should still have been good, and ships stores should have been  above water (?)  No way to  know for sure, but it's possible that  castaways on Niku in 1937 had access to palatable food to keep them going.

LTM,

Bob
*****************************************************************
From Ric

If they did it probably didn't come from the Norwich City.  The ship burned quite thoroughly at the time it went aground.  Not even the survivors of the wreck got any help from what was left.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:29:20 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      PANAM

I don't want to become off-topic but researching the registrations of PanAm Skikorsky fleet at Ric's request I came across John Turner's interesting description of the problems Pan American encountered pioneering its Pacific route to New Zealand at the very time AE was lost. Pan Am's problems were the same as AE's or FN's. I thought it might be interesting to remind this while we are trying to find the answer to the questions AE had to answer.

At that time PanAm was preparing a new South Pacific trans-ocean airway, branching off at Hawaii to Auckland, New Zealand, across the same vast expanse of water AE intended to cross. Turner writes:

"Since the route was not equipped with suitable navigation and weather forecasting facilities or landing sites, the 6,000 ton tanker SS North Wind was chartered to steam ahead of the Sikorsky S-42B survey aircraft Pan American Clipper, complete with fuel supply, direction finding, radio equipment and aircraft servicing facilities. It was used as a mobile airway station with all facilities but a landing area. Upper air meteorological data for the entire route were vitually non-existent".

In short, this was the very situation AE faced.

"The SS North Wind sheltered in the Kingman Reef lagoon until an S-42B was ready to leave Pago Pago on March 23, 1937 for the first scheduled trip to Auckland : 1,800 miles over the ocean on March 29. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders turned up to watch the plane. The return trip begun on April 3, the day after AE failed to reach Howland. It reached Honolulu six days later". At that time the US Navy was searching the Pacific for the Lockheed Electra. By the way, the first scheduled service to Auckland, carrying only mail and cargo, was eventually inaugurated on December 23, 1937. The second scheduled flight left Honolulu in January 1938, nine months later, and ended in disaster (the plane exploded when jettisoning fuel) and caused suspension of the scheduled service.

I think this explains the state of the art of flying in 1937 to those of us who travel comforatbly across oceans in jets today. Aviation just was not ready yet. It also tells us something about the courage of those willing to face the dangers to prove it could be done.

By the way, how did the L10E jettison fuel in case of an emergency ? Could this question add to the debate ? Suppose AE found the beach too short and, having fuel remaining which she wouldn't need anymore since she had decided this was the end of the trip, decided to jettison most of what remained to make the aircraft as light as possible and reduce landing speed to a bare minimum and increase their chances of survival. Could there have been an explosion like of the S-42B's (its gas dumping valves were found to be positioned too close to the hot engine exhausts) or could they have caused a fire while landing, destroying the aircraft but allowing the occupants to escape ? Does this scenario seem credible ? If it does, chances are you'll find little of an airplane. And what about that missing engine in the picture ?

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

From Ric

You have some date problems there Herman.  Earhart disappeared in July 2, not April.  And January 1938 is not nine months after December 1937.

I'm not sure about emergency fuel dumping provisions aboard NR16020 but if they reached Gardner they probably had less than an hour or so worth of fuel remaining - hardly enough to worry about dumping.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:41:02 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Nav Accuracy

I wouldn't be a bit surprised that FN didn't mention the offset method of navigation to Weems, particularly in discussion with PAA navigation techniques.  Having radio beacons to home in on for the last 100 miles or so is more dependable than offset navigation, particularly if they are reliable.  Why spend more time in the air than you have to?  In lieu of radio beacons, offset navigation pays big dividends.  Which raises the question: if AE and RN were expecting radio beacon reports from Howland, would they have used offset navigation at all?

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

From Ric

That is, indeed, the question.  As both you and Tom Van Hare have pointed out, it does seem that FN was well aware of the off-set technique.  Did he use it at Howland? We have no evidence that he did, but neither do we have proof that he did not.  Sort of throws the question into the realm of opinion, don't it?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:56:53 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Recorded Tide data for Nikumaroro

Extrapolation of a week's worth of tide data (high and low tide only) back 60 years won't work.  Here is an excerpt of an early report I gave TIGHAR from 1992 regarding tides:

Tidal information was calculated for Canton Island (2*49'S, 171*43'W) based upon a yearly record obtained at Canton during 1949/1950 by the Sea Level Center at the University of Hawaii.  Frequency analysis of 68 tidal components were calculated (amplitude and phase), nodal corrections were applied, and extrapolated backwards in time to July, 1937 Tidal extrapolations beyond 10 years becomes dubious (G. Mitchum, pers. comm., 1992), but an estimate of the calculations can be computed by analysis of 1986-1987 records and extrapolating back to 1949-1950 and comparing the records.  The results are included in the Appendix, and indicate a reasonable fit to the data.  Without tidal records on Nikumaroro or Canton during 1937, this method of extrapolation is considered the best possible method to estimate tides (G. Mitchum, B. Parker, pers. comm., 1992).  The mean sea level was 1.3719 meters, and maximum possible tide is 2.289924 m; the minimum possible tide is 0.453835 m (calculated by adding and subtracting all tidal components, regardless of phase).  The maximum predicted tide during July, 1937 is at 1827 GMT on July 8 at 1.934 m; the minimum predicted tide was at 1150 GMT on July 8 at 0.800 m. To predict what the tides would be at Nikumaroro would require information regarding the propagation speeds of all tidal components from Canton to Nikumaroro.  Since the two islands are only 200 miles apart, it is a reasonable assumption to dismiss these differences.  Tidal amplitudes also vary with distance, so it may only be safe to infer gross general trends for Nikumaroro.  Thus, it is safe to say that on July 8, the day before the Navy overflight, the tidal range was at a maximum, about 1.1 m. Earhart has been estimated to land on Nikumaroro at 11 a.m. local time on July 2 (approx. 2300 GMT July 2, 1937).  At Canton, the tide is estimated to be 1.429 m, about 2 hours before high tide of 1.690 m.  With such a high tide, it is likely that most of the reef flat at Nikumaroro was submerged, and Earhart may have tried to ditch the plane in the lagoon.  On July 9, 1937, Lt. John O. Lambrecht and others flew over McKean, Nikumaroro, and Carondelet Reef, leaving the USS Colorado at 0700 (local), and returning at 1045 (local; Lt. Short's letter, Gillespie, 1991b).  Based upon this information, it is likely that the overflight of Nikumaroro occurred at approximately 0900 local (2100 GMT), at which time the tide was 1.664 m, just after high tide.  A picture taken during this flight confirms the high tide (R. Gillespie, pers. comm., 1992).

In short, one needs a long time series to extrapolate.  On the other hand, if there are tide tables from 1937 for Pago Pago, it would be interesting to compare.  I suspect tide experts would not predict a good match over 60 years worth of time, based upon a couple weeks worth of data.

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

From Ric

Slipping from science to hangar flying - I wonder how much water could be standing on the reef flat and still permit a relatively safe landing in a Lockheed 10?  I've landed a Skyhawk on a flooded runway with probably four inches of standing water.  It wasn't much fun, and it was rather spectacular to watch, but it worked out okay.

The tires of an Electra are big.  The specs call for 35x15-6 tires.  How much water could you land in and not flip over?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:26:54 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Trader Jon?

The "virtualpcola" apparently stood (or stands?) for "Virtual Pensacola."

I found Trader Jons at http://www.traderjons.com/ and can find no reference to this story on the site.  Note that I put in only minutes looking... it could be hidden somewhere.

Still, I think that if someone had found something this "conclusive" it would have garnered a lot more attention that a little web page reference. Just look at the press TIGHAR's discoveries of shoe parts, sheets of aluminum and a trip to England have gotten.

    - Bill #2229

******************************************************************
From Ric

One thing we've learned in ten years of Earhart research is that the mainstream press does try to be discerning in its coverage of such stories.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:32:19 EST
From:         Dan Lann
Subject:      Re: Trader Jon?

As an ex-navy fly boy I've met Trader and he's quite a character. He owns/owned an infamous bar in Pensacola,  FL that every person to wear gold wings has visited at least once, oddly enough it's named "Trader Jon's". He is a fountain of stories both true and less true and I would hold out that this is another of the less true. He's a sailor and never met a story that didn't merit a little fine tuning.

LTM,
Dan Lann
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:44:19 EST
From:         Mark Cameron
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

A few more cents worth....

Aside from photos and film taken of the 10E on the second trip, how much detail do we have on the post-Hawaii crash version of the aircraft? My impression is that the 10E was a limited production aircraft (possibly only 1?) (please correct me if wrong about that) and the likelyhood exists that non-standard repairs were made that could explain changes in rivit hole patterns, stringers, skin patches, etc. This could explain details in the Wreck photo that seem to be out of place, and possibly the famous piece of skin found at Niku that won't fit any known L10 but seems to be from one. Obviously the aircraft was modified to suit the needs of the flight, are there any records that tell us what mod's were made? There seems to be some confusion about the nav table and equipment, how the fuel tanks were restrained, and the hookup for the 2 batteries. My real concern here is that a great deal of debate exists over a photo of an aircraft that may (or not) be the 10E but there seems to be much we don't know about the modified version of the thing.

Just a thought...

LTM
Mark J. Cameron

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

From Ric

You're right.  There is a LOT we don't know about the airplane as it was configured for the second world flight attempt.  The dearth of information is due to two factors:

1.  The wreck in Hawaii that ended the first attempt was a major embarrassment for Amelia.  The complete openess which characterized her preparations for the first attempt were replaced by almost paranoid secrecy (which, of course, has since fanned the flames of conspiracy theories).

2.  The repairs were carried out under intense pressure and pestering from AE personally.  We have the repair orders, but from close examination of later photos we know that they weren't followed very closely.  There was some major beefing up of the landing gear attach points which are documented in new engineering drawings that needed Bureau of Air Commerce approval.  It seems safe to assume that the repairs were carried out according to accepted standards but that leaves a lot of room for variations.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:56:18 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      man's best friend

I'm sure that some Pacific island people routinely eat dog.  It is supposed to be quite tasty.  I doubt that there would be many feral dogs left behind.

Why waste good food?
Love to Fido, with barbecuesauce
Dan Postellon
***************************************************************

From Ric

I've never heard of the Gilbertese eating dog and we know for sure that dogs were left behind when the colonists were moved off in the early 1960s because we know that there was concern about them going dangerously feral.  Hence the poisoning that was done.

Besides, we're not wondering about whether AE and FN may have had dogs to dine on, but 'tother way 'round.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:27:03 EST
From:         Gary Moline
Subject:      Re: Nav Accuracy

How does the off-set navigation theory correlate with the fact that we know that AE said that she was running on a 157/337 line? Does this mean that they reached their off-set nav position and that they then turned (which way?) and flew along the 157/337 line? If so, then it would seem that FN did flight plan with an off-set built in. Is Niku roughly on a 157 degree heading out of Howland? I'm trying to put this all into a logical chain of events and of course, I know who to turn to!

LTM,
Gary Moline

***************************************************************
From Ric

The 157/337 line has nothing to do with an off-set.  It's a line of position obtained by a sun shot and then advanced by theoretically by dead reckoning until it falls through Howland.  Fred calculations of his speed tell him that around 07:42 they will have reached the advanced line and, in a perfect world, Howland should be there.  But it isn't, hence the 07:42 message WE MUST BE ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE YOU.  They then go thorugh the whole bit about trying to get a DF bearing to tell them which way to turn along the line, but no luck. It's not until an hour later at 08:43 that AE says WE ARE ON THE LINE 157/337 and then says something which is usually translated as WE ARE RUNNING NORTH AND SOUTH.

This does not sound to me like an off-set has been used.  It sounds instead like they tried to fly straight to Howland and it wasn't there so they went looking for it along the line.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:36:52 EST
From:         Dick Strippel
Subject:      Re: Lockheed sounds

Go to an airshow and record two T-6s . (Wasp powered).  Once you've heard a wasp- you'll never forget the sound-ESPECIALLY IF IT HAS "STRAIGHT PIPES" AS ON THE B-25!

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

From Ric

Except the B-25 used Wright Double Cyclones (R2600) of at least 1,700 hp each. A bit different from Earhart's 550 hp Pratt & Whitney Wasps.

But two T-6s will indeed give you an approximation of the sound of one Lockheed 10E.  Perhaps the most efficient device ever created for turning money into noise.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:44:17 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Nav Accuracy

Ric wrote:

> ...it does seem that FN was well aware of the off-set technique.
> Did he use it at Howland? We have no evidence that he did, but
> neither do we have proof that he did not.  Sort of throws the
> question into the realm of opinion, don't it?

As one who is involved in research every day, I am really not quite willing to go out on the limb of opinion -- at least not without a lot of data to support it.

So, as I discussed with Ric yesterday by phone, we're now involved in a long term effort to discuss Pan Am navigation technique and Fred Noonan with former Pan Am aviators and navigators. Although we've just begun, we have already some very interesting information. First off the mark is some very interesting stuff from Capt. Banning. Banning joined Pan Am in 1941 and his stories therefore are technically hearsay. However, he made it clear that these things were discussed on numerous occassions with those who knew Fred Noonan personally and quite well and were all true.

In addition, Banning was trained in the same exact navigation techniques that Fred Noonan and Harold Gatty had pioneered for Pan Am, including radio bearings, sun lines, aim off navigation, etc. It is worth noting that celestial bearings were in use right up into the 1960s as the primary navigational system for Pan Am's operations and, in the words of Capt. Banning, "They didn't change almost at all, except for things like automatic averaging and the new drift sight that we got in, I think it was 1941 -- that was from Captain Gray."

So, here are a few of the better quotes:

"I remember that word was Fred Noonan was one of the navigators who was most distrustful of radio bearings. The early ones were very difficult to use and interpret. And as a result, he was inclined to be very skeptical. On one occasion, at the transmitting station, water got into the transmitter grounding and it really distorted the signal. If Noonan had believed the radio bearing they would have flown into the hills and crashed, but he didn't trust them, instead basing the position on straight celestial navigation. Well, they lived; after that you learn to distrust radio bearings. One of the copilots who was with him on that flight is still alive..."

And also this regarding the taking of bearings and reliability:

"With that kind of gear, the needle swings all over the place and you take a kind of an average of the various swings to work out the real bearing to the station. The radio operator would provide the navigator with the bearing information, but then the navigator would often just ignore it if the celestial or sun lines were good."

And then this regarding aim off:

"We called it riding down a sun line. You offset to one side or another and then try to approach it with the sunrise. You get on the track with the sun line. Fred Noonan developed that, you know. They used to use that in ships. He was a master mariner in the First World War for the British Navy, I think. You would plot a line of position through the island and then you would do aim off, taking constant sun shots as you go, staying on the line. Once the sun rises, you are stuck with only the sun. Unless you had an awfully good fix shortly before sunrise you'd use aim off. If you drifted off too much, you could pass on by an island and  miss it. So the fastest and safest way to find it would be to aim off.Fred Noonan would always aim off, you see, because it was his technique -- he developed that procedure. Everyone knew that he designed it."

More to come....

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:52:23 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: PANAM

Herman De Wulf wrote:

> The second scheduled flight left Honolulu in January 1938, nine
> months later, and ended in disaster (the plane exploded when
> jettisoning fuel) and caused suspension of the scheduled service.

Herman, actually nobody knows for sure why the plane was lost. The wreckage was not recovered nor analyzed. This was the final flight of Captain Musick, the most famous airline captain of the world at that time (working for Pan Am).

Today, many people write things with confidence that they shouldn't have and often largely because they've read it in several other sources -- it was known that if you vented fuel from that plane, you could create a hazardous situation involving fire, so therefore.... To me, that leap of logic that this is what caused the loss is quite significant. It is worthwhile noting that it is this same sort of thing that gets us all in trouble so easily with the AE story in the first place -- after all, there are 40 odd books that say she was captured by the Japanese....

Thomas Van Hare
***************************************************************

From Ric

I have this recollection of an official accident report on the loss of the Samoan Clipper that did conclude that it was the fuel venting that caused the explosion (for what that's worth).  It's around here someplace.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:07:20 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Lens

I'd better preface this by saying I know nothing about sextants, but I've been thinking about the "inverting eyepiece" reportedly found. Would this be some sort of lens? If so then it fits with the notion that the sextant box arrived (presumably with its sextant) along with its owner in some sort of emergency.

A lens would be invaluable to start a fire and this might account for it having been pocketed, perfectly understandably, by a local who then said it had been discarded.) So the eyepiece might have been useful after the whole sextant had ceased to be. But a sextant would cease to be useful only when you know where you are but know you won't be heading off anywhere else under your own steam. Or if you have two people cast away but only one knows how to use a sextant and this person dies, then the whole sextant would be so much junk to the other, but a lens could still be invaluable.

****************************************************************
From Ric

I can't fault your logic.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:34:59 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Spies and Spyplanes

Concerning spies, spooks and intelligence officers.

The records certainly show that GP was an intelligence officer, but that does not mean he was a spy.  Air Force intelligence officers are uniformed members of regular units.  GP was assigned to a bomber unit.  His duties would have fallen into three areas.

First, constructing and giving pre-mission briefings on enemy capabilities and intentions.  This would consist mostly of chart briefings on flak and fighters along the planned route.  He would also brief what friendly forces would be in the area, what rescue forces are available, and contact procedures, and whether friendly underground forces were present in enemy territory.

Second, post mission debriefing.  Bombing results, enemy flak and fighter numbers, type and actions, and other activities seen in enemy territory.

Third, administrative intelligence.  This covers censoring outgoing mail, assuring security of classified materials and communications, and advising the commander on security issues.

All of these duties are very well suited to someone with GPs experience, and none of them are spying.  He might, in fact, go through the whole war without ever even meeting a spy.

I know that conspiracy theories are not a topic of discussion, but I think some of this is relevant, or at least interesting.

Now to spyplanes.

First off, there has been some ridicule generally of the idea that any real government would secretly purchase a Lockheed model 10, register it to a legitimate civilian user, equip it with a camera bay under the floor, and clandestinely use it to photograph facilities being built by a potential enemy.

Common sense tells us that this is a ridiculous, paranoid, dime novel fantasy.  Unfortunately for common sense, this actually happened.

A pair of Model 10s (G-AFKR and G-AFTL) were purchased by the British SIS (Special Intelligence Service), and used by Sidney Cotton in civilian livery to photograph German airfields and military facilities before the war.  A camera bay hidden under a sliding cover was installed below the passenger compartment floor.  Cotton (later known as "The Wizard of Reconnaissance") flew these initially on private 'business trips', and later on route proving missions on behalf of BOAC all over Europe.  The route proving, including trips to potential alternates allowed him to make landings, or practice approaches, at many more airfields than regular revenue service would have done.  G-AFTL seems to have done most of the missions, at one point is appeared in BOAC livery, although remained registered as a private business aircraft.

Cotton also used a Beech 17, and later a Lockheed Model 14.

The process described here is known as 'sheep dipping' in the U.S.  That is a process whereby the apparent or legal connection between an individual or piece of equipment is severed or obscured.  The most famous example of this would be the Air America personnel and aircraft fleet.

Similar covert recon aircraft have been used since, notably by Aeroflot, but, so far as my research can tell, the Lockheed Model 10 was the first.

Note that this explains the Model 10 camera installation drawing in the Lockheed archives, without having to assume that NR-16020 was a spook.

On the plus side for the spook theory is the use of Kelly Johnson as the factory engineer to prepare Earhart's aircraft for the attempt.  He would certainly later be associated with black ops.

Robert Klaus

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

From Ric

Your comments regarding intelligence officers are right on the money. Your comments about the use of the Lockheed 10 as a spy plane are a bit less so.

The airplanes used by Sidney Cotton were not Model 10s but Model 12 "Electra Juniors".  The episode is described in the December 1988 issue of Lockheed Horizons edited by TIGHAR member Roy Blay.  Here's an excerpt:

"Just prior to the outbreak of World War II, a need arose for up-to-date flight surveillance of military installations of the Axis powers.  Initially, this was a joint venture of the British and French intelligence services. Sidney Cotton, an Australian, was recruited as pilot; he was already well known as a businessman flying his own plane in Europe while marketing color film.  Selected because of its exceptional performance, a Lockheed Model 12 Electra Junior executive transport was delivered to British airways as a cover in January 1939....Subsequently this aircraft and another similar Model 12 were handed over to the French. ...A third Model 12 was procured and two fuselage tanks were added to boost the range from 700 to 1600 miles.  A tear-drop cockpit side window was fitted to improve downward and rearward vision. Aperture holes were cut in the floor to accommodate three, fixed hidden cameras.  Two more apertures were cut in the door and the fuselage side opposite for the operation of more cameras.  Later, two more fixed, hidden cameras were mounted in the wings.  All apertures were suitably disguised." The above described aircraft was G-AFTL.

I know of no evidence that a Lockheed 10 was ever used as a "spy plane" and I know of no Model 10 camera installation drawing in the Lockheed archives.  If there are plans for camera installations they are probably for the Model 12.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:37:07 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Landing on a wet surface

I don't know about airplanes, but automobiles tend to aquaplane when hitting standing water at speed. No problem, actually, as long as you don't want to turn or stop. Tire engineers are always redesigning treads on passenger car tires to minimize the effect.  Treadless racing tires ("slicks") are a disaster in the rain, while "all-weather" treads are heavily grooved.  Airplane tires ordinarily have a few circumferential grooves, which I suppose are for the very purpose providing directional stability during wet landings, especially in a cross-wind.  Your comments re landing in four or more inches of water seem to suggest that at more than an inch (say) of depth you begin to introduce heavy resistance (a "bow wave" if you will) which if it exceeds a critical point would flip the plane. Makes sense to me, but talk to a tire enginner for precise details. (Goodyear comes to mind, since they make aircraft rubber - or did, the last time I looked.)

Cam Warren
(who knows a little bit about a lot of things)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:41:37 EST
From:         Alan Faye
Subject:      Re: Sextant Numbers

Would you like for me to get the NC numbers for the Sikorskys that operated around the Hawaiian Islands.? My cousin, Jimmy Hogg, was chief pilot and gave me my first flying  lesson in a Sikorsky.  In those days (1937-1941) you could sit in the pilot's lap and he would "instruct' you on how to bank and turn and maintain altitude.  No FAA (CAA then) restrictions on being in the cockpit.  Those were the good 'ole days of freedom in the air.

I know that Jimmy flew some of the Sikorskys out from CA to HI and later, the first DC-3s.  The first S-43 was ferried out in 1932/33 I believe, so who knows. A sextant could have been passed around.  Maybe FN "borrowed" one from (then) Interisland Airways (Now called Hawaiian Airlines).

I have another cousin, Ray Thiele, who published a book on the history of Hawaiian Air, starting with the S-28s in 1929 on through the DC-10s of today.  Ray could probably find the info on NC numbers, and/or sextants (or Octants - another name) that Interisland may have had in the 30s.

LTNavs
Alan - no number
*****************************************************************

From Ric

What we're trying to figure out is the significance of the stencilled 3500 and the possibly handwritten 1542 on the sextant box found on Gardner in 1940.  A possible  connection with aircraft registration numbers is just one theory which, so far, has not panned out.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:47:23 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      AE Radios

Reference the postings on Monday March 8, which concern purported modifications to AE's Western Electric Transmitter.

The diagram to which Vern Klein and Bob Sherman refer (I have a copy, and studied it closely) does indeed show some kind of "box" which may or may not be connections to a telegraph key.  If it is showing the circuit for a telegraph key, and a selector switch to change from voice to CW mode, there are some things wrong with the way it's drawn.

Whoever drew the diagram made a major error concerning the switch itself. If the switch is thrown to CW position, the "control" lead which connects to Pin 7 of the transmitter system plug will be grounded all the time... so the radio will stay in transmit no matter whether the telegraph key is open or closed.  This is undoubtedly a draftsman's error.

The four-pin connector is a puzzler.  I believe this is probably a microphone connector.  However, it could represent a disconnect jack for a cable going to a microphone such as a throat mic... did they use throat mics (like the WW2 version, Army Signal Corps model T-30) that far back?  I don't know... but, still, that 4-pin round connector is nonstandard for an aircraft mic or headset.  Even in the 30s, a mic would have had a 3-circuit (tip, ring, sleeve) male plug on its cable, known as a PL-68 by Signal Corps nomenclature.  The tip connection was the "key" circuit or push-to-talk, from the button.  The ring carries the mic audio, and the sleeve is grounded.  A telegraph key has a 2-circuit plug, called a PL-55 (tip and sleeve)... the tip is the key lead, sleeve is grounded.  A headset is also equipped with a PL-55, and in this case the tip is receive audio and the sleeve is ground.

OK, I am talking about "military radios."  Some may take me to task.  I grant that some things in the 30s were not yet to this standard; but by 1937, most everything was.  Yet, Western Electric had its own way of doing things (and still does), so they may have used some weird and strange connector for hooking up a key and mic.

What this "modified" transmitter diagram does NOT show, however, is any change to the transmitter control circuitry which allows the dynamotor to run continuously in CW mode.  Therefore, when this rig is keyed on CW, the dynamotor relay is still "trying" to follow the key!  I have elaborated before about how undesirable this is.

It takes more than just adding a connector to plug in a key, to make this rig usable on CW.  Control circuit changes are needed.   And this schematic doesn't show any such changes.

There is always the possibility of undocumented mods to the transmitter.

I still would bet, however, that this radio flew to oblivion with no such mods having been made!

In other words, if that "281 message" was indeed a very sloppy sounding CW signal, I'd say there is a durn good possibility that it was sent by this particular transmitter, and may indeed be genuine.

73
Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:49:57 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: PANAM

You're right, I mixed up the dates. Sorry for that. It must have been my aunt Ann who married on April 2...  Adding nine months to that day got us in January 1938....

Thanks to Tom Van Hare for his comment on the S-42B accident. I understand his doubts on all kinds of theories. But the book I quoted was written by a reputed aviation writer in the UK who had acces to the Pan American archives. The text I have before me suggests somebody did investigate the accident with the S-42B. On page 73 P. St. Turner wrote in his book "Pictorial History of Pan American Airways" (published by Ian Allan in 1973) :

"Shortly after take-off from Pago Pago on January 11 an engine was shut down due to an oil leak, and before landing it was decided to jettison most of the S-42B's remaining fuel. As jettisoning began the aircraft exploded and crashed into the sea just off Samoa, with loss of all hands. It was afterwards found that the petrol dumping valves were positioned too close to the hot engine exhausts, making an explosion almost inevitable when actuated. among those killed on board was Capt. Edwin Musick, who in his r=F4le as chief pilot of Pan American almost since the beginning had done much to foster the airline's high standard of flying operations".

In the preface to his book the author "expresses thanks to Pan American World Airways for the generous facilities and hospitality afforded by the airline in the gathering of material for his book". He goes on : "In particular, he is deeply indebted to the many Pan American personnel, both in the Pan Am Building head office and at the airline's J.F. Kenndey Airport (New York) facilities who gave so much of their time and facilities to assist his research".

That makes it look rather trustworthy to me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:53:23 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo

Re the story about the wreck photo being taken by a sailor from the Adamant, was the Adamant a submarine? Regards Bob Lee

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

From Ric

No. HMS Adamant was a submarine tender.  Big difference.  This was a very large surface vessel which resupplied and provided maintenance for submarines.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:35:05 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      ACHILLES, A RESPONSE

Well, I guess the NY Herald-Trib got it wrong.  Back in '65 Joe Gervais tried to track down the pre-war logs of HMS ACHILLES.  As we know, the cruiser was Royal Navy, but at the time of the Earhart flight, was assigned to the New Zealand forces. On 25 May, 1965 Joe was so advised by Lt. Comdr. P. K. Kemp, OBE, assigned to the Naval Historical Branch, (British) Ministry of Defence. (Yes, that's the way they spell it).

On 22 June, Gervais wrote the Navy Office in Wellington, NZ.  5 July the response was "despite assertions of the Ministry of Defence in London, the ship's log is not held here. A careful check has been made of our records . . . . etc."

So, back to London, which on 13 August reported negative search results.  However, "A careful study has been made of the Commanding Officer's Report of Proceedings for the period in question. This is not, of course, as detailed as the ship's log, but records all matters of interest arising during the ship's cruise There is no mention in the report of any other HM Ship nor is there any reference to signals received:  in fact at the time Miss Earhart's aircraft was reported to have come down in the vicinty of Howland Island HMS ACHILLES was in position (approximately) 10* S, 155* W, i.e., roughly 600 miles away to the North. [That's what the man wrote!].

"You may be interested to see the enclosed extracts from the London newspaper "The Times" concerning this tragedy, and I think you will agree that they add substance to the conclusion that HMS ACHILLES did not receive a signal or take part in the search for the aircraft. "

. . . . .

[the letter, from the "Defence Secretariat Division 5" is signed by a "W. W. Dugan" as near as I can translate his scrawl. The attached Times quotes contain nothing new].

To refresh your memory, the coordinates given in the NYHT story place the ship somewhere near the Solomon Islands, "approximately 1200 miles directly southeast of Howland . . . ." which Does Not Compute!

Further, I recall hearing and/or reading anecdotal evidence that an officer (communications, I believe) later denied ever hearing the "give us three dashes" message.

So, back to Square One, and no $200 for "passing GO".  But thanks to Joe Gervais, who's really a nice guy, and probably knows more about Amelia than George Putnam - operationally speaking, of course.

Cam Warren

Oops. Before I'm keelhauled, let me correct my statement re the location of ACHILLES. "West" longitude is EAST of the dateline. So the ship was a bit northwest of Papeete, right? Japan is east of Greenwich, of course.
The fact the earth is round confused me. . . .

Cam Warren
(who just fed you a great straight line)

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

From Ric

There is no question that the Achilles reported hearing the "give us a few dashes" message and the response.  It's in the original government message transcripts.

A message received from HMS Achilles by U.S. Naval Communications Service in Tutuila, Samoa dated 2 July 1937 reads:

POSITION AT O700 GMT

10.00S   160.50W

GVBK (Achilles' call sign)

That puts her just off the Tokelaus and a little less than 500 nm southeast of Niku.  Achilles had a catapult-launched Supermarine Walrus aircraft aboard. Had U.S. authorities asked her to participate in the search, Achilles could have had an aircraft overhead the islands of the Phoenix Group within a day or so of the disappearance.  Instead, the USN tried to send a PBY all the way from Hawaii to Howland, but the flight was turned back by bad weather.  They next sent USS Colorado south from Hawaii, but that took a full week to bring search assets to bear on what was recognized at the time to be the most likely place for Earhart and Noonan to be found. U.S. reticence to enlist British naval assistance may have been rooted in the on-going dispute about ownership of the Phoenix Group.  Just a month previously there had a been an awkward diplomatic incident at Canton Island when a party of American scientists aboard a U.S. Navy vessel (USS Avocet) had squabbled with a British party aboard HMS Wellington.  Both groups were there to observe a solar eclipse on June 8th.

If our hypothesizing is correct, an airplane over Gardner Island on July 3rd or 4th would have seen an Electra on the reef.  By July 9th when the Colorado's planes searched Gardner, the sea and surf had done its work and what was left of the Electra was hidden from view by the waves and the underbrush.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:36:40 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: PANAM

Ric-- addressing two issues that were brought up....

1-Yes there is a report that was published in 1938 blaming the Musick Clipper loss on dumping of fuel ...They could not definitely prove it since almost no wreckage was recovered-but tests on another S-42  in Florida with dyed water proved that the liquid could flow forward and be sucked into the aircraft wing spaces and could be ignited by a flap motor that would be actuated for landing flaps......

2-Herman does have date discrepancies as you pointed out...July 2, 1937 not April  and the first  mail flight to NZ was Dec.23, 1937 to Dec.26 outbound and Jan. 1 to Jan. 4,1938 inbound to SFO. Musick then turned around and flew outbound again on Jan 9-11, 1938. After the crash-service was suspended....

Jim Tierney
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:43:26 EST
From:         Catherine
Subject:      FAQs

More FAQ thoughts.  Let me begin by saying that when I reread what I wrote, I thought some of it might sound like criticism of the TIGHAR site as it stands.  That wasn't my intent -- it's a great site, better than the vast majority of sites I have visited.

Regarding the archives.  I should have remembered this sooner, seeing as how list maintenance is part of my job, but anyway, the EARHARTFORUM archives are readable and searchable by visiting: 
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/earhartforum.html
The search engine is really nice.

> Annotated Wreck Photo -
> ... I'll put it on my list.

Of things to do in your copious spare time, I'm sure.  :-)

Will email privately about some thoughts on a FAQ outline to avoid excess clutter here.  Suggest others who could contribute do the same, unless you (Ric) prefer otherwise.

Catherine

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

From Ric

No, no, no... by all means....talk to me.  I'd like to hear from anyone who wants to participate in what we'll call the FAQ ATTAQ - a project to ferret out from the forum archives a selection of topics and treatments which can then be edited, mounted and indexed on the TIGHAR website.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:53:04 EST
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Operation Matterhorn

For a general overview of some of the things GP might have been involved in during WWII and maybe a different perspective of the LTM Speedletter, go to the following web site, "Operation Matterhorn".

P.S. Didn't PAN AM train navigators for the Army Air Corps in Miami during WWII?

Daryll

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029-09.html

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

From Ric

Operation Matterhorn was the B-29 offensive against Japan.  I've looked at the website listed above and it seems to be a pretty good review of what happened. What it could possibly have to do with the "love to mother" telegram escapes me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:18:23 EST
From:         Dick Strippel
Subject:      Re: WEEMS

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BE CONSIDERED A REAL RESEARCHER. SHOULD HANG AROUND USED BOOK STORES. I'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF COPIES OF WEEMS IN THEM.  FRED NOONAN'S LETTER TO WEEMS IS INTERESTING
--DICK
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:42:10 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Landing on a wet surface

Cam Warren wrote:

> Airplane tires ordinarily have a few circumferential
> grooves, which I suppose are for the very purpose providing
> directional stability during wet landings, especially in a
> cross-wind.  Your comments re landing in four or more inches
> of water seem to suggest....

One thought that comes to mind would be whether Amelia and Fred would have elected to land on the reef flat if it had even a few inches of water on top. As one who has done a lot of over water flying, I can tell you that judging water depth (looks like only one inch, there Fred, let's do it) is quite difficult (turned out to be a foot deep...).

So before we start querying hydroplaning experts (there is a fairly simple formula for this stuff, by the way, which I cannot seem to recall off the top of my head right now), perhaps it would warrant a discussion about whether seeing water on the reef flat would have made them think twice about landing there and they might have gone for the beach after all. If it is to be the water and reef flat, would they have considered it more like a ditching (gear up) than a landing (gear down)?

Thomas Van Hare
****************************************************************
From Ric

The question of gear up or gear down must, I think, take into account the context of this particular flight.  For a military or commercial pilot, or even an owner/pilot who has hull insurance, the decision can be made purely along lines of safety.  That was not the case for Earhart.  A wheels up landing would:
1.  Irrevocably end her world flight.
2.  Almost certainly result in the total loss of her airplane.

In short, it would in all liklihood write an ignominious end to her career. Would Purdue buy her another Electra after she wrecked this one twice? The era of pioneering long distance flights was rapidly drawing to a close and, in fact, it could be argued that her 'Round the World at the Equator flight was pretty contrived.  Earhart is reported to have confessed "I think I have one more long distance flight left in me."  In truth, there was nothing much left to be done that she was capable of doing, and she knew that.

A wheels down landing would preserve the possibility of rescue, refueling, and continuation of the flight which would have been made all the more marketable by the drama of her near-stranding on a desert island.

In short, I think she would land this airplane wheels-down if there was even a remote chance that such a landing could be successful.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:45:07 EST
From:         Brian Curry
Subject:      Trader Jon 2

After my first posting about Trader Jons-Amelia page on 9 Mar., and before I saw it posted on the forum, I did finally pull up Trader Jons main page. I could not find anything about Amelia there either. That was the first time I had ever seen their main site. (Bill Leary)- they must have dropped the page about Amelia for some reason.I can still pull up the link for the Amelia page, but it still says- no file found. I did find out that Trader Jon had a stroke, and I believe his family was forced to shut down the bar. I also agree with Dan Lann, I think this was a story for gullable tourists and the like.

Brian Curry

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

From Ric

I don't know about Trader Jon's health, but I know that this subject is dead.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:48:37 EST
From:         Dick Strippel
Subject:      Re: 281 message

[We are] 281 [nautical miles] north [of] Howland.  [Our] call[sign is] KHAQQ. [We are] beyond north ((i.e. north-northeast, northeast??)). Dont ((hope for, vs. hold with?)) us much longer.  [We are] above water, shut[ting] off [radio].

That is the way most serious researchers interpret it
***************************************************************

From Ric

Like you always say, I guess I'm just not a serious researcher.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:52:16 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: PANAM

Herman wrote, quoting from the book:

> "Shortly after take-off from Pago Pago on January 11 an engine
> was shut down due to an oil leak, and before landing it was decided
> to jettison most of the S-42B's remaining fuel.

This was surmised -- nobody survived to be interviewed -- because the plane was considered too heavy for safe landing with full fuel.

> As jettisoning began the aircraft exploded and crashed
> into the sea just off Samoa, with loss of all hands.

The aircraft exploded. Cause is considered probably due to fuel venting but was not ascertained.

> It was afterwards found that the petrol dumping valves were positioned
> too close to the hot engine exhausts, making an explosion almost
> inevitable when actuated.

I really have to question the author's imprecise use of language in this passage. This problem was actually identified PRIOR to the flight and Musick was aware of it. An explosion was not "inevitable" but rather possible given the design of the system. Among the questions regarding the crash are whether Musick, knowing of this design flaw, would have vented fuel or risked a less safe overweight sea landing.

Back on the author's wording, it is I believe purposely ambiguous and even implies that the wreckage was analyzed, which is not the case. The terms, "It was found afterwards found that the petrol dumping valves were positioned..." actually refers to analysis of another S-42B, and not the one that exploded (since the wreckage was never recovered).

Today, the NTSB wouldn't make the same conclusions based on the thin evidence available. They are one of the most professional and detail-oriented groups out there in the aviation industry. But back in the 1930s, there were a lot more crashes and the investigative techniques were far from complete or as sophisticated as they are today (and nor were the airplanes and seaplanes).

Thomas Van Hare
**************************************************************

From Ric

In any event, I think that we can probably now let Captain Musick and the Samoan Clipper rest in peace.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:59:35 EST
From:         Dick Strippel
Subject:      Re: Off-set Fred

Ric said

>FN did not use the offset method
>to navigate.  I'm sorry to differ, but the Atlantic crossing did seem to
> indicate that he used the method.

HE USED IT!. RADIO MESSAGES CONFIRM

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

From Ric

How do you figure?  What radio message are you talking about?  Enlighten us.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:12:19 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      FN post landing position fixing/Norwich wreck

In last week's discussion of the 281 message, someone asked if FN could've fixed his position post landing and simply sent something like "on Gardner in Phoenix Group".  You responded that the newest chart available to FN would have been 1932 (?) and that on that chart, Gardner didn't look anything like it did from the air.  My question is two-fold. 1.  Would'nt FN have had enough confidence in his own skills to conclude that if his nav. measurements showed him to be as such and such position (excuse my overly technical language)of latitude and longitude, and the chart showed Gardner at that location, then he must indeed be on Gardner and the chart was simply wrong regarding how Gardner was supposed to look?  and 2.  Was the 1929 (?) Norwich City wreck on the 1932 chart, or did FN know of the wreck as an identifying feature of Gardner (a useful thing for over water fliers to know about) and either way, couldn't FN have used the wreck to confirm that his calculations were indeed correct and he was on Gardner?

I found the discussion of the 281 message to be fascinating and educational, and I hate to play devil's advocate, but is seems to me that FN would've had more than enough information available to fix his location as Gardner, and if a post landing message was sent, it could've been a far simpler one than any of the various 281 interpretations.

I freely admit that I'm a total amateur in these matters, and I've been
involved in this for only a few weeks.  I will gladly accept correction
from those of you who through your skills and long term dedication have
brought the investigation this far.

LTM, Dave Porter

****************************************************************
From Ric

The currently available map of Gardner, if he had it, was based on an 1872 survey.  The Norwich City went aground in 1929.

Why didn't the transmissions say, "We're on Gardner Island.  That's Gardner - GardnerGardnerGardner." ?   Remember that we may have only a fraction of what was transmitted.  Most of what was heard was only faint carrier wave.  There could have been lots and lots of content that never got through.  For all we know Fred resorted to trying to describe the island's position only after no one responded to GardnerGardnerGardnerGardner.

Or maybe there were no authentic messages.  All we can do is look at what we've got.  It's usually a mistake to look at a few puzzle pieces and say "this can't be a picture of X because this doesn't fit my image of what X should look like."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:24:18 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Operation Matterhorn

Daryll wrote:

> P.S. Didn't PAN AM train navigators for the Army Air Corps in Miami
> during WWII ?

Yes, they did. They trained many US military aviators in navigation from 1941 to near the end of the war.

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:22:57 EST
From:         Dick Strippel
Subject:      281 message +article by lcdr anthiony

1. if you guys are gioing tio waste peole's tinme with unresearched e-mails.AT LEAST GET THE QUOTE RIGHT! IT READ:

281 NORTH HOWLAND...CALL KHAQQ...BRUYOND NORTH. DON'T HOLD OF WITH US MUCH LONGER...ABOVE WATER... SHUT OFF

2.E OF THE BEST ARTICLERS ON THIS WHOLE MAGILLA WAS WRITTEN BYCDRH.M. ANTHONYUSCG. IT APPEARED IN THE FIRST ()NO.1_) 2987 ISSUE OF "YTHWEJE COMPASS "A HOUSE MAGAZINE OF MOBIL INTERNATIONAL. I HAVE A COPY AND CAN MAKE OTHERS AVAILABLE TO SERIOUS  RESEARCHERS (NO TIGHARS). PSE SEND 9X12 SASE TO ME AT 200 WASHINGTON AVE., CHATHAM, N.J. 07928  WHEN I GET A ROUND TUIT I'LL SEND ITOFF

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Forum subscribers should understand that Mr. Strippel once wrote a book about the Earhart disappearance and considers himself to be an authority on the subject.  I reject about half of his postings because they tend to be rude, abusive, incoherent and utterly devoid of useful content.  Because Mr. Strippel has had some health problems, I usually correct the spelling in the ones I do post.  I have posted this message because someone may actually want to get a copy of the article he refers to.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:27:38 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Landing on a wet surface

It's called hydroplaning in the airplane biz, and can occur with a deceptively small amount of moisture (film and War Story at 11:00).

New and recapped tires are deeply grooved, but the tire is serviceable right down to the first ply (cord). The groves really don't have anything to do with a crosswind landing, since the wheels have a comparatively small influence on where the airplane goes. The aerodynamic controls do that, right down to taxi speed.

Snow, sand and standing water produce a deceleration in proportion to the depth. Soft gravel is used to stop run-away trucks in the Colorado high country. With a tail-dragger, at some point, the deceleration would overcome elevator aerodynamic forces and the static moment--and the airplane is three point: aluminum nose and two main gear. Hope you were wearing your shoulder harness!

Skeet Gifford, 1371BC

****************************************************************
From Ric

I guess the question is at what point is the water too deep to get a Lockheed 10 down without nosing over?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:31:37 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: NAV ACCURACY, footnote

Bowen Weisheit's monograph "The Last Flight of Frederick J. Noonan and Amelia Earhart" provides an interesting discussion of Fred's navigation techniques, and is written by a man who "acquired his skill at the famous P. V. H. Weems School of Celestial Navigation in Annapolis" (Baltimore Sun quote).

I'm sure your familiar with it - Randy J. wasn't impressed - but it's probably worth a read by those Forum visitors interested in aero-navigation. (me, electronics is my bag). I'm not necessarily endorsing Weisheit's theories, but just bringing his work to attention.

Cam Warren
(Whose generosity is exceeded only by his dazzling brilliance)
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Anyone wishing to obtain a copy of the monograph should email Cam directly for information on how to order it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:34:14 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: 10s and 12s

Your absolutely right.  I rechecked my lists and Cottons airplanes were 12As.  They appear in a British list I have as "Lockheed Electras", rather than Juniors.  My mistake for not rechecking.  Somewhere I have a photo of one of these, but can't get to it just now.  I am in the process of moving, and most of my library is packed right now.  Two sources I do have now that mention these ops are Munson's "Airliners between the wars 1919-1939"  from Macmillan, and Lashmar's "Spy Flights Of The Cold War" from the Naval Institute Press.

Robert Klaus

****************************************************************
From Ric

The 12 is often referred to as simply an "Electra" causing no end of confusion.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:40:53 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: Landing on a wet surface

> So before we start querying hydroplaning experts (there is a fairly
> simple formula for this stuff, by the way, which I cannot seem to recall
> off the top of my head right now),

We used 9 times the square root of the tire pressure as the critical speed.  i.e. very apt to hydroplane at & above that speed.    RC  941
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:55:29 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Dick Strippel wrote:

>[We are] 281 [nautical miles] north [of] Howland.  [Our] call[sign is]
>KHAQQ.
>[We are] beyond north ((i.e. north-northeast, northeast??)). Dont ((hope
>for,vs. hold with?)) us much longer.  [We are] above water, shut[ting] off
>[radio].
>That is the way most serious researchers interpret it
>***************************************************************
>From Ric
>Like you always say, I guess I'm just not a serious researcher.

281 (aliens are taking us to their mother ship) north (of) Howland. (Their leader has asked me to )call (Him, it?) KHAQQ.  (They live) beyond (The) north (star.)  Don't (expect) us (to stay on Earth) much longer.  (I see the ship hovering) above water.  Time to (SHOVE OFF, not shut off) 
****************************************************************
From Ric

I love it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:50:50 EST
From:         Gary Moline
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Is there an island 281 miles "north" of Howland and if so what island is it? Conversely, is there an island 281 miles "south" of Howland and if so what island is it?

LTM,
Gary Moline

***************************************************************
From Ric

Forgive me, but I can't help wondering why you wouldn't go check something that simple yourself before posting a query to the forum.

There are no islands 281 miles north or south of Howland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 12 Mar 1999 16:32:43 EST
From:         Ted Ostrowski
Subject:      Bombardment

From Ric

Ted Ostrowski copied me in on this and I like to share it with the forum:

From:   fairfield.pub.sch.04 (Ted Ostrowski)
To:     derryj@******
CC:     *****************

To Whom It May Concern:

We are a fifth grade class in Fairfield, Ct, USA, that recently studied about Amelia Earhart.  We heard that your museum honoring her might close.  Our class thinks that it may not be the right decision to close it.  We admire Amelia Earhart because she got women to believe in themselves.  She is a great role model for girls and boys because she made them realize that girls or anyone can do what they really desire in life.  With the museum open, people will remember all of the wonderful things that she accomplished and that they can accomplish their goals too.  All twenty-one students in our class do not want you to close this museum.  Amelia means a lot to us.  We hope that you will reconsider this matter.

Sincerely,

5-O (5th grade class)
Roger Sherman School
250 Fern Street
Fairfield, Ct.  06430
USA
Teacher:  Ted Ostrowski
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:07:06 EST
From:         Don
Subject:      Re: 281 message +article by lcdr anthiony

Mr. Strippel just might have something here - his postings are as difficult to read as Amelia's last radio communications, maybe theres a connection here, I dunno

Don
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:12:03 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Landing on a wet surface

It's probably not relevant, but hydroplaning is caused by depth of water, tread on the tires, speed and tire pressure.  The Air Force found that by increasing tire pressure on their B-52's (being landed with full loads - not politically correct to jettison a nuke) when they were landing on rain soaked runways, they were able to avoid or minimize hydroplaning.
LTM
jon

*****************************************************************
From Vern Klein

Whether or not Amelia landed on the reef flat at Niku may have been more a matter of the perceived situation than of the reality as we now know it.  We don't yet have a first hand report on what the reef flat looks like from the air, especially when there's some water on it.  Do we know what other reef flats look like from the air?

Amelia was a landlubber and she was certainly not familiar with reef flats. Fred was a seafaring type from way back but was he familiar with reef flats? I wonder if they would have percieved the reef flat, perhaps under a foot or so of water, as a place to land an airplane?  Would either of them have imagined that it was a possible place to put the plane down?  They were looking at a strange region surrounding a small island, with a lagoon in the middle of it. Was this something that would support an airplane?  What was it anyway? I think Amelia would have much preferred to try to set the plane down on dry land.  Even if the beach was short on space and sloping, I think she would have tried it.  I don't know what Fred might have advised.  He too may well have felt pretty dubious about that reef flat.

I also find it hard to believe that they would have elected to land in the lagoon.  That too was an unknown situation.  Why would either of them choose to land the plane in water if there was some dry land available?

I think Amelia put the plane down on the beach... probably with wheels down.

Fantasizing... Maybe Amelia accomplished the most difficult landing of her life. Maybe the plane didn't nose over.  Maybe they could run the starboard engine.  Maybe some of the reported radio signals were real...
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:22:52 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Sextant Numbers

Having apparently bombed on the idea of the sextant box numbers being analagous to the NC numbers of over the water planes, how about the idea of the sextants having been issued to individual flight officers - maybe the numbers relate to "senority" numbers?  Anyone know what number series' were in use during that time?  Maybe (especially) Fred's number? Grasping at straws...

Also, thinking about the inverting eyepiece, I agree with a former post (it's been a while back, and I regret I cannot recall to whom the credit belongs) that it does not seem logical to have an inverting eyepiece used with a sextant.  I mentioned once before, I have one which I acquired years ago with the purchase of a pre-war Leica 35mm camera.  Is there any indication that there was a camera on board the Electra during the flight?  (I'm talking snapshots here, not espionage or aerial recon!)  One more observation on sextants, is there any indication (such as the Florida museum example) of the FN sextant/s having been modified or retrofitted with the addition of an artificial horizon?  I recall reading someplace that this was sometimes done to adapt them to aviation use.
ltm
jon  2266

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

From Ric

Well, whether it seems logical or not, nautical sextants often come equipped with inverting eyepieces.  No doubt about that.

Yes, AE does seem to have had a small camera with her.  There were at least two small cameras aboard the airplane made at the time of the Luke Field wreck.  the inventory lists a "Kodak Duo Six-20, lens No. 865715 with carrying case, shutter housing No. 5116031, film loaded." and also  "Kodak carrying case with key, empty" and the notiation "(It is believed that Mrs. Putnam has the camera in her possesion per Lt. Bonner.)"

The sextant in Pensacola has not been modified.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:00:24 EST
From:         Mark
Subject:      Sextant box numbers

In regard to the sexton box numbers, many companies number every bit of equipment that they own. Have you considered the possibility that these numbers could be inventory numbers? Perhaps old Pan Am inventory records still exist somewhere.

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

From Ric

We have considered the possibility, yes.  To date we have found no records of how Pan Am numbered its equipment.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:07:15 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: 10s and 12s

Ric wrote:

>The 12 is often referred to as simply an "Electra" causing no end of
>confusion.

Not to mention that in the mid-1950s Lockheed introduced an airliner also called the "Electra", which eventually became a public relations disaster, due to a distressing tendency to shed its wings in flight The fault was eventually corrected, and the "Electra" still flies today... as the P-3 Orion.

Tom #2179
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:11:47 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      E-mail to Ireland

I'm sorry about loading the forum with postings sort of all at once.  I've got a backlog of stuff rattling around in my head.  I've been preoccupied with trying to stir up all the action I can in support of the Amelia Earhart Centre.  I've attempted to get the 99s into the act as well as the good folks of Atchison, Kansas, by e-mail to the Chamber of Commerce there.  The Earhart Birthplace museum there is owned and operated by the 99s.

I see that the north irish media have heard from Mexico as well as from Barb Norris and her kids.  I hope those newspapers are being deluged with e-mail from all around the world!

Incidently, tourism is definitely something that could help the economy of the region around Derry.  The area has been largely overlooked by tourists but there's a lot of interesting stuff -- including the Amelia Earhart Centre! Peace may break out in Northern Ireland so the time could be right.

Thank you for supporting the Amelia Earhart Centre!
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:14:48 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Time and tide, revisited

Re: distance between Niku and Samoa...  I have no idea where that 100 miles stated in my posting of late February came from!

Any fool can see that Niku and Samoa are about 10 degrees apart.  I see that. And any fool knows that's 600 miles.  I know that.

So, it's still not far relative to the vast Pacific Ocean.  Although some believe the tide tables to be SWAGs, with the "scientific" somewhat in question, I suspect they were not bad in the relatively wide open Pacific. That's a lot different from that tidal hump in the water ploughing into a large continental land mass.

Quoting Kenton Spading from 3-9-99, comparing times of high- and low-tides at Niku with the tide tables for Pago Pago, Samoa:

>The ship did not have a tide table for Apia, Samoa (approx. 700
>stat miles South) so we tried the table for Pago Pago, American Samoa
>(approx. 850 stat miles SSE).     The Pago Pago table worked straight up
>for all practical purposes.  (no adjustment needed).    The predicted
>tides for Pago Pago matched the tides at Niku very closely.

Actually, I would have expected a little delay in the tide at Pago Pago due to the time to fill and empty the harbor. However, it does have a pretty wide open entrance. As nearly as I can tell, there is no such harbor at Apia.

As of 1937, those tides had already been observed for a long time.  They must have had pretty good models worked out by that time.  I expect the tide tables were fairly good for the Pacific islands in 1937.

If one does make the assumption that high- and low-tides occurred at Niku at about the same times as it Pago Pago on July 2, 1937, then the morning low-tide was at about 8:15 AM.  The following high-tide was at about 1:57 PM.  We believe Amelia and Fred may have arrived at about 11 AM, pretty nearly half way between the low- and high-tides.  The water was not really high but there must have been about a foot of water on the reef flat.  The  table predicted a 2.5 foot high-tide at 1:57.  The low-tide was predicted to be 0.2 feet.

There's no guessing how valid this may be but, so far as I know, it's the only basis we have to even guess about.  This has got pretty long and I'd like to consider another aspect of a landing on Niku.  Another posting...
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:22:20 EST
From:         Jim Tweedle
Subject:      Humongous Wreck Photo

Simon has graciously sent me a very high resolution file of the Wreck Photo which I will be pleased to email to anyone who sends an email to:

with        SEND BIGWRECK       in the subject line.

The engine cowl will completely fill the screen with the rest of the picture expanded proportionately.

The file size of the attachment is about 1.2 megabytes.

Jim
*****************************************************************

From Ric

That's nice of Jim and of Simon.  TIGHAR does not own the Wreck Photo.  We have no idea who does.  Wish we did.  But just to put things in perspective I'll point out that the scan of the Wreck Photo that we use here for analytical purposes is over 65 meg.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:24:51 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: 281 message

An experienced avigator (is that a close relative of the florida gator?) like FN might have figured that the charts he was using might not be in possession of everyone  receiving his message and that an exact fix would be better than a name on a map (again that would separate the hoaxers from the real people).  Also, I am sure that he was aware that charts are not always as accurate as they could/should be (didn't I read that the maps of the time actually showed Howland inaccurately?).  Also, an exact fix would make it easier to find them no matter what charts a potential rescuer did or didn't have.  There is also the chance that his charts were lost or damaged on the ground at Gardner (open the door and the charts blow out to sea!).  Also, ever spill coffee on a chart and then try to read the info under the stain accurately?  Lots of speculation, no proof.

Love to meddle,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:27:24 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: man's best friend

Re:  I'm sure that some Pacific island people routinely eat dog.  It is supposed to be quite tasty.

Some do, and feed it to their guests.  And it's not.  Greasy and stringy.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:29:42 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Ireland Fly-In

Does it appear the that a Derry Fly-in might actually be possible?  Before March 26th?  That seems unlikely to me. I wonder what kind of weather might be expected this time of year?

If it can't happen so soon, I suspect the announced intention to do it at some time in the near future would get quite a bit of attention right now.  I wonder what could be figured out to make it very much an "Amelia Earhart Event" ... Something to do at the Centre, the site of the landing... Something to take along, a presentation of some sort...??  Anybody got an idea??

I've been trying to find out something about the facilities in the Derry area.  Following is what little I've found to date. Have you learned anything about airport facilities?

It appears that North Western Ireland has been rather neglected by the people who publish travel guides.  I've looked at several Ireland guides that do not discuss that part Ireland at all. I did find one, "Fordor's 1998 Ireland" that contains a very brief section on the Derry area.  It mentions Amelia Earhart! "Aviation fans take note: Derry was where Amelia Earhart touched down, on May 21, 1932, after her solo flight across the Atlantic."

This guide indicates two "Dining and Lodging" facilities.  Both accept American Express, MasterCard and Visa.

Beach Hill is a grand 1792 country home very much attuned to the present.  It has 17 rooms with bath, restaurant, bar and meeting rooms. And there's a "vast" honeymoon suite.  it's located 2 miles south of the City of Derry.  Phone: 01504/49279
FAX: 01504/45366

The Trinity, on the bank of the River Foyle, not far outside the old city walls, is Derry's only city-center hotel.  It has 40 rooms with bath, restaurant, 3 bars, and meeting rooms. Phone: 01504/271271  FAX: 01504/271277
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:00:03 EST
From:         Pat Ward
Subject:      Re: E-mail to Ireland

There are no members of The 99s in Ireland. There are some in Finland, Belgium, and Germany.....and of course, the U.K.  You might try to locate the European Women Pilots Assn. for some interest in the Amelia Earhart Centre in Derry......pmw
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:21:07 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Dogs and old bones

I question the recent posting to the effect that old, dried-out bones would not be interesting to dogs.  Most everyone will have noticed the way a dog will continue to gnaw on, and carry around, an old bone that had everything stripped off of it weeks, or months ago.  It may have been old and well gnawed when he found it in the first place.  You'll see it first one place, then another, and the dog is still messing around with it.  I don't think a dog will loose interest in a bone as long as there is anything left of it.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

But we're not talking about one old bone that a dog might carry around for weeks.  We're talking about a complete human skeleton that had the majority of its components carried off to who-knows-where.  Take the spine, for example. It was completely gone except for on cervical vertabra (neck bone).  If the dog or dogs came upon the skeleton years after the person had died, chances are that the spinal column had, by that time, disarticulated (broken down into individual bones).  Isn't it more reasonable to suppose that the spine was dragged away while it was all still a single unit?

Of course, all this is pure speculation and the best we can do is debate perceived probabilities.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:22:46 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      E-mail to Ireland, addendum

Don't forget to e-mail those talk-radio programs too!!  One, or both, hosts
might just love to stir up something like the shortsighted cutting off of
funds for the Amelia Earhart Centre.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Mar 1999 09:39:37 EST
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      LTM, GP

Ric wrote:

>Operation Matterhorn was the B-29 offensive against Japan. I've looked
>at the website listed above and it seems to be a pretty good review of
>what happened. What it could possibly have to do with the "love to
>mother" telegram escapes me.

From the background you gave on GP's service history,

1. Intelligence Officer.
2. assigned to 468th Bombardment Group
3. Service in India, China, Saipan.
and
4. Operation Matterhorn.

It does not seem to out of the ordinary to me for GP to receive a telegram ( Speedletter ) on Aug. 28, 1945 from Weihsien China.

>Camp liberated; all well. Volumes to tell. Love to mother (*) 

GP undoubtedly had buddies in the army and in China, and when Japan surrendered on Aug 14, 1945 someone felt the need to communicate. Still concerned about security, the message was purposely vague. The ending on the message identified the sender to GP, maybe someone in his outfit. Mother could be a metaphor for a commanding officer. I remember several commanding officers that I had that  were called mothers.

What I found interesting was your statement about Saipan and what Mary Lovell had in her book.

>During his visit to Saipan in 1945 he was very much aware of the many
>rumors circulating about Amelia having been "captured" and held for a
>time there. According to Mary Lovell's biography of Earhart ("The Sound
>of Wings" 1989) he "drove all over the island making extensive inquiries
>about the white woman flier but got no answers that gave him any hope
>that Amelia had ever been there." (page 326)

GP must have been transferred from the 468th Bomb Group, because it doesn't seem to be part of the elements that were on Saipan.

You stated " ...many rumors circulating..." . Does anyone know when and where the first Saipan rumor started?

Saipan was just captured, after many years of Japanese control.

I have not read Mary Lovell's book, I can only read one book at a time, but I will. I know you stated she did not give a reference for her Saipan statements.

The question is. Did GP actively make inquiry about AE on Saipan? I think his actions are important, he was after all AE's husband. How did GP know to search Saipan ?

If he did look for AE there, then the rumors had to originate at the time of Saipan's capture or before.

I think it is a fair question to ask;

What was the genesis for the Saipan scenario?

Daryll

*****************************************************************
From Ric

That is indeed a fair question, and a difficult one to answer. We've been trying to trace the origins of the Amelia-as-spy fable back to its origins, and as with tracing any folktale, it's tough.  Our best guess at this point is that it mostly grew out of screenings of Flight For Freedom for troops in the Pacific.  By the time they went ashore at Saipan in June of '44 everybody knew that Amelia had been working for the government.  The Chamoros were more than happy to tell the GIs anything they wanted to hear.

By the way, as I recall my troopies had a standard term for all officers which included the word "mother" but I can't remember the rest of it.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Mar 1999 09:42:29 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      FW: Ireland Fly-In

There is no chance a Fly In can be organised before March 26. I contacted JG Thompson to get more info on facilities and learned they have an airfield. Which is something te begin with. He would contact the city council and tell them about the idea. I hope this move may help to save the Centre temporarely.

To get things done somebody should take an initiative at the receiving end, which is Derry. The council, the Centre or the local flying club should begin by extending an invitation to interested aviators and flying clubs. Then we can drum up people using existing channels like IAOPA, national Aero Clubs and of course the EU Flying Club (after all the EU invested money in the Centre at Derry!). Aviation publications can be contacted to announce the event.

Given fair weather I think it should be possible to get as many airplanes to Derry as an average fly in at Diest, Shuttleworth or Duxford or any other of the traditional places, which is oomething like 40/50. Nor much in comparison to Oskosh, but quite an event in a little place. I expect most participants would come from nearby UK, with fewer numbers coming from Belgium, Holland and France, perhaps even Germany. And never underestimate the Swiss who are dedicated long distance fliers.

Ireland being up north it would be foolish to try anything now. Weather conditions in that part of the world are too unpredictable in this season. In Europe flying VFR means flying with perhaps as little as 4,000 metres visibility (and be prepared to land with only 1,500 metres). Which is why you want some DF (we don't use sextants not to get lost). Should Derry have an ILS (which I doubt) it might attract the IFR crowd.

Therefore anyone willing to fly to Derry would want this to happen in the summer. Fly-ins are usually organised in August/September. The British have their Farnborough airshow in September because, I'm told, meteorologists say statistically this is the period with the best chances of good flying weather.

So this is as far as we could get so far. As soon as JG Thompson has more inforamtion we can try an get things done.

Herman
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Mar 1999 09:45:06 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      FW: 10s and 12s

Ric is right. However, to avoid confusion Lockheed called its post-war Electra an "Electra II". There are stil a few flying around as freighters. They have eventually become very reliable workhorses. But you're right Ric, when they were first introduced as passenger planes at the end of the 50s they were a public relations disaster.

Herman

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

From Ric

That was actually Tom Robison's observation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 14 Mar 1999 10:24:19 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Another Niku mystery

One of the things I love about about my job is that I never know when something new and bizarre is going to pop up.

The other day I got a phone call from a Mr. Dan Skellie, about 70 years old, from Toledo, OH. Mr. Skellie had seen a couple of the TV documentaries about our work and had called me up to tell me about an incident that he thought I might find interesting.

He said that in January 1947 he was in the Coast Guard serving aboard the cutter Buttonwood.  They sailed out of Honolulu for Canton Island, crossing the equator on Jan, 9th (he has his "shellback" certificate).  From Canton they went to Howland and Baker to "dismantle lighthouses."   He said that he and most of the shore party had to wait on the beach while an officer and some senior NCOs did whatever they did.  It was real hot.  At Howland they came back with a really thick piece of glass. (My guess is that it was the lens from the light - the only really valuable part of a lighthouse.) They returned to Canton and then went to Gardner Island where they dropped off an officer who had been with them since Hawaii but was not attached to the ship.  Mr. Skellie doesn't recall the officer's name or exact rank but he was junior to the ship's CO who was a Lieutenant-Commander, so this guy was either a Lt, a jg, or an Ensign.  Nobody in the enlisted crew knew for sure what this guy was about, but the scuttlebut was that he had screwed up big-time back in Groton (CG headquarters in Connecticut) and was to do 6 months disciplinary duty at a 2-man radar site on Gardner.   Anyway, they left the guy on Gardner and continued down to Pago Pago, then returned directly to Hawaii.  End of story.

This is rather strange.  As far we know, there never was any kind of "radar site" on Gardner and the wartime Loran station was disassembled and packed up in 1946.  I can't imagine any reason for the Coast Guard to put anyone on Gardner in January of 1947. (I thought that marooning as punishment went out with keel hauling.)  Put one officer ashore and leave?  That sounds crazy.  We need to look at the log of the Buttonwood and see what really happened.  If the story is at all accurate we should be able to get the guy's name, find out if he's still alive, and maybe learn what was going on.

Last year we (meaning mostly Ron Dawson) successfully chased down the visits to Gardner by USS Swan in 1942 and were able to determine that this, in all liklihood, was not the source of the story told by former residents about "white men in a government ship" who came to take pictures of the airplane wreck.  The time frame for this alleged visit by Buttonwood matches more closely the time when the Wreck Photo is purported to have been taken.

Let's see what we can find out.  (Don't you just love this stuff?)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:01:29 EST
From:         Ron Dawson
Subject:      Re: Another Niku mystery

If you want me to, I can get the logs for the Buttonwood, since I am familiar with the routine.

re: Saipan/Japanese connections: In the New York TImes review of "Flight to Freedom", dated Apr. 16, 1943, the introductory paragraph reads "The strange disappearance of Amelia Earhart in the South Pacific some six years ago while circling the globe in her airplane established a mystery which has never been clarified. All sorts of wild explanations have been advanced for the lady's vanishment, but the one which is currently popular is that she fell into the hands of the Japs. Maybe, but, anyhow, the notion is sufficiently provocative to have called forth a motion picture based on that general idea"  So it would seem the rumors were already circulating even before the picture. My guess (and that is all it is), is that it probably started with scuttlebutt aboard the Colorado and the Lex in 1937.

Smooth Sailing,
Ron Dawson 2126
*****************************************************************
From Ric

If you would do the honors re Buttonwood I would be most appreciative.

There was a Georgia Tech adminstrator named M. L. Brittain who was aboard Colorado during the search (as part of the ROTC contingent).  About the time Flight For Freedom was about to be released in 1943 he suddenly remembered "getting the feeling" back in 1937 that there was some kind of official connection between the Earhart flight and the Navy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:03:45 EST
From:         Ron Dawson
Subject:      the Noonan Syndrome

I stumbled across a group called the Noonan Syndrome Support Group. (No, it's not a 12 step program for recovering Noonan Project researchers). Apparently, is a legitimate genetic syndrome with congenital heart anomalies and other problems. Being a dominant characteristic, if one parent has it, there is a 50% chance of being passed on to kids. Would assume was named after the researcher who identified it.

Smooth Sailing,
Ron Dawson
*****************************************************************

From Ric

What next?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:20:41 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Banana cans

It would, indeed, be interesting to know how that label fragment from a relatively recent can came to be on Niku at the site of a campfire that seems to have been so misleading in our search for the place where Gallagher found the remains of a campfire and other artifacts, including those elusive bones.  There is a thing about the label fragment that continues to bother me.  If you should have opportunity to visit that store with the canned bananas again, you might find an answer to this question.

Our first indication that the label might be from a can of relatively recent origin was when Ric mentioned "striations" visible on the fragment.  The immediate theory advanced was that these were impressions caused by the corrugations on the can. The 1/8 inch spacing was about right.  I knew beyond any doubt that cans made in the 1930s had no such corrugations.  Contacting some of the people who make cans resulted in a best guess of about 1970 as the date the first corrugated cans appeared.

Now, the thing that bothers me... If you examine virtually any can today, you will find the 1/8 inch spaced corrugations.  They can easily be felt through the label and are usually somewhat visible.  These corrugations provide stiffness and allow the use of slightly thinner metal.  Every can that I have seen has these corrugations over most, but not all, of the length (height) of the can.  There is about 1/2 to 5/8 inch at each end that is not corrugated.  I think this avoids problems in the part of the can where it must be formed preparatory to attaching the ends.

The label fragment appears to include a portion of the top edge of the label.  Ric says the "striations" extend up to the very top edge of the label.  If these are marks caused by the corrugations, this would not be the case.  There should be about 1/2 inch with no striations.

My question now is, are cans made in some other part of the world different in this respect from cans made in this country?  Do cans made somewhere else have corrugations right to the ends of the can?  This may be unlikely because it would seem to present a problem in applying the ends to the can.

One other point while I'm on the label subject -- again.  I wonder if the fact of there being no titanium dioxide in the pigments used tells us anything?  As I understand it, this white pigment is widely used.  May there be some particular places where titanium dioxide if NOT used?  If we're right about the barcode, that seems to tell us the label was not produced in this country.  Does the absence of titanium dioxide also say it was probably not produced in this country?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:29:35 EST
From:         Joseph Bachus
Subject:      Re: Another Niku mystery

Could the photo be of their "trophy" from November 1944?

From the USCG web page:

Tradesmen at the Yard worked 18 months on Buttonwood's $15 million overhaul. Improvements included an updated electronics package, upgraded living and messing facilities, a new main propulsion system, and new main engine and generator mufflers.

The Cutter BUTTONWOOD is one of 37 180 foot seagoing buoy tenders built for the U.S. Coast Guard between 1942 and 1944. The Marine Iron and Shipbuilding Company of Duluth, Minnesota, built the Cutter. It was commissioned in September, 1943.

Immediately following commissioning, Buttonwood plunged into the midst of World War II. The ship joined the Seventh Fleet in the Philippine Sea and assumed duties in surveying and maintaining aids to navigation (ATON). Due to the nature of this work, the ship was often the target of enemy attacks. In fact, Buttonwood survived 269 air raids, including eleven attacks in a single day. Not merely a target ...

History of the Buttonwood

The Buttonwood is a 180-foot sea -going buoy tender, commissioned on September 24 and built by the Marine Iron & Shipbuilding Corporation in 1943 in Duluth, Minn. The Buttonwood was initially assigned to the Seventh Fleet in the Philippine Sea during World War II. Its duties were the surveying and maintenance of aids to navigation, but it was often the subject of enemy attack. As a result, the Buttonwood survived 269 air raids and even downed a twin engine Japanese bomber in November of 1944.

At the conclusion of World War II, the Buttonwood continued to maintain aids to navigation in the Coast Guard's 14th District until 1981. Then in April of that same year, the Buttonwood was transferred to Galveston, Texas. The ship extended its long tradition of performing multi-mission operations throughout the Gulf of Mexico until April of 1991, when it journeyed to the Coast Guard Yard in Curtis Bay, Maryland. There, the Buttonwood underwent two years of remodeling in the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). In March of 1993, the Buttonwood made its latest move to its current home port of San Francisco, California.

Buttonwood enters the Service Life Extension Program

Buttonwood downed a twin engine enemy bomber using 20mm and .50 caliber machine guns in November, 1944. At Tulagi Harbor, Buttonwood established buoys after the Guadalcanal Campaign. It repaired lighthouses in and around Australia while assisting in deployment of submarine nets.

As WWII came to a close, Buttonwood assumed the peacetime duties of maintaining aids to navigation in the Coast Guard's 14th District, Honolulu Hawaii. The ship's operations also involved LORAN-C station replenishment, search and rescue, U.S. fisheries law enforcement, and service as a platform for scientific research.

In April, 1981, Buttonwood transferred to Galveston, Texas. The ship received the Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation in 1984 for participation in the disposal of unstable hazardous chemicals following the tragic explosion aboard the Motor Vessel Rio Newquen in the port of Houston. More recent operational activities include extensive aids to navigation restoration following hurricane Alicia in 1983, and hurricanes Danny and Elela in 1985. The ship also participated in Universal Trek 1985, a large scale joint military exercise off the coast of Central America.

Buttonwood arrived at the Yard from Galveston, Texas, in the spring of 1991 and was decommissioned under SLEP. Buttonwood's crew took over the newly commissioned Cutter Papaw which departed Baltimore for the Lone Star State.

Buttonwood earned the following awards during its half century of service: Coast Guard Commendation, Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation, American Area Campaign Medal, WWII Victory Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Area Campaign Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and Philippine Liberation Ribbon.

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

From Ric

Thanks.  Good information and it supports Skellie's story about where the ship was and what it was doing at the time in question.

(I trust you were joking about photo.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Mar 1999 20:31:34 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Sextant box numbers

Mark wrote:

> In regard to the sexton box numbers, many companies number every
> bit of equipment that they own. Have you considered the possibility
> that these numbers could be inventory numbers?

Yes, that is what we are looking into at this point. We are involved in a fairly intensive sextant search.

> Perhaps old Pan Am inventory records still exist somewhere.

We are considering a run to the University of Miami stack, though this has been done already, to see what turns up. This time, though, we're going to see if we can do it with an old-time Pan Am pilot/navigator.

> To date we have found no records of how Pan Am numbered its equipment.

The one thing we have been able to determine is that some numbering system did in fact exist. We do not know if it was on the box, or on the sextant, but did get one interesting comment -- and this is paraphrased, "The company numbered everything. They would affix a little a brass plate with a number. That's how they always did things, but I cannot remember for sure about the sextants."

Rather than bore everyone with the anecdotal stuff, in the future I'll try to put together longer, detailed messages that are all confirmed information.

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Mar 1999 21:01:47 EST
From:         John Thompson
Subject:      AE Centre Ireland

Pressure of time and unfolding development here make it impossible to reply as I would wish, individually, at this time to the many Forum members who have emailed both myself and local media here.

Briefly, congratulations and thanks to all, our dilemma made front page Headlines in the Irish News and Belfast Telegraph as well as the letters to the editors page.

Last Friday we featured briefly on BBC "Talk Back" and the continued steady stream of email *and* offers of imaginative assistance has persuaded the BBC producers to visit the AE Centre for a live link up tomorrow.

The Hornets are out of the Nest.... BIG TIME!!!!

As I understand you are also to be a guest on tommorrow', programme, perhaps you would care to announce the BBC success to the Forum.

Other guests include 78 year old Bert Gallagher, son of Robert Gallgher  of Gallagher's Field fame and a Derry City Council representative.

Members can listen live to the broadcast( or listen later) by going to

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/nca-talkback.shtml

.... and can continue to email while on air and afterwards.

Programme can be heard either live just after 12:00(noon) (GMT), or streamed on demand for the following 24 hours.

Again, ..... many, many thanks to yourself and all members.

John Thompson
AE Centre
Ireland
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:28:48 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Earhart Centre, Ireland

I don't know how many of us have sent messages to the e-mail addresses Vern mentioned. I can only hope they will help. The BBC is all right I suppose. But why not include CNN ?

After all AE was American an still is an American legend. Shouldn't CNN express worry about what is about to happen in Derry ? I have some experience with TV, working occasionally with them. They are  always looking for items or a good story. Here is one we can offer them at little expense.

If approached by numbers of worried Americans via e-mail I can't see why they shouldn't send their nearest man to Derry to see the Derry Centre, talk to J. Thompson and report live to the whole world who was AE and what is about to happen to her memory in Derry.

Does anyone know the CNN editor's e-mail address ?

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

From Ric

Not a bad idea Herman.  We've certainly stirred things up locally in Northern Ireland.  Let's see if that does the trick.  If not, we'll go global.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:31:12 EST
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Ireland Fly-In

Why not have the fly-in in May on the weekend closest to the anniversary of Lindbergh's & Earhart's flights?

Amanda
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:35:34 EST
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Pan Am numbers

In referring to the Forum of the 12th (I have been out of town for a couple of days), I saw no indication that Pan Am had inventory numbers on equipment and other items while I worked for them during the '60s, '70s and '80s.  We did have "Man Numbers" which was our individual employee number. Even the women had man numbers.  At United Airlines we called them file numbers.  There should be a listing of Man Numbers some where in the Pan Am records.

Dick Pingrey 0908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:47:00 EST
From:         Carole Estler
Subject:      Colorado search

I do not officially belong to the forum yet but I faithfully read the "forum news" every night. I have been fascinated with AE since I was a child. If I had the money I'd sponsor your trips--I play the lottery twice a week!!!!!!!! Anyway, I thought you might be interested in this story.

I work at a museum in Washington state and the husband of a woman I work with came in last week and he was wearing a brown leather jacket so I said to him---"you're wearing my favorite AE jacket" and he immediately said --" don't ever mention that woman's name to me". Now Bill is a real nice guy so I was taken aback to say the least. [Bill is 80.]

Here is his story: He was on board the Colorado, a young cadet from the Univ. of Wash. They were in Honolulu when AE disappeared but he hadn't heard about it yet. They were all being entertained that night at some big bash with all the daughters of the elite to choose from--all of a sudden they were all called back to the ship and were told they would be getting underway. Three miles out of Pearl Harbor they were told that they would be searching for AE.

Needless to say they were not happy having to leave their little "dollies" behind. They were told to look for anything the size of  a matchstick and bigger but they found nothing --not even an oil slick. So of course his theory is as follows-- "She was a lousy pilot --told not to undertake that leg of the journey --virtually impossible to hit Howland-- FN was an alcoholic-- and they were so far off course -hence no oil slick". Lexington in on search too-- with a 3 destroyer convoy and 62 planes from Lex. and 3 from the Colo.--- nothing-- and their "dollies are still fresh in their memories". What this proves to me is exactly what you are saying --- they didn't ditch in the water-- they did find land.  Bill had an article he wanted me to read written by a Capt. friend of his on board the Colo. now an historian, but he threw it out years ago so he is going to write him for a copy. Just had to add this---when Bill came into the museum a couple of days later he was wearing a raincoat!

LTM
Carole Etsler

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

From Ric

That's a great story.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:54:59 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Derry Fly -In

Too bad now, and into spring, is not a good time for a fly-in to Derry.  It would be nice if it could be arranged on May 21st (Friday this year). Amelia made it, and she wasn't even trying to get to Derry!
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 16 Mar 1999 12:13:55 EST
From:         Bob Perry
Subject:      Can label

The original conjecture by a TIGHAR team member that the can label found on Nikumaroro had remnants of a bar code on it  has been substantiated by professional analysis. It's a bar code, European type apparently.  That clearly dates the can to no earlier than the  late '60s or early '70's. Beyond that, from the verbal report I have received, not much more can be gleaned regarding the manufacturing date or can contents. A final written report is promised from that lab. I suggest not using the expression "banana can" for now because the contents are only a guess at this point.

Bob
Tighar member 2021
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:28:49 EST
From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:      Default to the Digest

Anyone who is not getting the Earhart Forum Digest is nuts.  If you are getting a bunch of individual Emails everyday you need to come in out of the rain  (Ric can't be tough and mean anymore so I will be!!).

In my opinion the Digest should be the default when you sign up for the Forum (Ric??).  It is the kinder, gentler way to go.

LTM
Kenton Spading

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I'll look into whether we can set the digest as a default.

Mr Spading's rude, disrespectful and highly offensive posting is NOT, I am sure, intended to imply that forum members who choose not to receive the forum postings as a digest are lazy, ignorant, or just too gd stupid to take advantage of an easy to implement way of not cluttering up their mailboxes. He merely suggest that they are mentally ill, which of course is no fault of their own. Some forum subscribers, I'm sure, are so appreciative of the enlightened debate and delightful repartee of the forum that they want to recieve the postings as individual messages as soon as they are posted.  To those devotees I say, bless you.

For those who find the daily skyscraper of postings from TIGHAR1 to be onerous and are (due, I am sure, to a government conspiracy) still unaware of how to give the command to receive the forum as a digest, here is the secret formula:

Send an email to:  listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com

and say

SET EARHARTFORUM DIGEST

That's all you need to do.  If you run into problems just send me an email and I'll try to help.

For those who would prefer to continue to be plagued by huge stacks of unwanted email, please contact your nearest mental health care professional.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:35:15 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Rude Ric

RE: Ric's reply to Gary Moline :  It could be described as rude, but if Gary had said, 'I can't find an island 281 mi. N. of HOW; is there one? Ric's reply would have been different.  A guy who spends so much time making things possible and dispensing a great deal of information needs a little slack, especially in questionable matters.   RC 941

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

From Ric

With 20/20 hindsight, what I should have done was bounce the message back to Gary  with the suggestion that this was something that he should be able to check out for himself.  Instead, I embarrassed him publicly and that was wrong.

There's another old aviation adage that applies to the rest of life: Good judgment comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgment.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:38:00 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Ireland Fly-In

(referencing suggestions of a Fly-In in May)

Why not indeed. But who can guarantee flying weather over Western Europe in May ? Derry is a long way fromthe continent and participants would have to cross the North Sea and the Irish Sea under VFR. It also looks a little doubtful that the local organiser, whether this be the AE Centre, the local flying club, the city council or all three of them, can get things organised so soon ?

                                                        Herman
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:41:41 EST
From:         Dick Strippel
Subject:      Re: 281 message +article by lcdr anthiony

>(Strippel's) postings are as difficult to read as Amelia's last radio
>communications, maybe there's a connection here, I dunno

I'm flattered!
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:04:14 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Ireland Fly-In

>From Amanda dunham
>
>Why not have the fly-in in May on the weekend closest to the anniversary of
>Lindbergh's & Earhart's flights?

That's sure the most logical time.  Ideally May 21st -- Landing at Derry. Since May doesn't seem a good time of year for a fly-in to Derry, with the weather more likely to be bad than good, there are some other dates one might consider:  Amelia's birthday -- July 24th.  That's a Saturday this year. Another is, of course, July 2nd. The beginning of the mystery. Friday this year.
***************************************************************
From Ric

...as it was in 1937.  Friday, July 2nd.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:09:59 EST
From:         Catherine
Subject:      Rude Ric

> >Forgive me, but I can't help wondering why you wouldn't go check something
> >that simple yourself before posting a query to the forum.
> >There are no islands 281 miles north or south of Howland.

> I find your reply to this gentleman quite rude. You're supposed to be the
> expert and the rest of us interested. I find your information quite
> interesting but some of your replies lacking in patience.
> MJ D. Bredon, ASDF

Although I agree that Ric could have said what he did more gently, I also think I understand where his impatience comes from.

Ric probably finds it frustrating to answer the same questions over and over, and long-time forum members no doubt get tired of seeing them over and over too.  As I've mentioned, in a couple of weeks here I have already seen numerous questions asked and points addressed which are covered in the available information on the web site.  I disagree with the premise that Ric should spend his time answering any question anybody thinks to ask.  Yes, it would be nice (except for Ric), but it would not be an efficient use of his time or of this forum.  If I send in my $45, I want it spent on research, not for Ric to answer questions previously asked and answered.

The stated purpose of the forum is: "a free mail list for anyone wishing
to monitor or participate in TIGHAR's investigation..." It is my opinion
that this purpose is ill-served if the forum becomes a place for asking
questions whose answers may easily be learned elsewhere.  The forum will
be more productive if participants are reasonably well-informed so that
discussions can focus on new ideas and information.

Since I'm not even a TIGHAR member and I'm a newcomer, maybe I'm going too far in saying all this.  I will not say much more in any case since "meta-discussion" like this is often a cure worse than the disease.

Catherine
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I think I'm in love.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:12:51 EST
From:         Carole
Subject:      Colorado search

Ric---don't know how I left this part out of the story: Bill said that a search party was to go ashore at Howland but that at the last minute the Capt. called it off. To this day it remains a mystery to him---kind of strange what he considers a mystery huh!
                                  Carole
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:18:50 EST
From:         Max Standridge
Subject:      Re: Landing on a wet surface

Insofar as the landing on land vs. reef--what impact would this have on the part of the "281" message that pertained to "above water...don't hold off with us..." In other words, is there implied in this possible message the threat of rising water--and does that suggest the plane was either at the very end of the land, right at water's edge, or on the reef or reef flat?  Those of us (me) unfamiliar with the layout of the island would like to know if it would be possible to have that situation--that is, to have landed on both dry land and the reef flat, so that the plane, having gone as far as possible on the land, then edged over into the reef flat? In other words, is the island laid out in such a way that this could have happened? Could the plane have run out of dry land "runway" and then edged over into the coral reef for a few feet?

Also in this area of thought: If the plane had actually been able to come to rest still totally on dry land but--as you suggest--at water's edge-- could tide phenomena (again, not being familiar with the island is why I am asking) have gradually edged the plane further out onto the reef flat? (By "gradually," of course, I mean a time-frame that would have been relevant to Amelia--a limited number of hours or days.)

I could not get a clear idea, with my limited knowledge of the island and its layout and characteristics or  from your posting here as to whether this was a possibility, or whether  you were suggesting this in placing this posting in close time proximity to your earlier posting in connection with the research on tides.

--Max Standridge

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

From Ric

The scenarios you describe are certainly possible at Niku.  Generally speaking, water does not come up onto to the beach, even at high tide, unless the seas are really kicking up.  The reef-flat, however, is a different story - dry at low tide and around 4 feet of standing water at high tide.

Again, generally speaking, rising water and the surf tend to move things toward the beach, not suck them back out to sea.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:21:26 EST
From:         Dean Andrea
Subject:      Re: Banana cans

Vern wrote:

> The label fragment appears to include a portion of the top edge
> of the label.  Ric says the "striations" extend up to the very
> top edge of the label.  If these are marks caused by the
> corrugations, this would not be the case.  There should be about
> 1/2 inch with no striations.

What if the label did not go all the way to the top of the can. I have seen a few cans where the label is quite a bit narrower than the can.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:26:55 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Promotion

Ric might disqualify this on grounds of sycophancy, but as someone who hadn't even heard of Tighar a month ago I'd like to strongly recommend joining the organization as well as the mail forum to anyone who is only in the latter. Although much of the content of Tighar Tracks is also on the website, the extra detail and the illustrations bring the material even more to life. And the T-shirts are excellent and the fridge magnet ideal for pinning up Mothers' Day cards.

Love to Mother

Phil Tanner 2276
***************************************************************
From Ric

You think I'm not gonna post an endorsement like that?  (I always thought a sycophant was a pachyderm with an illness.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 09:42:23 EST
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: 281 message

Something has been bothering me about the 281 message:  why would Amelia & Fred, who've used voice communication (however unsuccessfully) during the flight, then switch to keyed messages for help???  Especially if they weren't that skilled at it and they knew battery power was a serious issue?

Maybe they'd lost their voices after yelling over the engine noise for 20 hours or so..  Is that a reasonable guess - was it that loud in the Electra cockpit?

Or would dehydration make you lose your voice after a day or so on Niku?

Are there any known instances of them keying messages during previous legs of the world flight?

Love to Mother (who can't use her radio if she loses the remote...)
Amanda Dunham

*****************************************************************
From Ric

If NR16020 was anything like Linda Finch's ersatz 10E (and there's every reason to think that it was), it was one loud mother.  Most of the noise from a propeller-driven airplane comes not from the engine but from the propellers, specifically the tips of the propellers.  In the Electra, those prop tips are just outside the cockpit windows and less than a hand's width away.  Finch used a hi-tech noise-cancelling headset.  The Electra utterly defeated it. The North American T-6 trainer uses essentially the same engine and prop as the Electra.  A T-6 on takeoff has been called the most efficient device ever created by man for turning gasoline into decibels.  The noise level in the cockpit of a Lockheed 10E had to be like riding between two T-6s in close formation.

At cruise power the noise wouldn't be nearly as bad, and we know that AE routinely stuffed cotton in her ears, but still, 20 to 24 hours of constant hammering could very well have left both she and Noonan hearing impaired during the last hours of the flight and for a time afterward.  I don't think that this is "the key to the mystery", but it probably was a contributing factor.

I'd be surprised if yelling over the engine noise left them hoarse for days. They seem to have done much of their communicating by passing scribbled notes. That would make sense whether they were sitting side by side in the cockpit or if Fred was in back working with charts (we don't know if they brought the famous bamboo note-passing pole along on the second attempt).

I've never heard of dehydration making someone hoarse, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.  I just don't know.

To my way of thinking, the most likely reason for them to use code in the 281 message is the realization that code carries much, much farther than voice. I'm sure that our radio experts can quote chapter and verse on this, but when you're trying to get through with very marginal condition, code is definitely the way to go.  The more credible of the earlier reports of possible post-loss transmission describe "unintelligible voice."   I suspect that they did try voice and only turned to code in desperation.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 10:47:13 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: 10s, 12s and 54s.

Weighing in with another unsupported opinion on the wreck photo.

First, could it be a model 12?

Second, having spent some time ruining my eyes staring at Simon,s excellent site, I noticed something.  The wreck photo has a couple of small features on the upper surface of the nose, just to the right of centerline.  I took these at first to be damage, but on closer examination the forward one looks too regular.  It could be a round access hole with a removable cover detached at one edge, and swung partially out of the way.  The photo of the Ki-54 fuselage in Beijing shows a small round feature at the same point.

Did 16020 have a similar feature?  I can't tell from the pictures I have.

Also, do either the Beijing, or the Australian fuselages have the wing center section remaining, to compare?  Are there any photos of Ki-54s being built, or damaged which show the wing carry through structure.  I know you have the drawing, which does not show the lightening holes, but that does not prove that none of the Ki-54s had them.

I'm not trying to prove that the photo is not 16020.  It would be wonderful to find and verify that kind of evidence of a landing on ground.  I just don't want too much of Tighar,s reputation invested in evidence which might later be discredited.  People will remember mistakes and frauds, and ignore the real evidence you have found.
  LTM,  Robert Klaus

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

From Ric

I'm quite satisfied that it's not a 12.  That was one of the first possibilities we investigated and, I believe, is discussed in the TIGHAR Tracks articles on the website.  Short answer - the prop length to cowling diameter ratio is wrong for a 12.

I know the roundish-looking hole you're talking about.  I don't know what it is. There's no cover or inspection plate in that location on the Lockheed 10s we've looked at and I don't have a photo from the correct angle or of sufficient detail to be sure about NR16020.  I don't remember seeing one in the photo of the Beijing Ki-54 either - but I could have missed it.  There is no such feature on the Australian Ki-54 fuselage.

I'm afraid I can't buy the argument that some Ki-54's may have had lightening holes in the forward wing spar.  That's a major structural component.  It's important to understand that the wing and center section construction of the Lockheed 10 and the Tachikawa Ki-54 are about as different as fish 'n chips are from sashimi.  The Lockheed was built around one massive "shear beam" that looks like a chunk of the Brooklyn Bridge running from the outside edge of one engine nacelle, through the cabin (passengers had to climb over it) and out to the far side of the other nacelle.  the shear beam carried all the load. Other structures in the center section, such as the panel with big lightening holes that ran along just behind the inboard leading edge, were relatively delicate.

The Japanese airplane, by contrast, had a wing built around two conventional and rather beefy spars.  The wing is attached to the fuselage with pins at the base of each spar. The engineering drawings show the spars to be solid, which is to be expected.  The forward spar runs just behind the leading edge in the inboard wing section.  No structure with lightening holes is shown.

In short, take the wings off a Ki-54 and you're left with just a fuselage. There is no center section per se. Take the wings off a Lockheed 10 and you're left with a center section made up of engines, inboard wing sections and fuselage.

We realize that the only way to ever know for sure whether or not the Wreck Photo shows NR16020 is to find the wreckage of Earhart's plane and see if it looks anything like the Wreck Photo.  Until then, it's a great subject for debate.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 11:26:29 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      FW: Ireland Fly-In

Wait a minute... All these are great days and great ideas. But we haven't heard from J. Thompson yet. And there is one more thought that keeps crossing my mind for the last few days. When I asked J. Thompson whether a fly-in had ever been thought of to put the AE Centre at Derry on the map, I wasn't aware of certain problems in Northern Ireland still being unsolved. Wanting to learn more about the area I watched BBC News the last few days. Which is not difficult since I live the other side of the Channel. In a summary this is the situation in Northern Ireland : Last Monday a car was blown to bits and the woman driver killed because she was a catholic. On Tuesday a man was gunned down because he was a protestant. On Wednesday a politician declares there can be no question of decommissioning arms...

What will the next days and weeks bring ?

I'm 100% for doing something to save the Amelia Earhart Centre at Derry and willing to do my share to put it on the map . But if there is one thing I want to avoid it is encouraging people to fly into a civil war that isn't ended. So before we do anything rash, I suggest we wait and see.

Herman
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I can understand Herman's concern and it certainly isn't up to me to advise anyone where and where not to fly their airplane - but I just got off the phone from a BBC radio interview where I spoke with talk-show host Mary Hart who had a couple of local officials there in the studio to tell their side of the story.  The program started with grave pronouncements from the officials about what a shame it was that Centre had to close but it was, you see, inevitable because of this that and the other thing.  I then explained a little bit about how much interest there was  in Amelia both here in the States and in Britain and the Continent (not to mention Austalia, New Zealand and Japan).  I pledged TIGHAR's continued support in spreading the word about the Centre and its needs - including our assistance in encouraging financial contributions.  We talked about the prospect of a Fly-In (they brought up Herman's name) and they were clearly excited about it.  By the end of the 20 minute spot, the officials were saying that they were sure that a way would be found to keep the Centre open.  We'll see what happens, but it begins to look like the windsock has swung around at Derry.

The phone just rang.  It was John Thompson from Derry just ecstatic about the interview and the way you, the forum, have made the Earhart Centre's funding crisis page-one news in Northern Ireland.  The BBC says it has never before gotten so many emails on subject.  He'll be writing a posting to the forum with more details.

As for the violence in Northern Ireland - it is indeed a terrible thing. Concerns like Herman's really bring it home to all of us that our world is too small for any us to feel isolated from its problems.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 12:04:03 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Promotion

Phil Tanner wrote:

>Ric might disqualify this on grounds of sycophancy, but as someone who
>hadn't even heard of Tighar a month ago I'd like to strongly recommend
>joining the organization as well as the mail forum to anyone who is only in
>the latter. Although much of the content of Tighar Tracks is also on the
>website, the extra detail and the illustrations bring the material even more
>to life. And the T-shirts are excellent and the fridge magnet ideal for
>pinning up Mothers' Day cards.

Ric, you paid Phil to say that right?

For those of you who may have only recently come to the forum and want to do a little study that might answer some basic questions, go to your library and find the back issues of *Naval Institute Proceedings* magazine. Find the February 1993 issue and turn to page 73, where you will find an article entitled "Why the Navy Didn't Find Amelia". Therein you will find a pretty good discourse on how and why the search failed. (oh, yeah, the article was written by some fella named Gillespie)

LTM,
Tom #2179

***************************************************************
From Ric

Your check is in the mail.

Say kids!  You too can earn cash at home in your spare time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 12:10:00 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: AE Centre Ireland

Did this happen?  How did it go?  I wonder if anyone with RealAudio capability caught the program and might give us a brief run down?  It would be interesting to hear what the Derry City Council representative had to say.

John Thompson wrote:

>As I understand you are also to be a guest on tommorrow', programme,
>perhaps you would care to announce the BBC success to the Forum.
>Other guests include 78 year old Bert Gallagher, son of Robert Gallgher  of
>Gallagher's Field fame and a Derry City Council representative

****************************************************************
From Ric

We got rescheduled.  I did one interview today.  There may be more to come.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 12:05:35 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Banana cans

... on banana cans and any other kinds of cans.

Dean A. wrote:

>What if the label did not go all the way to the top of the can. I have seen a
>few cans where the label is quite a bit narrower than the can.

Could be.  It seems a little awkward to apply a label with the edge in the corrugated region but I don't have a better theory to offer.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 12:11:28 EST
From:         Ron Dawson
Subject:      Pan Am

To any Pan Am researcher:  I would appreciate it if someone could look for the name Howard Archer in Pan Am files. I am trying to figure out his connection to FN.

Thanks and Smooth Sailing,

Ron Dawson 2126
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 12:37:12 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Navigation plan B

I've been trying to get to grips with the forum archive over recent days and I'm struggling on one point of logic. Someone posted recently to the effect that anyone with any knowledge of aerial navigation in the 30s would expect FN to have had a plan in reserve to cover not finding Howland. While we can't read minds 60 years on, it makes perfect sense. It also makes perfect sense that this is what he did and that a landing on Nikumaroro was the outcome. It's also abundantly clear that he/they would have been trying to communicate their intention once they had to resort to this plan B, but they couldn't be heard. What escapes me is why the authorities seem not to have known in advance precisely what this fallback position would have been and acted accordingly. Can anyone square this circle?  Phil Tanner 2276

*****************************************************************
From Ric

You bring up a good point.  It always seems odd to us today that Earhart and Noonan flew around the world in 1937 almost entirely on their own.  They had made arrangements for fuel to be available at various locations but other than that they just sort of headed on out.  They didn't file any flight plans (nobody did in those days) and they don't seem to have discussed their contingency plans with anybody.  On the occasions when we know they wired ahead to coordinate about radio frequencies, things usually got screwed up. Eric Chater, Earhart's host in New Guinea, mentions no discussion of any Plan B.  It's as if AE and FN figured that it was all up to them and therfore, nobody's business but their own.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 12:47:51 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Rude Ric

Ric wrote:

> With 20/20 hindsight, what I should have done was bounce the message back
> to Gary  with the suggestion that this was something that he shold be able to
> check out for himself.  Instead, I embarrassed him publicly and that was 
> wrong.

Well put.  For the nonce, as an exercise, I tried to check this out myself. Using the maps on the TIGHAR site, I could not verify the absence of islands at that location.  The scale of the maps doesn't permit it.  So, I turned to my son's high school Atlas.  Again, the scale makes it inconclusive.  So I tried the net again.  Again, inconclusive.  One final try with Britannica. Again inconclusive.  On the other hand, were I not aware that small enough objects disappear on a small scale map, I'd have concluded from the Atlas or Britannica that there were no islands there... of course the Atlas would also have told me that there was no Niku either.

Sounds like a perfect item for the FAQ.  Then Ric could have responded something like "Nope, please see the FAQ for details."  satisfying courtesy and pointing both the original poster and anyone else reading the forum to the FAQ.

    - Bill

****************************************************************
From Ric

What bothered me about the original posting was not just that he had apparently made no attempt to answer his own question.

The significance of the number 281 is that it represents the distance in nautical miles between two points Noonan should have been able to easily determine - i.e. his own location (if it was Niku) and the equator.  Howland has nothing to do with it. Asking if there are any islands 281 miles north or south of Howland seemed to evidence a failure to grasp what we were talking about.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 12:54:27 EST
From:         Max Standridge
Subject:      tidal phenomena

It occurs to me, based on the previous e-mail pertaining to the island's characteristics, that the main threat presented by rising water may have been to the batteries of the aircraft, and that this would be implicit in the "281" message.

It also would appear that high tide could have lifted the aircraft, were it on the reef, and moved it. If the tires were sufficiently inflated, if it were sufficiently empty at that point, it could have floated some distance (based on earlier data I saw on the forum site pertaining to the Electra's projected floating capacity), perhaps far enough to eventually put it over the edge of the reef, into an area of deeper water. As the tide moved back out, the ship would have been stranded further out on the reef, gradually slipping into a position such that, when the tide returned to high, it couldn't move it back toward shore.

That would have forced AE and Fred out onto the coral reef, if they were concerned about the plane and its radio. But it might have depended on when this occurred, as to whether they were capable of struggling hard enough to pull it back into a position that would allow tidal movement toward the island to bring it back in.

The fact that there is "anecdotal" data suggesting the plane or its engine may have been taken to "Canton Island," however, suggests that this occurred, if it did occur, early enough in the scenario that AE and/or Fred were still capable of counteracting it. On the other hand, to the extent that the Canton Island data don't pan out, this would enhance the likelihood, within this scenario, that a later time for this occurred.

Finally, I'd just like to briefly comment on the commentary about Forum Digest, etc. I'm a graduate student in Technical and Expository Writing. I've learned that, as a culture, we in America tend to get too much predigested information already.

I'm probably about as pressed for time as any of your beachcombing buddies, and I'm reading the e-mails to get a feel for how this dialog is proceeding and how frequently new information is coming up in this area. When I feel I've gotten that idea and a clearer concept of how fast and effectively data are received, how frequently new concepts actually come up and are investigated, and the quality of the dialog in question, I'll probably feel I've tapped your vast Forum site of all the information it can deliver, and will exit.

If persons are unhappy with their work, it generally pays to find other work.

If persons are uncomfortable with the possible mental states of their associates, it generally pays to avoid communications with those associates. I don't think I have to dip into macho slang to get those two points across.

--Max Standridge
******************************************************************
From Ric

For what it's worth, that airplane wieghed 7,000 pounds empty.  I seriously doubt that two people are going to push it anywhere, even on a relatively smooth reef flat.  If they're going to move the airplane, the only real hope is to taxi it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 13:01:42 EST
From:         William Garman
Subject:      Re: Landing on a wet surface

This has always seemed plausible to me. Changing tides can certainly make a tremendous difference in the available landing space along a shoreline (and later cause serious problems for anything or anyone caught there as the water rises over the hours). Any chance of looking at an old tide table to see what the tide levels were like at the estimated time Amelia and Fred would have arrived at Gardner/Niku?
***************************************************************
From Ric

In a word, no.   The best estimates suggest a sort of mid-tide situation but it's a complicated debate.  We went 'round and 'round about this on the forum just a few weeks ago.  I guess we really need to do those FAQs.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 13:07:15 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Default to the Digest

>Some forum subscribers, I'm sure, are so appreciative of the enlightened
>debate and delightful repartee of the forum that they want to recieve the
>postings as individual messages as soon as they are posted.

That's me.  Typical engineer, that Spading -- all efficiency and no heart.

TK

****************************************************************
From Ric

It may also have something to do with being from Minnesota.

****************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

>For those who would prefer to continue to be plagued by huge stacks of
>unwanted email, please contact your nearest mental health care professional.

Count me in!  I've already made an appointment with Dr. Ric.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Take two cans of bananas and a bottle of Benedictine and call me in the morning.

*****************************************************************
From John Rayfield

When I try to do (order the forum as a digest), I get a message back as follows:

You are not subscribed to the EARHARTFORUM list.

Any suggestions?

John Rayfield, Jr.
****************************************************************
From Ric

The problem is that you originally signed up for the forum as earhart@RAYFIELDCOMM.COM
That's the name the computer knows you under, so when it gets a message from johnjr@rayfield.net it says it never heard of you.

****************************************************************
From Ron Dawson

 > Anyone who is not getting the Earhart Forum Digest is nuts

Speak for yourself - the digest clogs up my mailbox. The individual posts are easier to handle in my case.

Smooth Sailing,
Ron Dawson 2126
****************************************************************
From Ric

Some email providers (like AOL) limit the size of an email and you get a message that goes something like "Only the first 2K of this message is included below.  The entire message is in the attached file"  You then have to download the thing and read it in a word processing program.
**************************************************************
From Tom Robison

>Anyone who is not getting the Earhart Forum Digest is nuts.

I admit to being nuts, but we're all a little nuts, or we wouldn't be cheering on an even nutser fella to go back time and again to a God-forsaken island to find remnants of an airplane and people who (dare I say it publicly?) probably aren't there.

(forgive my periods of doubt, Ric, I wax and wane...)

Ric wrote:

>Some forum subscribers, I'm sure, are so appreciative of the enlightened
>debate and delightful repartee of the forum that they want to recieve the
>postings as individual messages as soon as they are posted.  To those devotees
>I say, bless you.

Thank you, sir. (even if you did misspell "receive". Did I misspell "misspell"?)

And what's the difference, anyway, between a mountain of individual messages and one HUGE one? I've found the little ones download faster that one monster.

Just my $0.02...

Tom #2179
*****************************************************************
From Ric

That's the Gaelic spelling of receive.  It was St. Patrick's Day.
****************************************************************
From Bill Leary

> Some forum subscribers, I'm sure, are so appreciative of the enlightened
> debate and delightful repartee of the forum that they want to receive the
> postings as individual messages as soon as they are posted.  To those devotees
> I say, bless you.

Actually, I find it easier to organize what I'll respond to this way. I can work through the messages, delete those I don't have any interest in responding to, and leave those I do in my inbox.  After I've read ALL the messages, I may find that someone else has already offered comment on one I'd thought to say something on.  If I agree with them, I just relieve the clutter by not including what amounts to a "me too" repsonse.  If I don't then I've got, ready organized for me, the one or two messages I actually want to say something about.

Getting the whole lot in a lump would make this harder, not easier, for me.

> For those who would prefer to continue to be plagued by huge stacks of
> unwanted email, please contact your nearest mental health care professional.

In my case, and for my purposes, it's very much WANTED e-mail.  Except on very good days, the spam still outweighs the Forum messages anyway.

    - Bill #2229
*****************************************************************
From Kelli Graham

Ric, I have been trying to set up the digest and listserve does not recognize me as a subscriber. Can you help? Thank you. I know you are really busy but I just can't figure it out.

I also wanted to thank you for the work that you are doing for the forum and Tighar. It is one of the high points of my day. My grandfather met AE at a fly-in breakfast in Iowa and got to sit across from her at the breakfast table. It was  one of the most memorable events in his life and he loved to tell the story.  He always followed the search for AE and that is how I became interested in her. He would have loved the Tighar projects.

Thank you again,
Kelli Graham

P.S. Have you ever heard of there being a small cabin in Colorado that is filled with wooden Crates marked "TOP SECRET"  with AE and FN's name on them. It is out in the middle of nowhere. My step-mother had friends that were hiking and found this cabin. Just curious, if it was just a hoax or what.
****************************************************************
From Ric

I can't find any name vaguely like yours on the current forum list so the email address you originally signed on under must be totally different.  We need to figure out what address the forum list knows you by before we can change your service.

I've never heard the cabin story.  Sounds pretty far out to me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:40:19 EST
From:         Max Standridge
Subject:      Re: tidal phenomena, coral

Thanks for your reply to my questions in getting the tidal info. straight.

Would weight be a big factor if the ship were relatively water-tight? I guess part of the answer would be that time would determine this, as well as the depth of the water at high tide. Four feet of water would have been unlikely to produce enough lift to pull the airplane off the coral, at least in a time-frame relevent to AE and Fred.

One other thing that I don't think I got across in my previous e-mail was that this could have been only the second time AE and Fred were "on coral"--and not necessarily even that. That is, this is only one of several situations that could have come up--either the drift, or the ANTICIPATED drift of the aircraft further out onto the reef, by one or both parties.

Another time would have been earlier, when the plane may have first taxied on past land's end and onto the coral, which was then, as you've said, apparently under about a foot of water. At that point, there may have been a coral-related injury when first leaving the airplane.

There could have been other times, such as when getting back into the plane to re-work radio equipment or reconnoiter as to what was in the plane in the way of supplies. In other words, IF they were dealing with coral, there may have been several instances of risky exposure to coral-related cuts.

As you've pointed out so often with all of this, these speculations can be only that until further physical evidence is found. We don't know if any voice radio messages or coded messages pertaining to "coral" were real or credible until we can get a clearer idea as to the actual scenario involved. We sometimes get impatient with ourselves--all of us do--for engaging in what seems such "useless speculation," but it is human nature to do so. In addition, I think speculation can sometimes put us onto a certain track of investigation of data we hadn't used before.

One perspective here that might be helpful, is to think in terms of how rhetoric--conversation, discourse, in this case--connects us to our full mental faculties and how it helps us to relate better to information already at hand. With input from others, our perspective shifts and this often gives us an opportunity to take in new information, or to filter old information in a more productive way. Thus, even when we sometimes go back over "plowed ground," we may, if doing so in even a slightly different way, gain new insights that can lead to new research.

I think that this is implicit in the way the Forum tolerates and encourages "outsiders" like myself to listen in and try to contribute to the dialog. I can learn better when my own perspective is changed to focus better on that of those involved long-term in the investigations on Nikku.

It seems to me that there may also be a larger issue involved, too. I think we have to think like Amelia here, a little bit. I'm fairly sure she'd want "the people" involved in this thing. Again, I suspect this is yet another unwritten motivator in the present set-up for the current AE Forum. Thanks again, and I'll try to "listen" silently for awhile here. Hark! Did I just hear someone say something about "281? Also "banana cans?" Already we've had some new "data" about barcodes, this fellow's story about the "lighthouse,"  etc. Intriguing, as usual.

--Max Standridge
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:42:14 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Rude Ric

> The significance of the number 281 is that it represents the distance in
> nautical miles between two points Noonan should have been able to easily
> determine - i.e. his own location (if it was Niku) and the equator. Howland
> has nothing to do with it. Asking if there are any islands 281 miles north or
> south of Howland seemed to evidence a failure to grasp what we were talking
> about.

I see your point.  I guess I'd seen the "what's 281 north/south of Howland" a couple of times and didn't catch that in that message thread it didn't mesh.

    - Bill #2229
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:47:29 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: tidal phenomena

If the plane was floating, though, would weight be as much of a factor as inertia (it would only have to displace about a thousand gallons of water plus or minus)?  And the inertia might well have been overcome by the incoming tide.  Of course then you either have to block it or tie it down to keep it from going back OUT with the tide...
ltm
jon  2266

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I just don't think there's enough water on the reef flat at high tide to float that airplane.  Seems like four feet of water could come and go with little or no effect. Start running surf across the flat and it's a whole new ball game.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:49:18 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Cabin in Colo.

Kelli Graham wrote

>P.S. Have you ever heard of there being a small cabin in Colorado that is
>filled with wooden Crates marked "TOP SECRET"  with AE and FN's name on
>them. It is out in the middle of nowhere. My step-mother had friends that
>were hiking and found this cabin. Just curious, if it was just a hoax or
>what.

Now if that's not a great scenario for the next Clive Cussler novel, I don't know what is!

Love to Dirk Pitt.

Tom #2179
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:39:21 EST
From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:      Did Earhart hear Hawaii?

Ric posted the following question to the Forum

>The question we have asked ourselves is - How likely is it that Earhart
>and Noonan were able to RECEIVE signals while on the ground/reef/whatever
>at Niku? This was actually the subject of an experiment carried out by
>team member Kenton Spading during the Niku III expedition.  Maybe Kenton
>would like to summarize his findings for the forum?

Yes, I did conduct a radio experiment (in addition to watching tides) during the NIKU III trip (with the help of  TIGHAR member Frank Lombardo).

Most of the radio-related Earhart discussions focus on the likelihood of her being able to transmit radio signals and whether or not the various post-loss messages were from her or other sources.

My experiment tested her ability to RECEIVE radio signals. What are the chances that she could HEAR messages being sent to her? In particular, I wanted to test the ability of a radio, in the vicinity of Nikumaroro, to pick up signals from Hawaii. Why Hawaii? That question requires a little introduction.

References:

1. The Earhart Project, An Historical Investigation, 7th Ed, TIGHAR, April 27, 1993.

2. Niku III Radio Experiment Report (Untitled), Kenton Spading and Frank Lombardo, Oct. 9, 1997

The following is a short chronology of radio signal traffic associated with the Earhart investigation. Note that many of the post-loss messages are not confirmed and the signals associated with direction finding equipment could be from sources other than Earhart and/or from directions 180 degrees from Niku. The following is meant to test a theory.

July 2, 1937, 21:13 hrs GCT, the Itasca receives Earhart's last message, Ref No. 1, p. 21.

July 2, 1937, approx. 21:30 hrs GCT, Earhart allegedly reaches Nikumaroro, Ref. No. 1, p. 46.

July 2, 1937, that evening  the first of many alleged signals from Earhart are reported, Ref. No. 1, P. 48.

July 4, 1937, 1530 hrs GCT, Pan Am takes a bearing on a signal from  the direction of Niku, Ref 1, P. 49

July 5, 1937, 0630 hrs GCT,   Pan Am takes another  bearing on a signal from the dir of Niku, Ref 1, P. 50

This last bearing is taken after Hawaiian Radio station KGMB sends a message to Earhart  requesting her to transmit 4 long dashes if they hear the KGMB broadcast. Immediately, 4 long dashes are heard in response (Ref. 1, P. 50.).

So, the theory I tested during Niku III was: can a commercial radio station from Hawaii be heard in the vicinity of NIKU?  The theory and operation of the radios used in 1937 are basically no different than a simple AM radio in use today. I used a small Walkman-type AM radio powered by AA batteries.

In all I heard 8 different Hawaiian radio stations in addition to dozens of other stations throughout the Pacific region (Ref No. 2).

Does this prove that Earhart heard KGMB or anyone else for that matter? NO.  Anyone familiar with radio skip properties knows that radio signals can be heard 1000's of miles away from their source.  It is nice, however, to have test data to that effect specific to NIKU. Besides, it gave me something to do onboard the ship to keep things interesting.

LTM
Kenton Spading
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:43:54 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      To digest, or not.

I too prefer to have the forum postings undigested.  It's easier to respond to individual postings, etc.  Early each month, I get the past month's Log and save it on diskette.  If I want to find something from past postings, I use the word processor to do keyword searches.

*************************************************************
From Ric

I wonder if some of the problems we've had with various postings (mine included) are really digestive upsets.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:55:32 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Amelia Earhart Mania

This is extracted from a web site I just blundered into.  It's indicative of the kind of interest there is in anything related to Amelia Earhart.  These are some of the items offered for sale.  Virtually all sold already. Unfortunately, one can't tell what the price was.  Some of the folks on the forum might be interested in looking at this site.  http://www.stuffinder.com

Ric -- Does TIGHAR have some kind of copy of all these photos?  Is there anything new here?

Period photo of Amelia standing in front of her Lockheed Electra NR 16020, 8x10. Ex cond  SOLD

Four unpublished photos of Amelia during preparation of her Lockheed Electra for world flight. Probably after crash in Hawaii, since one of the main gear wheels is off and they appear to be working on oleo strut.

(1) View of AE seated on tire watching two mechanics work on oleo.

(2) AE sitting on floor next to jack stand watching mechanic work on landing gear leg.

(3) AE on chock and Noonan seated on wheel, with G.P. Putnam standing behind them.

(4) My personal favorite shows mechanic with head popping out of open nose door and AE on ladder next to him. Both with large grins! 5 x 7 period print. Slight creasing and discoloration. Lot   SOLD

Fred Noonan and Ed Musick: Period photo Of Pan American Clipper crew after 1st Cal. to Hawaai flight. Musick, Capt. and Noonan, Navigator (Amelia's nav. on last flight) w/4 other members of crew pose in front of Sikorsky S42, 8x10. Good cond.  SOLD

"Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" Song sheet. Original sheet music for "Red River" Dave McEnery's song about Amelia. Cover has illustration of AE's Lockheed Electra banking low over storm tossed sea. Her disembodied face shown in clouds overhead. This music was printed in early 1960's when the "Greenbriar Boys" had a folk/bluegrass hit with the tune, 9 x12. Very good cond. $35

Amelia Earhart: Envelope with signatures of Amelia and 13 other Women's Air Derby contestants. Signed in El Paso, Texas in August of 1929, when this group of women stopped there during the 1st Women's Transcontinental Air Derby. The signers include Amelia Earhart, Ruth Nichols, Vera Dawn Walker, Gladys O'Donnell, Mary Haizlip, Blanche Noyes, Jesse Keith-Miller, Margaret Perry, Neva Paris, Pancho Barnes, Opal Kunz, Louise Thaden, Mary Von Mach and Edith Foltz. Eleven of these women were charter members of the 99's. The autographs were collected by Mrs. Margaret Mathews of Lexington, MA while in her teens. An avid flying enthusiast and later pilot herself, she attended the air meet in El Paso with her mother. They dropped by the coffee shop by chance and found the women flyers there. She immediately asked her mother for a pen and paper to get their autographs, but the only readily available paper was an envelope, and all her mother had was a pencil. The enclosed newspaper clipping gives a brief account of the affair. Good cond. SOLD

There was also a lot of Lindbergh and Rickenbacker related stuff. And a lot of other flying folks I'd scarcely heard of!

******************************************************************
From Ric

New photos of AE are always cropping up. The "Period photo of Amelia standing in front of her Lockheed Electra" could be anything.

I've never seen the other four, but they weren't taken in Hawaii.  AE and Fred were on a boat back to California by noon the same day, and GP wasn't there at all.  I suppose the photos could have been taken during repairs in Burbank.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:09:43 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Navigation Plan B

To put the subject of planned fuel at Howland in perspective, AE/FN had about four hours of fuel in the vicinity of their intended destination. In 1937, it was the exception to have the luxury of an alternate airport. Today, there are only a few airports in the world that don't have suitable alternates. For these, FAR 121.641 specifies three hours fuel reserves at normal fuel consumption.

From a fuel standpoint, I'd say our duo had a viable plan.

Skeet Gifford, 1371CB

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Seconding Skeet's observation, according to the report submitted by the Army Air Corps liaison officer aboard Itasca, Lt. Dan Cooper, a 20% reserve was considered standard for long distance flights at that time.  Earhart left Lae with 24 hours of fuel for an anticipated 19 hour flight.  She had a 20% reserve.

When, in her 20th hour of flight, she said "We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low." she had just started to burn into that reserve.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:13:44 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Naval Institute Proceedings

>go to your library and find the back issues of *Naval Institute Proceedings*
>magazine. Find the February 1993 issue and turn to page 73, where you will
>find an article entitled "Why the Navy Didn't Find Amelia". Therein you will 
>find a pretty good discourse on how and why the search failed. (oh, yeah, the
>article was written by some fella named Gillespie)]

I'd love to read this but I'm in the UK and a web search failed to turn it up - though "Naval Institute Proceedings -> Amelia" produced a fantastic tale about Saipan by someone called Stewart. Would it be possible to scan Ric's article onto the site as the answer to an FAQ, or if it's copyright to the Naval Institute could someone post me a copy via Email if it's not too much trouble? Thanks. Phil 2276.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:59:15 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Did Earhart hear Hawaii?

Kenton Spading, TIGHAR No. 1382CE wrote (in summary):

> The following is a short chronology of radio signal traffic...
> July 2, 1937, 21:13 hrs GCT, the Itasca receives AE's last message
> July 2, 1937, approx. 21:30 hrs GCT, AE allegedly reaches Nikumaroro
> July 2, 1937, that evening the first of many alleged AE signals
> July 4, 1937, 1530 hrs GCT, Pan Am takes bearing on a signal from
>   the direction of Nikumaroro
> July 5, 1937, 0630 hrs GCT, Pan Am takes another bearing on a signal
>   from the dir of Nikumaroro

A small bit of traffic analysis on these messages would be a worthwhile exercise (traffic analysis is simply examining times and frequencies of messages to see if there are any patterns which may prove to be important).

From this short series of broadcasts, thinking with regard to tides and considering the theory that she would not have been able to broadcast during high tide periods, I wonder if it is even conceivable that the tides would be at low points during all of the times listed. And if not, which messages would be likely faked? Essentially, isn't the tide pattern linked, at a most basic level, with the passage of the moon and, therefore, the 24 hour day/night cycle?

In effect, what I am saying is that if the plane was on the reef flat and if the forum is right that she couldn't have broadcast during high tide periods, then at least one, if not more, of those messages has to be faked.

On the other hand, in writing this paragraph above, with all of those conditional (if then, this that, but only if...), I wonder if we've really gone way out into hypothetical never-never land.

Thomas Van Hare
*****************************************************************
From Ric

It seems clear that the batteries could not be recharged at high tide because the engine could not be run because the prop would hit the water BUT, I see no reason that the radio could not be used at high tide.  All of the components should remain high and dry so long as no surf was running. The main concern would be that you'd want to be darn sure not to run the battery down so far that you couldn't start the engine once the tide went out.

And, yes, it all gets awfully hypothetical.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Mar 1999 08:43:38 EST
From:         William Garman
Subject:      Re: Did Earhart hear Hawaii?

>Essentially, isn't the tide
>pattern linked, at a most basic level, with the passage of the moon and,
>therefore, the 24 hour day/night cycle?

To review, tides are caused primarily by the gravitational pull of the moon, and to much lesser degrees by the sun and the earth itself. Basically, when the moon is directly overhead at a given location, it pulls at the water, causing its level to rise, and the tide is high both there and on the opposite location of the earth. In general, areas of the earth along the circumference perpendicular to high tides experience low tides. There are two high tides and two low tides in each lunar day (or cycle), which is approximately 24 hours and 50 minutes long. For reasons that are not fully understood, Pacific tide heights exhibit more "eccentricity" than Atlantic tides during a lunar day.

If one can plot where the moon was at various times in relation to Niku throughout the days and nights of July 2-5, one should be able to get an approximate idea of when tides were presumably high and low.

However, small errors in calculation will produce very wrong conclusions, and variations in the sun's position in the Pacific, along with other as yet unexplained factors, can cause substantial differences in the expected highs and lows: It would be interesting to see what patterns emerge from a traffic analysis coordinated with a moon/tide graph for Niku (prepared by a qualified astronomer, perhaps), but because of these diurnal uncertainties any conclusions drawn might be of limited scientific value.

Far, far more significant to me is that at least two of the bearings taken by Pan Am converged on Niku. High tide or low tide, and all speculation aside, the probability is very high that if the signals originated from Gardner/Niku, they were from A & F.

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

From Ric

Here's an observation, for what it's worth....

You are apparently quite familiar with tides and their vicissitudes. Consequently, you do not find compelling any conclusion about what AE & FN could have or could not have that is based upon tidal estimates. If I could venture a guess, you are much less familiar with the limitations of 1937 Pan Am Adcock DF systems, and so, find the crossing of bearings near Niku to be quite convincing.  In truth, the Pan Am bearings are just as nebulous as tidal estimates.

My point is, the more we know about a subject, the more we understand that we don't really know very much.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Mar 1999 08:45:09 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Did Earhart hear Hawaii?

I did the radio traffic analysis a loooong time ago, and it was very inconclusive.  The biggest factor concerning radio signals was that almost everything was received at night, when conditions were favorable for long-distance skips, but that also allows a whole lot of other places to be the source of signals (e.g. the whole world!).  No good correlation to tides that I could see.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Mar 1999 09:01:09 EST
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      FN/Weems, Message in a bottle

1.  Ric, are you or anyone on the Forum,  familiar with the letter that is referred to in the following.

> ...on May 11,1935, Fred Noonan replied to a letter from Navy
> Lt. Commander, P. V. H. Weems , an authority on aerial navigation , in
> which Noonan wrote about certain equipment for the planned flight.
> He stated , "For reasons which I am certain you can understand , we are
> not permitted to discuss=A0  the particulars of the flight for
> dissemination among the general public."

The date would indicate that it was written after the survey flight from Oakland to Hawaii and before the survey flight from Hawaii to Midway.

Does anyone know if the quote is correct and  what FN meant? If the quote is correct, it would seem that FN separated himself, figuratively speaking, from the general public and aligned himself (PAA) with the Navy.

2. I would like to know more about the "message in the bottle" that Genevieve Barret found in Oct. 1938, in France. What did the message say, what language was it in, french or english and did it use the name Jaluit Atoll in the message?

Trying to trace the genesis of AE as a spy or prisoner it would seem this bottle message predates the " Flight to Freedom" movie by about 5 years and postdates AE's flight by only a year.

A message in a bottle does seem far-fetched, but if the name Jaluit Atoll is used, it does show that the writer had some knowledge of insignificant Pacific geography and who (country) owned what in the Pacific.

The only thing I'm aware of earlier is the Aussie newspaper article that you (Ric) referred to.

Thanks

Daryll
****************************************************************
From Ric

The quote is correct.  It appears in the letter Noonan wrote to Weems on May 11, 1935 and was published in Popular Aviation, May 1938.  However, I confess to being baffled by your interpretation that Noonan "separated himself, figuratively speaking, from the general public and aligned himself (PAA) with the Navy."  Where did the Navy come from?  Fred's employer was pioneering transoceanic air travel.  He could not publicly discuss proprietary company information.

I don't know anything about a message in a bottle found in France in 1938.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Mar 1999 09:44:08 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Did Earhart hear Hawaii?

I have raised a similar question before.  Why would someone trying to fake signals do so on a line that crossed Gardner.  If we decided today to fake signals of the lost Earhart plane and had no knowledge about the Niku connection, why would we fake signals from the direction of Niku.  Why not from the vicinity of Howland.  I am having trouble with a scenario of fake signals coming from Gardner (Niku).

Regards Bob Lee

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I've been known to pull this little trick at speaking engagements:

(Looking out over an audience of several hundred people.) "I'd like everyone to pick a three digit number - any three digit number. Okay?  Got your number? Now - how many of you picked 281?  Let me see the your hands. (no one has ever raised their hand)"

If the 281 message is a hoax, the hoaxers choice of 281 is an incredible coincidence.  HOWEVER, it is important to remember that the message says nothing about Gardner.  We have gone looking for a possible significance to that number that might associate it with Gardner, and we found one.  This is essentially how a psychic works - provide general cryptic information and let the subject invent their own significance for it. ( Madame Foni: "I see a tall, dark haired man whose face is twisted with pain."  Joe Gullible:  "Oh my God!  That's my father!  He had arthritis.)

Admittedly, 281 is better than that, but the principle is the same.  My point is that we need to not kid ourselves that a piece of evidence is better than it is.  That's why we say,

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Mar 1999 09:46:22 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Groundloop Day

Happy Groundloop Day everybody!  March 20, the 62nd anniversary of the Luke Field wreck.

Drive carefully.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 20 Mar 1999 11:37:40 EST
From:         William Garman
Subject:      Re: Did Earhart hear Hawaii?

>In truth, the Pan Am bearings are just as nebulous as
>tidal estimates.

My only point was that tidal estimates are indeed going to be pretty useless in any meaningful speculation about what A & F might have been doing on Nikku in the days after they landed there, if they landed there, and that even if nebulous, the Pan Am bearings have more emperical significance to me.

Note that in my previous message, I said, "IF the signals originated from Gardner/Niku, they were from A & F." Clearly, I recognize the limitations of late 30s era direction finding equipment and am not at all convinced that the signals originated from Gardner. But IF they were from Gardner, which is a possibility, it seems likely that the origin would have been the Elektra.

>My point is, the more we know about a subject, the more we understand that
>we don't really know very much.

No dispute there! <g>

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

From Ric

>But IF they were from Gardner, which is a possibility, it seems likely that
>the origin would have been the Electra.

I agree.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:08:30 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Message in a bottle

The message in the bottle was found on the beach of Soulac, France on October, 30, 1938.  Translated from the French: "Have been prisoner at Jalint (Marshall) of Japanese in a prison at Jalint.  Have seen: Amelia Earhart (aviatrix) and in another prison her mechanic (man), as well as other prisoners held for so-called espionage of the gigantic fortifications which are built at Atoll.  Earhart and her companion were picked up by a Japanese seaplane and will be held as hostages, say the Japanese.  I was a prisoner becuase I debarked at Mila Atoll.  My yacht 'Viveo' sunk, crew massacred (3 Maoris), the boat (26 T) (sailing boat) was supplied with wireless.  Having remained a long time at Jalint (or Jaluit) as prisoner, was enrolled by force as bunker-hand, simply fed, on board 'Nippon Nom?' going to Europe.  Shall escape as soon as the boat is near the coast.  Take this message immediately to the Gendarmerie in order that we may be saved.  This message was probably thrown off Santander, and will surely arrive at the Vendee towards September or at the latest in October, 1938, remaining in the bottle tied to this one, Message No. 6. In order to have more chance of freeing Miss Amelia Earhart and her companion, as well as other prisoners, it would be preferable that policemen should arrive incognito at Jalint ? I shall be with JO....eux and if I succeed in escaping....for if the Japanese are asked to free the prisoners they will say that they have no prisoners at Jalint.  It will therefore be necessary to be crafty in order to send further messages to save the prisoners of Jalint.  At the risk of my life, I shall send further messages. This bottle serves as a float to a second bottle containing the story of my life and....empty, and a few objects having belonged to Amelia Earhart. These documents prove the truth of the story in ordinary writing and shorthand and that I have approached Amelia Earhart...believed to be dead.

The second botle doesn't matter.

I am writing on my knees for I have very little paper,  for finger prints taken by the police.  Another with thumb. Message written on the cargo boat, No. 6."

The second bottle was never found, by the way.

****************************************************************
From Cam Warren

The whole story about the "message in a bottle" is told in Chapter 11 of AMELIA EARHART: HER LAST FLIGHT by Oliver Knaggs, published in 1983. (Other writers, including Goerner in his first book, mentioned it also).

It all sounded very promising - the writer had his facts right, but like most AE survival stories, it never checked out.  The original document as lost during the war, while in the custody of the French district police. A second bottle, said to contain a lock of Amelia's hair, was unfortunately never found (goodbye, DNA test!).

You could look it up.

Cam Warren

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

From Ric

Did the story get play in the press in 1938?  This could be the genesis of the Japanese capture myth.  The 1937 Smith's Weekly article alleged that the U.S. Navy had used Earhart's disappearance as an excuse to search the Marshalls, but did not claim that Earhart was involved with the government or was "captured" by the Japanese.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:28:10 EST
From:         Jon Pieti
Subject:      Re: Did Earhart hear Hawaii?

What was the broadcast signal strength of KGMB in 1937 vice the stations picked up during the experiment of Niku III?

- Jon
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:30:49 EST
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      Gardner pictures

Don't say the space program never gave us anything. If you want a different perspective on how terribly small any of the Phoenix Islands are, check out the space shuttle photo archives at:

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/GeographicalText.html

and scroll down to Phoenix Islands under "Search for a Location." The best one of Gardner Island is near the bottom of the list, STS41B/31/1191. Just looking at those little smears of coral and sand from 150 miles up, I give Amelia and Fred 9.5 out of 10 for sheer guts and courage.

Monty Fowler, No. 2189
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:42:57 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: Tides

First, I finally got my computer to go to the Tighar Tracks back file articles. This answered many questions that you have, no doubt, heard over and over again.  I highly recommend it to new forum members like me.

As to tides.  There has been much good discussion of how to calculate tides for Gardner.  As you have noted however, the reality doesn't always match the calculations.  Probably a chaos function.

It was mentioned that observed tides seemed to have a high correlation to observed tides at other locations. Correlation's are useful, because one need not understand or calculate all the factors involved.  Is this correlation high enough to use?  If so, actual records (not just tide tables) for inhabited locations could be checked.  These might include meteorological records, Port Captains records, or the logs of ships in port.  This could give an estimate of tides on Gardner with a much higher degree of confidence.

Robert Klaus

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

From Ric

I'll explain how I approach investigative issues such as the tides.

When I consider whether or not to spend time (read money) on an avenue of investigation, the first question I ask myself is "Does this subject have the potential for resulting in information so conclusive that it could alter our on-the-ground search operations?"  Applied to the tidal question, this becomes "Could we ever so sure that the tide was not low at the time Earhart and Noonan may have arrived over Gardner that we would abandon the hypothesis of a reef-flat landing and only search the bush in areas where the beach offered an acceptable landing run?"  Unless some way of really being sure crops up, I have to say "No.  We can't limit our search based upon these opinions."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:03:36 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: 10s, 12s and 54s.

Robert Klaus wrote:-

>The wreck photo has a couple of small features
>on the upper surface of the nose, just to the right
>of centerline.  I took these at first to be damage,
>but on closer examination the forward one looks
>too regular.  It could be a round access hole with
>a removable cover detached at one edge, and
>swung partially out of the way.  The photo of the
>Ki-54 fuselage in Beijing shows a small round
>feature at the same point.

Yes - I also noticed this feature - it appears almost circular in shape - a hole of some sort.

Since posting that Beijing Ki-54 fuselage photo on my web page, I've found a better photo of the same fuselage in another book - and it too shows this feature.

However I'm not convinced that this is genuine aircraft feature - this photo shows that the nose of this Ki-54 has been damaged  (the nose cone is severely dented and also the area around the top edge of the small door in the right side of the nose is crushed).  The feature may just be a puncture hole from some heavy handling - the nose certainly looks a little beat up. Photos of the other known Ki-54 fuselage (at RAAF Point Cook, Victoria, Australia) appear to show nothing in this area. I'll email David Gardner, Senior Curator of Point Cook museum and ask him if he'll be good enough to clarify the nose details.

However, I have to say that with or without this feature, the nose of the Ki-54 is a much better fit to the wreck nose than the L10E.  The nose of the Ki-54 is split into four bays (not including the cap) that appear of EQUAL size. The L10E's aren't equally spaced. The position of the stringers (as indicated by lines in the pictures of the Point Cook Ki-54) also seem a very good match to the wreck.

I still favour the Ki-54

LTM
Simon #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:14:10 EST
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Radio Transmitter Signal Experiment

Would it be possible to locate the make and model transmitter that Amelia and Fred had on board their airplane and take it with you on your next return to the island.  At prearranged times try transmitting code by mike keying and see how well, if at all, the signals are picked up in places like Hawaii.  I realize that you would not have the same sun spot cycle activity but it would be interesting to see if the equipment she had on her airplane could be picked up at various locations today.  Probably the are a lot of ham radio operators that would assist in the project.  Perhaps some of the radio experts could comment on this as a possible experiment.

Dick Pingrey 0908C

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Assuming that we could somehow locate a working WE Type 13C and rig up a suitable antenna and a 50 watt power source (right now I don't know of any existing example of the 13C, working or otherwise), I see this as the sort of experiment it might be fun to do AFTER we find conclusive proof that the flight reached Gardner.  It would be a step in determining whether any of the post-loss transmissions may have been genuine.

But the aircraft's presence on Gardner does not depend on any of the signals being authentic, so the experiment would not effect the search one way or the other.  Until we have located the wreckage or the bones, all of our time and energy on site has to be focused on search operations.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:31:50 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Message in a bottle

What a clever idea ! Being captured by the Japanese, throwing a bottle overboard and it washes ashore in France of all places. Someone should write a novelo around it. Perhaps it needs some updating. Today one would write a message saying he was captured by martians. Has anyone ever checked whether there has ever been a French yacht "Viveo" of 26 tons missing in the Pacific ?

I have one question on an other subject. I think I read somewhere that the Colorado launched its seaplanes to search for AE + FN and that these were of a type called SO3 or something. I looked it up and found that that such a type was not flying before 1939. Does anyone know what type of aircraft the Colorado was actually equipped with ?


Herman

****************************************************************
From Ric

The idea was that the guy was forced to be a "bunker hand" aboard a Japanese merchant vessel sailing to Europe. He threw the bottle overboard when the ship was off the French coast.  (I didn't realize that the Japanese were using galley slaves in the 1930s.)

USS Colorado (BB45) was a "Maryland Class" battleship and carried three, catapult-launched floatplanes which were used for scouting and for "spotting" for the ships big guns.  In 1937 the airplanes were Vought O3U-3 Corsairs. The specific airplanes that participated in the Earhart search were Bureau Nos. 9167, 9197, and 9288.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:42:13 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Did Earhart hear Hawaii?

KGMB at the time broadcast at the time at 1000 watts, and was easily heard by the colonists at Howland, Baker and Jarvis Islands, as did the Itasca crewmen.  I've little doubt that it would have also been heard on Gardner, particularly at night, when propagation was best.  By the way, the frequency was 590 kHz.

****************************************************************
From Ric

I can see another question coming, so I'll head it off.

Yes, Earhart would probably have known what frequency KGMB transmitted on. She had flown from Hawaii to California in 1935 and from California to Hawaii in March of 1937.  She had been planning to fly to Hawii from Howland.  There is every reason to think that she would be familiar the most powerful commercial station in Hawaii.

One reason to suspect that Earhart did, in fact, hear the KGMB broadcasts is the fact that, except for the messages claimed to be heard by Walter McMennamy and Karl Pierson in San Francisco the night of the disappearance, none of the alleged post-loss messages were actually SOS distress calls.  All of the messages seem to be attempts to relay information as if the sender knows that a search is underway and is trying to provide guidance.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:45:15 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Amelia Earhart Centre

I think we should try to keep up the pressure in Derry.  Perhaps one way to do that is to continue to e-mail the newspapers and radio stations/programs expressing our appreciation for their help in calling attention to Centre's plight.  They will probably pay attention to e-mail that says nice things about them!

I'm thinking of saying something like:  IF the Amelia Earhart Centre at Derry has, in fact, been saved, I feel sure that will prove to have been a good thing for Derry and for that part of Ireland.  Something of that nature, and whatever else I can think of advance the cause for keeping the Centre going.

It would sure do no harm for any who may not have got around to e-mailing to go ahead and do so.  The battle is not yet won!

At this late date, I've tried to enlist the aid of Purdue University on behalf of the AE Centre.  Some forum members may not be aware that Purdue is still very much into the Amelia Earhart thing.

The e-mail addresses again:

Derry Journal        derryj@sol.co.uk    (That's sol not aol)

Irish News           internet@irishnews.com

Belfast Telegraph    Editor@belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Radio Ulster         talk.back@bbc.co.uk

Radio Foyle, Derry   radio.foyle@bbc.co.uk

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Vern is absolutely right.  Let's keep the heat on.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:44:45 EST
From:         Anita Langdon
Subject:      Re: Message in a bottle

Re: Randy Jacobson's message in a bottle......Oliver Knaggs was a good legitimate researcher, so why should you categorically dismiss his research as the JAPANESE CAPTURE MYTH, as you have done with all the research done in both the Marshall Islands & Saipan by other serious researchers, revealing many eye witnesses to the Earhart saga in those areas.  Why do you constantly denigrate their efforts and results when you yourself have brought back nothing but batteries, cigarette lighters, scraps of aluminum, and other bits of flotsam when all of your grandiose claims of WE DID IT! should have been based on credible finds......engines, props, the airplane itself...........

****************************************************************
From Ric

Perhaps you'd feel differently if you acquainted yourself with what we have actually found rather than what our critics and some very inaccurate press reports say we found.  We never brought back any batteries or claimed to have found batteries that were of any significance.  We did find, and ultimately identified, a cigarette lighter as being from the right historical period, but never claimed that it was anything more than that.  Yes, we have found "scraps of aluminum" some of which are of World War II origin and a few of which appear to be from a pre-war American civilian aircraft consistent with the Lockheed 10.  Among the "bits of flotsam" we have recovered are the remains of what appears to be an American woman's shoe of the same vintage, style, and size worn by Earhart at the time she disappeared.

The artifacts found on Nikumaroro are clues, not proof.  They are sufficient to convince some of us that we are on the right track.  Others who don't understand or accept the facts of the case, or are too invested in other theories, are extremely reluctant to accept the possibility of any solution to the mystery that doesn't fit their own agenda.  I understand your impatience. I also am impatient to find engines with serial numbers, absolutely distinctive wreckage, bones that can be DNA matched, etc.  Recent archival discoveries confirming that the bones of a castaway were found on Nikumaroro in 1940, and modern forensic evaluations which suggest  that the person was a woman of Earhart's height and ethnic orgin, make us more hopeful than ever that the conclusive proof we're all looking for can be found.

I characterize the notion that Earhart was captured by the Japanese as a myth because it seems clear to me that that's what it is.  You seem upset that I "denigrate" the work of serious researchers. I am unimpressed by the seriousness of researchers or the number of years they have been doing research.  I am impressed by facts and there simply are no facts to support the Japanese capture theory, and there are volumes of facts which argue against it.  I'm not going to spend a lot of time here explaining why a body of unsubstantiated and conflicting anecdote does not constitute fact, nor am I going to try to change your mind if you're convinced that Earhart was a spy. All I can do is present the facts and the evidence and let people draw their own conclusions.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:48:49 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: To digest, or not...

Ric wrote:

>I wonder if some of the problems we've had with various postings (mine
>included) are really digestive upsets.

I think that's probably right.  I can see a very real digestive disorder with the list server and my "apparent" e-mail address.  Some other forum participants may also be vulnerable, depending on how their e-mail provider works.

My provider assures me that my e-mail address is unchanged from what it was when I initially signed on.  It's simply:  vklein@*****   That's quite true.

But it comes out looking like:  vklein@*******

It used to look like:  vklein@*******

When that unannounced change happened, I stopped getting forum postings. The list server was trying to sent them to the earlier "apparent" address and they bounced.  I think the same thing would have happened to any e-mail if the sender used the "reply" function to the address, as shown -- "apparent" address.  I'm trying now to discover how much other e-mail may have bounced.

I can only guess that the "long form" address is something generated along the way as my e-mail makes its way through the system.  Clearly, it's subject to change, without notice.  That's not good.

The list server is not going to recognize me, or send mail to me, if my apparent name gets changed.  And it can't see my real name buried at the end of that string.  The "masquerade" is fitting!  I'm going to have to talk to my Internet Service Provider about this.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

So your Provider just changes your "apparent" address willynilly?  Pretty bizarre.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:54:46 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Message in a bottle

Okay, so the message was supposedly found in 1938.  Was it REPORTED in 1938? Or did the incident first surface publicly in the 1960s (a la FN's drinking)?

  LTM,
  Russ

*****************************************************************
From Ric

That is precisely the question.  Does Knaggs cite a source?  I've never seen his book, but most of the books by conspiracy authors - Goerner included - are not footnoted and do not cite primary sources.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:58:17 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Groundloop Day

Let me guess...if Ric sees his shadow, it means six more weeks of searching?

  LTM,
  Russ

****************************************************************
From Ric

That's an ESTIMATED six more weeks of searching.  To convert estimates to real time you double the number and convert to the next highest unit, so it looks like we have about 12 more months to go.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:03:40 EST
From:         Terri
Subject:      Re: Confidential FBI files on Amelia

Awhile ago, someone posted a website on this forum where you could read the confidential FBI files on Amelia.

Do you or anyone else remember the website - I'd really appreciate it - 
Thank you

Terri
*****************************************************************

From Ric
Anybody still got that?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:18:56 EST
From:         Bette Norlund
Subject:      Re: Confidential FBI files on Amelia

The web site is www.apbonline.com

LTM, Bette

****************************************************************
From Ric

Not a government site?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:33:27 EST
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Re: Confidential FBI files on Amelia

http://www.apbonline.com in G-files section, go to "historical figures", select AE, then click on "GIF images".  LTM, HAG 2201.

*****************************************************************
From Jon Watson

It's probably at more than one location out there, but the one I recall is:

http://www.apbonline.com/gfiles/index.html

Then go down to "historical figures", and select AE.
ltm
jon  2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:37:50 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Did Earhart hear Hawaii, cont'd.

Randy has probably checked reliable sources re KGMB - an NBC "blue" network station, if memory serves, but I'm surprised that in 1937 it was only listed at 1 KW radiated power. KGU was the "red" (primary) NBC network in a year or two, if not actually 1937.  In those days, a three-letter call was indicative of a high power (10 KW or more) "clear-channel" station, which meant no other US station shared the frequency, which was invariably at the low end of the dial.  I'd suspect KGMB at 590 kc was also a clear channel - a necessity to be "easily heard by the colonists at Howland, Baker and Jarvis Islands" and even the Hawaiian chain. However, it's hard to believe that AE (IF on land, and IF she had a working receiver) would be idly tuning the broadcast band instead of monitoring 3105. (No Walkman in those days, either).

Cam Warren
ex-NBC

*****************************************************************
From Ric

Idly tuning the broadcast band? No.  Specifically tuning in a known powerful commercial station for any news that someone was looking for her?  Doesn't seem too outlandish to me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:42:17 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Electra Models update

I've just approved and returned the corrected "master" from which the mold will be made.  Now a prototype finished model will be made and sent to me for a final check of paint and markings, then we'll go into production.  We're gettin' there. (These are going to be very nice airplanes gang.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:43:54 EST
From:         William Garman
Subject:      Re: Confidential FBI files on Amelia

As I recall, most of the FBI's publicized records involved Hoover's internal reactions to requests that FBI agents and employees contribute to an Earhart memorial fund, but there is a recent discussion of the "navigator's bookcase" analysis.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:45:38 EST
From:         William Garman
Subject:      Re: Confidential FBI files on Amelia

The FBI site (fbi.gov) has nothing about Amelia.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:44:58 EST
From:         Terri
Subject:      Re: Confidential FBI files on Amelia

I just want to thank everyone who sent the website - that's the finishing touch for my daughter's Social Studies project.

Thanks again,

Terri

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

From Ric

Think about that for a second.

You gotta love a country where a mother can thank other ordinary citizens for helping her find confidential files of the "secret po