Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:34:30 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Why Was Amelia Doing The Flight? On a clear day one can see an island 15 to 20 miles out from the _surface_. This was a routine experience in the Navy. I would guess that from an airplane that distance would be even greater, depending on altitude. Besides, sea water tends to change from a deep blue to a greenish-blue as you approach land, typically at about 20 miles from shore. It doesn't matter what kind of land it is, this tends to be generally true. If you've ever spent a significant amount of time at sea you would know this; which is why most people don't realize just how deep the blue gets on the open ocean. I'm no pilot, but I would be hard-pressed to imagine how a pilot within 20 miles of land could not know it, provided they have sufficient visibility to the water directly beneath them. Alik ************************************************************************** From Ric I wonder if your experience applies to Pacific atolls. I've had the pleasure of approaching Niku by ship six times now and we've never gotten a visual on it at more than about 10 miles and I've never seen any change in the sea color. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:36:05 EDT From: Jim W. Subject: Ground Penetrating Radar There is an interesting tool being used by the UN in Kosovo to aid in clearing mines. A foundation called Mineseeker Foundation is using Ultra Wide Band Synthetic Aperture Radar that is able to locate objects as small as two inches and up to four inches deep. It is mounted on an airship (blimp) and is able to scan 119 square yards per second. The scannings are put onto CD's and given to those locating the mines and other ordinance. Plans and hopes are to use five of these around the world. Too bad Niku isn't a little higher up on the list of priorities for minefield scans. Jim W. ************************************************************************** From Ric It's also kind of hard to get there in a blimp. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:37:30 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper For Cam - Why not save yourself the time and trouble of all that tedious and expensive copying, and simply make dupes of your CD's (see Ron Bright's recent post referencing same)available at a reasonable cost? I bet you'd sell enough copies to more than offset the hundred and fifty bucks you might get selling one paper copy. It sound's like the bulk of the work is done - the scanning. Bulk CD's are cheap - even in small quantities. Let the computer do the work, and recoup some of your expenses. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:39:34 EDT From: Dave Chase Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? Ric said: >She was "competent/proficient" in the skills needed to accomplish >the World Flight as far as Lae, New Guinea but not to accomplish the >Lae/Howland flight. I'd guess you'd say it was mostly the lack of radio skills that made her non-proficient for the Lae/Howland flight? Certainly, the one person who was, perhaps, most qualified to judge her skill sets, Paul Mantz, probably recognized that without the proper radio (and radio skills) she was at great risk, even with Fred on board. (I assume it's NOT navigational skills per se that was lacking, since Fred was on board with a world class skill set) And, given that she took off from Lae successfully with an enormous load, and presumably landed successfully at Niku in extreme conditions, it seems to me her skills at actually flying a plane per se were more than adequate. For the record, I'm not a pilot, but I sure would say that having good judgment, being disciplined, planning ahead for contingencies, etc are probably more important than knowing how to take off and land, even in difficult circumstances. The latter only being necessary but not in the least sufficient. I guess where I've been struggling with the 'competency' issue is that for awhile I assumed that if you knew how to take off/land and find your way around, you were pretty much a "pilot", ergo Earhart was competent. That, may in fact, be the view of many non-pilots. Another view might be might be that since Earhart generally demonstrated poor planning/judgment etc and seemed uninterested at staying abreast of aviation technology, she was a hack aka poor pilot. To me this is the nub of the issue: if she was a hack, then she was probably incompetent to fly any other leg as well and should have been grounded earlier in her career! Of course, that would never have happened given her celebrity status... DC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:43:58 EDT From: Angus Subject: Island spotting from the air Alan, Thanks for your opinion and experience. I seem to remember it mentioned on the forum that the Colorado could be seen from 35 miles. This seems a little at odds with what you and Ric say. Even the underwater Carondelet reef could be easily seen from 10 miles. Assuming AE & Co were looking hard ( I bet they were!) and seeing as we know the weather at Howland, this seems to me to indicate that they probably missed Howland by more than 15 miles and maybe by more than 20 miles. If so, this points to a major error in navigation rather than a mere difficulty in spotting the island when they were in its immediate vicinity. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************* From Ric Bear in mind that Colorado was quite a bit taller than anything on Howland and that, when underway, she left big white wake. I would also argue that being 20 or even 50 miles off after 2500 miles is not a major error in navigation. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:48:43 EDT From: Tom Byers Subject: Underwater searches Are there any plans for an underwater search in the area NW of Howland Island? Granted its like looking for a needle in a haystack but who knows what might turn up? Tom Byers ************************************************************************** From Ric There have been two underwater searches by different companies in the area NW of Howland, one in December 1999 and the other in March 2002. Each cost well over a million dollars. Neither was successful. Both companies say they want to go back and search some more. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:59:07 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: History channel > Last night I watched an old 1976 program of "In Search Of" > ((..omitted..)) > I was surprised that it took nearly twenty-six years for him to > get the funds to search for the aircraft. You think with all of his > calculations, he could have convinced someone to search for the > Electra much earlier than the Nauticos expedition. This looks like a case of waiting for the technology to catch up, or at least make it financially workable. Compare, for example, the search for the U.S.S. Thresher in 1963 with the search for the Liberty Bell 7 in 1999. In both cases the location was well known (for an object lost at sea, anyway). It took two months to find Thresher, searching a 100 square mile area with three oceanographic research ships and up to ten other Navy support ships (see http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/Alumni/stories/Gerard_Sam_Thresher.htm for a nicely written first-hand story about this search). It took ten days to find the Liberty Bell 7, searching a 24 square mile area, with a single towed device. They lost the ROV and when the came back four months later with another, even though they had an exact GPS of her location, it took two days to find it again. If I recall correctly, the search area, based on those calculation is something like 500 square miles. Bill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:59:52 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Koshu movements For Ron Bright: Oh Lord, Ron, with the Irene Bolam stories. I have E-mails here from one of the Irene Bolam's and more on Cragmire. I would be happy to send them to you snail mail. RSVP with the address if you want them Carol Dow #2524 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:00:27 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Go Go Goldstein! Thanks Denise, It's nice to get some support now and then. Carol Dow #2524 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:08:03 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Goldstein & Dillon So sayeth Ric - > I confess that I'm at a loss to understand your bitterness. You >complained that we had somehow tried to repress your HF/DF paper so I >offered to send it to anyone who wanted it. I don't believe I ever complained about "repression". I did think it was somewhere in the TIGHAR files - sadly neglected, perhaps, and it was loudly derided by you (and others) at the time. But it's nice of you to send it out to those who asked for it. > You're now doing a pretty good impression of a guy whose bluff has > been called. I wasn't going to bother with replying to this, since it strikes me as incredibly cheeky coming from someone who artfully dodged answering my original questions (which, by the way, were politely and reasonably put). Have you ever considered running for political office? You are remarkably well-qualified! Cam Warren ************************************************************************ From Ric At least you didn't call me a journalist. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:25:44 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: New subscriber To Carol Dow: Thanks for the chart Info Carol I will give it a go. To Alan: Thanks for your response. I am not trying to marry the coordinates to the message time. The coordinates must have been given to AE. by Fred and he could only have got them if they were at that spot at that time ie noon on the 2/july/1937. So they must have been at that point at that time. What time AE passed the message is not important. I am tryng to prove that they made that detour and have given a reason why they should do so. I push this point because any detour must use more fuel and so must be considered in calculating how much fuel remains on arrival at Howland. The theory that they went to Gardiner rests on the fact that they had sufficient fuel , so any detour must be taken into account. This position report has tended to be dismissed as a garbled message or Radio operator mistake in the past. I dont think it was I must confess I am only an armchair navigator but I think I have a good grasp of the subject Jack. **************************************************************************** From Ric What you have is a hypothesis. Because there appears to be no way to test the hypothesis, all that can be said is that it is your opinion that the position was accurately reported and recorded and represents a detour that must be accounted for in any fuel calculation. I would say that, because there were no third party sightings anywhere along the route, is impossible for anyone to know what route the airplane took from Lae to apparently someplace in the general vicinity of Howland some 19 hours later. In assessing how much fuel the airplane could have or should have had when it was last heard from, all we can do is look at previous examples of the type's demonstrated performance and see what they tell us about the machine's potential given the particular conditions of the flight in question - to the extent we know what those conditions were. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:36:19 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Battery charging. Can anyone hazard a guess at what fuel consumption in gph might be expected from a single R1340 at a 1500 rpm whilst charging the battery assuming the engine was already hot and the charge rate was moderate ( say 30% discharged)? Regards Angus. *********************************************************************** From Ric I think it's a good question to address but I wonder why you pick 1500 rpm? The 10E special had constant speed props. Normally for this kind of ground operation you'd have the propellers set at "full increase" or "high rpm" (in other words, fine pitch, taking little bites of air). I don't know what throttle setting (usually expressed as manifold pressure in inches of mercury) it would take to achieve 1500 rpm on an R1340 at sea level but that and the mixture are what would determine the rate of fuel consumption. I would think that the first question has to be how fast does the engine need to be turning over for the generation to deliver a charge to the battery? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:42:21 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Battery charging. Do we know the likely maximum current output of the R1340 generator at 1500 rpm? Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric The short answer is no. Lockheed specs for the 10E call for: "1 Eclipse Type E-5 Generator (50 ampere) shielded. Installed on left engine." Apparently Earhart's was installed on the right engine but there's nothing in the very limited paperwork we have for her airplane that specifies what kind of generator she had. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:43:43 EDT From: Joe Subject: Re: Off-topic (Glenn Miller) Theres also a report his body was confirmed thru dog tags somewhere washed up evidentally on a beach. I have it here someplace Joe W3HNK *********************************************************************** From Ric That seems very unlikely. There was no funeral. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:07:33 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Off Topic but worthwhile The architectural fraternity have already had many discussions on definitions of conservations, restoration etc. etc. The aviation archaeology fraternity are just starting. Providence is the one area which concerns me, it is possible to have two (or more) aircraft with the same providence i.e. one has the original wings and the other may have the original fuselage. I wrote my thesis on restoration and conservation of historic facades of buildings, and many of the definitions from that would be just as applicable to aircraft e.g.: "1.4. Conservation means all the processes of looking after an aircraft so as to retain its historical significance. It includes maintenance and may according to circumstances including preservation, restoration, reconstruction and adaptation and will be commonly a combination of more than one of these. 1.5. Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric, contents and setting of an aircraft, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction and should be treated accordingly. 1.6. Preservation means maintaining the fabric of an aircraft in its existing state and retarding deterioration. 1.7. Restoration means maintaining the EXISTING fabric of an aircraft to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of the new material. 1.8. Reconstruction means the returning of an aircraft as nearly as possible to a known earlier state and is distinguished by the introduction of materials (new or old) into the fabric 1.9. Adaptation means modifying an aircraft to suit proposed compatible uses. 1.10. Compatible use means a use which involves no change to the cultural significant fabric, changes which are substantially reversible, or changes which require a minimal impact. 1.11. Conjectural re-construction means an aesthetic recreation of an aircraft based on drawings and photographs with little knowledge of the detailed structure of the machine. 1.12. Re-creation means a recreation of an aircraft based on original construction techniques and structure as far as practical." I believe that the aviation industry needs some kind of international agreement between the various groups with an interest in aviation archaeology to get together to compile internationally agreed definitions and systems. Sorry for getting on my hobby horse, I will dismount now. Regards David Kelly ************************************************************************** From Ric I generally agree with your definitions. Although it's off-topic for this forum and we really can't afford to get off on that tangent, it's a very important subject. Some years ago we put together a "TIGHAR Guide to Aviation Historic Preservation Terminology". Quite a few air musuems, mostly new museums that are not in the U.S., have officially adopted TIGHAR's definitions as the standard. The only international association of air museums, the aviation division of the International Association of Transportation Museums (IATM) made an attempt about ten years ago to come up with universally agreed-upon definitons - and hit a brick wall. The problem is that any standardization tends to devalue something in your collection. What you had been calling an "original" suddenly becomes a "reproduction", etc. Applying the kind of standards from the real world that you (and TIGHAR) suggest turns most air museums into theme parks full of fakes. Understandably, such standards are not welcomed. We stopped preaching about it many years ago because it was accomplishing nothing but making a lot of people angry. There has been some progress but it's very spotty. The National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola is now doing some excellent preservation work but the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum has actually gone backward. One of the most encouraging developments is the popularity of full-scale replicas built from new material from the grond up. For an outstanding example see http://www.wrightools.com/hughes/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:12:33 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Off-topic (Japanese Sub Find) In response to John B.'s posting (Fri, 30 Aug 2002), Ric wrote: >The midget sub find is actually quite interesting. One of the reasons it >wasn't found before is that it was "hiding" amidst a lot of other junk. If >Electra wreckage is mixed in with Norwich City debris deep on the reef slope >we'd be faced with the same problem. What makes any search operation at Niku >so expensive is the remoteness of the location. That wasn't a problem with >the japanese sub Ok, so what if Electra wreckage could be mixed in with Norwich City debris? The University of Hawaii team still managed to find the Japanese sub in spite of all the other junk. Also, if there are no documented reports of aircraft (or sea-craft) crashing on Niku island, then a deep-water search should be all the more easier since it limits artifact identification to only two possible sources...Norwich City, or Electra. Ok, so what if a deep-water search operation is expensive due to the remoteness of Niku. Unless someone asks University of Hawaii if they are interested in conducting a search, we will never know what their financial resources are, or what they are willing to spend. TR #2427 **************************************************************************** From Ric I know those guys. I know their ships and I know their resources. We've talked to them several times about Earhart and Niku. U of H would be more than happy for us to charter Moana Wave or the K-O-K (their two reserach vessels) for about $15,000/day. They don't do freebies. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:48:33 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: A Search in New Directions Recently, the Tighar board of directors decided to continue their 14-year search for conclusive artifactual evidence that AE, FN, or the Electra were on Niku island. With all due respect for the hard work and dedication put forth during these past Tighar expeditions, I have to ask: "What is there to find on the island?" Assuming Tighar's theory that AE and FN successfully landed on the reef flat and made it to shore, we can be certain they had with them: a.. Their physical bodies b.. The clothing (shirts, pants, shoes, etc.) they were wearing. We know what their clothing looked like because they were wearing it in the photos taken just before they took off from Lae. What we can not be completely certain of is all items they may have possibly salvaged from the Electra and carried onto the island. Gallegher documented finding bones, sextant box, bottle, etc., but nothing he could conclusively identify as belonging to AE, FN, or Electra. If AE or FN managed to salvage some additional items from the Electra other than those found by Gallegher, it is reasonable to assume they would have also kept those additional items close-at-hand near where they were trying to survive (and later perished). If so, why did Gallegher (or the survey crews, or the native colonists, or the Coasties, or Tighar) not find any additional items? Also, consider that if the Electra was already pushed over the reef edge when Lt. Lambrecht flew over 7 days later, then AE and FN only had those 7 days (or less) in which to perform any salvage work. Consider the following: a.. If the bones Gallegher found (and are now lost) were in fact those of AE and FN, and he collected all of the bones such that there are none remaining, then we can rule out Tighar finding bones of AE or FN on Niku. Even if the crabs (or wild pigs? or dogs?) carried off a few of the bones, the chance of discovering just one after 65+ years would be very remote. a.. If the artifacts (sextant box, etc.) Gallegher found (and are now lost) were the only artifacts AE and FN brought with them to the island, then there are no other AE/FN artifacts to be discovered on the island by Tighar. Based on the above assumptions it appears the probability would be very small for finding either AE bones, FN bones, or artifacts they carried onto the island. If so, then what artifactual evidence would there remain to look for? Oh yeah, how about the huge, 7000 lb. aluminum airplane that was theoretically bashed to pieces on the north shore reef edge. The numerical probability of finding a single piece of conclusive artifactual evidence from the Electra stuck in the reef edge, lagoon passage, or deep water is significantly greater if one were to look in those areas rather than continuing to search the island surface for something that could no longer be there. Bottom Line: If the physical remains of AE, FN, and any artifacts they carried onto the island were removed by Gallegher in 1940, and 14 years of searching by Tighar has not uncovered any further conclusive evidence, then why not re-focus the search on where there is more chance of finding something? If Tighar can not finance a deep-water search, then why not at least focus future effort and funds on the relatively shallow lagoon and passage? I know we've been down this road before, but I can't help myself. Thanks for listening. TR #2427 ************************************************************************ From Ric It's okay. I appreciate your concern and I agree with you that the chances of conclusively identifying the castaway(s) from surving personal effects seem remote but the Seven Site is yielding fascinating information which could help us understand how the castaway(s) lived and died. We also have no idea what might turn up in the next excavation. Let me try to articulate our reasoning with respect to the search for airplane debris. Our hypothesis is that the airplane was landed safely on the reef just north of the shipwreck, sent radio signals for several days and was subesequently washed off the reef by wave action. We think that it remained relatively intact but submerged in shallow water just off the reef edge for several years, which explains why its presence seems to have been known to the early settlers, especially fishermen, but not to any of the white administrative or survey personnel who visited the island up through the early years of the Pacific war. We currently suspect that at some time in the late 1940s the airplane began to break up and pieces started to appear on the reef flat and beaches on the west end of the island. Many of these were found, recovered and used by the colonists for local purposes. The utility of this debris may have encouraged the importation of other aluminum debris from wartime wrecks on Canton and other islands. Some buoyant pieces from the Electra seem to have washed through the main passage and onto the lagoon shore. Other pieces reportedly washed up on the Nutiran shore (north of the passage). Apparently, none of that wreckage now survives, either because it was all collected and used or because the aluminum has now corroded away. Some pieces seem to have washed up on the shoreline south of the passage. Both the "dado" (Artifact 2-18) and the section of airplane skin (2-2-V-1) were found near the shore along that coast. Neither show obvious signs of having been "worked" by the colonists and both have been found to have deposits on them which may indicate that they spent a year or more submerged in shallow water. We're presently trying to learn more about these deposits but they do appear reinforce our hypothetical sequence of events. We can see from a number of aerial photos taken over the years and from our own observations on the ground, that the western-most point of land south of the main passage (WE18 on the grid map) is subject to periodic overwash which deposits quantities of sand, and logically anything in the sand, inland along that point. There's a large area in there that may well contain aluminum that was washed ashore but has never been subjected to an organized visual and metal detector search by TIGHAR. That area is one of the prime targets for Niku V. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:49:25 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: HF/DF Well, if High Frequency Direction Finding (HF/DF) was so good then how come it was never developed further? All of the aircraft beacon stations are located between 190 and 535 khz in the Low Frequency band. The radio equipment in the airplane, the automatic direction finder (ADF), covers just from 190 through 1600, the beacon band and the AM broadcast band which is located immediately above the beacon band. gl. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:52:02 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Island spotting from the air Ric said: > I would also argue that > being 20 or even 50 miles off after 2500 miles is not a major error in > navigation. I have to agree with you on this. However, "major" is a rather relative term. If his usual standard of navigation was to within 10 miles as I believe he claimed, this was maybe double the error (if the time since the last fix was similar to his usual interval between fixes of 2-3hrs) Since his last fix was probably about 354 miles out, this corresponds to about 3hrs (at 118kt). Let us say it was a larger error than one might expect for Noonan, although not major in absolute terms. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric Whatever he claimed, his performance on the previous flights we know about wasn't anything like within 10 miles. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:53:26 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Irene Bolam's what? > Oh Lord, Ron, with the Irene Bolam stories. I have E-mails here from one of > the Irene Bolam's and more on Cragmire. > Carol, If you're going to do any writing you'll have to learn the difference between the possesive and a plural. What you mean is "one of the Irene Bolams" not "one of the Irene Bolam's" Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:04:16 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Koshu movements Is it likely that Fred would have had a copy of sailing directions with him which included detailed information for the Marshall Islands? Is he likely to have had charts covering the Marshalls at reasonably large scale? (We are assuming here that he was not on a secret mission to the Marshalls). Regards Angus. ************************************************************************* From Ric One indication about how Fred may have handled the need for detailed information about specific areas or features is the chart he used on the South Atlantic crossing. It's a large scale chart that has very few details that would be useful for "pilotage" once you reached the African coast, so Fred made notations along the margin of the map. He'd draw a box in which he'd print something like: "Cape Verde w. mound. White cylind. tower 66 ft. Flash white Vis. 26 mi." He then drew an arrow from the box to the place on the map it referred to. That sounds very much like the kind of information he would have gleaned from Sailing Directions. Making the notations on the map would save him the weight of a whole book of Sailing Directions and put the information right where he needed it for reference. Whether he had information with him about the Marshalls or the Phoenix Group is anybody's guess. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:05:48 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Why Was Amelia Doing The Flight? Alik wrote: >On a clear day one can see an island 15 to 20 miles out from the surface... >Besides, sea water tends to change from a deep blue to a greenish-blue as >you approach land, typically at about 20 miles from shore. It doesn't matter >what kind of land it is, this tends to be generally true". This may be a rule of thumb. In the Pacific atolls tend to rise steeply from the sea without color warning. Elsewhere sea beds tend to rise slowly indeed, causing the sea to change color from blue to greyish as Alik points out. As for visibility, 15 to 20 miles is sheer luxury and should have been sufficient to see Howland had they been near it. But because of a lack of greyish water around Howland there is no such traditional clue of nearby land. If you ever crossed the 20 miles Channel between France and England on an average day, you would have found yourself lucky with 5 miles visibility. That is why most VFR flights across the sea are flown in IFR: it is very hard to miss England flying 330 degrees outbound Cap Griz Nez. But if you have never done it before it takes confidence... And you feel relieved to see any land having been suspended in a featureless grey emptiness in front, above and below, the only horizon being the one on the instrument panel and the only instrument telling you that you are still alive being the altimeter. That's why I still admire AE for trying to fly around the world with the relative experience she had and the technical means at her disposal in 1937. If she missed Howland, remember there were no such things as inertial navigation and GPS in 1937 and the only reliable instrument to find Howland was not an ADF nor a QDM but the Mark 1 Eyeball. LTM (who believes the compass, the stop watch and the Mk 1 eyeball but considers GPS a great invention) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:06:37 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Off-topic (Glenn Miller) I think Ric is right. Glenn Miller's UC-64 took off and was never seen again. The aircraft was reported missing after fuel time had expired and the aircraft had not landed anywhere. As far as the records go there was never a report of bodies washed ashore. Whether the aircraft was hit by bombs being jettisoned by a Lancaster bomber or was shot down by trigger happy gunners on a Navy ship, we'll never know. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:09:19 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Why Was Amelia Doing The Flight? It may be the case that it doesn't work in the case of Gardner and/or Howland as I have seen exceptions to this rule, but the sea color change is _very_ subtle and it takes quite a few observations to get to the point where you can spot the difference. I couldn't make out the color difference until I had watched closely for it about a dozen times. As for pacific islands, I know it works at Johnston island (the only one I've approached by ship). Columbus and Magellan, along with most other sailors before the advent of good maps and navigational aids, knew they were close to continents and islands long before land was sited. Many thought this a mystic thing, but in fact they were just looking over the gunwales at the ater. There are many little tricks like this long since forgotten by most (like Magellans tricks for reading what are now called trade currents). So I suppose this may not be common knowledge to pilots, and a pilot may not know to look for this, or to be able to spot it if he did. As for the visuals, you're not the first to relate such an experience to me. I'm not sure where the difference comes from. On a clear day, about one hundred feet above water and with binoculars, we could see ship masts at 15 - 20 miles. Islands were usually even easier to see. At night, ship lights could definitely be seen at 20 miles on a clear night. These distances are based on radar ranging. Alik *************************************************************** From Ric Of course, aboard little Nai'a, even up in the crow's nest, we're nothing like a hundred feet up. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:18:02 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Battery charging. There was some speculation on rpm required for charging on the forum some time ago. Generators, as was pointed out, do not perform well at low rpm which is why all modern vehicles are fitted with alternators. Generators were controlled by a control box which uses a cut-out to prevent the battery discharging through the generator when the output voltage of the generator is insufficient to exceed the battery voltage and charge the battery. The cutting-in speed for car generators of this era was between 600 and 1500 rpm so I chose the conservative figure of 1500rpm to maximise fuel consumption. We would have to know the exact specs of the R1340 generator to answer the question of the cutting-in speed and the gearing, if any, between the crankshaft and generator. Regards Angus ************************************************************************* From Ric There are still lots of R1340s and generators around. What we need is somebody who owns and flys a T-6 ("Harvard" to Brits) who can tell us what it takes to get the generator to put out a charge. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:21:37 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Off Topic but worthwhile As for the merits of conservation, restoration, etc. I'd like to remind that it is very difficult today to find a mediaeval building a thousand years old in Europe that hasn't been renovated. That applies to such historic sites as the 4,000 year old palace of Knossos (near Hiraklion, Crete), medieval Venice and includes cities like Bruges and Ypres (Belgium). If restoration work had not been done, the buildings and the cities would be mere ruins today. The same is true with aircraft. Authentic wrecks may be authentic. But how did the original look like? Apparently a lot of people like restored medieval cities and buildings. That is why tourists flock to them and take pictures. The Brussels Market Square (which is popular with American tourists) was completely rebuilt following destruction by French artillery in the 17th century. The medieval city of Ypres Belgium) was completely destroyed in WW 1. It was rebuilt after the war to its present mediaeval splendor. And the Castle of the Counts in Ghent (Belgium) was built in the 11th century but would be a shambles if it had not been renovated in the 19th century. LTM (who thinks that a thing of beauty should be a joy forever, even with needs some repairs) *********************************************************************** From Ric Rebuilt castles are popular with tourists but they don't tell us much about what castles were really like. Air museums today are full of rebuilt airplanes for the same reason. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:22:22 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Paxton's letter to Naval Intelligence Do you or anyone on the forum have a copy of the letter sent by Nina Paxton to Naval Intelligence in August of 1947? The latter letter of September 1947 to the FBI is of course available on the net but I have not come across the former. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:52:29 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Battery charging. The T-6 manual and typed operating procedures for the R-1340 variously indicate 1,000 and 1,200 as generator cut-in RPM. The Lockheed 10 manual (R-985) gives idle at 800-1,000 RPM. No mention is made of generator cut-in. ************************************************************************ From Ric Sounds like 1,200 rpm might be a safe number. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:53:13 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Sailing Directions Does anyone on the forum have a description from pre-war Sailing Directions of Knox island off Mili atoll? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:54:21 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: A Search in New Directions So, the argument here is that since it's hard to find stuff on Niku we ought to look someplace else, even though we don't think they wound up someplace else? Isn't that a little like looking on C Street for the dollar you lost on A Street, because the light's better? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:14:58 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper Re: HF/DF research references should be sold on CDs. I've thought of that, for maybe 10 years or so. But let's back up a minute, and examine the purpose. What I have is reams and reams of reference material, which I have condensed down into a report which I posted on the Forum. So you have the basic substance, the reason why AE quite probably had an HF/DF system aboard the Electra. I also provided Bob Brandenburg (and all the Forum monitors) with an enlarged list of references. If you think I made this all up, or just misinterpreted the information, you only need to spot check as many items as you wish, consulting the sources I named. After checking may 5 or 10, maybe two dozen, you'd probably be satisfied. Randy Jacobson spent five years or so putting all the Navy/Coast Guard formal radio messages on a CD, which TIGHAR was selling for $100 or so. Useful and valuable as it is, they apparently sold very few. (Randy says, probably tongue in cheek, "Maybe two!) I offered to have my stuff copied (commercially - at cost) if Bob B. or Ric really wanted it, not to make money on it. Note too, that we're talking about "raw data", not a concise series of brief "sound-bites" that would display a notarized document from Adm. Somebody, attesting to the fact that George Putnam requisitioned an RDF-1 from the Navy on such-and-such a date. Case in point; the 300+ pages of RDF-2 correspondence. I studied the whole thing, and took two pages of useful notes. If you want to repeat the process, you can order the file from the National Archives, and they'll be happy to copy it for you, at a cost 0f $50 or so. Bottom line; non-fiction authors provide references so the reader can verify the information on his own, rather than take the author's word for it. They don't send out photostats - or CD-ROMs - as a practical matter. Ric would have you believe that a footnote is no guarantee, but then he probably suspects the dairy is putting water in the milk it sells him. Hey, ginger ale continues little or no ginger these days, but the percentage is printed on the can, and if you don't want to trust the canner, you could hire a lab to test it. Thanks for your interest, and if you still really want to buy a CD under the circumstances, we can talk about it. (by the way, currently my files are all on Zip disks, and are constantly being updated). Cam Warren *********************************************************************** From Ric For the record, TIGHAR has sold about 15 research CDs to date at $100/ea. We're a recognized 501(c)(3) public charity. The receipt we send with the CD specifies that $80 of the $100 is a charitable contribution and is tax deductible within the limits of the law. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:19:10 EDT From: Warren Subject: Things That Trouble Me As you know by now, I am fascinated with both the Canton engine story as well as it's potential "missing engine connection" with the wreck photo. I realize that both items are unsubstantiated, but the individual stories and they way they key together-bolster the possibility of truth in my mind. I am disturbed that the wreck photo shows that the airplane is apparently resting comfortably on land, and appears to have been there awhile. I have traveled some in that neck of the woods, and at one time saw a crashed Japanese Zero moderately intact on an island near Truk (Now Chuk) Lagoon 50 years after the fact. I cannot help that nagging feeling that I have-that there should still be a moderately intact hulk (missing one engine?) somewhere on land. I am curious-has the wreck photo research been taken to it's logical conclusion or have you hit the proverbial brick wall? Warren ************************************************************************ From Ric I've always felt that the thing to do when you hit a brick wall is to start chipping at the bricks. We're still actively looking for information that might help us understand the photo. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:52:32 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Battery charging. Skeet, Great work - thanks. Can you confirm the output voltage as 12 volt and that the maximum current is 50 amps? I assume the Electra had a pair of 6 volt 13 plate cell batteries in series judging by the Exide model number. Is this correct? Any leads on fuel consumption at 1200rpm at sea level in fine pitch? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:53:25 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Island spotting from the air Angus, you would need to fly in similar conditions to comprehend first hand how difficult it is to spot a tiny island on a bright sunny morning looking into the glare of the sun and through scattered cu. I assure you it is easy to fly directly over it and miss it. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:54:24 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: New subscriber > The coordinates must have been > given to AE. by Fred and he could only have got them if they were at that > spot at that time ie noon on the 2/july/1937. Jack, I must have too much going on to concentrate properly but I'm not clear why you say for AE to be at certain coordinates it had to be only at noon. Unless I'm missing something any set of coordinates can be passed at any moment around the clock. What am I missing? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:55:27 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: New subscriber > The theory that they went to Gardiner rests on the fact > that they had sufficient fuel , so any detour must be taken into account. Jack, that isn't necessary to consider even if they DID detour somewhat. The airplane uses the same fuel no matter where it is. It doesn't know whether it is on course or off. It's simply time in the air. That was 19.2 hours. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:57:08 EDT From: Marjorie Subject: Seeing islands from the sea Alik says the ability of Columbus and Magellan to know they were near "islands and continents" was considered mystical but was based on subtle changes in the color of the sea. Isn't there a very great difference between locating atolls and locating high islands (and continents) because clouds tend to collect above the high islands and can be seen for hours before the island itself rises above the horizon. I once was on a freighter sailing from Truk to Pohnpei and for at least half a day before we arrived we could see a pile of clouds on the horizon that almost echoed the shape of that very rainy island. According to Micronesian tradition, the islanders found their way between atolls by learning the currents and watching for the way the prevailing swells broke strangely under the the influence of a distant atoll they had gone around. This is supposedly the point of the lovely Marshallese navigation charts made of strips of wood with cowry shells representing the islands. I can't vouch for the accuracy of this, having never navigated between atolls. But those folks did manage to get around from place to place before the internal combustion engine entered their world. LTM (who prefers canoeing on small lakes) Marjorie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:03:59 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Re: A Search in New Directions For Tom King Sorry, but I think you missed the authors point. He merely suggest that TIGHAR look elsewhere on the Atoll, mainly the reef's edge and ocean floor. So, if you lost a dollar on "C" street, you don't look on "A" street, you look into the "C" Street gutter. **************************************************************************** From Herman De Wulf Tom King wrote : "So, the argument here is that since it's hard to find stuff on Niku we ought to look someplace else, even though we don't think they wound up someplace else? Isn't that a little like looking on C Street for the dollar you lost on A Street, because the light's better?" That is exactly how I feel. I think it is for the researchers who actually went there to decide whether it was worth the effort and whether it is meaningful to continue. That does not exclude TIGHAR looking into other scenario's. But before these are investigated I feel Gardner Island or Nikumaroro should remain the main target of TIGHAR efforts until it is pretty sure there is nothing to be found. Spending resources on other scenario's at this point looks like throwing away money that are hard to come by. LTM (who remembers one Murphy saying one always finds things in the last place one looks). ************************************************************************* From Ric Lawrence is correct. Tom Riggs was not suggesting that we look anywhere other than Niku. He merely felt that we should abandon the land search in favor of the water. << If Tighar can not finance a deep-water search, then why not at least focus future effort and funds on the relatively shallow lagoon and passage?>> In my reply I tried to explain why we feel that there are land areas that still need to be searched. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:08:16 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Irene Bolam's what? Angus, Your are so right. The apostrophe is in the wrong place. Sorry. I type too fast. Carol ************************************************************************* From Ric Uh... Carol... the apostrophe shouldn't be there at all. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:09:20 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Koshu movements Carol, I am not researching the Bolam/Earhart alleged connection. Thanks for the offer though. Some others on the AES channel are invovled and they may very well want some of your material. If you like I can give you an educated opinion off forum. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:13:12 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Paxton's letter to Naval Intelligence Woody is a virtual achivist with Paxton material, docs, and letters to Naval Intelligence, Walter Winchell, et al. Contact Woody via Tighar. *************************************************************** From Ric I think you'll find Woody Rogers at planeguy@xxxxxx ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:53:44 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Paxton's letter to Naval Intelligence Thanks for the link guys. I did contact Woody a long time ago but he had mislaid the disc it was on so I was hoping someone else might have the letter. I know the mere mention of Mili probably sends Ric into some sort of a head-banging frenzy but I would have thought a copy of this letter ought to be material he should have. You WILL discover that Nina is not a red herring Ric - trust me! ;-) Regards Angus ********************************************************************* From Ric I agree that Nina may not be a red herring. I'd like to have a copy of her 1947 letter. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:56:03 EDT From: Craig Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper > Thanks for your interest, and if you still really want to buy a CD under > the circumstances, we can talk about it. (by the way, currently my files > are all on Zip disks, and are constantly being updated). Sorry to be short-fused, but I for one am getting tired of this thread. You prove yourself or you don't. The more you sidestep, the worse you look. The research community works like this - you propose a hypothesis, you research that hypothesis, you write a paper (usually) in support of your hypothesis, referencing that which supports your hypothesis. You then release your paper into the masses to be scrutinized - and either independently confirmed or questioned. You've done ok so far, except from my perspective you have done nothing to back up your claims. Without references supporting you hypothesis, you are dead in the water. You can write things on this forum like no one understands you, or that Ric is too paranoid to believe you, or that he hasn't sold enough CDs to justify you putting your stuff on CD, blah blah blah blah. Whatever. It is this simple: You either prove the claims in your paper by providing references, or you don't. Until you do, you'll always be met with skepticism. You don't exactly compel belief when you say things like "after checking may 5 or 10, maybe two dozen, you'd probably be satisfied." Research does not function in this manner. Everything must be checked. A tiny hole can sink the biggest ship. These things take time. The 10 years you've put into this paper will surely be worth it when you finally prove all your claims - and convince even Ric that what you say is true. But until such time as you provide references, I for one will treat this paper like all other unsubstantiated claims --- fiction. My guess is that you can't provide references to your claims because when you wrote the paper, you didn't take the time to make notes on where you found certain pieces of information,and now you are unwilling to go back and try to find everything. So, instead you try to beat it over the head of everyone on the forum, aghast when people don't believe what you say. Maybe Ric is somehow trying to suppress your report. There have been many claims made on this forum. If one were to believe every claim made on this forum as unquestionable truth, we'd be digging holes somewhere in Japan looking for the Electra. Sincerely, Craig ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:58:05 EDT From: Dave Chase Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? We on the forum need to qualify AE & FN's skill levels rather than opinionate their skill levels - suggest it may be more productive to supporting the TIGHAR group Gardener / Nikumuroro Island Hypothesis - Otherwise? ***************************************************************** From Ric How do you propose to "qualify AE & FN's skill levels". ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:17:29 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Battery charging. For Angus Murray The following from a Lockheed 10 maintenance manual printed in 1948: The Lockheed 10 did indeed have a (nominal) 12-volt system with one 12-volt battery. As with your automobile, charging voltage was a little higher at 14.2 volts. Unfortunately, the maximum output of the generator is not specifically listed, but it is protected with a 60 amp fuse. Fuel consumption at low power settings has proven to be elusive. Some manuals for this class of airplane provide an inclusive number for engine start, taxi, run-up and takeoff. KJ's fuel burn for the first hour included such an allowance. The amount of throttle required for 1,200 rpm is very small and I don't recall fuel consumption at a "fast idle" being a concern in piston engined aircraft. That doesn't really answer the basic question: "How much fuel did she need to transmit for four nights?" Skeet ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:23:25 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Things That Trouble Me Warren , one of the things that bothers me about the wreck is, that the main wing spar is broken and misaligned in the photo. If anyone can explain how an aircraft with broken main spar and the rear cabin missing can still stand up, I would be very interested. There are other things that bother me about the wreck photo, but more on that later. I believe that there is evidence that the aircraft in the wreck photo is a long distance Electra 10E. How many were built? **************************************************************************** From Ric The Model 10 does not have a "main spar" in the conventional sense. There is a built up structure known as a "main beam" that is too far aft to be visible in the Wreck Photo but I see no evidence that it is broken. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:25:11 EDT From: Denise Subject: Wreck photo! PNG You say: >We're still actively looking for information that might help us >understand the photo. I queried one of the people who told me about the Electra wreck in the PNG jungle and he showed me a photo that he claimed was it. Naturally I know nothing about what a Electra wreck looks like, but I can recognise a jungle, and this is definitely a photo of a plane wrecked in a tropical jungle ... albeit a very healthy tropical jungle, so it isn't your photo. I am very aware that PNG and surrounding islands have jungles full of wrecked WWII planes and this could be any one of those, but if you're interested I can possibly get a copy of the photo from the guy and scan it and send to you. Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, please. That would be interesting to see if only for purposes of comparison. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:29:01 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: New subscriber Alan -- Re fuel usage. You are correct,time in the air is the critical factor. Re coordinates. I will try to explain how I came to my conclusions, I hope it's not too long winded. When I first started researching the flight I plotted a course Lae to Howland using great circle course and distance confirmed at www.info.gov.hk/javascpt/gcsail.htm in order to estimate where AE/FN would be at the time of their various radio calls. I also plotted an estimated noon sun transit position which I assumed Fred would do as a normal part of his routine. This would give him an accurate Lat. which would tell him how far off course they were and enable him to estimate any drift or other corrections that may be required. Some time later I saw the Chater letter on TIGHAR'S web-site and noted the apparrent ambiguos position report. I plotted this also and realised it was near the same meridian I had previously plotted for the noon sighting. So I thought could this be a noon shot also. Using the calculator at http://mach.usno.navy.mil and going to Data Services/positionof Sun & moon/sun &moon data for one day and entering the Lat. Long date and time zone (10 hrs East ) shows this to be so.and relates approximatlely to where one would expect them to be after two hours flight. Does this not indicate that for FN to have passed these figures to AE for transmmision they must have passed through that point at that time. Of course anywhere on that meridian would also be at local noon but Fred gives a Lat as well which ties them to that particular position. Jack Clark ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:43:28 EDT From: Angus Subject: A new scenario It was no-one's fault. Amelia flew heroically and Fred navigated faultlessly. But then it happened!.......... Still hundreds of miles from their destination, the starboard prop suddenly detaches itself from the crankshaft. Fatigue failure has struck, initiated from an undetected crack caused by the Luke Field accident and accelerated by the cruel overloading at takeoff. The prop, relieved of the drag of the aircraft surges ahead and begins to fall. The right wing, deprived of power, slows and drops and the aircraft turns and rolls viciously right into a dive as the port engine continues to pull. Amelia applies full opposite aileron and rudder and quickly closes the throttles and shuts down the starboard engine. At that moment, the loosened prop smashes into the right hand side of the nose as the aircraft catches up with it. Fred, sitting in the right hand seat, is hit by flying debris and seriously injured. Amelia is less seriously hurt being further away. After a titanic struggle she regains control but Fred is semi-conscious and in no condition to navigate and Amelia must do the best she can. In spite of her efforts, the aircraft continually veers to the right of course as they press on on the single engine. As they near the longitude of Howland, Fred recovers sufficiently to get a sun shot but by now they are WAY off course to the south. They turn on to the 157/337 line. After a short search to the north for Howland, they are forced to turn south and are glad to sight Gardner. Its a good landing, but with only one engine Amelia is unable to taxi the aircraft away from the reef edge where they have landed. The aircraft just turns in circles. With the supercharger doing service as a flywheel they are still able to run the starboard engine at low rpm, enough to charge the battery. Eventually, the aircraft is swept off the reef by the surf on the morning of the ninth of July and floats off to sink some way offshore. When the Colorado search party arrive a few hours later, the aircraft is nowhere to be seen. Now if that Canton engine has a sheared crankshaft.......... :-) Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric I know this has got to be a joke but I'll bite. A. The propellers and hubs were replaced after the Luke Field wreck. B. If the starboard prop departs the shaft and hits the fuselage ain't nobody going anywhere but down. C. Odd that AE wouldn't happen to mention in any of her radio transmissions that such interesting events had transpired. D. The reason they can't taxi away from the reef edge is because the only place that is smooth enough for the airplane to move around on is the part of the reef out near the ocean where they landed. E. Supercharger as flywheel doesn't work. An airplane engine without a prop will tear itself to pieces in no time. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:04:43 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: MERRILL FLIGHTS It took some time but Flight of London has produced the particles it published on the Merrill Atlantic crossing in 1937. As the forum does not support attachments I'll send them by fax. They do not contain technical information of fuel management. They do contain surprising information (at lest to me) regarding their navigation. It appears that when arriving in Britain they were a bit off course and landed at the wrong airport. There is also an interesting comment by Merrill on the Sperry autopilot. Herman ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Herman. I got your fax. A note of clarification: I can receive email attachments just fine at the forum address. I just can't distribute them on the forum. You are the only forum subscriber who has responded to my request for information about the Merrill/Lambie flights. I have since assembled, but not yet analyzed, a great deal of information from newspaper and magazine microfilm archives. I had not, however, seen the Flight articles. There are some errors in the Flight articles. For example, they have the engines as 450 hp when, in fact, the airplane was virtually a duplicate of Earhart's. Also, they did not bring motion picture film of the Hindenburg disaster to England, only stills. The coud have brought movies but British authorities declined, not wishing to "spoil the gaeity" of the Coronation cermonies for King George VI. (It was a different world back then.) With other sources to check against we should be able to catch any mistakes. I knew about the Sperry Gyro Pilot but the bit about using 100 octane gasoline for takeoff is new information. The Merrill/Lambie flights are a fascinating and hitherto untapped source of excellent information about the performance capabilites of the Model 10E Special. We'll be looking at them very closely. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:05:48 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper In reference to Cam's report, Craig wrote: > Maybe Ric is somehow trying to suppress your report. No, Ric has made it available to anyone who wanted a copy. If I thought it was of significance, I'd probably get a copy myself, but it seems like a moot point to me - it doesn't matter what kind of DF was aboard. It either didn't work, or for whatever reason they couldn't use it. Regardless, they got lost. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:17:17 EDT From: Eric Subject: Amelia vs. the scaevola One question which has always puzzled me about the 7 site is how AE and FN were able to hack out the scaevolo to make their campsite. Did the Electra's equipment inventory include a machete? It would seem more logical that they would have selected a site that was relatively free of jungle growth, particularly scaevolo, which sounds like some pretty nasty stuff. This is not to imply that they didn't camp out at the 7 site. (It might have been cleared by somebody who was already there or who had been there earlier.) Your comments, please. Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca. ************************************************************************** From Ric You're right. Only fools like us would hack through that much scaevola, but in 1937 the Seven Site was very different than it is today. Aerial photos taken in 1937, 1938, and 1941 show the inland areas where we found evidence of habitation to be forest (probably Buka, Kanawa and Ren) rather than open bush country as it is today. Forested areas on Niku are the most pleasant environments on the island. The big trees shade out the underbrush but let the breeze blow through. The present-day Buka forest that immediately adjoins the Seven Site on the west side is almost cathedral-like in its majesty. At some time after 1941 the trees at the Seven Site were cut down. Anytime the overstory is removed on Niku, the scaevola invades and today the site is a hopeless tangle. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:29:50 EDT From: Dave Chase Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? Ric - the last message in this thread says it's 'for me', but who is it from????? Frankly, I don't really see the 'need to further qualify AE & FN's skill levels'. Trying to do so would perpetuate a thread that would forever be herding cats! As for more opinion!: There is no question that FN was a world class navigator. His experience and professionalism speaks for itself. There is also no question that AE was involved in numerous accidents - far more than her female peers of the day. And by the way, the ones who are still alive will attest to that as well. No more opinion on this subject from me.... On the subject of FN, I've got an excellent article written by FN on his procedures for navigation. If you don't have it, I can send a copy. Of course, there's no guarantee that these weren't modified for that last flight... DC *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sorry. That posting was from Tom Strang. Not everyone remembers to sign their postings. (It also saves me time if you put in your "From Whoever" line at the beginning of the message.) As for world class navigator Noonan, I'm afraid that another Earhart Myth may be about to fall. A close look at ol' Fred's documented performance on previous flights shows him to be less than rigorous, to say the least. Pan Am's transoceanic operations relied on the Adcock DF system. Precise navigation to the destination by the navigator was not a requirement. All he had to do was get the flight within range of the Adcock (200 to 500 miles or so) and he was home free. Fred got a lot of press as PAA's star navigator but the fact is, his chart's tell a rather different tale. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:30:49 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: True or false? Craig said: "There have been many claims made on this forum. If one were to believe every claim made on this forum as unquestionable truth, we'd be digging holes somewhere in Japan looking for the Electra." Well said, squire. I couldn't agree more on your take on this entire episode. It's time for the author to walk the walk. LTM, who's worn out several pairs of walking shoes Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:45:43 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper Attention Craig (who fired off the following) - > Sorry to be short-fused, but I for one am getting > tired of this thread. You prove yourself or you > don't. The more you sidestep, the worse you look. And it looks like you're not paying attention. If you'd read the message (via the Forum) which I addressed to Bob Brandenburg, you might reconsider the implied accusation that I was not telling the truth. I'm not sure what your background is, but the reference as to how "the research community works" raises questions as to your familiarity with the process. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, Ill try to explain the situation yet again. Neither TIGHAR nor Cam Warren can positively prove - at this point - exactly what DF equipment was aboard the Electra. Ric makes a good guess, based on conventional wisdom, but leaves several holes in the story. Until recently, the chief argument against my theory was that government entities had no interest in the use of high frequencies for direction finding. I have established that was definitely NOT the case. They were keenly interested. Such equipment existed, and not merely as experimental. I have cited substantiating evidence. Multiple pieces of evidence, and I've told you precisely where to look for confirmation. But I'm not obliged to do your homework, or spend my money copying the pile of documents and shipping them off to you, suitably highlighted, of course. And I don't think very many in the "research community" will do it either. Did Amelia have the option to install what was probably a "state of the art" HF/DF? Definitely. Was it installed? Somebody knew, but I don't presently have any unimpeachable testimony. But I'm still searching. But there is evidence that unpublicized modifications were made in Miami, and we KNOW AE attempted to DF on 7500 kc, which would suggest she had the appropriate gear. > My guess is that you can't provide references to > your claims because when you wrote the paper, you > didn't take the time to make notes on where you found > certain pieces of information, and now you are > unwilling to go back and try to find everything. So, > instead you try to beat it over the head of everyone > on the forum, aghast when people don't believe what > you say. (And my guess would be you are a TIGHAR toady, but I'm trying to avoid personal barbs.) You haven't seen my Earhart library, nor my several hundred files, nor my stack of notebooks. Ron Bright has seen, and mentioned, the quickly accessible material on computer disks. So, what's your problem? If you'd care to list the confirmation you seek, perhaps I can find an appropriate quote or two. But then, you'd probably challenge the citation. Government interest in HF/DF? Already cited. Available production line equipment? Already cited. Quantity government orders in the mid-thirties for such equipment? Already cited. Circumstantial evidence that supports my theory? Already cited. Positive PROOF that Amelia had HF/DF? Not yet, but I'll keep trying. Positive PROOF that Amelia only had LF/DF? None. Meantime, I'd be most interested in your detailed, and substantiated, rebuttal. (But until then, try to be a little more charitable!) Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric Let me make it simple. Let's assume that all of Cam's sources say exactly what he says they say. After all, Cameron is an honorable man. What we're left with is Cam's opinion. You either agree with his opinion or you don't. I don't and, by golly, I expect all of you TIGHAR Toadies to fall in line and agree with me like you always do. Now, can we move on? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:05:22 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: New subscriber None of the position reports AE gave prior to 0718 GMT make any sense relative to their flight path. Some are so far off to be laughable. I attribute it to copy/listening errors by the radio operator. Plese see the 8th edition for more details regarding these position reports. I should also mention that an analysis of radio reports of positions from Oakland to Honolulu compared to the actual positions marked on the maps used by Noonan indicate a minimum delay from position to report by 15 minutes, and as much as 45 minutes. Earhart broadcast on a radio schedule only, and provided only the latest position information she had, regardless of whether it was timely. This was a grievous error, as one should provide both the position and time of the position fix to truly be helpful in case of an accident and loss. ************************************************************************* From Ric One of the most difficult things for us to understand today is that radioed "position reports" by long-distance publicity flights in the 1930s were more in the nature of press releases than actual navigational reports. Dick Merrill, a professional airline captain, sent very specific position reports by radio to Eastern Airlines' headquarters in Newark, NJ during his return flight from England. Newsmen were crowded around the receiver and eagerly reported his progress to the waiting public. Later Merrill admitted that he had been "just guessing". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:08:15 EDT From: Shane Brinkman Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper < Now, can we move on?>> ribit, ribit, ribit ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:08:46 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper But why would a government the size of the US, with all its air force and naval air resources and a major base in the middle of the Pacific, NEED to use a flight like Amelia's? Say the military wants to try out new radio gear by Bendix, Warren and Gillespie Inc, or whoever - why not put it in one of its own planes and test it for itself, rather than relying on civilians with a commercial link to the manufacturer? Even if it was installed and had worked for AE and FN, surely the government wasn't going to sign any contract on their say-so and would need to perform its own assessment anyway? And if it's remotely secret, why trail it round a dozen or so airports in what we'd now call the Third World? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:09:31 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: H-1 Racer The Wright built replica of the Hughes H-1 Racer will be flying at the Reno Air Races in Reno, Nevada next week on Sept. 12 thru 15 for those interested. Chris#2511 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:10:15 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? Apology in order to Dave Chase and Ric for not signing last post - Crisis management moment interrupted post. Respectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:14:10 EDT From: Harvey Subject: Re: Battery charging. For Angus: You requested "any leads on fuel consumption at 1200 rpm at sea level in fine pitch". What follows is a very approximate calculation done by extending the available manufacturer's data into the engine low power range . The bottom line is that I think that at the conditions stated, the single 1340H engine consumed about 5 - 8 GPH. Thanks to Ric who realized the importance of determining the approximate minimum RPM (1200),the speed at which the generator cuts in and to Skeet for locating the RPM data and the fact that the plane had a 12 volt batteryThe speed information makes it possible to estimate fuel consumption. Here is my reasoning: With the throttle set at or near idle the lowest manifold pressure given by P&W in their Sea level Horsepower Calibration curve is 20 inches. Perhaps 19" is attainable. To estimate the brake horse power at these MP's and 1200 rpm,I extended the BHP given by the Lockheed power control chart , R.487,page 11, from 1600 down to 1200 rpm at these two MP's using a straight line approximation to calculate the BHP.The results are 73 HP at 20" and 49 HP at 19",both for single engine operation. These engine power levels , I believe, are more than adequate to drive the generator since they greatly exceed the generator's capability of recharging the battery at the maximum generator current output. For example,at an approximate maximum charge rate of 50 amperes at 12 volts the power flow to the load is 50*12=600 watts. At 746 watts per horse power, this amounts to a little less than 1 HP needed to deliver the 50 amps. With a single battery at 6 volts, the charging power is half. Even allowing for the generator efficiency, the single engine power far exceeds the generator' s charging capability. To determine fuel consumption from BHP,we need to know the specific fuel consumption,sfc in pounds/HP-hour. Unfortunately,the sfc data supplied by Lockheed in R.487on page 34 does not extend below 200 HP. The same is true for the P&W data. Again, by extending the known data in a straight line fashion, we get an approximate idea of sfc at the low BHP levels. The P&W sfc values are higher than Lockheed's at the higher engine horsepowers encountered in the normal operating range,but at these low levels,there isnt much difference-both show similar high sfc values at 19" equal to approximately 0.65. At 20",we get 0.63 lb/hour,nearly the same. Finally, to calculate fuel consumption in gallons per hour we need to multiply sfc by BHP to obtain pounds per hour of fuel consumed and then divide the result by 6 pounds /gallon to get the final result in GPH. The results at 20" are 0.63*73/6 = 7.7 or rounded off 8 GPH and at 19" we get 0.65*49/6 = 5.3 or 5 GPH. The length of time SE would have been able to reansmit before her tanks ran dry depends of course on the fual consumption and the larger question of what her reserve was when she and Fred landed at Niku. If she had 100 gallons remaining when she landed, they could have sent messages for a maximum of 100/5.3=19 hours total time. At 8 gph, the transmission time limit for 100 gallons would be down to about 12 1/2 hours. Etc. I will leave the estimate of elapsed time (how many nights)to others or for another time. harvey #2387 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:41:55 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Battery charging. For Harvey and Angus Using a completely different method, I calculated 6 gallons per hour at 1,200 rpm. No argument. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:07:09 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Reaction RE: Angus's scenario of Sept. 4 Just what we'd expect from Ric -- letting the facts get in the way of a good story! LTM, a fact known by all Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:57:30 EDT From: David Chase Subject: Japanese cooperation I know this is off the TIGHAR theory but has anyone you know of in recent times ever tried to see if the Japanese would answer any questions about Earhart? David ********************************************************************** From Ric The first question would be, just who are "the Japanese"? One prominent Japanese historian - Hiroshi Nakajima, Executive Director of the Pacific Society in Tokyo -- is a TIGHAR memeber and has been very active in our project for about 10 years. Nakajima-san has had no difficulty at all in accessing official records, nor has any other researcher seeking Earhart information in Japan as far as I know. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:58:49 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper Phil Tanner wants to know why the government would have Earhart test new equipment, instead of one of their own guys. I guess you just tuned in, Phil! I thought I made it abundantly clear that the equipment in question - the Bendix RDF-1 - was a "done deal", and the Navy had already ordered and presumably installed some of the 150 units intended for PBYs. Besides the government, the commercial airlines (specifically TWA) were interested, and had requested special clearance for the classified gear so that they could do their own testing. A convincing demonstration by Earhart would have boosted sales for Bendix, one the the sponsors of the Earhart flight. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 20:04:24 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: A new scenario You sound like Arthur Alan Wolk. gl ************************************************************************* From Ric Who does? Angus or me? For forumites who may not know, Arty Wolk is the world's most successful/rapacious aviation plaintiffs' attorney. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 20:17:24 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Why use Earhart? Although Earhart's star was on the wane in 1937 -- in fact, the entire Last Flight has a Norma Desmondish feel to it -- she was still, arguably, one of the 10 or 15 most famous people in the world. The celebrity-endorsement biz being much the same back then as it is today, I can envision Bendix equipping Earhart with the latest-greatest DF gear in return for a post-flight endorsement. Imagine the ad copy: "Even Though My Navigator Was Drunk And I Know Less About Radio Than Most Chimpanzees, I Still Found Howland With My BENDIX RA-1 Direction Finder! Get Yours Today And Never Miss An Important Landfall Again!" It also makes sense that the Bendix PR machine would have held its fire pending a successful outcome of the flight. (Headline: "HIGHLY-TOUTED BENDIX RADIO GEAR SENDS FAMED AVIATRIX TO THE BOTTOM") When the flight was decidedly less than successful, Bendix conveniently forgot about its involvement. Having said all this I'm still not sure that the specific DF equipment aboard the Electra has much to do with the grand scheme of things. But if Cam wants to pursue this angle, more power to him! LTM Pat Gaston ************************************************************************** From Ric Cam's speculative scenario would have rung more true if there was any known occasion when Earhart accepted equipment for a flight but kept it secret until the flight was successfully accomplished. The Sperry Gyro-Pilot, for example, was a new gizmo that was met with some skepticism by the conservative pilot community. There were rumors that the thing could "run away" and crash your airplane for you. Nonetheless, Earhart's use of the Gyro-Pilot was openly publicized before the flight. Closer to home, the installation of one of five prototype examples of the Hooven/Bendix Radio Compass aboard the Electra in October 1936 was no secret. It was pulled out in February and replaced with an old MN-5 Bendix loop and the new coupler - again, well-publicized. If Bendix later added yet another radio to NR16020 but kept it quiet he was breaking an established pattern. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:14:42 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: New subscriber To Randy Jacobson: Thank you for your comments. The only actual position report I am aware of prior to the 0718 Z one is the report I have been discussing with Alan, which I am trying to make sense of. The Chater letter (Page6) only gives two actual position reports received. I agree with you it was a grievous mistake not to give a time the fix was calculated (it also makes it harder for us to follow the flight !!) Perhaps Amelia did try to transmit the report earlier, Chater's letter notes that communications were prevented by interference until 0418Z and then the entire message was not readable. Re the Oakland Honolulu flight . I believe they carried two pilots and two navigators on that trip with one navigator doing duty as a radio operator. This would ease the burden on each individual. To Ric: Re the Merrill flight, he was flying from continent to continent and could perhaps afford to be a bit more casual. Fred was looking for a pin point in the ocean and would I feel make his sightings as accurate as possible even that eariy in the flight. It does not seem as though I can offer any further explanation of my reasoning regarding the 0518Z report. As the outcome of the matter does not affect the outcome of the flight ( I am just trying to clear up one of the many side issues) perhaps I should just agree to disagree and let it go at that. The only person I can find with a similar opinion is Elgen Long and he only mentions it in passing giving no definite opinion. I did not get the idea from him and had come to my conclusion some time before I read his book a few months ago. I have been trying to obtain information on the 8th. edition Randy mentioned but on selecting the link on the Earhart Project page I only get a Page canot be found message. Is the link not operating at present ? Or it may be a fault at my end. Is the 8th edition a hard copy item or CD ? I would also like to know its cost. Jack Clark. *************************************************************************** From Ric Ooops, looks like that link got broken. I'll get it fixed right away. The 8th Edition is available on line (via an individual password we send you) and we also send you hard copy in a three-ring binder so that updates and new chapters can be added as they become available. The price is $100. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:18:55 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: MERRILL FLIGHTS The story of the film/photos I find in my history books is a little different. Merrill and Lambie did bring the film reels of the Hindenburg crash to London (they were shown in the movie theatres - no TV yet) but they did not return with any film reels of the coronation of king George VI because they were not ready in time. As they could not wait for meteorological reasons Merrill and Lambie flew back carrying 600 still pictures instead. LTM *************************************************************************** From Ric There appears to be a discrepancy among the sources. It may be clearer once I have a chance to really get into it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:42:52 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? Ric writes - > Cam's speculative scenario would have ring more true if there was any > known occasion when Earhart accepted equipment for a flight but kept it > secret until the flight was successfully accomplished. Well, I think you're missing the point. This was presumably the first time Earhart accepted any government-classified gear, and it's obvious the Navy wasn't anxious to publicize the usage of HF for DF at the time. Bendix obviously had his eye on another, bigger contract from the military. Exactly how TWA got wind of the RDF-1 is not known, and they probably were aware that any test results they came up with wouldn't be revealed to the public until some time later. Part of the agreement with the Navy Dept. surely included a "non-disclosure" clause. The agreement specifics aren't available in the Archives, only the notation that there was a request for the equipment granted. (NARA Group 72, Correspondence). Hooven's low-frequency ADF was not classified, nor was the Sperry Auto-Pilot. Remember too, that Bendix bought out Hooven's company in January, 1937. If Vincent Bendix, or his engineers, thought there was a greater commercial benefit if Earhart used the ADF, then that would have been the choice. But the high frequency RDF had two big advantages, much greater range, and since the components could be smaller, lighter weight. Ric still seems to have the mindset that the RDF was a step backward, but that's comparing apples to oranges, and there's no reason for it. Hindsight being so useful, one can safely second-guess the Putnam's judgment, and say that Amelia would have found Howland with the easier-to-operate ADF. But that doesn't alter my explanation. She had a new HF/DF and it didn't work - for her. Cam Warren ********************************************************************** From Ric So the RDF-1 is classified but somehow TWA knows about it and Bendix (not the government) wants Earhart - who, as far as anyone knows, does not have any kind of securty clearance - to secretly test it so he can crow about this thing that nobody is supposed to know about. I'm sure it all makes perfect sense to you. I got my mindset that the RDF was a step backward from Fred Hooven, the guy whose Radio Compass was replaced by the RDF, who was of that mindset when he wrote his 1982 paper about his experiences with Earhart and his opinions about the disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:43:55 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? Also, why would a well respected company send an untrained chimp up to "test" or "tout" a product without being absolutely certain that the chimp knew exactly what to do to be successful and that the equipment would work as expected. I still say that if AE was flying something that important that Bendix would have seen to it that she got far more training (or that Noonan would), than we've seen any documentation of. But, that's just me, I never look for coverups, just common sense. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 (thanks again for the easy to remember number) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:45:18 EDT From: Dave in Houston Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper Cam: If TWA knew about - and you know that TWA "requested" permission to use it, then you know that there is a papertrail showing these requests - so they didn't hide that fact, so where is the papertrail showing that AE was using the equipment? What I'm saying is that there isn't any logic to your insinuations that there was a coverup of any kind. Pan Am has ordered these "top secret" units for their totally open civilian transports and TWA is requesting them for their totally open civilian transports. Where's the coverup? To me, if the thing is top secret, then at each and every stop, there would have been an armed guard posted around the aircraft to prevent the inspection or theft of the "top secret" device. Now, Cam, as smart as you are, surely you can see the flaw in your assertions that there was any of this equipment aboard AE's 10E (I hope). LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:49:15 EDT From: Denise Subject: PNG's Wrecked Electra - not Well, I took a photocopy of the "Electra wrecked in a PNG jungle" photograph to a guy who knows heaps about historical planes and asked if he could tell me anything about it. He could and did. The photograph was taken in 1959 by an Australian guy called Bruce Adams, a photojournalist with - he thinks - "The Age" newspaper in Melbourne. And not only is it not an "Electra wrecked in a PNG jungle", it isn't even in PNG (although that war isn't over yet), and is another famous missing plane altogether. It's the wreck of Yamamoto Isoroku's plane shot down by US Forces in Bouganville. It seems Adams hunted it down after interviewing many hundreds of locals, and a harrowing trek through the mountains and jungles of the Bouganville interior. It won Australia's 1960 Walkley Award for Photo-journalism. Since the photograph is so well known, I'm sure you already have it or have access to it. Of course, if you don't, I'm still more than willing to hassle with my ridiculous scanner to get it to you. LTM (who always avoided hassling) Denise *********************************************************************** From Ric No need. We're very familiar with the Yamamoto "Betty", a well-known and quite controversial wreck. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:59:03 EDT From: Ric Subject: Frequency research needed In evaluating the post-loss radio signals, we need to know where and how the frequencies 3105 and 6210 were being used in 1937. Were those frequencies unique to aviation use? Were they used internationally or just in the U.S.? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:31:02 EDT From: Warren Subject: Re: PNG's Wrecked Electra - not I'm confused (not the first time-probably not the last either). Is the wreck photo that Denise speaks of-the the photo in the TIGHAR archives (missing engine etc.)? Thanks, Warren ************************************************************* From Ric No. Different photo. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:32:49 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper For Cam - What specifically about the Bendix RDF-1 was classified? There were other radio direction finding units (Bendix, Hooven, etc)already in use that were not classified. Ric, refresh my memory - when did Bendix buy Hooven? > the equipment in question - > the Bendix RDF-1 - was a "done deal", and the Navy had already ordered > and presumably installed some of the 150 units intended for PBYs. If the Navy had already bought or committed to buying 150 units for the PBY, I don't understand why they would have any interest in having Earhart "test" classified government equipment. Likewise, I have a hard time reconciling in my mind the government de-classifying the equipment just so Bendix could get publicity out of it. Besides, Bendix would just as easily get their favorable publicity from her flight with any of their products - and we know the loop itself was a Bendix product. You also mention the airline interest in the equipment, but according to your post ... > the commercial airlines (specifically TWA) were > interested, and had requested special clearance for the classified gear > so that they could do their own testing. ... since the airline/s were already interested and wanted to do their own testing anyway,(first) there doesn't seem to be a need for Bendix to generate interest - the airlines were apparently already interested, and (second) it doesn't seem to me that the airline/s would get much "test data" out of Earhart's use. Their requirements, testing and use of the equipment would be specific to their individual applications. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:35:07 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? Cam wrote : "Exactly how TWA got wind of the RDF-1 is not known". I believe people involved in aviation knew what was going on in the aviation world then as they do today (that world was much smaller then than now). Maybe they just read Aviation Week? As for TWA, let's not forget they knew Amelia Earhart very well. She had been on the board when the airline was still called TAT. So was Charles Lindbergh. Lindbergh had been instrumental in TAT's decision to operate the all metal Ford Trimotor and in having them equipped with two way radio. Amelia Earhart was appointed assistant to the general traffic manager. TAT publicity releases advertised she had been hired to develop interest in air travel among women. In 1929 they inaugurated the first transcontinental TAT air service together: Lindbergh flew the first eastbound flight out of Glendale airport to New York and Amelia Earhart inaugurated the first westbound flight from Port Columbus. Although I understand she did not fly the aircraft herself. Perhaps it is useful to remind that part of the transcontinental trip back then was by train because aircraft flew only in daytime. Passengers for Los Angeles left New York Penn Station by train for Port Columbus, Ohio, where two Ford Trimotors (baptized "City of Columbus" and "City of Wichita") were waiting to fly all 19 of them to Waynoka. There passengers boarded a Santa Fe train to Clovis again, from where two more Ford Trimotors would fly them to there final destination: Los Angeles. Eastbound and westbound flights began at the same time. The first eastbound flight from Los Angeles was flown by Charles Lindbergh himself (out of Glendale). But he flew only as far as Winslow. There he took over the "City of Columbus" and flew it to Los Angeles. On board was Amelia Earhart, who inaugurated the first westbound flight from Port Columbus. TAT loved to see its name linked to celebrities. Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart were not the only ones hired for their reputation. When Lindbergh's Ford Trimotor was readied for the first eastbound flight it was baptized "City of Los Angeles" just before departure from Glendale by Hollywood celebrities Gloria Swanson and Mary Pickford. Also present was Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford's husband. To make a long story short, TWA knew AE and AE probably still had personal ties there with some people, including Charles Lindbergh. And he was the man who knew about airborne radio equipment. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:38:42 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? You state: > I got my mindset that the RDF was a step backward from Fred Hooven, the guy > whose Radio Compass was replaced by the RDF, who was of that mindset when he > wrote his 1982 paper about his experiences with Earhart and his opinions > about the disappearance. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Mr. Hooven, whose talents extended far beyond the ADF. I have his 1982 paper, and copies of his extensive correspondence with Goerner, as well as considerable biographical material. Hooven had a low opinion of Vincent Bendix, and eventually left his employ. Hooven's Radio Compass was routinely replaced by an LF Bendix system (which appears to have been upgraded to the RDF-1 at Miami). One of the purposes of "The Flying Laboratory" was to evaluate various types of direction-finders. Bendix acquired Hooven's company AND Radio Research Labs in early 1937, and - no doubt influenced by the lucrative Navy contracts - favored the latter company. Hooven, who built gear for the Army Signal Corps, was understandably grumpy with the turn of events and was vocally critical. Since the Bendix LF system worked just fine en route to Honolulu, under the skillful operation of Harry Manning, Earhart/Putnam naturally were easily "sold" on the later "state-of-the-art" HF/DF model. As far as Earhart's lack of a "security clearance", I'm sure good buddy FDR could clear up that little problem if necessary. On the other hand, as I've suggested, the RDF-1 may well have come out the Bendix "back door" and therefore was not publicly mentioned at the time. (I'm just offering some possible answers, not formulating a conspiracy theory, so put down your tar-brush!!) Cam Warren ******************************************************************* From Ric No, no - you hang on to the tar brush. You have yourself almost completely covered. Just let me know when you're ready for the feathers. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:45:13 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper Well, I thought I'd provide a little research fodder for a dull summer, but . . . . Dave Bush says - > there isn't any logic to your insuations that there > was a coverup of any kind. Pan Am has ordered these "top secret" units > for their totally open civilian transports and TWA is requesting them > for their totally open civilian transports. Where's the coverup? . . . . > Now, Cam, as smart as you are, surely you can see the flaw in your > assertions that there was any of this equipment aboard AE's 10E (I > hope). (Why do I have to explain everything twice? Doesn't anybody READ the e-mails??? I NEVER said Pan Am was "ordering these 'top secret' units". I DID SAY TWA had petitioned the government for a single unit for evaluation, NOT to install on "their totally open civilian transports". NARA Record Group 72 "Index to General Correspondence 1925-42, QM(5000)" includes a 5x7 file card, labeled "RADIO RESEARCH CO., INC". (If you'd been paying attention, you'd know that company became part of Bendix Radio 1/'37). entries included on the file card read as follows: 9/28/36 From ONI* Fwdg ltr fm Radio Research Co., Wash. DC dtd 9/24 to SecNav. re:Encl. of ltr fm Trans- continental & Western Air Inc. dtd 9/21 re req supply with model RDF-1 Direction Finder Unit. (E22-PL)9/30. (L11-4(2) *(That's "Office of Naval Intelligence") A later entry reads: 11/21/36 To SecyState Fwding copy req. of Radio Research Co. to supply T&WA with a Mdl RDF-1 Radio Direction Finder Unit for experimental purposes, approved by War & Navy Depts. (PL2) 12-3-36. L11-4(2). Looks legit to me, and hardly a purchase order to your local K-Mart. Feel free to track down the original correspondence if you're so inclined. (Why do I suspect people that ask these kind of questions never cracked open a book, or looked up anything in the Archives themselves?) Cam Warren =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:26:34 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Frequency research needed Those frequencies were used by the aviation community throughout the US. I'm not sure if they were standardized in other countries, but I doubt it. There is a Russian broadcast station at that time that was using 3105 kHz, but very low power. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:27:44 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: New Subscriber I have been over my data a few more times and I have "seen the light" my reasoning doe's not provide PROOF that the position given was taken at noon local time 0200Z. The references I used only give the time the sun would transit that position, although it COULD have been a noon shot (not quite the same thing). My apologies to Alan Randy & Ric and thanks. Jack Clark. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:28:32 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? > But, that's just me, I never look for coverups, just common sense. That reminds me of Hanlon's Razor, which may or may not have been quoted in the Forum before: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:30:09 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: HF/DF, TWA, Cam Warren The following extracts from my MSS Wings Over San Francisco Bay may relate to Cam Warrens comments about TWA (and others?) and radio direction finding on Earhart's aircraft in 1937.. Recall that Earhart and Eugene Vidal were close friends. Ron Reuther TESTING AT OAKLAND In March l934, the Army Air Corps took the DC-l (the first and only type of a series of famous and highly successful airplanes designed and built by Douglas Aircraft Company) on bailment from TWA. It was leased for the duration of the project by the U.S. Department of Commerce to research and test new navigation and radio devices and techniques, in anticipation of the likelyhood of regular commercial over-ocean air travel. To make the test flights out of the Oakland Municipal Airport, the Army assigned captain Clayton Bissell (later a general in the WW II CBI theater) and captain Albert J. Hegenberger (of first-flight-to-Hawaii fame). Lieutenant A.R. Johns represented Wright Army Airfield for the antenna, and Chester Snow represented the Department of Commerce. The engine manufacturer furnished a representative and a Mr. Brig represented Douglas Aircraft Company. Eugene L. Vidal, father of the famous writer Gore Vidal, and very much involved in Amelia Earhart's last flight was Director of the Bureau of Air Commerce and was directly responsible for this test program. Considerable secrecy surrounded this project. The program evaluated the new Sperry autopilot and the Kreusi radio compass. Many flights were made, most of them far out to sea. Sometimes the aircraft would be out so far that Honolulu was closer than Oakland. Special permission was requested from the U.S. Department of Commerce to fly a landplane between the mainland and Honolulu, but was never granted. Approval to continue to Honolulu was sought many times by radio when the aircraft was near, or even past, the midpoint; but approval was never granted. Just as the program seemed certain to achieve success, congressional funds for its support, previously appropriated, were vetoed presumably by the executive department of the government and the program was terminated. The aircraft was returned to TWA on April 1, 1935. Soon thereafter, the Department of Commerce official, Clarence M. Young whose approval was required, quit his government job to become an executive of Pan American Airways, which was using flying boats rather than landplanes on scheduled flights over the Pacific! MORE TESTING AT OAKLAND In May l936, United Air Lines announced Oakland was the site of a successful series of tests of the nation's first practicable "blind" landing system. J.D.Woodward headed up the project, but the genius behind this system was Thorp Hiscock, a former upstate New York banker and WW I Army flyer and William Lawrenz, an electronic "Handy Andy," whom Hiscock had met during the war, and who was a partner in a ranch with Hiscock in Yakima, Washington were they both had lived until being assigned to the Boeing School of Aeronautics in Oakland by Bill Boeing. Hiscock married Bill Boeing's sister-in-law, and thus became one of Boeing's few close friends. Hiscock was instrumental in developing radio communication in aircraft. Herbert Hoover Jr. of Western Air Express who had been wrestling with radio communications for some time, was sent to collaborate with United's team, and Western Electric Company assigned technicans to work with them. Soon all United aircraft had Hiscock radio sets installed and the sets were made at the Boeing School of Aeronautics. For several years the development and testing of this system had been carried on at Oakland. First experiments were conducted by the Boeing School of Aeronautics, using a single-engined Boeing biplane. Then after the the system had been fully tested and found to be workable, the apparatus was transferred to one of the Boeing 80's, a large tri-motored biplane. Again "it worked", and the experiments were begun using one of the larger Boeing 247's, the same as those used in regular service on the transcontinental and coastal airways. United Air Lines made use of the blind landing beam installed at the airport and a 'robot" pilot, which was installed in the aircraft. In the tests, 24 perfect landings were made out of every 25, with all windows in the plane sealed from light. Over 7000 test landings were made. The human pilot, totally ignored the customary controls, and handled the plane by turning dials on the instrument panel which in turn actuated the "robot" pilot. One of the pilots and a flight engineer of this "flying laboratory" was Ben O. Howard, who became well-known as a builder of aircraft, one type of which was known as the Howard DGA, which stood for "damn good airplane". Hiscock developed other significant aids to aviation including de-icing boots on the leading edges of wings and tail surfaces, variable pitch propellers, and a device to control the temperature of fuel in flight thereby increasing the efficiency of engines in flight and adding to the crusing range of airplanes. Unfortunately Hiscock died in 1939.? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:40:40 EDT From: DavyFlyer Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? HI, I think we miss the point on AE having not a Security Clearance. (of some degree ). My reason is this. When you look at one of her Pictures, all dressed up, She is being presented a set of Government wings. What a good way to have one inducted in to Government control. DavyFlyer ************************************************************************* From Ric If it's the photo I think you mean it shows a very young Amelia receiving "honorary" wings from some National Guard squadron. It's just a PR photo. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:26:45 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: A new scenario > You sound like Arthur Alan Wolk. > gl > > ************************************************************************* > >From Ric > > Who does? Angus or me? > > For forumites who may not know, Arty Wolk is the world's most > successful/rapacious aviation plaintiffs' attorney. I meant Angus. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:29:09 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: 8000-10000-8000 / What's secret what's not ? For Jack Clark Jack, check your charts as to where your course line starts from Lae. The description of the take-off says they continued straight out over the Gulf. They would join their course line around 20 nm out from Lae. The probable reason for delaying the turn on course was to clear the peninsular that extended ENE of Lae (like a nose on someone's face). Oscar Boswell's fuel consumption calculations using Lockheed's report has them at 8,000 ft by hour #2. They were not scheduled to be at 10,000 ft until hour #10. You reported in an earlier email that a 05:(12-18 ?) GMT message had them at 10,000 ft. Their 07:18 GMT report at Nukumanu they were back down to 8,000 ft. The question is why climb from 8,000 ft to 10,000 ft and then go back down to 8,000 ft in a matter of a few hours? If you readjust your course line ( ~ 074* - 075* ) to clear the peninsular at the end of N.G. and try and maintain TASs close to Oscar's fuel consumption profile of 120-136 mph (105-118 kts) for hours 1-5 AND apply a head wind of 23 kts (AE 07:18 GMT report) you should be over Bougainville by hour #5 or a little after because of the climb to 10,000 ft. Mt. Balbi, at the NW end of Bougainville is around 8,500 ft give or take a few rocks. At 10,000 ft they would clear by about 1500 ft with an accurate altimeter setting. I guess on a clear day you could set the altimeter as you go by, knowing how high Mt. Balbi was. ITEM #2 ADFs, RDFs what secret and what's not???? The Army and Navy didn't even know what was secret and what was not secret among themselves. "Secret Missions, The Story Of An Intelligence Officer" by Capt. Ellis M. Zacharias page 178. Concerning an air-show in Detroit in July 1935. <<"....An exhibition of military aircraft was arranged in Detroit by an Army Air Corps group from Wright Field Dayton, Ohio, displaying among others a radio direction finder which was high on the Navy classified list of secret devices. The Army had an adaption of it, and though Naval Intelligence had worked long and hard to keep it secure, it was suddenly open to public view by courtesy of a few overzealous public relations officers...">> Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:38:03 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: [earhart] HF/DF, TWA, Cam Warren Ron. Good report. Ben O.Howard must have had guts of steel to make some or all of the 7000 instrument approaches using new electronic equipment. It used to worry me to make an ILS with the automatic equipment. Not to see the course line deviate or the glide slope needle move out of the doenut took a lot of self control. Even though it worked well, I would rather do it myself. Rollin C. Reineck ---- Kailua, HI ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:42:49 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? <> Let me preface my answer - I've always addressed the AE & FN disappearance as a loss of A/C and aircrew incident - With that said, I start with viewing AE & FN as a crew - as one unit - using only varifiable information to interpret and evaluate crew skill levels with in the context of the 1937 aviation environment - ONLY interpret and evaluate crew performance from time of crew formation till time of aircrew disappearance - Period of crew performance will primarily encompass both world flight attempts - To qualify aircrew skill levels interpret and evaluate quality and and type of skills required by the aircrew on each segmented flight leg up to and including disappearance flight leg - This will give insight into planning, forethought, physical effort , crew maturity, crew coordination, and flight crew competence - this is only a quick overview - As always the devil is in the details - Hopefully this will answer your question. Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************* From Ric Sounds like a reasonable approach. The problem, of course, is that so little information exists from which to make an assessment. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:00:00 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: The Rest of the Story We've all had a year to think about it, and we all have a "I remember exactly where I was when..." story, but it seems to me that yours might be a bit unique. I remember the Daily Expedition Update wherein you said that you could tell immediately when Pat answered your SATPHONE call that day that something was dreadfully wrong. How did you tell the team? What happened then? I mean, here you guys are, three days by boat out of Samoa, in one of the remotest, (and that day, one of the safest) places on the planet, and for all you know, the world might not be there when you get back. I know from your reports that the team performed admirably both pre and post 9/11, and that TIGHAR's Fiji and Kiribati friends proved themselves true friends indeed, (not that there was ever any doubt about the team or our Pacific friends) but could you relate for us, to borrow a phrase from Paul Harvey, the "rest of the story." I don't want to start a "what I was doing on September 11th" thread, which I'll prove by not telling my own: I am interested in stories from you, Pat, and the rest of the Niku IV team. Thanks, and LTM Dave Porter, TIGHAR toady # 2288 **************************************************************************** From Ric You're right Dave. We're not going to get into a "what I was doing on September 11th" or a "what it all means" thread. We already have plenty to argue about on this forum. I am, however, happy to answer your question about what it was like for us being so far away from everything because it was an unusual situation with some interesting consequences. I got the news in my daily 5:30 a.m. (12:30 afternoon in Delaware) satphone call to Pat. I was the first aboard Nai'a to learn what had happened and, naturally, I felt a tremendous burden knowing that it was up to me to break the news to the others - but anyone who has ever had to be the bearer of bad news knows what it's like to carry that load. The worst part was knowing that our two cameramen lived in New York and wondering if they might have lost personal friends or family. (Happily, it turned out that they hadn't.) I always made my satphone calls from the top deck because the antenna has to see the sky. Afterward I went below to the salon where most of the team was just sitting down to breakfast. I guess I looked pretty grim because Skeet Gifford later said that as soon as I stepped through the hatch he was sure that something terrible had happened back home. I don't recall my exact words but I know that I kept it as simple as I could - something like, "Okay everybody. I have something that everyone needs to hear, and it's not good." I then gave them the few facts I had. Two airplanes had hit the World Trade Center. Both towers were down. Another plane had hit the Pentagon. There were conflicting accounts of a possible third hijacking. The country had clearly come under terrorist attack but by who was not clear. Thousands of people were dead. That's about all I knew. The folks on the Niku IIII team were there because they are intelligent, educated, affable, rational - and tough as nails. They reacted the way I expected them to - with sadness, concern, and anger - but it was all very understated. Those who had satellite phones (we had about six total) naturally phoned home and shared their phones with others who did the same. It wasn't long before we all had the good news that our loved ones were safe. I gave anyone who wanted it the option of staying aboard that day but everybody wanted to go to work, so we did. Naturally, all of us were pretty subdued but we worked a full day on the island and made good progress at the Seven Site. Thoughout the day more news dribbled in via satphone calls and an Aussie station Jim Morrissey picked up on a tiny shortwave radio rigged to a long antenna in a Ren tree. The same held true throughout the rest of the expedition. The news we received was filtered either through whoever someone was talking to on the satphone or the Australian perspective. As a result, there were rumors and misunderstandings that eventually got corrected (Congress has declared war. We're at war. No. There was no declaration of war. Bush called for a "war on terrorism" in a speech before Congress.). While other Americans were being inundated with horrific images and endless news coverage, government statements, and analysis by pundits, we had only the basic sketchy facts and had to make up our own minds about how to react. Politically, the Niku IIII team covers a very wide spectrum and, naturally, there was a wide variety of opinion about the root causes and the appropriate response to the attacks but there were no arguments or even heated discussions. Some team members, such as our EMT Jim Morrissey and our forensic osteologist Kar Burns, have expertise that is routinely called upon in emergencies and it was especially rough on them to be stuck on the wrong side of the world when they were needed back home, but at no time did anyone suggest that the expedi- tion be aborted or cut short in any way. Neither did I hear anyone express any fear that our world would not be there when we got back and, in fact, the only effect on our trip was the need for some team members to reschedule airline flights and it took forever to get our boxes and duffles of expedition gear through customs (although none were ever actually opened and inspected). We came Niku to do a job and after September 11 we continued to do it to the best of our ability. By that point in the expedition we had already conducted a memorial ceremony at Gallagher's grave to dedicate a replacement plaque for his tomb but we also had a memorial plaque to be affixed to the engine of the Norwich City commemorating the eleven men lost when the ship went aground in 1929. Six of those men were Arabs and, as part of the plaque dedication ceremony, we had a taped reading from the Qu'ran to be played in addition to the singing of the "Navy Hymn" for the five British seamen. That ceremony was conducted as planned. On the last night before heading home, the captain and crew of Nai'a threw what has become the traditional "Leaving Niku" party for all the team. This time it began with a somber and moving speech by Captain Fritz Faulkner, a prayer by the Fijian crew member who served as the ship's chaplain, and the singing of the United States and Fijian national anthems by all of us. Nobody who was there will ever forget it. I would never pretend to speak for anyone but myself about the events of September 11, 2001 and my opinions on the subject and about what has transpired since then are off-topic and irrelevant to this forum, but Niku IIII stands as an example of how at least one tiny group of Americans, isolated almost entirely from the media, responded to the tragedy. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:13:41 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: The Rest of the Story > From Ric > You're right Dave. We're not going to get into a "what I was doing on > September 11th" or a "what it all means" thread. That's just exactly how much I'd want to hear on this subject. I'd contemplated asking the same question, but couldn't figure how to phrase it to get at the idea of what it was like to be in a rather unique situaion compared to "the rest of us," but without getting into a personal experiences thread. Thanks, Dave, for finding a way to phrase the question, and Ric, for the fine summary. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:16:09 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? Now I feel better - I was cleared for Top Secret and they never gave ME a set of wings! ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:24:45 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: 8000-10000-8000 For Daryll Bolinger: Daryll, I cannot see any reason why they would wish to avoid the peninsula (Huon Peninsula). My own opinion for the detour is that it was made to avoid cloud build up in the area. As a reason for this I give rainfall figures obtained from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology showing a rainfall for Lae of 43.9 mm. on 2/july/37, 36.3 mm on 3/july & 37.1 mm on 4/july.There would have been a big cloud build up to produce such falls. Any pilot would wish to avoid these conditions and with an overloaded aircraft Amelia would be anxious to avoid turbulence. I belive the climb to 10000 ft was for the same reason. Can anyone give me a time for a 10E to get to 10000 ft. with such a load ? If I am correct this would cause them to deviate from any pre calculated schedule they may have had or we can calculate. Coincidentaly I am currently working my way through Oscar Boswell's fuel analysis to try to get some understanding of what could be expected of the aircraft. May I offer my Commiseration's to forumites in The United States on the first anniversary of the 11th Sept. tragedy Jack Clark. **************************************************************************** From Ric You guys can go back and forth speculating about detours and altitudes but the fact is that all we know is that the airplane was staying very low when it went out of sight at Lae and reported at 7,000 feet four hours and eighteen minutes later. An hour later they reported at 10,000 feet and two hours after that at 8,000 feet. Trying to read great significance into those altitude changes is, in my opinion, not justified. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:14:40 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: 8000-10000-8000 I don't see AE flying south of New Britain rather than over or near it all this much of a mystery. They were heavy and flying at 7,000' and Ulawun volcano was 7657 1/2 feet high. Bamus was 7375 feet high. They cleared the high terrain and turned on course. Who wouldn't? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:16:28 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? > Sounds like a reasonable approach. The problem, of course, is that so > little information exists from which to make an assessment. This is another simple problem. Competent proficient pilots made the same number of landings as take offs. Those who didn't were not. Alan #2329 ****************************************************************** From Ric If our hypothesis is correct, AE fits that definition. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:20:39 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: Kanton logistics > From Marty Moleski > >> ... I can't raise a nickle for something I don't believe is worth >> doing and, based on the information available right now, I don't think that >> digging holes in the ground on Kanton is worth doing. > > I agree. > > To my mind, even if there is a radial engine buried on > Kanton, I don't see that it is necessarily from N16020. > It could be American or Japanese. Even if it were > AE and FN's engine, it wouldn't help solve the riddle > of where they landed because the guy who says he found > it really doesn't have a definitive memory of where he > got it from. I seem to remember that the consensus was that if a radial engine found on Kanton was the same type as on AE's plane, the odds were that it was likely to come from her plane; how many planes with such engines were ever wrecked or scrapped around the Phoenix? Even if no s/n can be found, the type should be fairly easy to ascertain, even if the engine is quite badly corroded. > Even if it were > AE and FN's engine, it wouldn't help solve the riddle > of where they landed because the guy who says he found > it really doesn't have a definitive memory of where he > got it from. "...would NOT help..." ???? I much disagree... If it was indeed from AE's plane, it would be the biggest step in 65 years in solving "the riddle"! Isn't this possibility -small as it is, worth a few "nickles"??? Regards. Christian D ******************************************************************** From Ric How is finding an engine that can't be identified but can't be explained unless it's Earhart's a more significant discovery than finding a skeleton that can't be identified but can't be explained unless it's Earhart's? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:40:03 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: Kanton logistics and budgeting. Sorry for this disjointed thread, but I just came back from 2 weeks in the boondocks, making a living... To Alan: > Alan Caldwell wrote: > That kind of expense could not be > justified even if the money was there. Sooooo, I'm anxious to read the next > email from Christian telling you in detail how his theory could be > accomplished for a tiny fraction of that and where the money would come > from. Well, Alan, did you read my longish post? What do you think? In your opinion, what percentage of the AE search budget should be allocated to the "Kanton engine" line of investigation????? Sooooo, I'll be anxiously looking forward to your comments. I'm only trying to find a way of making the Kanton dig affordable, according to its present-day potential. And for Ric: Ric, I'm trying to follow your hints as to what is the cash value of the "Kanton engine" option, at the moment, to Tighar. A few years back it was 50grands, when it was believed the engine was sitting in the open. Now you say things like "not a nickle" and "not much time or money" (at the end of my detailed posting). What were the conclusions at the recent strategy meeting (cant remember the name of it). Were percentages of the total Tighar effort allocated to the different avenues of investigation? Say, so much for the 7 site, so much for the Nutiran passage, etc??? So what is the allocation for the Kanton engine, either percentage, or hard cash number? Regards. Christian D *********************************************************************** From Ric The conference focused on where and how the Niku V expedition should search on Niku. We agreed that the Seven Site and what we call the "overwash" area near the village should be the main targets, with pretty much equal amounts of resources allocated to each. We decided not to try to do any kind of deep water search during Niku V and scuba activity will be limited to about four days worth of checking out or looking more closely at a few areas off the west end. We'll probably have all we can do to raise the money to do the work on Niku but we also hope to be able do more searching for the bones in Fiji. Other trips we'd like to do include more archival research in England, Fiji, Funafuti, and Tarawa; and interviewing formewr residents of Niku now livng in the Solomons. There was really no discussion of more work on Kanton. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:51:40 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Noonan Project lead? I seem to remember that TIGHAR has an ongoing, backburner interest in locating a living relative of FN, and that such a quest has been rather difficult due to the meager information available about Fred's family life, and the vast numbers of Noonans in the US. Noonan is an immensely common surname in the US, but what about Mexico? We know that FN was there at least once right? I was reading a discussion on English language initiatives on the Current Mail page of author Jerry Pournelle's website and ran across a reference to a Mr. Ken Noonan, "the Mexican-American founder of the California Association of Bilingual Educators." This fellow shouldn't be all that hard to find for somebody who lives in California. I know it's a really, really, REALLY long shot, but I also know that serendipity has been pretty kind to the Earhart Project over the years. How say you, Sir Ric? Cry "havoc" and let slip the TIGHARs of California? BTW, thanks for answering my 9/11 question. Just one more reason to be proud of the Niku IV team, and happy to be a teeny little cog in the great big classy TIGHAR machine. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ****************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Dave. You're very kind. Fred spent just enough time in Mexico to get his divorce processed. Unfortunately, if Mr. Ken Noonan is, by any chance, the result of an illicit liaison between Fred and a Mexican woman his DNA wouldn't be any help to us anyway because mitochondrial DNA is only passed in the female line. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:24:31 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? Wait a minute. Let's not jump to easy conclusions.I remember one Charles Lindbergh making one such fewer landings than take offs. That was when he got lost (in fog) and decided to bail out. Would this qualify him as a not being a competent efficient pilot? LTM ********************************************************************* From Ric Not on that occasion. There's an old saying: Good judgement comes from experience. Experience come from bad judgement. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:40:03 EDT From: Tom Byers Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? To play the part of devil's advocate perhaps lack of competency, poor navigation, weather etc. had nothing to do with her disappearance. Isn't it possible Earhart and Noonan were on course and simply had mechanical problems that forced them down just out of sight of Howland Island? In that case, a search effort west of Howland should be explored. Tom Byers *************************************************************************** From Ric So you're suggesting that somebody (but not you) spend millions of dollars testing a hypothesis for which there is no evidence. It's already been done. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:33:21 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? In other words, Amelia Earhart became more experienced the moment she discovered she had made a mistake, right? Or should we say she had blundered? I agree with those who say that we all learn from our mistakes. Those who survived most of them eventually become the most experienced. That is life and its part of human nature. What happened on 2 July 1937 on second thought has a lot in common with the midair crash of two airliners over Owingen (Germany) last 1 July 2002. They collided at an airways crossing because of poor radio communications. In this case the single ATC guy on duty that night at Zurich ACC failed to see two airliners under his control were on a collision course on his radar screen (the automatic warning system had been switched off for maintenance reasons) and other ATC watching the accident coming tried in vain to warn him by telephone. On 2 July 1937 Amelia Earhart expected a QDM (that's a vector for the non flying forumites) from Itasca which Itasca couldn't provide since the vessel's radio equipment served as an NDB locator beacon (Non Directional Beacon) only and expected her to use her ADF (Automatic Direction Finding equipment - the famous loop antenna) to find them. In both cases poor communication for on 1 July 2002 ATC operators in Germany watched the midair collision coming and tried to reach their colleague in Zurich by telephone (yes, that's how national ATC systems still communicate in Europe). They were unsuccessful because the ATC guy in Zurich did not have time to pick up the phone. On 2 July 1937 the only communication between Itasca and AE was by two way radio. And it failed to work, apparently because they did not operate on the same frequency and when they did one transmission blocked the other. When AE discovered she was in trouble she could still have made good use of the 500 kilocycles emergency frequency. But what happened to the antenna? Did she leave it behind on purpose to save weight as some believe she did? Did she lose the antenna on take off from Lae as others seem to be convinced of? Or should she have used a flying boat instead of a Lockheed 10 for the world tour in 1937? After all that was the choice experienced Pan American Airways had opted for. And they did so because there was that guy Charles Lindbergh who had a lot of experience with over water flying, doing his own in a float plane. This leads to my last question. Why exactly did AE choose the Lockheed 10 for her world trip? Was it her own choice? Was it Purdue's? Or was it Lockheed's? LTM ************************************************************************** From Ric Herman, your description of the radio situation is totally screwed up but your last question is a good one. The recommendation of the Lockheed 10 seems to have been Paul Mantz's. According to Mantz' biographer Don Dwiggins, Putnam had gotten a quote from Sikorsky for an S-43 flying boat but mostly as a way to get a good quote from Lockheed. I read somewhere (I've forgotten where now) that they also considered using the new Lockheed 12 "Electra Junior" on floats, but I can't believe that the 12 could have had the legs necessary for the World Flight. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:34:51 EDT From: Warren Subject: Re: Kanton logistics For Christian D: I share the same fascination with the Canton engine that you do. I realize that locating the engine and identifying it does not conclusively resolve the AE mystery-only eliminates the deep water crash scenario. In other words-the Howland island bottom searchers lose support. However, I believe that discovery may have ripple effects in that search money for TIGHAR may become available. Maybe even money from the Howland island underwater search financiers. (Okay, this part is a stretch.) As Ric once said about Bob Ballard (paraphrased): He is smart, and searches for things that are not really lost. I feel that the Canton engine is one of the few AE items that may not really be lost. Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:36:36 EDT From: Daryll Subject: RE : 8000-10000-8000 << From Ric You guys can go back and forth speculating about detours and altitudes but the fact is......>> Yadda Yadda Yadda..... Jack uses charts and I use Microsoft's Flight Simulator so we're both speculating. Jack suggests a reason for a detour as a weather occurrence and I can see a mountain in the windshield that has to be negotiated. Apparently your only interest in the Earhart flight doesn't start until you think they get to Niku. Here's my email address so you can give it to Jack and we can just cut you out of the loop and don't have to bother you with our needless speculation. Oh,....here's one piece of needless simulator speculation for your side. You CAN see Niku as a slim aqua outline at 10,000 ft on the 157* LOP from about 40 nm away. Love Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:39:45 EDT From: Dave Subject: Re: Kanton logistics Ric said: <> Ric, I think Christian was saying if it was definitely from AE's plane it would be the most significant discovery and would generate all kinds of publicity and therefore probably more funds for TIGHAR. Likewise, if the bones were found they would be an even more significant discovery. Of the two, though , as far as finding them , it seems as tho the engine has only one main place it could be----the bones could be anywhere, or nowhere. As far as AE'S competency, proficiency, ability , whatever term is used---I'm sure, at least I hope , this part of the discussion is only to evaluate AE's ability to complete this flight . According to the definition of number of takeoffs and landings, Ric is right---AE was a competent, proficient pilot by the TIGHAR hypothesis. To me, Amelia was a brave, courageous, adventurous lady who took full advantage of the opportunities living in the USA gave her. She inspired many people in her time I am sure . She wrote books , talked to groups and from her exploits alone gave many people, esp. women in that time, the idea they could do whatever they wanted. To others , she was a way to live out their own dreams that they were unable to. Even though a lot of these good things she did may have been primarily for herself, they did have also have a positive impact on the people who heard her or read her books. Was she a hero ? No. was she the most intelligent, capable pilot ? No. Did she always make the best decisions? No. Was a lot of the things she did only in her own best interest? Yes. Could she have done a lot of things better and less selfishly? Yes. Sounds like a perfectly ordinary human being with an extraordinary amount of determination to fulfill her dream. I can think of countless "heroes" America has had--athletes, politicians, entertainers, etc that had a far less perfect life as regards their personal decisions and habits. Maybe she had some herself, but I have not heard of any stories of immorality, drugs, crime or other things about Amelia that so many other of our "heroes" did in their spare time. The people and companies who helped fund and support Amelias exploits did so knowing the risks and Amelias capabilities---even Fred Noonan. Most of these people had their own selfish ambitions. So I say hooray for Amelia---you go , girl! And the same to Ric---you have put in the most time and effort and explore every twist and turn---you shall surely be rewarded. David ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:42:02 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Kanton logistics (and "curve balls") Chris you're beyond me in all your figuring. It's too much supposition to really comment on. I haven't the slightest idea whether any of that is realistic or practical. Maybe so but you can't plan a venture that way. All the ideas sound good and if it all could work that way it certainly would reduce the cost. I more trouble with the bottom line result. Let's say your ideas work and it is done and the engine is found and it can be identified as having come from AE's Electra. What would be the benefit? It wouldn't tell us where the Electra landed and it wouldn't provide the slightest reason to search any particular place for the plane it came from. All it would do is tell Elgin he has wasted a lot of time and a lot of money including other people's money. It would tell a couple of Forumites they can forget the Marshall's, seaplane tenders and all that Japanese hokum. But TIGHAR isn't looking in the Marshall's or at the bottom of the ocean so it would have no significant impact on what this investigation is pursuing. You might say it would confirm TIGHAR's theory and certainly it would indicate the Electra landed somewhere in the Phoenix group but what would that information cause us to do differently? Well, maybe there would be a lot less detractors posting on the board and some folks might be more inclined to donate money which would be nice but it wouldn't be reason to jump out in the water around Niku blindly searching for airplane debris. We would all like to know if this mystery engine came from the Electra and there is no question of that. It wouldn't help the slightest in finding the Electra, however. No matter what the cost I can't see the benefit. I recognize I may be missing some way this could help so I'm open to listen. Once again I like your ideas and I can't argue that there are clearly ways to accomplish the task at some unknown cost that might even be reasonable but for what purpose? Satisfy curiosity? I would need for the positive id of the engine as being from the Electra to actually provide clues toward resolving our quest. I would be more inclined to search for the lost bones rather than the lost engine. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:43:23 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Good point? > We all agree that AE and Noonan expected to fine tune > Fred's navigation with RDF when they got close to Howland Not everyone is in love with the DF theory. They had difficulty with the DF and at Lae AE made a test hop to check it and could not a get positive result. If the DF was SOOO important to finding Howland why take off not knowing it would work or continue the flight never getting it to work or for that matter getting any radio reception? Does that mean NONE of the radios were considered necessary for the flight? If the receivers were lost due to loss of the antenna on take off then they never had reception. That also means they didn't even know whether the transmitters worked. Why are we putting ANY significance to the Electra's radios when AE and FN put none to them? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:48:13 EDT From: Angus Subject: Navigational Issues Let us suppose that Amelia disengaged the Autopilot for the purposes of Fred securing a celestial pre-dawn fix. Is it conceivable that by forgetting to re-engage it that they would follow an apparently correct but in fact erroneous heading without detecting the error for a considerable period? How likely is this scenario? Regards Angus. ************************************************************************* From Ric The airplane will not fly itself. If you turn off the autopilot you then have to hand-fly the airplane not only to keep it on the correct heading but to keep it from climbing or descending or falling off on one wing and so forth. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:53:30 EDT From: Angus Subject: Holding pattern If Fred wanted to get a pre-dawn fix using the moon for one body (which was somewhere behind them), is it possible or likely that he would have had AE fly some sort of holding pattern eg a racetrack to be able to get an easier shot? Regards Angus **************************************************************** From Ric I woud think that it would simply be a matter of turning the airplane until Fred could see what he needed to see and just hold it there until he got his shot, and then turn back to the original heading. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:47:44 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Simulators Daryll said: "Oh,....here's one piece of needless simulator speculation for your side. You CAN see Niku as a slim aqua outline at 10,000 ft on the 157* LOP from about 40 nm away." Daryll, that's why they call it a "simulation." From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: "simulation: feigning; a sham object; counterfeit; an imitative representation . . . ." With a little more jiggling they could have made it so you probably could have seen San Francisco from 20,000 feet. LTM, who prefers stimulation Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:46:19 EDT From: Herman Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? "Herman, your description of the radio situation is totally screwed up"... Screwed up? Perhaps I'm guilty of oversimplifying things a bit by using post WW II terminology which was not used in 1937. But wasn't Itasca waiting near Howland? Doing what? Expecting AE to find her. And what did AE and FN expect from Itasca? Mainly FN was interested in Itasca transmitting a signal so they could find the ship and Howland Island. So far I think I didn't screw up things. Of course neither Itasca nor AE were using VHF communication as they would do today. Nor was Itasca equipped to be a floating locator beacon. But to me it looks like if Itasca was there to be used as -what one would call today- a "locator beacon", even if the ship only transmitted in morse. AE was supposed to locate the ship by turning her antenna loop. Today one would call that an ADF. Apparently the radio men on Itasca did not know that neither AE nor FN could understand Morse code. And that made it impossible to establish two-way radio communications. Before AE and FN took off from Lae it was agreed they would transmit on frequencies 3105 and 6210 kilocycles. Still Itasca transmitted on 500 and 7500 kilocycles at one time and neither were of any use to AE. Itasca transmitted a spoken message on 3105 kilocycles only once and then only for one minute. As far as I know the only time AE acknowledged receiving Itasca was when she acknowledged receiving a signal 7500 kilocycle. Hoping she would answer again, Itasca called repeatedly in Morse code on 7500 kilocycles. All the time AE expected them to transmit voice messages. Like the ATC guy at Zurich ATC on 1 July 2002 who didn't pick up the telephone when a neighboring ATC center wanted to explain him what was going wrong, the radiomen on Itasca did just about everything but transmitting voice on 3105 at the scheduled times as AE expected them to do. If you think I screwed that up then what exactly was left for AE and Itasca to screw up? LTM (who said good communication is essential in life) ************************************************************************* From Ric <> I don't know what FN was expecting but Earhart wanted to simply transmit a signal and have the Itasca take a bearing on her. She wanted the Coast Guard to do the work and then just tell her what direction to fly. It wasn't until her attempts to have them do that had failed and she was already on the LOP that she made any attempt to use her own loop antenna. <> Not true. <> True <> Itasca replied with voice. The complete transcripts - both in the original shorthand and translated in plain language - are on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/37_ItascaLogs/Itascalog.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:50:10 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Kanton logistics (and "curve balls") I'll probably regret this, but I can't resist weighing in on this "engine vs. bones" business. On the one hand, I'm not nearly as pessimistic as Ric is about the viability of pursuing the Kanton engine. I don't think a lot of heavy equipment would be needed, because there are strong and capable people on the island who could almost certainly be hired for far less than it would cost to drag in the equipment, and who could move coral rubble pretty handily. On the other hand, Ric's had a great deal of experience with "engines in the woods" that are reported in specific locations by very credible sources and somehow just turn out not to be there. This makes me respect his skepticism about spending much time and treasure in pursuit of the Kanton engine. I guess what really troubles me, though, is the comparison of "finding the engine" with "finding the bones." Finding the engine is a one-shot deal; it's either there or it's not (though what "there" is might prove to be a rather flexible concept). What we're doing (or hope to do) with the Seven Site is a considerably more complex piece of honest-to-god archeological research, which MAY turn up some piece of the bones, or MAY turn up some other smoking gun, or may simply add to the total corpus of information we can use to reach reasoned judgments about whether Earhart wound up on Niku. In other words, there are lots of ways of getting important information from the Seven Site besides "finding the bones." With limited resources (and they sure are), we need to focus attention where we can get the biggest bang for very limited bucks, and there's no question in my mind that the Seven Site and another location or two on Niku are the best bets -- though I don't think digging the Kanton dump presents insurmountable obstacles. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:57:43 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: 8000-10000-8000 Daryll. I don't think we can cut Ric out of the loop. Without him there wouldn't be any loop and he's the "Pilot in Command" If we use the forum we have to abide by any rules it imposes. I can see his point in trying to keep attention focussed on Nikumaroro which is most likely where the outcome will finally be resolved, but I don't see any harm in discussing other side issues I don't feel they detract from the main issue. Will be in touch with you in the next day or so. I'm quite happy to discuss this particular point with you off Forum. Ric: As long as these side issues/ anomolies, whatever you call them, exist people will think about them and want to resolve them. That's what I thought the Forum was about, to discuss issues arising from the flight. Not forgetting the main one of course, where did they end up! We cannot all go to Nikumaroro to research first hand and I reckon it makes us feel as though we are contributing something, even if we are eventually proved wrong. Alan: Thanks for pointing out those mountains. I must have missed them in all those clouds(absolutely fatal). A combination of the two would make any pilot detour. I believe such conditions are often encountered in New Guinea flying. Jack Clark. ************************************************************************ From Ric Ancillary issues like whether and why they detoured are fun to speculate about but I think that it's important to understand and accept what is knowable and what is not. The classic consequence of the failure to make that distinction is the expenditure of millions of dollars searching a relatively small patch of ocean bottom thinking that by piling up enough speculation you can figure out what happened. You can't. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:28:36 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? Ric wrote : "I don't know what FN was expecting but Earhart wanted to simply transmit a signal and have the Itasca take a bearing on her. She wanted the Coast Guard to do the work and then just tell her what direction to fly. It wasn't until her attempts to have them do that had failed and she was already on the LOP that she made any attempt to use her own loop antenna". That is exactly my point. In today's parlance wouldn't that sound like she expected to receive a QDM from Itasca? When she began operating the loop, wouldn't that mean she tried to locate the transmitter or, as we would call it today, use her ADF to locate the direction of the transmitter? Well, I tried to read the complete transcripts - both in the original shorthand and translated in plain language - on the TIGHAR website again as you suggest, Ric. But my computer keeps telling me it can't find the page. LTM (who believes in the necessity of communication) *************************************************************************** From Ric The original shorthand logs are PDF files that must be downloaded, decompressed using Stuffit and read with Adobe Acrobat. Links are provided to free downloads of both Stuffit and Acrobat. The translations can be read on-line and require no special software. I've checked the links and they all work just fine. If anyone else has a problem accessing the pages please let me know. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:49:56 EDT From: Warren Subject: Re: Kanton logistics (and "curve balls") For Tom King: You make interesting points regarding the Canton engine as well as the continued excavation of site 7 and other NIKU targets. I am an engineer by training. Logic make me want to go for the home run, in essence-find AE bones or plane remnants on NIKU. Nice tidy castaway package. I own a number of small businesses and am forced to be an accounting, marketing and sales type person also. Nothing happens without money. Time and opportunity go by. My business sense tells me that finding an engine, and marketing the story well, provides finances to attack NIKU in a timely manner. I get the creeps when I hear about the salvage ship that searched the north end of the reef just for the heck of it. I think about the small helicopter that landed on the island during a previous expedition, and wonder how many others drop in and contaminate excavation sites or walk off with souveniers that may be the smoking gun. (Statistically speaking-how many people will visit before the next expedition?) Ric and the NIKU teams demonstrate character, ethics, responsibility and respect on their trips to NIKU. But all the information and research is laid out on the interenet for anyone who wants it. This is a precarious situation. The island is not as remote as one may think. It is a small world. It is my opinion that time is of the essence. The next NIKU trip is set for summer 2004, 2 years from now. How many ships, helicopters etc. will visit NIKU prior to the next expedition? Will there be unsavory characters with metal detectors, shovels and SCUBA equipment. Will we be searching EBAY for our next set of artifacts? Can archaeological evidence be truly persuasive when the site is not protected? Thanks, Warren ********************************************************************** From Ric We would go back sooner if we had the money. As you say, if we found a conclusively identifiable engine on Kanton that turned out to be Earhart's that would probably help us raise the money. In my opinion, the chances of having that degree of success on Kanton are too remote to justify the expenditure of time and resources it would take to look for the engine. When we had reason to think that the engine might be sitting right where Bruce left it, it made sense to go see if it was there. It wasn't. I like home runs as much as the next guy but I'm not eager to take another expensive swing at that ball. Yes, Niku does get visited from time to time and we do make our work public. But we also know (all too well) that meaningful artifacts are very hard to find and require either considerable expertise and even more considerable hard work to locate, or a whole lot of plain dumb luck. We'll get back as soon as we can. Until then, there's no point in losing sleep over it. <> Yes. Any archaeological evidence that is truly persuasive must stand on its own. Unknown hoaxers aside, we have to accept that, given the contentious nature of the Wonderful World of Amelia, should we one day find something that qualifies as a smoking gun we will be accused by someone of planting it there. Count on it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:05:03 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Engine and bones contest Are there reliable people on Kanton and Fiji you can trust? If so, send these people all the information you have on the Kanton engine and the Fiji bones. Offer a sizable reward for the recovery of the above items. I realize this is not very scientific, but if someone comes up with something, it may be worth the price of the reward money. ************************************************************************ From Ric If I recall recall correctly, the Fiji Bone Search team did offer a reward for information leading to the re-capture of the bones. No takers. Offering a reward on Kanton might have the effect of causing people to do some digging but you'd have to overcome a few obstacles: 1. There are only a few dozen people on Kanton. Their English is marginal and it's very hard to get word of any kind to them (no phone, no fax, no email, no regular mail service) and just communicating what you're looking for would be a considerable undertaking. 2. If they somehow got word back to you that they had found something, how could you check it out without going there? The best idea might be to give them a disposable camera at the start and tell them to take a picture if they found something they think is the engine. Then they'd have to somehow get the camera back to you and you'd have to decide whether it was worth going to look at it. It could all probably be done but it would be more cumbersome and time-consuming than it's worth (in my opinion). I'm also generally opposed to offering rewards for artifacts or information. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 08:39:58 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? > I've checked the links and they all work just fine. If anyone else has a > problem accessing the pages please let me know. The "ml" from "html" got put on the next line, at least in the version I got. So, hitting the automatically generated hot-link in the mail message resulted in "page not found." However, if I paste the long part into the browser "go" field, type "ml" then hit Enter it works fine. - Bill ************************************************************************ From Ric Herman has since said that he was able to access the page by going through the website. =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:06:50 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Engine and bones contest I want to second Ric's opinion about the Kanton reward idea. We were reluctant to use a reward approach in Fiji, but did it as a last resort, and thought it was OK for a couple of reasons -- the main ones being that (a) we wanted to make sure that people doing things like maintenance of government buildings would keep their eyes peeled for kanawa boxes stuffed in abandoned storerooms; (b) we were looking for something that was very distinctive and couldn't be faked by anyone interested in the reward; and (c) we had the Fiji Museum on-site to serve as the recipient of information. It's a very different situation on Kanton, where we'd essentially be asking people to look around an island strewn with aircraft parts to find a particular piece and somehow convey the resulting information accurately to us. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:11:49 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Photo on ebay Interesting photo on ebay, #1858271552. Looks like Mantz, Earhart, and Noonan in Hawaii. Do You think this is before the Luke field crash or after? *************************************************************************** From Ric I would say definitely before. I don't think anybody was adorning anyone with leis after the crash. Manning is there too, on the right in the suit. The dark background makes me think it might be their arrival at Luke Field early that morning. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:32:59 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Holding pattern It is pretty standard to take sights for two minutes and average the sights so a turn to a heading where he could observe the moon was all that was necessary. gl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:25:40 EDT From: Ric Subject: Slow forum but lots going on Although the forum has been very slow (like zero postings) for the last few days, there is nonetheless a whole lot going on behind the scenes. Here's a quick update: - The writing is completed and layout is underway on the next issue of TIGHAR Tracks. It should be ready for mailing to members late next week. The newsletter will feature an article describing the whole saga of "the knob" and how it was ultimately identified. We'll also preview the Special Report to be published later this fall and include a review of "Amelia Earhart's Shoes". - We're close to completion on "Final Approach", the commissioned artwork by aviation artist Scott Albee depicting NR16020 on final approach to a landing on the reef at Gardner Island. There has been a great deal of technical consulting back and forth to make sure that the airplane, the island, the reef, the sky, everything - is as accurate as we can possibly make it and the result, I have to say, puts a pilot's heart right in his throat. We'll show it to everybody as soon as we can. The fine art prints will be produced in Sweden later this month and should be available for sale soon. Watch for more on this in the near future. - We're getting geared up for this year's Aviation Archaeology Course and Field School which begins Saturday Oct. 5 in Palmdale. CA and will include an archaeological survey of the YB-49 Flying Wing crash site near Edwards AFB. There's still time to sign up. See http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Histpres/courses/CA2002/CA2002course.html - Work is progressing on the Special Report magazine-size issue of TIGHAR Tracks due out later this fall. In it we'll address the question of much fuel/range the airplane had, why the inflight radio transmissions seemed to stop after the 08:43 message, and we'll present the long-awaited study of the post-loss radio receptions. - Production of the Niku IIII documentary video has been delayed by all the other new develpments but we'll do our best to get it finished this fall. - We've made contact with another of the helicopter pilots who served on Canton Island at the time of Bruce Yoho's engine recovery. Jack Porth has his logbook, maps, and numerous photos but he does not recall an incident such as Bruce describes. He does, however, have his own story about finding an old radial engine (apparently a different one) on of the outer islands of the Phoenix Group. We're presently sorting through a great deal of old and new information and trying to make sense of a confusing but rather intriguing picture. With luck we may finally be able to sort out what the heck was going on out there and how it might relate, or not relate, to the earhart disappearance. - There's new research underway on the Wreck Photo (God help us) with the help of a Lockheed 10 expert in New Zealand. - A rather mysetrious photo has turned up in the personal collection of the first commanding officer of the U.S. Coast Guard Loran station. Ensign Charles Sopko (now deceased) took what appears to be a photo of the ground somewhere on the island. At first it looks like the photo might have been an accident (we've all done it) but upon closer inspection there is an excavation of some kind and a number of objects, some obviously manmade, strewn on the ground. Our forensic imaging specialist Jeff Glickman is helping us learn whatever we can from the photo. There's much more, but you get the idea. Lots going on. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:11:08 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Long/Nauticos Have you heard anything about Nauticos and Elgen Long? Are they going back out again or did they give up? Carol Dow #2524 **************************************************************** From Ric I have heard nothing. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 20:34:24 EDT From: Michael H. Smith Subject: Navigational Logic I'm a recent subcriber to the forum. I've read most of the TIGHAR website, Long's book, and King et al.'s book. Although I give King the nod in writing the more interesting book, I have to reluctantly admit that I favor the crash-and-sank school of thought (I say "reluctantly" because the TIGHAR hypothesis is somehow much more romantic and satisfying to me than the mundane crash-and-sank theory). One big reason for my skepticism of TIGHAR's theory is because its "navigational logic" for why Earhart ended up at Gardner does not make sense to me. As I understand it, the TIGHAR theory holds that FN took a sunshot at sunrise on 7/2/37. From this he was able to accurately (within 10 miles east or west?) calculate their line of position on a 157/337 line. FN then drew a parallel line running through Howland and measured the distance between the two lines. AE then flew the required distance until AE/FN were on the 157/337 line running through Howland at 7:42 a.m. They flew along this line for some, unknown amount of time, until they finally made the decision to fly southeastward (157 degrees) until they came to an island. If they were north of Howland, they would reach their destination, and if they were south of Howland, they would reach Gardner, but either way, they would at least reach land. Eventually, they reached Gardner. My synopsis of TIGHAR's theory is based on the description at http://www.tighar.org/forum/navigation.html. Here's my problem with this theory: If AE/FN beleived that they had sufficient fuel to reach Gardner (350 miles down the line from Howland), wouldn't it be easier to just go one direction along the line until they were sure that Howland was not in that direction and then simply turned around and gone the other direction? For example, if they had sufficient fuel to reach Gardner, they could have gone 115 miles southeastward (157 degrees), then turned around and gone 230 miles nothwestward (337 degrees). It makes no sense to risk a crash-landing on Gardner and failure of their around the world trip, unless continuing southeast gave them a much better chance of reaching land than simply turning around. The only way I can see that this is not the preferred option is if AE/FN believed that they could have been much more than 100 miles off course northwest or southeast of Howland along the 157/337 LOP. But is this really plausible? Wouldn't Noonan have taken star/moon shootings during the night that would have given them accurate (within 10-20 miles?) knowledge of their north-south position? There's also nothing in the radio transmissions to suggest they thought they could have been more than 100 miles off course. Instead, their transmission at 7:42 a.m. ("we must be on you") suggests to me that they believed they were near Howland. Perhaps someone with navigational expertise could comment on these thoughts. *********************************************************************** From Ric I have never flown an airplane across an ocean or tried to find an island smaller than Nantucket, but I have had the experience making a long flight without benefit of radio navigation or communication, and having landmarks not appear as they were supposed to. When it happened to me I suddenly found myself doubting everything that I had been sure I knew five minutes ago. Had I made some small error or had I made a huge one? Was I quite close to where I should be or was I way, way off? I felt very disinclined to experiment or engage in deductive reasoning. If there was one thing that I could do that stood the best chance of saving my butt, I did it. The Niku hypothesis does not seem reasonable to you because it seems like Noonan would have realized he must be too far south while he still had enough fuel to turn around and backtrack to Howland. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. I don't know of any way to know without finding the airplane. Might he have only realized he was too far south only after it was too late to turn back? Yes, that is a reasonable possibility. Is there evidence to suggest that they continued on and reached Gardner. Yes, there is. Is there evidence to suggest that they turned back but went down at sea before reaching Howland? No, there is not. Ergo, we test the hypothesis for which there is supporting evidence. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 20:36:46 EDT From: Patrick Subject: Coast Guard There is an interesting article in the August 2002 issue of Naval History entitled "The Coast Guard's Pacific Colonizers". The article describes how the Coast Guard deposited small groups of Hawaiians and US Army engineers on Pacific islands, included Howland, Baker and Jarvis islands. LTM Patrick ************************************************************************** From Ric It's a fascinating and little-known episode in the history of the Pacific. I'm glad somebody has written about it. Thanks for the heads up. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:12:27 EDT From: Nik Subject: Re: Slow forum but lots going on > A rather mysetrious(sic) photo has turned up. Do you have a file labeled "Slow Forum: Insert mystery- letters, photos, emails, phone calls, etc." Nik *************************************************************************** From Ric Believe it or not, I LIKE a slow forum. When I don't have to spend half my day re-burying dead horses I can actually get some work done. However, I also know that we have many dedicated supporters on the forum and when things get slow I feel that I should reassure them that we're not asleep here. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:26:51 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Mike, I agree with you -- to the extent Noonan probably did a pretty good job of navigating to within 10-20 miles of Howland. What you're missing is that the first turn reasonably should have been to the Northwest as there was nothing NW to reach if he missed Howland. After a short check NW he would have turned SE because then if he again missed Howland he had Baker next and if he missed them he had all the Phoenix Islands in front of him - all of which were reachable. Now what I'm missing from you is your careful analysis of the Long crash and sink theory and why IT is the reasonable theory. It is easy to try and shoot down someone's theory but that makes it incumbent on you to rationally support the theory you favor. Can you do that? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From DavyFlyer Ric, I have somewhat felt what is said here, but very little and with another thought to throw out to you to see what you think. After flying as I mentioned before in the P5M Martins for a year, shooting the stairs and moon, in something as large as these planes is very hard. I often wondered if FN did not do this, and was only going to do at sunrise. So what is his Dead Rec. land mark that can be used with some sort of moon light. He would pass through the island chain of Kiribati or Gilbert just a matter of hr. before his ETA. Now, if he looks out, they are such that if you draw a line for take off to Howland, you pass between a set of islands, (one on the left and one on the right) Ya, he says, we are on target until I get a sunrise fix. Now, draw a line from NW to SE through the island chain. It can be used almost the same Degrees as there last line reported, and the same degrees from Howland to Gardner. With this setup, you see time and distant from that angle of Gilbert to Howland /Gardner angle is the same distant anywhere. So if they where blown off course to the South some and pass through the (2) set of (like) island he would never know. He assumes that he was on course and maybe a little North of Howland, so when they are supposed "on top and can't seeyou" He makes the Right turn to fly in to Howland, because he refigured is figures from flight time from that fix of the Gilbert Chain, but never realized that he passed through the the southern section which when he got to Howland he was south and hung to there last heading as radio, because he really thought he would hit Howland. If he thought he was south he would have turned left. Bottom line, maybe the Glibert group set him up for disaster. Thanks, DavyFlyer *************************************************************************** From Ric They passed the Gilberts in the wee hours of the morning in the pitch dark, probably at 10, 000 feet and probably with some degree of scattered cloud below. I don't see how they'd be able to see anything. *************************************************************************** From Lawrence Just to add my two cents worth. I'm a firm believer in the post-lost messages. Sure, some messages could be a hoax, but I seriously doubt all are hoaxes. In order for Earhart to transmit, the Electra had to be on dry land. If not Howland, then somewhere else, but close to Howland because of fuel concerns. Baker, Gardner, Hull, McKean? *************************************************************************** From Jim W. Fred had already navigated the flight to be either north or south of Howland, and the evidence is pretty strong that the radio navigation aids were not successfully used to find the island. How would he know if his 157/337 line was directly through Howland, or east or west of Howland? They could have chosen to fly a search pattern with the hope of finding the only piece of land in that area, or they could have chosen to fly only the 157/337 line with the knowledge that there were several targets in the Phoenix group they could find if they missed Howland again. Of course we can only speculate what Fred and Amelia's logic was. Hindsight of the events makes my logic clearer, but the logic of going in a direction where there is a larger opportunity for success (more islands potentially available on the 157 line) is compelling. ********************************************************************** From Ric Where do you get the information that Fred had already navigated the flight to be north or south of Howland? ************************************************************************* From Ross Devitt Amelia & Fred only had to be around 15 miles away from Howland in any direction to miss seeing it at all, less in some conditions. If they flew 115 miles southeast and then 230 miles northwest, they could have flown within 10-20 miles of Howland on the way north and missed seeing it altogether. There is no land at all within a reasonable distance of Howland, so they would have had to ditch in a place where there was almost no hope of rescue. On the other hand, by searching northwest first, then turning southeast, they may have missed Howland, but at least there was land inthe general direction they were heading, giving them a likelihood of ditching in the sea, but a possibility of either landing on an island or ditching close enough to get ashore. Many of the islancd scattered across their path were much bigger than Howland, so they would see them from further afield. There was still a huge margin for missing all of them though. Basically, searching northward first left them with the possibility of finding land to the southeast later if their search was fruitless. Th' WOMBAT ********************************************************************* From Cam Warren Ric says - A) Is there evidence to suggest that they continued on and reached Gardner. Yes, there is. B) Is there evidence to suggest that they turned back but went down at sea before reaching Howland? No, there is not. We'll all agree to "B" if you'll retract "A". There is - as yet - NO evidence to support A, and you know it. You are - of course - free to keep looking. Cam Warren *********************************************************************** From Ric There is no proof for any Earhart theory. There is abundant evidence to support "A". There is also abundant evidence to support the Japanese capture theory. I find the evidence to support "A" to be highly credible and the evidence to support Japanese capture to be incredible. As you say, for crashed-and-sank there is no evidence to consider. Whether or not you find various evidence credible is up to you but don't deny that it exists. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:28:38 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Navigational Logic I've always supported the Niku hypothesis because if my butt was on the line, and AE's was, turning NW on the LOP had one chance of her surviving, finding Howland Island. However, turning southeast on the LOP there were several islands she could have seen. At some point, I would have said to hell with the round the world flight. I gotta find a place to put this sucker down and preferably NOT Davey Jone's locker. Tommorrow is another day. LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:09:43 EDT From: Herman Subject: Re: Slow forum but lots going on So that's why there has been so little news coming out of Wilmington. I guessed that Ric was on his way to somwhere and find the Electra without telling anyone... LTM ******************************************************************* From Ric Shhhhhhhhhhh. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:10:53 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Navigational Logic One reason why I believe in a Gardner (or other) Island scenario is that there is no proof the Electra was ditched. Let me explain. If I had been the pilot I would have launched a mayday befroe ditching, making a blind transmission to let anyone know and pray someone will come and pick me up. There are people out on the internet exchanging information on flying boats. One such beast (an RAF Empire boat) had to land in the Atlantic in 1942 because two of its four engines went dead. The plane ditched at night. and although it was a flying boat, such was the state of the sea that it was heavily damaged and sank with the loss of six on board. But five survivors climbed in the raft and drifted on an empty ocean for five days before being picked up by a German He-115 seaplane that found them by sheer coincience. In the case of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan, they knew the whole US Navy would be looking for them. One more good reason to have sent a mayday on whatever frequency or all available. There being no mayday on record, one can suggest they found land en transmitted after landing. As several of the post crash transmissions seem to suggest. LTM (who warned never to fly over water without a maywest and a life raft) ******************************************************************** From Carol Dow I'm surprised no one has said anything about the hot tropical sun and a silver sea glaring in the face of AE and FN. The only way they could have really seen was to the west, and that, you all, is where I would have headed if I was in the pickle Earhart was in. Carol Dow #2524 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:12:56 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: The Nature of Evidence Cam and Ric have just had a quick exchange on a topic that is dear to my heart. Cam said: > "There is - as yet - NO > evidence to support A [the Niku hypothesis], and you know it. Ric replied: > There is no proof for any Earhart theory. There is abundant evidence to > support "A". There is also abundant evidence to support the Japanese capture > theory. I find the evidence to support "A" to be highly credible and the > evidence to support Japanese capture to be incredible. As you say, for > crashed-and-sank there is no evidence to consider. > > Whether or not you find various evidence credible is up to you but don't > deny that it exists. In my tiny part of academia, I have become familiar with the notion of a "Gestalt switch." This is the moment when data that were previously seen as unrelated all fall into place, revealing an entirely different aspect than they had before. Before the switch, the data all seem unrelated; after the switch in vision, they become irreversibly parts of a whole. A good example of the Gestalt switch is the "Magic Eye" posters and cartoons. When you first glance at them, they look like a hopeless jumble of disconnected parts. Only if you stare THROUGH the page, attempting to focus BEYOND the parts, does the material rearrange itself--almost magically--into a three-dimensional view. Another, classical example of a Gestalt switch is the reorganization of the data that took place when Archimedes was trying to solve the problem of determining the purity of the gold used in the king's new crown without destroying the crown. While occupied with the problem, he took a bath. He noticed that his body displaced the water in the tub; in a flash, he realized that a pound of gold worked into the shape of a crown would have to displace exactly the same amount of water as a pound of gold in an ingot. He yelled, "Eureka!" and went running down the street naked, thereby also inventing streaking. :o) For me, the view that AE and FN made it to Niku makes sense of a large body of data. Among the more important pieces: post-crash radio signals story of a plane crash on Niku story of a man and woman's bones on Niku bones, shoe parts, sextant box found on Niku story of a fishing cable other aircraft-grade aluminum stuff found on Niku To me, that's evidence. As Ric says, it's not conclusive proof. But I understand why Cam says none of it is evidence. He does not accept the view--the Gestalt switch--that brings the disparate strands together. And the Niku hypothesis has problems. None of them are insurmountable in my view, but they are uncomfortable and it would be nice to resolve them some day: no decent location heard in the messages no sighting by the search planes no awareness of the crashed airplane stories among the British personnel on Niku not yet enough Electra-specific detritus to end the search no bones to test for mDNA inconsistencies in the airplane anecdotes >From the point of view of the Niku skeptic, none of the evidence is evidence because stuff like this suggests a different Gestalt (view, interpretation): AE and FN couldn't have landed on Niku, therefore any stuff collected by TIGHAR cannot point to their presence and cannot be treated as evidence. With Ric, I argue for the evidentiary value of the material TIGHAR has collected. It's like "Wheel of Fortune." The best contestants recognize the pattern before all of the letters are turned. You don't need to see every letter before recognizing the word or phrase, even though technically the letters that are seen are only part of the whole. Einstein did not have all of the pieces of the puzzle that he solved. When he first announced the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, he had no new data and no conclusive proof that it was true. The first observations that backed up the theory were collected in 1919, and not all of his predictions have yet been tested and verified. His primary genius lay in a reorganization (a reinterpretation, a switch to a different Gestalt) of what everybody already knew. Another way of saying it is that Einstein used his imagination to see more than others had seen. Some poor castaway died on Niku. To me, it seems likely it was AE or FN. I'd like to get Vanna, uh, er, I mean Ric to turn over a few more letters and sell me some vowels just so's I can make other people agree that the message is "Amelia was here." Marty #2359 ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Marty. Great stuff. I'm very familiar with the phenomenon but I never knew that it had a name. Part of the problem seems to be that it's also possible to make what we might call a Gestupid switch - to fill in the blanks with assumptions that connect disparate elements and constructs a picture that isn't really there. This goes way beyond Japanese-capture versus Niku and touches issues that dominate today's headlines. Those issues are off-topic for this forum but I'd like to think that the lessons we learn in struggling with the small and unimportant question of what really heppened to Amelia Earhart can help us deal intelligently with the big, important questions in our lives. It would be nice if you could buy a Gestalt switch at Radio Shack but there it is. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:19:02 EDT From: Thomas Van Hare Subject: Another myth bites the dust Carol Dow #2524 wrote: > I'm surprised no one has said anything about the hot > tropical sun and a silver sea glaring in the face of AE > and FN. The only way they could have really seen > was to the west, and that, you all, is where I would > have headed if I was in the pickle Earhart was in. As a former search and rescue pilot with over 750 hours of dedicated search time actually over the water scanning for rafts and such, I can tell you that the sun reflection off of the waves actually helps, rather than hinders the search. Frankly, there are numerous people that I myself spotted and were saved just because of the sun -- if a cloud had blocked the sun's reflection at that moment as we flew by on the search line, instead they would have been lost against the waves. With the sun, they appeared as a tiny black dot, even from distances of four or five miles. I recall from the manuals and USCG test data that a raft-like object at one mile, from a plane doing between 80 kts and 120 kts ground speed, per set of eyes on the water, stands an approximate 50 percent chance of being spotted -- again that is from one mile away. That means that with two sets of eyes, it goes to about 75%. The probability is less at distances of four or five miles. And I can assure you, the rocks and cays of the Bahamas, specifically, the Cay Sal Bank, show like distant black marks, crisp and clear, when backlit by the sun -- again from my own personal experience. Once we would fly on past, looking back from what we called, "down sun", at the same distances, the rocks were often nearly or absolutely invisible. So, from personal experience, I can state this without reservation -- bright sunlight, low against the water, would have helped them locate the island, if it was silhouetted against the morning rays of the sun. Thomas Van Hare Member #H.I.I.K. ******************************************************************** From Ric Now THAT's a fascinating new take on the topic. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:57:16 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The Nature of Evidence > From Ric > > ... I'm very familiar with the phenomenon but I > never knew that it had a name. ... I imagine it has many names. And not everybody will be familiar with Gestalt psychology, so be careful how you haul it out at fundraisers. ;o) But no matter what name you give the phenomenon, it is at the heart of all intellectual endeavors. > Part of the problem seems to be that it's > also possible to make what we might call a Gestupid switch - to fill in the > blanks with assumptions that connect disparate elements and constructs a > picture that isn't really there. Yes, exactly! We are (among other things) pattern-recognition machines. We will often see patterns that are not really there. The Gestalt psychologists and other cognitive scientists have collected thousands of sense-illusions which show how the mind projects interpretations into the sense data. Just having an "Aha!" or a Eureka-experience is not proof that we have found the truth. All it shows is that we've seen a plausible interpretation (Gestalt). Sometimes Gestalt switches can be quite sickening and disheartening. I remember vividly how my view changed while composing and typing a 10-page paper due within a few hours. I saw quite clearly that what I had promised to do on page one was totally wrong, given the argument that I was then constructing on page four. I didn't have time to recompose the essay, so I just did the best I could with my altered view and handed it in anyway. > ... I'd like to think that the lessons we learn > in struggling with the small and unimportant question of what really happened > to Amelia Earhart can help us deal intelligently with the big, important > questions in our lives. I agree completely. Finding AE and FN would be splendid, but essentially it wouldn't change the world we live in. Learning to think about thinking is the kind of lesson that can make a difference in the whole of our lives. > It would be nice if you could buy a Gestalt switch at > Radio Shack but ... You mean you haven't found that aisle yet? :-P Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:18:32 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust Tom, You're saying Howland Island would appear as a black spot on the horizon in the early morning hours over the ocean? That is fascinating and would conclude me to believe they weren't even close to the place, wherever they were. Otherwise, they could have seen it. Do you think this is true? Elgen Long, on the National Geographic Channel some time ago was making a point of (Howland and Baker) appearing as black spots if.... repeat if.... they were south of Howland and Baker and looked back to the north. You have any opinions on the foregoing? Also, were these material facts circa 1937, i.e., do you believe Earhart and Noonan would have known about and been able to detect these factors? Carol Dow #2524 ************************************************************************* From Ric I - um - don't think the sun and the water were a whole lot different back then. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:36:34 EDT From: Thomas Van Hare Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust Carol Dow wrote: > You're saying Howland Island would appear as a black spot on the > horizon in the early morning hours over the ocean? That is fascinating > and would conclude me to believe they weren't even close to the > place, wherever they were. Otherwise, they could have seen it. Do > you think this is true? Elgen Long, on the National Geographic Channel > some time ago was making a point of (Howland and Baker) appearing > as black spots if.... repeat if.... they were south of Howland and Baker > and looked back to the north. Yes, that is what I am saying. However, if they had flown past the islands, then turned south, the islands would have been "down sun" and harder to see. They may have been quite close but east of the islands, heading southward (I add with a grin). One thing I left out, you have to be at fairly low altitudes -- we used to fly the missions at 500 feet. I imagine the effect is about the same at 1,000 feet or even somewhat higher (we almost never flew above 600 feet). However, you wouldn't see that morning reflection on the water from high altitudes. As for Elgen Long's statement that the islands would have appeared as black spots if they were south of Howland and Baker and looked back to the north, that's really not quite the way to look at it. Up here in the northern hemisphere, in the winter months, the sun appears to rise in the southeast and set in the southwest, so the line to look into the sun's reflection on the water in the morning would be toward the southeast in the mornings. I suppose one would just have to look directly across the navigational line from the sunshot -- perpendicular -- to get the the reflection. So, in that location, one would look east-northeast to be looking at the reflection off of the water. Thomas Van Hare *************************************************************************** From DustyMiss Carol Dow wrote... <> Huh? ************************************************************************ From Jon Watson Uh, Ric, wasn't the whole world was just shades of gray until 1939? Except in the land of Oz, of course... Sorry - I couldn't help myself. ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Chris in Petaluma, Ca. From this new information, (except I'd like to hear Thomas' theory on distance it would take to see Howland island under those conditions.) If it is 100 miles or more, wouldn't this be significant as to help theorize on how far off course she might of been that she couldn't see any islands? Wearing sunglasses of course would have helped immensely. Did they have polarized sunglasses in 1937? Chris#2511 **************************************************************************** From Ric Let's try to put this in perspective. We don't know, nor will we ever know, just what it looked like through the windshield of that airplane on that morning. All we can say is that, contrary to popular legend, sunglare off the water should not have been a limiting factor and might actually have increased the chances of seeing an island. Haze, if there was any, is a different problem. Flying toward the sun in haze can really cut visibility. Bottom line: They might have been fairly close and missed it and they might have been too far away to see it regardless of the visibility. Sunglasses. There is some indication that AE had several pairs with her to try out as part of her "scientific study" of long-range flying. There is a broken pair of brown-tinted glasses in the Purdue collection. I don't know whether polarized glass had yet been invented. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:56:20 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: The Nature of Evidence I know I'm going to regret getting into this convoluted and unduly erudite discussion, but . . . . > AE and FN > couldn't have landed on Niku, therefore any stuff > collected by TIGHAR cannot point to their presence and > cannot be treated as evidence. liberties are being taken, and arguments distorted, and the statement made untrue. (You guys must be politicians!) Speaking for myself, and probably most other of what you like to call "splashed and sank fans", I (we) have never made nor implied such a remark. AE/FN certainly COULD have landed on Niku, but the detritus the various expensive expeditions fielded by TIGHAR ("stuff collected") fails to convince, and NOBODY has ever established it came from AE/FN, nor the Electra (NR 16020) nor even any Lockheed product. So much for irreducible gestalts, but don't let me keep you from your magic mushrooms! Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric <> Fails to convince YOU. That is exactly the point Marty was trying to make. For those who have made the "Gestalt switch", the detritus found by the various expensive expeditions fielded by TIGHAR is not a random collection of junk but a compelling body of evidence. Likewise, at some point you made a "Gestalt switch" with regard to a collection of documents and observations about Bendix HF/DF radios that have no proven direct relation to Earhart and decided that it is evidence that there was such a receiver aboard the Electra. The Japanese Capture Crowd embrace their own "Gestalt switch" and see a collection of contradictory anecdotes and presumed government conspiracies as evidence of espionage. Nobody said anything about "irreducible gestalts". It's just a name for one way people form opinions. Please forgive our excessive erudition but we find that it's helpful to try to understand these processes. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:03:31 EDT From: Michael H. Smith Subject: Navigational Logic In Reply to Alan: Why just a "short check NW"? If you have enough fuel to reach Gardner, you can go far enough one way to be certain Howland is not in that direction and still have enough fuel to turn around and check other direction. As for my "careful analysis of the Long crash and sink theory," I probably should be smart enough not to bite on this, but I'll try anyway. (BTW, I think Long makes way too many unsupported assumptions in order to pinpoint when and where AE went down. I believe in crashed-and-sank, but I can't tell you exactly where and don't believe anyone else can either.) 1. We know the plane landed/went down somewhere, but where? Let's use the TIGHAR assumptions and reasoning at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/02_20_02bulletin/titanicbul letin.html and say somewhere in that area. 2. Although it is a huge area, there are not many islands on which to land. As far as I've read or heard, the only one that has seriously been put forward as a possible landing site is Gardner. 3. Therefore, if they didn't land on Gardner, they crashed and sank in the ocean. 4. I don't believe they landed on Gardner for various reasons. First, I don't think it makes sense to have tried to reach Gardner as I explained in original post. Besides Howland being easier to locate, there would have been many difficulties in attempting Gardner--no idea of what weather would be near island; probably little confidence in accuracy of charts showing location of Gardner (if they had any); no landing field so even if you locate it there's a good chance you die putting the plane down; even if you somehow locate it and land safely, there's a good chance no one finds you that far afield and you die on the island (as suggested by the TIGHAR hyothesis); and a 100% chance your around the world mission fails. Second, I don't believe they had sufficient fuel to get to Gardner. Earhart's radio transmission at 7:40 a.m. said "she is running out of gas, only 1/2 hour left." Either Earhart is really, really bad at reading a fuel gague or the contemporaneous, documentary evidence is plain wrong. Third, none of the searches/expeditions to Gardner near 1937 (Lambrecht, Bevington, NZ survey team, Gallagher, USS Bushnell) found any evidence of the plane or its wreckage and no early photos of Gardner show it either. Fourth, although TIGHAR's four expiditions to the island have found aircraft artifacts, all are traceable to other types of aircraft or unidentifiable; none are traceable to a Lockheed Electra. If you look for something somewhere and can't find it, this suggests that it is not there. I freely admit that none of this proves they didn't land on Gardner; I just find it more persuasive than the evidence in favor of Gardner (post-loss radio transmissions, the bones and artifacts found by early colonists, childhood memories of aircraft wreckage, shoes, etc.) *********************************************************************** From Ric You directed this to Alan so I'll restrain my impulse (for once) to jump in and point out the many errors in your characterization of the situation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:05:49 EDT From: Michael H. Smith Subject: Navigational Logic In Reply to Jim, Ross, and Mike You all correctly point out that there are several islands southeast of Howland and state this would give AE/FN better chance of finding land. If AE/FN believed that they were on the 157/337 line running through Howland, then only other island that definitely passes within sight of this LOP is Gardner. (McKean looks like it is more than 20 miles east of the LOP, judging by the maps on the TIGHAR website, but I can't tell for sure.) Hull looks to be more than 100 miles east of the LOP. So, if they really were on the LOP, then it is only one target either way. If they weren't sure if they were on or near the LOP, then McKean should probably also be considered. If you have enough fuel to get to Gardner, then you can search east and west of the LOP for Howland. If you fly down the line, you may have two targets, but no fuel to search east or west of the LOP. So which is better to look for? One shot at two islands or multiple shots at one island? *************************************************************************** From Ric Tell him guys. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:08:12 EDT From: Michael H. Smith Subject: Navigational Logic For Herman: I think you are absolutely right to expect a mayday call before ditching. But this sword cuts both ways. I would equally expect a radio transmission that they were headed down the line until they reached land or ran out of fuel so that the Coast Guard would know where to look for them. The lack of any radio transmission after 8:43 a.m. is a mystery, but I don't think it supports either scenario. ********************************************************************* From Ric Mmphf, gurg.....this is killing me. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:21:02 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust > From Ric > > Let's try to put this in perspective. We don't know, nor will we ever know, > just what it looked like through the windshield of that airplane on that > morning. All we can say is that, contrary to popular legend, sunglare off > the water should not have been a limiting factor and might actually have > increased the chances of seeing an island. Haze, if there was any, is a > different problem. Flying toward the sun in haze can really cut visibility. > Bottom line: They might have been fairly close and missed it and they might > have been too far away to see it regardless of the visibility. Another theory floated by someone once upon a time was that if there were scattered clouds, the shadows cast by them look a whole lot like a low-lying island with no lagoon, or, conversely, a low-lying island with no lagoon looks a lot like a shadow cast by a cloud. I also seem to misremember that Linda Finch said they didn't see Howland until they were quite close. But she and her crew arrived at a different time of day, so that may not be helpful input. LTM and the boys. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric You may be thinking of Ann Pellegreno in 1967. I don't think we've heard anything about Finch's experience. (Odd that she didn't write a book, or did she?) Pellegreno and the three men with her made an effort to arrive in the Howland area at the same time of day as Earhart. They actually hit the advanced LOP (with an intentional 45 mile offset to the NW) at 1855Z or 0725 Itasca Time and spotted the island about an hour later (after much difficulty and almost giving up) at an estimated 10 to 12 miles. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:33:49 EDT From: Nick Subject: Concern over Gestupid > Part of the problem seems to be that it's > also possible to make what we might call a Gestupid switch - to fill in the > blanks with assumptions that connect disparate elements and constructs a > picture that isn't really there. This tendency to fill in the blanks with info we ourselves provide no doubt has survival value in an evolutionary sense, but it should still be cause for concern among Ameliafiles. Remember the astronomer who stared at Mars till he saw canals? From there it was an easy jump to postulating irrigation, an advanced civilization, even a unified Martian government. There are still too many blank spaces in the Earhart story to even begin to talk about AE & FN once they ran out of gas. Kind regards, Nick in Cali, Colombia **************************************************************************** From Ric Are you saying that the mystery is unsolvable and that we're all wasting our time? And just what makes you think they ran out of gas? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:50:11 EDT From: Ric Subject: TIGHAR Gathering Oct. 5th From Oct. 5th to the 9th we'll be holding our annual Aviation Archeology Course and Field School in Southern California. We'll be doing the classroom work at the Marriot Courtyard Hotel in Palmdale, CA and I'd like to extend an open invitation for anyone to stop by for an informal get-together on Saturday evening October 5th. We'll gather in the bar at 7 p.m. and, depending upon how many people show up, we may move into our meeting room so as not to be too disruptive, but we'll be easy to find. I'll be there along with TIGHAR luminaries such John Clauss, Roger Kelley and Craig Fuller. We'll be happy to discuss the Earhart Project, historic preservation, or just about anything else. Weapons will be collected at the door. The Marriot Courtyard is at 530 W. Avenue P Palmdale, CA 93551 phone is (661) 947-4100 LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:51:58 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust There was no mention in Finch's daily "Tech Team" flight log of what it was like finding Howland, or even what it felt like. She mentioned shopping on Nauru, that it took 1/2 day to fuel with 600gallons etc. Of Howland, the only mention was that while flying over the island enroute Tarawa - Kanton, the Pilot (Finch) removed a panel and dropped wreaths. No mention of the flight, what Howland looked like from the air etc., which is strange considering the amount of detail in some other reports i.e. 'Even though she was in the heart of oil country, the crew had to hand pump their fuel' or 'I went shopping and bought my grandmother a small statue' and 'The clouds are beautiful over the green jungles...' One would have thought she would make a few observations about flying here and there. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************ From Ric Yes. One would have thought. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:53:55 EDT From: Jdubb Subject: Polarized sunglasses According to the Polaroid website, Edward Land licensed polarizers for glasses in 1935, and produced its own glasses in 1937. http://www.polaroid.com/polinfo/history/30s.html ************************************************************************ From Ric Interesting timing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:36:12 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Polarized sunglasses > From Jdubb > According to the Polaroid website, Edward Land licensed polarizers for > glasses in 1935, and produced its own glasses in 1937. > http://www.polaroid.com/polinfo/history/30s.html Not quite correct. Dr Edwin land invented the process in 1928 and patented it the following year. The following is from Polaroid's web site: "In 1926, Polaroid's founder, Edwin H. Land, left Harvard University after his freshman year to conduct research on light polarization. In 1928, he invented the first synthetic sheet polarizer and filed for a patent in 1929. Its possible uses include photographic filters, sunglasses, and glare-reducing windows for planes." It was the American Optical Company that licenced the process from Land and his partner in 1935 to actually manufacture sunglasses. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Seems like sunglaases, polarized or not, might come in real handy if you were marooned on Niku, and glass/plastic tends to hold up very well over time. Something to watch for as we continue to excavate the Seven Site. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:56:13 EDT From: Warren Subject: Re: Navigational Logic, Gestalt switching, and the Canton Engine I have had the distinct pleasure of experiencing my own Gestalt switch. I have concluded that the primary reason to find the Canton engine, is to convince a number of our own forum subscribers that AE did not crash and sink. Warren ******************************************************************** From Ric There were 6 helicopter pilots and 4 copilots on Canton when Bruce Yoho was there: Thurmond (Thom) Lawrence--Site Commander, USAF Colonel, CH-3 pilot. Jack Porth --Pilot Joe Lyle--Pilot George Martin--Pilot Herb Terrill--Pilot Merle Janke--Pilot Art Negrette (co-pilot) Marv Schmidt--(co-pilot) Roger Davis (co-pilot?) Bruce Beckwith (co-pilot?) So far we have interviewed Lawrence, Porth, Lyle, and Terrill. We expect to soon interview Martin and Negrette. We're still looking for the others. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:58:56 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The Nature of Evidence > From Cam Warren > I know I'm going to regret getting into this convoluted and unduly > erudite discussion, but . . . . My apologies. I probably shouldn't have dragged in stuff from my field of study. >> AE and FN >> couldn't have landed on Niku, therefore any stuff >> collected by TIGHAR cannot point to their presence and >> cannot be treated as evidence. > > liberties are being taken, and arguments distorted, and the statement > made untrue. If I've misunderstood your argument, I'm sorry. I did not mean to attribute to you a position that you do not take. > From Ric > < expensive expeditions fielded by TIGHAR ("stuff collected") fails to > convince....>> > > Fails to convince YOU. That is exactly the point Marty was trying to make. Yes. And I'd like to defend BOTH Cam's freedom not to call the material "evidence" as well as Ric's freedom to view it as evidence, even though it is circumstantial and not unimpeachable. Controversy in scientific and historical research is normal, especially in the middle of an investigation when further discoveries are anticipated but not yet made. > Nobody said anything about "irreducible gestalts". I think I used the word "irreversible." Once a pattern is recognized (say, for example, in the Magic Eye puzzles), it is pretty much impossible to deny that it is there in the data. As Ric pointed out so well yesterday, just seeing a pattern in data does not make it true. The alleged pattern needs to be tested. In the OJ case, the prosecution said that the information collected about the various blood samples showed that OJ was the murderer. The defense said that the information showed that the police were incompetent and/or malevolent. It is on the basis of those incompatible views (Gestalts, interpretaions, bliks, interpretative frameworks, paradigms) that the two sides argued about the meaning of the data. > It's just a name for one > way people form opinions. Please forgive our excessive erudition but we find > that it's helpful to try to understand these processes. If TIGHAR's work is meant to be a model for how to do scientific and historical research, I think it is very helpful to stand back, from time to time, and to assess what is going on in the debate. My personal judgment, for what it's worth, is that there is good reason to revisit Niku and to continue the search for the lost artifacts from Gallagher's investigation. If that further research--or some deep water search--shows that the Niku hypothesis is mistaken, the quality of the effort made will still be highly educational for other such research. It is, in my view, not a waste of time to learn how to learn about the past nor to teach others the same skills. And that's why I think TIGHAR and its friends should invest time and money in more research. LTM and the boys. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:01:10 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > From Ric > > Mmphf, gurg.....this is killing me. But Ric, you're so beautiful when you're restraining yourself. Not many people can produce that shade of purple on their brow. ;o) LTM and the boys. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:05:59 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust > From Ric > > You may be thinking of Ann Pellegreno in 1967. I don't think we've heard > anything about Finch's experience. (Odd that she didn't write a book, or > did she?) Ooops. I guess you're right. This is an example of "conflation" (more academic jargon). I squished together two stories of women duplicating Earhart's flight and filed them in my mind under "Linda Finch." TIGHAR has come across other examples of conflation, I think, where people mix up details from one event with another. Sorry about that. > Pellegreno and the three men with her made an effort to arrive in the Howland > area at the same time of day as Earhart. They actually hit the advanced LOP > (with an intentional 45 mile offset to the NW) at 1855Z or 0725 Itasca Time > and spotted the island about an hour later (after much difficulty and almost > giving up) at an estimated 10 to 12 miles. This observation seems to me to be worth a lot. I'll try to remember it more accurately in the future. The point is that Howland was really hard to find out where it really is. How closely AP's weather matched that of AE and FN is a debatable question, but I find it very significant that they had to be that close to see Howland. That suggests to me (but does not prove) that AE and FN may have come as close as 15 miles and not seen their destination. LTM and the boys. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************ From Ric We've had big discussions (sounds better than "fights") about whether the various anecdotal versions of the Bones Story are a conflation of two separate incidents or distorted versions of the same incident. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:22:55 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Concern over Gestupid > From Nick > >> Part of the problem seems to be that it's >> also possible to make what we might call a Gestupid switch - to fill in the >> blanks with assumptions that connect disparate elements and constructs a >> picture that isn't really there. > > This tendency to fill in the blanks with info we ourselves provide no doubt > has survival value in an evolutionary sense, but it should still be cause for > concern among Ameliafiles. > > Remember the astronomer who stared at Mars till he saw canals? From there it > was an easy jump to postulating irrigation, an advanced civilization, even a > unified Martian government. Examples can be multiplied. Carl Sagan talks about the "face on Mars," ESP research, recovered memories, astrology, crop circles, and other popular forms of pseudo-science where people attribute meanings to perceived patterns. The cure is not to forswear pattern-recognition. Authentic science depends on it. Einstein could not have asserted that e = mc^2 without finding patterns in the data. The crux of the matter is figuring out how to test theories. The test of TIGHAR's Niku theory is to keep looking for more definitive artifacts. If the theory is true, there should be more things to be found that will support it. LTM and the boys. Marty #2359 *********************************************************************** From Ric Amen. Think of it as a jigsaw puzzle. No box. No picture on the cover. Just a few scattered pieces. You have a hunch what the picture might be but you can't be sure. You hunt around and you find more pieces but it's hard to tell if they're even part of the same puzzle. You keep hunting for pieces and pretty soon you start to have little "Gestalt switches" where parts of the puzzle seem to fall into place. It also becomes apparent that some pieces aren't part of this puzzle, so you throw them out. Other pieces might be part of the puzzle but don't seem to fit anywhere, so you put them aside until you have more pieces. If there really is a picture, the longer you look and the more pieces you collect, the more complete the picture becomes. If there really is no picture, or if it's a different picture than you thought it was, the more pieces you collect the harder it will become to fit them together to make the picture you're hoping for. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:25:52 EDT From: Bob Perry Subject: Polaroid sunglasses Polaroid Co. made the polarizers and sold laminated sheet to American Optical company for manufacture into sunglasses. Victor McElheny's bio. on Edwin Land, Polaroid founder, ("Insisting on the Impossible") reported that the intial contract was signed Nov. 5, 1935, and AO began mfgr. of Polaroid Day Glasses Dec., 1936. Laminating the polarizer sheet was a big unknown at the time, and Land reportedly said that the first year (ie 1937) they had to take back 75,000 pairs of sunglasses because of this problem. My guess is that AE probably wasn't wearing Polaroid sunglasses. LTM, Bob Perry # 2021 (Polaroid Ex) *************************************************************************** From Ric Or maybe you've hit upon the real reason they failed to find Howland. :-) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:10:49 EDT From: Rich Young Subject: Devil's advocate I hate to be the party-pooper, BUT - lets look at this so-called "evidence" "post-crash radio signals" - No radio transmissions reported after the time of maximum fuel endurance have been authenticated, or stayed authenticated by any concerned government authority. None of the alleged post-loss transmissions contain anything remotely like what one would expect an experienced aviator or navigator in a life-or-death situation to transmit, or information available only to the crew of the aircraft, and any connection to Gardner Island or the SS Norwich City involves a creative after-the-fact "reinterpretation" of a manuscript of dubious origin, that may in fact be taken from a radio drama/play. "story of a plane crash on Niku" - where do you stand on the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? Because I've got stories about those two as well... "story of a man and woman's bones on Niku" - I have no doubt bones were found. As I recall, the medical authorities at the time identified them as being from a Polynesian male, not "a man and a woman". Even today, gender identification based on non-pelvic morphology is a crapshoot, with the remains of athletic or physically active women often misdiagnosed as men, and vice-versa, (DNA making the matter not so critical today). And even today, people's remains are found that can't be correlated with any known missing person. Just a few years ago, human remains were found in a Great White shark off Australia, and they still can't figure out who it was. On the news last night, the Navy picked up a man that had been adrift in his dismasted sailing boat for three months - he had covered more than two thousand miles. If such things can happen in the modern age of id cards, DNA, surveillance satellites, fingerprints, satellite phones and computer records, imagine how easy it was to disappear pre-W.W.II without a trace. Bones don't equal Amelia. "bones, shoe parts, sextant box found on Niku" - Last I heard, photographic analysis of Amelia's shoes based on the known rivet spacing of the Lockheed 10E's wing ruled out Amelia as a potential owner of the shoe. Am I missing something? Even if the shoe was Amelia's size, all it proves is that a shoe of Amelia's size washed up on the island. All kinds of junk washes up on beaches. As to the sextant box, I would imagine anyone attempting to navigate the open ocean in a sailing vessel would have such an instrument and the box to keep it and it's accessories in. Unfortunately, we also no longer have the box to examine - however, its more likely to have come from a sailing vessel than an airplane, by sheer weight of numbers. "story of a fishing cable" "other aircraft-grade aluminum stuff found on Niku" - the presence of the B-24/Privateer bookshelf on Gardner proves that the natives brought airplane salvage from other islands to Gardner, and likewise means that the "fishing cable" means nothing, as it may have come over in the same boat as the bookshelf. That leaves three other items - 1. aluminum repair patch - with a rivet size and spacing that has defied all attempts to correlate with any part of a Lockheed model 10 - no joy there. 2. fragment of Plexiglas, ("Perspex" for our Commonwealth members) window. Matches a window on a Lockheed Electra. That's nice. What other Lockheed or other makes of airplane were this window installed in? Remember, Lockheed Venturas and Harpoons were cranked out by the thousands, not to mention C-47s and C-46s, plus who knows what windows were used in factory or field "executive" conversions of bombers for transport duties, like the "Bataan" or the c-87 series. Odds are, this isn't a Lockheed part, even though it may have a Lockheed part number on Electra blueprints. It's probably provided, (much like the carpet, radios, cable, wire, tires, etc) by an outside contractor/supplier that also sold to other companies. Further, without proof that the window didn't come over in the same boat as the bookshelf, it means nothing. 3. Flooring "Daido" - potentially the most compelling artifact, if not for three things: a: it's likely to be attached to plywood flooring and/or kapok insulation, both of which FLOAT, meaning the item could have washed ashore from Amelia's craft after a ditching, or some other aviation, (or other, more below) disaster. b: it's a type of fitting that's used on Electras, but is not UNIQUE to Electras - any airplane fitted with cabin flooring and carpet that was originally designed as a cargo aircraft has to have something similar, if not identical. c: it's not unique to aviation - in fact I would be shocked if they didn't borrow the technique from the other areas its used in - buses, railroad cars, automobiles, and (ta-da) BOATS. So you found a part of an airplane, (or boat) that floats washed up on a island - hardly compelling. We can chase shoe heels and gun oil caps and B-24 bookshelves till we are blue in the face, but the facts are: 1. Aircraft salvage is known to have been brought to the island by native settlers, and is known to wash ashore from ocean accidents. In light of that knowledge, aircraft parts, even parts identical to Lockheed 10 parts, mean NOTHING without knowledge of HOW they got there. Unfortunately, this is true even of parts not just identical to Lockheed 10E parts, but even to parts UNIQUE to the Lockheed 10E, unless the size, nature, or records, (i.e. "serial number") or some combination thereof preclude the parts arrival by those two means, or other proof of provenance is forthcoming. 2. In the absence of a uniquely identifiable forensic item, (for example, Amelia's teeth matching dental x-rays, or a ring inscribed "To A.E. good luck on flight ATW - Love G.P." stories of bones being found doesn't indicate WHO was found - it was awfully easy for people to just "disappear" back then - ask Judge Crater. 3. "Stories", unless corroborated by physical evidence and/or records of the period in question, AREN'T evidence, but rather may be CLUES as to where to search for EVIDENCE. (For example, travel to the North Pole - the presence or absence of a workshop full of elves making toys and a hanger for a reindeer powered sled would be EVIDENCE one way or another about the reality of Santa Claus.) LTM, (who does her Christmas shopping early) Rich Young **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for your views and opinions. You're absolutely correct that it is probably possible to construct an alternative hypothetical source for each of the clues that we attribute to Earhart or the Electra. The question is whether all of these disparate clues from unrelated sources form a pattern or we only imagine them to form a pattern. Allow me to address a few of the points you raise: <<"post-crash radio signals" - No radio transmissions reported after the time of maximum fuel endurance have been authenticated, or stayed authenticated by any concerned government authority.>> How, I wonder, would somebody authenticate a post-loss signal without finding AE and asking her if she sent it? A few of the signals were investigated and judged to be probably genuine by various authorities at the time. Long after the search had failed (March 22, 1938) a Coast Guard officer (Stanley Parker, commnder of the San Francisco Division) made a blanket statement that "all reports of receipt of such signals from the Earhart plane were definitely known to be false." There is, however, no record of any investigation to support that statement. We're presently looking at the entire body of alleged signals to see if any patterns are apparent. From what I've seen so far, I suspect that the results, when published later this fall, will test your powers of dismissal. We'll see. <<"story of a plane crash on Niku" - where do you stand on the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus?>> We've always said that anecdotes are anecdotes, nothing more, nothing less. Their principle value is to point you on a path that may lead to hard evidence. Sydney Island (two islands to the east) also has an airplane crash story. After a great deal of research and some good luck we were able to confirm that Sydney's Easter Bunny was real. Similarly, we eventually found hard documentation to show that Gardner's Santa Claus legend about bones being found by the early settlers is true. There is a considerable body of folklore, gathered from numerous independent sources, that consistently alleges that there was an airplane wreck at Gardner before the first settlers arrived in 1938 and so we're following the reindeer tracks to see if they lead us to the North Pole. <<"story of a man and woman's bones on Niku" - I have no doubt bones were found. As I recall, the medical authorities at the time identified them as being from a Polynesian male, not "a man and a woman". >> You really need to go back and get your facts straight on this one. See "Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes - Current Anthropological Perspectives on an Historical Mystery" http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/11_Bonesandshoes.html <<"bones, shoe parts, sextant box found on Niku" - Last I heard, photographic analysis of Amelia's shoes based on the known rivet spacing of the Lockheed 10E's wing ruled out Amelia as a potential owner of the shoe. Am I missing something?>> Yeah, you've got the Aukeraime shoe parts we found in 1991 confused with the shoe parts found by Gallagher in 1940. If you're going to be a Devil's Advocate you've gotta bone up on your theology. <<"story of a fishing cable" "other aircraft-grade aluminum stuff found on Niku" - the presence of the B-24/Privateer bookshelf on Gardner proves that the natives brought airplane salvage from other islands to Gardner, and likewise means that the "fishing cable" means nothing, as it may have come over in the same boat as the bookshelf.>> The "fishing cable" is anecdotal and so is not in the same category with aluminum aircraft parts we have actually reovered from the island. However, as a story, the "fishing cable" is interesting because it was seen by a U.S. Navy PBY pilot during the war and at a time when the settlers on the island had no access to other islands. The PBY pilot thought it was remarkable because, as the only Search and Rescue pilot in the region, he knew that no aircraft had been lost at Gardner. The carved wooden boxes and model canoes he brought home as souvenirs are inlaid with aircraft aluminum (24ST Alclad verified by the NTSB lab) which, he was told, came from the "the downed plane". A Coast Guard veteran who served on the island a year later has similar souvenirs and tells the same story about the alleged origin of the inlaid metal. <<1. aluminum repair patch - with a rivet size and spacing that has defied all attempts to correlate with any part of a Lockheed model 10 - no joy there.>> The jury is still out on the aluminum repair patch. If you can show me a photo of the aft belly of NR16020 taken after the repairs we may be able to eliminate it once and for all - or prove that it's what I strongly suspect it is. <<2. fragment of Plexiglas, ("Perspex" for our Commonwealth members) window. Matches a window on a Lockheed Electra. That's nice. What other Lockheed or other makes of airplane were this window installed in?>> None that I can find. Your help will be much appreciated. <<3. Flooring "Daido" - potentially the most compelling artifact, if not for three things: a: it's likely to be attached to plywood flooring and/or kapok insulation, both of which FLOAT, meaning the item could have washed ashore from Amelia's craft after a ditching, or some other aviation, (or other, more below) disaster.>> Yes, it could have and probably did float ashore. We think the Electra broke up just offshore and "upstream" from where it was found. <> Not according to the "completions" guys I talked to. According to them, this type of small interface structure is used only on "cabin class" aircraft. Larger transports have different structures. But they could be wrong. If your comments are based upon real information instead of conjecture I'd welcome any photos you have of similar structures in use on the sorts of airplanes you describe. <> If you were going to put a Dado in a boat to be used in salt water would you make it out of aircraft aluminum? << Aircraft salvage is known to have been brought to the island by native settlers, and is known to wash ashore from ocean accidents. In light of that knowledge, aircraft parts, even parts identical to Lockheed 10 parts, mean NOTHING without knowledge of HOW they got there. Unfortunately, this is true even of parts not just identical to Lockheed 10E parts, but even to parts UNIQUE to the Lockheed 10E, unless the size, nature, or records, (i.e. "serial number") or some combination thereof preclude the parts arrival by those two means, or other proof of provenance is forthcoming.>> Yup. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All we can do is look. <<3. "Stories", unless corroborated by physical evidence and/or records of the period in question, AREN'T evidence, but rather may be CLUES as to where to search for EVIDENCE.>> Sounds like something I write about once a week. <> You're welcome to try but I'm afraid you'll need to upgrade the quality of your poop. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:12:36 EDT From: Warren Subject: Re: Navigational Logic, Gestalt switching, and the Canton Engine > So far we have interviewed Lawrence, Porth, Lyle, and Terrill. We expect to > soon interview Martin and Negrette. We're still looking for the others. That is great news and good investigative work. I'm anxious to hear if any pilots remember Bruce and the story. Thanks, Warren ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:19:24 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: More Information and Help From Cam Warren Here's a voice from the past (Fred Goerner) and his Earhart beliefs. When I was in Atchison last summer for the AE Festival, someone blew me away with Roosevelt out in his private yacht cruising around looking for Earhart in the Marshall Islands. I thought it was preposterous, but now I know where it came from, i.e. read the following. Also, would like to comment Fred Goerner is very strong on the Phoenix Islands and the Marshall Islands, both, but his statement are contradictory. However, they are interesting. All this posted with permission from Cam Warren. Carol Dow #2524 Carol - It's public information, so it's okay to post, with a couple of caveats. The source should be specified as the Goerner Collection at the Nimitz Museum at Fredricksburg, Texas. The transcription was done by Mr. Rees, paid for by me. I personally am neutral on the statements made, not endorsing nor disclaiming them. (Please specify.) Cam Warren Excerpts from Cam Warren's Library: [Partial transcription of a tape labeled "Mock Court - Amelia Earhart"; apparently a radio program broadcast some time in 1987. Transcribed by Forest J. Rees, Fredricksburg, Texas, Sept. 1996. Minor editing and corrections by C. Warren] [Fred Goerner speaking] . . . I began the investigation in 1960, for the Columbia Broadcasting System. There was a woman named Josephine Akiyama who lived in San Mateo, California who, in 1960, stipulated that she had seen an American man and woman, supposedly fliers, in Japanese custody on the island of Saipan in 1937. My reaction to the story was one of total and complete skepticism. It seemed to me, that many years after the end of World War II and 15 after the [Korean?] War, that surely if there was such information, our government knew about it. I was assigned by CBS to follow the story, and I was sent to Saipan for the first time in 1960. I have been to Saipan 14 times since then [and] I have been to the Marshall Islands 4 times. I have been to our National Archives and other depositories around the country countless times, in search of extant records that deal with the disappearance and with respect to Miss Earhart's involvement with the US Government at the time of her flight. This [effort] has now extended over 27 years. You may wonder why I want to record my own statement. [It is] simply because there are so many people who have involved themselves over the years, for various reasons. When you present something, it often comes back to you in a different manner. [Therefore] I would like to have a record of everything that I have said, so that if somebody is trying to quote me, I can definitely establish what it is I HAVE said and what I have not. Let me say at the outset here, that there is no definite proof - I am talking about tangible evidence here - that Amelia Earhart was indeed in the custody of the Japanese and died in Japanese custody. [However] there is a lot of other evidence that points to that possibility. [For example;] it was the late Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz who became sort of a second father during the last years of his life, who kept my nose to this story. He indicated to me that there were things behind it all that had never been released. I wrote the book "The Search for Amelia Earhart" in 1966, and it did reach many people. People in Congress and in the Senate began to ask questions of Departments of Government who, up to that time, had denied that there were classified records of any kind in any of the departments of the military and/or government that dealt with Amelia Earhart. It was not until 1968 that the first evidence began to surface. At this juncture [1987], there have been over 25,000 pages of classified records dealing with Earhart's involvement with the military. As a sidelight, I think it is a supreme salute to Amelia that, 50 years after her disappearance, we are still concerned with finding the truth where this matter is concerned. These records that have been released reveal clearly, unequivocally, that Amelia was cooperating with her government at the time of her disappearance. That does NOT mean that she was that terrible word, a SPY, although at one time we at CBS had suspected that this was a possibility. Particularly when we learned that Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, at Lockheed Aircraft, had been the real technical advisor for her final flight. Mr. Johnson later headed the U-2 program and our SR-71 supersonic reconnaissance program[s]. In conversations that I have had with Mr. Johnson, he has convinced me that Amelia was NOT on an overt spy mission. The records do indicate, though, that Amelia's plane was purchased for her by the (then) War Department, with the money channeled through three individuals to Purdue Research Foundation. There was a quid pro quo; Amelia was to test the latest high frequency direction finder equipment that had intelligence overtones. She was also to conduct what is known as "white intelligence", but that [did] not make her a spy. Civilians very often perform this function for their governments. They are going to be in places at times where the military cannot visit. All one does is to keep one's eyes open and listen. She was going to be flying in areas of the world then closed to the military. Weather conditions, radio conditions, length of runways, fuel supplies. All information that would be of interest to the military. They asked her to change her original flight plan to use Howland Island as a destination, and it was to that island she was headed at the time of her disappearance. The United States was forbidden by the 1923 Washington Treaty Conference with Japan to do anything of a military nature on these islands. Amelia was to be the civilian reason for construction of an airfield [there] that could later be used for military purposes. . . . At the Amelia Earhart Symposium held at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum a few years ago, I revealed that Thomas McKean, who is [was] head of InterTel, had been the Executive Officer of the 441st Counter- Intelligence Corps unit in Tokyo after the end of the war. He had done the study for the CIC, and testified that a complete file was established at that time, [which included the information that] Amelia had been picked up by the Japanese and died in Japanese custody. [Further] there have been over 40 witnesses on the island of Saipan who testified in the presence of church authorities. From them information was gathered that claimed a man and woman answering the description of Earhart and Noonan were held in Japanese custody on the island in 1937 and that the woman died of dysentery sometime between 8 and 14 months after her arrival and the man who accompanied her was executed after her death. Had you been there to see these sincere people and hear there testimony you too would have been won over. Just a couple of years ago, Carroll Harris of Sacramento, Calif. came forward. He had retired a Chief Dispatcher for the California Highway Patrol. He was one of the men in charge of the security room for the Chief of Naval Operations, [Admiral] Ernest King, during W.W.II. Harris had contacted one of our reporters at KCBS in San Francisco and told him that during the war, he had seen the Earhart file, consisting of information that was picked up and was funneled into this file, kept in the security room. Toward the end of the war, Admiral King ordered that this, and all other information contained in the security room, was to be microfilmed and sent to the Naval Supply Depot in Crane, Indiana. When I heard that information, I personally talked several times to Mr. Harris, and later recounted this story in a presentation [to government officials?] in Washington, DC, where we began an effort to determine the existence of these records. Several years went by, with naught save denials. Finally, an old friend of mine in San Francisco, Casper Weinberger [then Secretary of Defense] said, "well, we are going to find out". [Some time later] I received a call from the head of the Navy's Freedom of Information Office in Washington. She said; "we have good news and we have bad news. The good news is, that we have located the records [at Crane], but the bad news is it is part of 14,000 reels of information stored there. We are sending some people to Crane to find out if [what you want] can be released." [Months later] there was a letter from Mr. Weinberger, dated April 20, 1967, which I quote: "Dear Fred: . . . In regard to the US Navy review of records in Crane, Indiana which you hope will reveal information about Amelia Earhart. I understand your eagerness to learn the outcome of the Navy's review. Unfortunately however, we are dealing with a very time- consuming and tedious task. There are some 14,000 reels of microfilm containing Navy and Marine Corps cryptological records which, under National Security Regulations must be examined page by page. They cannot be released in bulk. To date, over 6,000 reels have been examined in this manner and the sheer mass prevents us from predicting exactly how long it will take to examine the remaining reels. It may be helpful for you to know that the Naval Group Command's examination of the index [has] thus far revealed no mention of Amelia Earhart. Should the information be discovered in the remaining reels however, it will be reviewed for release through established procedures and made available to you promptly and as appropriate. I wish I could be more helpful, but I hope these comments will provide assurance that our Navy people are not capriciously dragging out the review. Completion of the task will be a relief to everyone involved. Sincerely, `Cap'" What do I believe after 27 years of investigating? I have no belief. There is a strong possibility that she was taken by the Japanese at a very precipitous time in Pacific history. There is a possibility that, having broken the Japanese codes, Franklin Roosevelt knew she was in Japanese custody. Several times before the war the records that are now available indicate that he asked the Office of Naval Intelligence to infiltrate agents into the Marshall Islands to determine whether Earhart was alive or dead. He also asked his friend Vincent Astor in 1938 to take his private yacht to those islands to seek out possible information, but the yacht was quickly chased away by the Japanese. We do know of Roosevelt's association with Amelia. I do not believe it is a denigration of Earhart that she was serving her government. I believe instead of being categorized as a publicity seeker trying to fly around the world that if she was serving her government in those capacities which are established, that she ought to be celebrated even further. I have no hostility toward Japan. In fact, one of the writers from that country, Fokiko Iuki, who has done a book on [the Earhart disappearance] from the Japanese point of view, came to America and I assisted her in its preparation. But until I have satisfied my mind where these last records [in Crane] are concerned, in particular the information from the CIC and the Navy Cryptological Security Units, I'm not going to let it stop there. . . . [end] ************************************************************************** From Ric I posted this as a courtesy to you but it's off-topic for this forum and pointless. I will post no discussion about it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:21:54 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Let me preface this by saying I'm not an aerial navigator, nor have I ever been lost in the Pacific. However, if I knew I was on a line, but not WHERE on the line, it would make no sense to me to be casting about off to one side or another looking for something that I had no way of knowing where it was in relation to where I was. But, if I could be reasonably sure of finding SOMETHING by going straight, that's what I would do. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:23:22 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Concern over Gestupid If memory serves me correctly, what actually happened was that the features of the Martian landscape were described in the astronomer's native Italian as "canali", which translates "lines". It was some idiot media wag that picked up on the "canals". Undoubtedly canals sold more newspapers than lines. ltm jon ************************************************************************* From Ric Maybe he said "canaloni". ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:24:45 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The Nature of Evidence After 10 years of investigating "facts" for a trial, I am convinced that "credible" evidence, like beauty, exists only in the mind of the beholder . Hence jury trials. Historical research just doesn't seem suited for an impartial twelve. From what I have seen, all the physical evidence collected at Niku so far could be interpreted as supporting the theory or not supporting the theory. Take your choice. But Niku should be searched until Ric says "uncle" or finds the note scratched into the palm tree by Amelia: " Couldn't find a gas station on this godforsaken island, tell GP I'll be late-AE" LTM, R. Bright ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:02:58 EDT From: Jon Radford Subject: Paramotor? Have you ever considered taking a paramotor and wing to the island.? Total weight of this type of 'aircraft' is no more than 35Kg with fuel ! It can take off and land in less than 40 feet of open ground, flies at no more than 30 mph, and gives a pilot unprecidented oppotunities to take photographs at any thing from 100 to 1000 feet off the ground. These products are available around the world. If you can not source one, as a manufacture of this type of aircraft we could organise or advise something for you if you think it could help. The only constaints of the aircraft are that wind speeds of more than 20mph make it difficult to launch. It requires about 1 gallon of fuel for 1-2 hours airtime. Good luck with your Septmber mission. Regards Jon Radford ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Jon. We've considered this type of device but two factors make it seem like not such a good idea. First, the easterly trades make winds exceeding 20 mph not uncommon at Niku. Second, the consequences of being blown out to sea and coming down in a shark-infested ocean with a hundred pounds of metal strapped to your butt are not attractive. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:03:50 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: More Information and Help From Cam Warren For Carol Dow, Check Jeffery Dorwart's "Conflict of Interest" for FDRs secret spy corp and the voyage of his buddy Astor's yacht "Nourmahal" (sp). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:05:37 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Concern over Gestupid Not being a native Italian speaker but having studied the language for five years I can confirm that a line is "una linea" in Italian and "canali" is the plural of canale which means canal. Zingarelli (the Italian equivalent of Webster) describes "canale" as (I'm translating for the benefit of the non-Italian speaking readers): 1. "a hand made work destined to carry water freely in open air". 2. a furrow caused by erosion". 3. a pipe 4. a large body of sea water between two land masses (e.g. Dover Strait) It wasn't some idiot media wag who invented the canals as Jon Watson believes. If one can't trust the Zingarelli any more when the Italian language is involved then who can one trust? LTM (who spends her holidays in Italy) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:09:27 EDT From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust Ric wrote: >I don't think we've heard anything about Finch's >experience. (Odd that she didn't write a book, >or did she?) Oddly, it seems Linda Finch wrote a book in 1996, *before* her flight. It was distributed to classrooms, and kids tracked the "World Flight 1997" on the net, as part of the "You Can Soar" educational program. The URL is long gone, http://worldflight.org During the 73-day flight, March 17, 1997 to May 28, 1997, she posted daily notes from her log book. Her self-published book (No Limits - A Woman Pilot's Search For The Real Amelia Earhart) is available (used) at http://www.bibliofind.com when searched for with the words: no limits linda finch The only other book associated with her that I found was: "Sky Pioneer, A Photobiography of Amelia Earhart" for children ages 9-12, with a forward by Linda Finch, published in 1997 by The National Geographic Society. Finch was also featured in a foreign-made (filmed in Thailand) television documentary. To bring this back "on topic" I did see that Finch said how good the view was from her plane, how easy it was to see things below clearly. Suzanne ******************************************************************* From Ric I guess it would be mean-spirited to suggest that her book should have been titled "No Ethics - A Woman Pilot's Search for Fame and Fortune". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:11:27 EDT From: Amanda Subject: Re: Navigational Logic >> From Ric >> >> Mmphf, gurg.....this is killing me. > >But Ric, you're so beautiful when you're restraining >yourself. Not many people can produce that shade >of purple on their brow. ;o) > >LTM and the boys. > > Marty #2359 What's really cool is the way that vein pops out and begins to pulsate... Ric's life on the forum would probably be a little easier if people stopped trying to use the "what would I do if I were in AE's shoes at that point?" method. By definition it includes a big lump of imagination as the first hurdle for most of us. Sorry to use Amelia's shoes in vain, but check out my new signature quote. -- Amanda Dunham #2418, patron ******* Archaeology, I found, comprehended all manner of excitement and achievement... Romantic excursions go hand in hand with scholarly self-discipline... no science is more adventurous than archaeology, if adventure is thought of as a mixture of spirit and deed. C.W. Ceram Gods, Graves & Scholars ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:16:20 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > From Ric > > You directed this to Alan so I'll restrain my impulse (for once) to jump in > and point out the many errors in your characterization of the situation. Ric, the errors are too obvious. I think if Mike rereads his own post he will easily see them himself. If not, I will be only too glad to help. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:17:51 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Navigational Logic, Gestalt switching, and the Canton Engine I interviewed Herb Terrill myself. He remembered Bruce Yoho and remembered seeing an old aircraft radial engine laying around a maintenance shed. And according to his log book, they almost never went to Nikumaroro Island. It was his opinion that no pilot would have allowed something to be slung under the aircraft on the return trip even if they did go there, because of the increased drag and limited fuel supply onboard. I recorded the conversation in case I need to refer back to it. If I recall correctly, he suggested the most likely candidate for the mystery island was Sydney Island where the C-47 crash is located. I don't remember his reasoning at the moment. Don Jordan Merced, CA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:35:58 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Nature of Evidence > But Niku should be searched until Ric says "uncle" or finds the note > scratched into the palm tree by Amelia: " Couldn't find a gas station on > this godforsaken island, tell GP I'll be late-AE" > LTM, > R. Bright Oddly enough it is the lack of such a message that is one of the more compelling suggestions that the castaway was not Earhart or Noonan. Accounts exist of aviators (and others') bones being found years and even decades after they disappeared. Those who were alive for some time usually kept a journal or at least left a last desperate message. Of course, we could theorise that this could explain the sextant box. Perhaps the castaway also carried a few writing materials in it, and was lying in the shade with the box open when he/she died. The papers would be the first material to blow away and decompose somewhere. If it wasn't for the post loss radio signals I'd subscribe to a ditched theory. Earhart & Noonan ditched close to Gardner and managed to get ashore injured (by waves and rocks). We have the N.C. survivors' testimony to support that idea. The plane may have washed up on the reef flat later, and Earhart & Noonan were not fit enough to access it. That explains why they did not bring ashore the sort of things that one would have expected to find lying around the village to be recognised by Gallagher. Of course it all falls over again when one considers the post loss radio signals. Maybe, somewhere on the island, there's a little cache of things like a flare gun, sunglasses, watches, pens, vacuum flasks and other water containers etc. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************ From Ric Is it only aviators who leave journals or carvings on trees? We know there was a castaway. There were probably two - a man and a woman - based upon the presence of remnants of a man's shoe and a woman's shoe. They were probably westerners rather than Pacific islanders (who don't wear shoes). And yet no journal or apparent attempt to leave a memorial of any kind has (yet) been found. That doesn't mean the none is there and there is no requirement that one be there. We tend to take the little scraps of information we have and fill in the blanks with our own imagination and then think we know what is was like. We're consequently bothered when we don't find what we think we should find. Let me tell you how I try to approach these things. Rule Number One The site is perfect. Whatever is there is exactly the way it should be. If it looks wrong or puzzling it's because of our failure to understand what happened. Rule Number Two Don't search for what must be there. You don't know what must be there. Look at what IS there and try to figure out why it's there. Rule Number Three You'll know you're on the right track when you're able to predict what you'll find and where. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:48:01 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > So, if they really were > on the LOP, then it is only one target either way. If they weren't sure if > they were on or near the LOP, then McKean should probably also be > considered. Mike, I don't think you understand the "LOP." Noonan created the LOP. It is not possible he wouldn't know where it was. We surmise he was on an LOP he created and drew through Howland. If so it would have also gone through Baker and eventually close to Niku. When AE said they were running north and south on 157/337 it only makes sense that line would be an LOP running through Howland. No one knows that for a fact, however. Nor does anyone know what they did once they departed from Howland if in fact they did. The speculation is that they would have searched for the nearest land which would be one of the Phoenix Islands. Which one they headed for is unknown. The simplest navigation exercise would have been to continue SE to Niku but no one knows if that is what they did. East/West was not their problem so there would have been no reason to waste fuel and time running back and forth from east to West. Longitude they knew. It was Latitude they had more difficulty with. My earlier comment they would make a short check NW stands. I don't know why you would take exception to that not knowing what "short" means. It's a comparative term not an exact mileage. Our heroes thought they were over Howland so there would be no sensible reason to drive NW for a long time whatever you think "long" means. NW there was Howland then nothing. SE there was possibly Howland, Baker and the Phoenix Islands. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric I'll add that McKean WAS considered. Our original hypothesis was that the flight reached either McKean or Gardner. We have a huge file on McKean and during the 1989 expedition we spent a day there and were able to determine very quickly that there is no place on that tiny barren island and reef to land an airplane. We saw no airplane wreckage or any indication that anyone had lived there since the guano diggings were abandoned in the mid-19th century. The plane could have been ditched in the shallow central lagoon and sunk out of site in the bird dung (like I almost did) but if that's what happened I'll let somebody else check it out, thank you very much. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:50:52 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Best day ever This day, September 25, 2002, was the best forum ever. What a gaggle of information and ideas. As an Earhart hobbyist, I'm more confused than ever. Let's see if I got it right: AE and FN land on Niku, their captured by the Japanese and taken to the Marshals. Both are shot, but not dead, and natives rescue them both. Fred goes back to Niku because he left his sextant box and dies. Amelia is whisked away by British authorities and taken to New Jersey, she assumes a new identity. The Electra is washed off the reef when Bev makes his fly-by, but is washed back on the reef for Emily's father to see. The Japanese find the Electra, but it's missing a wing and an engine, they take it back to the Marshals, thus the stamps and first day covers. While at the Marshals, the Japanese remove the infrared film that Amelia took of the Japanese build up in the Marshals. Miles away, Yoho finds a radial engine on Niku, but takes it back to Canton where he buries it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:51:51 EDT From: DaveFlyer Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Just got back from Vacation and read your thoughts on Gilbert pass over in Wee hr.. Some years ago I had my brother, a Prof. at Ferris Univ. that is into celestial stuff figure back what they had for Moon light. He said that "the Moon was 2 Days after 3rd quarter, very near Waning Crescent Phase" "Which would give very little light. Maybe this may help someplace, sometime, DaveFlyer ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:13:51 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Well, since the navigational genie is out of the bottle again I would still like to get an answer to a question that I posted last March. Ric invited the celestial choir to respond but no one ever did. "This brings me to another point that I have not seen any discussion of on the web site or on the forum. The assumption that they blithely just followed the 157 LOP to Gardner. This however is impossible. Since the sun keeps moving the direction of any LOP derived from it keeps changing its azimuth. This means that even if you could follow the LOP it would no longer take you anywhere near Gardner. By the time of the "we must be on you" report at 1912 Z the LOP would have been 156/336. At the "circling" report time of 1928 Z the LOP was 155/335. At the report of the "157/337" LOP at 2014 Z the LOP was actually 153/333. At the same times the azimuths and any LOPs derived from them would have been even more different at Gardner as it is located south, and more importantly for the calculation, east of Howland. Depending on your assumptions of when NR16020 left the vicinity of Howland and your assumptions about its ground speed you can determine that it would have arrived at Gardner no earlier than 2130 Z and possibly as late 2330 Z. The earlier time is based on assuming it departed Howland at 1912 Z (the time of the "on you" report) and maintained a 150 knot ground speed (which seems high). The latter time assumes departure at 2014 Z ("157/337" report) and a 100 knot GS (probably a little low). By 2130 Z the LOP as measured at Howland would have changed to 144/324 or 13 degrees different from the 157/337 and 15 degrees different from the actual 159 true course to Gardner. Since it is 350 NM to Gardner this would make you miss the island by more that 95 NM. There is an even greater difference as measured at Gardner where the LOP would have been by that time 138/318 or 21 degrees different that the true course to Gardner which would result in a miss of more than 120 NM. The same calculations for 2330Z shows LOPs of 280/100 at Howland and 276/096 at Gardner or about 63 degrees! with a miss distance of 310 NM! Does this mean that they couldn't find Gardner, no. But it takes a lot more than just following the 157 LOP. Noonan would have had to plan on going to Gardner, known its position and then done the "land fall procedure" all over again for this new destination. Would this make any sense since he would have to do this work all over again while in flight with no greater probability of success in finding Gardner than they had had up to that time in finding Howland and a whole lot less fuel available to search for Gardner after using the fuel to fly an additional 350 NM? Wouldn't it make more sense to use all of the fuel remaining in searching for Howland since they knew they were fairly close to it? If necessary he could do the landfall procedure again at Howland using his precomputaions which is a lot easier and less prone to error than doing them all over again in flight while enroute to Gardner. Now don't believe that just aiming for the Phoenix islands guarantees that you will find some island for sure. Those islands are spread out as much as the Gilberts and Ric tells us in a post today that he has flown over the Gilberts and there is so much water between them that you couldn't be sure of finding one of those islands. The Phoenix islands consist of McKean island which is 50 NM to the left of the course to Gardner, Hull is 140 NM, Sydney is 180 NM, Birnie is 190 NM, Canton is 200, Enderbery is 230 and Phoenix island is 250 NM. There are no islands to the right of the course. Most are at greater distances from Howland than Gardner and there is a lot of water in between. It is not a sure thing like turning till the compass says "E for Europe" like Lindbergh did. gl *************************************************************************** From Ric I guess nobody replied to this because it so completely misrepresents the hypothesis. Let me walk you through it. 1. At or very shortly after sunrise Noonan takes a celestial observation on the sun and establishes an LOP of 157/337. 2. He advances the 157/337 line through Howland and calculates how long it will take them to reach the advanced line. 3. The aircraft then descends to 1,000 feet to get below the base of the clouds, thus greatly limiting or eliminating the opportunity for further celestial observations. 4. Upon reaching the advanced 157/337 LOP and not seeing Howland (and having been unable to get Itasca to give them a bearing during the run in) AE, for the first time, tries to get a bearing using her own DF. No luck. 5. Noonan feels fairly confident that they're on the advanced 157/337 LOP but doesn't know whether they're too far north or too far south. They explore northwestward for a little way but soon have to turn and run southeastward while they still have enough fuel to stand the best chance of reaching one of the islands. 6. They DR down the advanced 157/337 line and they stay low to make sure that they don't miss an island. If Noonan manages to get another sun shot it only confirms that he's now too far south to make it back to Howland. Eventually Gardner appears on the horizon. LTm, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:15:23 EDT From: Christopher Ferro Subject: Re: Concern over Gestupid Herman De Wulf (#2406) said: > Not being a native Italian speaker but having studied the > language for five years I can confirm that a line is "una linea" in Italian > and "canali" is the plural of canale which means canal. Zingarelli (the > Italian equivalent of Webster) describes "canale" as (I'm translating for > the benefit of the non-Italian speaking readers): > 1. "a hand made work destined to carry water freely in open air". > 2. a furrow caused by erosion". > 3. a pipe > 4. a large body of sea water between two land masses (e.g. Dover Strait) > It wasn't some idiot media wag who invented the canals as Jon Watson > believes. If one can't trust the Zingarelli any more when the Italian > language is involved then who can one trust? I always understood that Schiaparelli used the term to mean channels - more like definition #2. It was Percival Lowell who popularized the notion of canals built by an ancient and "noble" society on Mars. How you can see "nobility" through a telescope is beyond me. This is all very fascinating, but let's stay on topic. LTM, Christopher Ferro ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:16:36 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: More Information and Help From Cam Warren Ron, I found a "Conflict of Duty, U.S. Navy Intellgence Dilemma," Jeffrey Dorwart. Same thing? Carol Dow ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:17:48 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Best day ever Lawrence, Don't despair, ye old website is the only place where you can talk yourself to death, get threatened with extinction, and still live to tell about it. Boring it's not. You have to trust dear Ric. who manages to live through all of this and keep the thing going ....somehow. Carol Dow ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:14:19 EDT From: Art Carty Subject: Fred Noonan Ric, is there a summary anywhere on the current thinking of the fate of Fred Noonan? I seem to remember that, at one point, there was a section of beach near the Norwich City that was under consideration as a grave site. Why? Is this the site that was excavated on the last expedition? There are also some references, I believe in Emily's statements, to the possibility that a body/bones were in the water near the plane wreckage. It has become very common to assume that Fred suffered a head wound; where did that idea come from? It's almost like something that is repeated so often it becomes "truth" but is there any factual basis? Is there any reason to believe that the man's shoe is Fred's? If so, why? Art in Florida **************************************************************************** From Ric It's a good question and an interesting problem and there really is, as yet, no good answer. There are two anecdotal accounts (by Bauro Tikana and Emily Sikluli) which allege that bones were found near the Norwich City wreck. Emily's suggestion that there were bones on the reef in the water is really hard to swallow. Nothing stays on that reef for long that isn't either real heavy or anchored somehow. Last year we excavated what we thought might be a grave on the shore just opposite the wreck but after digging half way to Cleveland we finally concluded that nothing was buried there. The coral marker that looked so much like a headstone must have been a property boundary marker (best 20/20 hindsight guess). The head wound thing is fascinating. At least four of the alleged post-loss messages include references to Fred being injured. - Mable Dunklee claimed to have heard AE on her shortwave set. "She stated that her navigator Fred Noonan was seriously injured. Needed help immediately. She also had some injuries but not as serious as Mr. Noonan." - Thelma Lovelace also claimed to have heard AE on her shortwave: "we have taken in water, my navigator is badly hurt; (repeat) we are in need of medical care and must have help; we can't hold on much longer." - Betty's Notebook portrays Noonan as obstreperous and irrational but makes no direct reference to an injury. Anecdotally, Betty says that she had the impression that he had a head injury. - Nina Paxton made reference to Noonan having a head injury. It should be noted that all of these were women living in North America and listening to shortwave sets. Only Paxton came forward in 1937. The others all contacted TIGHAR in recent years after having seen media accounts of our work. None were Earhart fans and none knew any of the others. Uniformly, they were simply nice old ladies who were a bit nervous about coming forward with information that had bothered them for many years. It's difficult not to conclude that all of these people were party to the same event, whatever it was. It should also be noted that among the handful of other messages that include content (as opposed to unintelligible voice or just carrier waves), there is one that includes contradictory information. In 1937 Frank Frietas reported hearing voice signals (it's not clear whether he was a HAM or was listening on shortwave) in which AE said "both ok". The reception, however, was reportedly received in California between midnight and dawn on July 9th, long after most of the post-loss signals. Oddly enough, Fred's head wound also shows up in at least one of the Japanese Capture stories. Bilimon Amaron claimed to have treated a minor wound on Prisoner Fred's forehead. There may be other examples but it's hard to assess their significance because of the less-than-rigorous way Japanese Capture anecdotes have been collected over the years. As for the man's shoe, or remnant of same, that seems to have been among the items collected by Gallagher at the castaway's campsite, the speculation that it may be Fred's is based upon the assumption that a man's shoe and a woman's shoe suggest the presence of a man and a woman. Amelia and Fred are the only missing couple we know about in the region. Only one partial skeleton was found. Dr. Hoodless thought it was the skeleton of a man. We have reason to suspect that it was a woman. So if Amelia died and remained unburied it suggest that Fred may have died first elsewhere and may even havbe been buried. Fred dying first fits conveniently with the possibility that he received a head injury at some time early in their stay on the island. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:16:24 EDT From: Mike H. Subject: Re: Best day ever This is great, but I see some changes that would make it fit better. >From Lawrence >This day, September 25, 2002, was the best forum ever. What a gaggle of >information and ideas. As an Earhart hobbyist, I'm more confused than ever. >Let's see if I got it right: AE and FN land on Niku, their captured by the >Japanese and taken to the Marshals. Both are shot, but not dead, and >natives rescue them both. The Japanese Navy set up a picket line of ships to follow the flight. One sub was near Niku when they landed. The Japanese sailors landed, captured the pair, and camouflaged the Electra. The sub delivers the pair to a seaplane tender. When the tender arrives in the Marshalls, the Japanese government is aware that it has a very hot potato indeed. The decision is to restore the pair to Niku. However, the local commander decides to have a fake execution to impress the natives. Through a neutral connection (Germany?), the Japanese Government contacts the British colonial administration and tells them where to look. >Fred goes back to Niku because he left his sextant >box and dies. Amelia is whisked away by British authorities and taken to New >Jersey, she assumes a new identity. OK, so far. >The Electra is washed off the reef when >Bev makes his fly-by, but is washed back on the reef for Emily's father to see. In this case, I think what happened was that the cammo netting hid the Electra from Bev, but was gone by the time Emily's father got there. However, it might be that not all of the airplane was there. >The Japanese find the Electra, but it's missing a wing and an engine, they >take it back to the Marshals, thus the stamps and first day covers. Let's assume the Japanese send a smaller ship to the island. What they need of the Electra is the fuselage (so they can find the cameras and the stamps) and a wing and engine (so they can copy it for use in their airplanes). They leave one wing with its attached engine on the island, and load the rest on the ship. This remaining hardware provides us with Emily's story and the photo of the radial. >While >at the Marshals, the Japanese remove the infrared film that Amelia took of >the Japanese build up in the Marshals. Was infrared film available then? The shots were probably taken through a top-secret polarized transparent panel which was installed by Edwin Land himself. >Miles away, Yoho finds a radial >engine on Niku, but takes it back to Canton where he buries it. Thank God for pack rats, or my version would make no sense at all. LTM (who *usually* tries to make sense) Mike H. ****************************************************************** From Ric Whenever you guys are through..... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:18:02 EDT From: Herman Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust When you wrote "A Woman's search for Fame and Fortune", did you mean Linda Finch or were you thinking of Amelia Earhart ? LTM *********************************************************************** From Ric Um....Amelia, of course. She can't sue me. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:24:31 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Best day ever For Lawrence, You missed a few "facts" in your excellent analysis. One, the Electra was found at Yokosuka, Japan in a hanger in Aug 45, where the Japanese had it hidden; 2, AE died at McClean, Va of old age; 3, It was Tyrone Power who flew AE back from Japan and may be the father of a "love child". I hope that adds to the final solution!! LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric True story. For several years early in the project we corresponded sporadically with Queen Alexandra Hughes, President of Antarctica. Her Majesty was the daughter of Amelia Earhart and Howard Hughes who had been taking ballet lessons in Russia when her mother disappeared while on the way to bring her home. Afterward, Queen Alexandra fell on hard times and, when last heard from, was living in a cabin behind a gas station someplace in Tennessee. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:25:42 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: More Information and Help From Cam Warren For Carol Yup, Jeffrey Dorwarts wrote the Conflict of Duty book. And I talked at length with Prof Dorwarts to determine if in all of his extensive research on the ONI role prior to WW 2, his review of Japanese documents, his review of ONI files, etc., whether he ever found anything to suggest that AE had been captured by the Japanese or that AE had been recruited by ONI (my former employer) to "look around" (spy) in 1937. Nope, he said. LTM, Ron BRight Carol send me your email and I will off forum relate more that Dorwarts had to say about the FDR busines. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:28:51 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Nature of Evidence Th' Wombat sez: And Earhart may well have done so. If so, it'd be lovely to find it. But there are lots of variables involved in doing so. Assuming (first big assumption) that she did so.... 1. We don't know where she did it. Near the wreck site? At the Seven Site? Somewhere in between? Someplace entirely different? 2. We don't know what she wrote it on, or with, or whether she had anything to put it in that would have preserved it. 3. We don't know where, specifically, she might have secreted it. Under a rock? Up in a tree? In a cairn? In a hole marked for some reason with a "G"? There are lots of rocks at the Seven Site, for example, under which one could stick a bottle with a note in it. We haven't (yet) looked under them all. 4. Lots has happened on the island that could have resulted in the loss of a message -- trees cut down, plantations cleared and planted, roads built, etc. 5. It is, as Ric keeps pointing out, a big island, and we haven't looked at it all. As for notes carved on trees -- there are several I Kiribati names carved on a tree at Aukaraime South (the Shoe Site). We noticed them for the first time in 1997, though the site had been initially found in 89 and looked at intensively in '91. Things carved on trees are particularly hard to see, particularly in the dappled shadows of the forest. And there are LOTS of trees on Niku. ************************************************************************ From Ric Note to file: Next time we're at the Seven Site let's take a good hard look at those big old dead Ren trees back in the bush. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:20:11 EDT From: Chris Rehm Subject: Re: Best day ever It thought the queen of Antarctica was the lost tsar's daughter Anastasia??? wasn't there a connection between the Romanov family and Amelia ??? this is going to get out of hand. the conspiracy people are going to go into apoplectic shock Chris Rehm ******************************************************************** From Ric I'm aware of no connection between AE and the Romanovs. Let me re-phrase that. I'M AWARE OF NO CONNECTION BETWEEN AE AND THE ROMANOVS! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:28:11 EDT From: Jon Radford Subject: Re: Paramotor? If the wind is regularly over 20 what about static line kiting for a person with a camera. ************************************************************************* From Ric I think we'll pass on that one too. I know I'm just being sentimental but I get sort of attached to the team members. The fact is, at this stage of the investigation we really don't have a need to get up overhead the island - or at least not enough need to justify putting people at risk. We have wonderful satellite photography and the incredible good fortune to have good low altitude video from the helicopter. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:28:48 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Concern over Gestupid Thanks, Herman. I stand corrected. Hoo boy do I stand corrected. Oh the shame of it all... ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:40:29 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Nature of Evidence Absolutely. And the nearby bukas, too. There are also some big flat rocks to look under.... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:42:29 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Paramotor? The last time men were carried aloft by a kite to watch the scenery was sometime in the 18th century when the military hit upon the idea to observe enemy positions. But the idea was quickly abandoned because too many observers got killed. The French next tried a (captive) balloon during the battle at Fleurus (Belgium) (June 26, 1794) and defeated the Austrians because of better intelligence (around 1852 another Frenchman added an engine and cutting loose the ties invented the airship, his idea eventually being perfected by a German gentleman by the name of Zeppelin). Perhaps TIGHAR should have fun and try a (captive) hot air balloon on the next trip to Niku? My neighbor owns one and he took my up one day. A balloon is very compact when expertly packed and will easily fit in a ship. All you need a licenced balloon pilot. LTM (who loves balloons) ******************************************************************* From Ric You guys are bound and determined to get one of us killed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:04:12 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: A (very) Long Shot Something has been niggling at the back of my mind for a few years but I could never remember what it was. Has the the forum ever considered the possibility that the bones somehow did find their way to Professor Elkin? Tighar has looked just about everywhere else. Th' WOMBAT ********************************************************************** From Ric We did check. No joy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:05:17 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Nature of Evidence > From Ric > > Is it only aviators who leave journals or carvings on trees? Nope, that's specifically why I wrote (and others') bones. My point is that it could suggest one reason the castaway had the sextant box with her/him. It also provides a reason for the lack of a message (if such message was kept on paper in the sextant box). Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:20:56 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust > From Suzanne Astorino: > Oddly, it seems Linda Finch wrote a book in 1996, *before* her flight. It > was distributed to classrooms, and kids tracked the "World Flight 1997" on > the net, as part of the "You Can Soar" educational program. The URL is > long gone, http://worldflight.org During the 73-day flight, March 17, 1997 > to May 28, 1997, she posted daily notes from her log book. I managed to keep a full copy of the daily notes on the Finch Flight, mostly because the fuel usage discussion was on at the time and the notes told how many miles she flew in a given number of hours. I was particularly interested in daily average speeds vs the average speed over the entire trip. I imagine the stuff is copyright, so I can't actually post it anywhere. I suppose if anyone wanted to read it I could write about it and "quote" word for word from the source, acknowledging the author. The main problem though is that Finch used a different model Electra, so the figures are probably not completely relevant. Di make interesting reading though when comparing times with "Last Flight" generalizations. One thing that interested me was that Finch completed the 2049 nautical mile leg from Honolulu to Oakland at an average speed of 150 Knots (not mph) in a time of 13hrs 40mins. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Although achieved by modification rather than manufacture, Finch was flying a 10E Special (i.e. a 10E equipped with long range fuel tanks). There were two other 10E Specials. NR16020 - Amelia's "Flying Laboratory", and NR16059 - the "Daily Express". The principal differences in Finch's airplane which may have influenced its performance were full-feathering propellers and 100 octane low-lead gas. Of course, average speeds over distances are meaningless without wind information. What would be useful is information about takeoff weights, fuel carried and fuel burned versus distance covered and time enroute. It's my recollection that, with the exception of the South Atlantic and the Hawaii/Oakland flights, Finch flew much shorter legs at lighter weights than Earhart did. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:23:15 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Gary, the reason we didn't respond as far as I'm concerned is that it showed you were not understanding the LOP business but I thought you would see your error once you reread your posting. Your note above is entirely wrong. The LOP doesn't move a fraction of a degree and that's because it is simply a line drawn on a chart. It remains the same forever. It is exactly the same LOP this minute as it was when first drawn 65 years ago. The sun DID move and any SUBSEQUENT sun shots would have truly yielded different azimuths but that has nothing to do with the LOP. You're thinking of the LOP as a constant right angle to a constantly moving sun. That's not what an LOP is. An LOP is a line drawn on a chart at right angles to a one time celestial sighting. Once drawn it is, in this case, set at 157/337 for all eternity. IF Noonan then took additional sun shots it would have been to try and determine whether he was drifting east or west of his line drawn on the chart. Plotting subsequent sun shots, given no other aids, would have made staying on the line quite difficult as you can see - I hope. Without going back into my files I believe there was a planet that might have been available to his right that might have helped but in any case there are a lot of navigational tools available to an experienced navigator beyond relying on a single sun shot. Don't sell Noonan short. For that matter Noonan could have easily navigated to Gardner or any where else using ONLY sun shots with NO other aids in spite of the fact the sun's azimuth was constantly moving. If you think about it you will see how to do that. There is no prize for the correct answer. I hope this clears this point up for you. If not, let me know. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:27:39 EDT From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: Best day ever >Miles away, Yoho finds a radial >engine on Niku, but takes it back to Canton where he buries it. I never buried an Engine. I left it laying on the open ground. *************************************************************************** From Ric Don't worry about it Bruce. They're just having fun. In music it's called the "folk process". New people make changes to the tune and add new lyrics. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:32:30 EDT From: BR Anders Subject: From Anders in Hanoi When's the next time you are heading out to Niku, any special plans, targets for the search ? Has Niku had no permanent inhibitans since WW2 ? BR Anders *************************************************************************** From Ric The Niku V expedition is scheduled for the summer of 2004. Planning is on-going but at present we anticipate continued clearing and excavation at the Seven Site for more relics of the castaway(s) and an intensive visual and metal detector search of the overwash area on the island's westernmost point where we suspect aircraft wreckage may have been washed ashore and buried by storms. Niku was abandoned in 1963 and has been uninhabited ever since. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:47:36 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Navigational Logic O.K. I see the only navigation done down towards the Phoenix Islands was dead reckoning. I asked my previous question because it seemed that there was more to it than that, that there was something special about that particular course. I got the impression ( and I think others probably got the impression) that there was more to it than just DR, that there was some way for them to actually follow the LOP all the way to Gardner and ensure that they were staying on course. So there was nothing special about the 157 degree LOP except that they would head in that direction in an attempt to find Howland and after missing Howland and Baker would just continue on the same heading in an attempt to continue on to Gardner or some other island in the Phoenix group. gl ************************************************************************** From Ric You've almost got it. There was nothing special about the 157 degree LOP except that it's the LOP they could get before having to descend and, by lucky coincidence, if advanced through Howland it also fell through, or reasonably close to, four other islands - Baker, Mckean, Gardner, and Atafu (Duke of York) - which could be within fuel range. No other single line you can draw through Howland will give you that many chances to hit land. As LOPs go, it's a pretty good one. The big question, of course, is how accurately they could DR down the line. As Lindbergh once said, "The only bad thing about Dead Reckoning is the name." If you can hold a heading and keep track of what the wind is doing there's no reason you shouldn't be able to stay pretty much on course. I know you've done it, as have many of us. GPS isn't as tough on the fingernails but DR will get you there. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:47:40 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust Her so called "journal entry" for the 21st May 1997 says 'The plane, filled with enough fuel for the 15-16 hour flight, will weigh 17,000 lbs. On an average flight it weighs about 12,500lbs." It goes on to explain that they will need to get to 100mph before they take off and that the normal take off speed is around 65 mph. Somewhere in there I suspect mph may have been substituted for knots but I can't be sure. The above was for the Honolulu - Oakland stage which took 13 hrs 40 minutes. Th' WOMBAT *********************************************************************** From Ric Ya gotta hand it to Linda. She has the Earhart tradition of incomplete information down cold. How much fuel is "enough" for a 15-16 hour flight? What was the planned reserve? 17,000 pounds is one heavy Electra - quite a bit heavier than we think NR16020 was for a much longer flight. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:51:15 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > From Alan > ... That's not what an LOP is. An LOP is a line drawn on a chart at right > angles to a one time celestial sighting. For us non-navigators, I think it is important to practice realizing that a "line of position" (LOP) is a determination of the position of the navigator at the time the celestial observation is made. If the navigator can shoot three LOPs from three celestial sightings within a relatively short time, three lines can be drawn on the chart. If the observations could be made simultaneously and if they were made perfectly, the three lines would intersect in a point, and the navigator would know exactly where he or was at the moment of the observations. Since time passes from one observation to the next, and because it is impossible to make perfectly accurate observations with handheld instruments even under the best conditions (standing on land at a known elevation), there is always a plus or minus perentage of error involved in placing a LOP on a chart, even if the lines drawn seem to pass through the same point. The intersection is really more like a triangle of probability than a single place on the face of the earth. And that is all that is needed in most cases to get from the region where you are to the region where you would like to be. GPS systems use the same principles, except that the celestial bodies are satellites and the LOPS are timed and calculated to a degree of precision that few human observers could match. > Once drawn it is, in this case, set > at 157/337 for all eternity. That would be the LOP established by noting the time of apparent sunrise observed from a particular altitude. FN could determine what that LOP would be from tables once he knew what day they were planning to make the flight. When FN made the observation of sunrise, corrected for the altitude at which they were flying, he knew he was on a particular, slanted line of longitude that ran from 157 to 337. From that single observation, he couldn't tell how far north or south he was on that line (except in terms of a very large magnitude of error), but he knew pretty accurately where he was in east-west terms. That information was not relayed by AE in radio messages, except in her rough-and-ready statements of how far they thought they were from having the advanced LOP intersect Howland. > IF Noonan then took additional sun shots it > would have been to try and determine whether he was drifting east or west of > his line drawn on the chart. He also would have tried to calculate the rate at which the airplane was travelling eastward and whether it was being pushed north or south by the winds it was experiencing. This is the heart of dead-reckoning. Using these techniques, he could (at least mentally) "advance" his LOP across his charts from the location given by the dawn observation and be moderately confident that it still showed a probable region of his location. > ... in any case > there are a lot of navigational tools available to an experienced navigator > beyond relying on a single sun shot. Don't sell Noonan short. We have to hang on to the radio transmission which gave us the numbers 157/337 to work with. It corresponds to the LOP established by the dawn observation some hours earlier than that transmission. Whatever other aids FN may have used, he apparently was "advancing" that LOP by reckoning wind drift and speed across the ground (er, water) to decide when it was time to start searching northwestward (flying a course of 337 degrees) and southeastward (157 degrees). LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:37:47 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Niku V Seems to me that a further search of the village site(s) would be a good plan for Niku V. Aircraft aluminium was obviously a valued resource as it was brought from other islands. I would imagine that any aircraft wreckage that was seen around the island would have been brought back to the village as it is so close to the likely landing site and it is more likely that bits of the electra will provide the conclusive evidence rather than anything the seven site is likely to yeild. Regards Angus. ******************************************************************** From Ric There was a good deal of debate about this issue at the EPAC conference in July. The eventual consensus was that we need to continue the work at the Seven Site because: 1. So far it's the only primary archaeological site we've been able to identify. By "primary" I mean a place where we have reason to believe objects may remain in situ, undisturbed, from the events we're hoping to prove happened. 2. Basic rule: If you want to find stuff, go to where the stuff is. We know there's more stuff there. It's a target-rich environment, if you will, and the few things we've recovered so far include objects that seem to be possibly, or even probably, attributable to the castaway. If so, then it means that Gallagher didn't find everything that was there. Who knows what could turn up on the next sweep? Of course, we also want to keep looking for airplane parts because that's probably our best shot at "smoking gun" evidence, but anything found in the village has, by definition, been brought there from somewhere else and who's to say whether it came from the beach a hundred yards away or an island a hundred miles away? Far better to find airplane debris that is still in a "primary" location. We've been trying to do that for a long time and we've tested and eliminated a number of different hypotheses about where wreckage may have ended up. Our current guess is based upon new information and observations about how the western end of the island "works". We've identified an area not far from the village that, we reason, might hold aluminum sheet and other lightweight debris washed over the reef and deposited inland by storms and buried in sand. The satellite photos clearly show that this area is subject to overwash and, by coincidence (or not), the dado was found on one end of the area and the aircraft skin was found at the other end. We've never really hit that area before because, between storms, it grows up into impossibly thick scaevola but, ironically, that makes it a very good place to look. We'd like to do more in the village proper, and we will if we have time, but right now it looks like the Seven Site and the Overwash will have priority. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:08:14 EDT From: Rich Young Subject: Kites and dados Herman De Wulf wrote, "The last time men were carried aloft by a kite to watch the scenery was sometime in the 18th century when the military hit upon the idea to observe enemy positions. But the idea was quickly abandoned because too many observers got killed." Actually, Mr. De Wulf, it's fairly common knowledge that the German U-boats of World War II were equipped with man-carrying kites, for the purpose of locating Allied shipping, in the pre-radar days. Ric asks, "If you were going to put a Dado in a boat to be used in salt water would you make it out of aircraft aluminum?" You would if the rest of the boat was aluminum. One of the techniques to limit galvanic corrosion is to make all attached structures out of the same or similar alloys. I spent much of my misspent youth bouncing around the vicinity of Fort Walton Beach, Florida in a 14 foot shallow vee aluminum hulled boat, with plywood flooring, carpet, and attachments strikingly similar to the dado recovered on Niku Island. By the way, the Edo float company, and many of the soon-to-be major aircraft companies, survived the Great Depression by building other consumer goods out of "aircraft" aluminum that used the same construction techniques - (riveting, stringers, etc.). Among these products were canoes, small boats, and water and fuel tanks. So the dado has a series of problems - 1. It's either out of an airplane, or something else, (boat, travel trailer, bus,...), and if it's not out of an airplane, it's got nothing to do with Amelia. However, the residue of kapok insulation strongly argues that was an aircraft installation, so lets assume so, for the sake of argument - 2. Lets go even further and assume it came from a member of the Lockheed Elctra family, (Electra, Electra Junior, Super Electra, Ventura, Harpoon, Havoc, and I'll even throw in the one-off UC-35). That's THOUSANDS of aircraft, many of which were initially fitted out as airliners or either partially or completely civilianized after being sold surplus post-war, usually by fitting a "business" interior with flooring and carpet. But let's go further, for the sake of argument, lets say the dado came out of Amelia's Electra.... 3. You still have a part attacked to kapok, (AKA "life preserver stuffing") and plywood. That is, it FLOATS. There is no reason to believe the part didn't wash onto then Gardner Island from an Electra that broke-up upon ditching, unless there are obvious disassembly tool marks, that can't be explained by the post-groundloop repairs.. Now lets address those prodigal bones, box, and shoe parts that "Irish" found - 1. We don't have them. 2. Deciding a "Man's shoe" from a "Woman's shoe" is subjective at best, even when you have it. Either the one Gallagher found was the other half of the pair of the one you found, which means it wasn't Amelia's, or we have a veritable Pay-Less of western footwear showing up on these tropic shores. If they are both of a pair, and the measurements don't match, then why can't the bones be the owner of the shoes? If you have shoes that aren't Amelia's, why not the feet that go in them, and other attached parts? Occam's razor cuts both ways. 3. Sometimes, men wear women's shoes, and vice-versa. 4. The person who did have the bones thought them to be male. Any re-interpretation of his measurements, without knowledge of his actual technique, or the bones themselves, is mere wish-gratification. 5. The sextant box was described as being for "an antique instrument, probably covered in black enamel". Now I ask you, did Fred Noonan have a quirky fondness for and reliance upon 18th and 19th century optics, or rather, in his duties with Pan Am and later Ms. Earhart, did he tend to use the latest, state-of-the-art artificial horizon self-illuminating automatically-recording and averaging type of gear? LTM, (who isn't afraid to ask direction shen SHE is lost) Rich Young **************************************************************************** From Ric In reverse order: As a matter of fact, Noonan wrote that he traditonally carried an old-fashioned nautical sextant with him in addition to a "modern" bubble octant. (Incidentally, the state of the art in 1937 did not include self-illuminating automatically-recording and averaging type of gear.) In fact, Noonan seems to have had something of a collection of nautical sextants. He loaned a very nice Ludolph to one of his Pan Am navigation students who later donated it to the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola. You can see it there or you can see it on our website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/bulletin1_13_99.html Your categorical dismissal of the assesment of the bones measurements by Drs. Jantz and Burns as "mere wish-fullfillment" leaves a distinct impression that you're more interested in playing the cynic than in familiarizing yourself with the evidence and offering informed criticism. You can ridicule Dr. Steenson's opinon that parts of a woman's shoe and parts of a man's shoe were present but you can't do that and argue that Hoodless can not be contradicted about the gender of the bones because he had them and we don't. Steenson had the shoe parts. We don't. If he had described them in detail and we found his description inconsistent with his conclusion we might question his opinion - but that's not the case. Hoodless, on the other hand, does give us a detailed description of the bones and highly-regarded experts in the field of forensic ostelology have found his description inconsistent with his conclusions. <> That's right. Let's review the situation. We have one (partial) skeleton and (apparently) part of a woman's shoe and part of a man's shoe. What are the possibilities? 1. There were two people, a man and a woman, each wearing shoes. So where's the other person and where are the missing shoes? 2. There was only one person (male) and one pair of shoes (male). But we then have to say that the identification of the shoe parts as being of different genders was in error and we have no basis for sayng that. 3. There was only one person (female) and one pair of shoes (female). Same problem. 4. There was only one person (male) and one pair of shoes (female). But we then have to say that the identification of the shoe parts as being of different genders was in error and that the castaway was a transvestite. Stranger things have happened - I suppose. 5. There was only one person (male) who was wearing one female shoe and one male shoe. Unless he was a rather conflicted transvestite it seems most likely that he got the female shoe from a female companion who was no longer with him. Maybe he was a little guy and she was a big woman and one of his shoes was worn out. Maybe. 6. There was only one person (female) who was wearing one female shoe and one male shoe. Okay, so where'd she get the male shoe? Possible from a male companion who was no longer with her. Why wear a shoe that was (statistically) probably too big for her? Maybe her other shoe was worn out and any shoe is better than no shoe - or - maybe she had a swollen foot. Any of the above could be correct (and probably some other scenarios I haven't thought of) but - call me biased - I kind of like number 6. And finally, the dado. We've never held up the dado as proof of anything. It seems to be an aircraft part and a lot of things about it seem to be consistent with a Lockheed 10. There is no mention in the extensive literature of any aluminum boats being used by the colonists on Niku and, based upon what we've learned about the nature of the colony and its people, an aluminum boat of any description seems highly improbable - but we can't say its impossible. You don't appear to find any of the evidence convincing. That's okay. I don't find any of your dismissals to be convincing. If you really want to play Devil's Advocate let me suggest that you straighten us out and conclusively identify the things we think might be associated with Earhart as something else. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:09:54 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: The Nature of Evidence Why would the castaway carve a message in a tree if he had the sextant box ? LTM **************************************************************************** From Ric You lost me. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:13:26 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic <> And that genie is out with a fury. I can see the points of all the posters on this matter, I just think you're all talking past each other. Gary, the point to remember is that an LOP has meaning to a navigator only with respect to the celestial shot upon which the LOP computation is based, specifically, on the _the time and place_ .the shot was made AND because longtitudinal information is implicitly contained in the calculation. The calculated LOP tells the navigator that _at the moment he made the shot_ (remember, he is moving) his location was somewhere on that line. That LOP exists in perpetuity, in the context of the question the Navigator is asking. In other words, we know that at that moment in time (back in 1937) Noonan was somewhere on a line running generally north and south. But there's more, and I think it is this part that is confusing everyone (yes, everyone). The techniques used to calculate an LOP (sextant angle measurements, Nautical Almanac data, etc) will tell you more than just that. It also tells you what values of longitude are contained in that line, a line consisting of an ordered set of latitude-longitude pairs (you simply solve the equation (noonmeridian - (90 - sextantmeasure)) - see my older posts). This is a crucial point to understand. In fact, if I may be so bold, I think it is a lack of understanding of this fact that is leading to so many repeated questions on this forum. It is precisley why an LOP calc only has meaning to a navigator at the _time and place_ the shot is made; i.e. at that _place_ longitudinal information is contained in the calculation which applies only to that _place_. The LOP proper tells you for what values of latitude a heading-line is satisfied (each possible longitude has a corresponding required value of latitude). Noonan knew, without a doubt, that his line did not yet cross over Howland _at the time and place_ he made the shot. He was shy of Howland by a couple hundred miles (if I remember right); i.e., he was not yet over the LOP that intersected Howland. The only solution then, as Ric pointed out, is to DR from that _point in time and space_, out the anticipated remaining distance to the Howland intersecting LOP. From that point forward (which I think we all agree was sometime around sunrise) everything was DR. He could make a right-angled turn at his DR anticipated point of intersection with the Howland LOP using compasses, but he is still doing it all by DR, which in turn is based on that original LOP 200 miles back. I would explain why the LOP didn't move but it is a waste of time: movement of the LOP is irrelevant to the discussion. Noonan was DR from that point on. Any attempts to update the LOP would involve another celestial shot. You could make an argument that the error in DR was sufficient to miss Gardner, perhaps, but the moving LOP argument won't wash, IMHO. Hope that helps, Alik ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:25:21 EDT From: Michael H. Smith Subject: Navigational Logic Alan wrote: "Mike, I don't think you understand the "LOP." Noonan created the LOP. It is not possible he wouldn't know where it was." Alan, I believe that you have misunderstood what I wrote. I do not suggest that Noonan did not know where the LOP was. I was responding to suggestions by others that they may have been sufficiently off the LOP east or west (let's say 10+ miles) that they could have passed by Howland without seeing it. Given the lack of preciseness of determining location from a sun shoot and the distance flown since taking the sun shoot, this may be a reasonable possibility and my thanks to those who point this out. My point in responding was that "If they weren't sure if they were on or near the LOP" (i.e., Noonan knew where the LOP was but was not certain where he was in relation to the LOP), then flying on a course of 157 degrees for 300+ miles and hoping to spot Gardner or McKean (as suggested in the posts that I was replying to) seems like a lot less attractive option to find land than spending your remaining fuel to search east and/or west of the LOP for Howland (admittedly, neither option is great). This does not even take into account all of the other factors favoring a search for Howland as opposed to hoping to spot Gardner or McKean, such as a landing field on Howland. Alan wrote: "The simplest navigation exercise would have been to continue SE to Niku but no one knows if that is what they did. East/West was not their problem so there would have been no reason to waste fuel and time running back and forth from east to West. Longitude they knew. It was Latitude they had more difficulty with." If they believed they were on the 157/337 line running through Howland, then the simplest navigation exercise would have been to go sufficiently far one way on the line to be certain Howland was not in that direction and then to turn around and go the other way on the line until they reached Howland. If they had enough fuel to reach Gardner, then they had enough fuel to go both ways on the line to find Howland, unless they hit the LOP 100+ miles north or south of Howland. This was the point of my original post. I have yet to see any explanation for why they would possibly have believed they were this far off course. When you state that it was latitude they had more difficulty with, do you suggest that they wouldn't have been reasonably confident of their north-south position along the LOP within at least 100 miles? If so, why do you believe that this is likely? ************************************************************************** From Ric <> Let's start with the assumption that they have enough fuel to reach Gardner if they're smack over Howland. Call it 350 nm at ballpark 120 kts - in round numbers, 3 hours. Let's say they know how much fuel they have left (3 hours) and they're pretty sure they're on the LOP but they don't know WHERE on the LOP. They start DRing down the 157 line. Please tell me at what moment they can conclude that they should turn around and backtrack and be sure of reaching Howland, and how they reach that conclusion. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:22:28 EDT From: Emmett Subject: Re: More Information and Help From Cam Warren I'm also interested in the Jeffery Dorwart's " Conflict of Interest" you are sending to Carol Dow. Also, any info you may have on the life and times of Henry Morgenthau who in 1937 was not only the Secretary of Treasury but also Commander of U>S> Coast Guard. I'm especially interested in the phone conversation he had with Eleanor Roosevelt concerning Paul Mantz' inquiry. Thanks Emmett Hoolihan (lurker) *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think Ron is distributing books, just information. Morgenthau's conversation with Mrs. Roosevelt's secretary is described and explained in the FAQs section of the TIGHAR website. See http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/FAQs/morgenthau.htm ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:23:23 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Marty writes: > That would be the LOP established by noting the time of > apparent sunrise observed from a particular altitude. > FN could determine what that LOP would be from tables > once he knew what day they were planning to make the > flight. When FN made the observation of sunrise, > corrected for the altitude at which they were flying, > he knew he was on a particular, slanted line of > longitude that ran from 157 to 337. That is a possible explanation, Marty, but in truth no one knows how he got the LOP. Otherwise your posting was fairly accurate. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:24:27 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Alik wrote: > The techniques used to calculate an > LOP (sextant angle measurements, Nautical Almanac data, etc) will tell > you more than just that. It also tells you what values of longitude are > contained in that line, a line consisting of an ordered set of > latitude-longitude pairs (you simply solve the equation (noonmeridian - > (90 - sextantmeasure)) - see my older posts) Alik, a few of us DO understand that but don't go there unless you REALLY want to confuse folks. Even if it is understood it won't advance the ball. I've alluded to it just as you have but I'm not going to amplify that subject. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:28:19 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Wouldn't you use one-third of your remaining fuel to travel in one direction on the LOP, thus allowing one-third to get you back to the orighinal starting point, and using the last third to go in the other direction? Wind and altitude would be factors, but from the figures your using, I would assume they could cover 117 nautical miles, in both directions, from where they first encountered the LOP. ******************************************************* From Ric The question is really very simple. Would you do the one thing that stands the best chance of keeping you alive or abandon that course of action and take a chance on finding the island you prefer? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:31:21 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > do you suggest that they wouldn't have been reasonably > confident of their north-south position along the LOP within at least 100 > miles? Not at all Mike. In a previous post I expressed my opinion (OPINION) that I thought Noonan was most likely within 10 miles or so in north south as well as east west. Reading my previous posts you will see I have more confidence FN got the plane close to Howland than most folks. "If they believed they were on the 157/337 line running through Howland, then the simplest navigation exercise would have been to go sufficiently far one way on the line to be certain Howland was not in that direction and then to turn around and go the other way on the line until they reached Howland. " Unless I'm misunderstanding that's exactly what most of us are suggesting happened. Noonan would have obtained sufficient information celestial and otherwise to determine his ground speed. Unless the wind changed drastically and went unnoticed when his clock said he had reached the line drawn through Howland he would have been right on it or within a few miles depending on the accuracy of his work. Noonan then would have known he was on his LOP within the limits of what he considered his CEA. If he believed his north/south error to be within a couple of miles he might have flown a little crisscross path moving it north and south but there is no evidence that technique was ever used. My guess is that he was less confident of his north/south position in which case going east/west would not have been practical. He must have believed his east/west position was good and that by running up and down the line he could have seen Howland if it was off to either side. IF he ran NW then SE and we only surmise that, it must have soon become obvious his east/west position was not as good as he thought. At that point hanging around was pointless and they most likely headed SE for some form of land. You can thus see that if the East/west position was good they would have most likely seen Howland as they ran north and south.* There would have been no reason then to fly back and forth from east to west. Since they obviously DIDN'T see Howland they must have realized the East/west position was not as accurate as they thought. Where are they to look now? The only reasonable choice would have been to create some sort of search pattern in all four directions within the immediate area of where they thought Howland was but search only until fuel reserve dictated they had to abandon the search and go look for easier to find land. They were in the area about an hour and I would guess that's what they did - some form of search. We'll never know. * In my previous posts I've made it clear I thought Noonan got the Electra close to Howland and our heroes missed seeing the island because of sun glare and cloud shadows. I've never seen any evidence to indicate they were ever far afield at any time during the flight. You seem to be having more trouble reading correctly what I write than I would have anticipated. I made no such suggestion that I thought they would not be within 100 miles. I don't know where you got that. you may be getting my posts confused with those of someone else. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:32:17 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Nature of Evidence > From Herman De Wulf > > Why would the castaway carve a message in a tree if he had the sextant box? > LTM > *************************************************************************** > From Ric > > You lost me. Hey! Before this bounces back. I never once mentioned carving messages in trees..... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:36:20 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Niku V > From Ric > > 2. Basic rule: If you want to find stuff, go to where the stuff is. We > know there's more stuff there. It's a target-rich environment, if you > will, and the few things we've recovered so far include objects that seem > to be possibly, or even probably, attributable to the castaway. If so, > then it means that Gallagher didn't find everything that was there. Who > knows what could turn up on the next sweep? This is going to sound really stupid, but here goes... Are you searching the seven site with metal detectors? Another thought. Most things probably don't sink very deeply around the 7 site due to the coral rubble, but on some of the other areas you could need one of the wide coil deep seeking detectors. *************************************************************************** From Ric We search with metal detectors, visually, and we excavate particular areas down to 20 cm and screen everything through coarse screen and then screen it again through finer screen. We've never seen any indication that anything "sinks" on Niku but things can get buried by people and by crabs. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:40:34 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust > From Ric > > Ya gotta hand it to Linda. She has the Earhart tradition of incomplete > information down cold. How much fuel is "enough" for a 15-16 hour flight? > What was the planned reserve? 17,000 pounds is one heavy Electra - quite a > bit heavier than we think NR16020 was for a much longer flight. It does suggest she was carrying around 750 gallons more than she normally did. Wonder what she normally carried. Maybe if I asked her nicely she'd run through the figures? Of course there's always the possibility she wanted to make sure she had ample fuel. Do you know if Finch had the same tank setup as Earhart? If she added the 50 gallons we know earhart didn't have (300lb) plus extra crew (how many?) and navigation equipment plus things like seating for the crew etc and modern safety equipment, there's maybe 700 - 1000lb. Speculation of course, but it might account for some of the extra weight. Th' WOMBAT *********************************************************************** From Ric I don't know the empty weight of Finch's airplane nor its fuel capacity. If you want to find out detailed information about the flight I'd suggest you contact someone who was there other than Ms. Finch. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:48:35 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Berger's Box: New Evidence? IS THIS THE BOX GALLAGHER FOUND? I had the pleasure recently of interviewing Gerald Berger, now 85, about his eyewitness account of the Electra crash at Luke Field on 20 March 37. He was then a young navy aviation mechanic and that day was following the Electra down the runway in a crash pickup , when it veered off, and crashed. He says he was one of the first to climb aboard the ship, and look down into the cockpit where he saw AE sitting in the right hand seat, and also Manning, and Noonan. He provided many photos of the aircraft taken by himself, he says. (Coincidently, he was at Gardner Is in April 39 with the Pelican, and took photos of the Island of the Norwich City) Of note several days later without any prompting, Berger told me he recalled seeing a "box" between the pilot and co pilots seat when he looked down the hatch and that Noonan was stuffing papers, or charts into it just after the crash. (Noonan and Manning left by the rear door) Now if you recall Gallagher described the wooden box he found in 1940 as a "sextant" box with two numbers stencilled on it: 3500 and 1542. The sextant was not found with it but he wrote that a part, perhaps an inverting eyepiece, was found but lost. The box was painted over with black enamel. Gallagher didn't provide any dimensions and little else about the condition of the box in terms of age,or origin. Sir Harry later showed the box to Mr.Gatty, an aviator. Gatty thought the box was English made and believed that the box was "used latterly merely as a receptacle. He does not consider it could in any circumstances have been a sextant box used in modern trans-Pacific aviation". (AE Shoes, p. 231) Could Gallagher have been wrong and the box was not in fact a sextant box? Nasymth opined the box appeared to be of French origin because of the "dovetailing" on the corners. Tighar research found the "Pensacola Ludolph" sextant box formerly owned by FN at the Pensacola Naval Museum with the number 3547 on it. That numer was only 3 away from the 3500, but noone seems to know the number's purpose. See photo of box in AE Shoes, p.233. There was speculation that FN may have had a similar box as a backup in the Electra. Thus there was a controversy on whether it was a sextant box or a recepticle for small items. Enter the "Berger Box". Berger said his friend of his P.I. Gunn (now deceased) had made four wooden boxes in the VJ6 Squadron's work shop from probably Phillipine Mahagony, and other assorted scraps of meta,possible aluminum, from the shop. They could jerry rig or repair anything, Berger said. The box was "professionally" varnished and laquered. Berger said he carried the box to one of the hangers and speculated that the box was placed in the Electra at Noonan or Earharts request. At first he though the box was used to hold some kind of navigation device for the plane but later thought it simply was a removable storage box. He described it further as about 16"X18"X12", mahagony, dovetailed, nicely finished, with brass screws and two brass hooks fitting over a screw to keep the lid on. He doesn't 'recall a handle, nor does he recall any numbers stencilled on the outside. He said that the squadron stencilled anything that moved for inventory control, but had no clue to what "3500" would mean from a Navy standpoint. (Maybe some supply people could link 3500 with an object) His recollections after 64 years are fuzzy to be sure, and I doubt if I can further refine his description. Could the box float, I asked. Yes . Could Noonan or Earhart or Mantz have removed the box with those papers? Yes, he answered, although he didn't see them. There is no record of a box in the inventory of the planes contents. (See Roessllers inventory in AE: Case Closed) I have discussed this with Ric and he added that two little clips (artifacts 2-6-S-03a and -03b) were found at the seven site, but have never been identified. Securing devices of some sort was a good guess. The screws were brass current from the early 30s to the 70s. The plates are aluminum and are not manufactured, but fabricated by someone with metal working tools, Ric reported. Could Gallagher's box be the Squadron box? When and why would AE request a box? To hold charts, flight data by her side? Would she remove it from the Electra after the wreck and put it on the repaired Electra? Would she take it back to Oakland? Or is this another tantalizing anecdote that defys solid proof, unless someone else who was packing the Electra before the second takeoff could recall a matching box. Ric and Tom King are better qualified to evaluate this anecdote. Any other thoughts out there with the forum. It may just be a story like the " fishing line cable". I don't know, but it may be worth persuing. A note of Caution. Berger is in good health but has an admitted faulty memory, and is often confused over times and dates . He has read some of Tighars works, but I don't think he read King's Shoe book re a "box". He is also familiar with Long and a few other researchers. His own version for the failure of the flight is that the two propellers were never "corrected" of their in flight problems by the Hamilton Std Company. His photo album of the Luke Field wreck and the Phoenix Islands is remarkable. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric One little correction and one comment. Gallagher never said that the box was painted in black enamel. He thought that the sextant it had once contained had been so painted, but he doesn't say why he thinks that. Berger's story about the box is a recent recollection. When I first intereviewed him several years ago there was nothing about a box. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:52:28 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: A (very) Long Shot Bones: In 1938 my father went to work as a civilian employee at Mc Clallan Field, in Sacramento Ca., as it was then called. He worked for a time loading and unloading airpanes. There were some things that happend to him there that he told friends about. I use to love to hear him tell of these things. One story that I remember that he told was of a big cargo airplane that arrived and was left sitting in the area where he worked. Him and his team mates were always looking into crates just to see what was inside. The story is he and his team went over to the airplane to see what was inside because it had come in from the Pacific. Upon opening the door they found only one box inside, it was marked "Top Secret" so they climbed in and took a look in the box, which was sealed. Inside were some bones and two skulls. They got in a lot of trouble, but pleaded stupid and got away with the peek. I have always wondered why would they bring bones back to the states as cargo. Are we talking about the same bones? It was durning the war that this happend, I don't know the date or anything else about it other than what I am telling now. Maybe you looking in the wrong place for dim bones. Ron Berry *********************************************************************** From Ric During the war, battle casualites were regularly buried locally and later exhumed and returned to the states for permanent interment. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:53:36 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Tree Carvings? Ric wrote: >Is it only aviators who leave journals or carvings on trees? No. Absolutely not. For example, in the late 1500's the Lost Colonists on Roanoke Island in North Carolina carved the word "CROATAN" on a tree before disappearing into legend. In the 1700's, Daniel Boone carved the words "Danl Boone kilt a bar here" (Translated: Daniel Boone killed a bear here"). I once carved my initials on a tree when I was a young boy, but of course I am also an aviator, so that excludes me from qualifying the question. Yes I know this is incredibly stupid of me to write this stuff, but once again, I could not help myself. My sincerest apology TR #2427 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:56:53 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: the grave that wasn't a grave I remember the Expedition Daily Reports about that supposed grave excavation. A day or two before you decided that it wasn't a grave after all, you reported finding a stain consistent with interrment of a corpse. Is this stain anomalous, or otherwise explained? Was there any evidence, other than the stain, that perhaps a body had been buried there and later removed; ie. the "backfill" you ran into when excavating the hole at the seven site? I know you guys dug a huge hole at that supposed grave location and found nothing, but that remark about the stain consistent with corpse interrment has been bothering me ever since. Could you, Tom King, Kar Burns, or any combination thereof elaborate a bit about corpse stains. Sorry for being a bit morbid. LTM, who says that excessive erudition in pursuit of conversational clarity is no vice. Dave Porter, 2288 ************************************************************************** From Ric Lots of kinds of organic material can leave stains. A rotted-away tree root for example. In this case, the stain proved to be very shallow and not associated with a body. Thems the breaks. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:58:06 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: A (very) Long Shot If Dr Elkin did receive them, he did something which appears to be very much out of his character and never recorded it. I understand that he recorded everything to the point of being obsessed. The Fisher Library at the University of Sydney have his papers and there is nothing amongst them which would indicate that he ever saw or even knew anything about them. Similarly, the Forensic Lab in Sydney which is attached to the University of Sydney have no knowledge over them (I checked on the basis that if someone sent some bones into this country and they were found by customs, they would probably send them there to see if there was anything suspicious about them.) Regards David ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:27:18 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: More Information and Help From Cam Warren For Emmett the Lurker I suggest you pick up a copy of Prof Jeffrey Dorwarts book "Conflict of Duty" at your library, lots of background information of the Navy's and ONI's role in the Pacific. Tighar explains the somewhat enigmatic conversation Morganthau had with Malvina Scheider on 13 May 38 about the "...if we ever release this thing, goodbye AE reputation..." in the FAQs he referenced. Some regard it as solid proof AE was up to no good!! I will post a summary of some correspondence I had with Dorwarts. LTM Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:28:13 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Niku V Re: "and we excavate particular areas down to 20 cm" Anticipating a question: We haven't dug deeper than that (except in the putative head hole, where we went down over 100 cm) because that's where the bones, charcoal, and other evidence of human beings ran out. Actually, it consistently ran out at 10 cm. or less, but we went to 20 to be sure. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:29:05 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Berger's Box: New Evidence? 16x18x12 seems pretty deep for a sextant box, at least compared with the Pensacola Ludolf box. ************************************************ From Ric I agree. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:32:29 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Tree Carvings? Amid all this discussion of carvings on trees, I can't help but think about the glass artifacts - aside from a knife such pieces would be the next best thing for carving on trees or cocoanuts. What kind of bark do the local trees have? ltm jon ******************************************************************* From Ric The bark on the smaller trees suach as "Ren" (tournefortia) and "Kanawa" (cordia) is pretty rough and tough. The big trees are Buka (pisonia) and their bark is thin and flaky. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:51:56 EDT From: Jerry Jurenka Subject: TIGHAR Forum I don't have time to read all the postings but try to check in occasionally to see what is going on. I am fascinated by the quality of evidence analysis that comes from some of the Forum members. I know you get frustrated, Ric, because every time a new member posts on, the same questions get asked over and over. You bite your tongue (sometimes) and carry on and do a great job of keeping up with everything. BUT, I must agree with you that it was a little mean-spirited of you to criticize Linda Finch's World Flight. So what if she did it for the publicity? Can we say that ANY explorer from Vasco da Gama to John Glenn did it for any other reason than Fame and Fortune. Sure they had that burning desire to push the envelope but Linda Finch had it, too. The daily study of her flight may have kindled a spark in countless numbers of school children to fly or be an astronaut or just have a more adventurous spirit which is not a bad deal. Amelia Earhart may not have been the best pilot in the world (and we all know that women have to try twice as hard to be thought half as good!) but she did something that no other human being before her had the guts to try: to circle the world in an airplane around the widest part. Wow! Isn't that enough? I sure wish we could give her the credit due and quit nitpicking about piloting skills. Her flight was not about skills, it was about the human spirit of adventure and who cares if she was seeking Fame and Fortune in the process. Please, guys, give it a break. One thing that has always bothered me, though, is why there were no signs on the ground for the search planes to see. The reason I believe TIGHAR's hypothesis is because of the post-loss radio signals. I believe she was on the ground SOMEWHERE for awhile. And knowing, as she must have, that search planes would be sent out, why did she not line up some coconuts or tree limbs to spell SOS or an arrow of tree limbs on the beach to point the direction she went off exploring? I was on Expedition IIIIP in '99 and know from experience that there is plenty of underbrush and debris to use for signals and plenty of coral to hold it down. Even if she were injured, if she managed to make radio calls for three days, she should have been able to draw SOS on the ground. What am I missing? Ric, you're biting your tongue again. LTM, Jerry Anne Jurenka #0772E *************************************************************************** From Ric (disengaging teeth from tongue) My problem with Finch is not about her quest for fame and fortune. I'm generally in favor of both. I had no direct dealings with the woman, unless you want to count her refusal to even acknowledge our offer of research assistance as a direct experience. I have, however, had many, many dealings and conversations with people who did work directly with her on the her project and they have been universal in their disdain and contempt for the way she conducted her dealings with co-workers, sponsors, volunteers and, yes, even the darling little children. << Even if she were injured, if she managed to make radio calls for three days, she should have been able to draw SOS on the ground. What am I missing?>> You're making the assumption that she was expecting an aerial search. Why would she do that? Hers was the only airplane for thousands of miles. No plan had been made for the Navy come looking for her using airplanes. In fact, the commandeering of the Colorado in Honolulu was completey fortuitous and the later dispatching of the Lexington from California was little short of outrageous. Making brush piles on the beach ready to be set alight in the event a ship appeared on the horizon would seem like a reasonable thing to do. One could speculate that such piles were seen and described by Lambrecht as "markers of some kind". LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:57:48 EDT From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust (well, til Ric pulls the plug on this off-topic thread.... ) Ross [Th' cute WOMBAT] Devitt asked: >Do you know if Finch had the same tank >setup as Earhart? >... plus extra crew (how many?) The answers, copied and pasted from the internet: In 1994, Finch found the remains of one of only two 1935 Lockheed Electra 10E's in existence. She came upon it in a hangar in Wisconsin where it had been sitting for years, corroded and torn apart. This airplane was rebuilt with a 4.5 million grant from Pratt and Whitney. They provided the missing wings, engines and instruments. Using original drawings and photographs, the aircraft was meticulously and accurately restored, right down to it's rivets. Though others have recreated Earhart's flight, Finch was the first to use the same make and model plane as Earhart and to make the attempt with only a pilot and navigator. Her navigator was Peter Cousins. Note injected from Suzanne: In spite of what the press says, this plane actually started out as a Model 10A, see Ric's letter from 1996: http://pages.cthome.net/sponauer/electra.html Finch's fight began in Oakland, California, on March 17, 1997. Since the Electra's cabin is not pressurized and the plane does not carry oxygen, Finch flew at an average altitude of 6,000 to 8,000 feet. Finch was noted as saying, "Even at that height you can see the ground quite clearly." Unlike Earhart, Finch used Global Positioning System navigation equipment in hers and the accompanying chase plane, a restored Grumman Albatross, a two-engine amphibian aircraft. Finch's plane was also equipped with a video camera supplied by the National Geographic Society, and an S-TEC Model 50 Flight Control System (autopilot). San Francisco-based business executive Reid Dennis was the captain of the chase plane. Her three primary navigators, each of whom flew for a portion of the flight, were Peter Cousins, NY, NY; Robert Fodge, San Antonio, Texas; and Fred Patterson, Mill Valley, California. Her Electra was modified to carry 1800 gallons of fuel compared to Earhart's Electra that carried only 800 gallons of fuel. This was to insure that she would arrive at her destination as she island hopped across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Finch flew 8- to12-hour legs during her ten week odyssey of 26,004 nautical miles. She touched down on six continents and made 34 stops in 18 countries. About age 24, Finch decided that she wanted to learn to fly a World War II Corsair. She took lessons and obtained her pilot's license at the age of 29. As her love for flying grew, she restored six vintage aircraft, joined the Confederate Air Force association and worked with its fliers to help sharpen her flying skills. One of them made her land a P-47 numerous times without power so she could learn how the plane would handle in emergencies. Finch has logged more than 8,000 flying hours, 5,900 in multi-engine aircraft, vintage, warbirds, and tail draggers; and has flown in air shows for more than 10 years. Finch has served as a pilot and the head coordinator for the fund-raising, restoration and marketing of the rare Confederate Air Force P-47 Thunderbolt airplane (one of only five flying). She has also completely restored, modified, and raced an historic AT-6 World War II trainer. *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, it's apparent that if we're going to get the facts we'll have to find better sources than the these that Suzanne has found. With so much known fiction in the above it's impossible to tell if there's any fact there. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:34:09 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Re Gary's question... > From Ric > > I guess nobody replied to this because it so completely misrepresents the > hypothesis. Let me walk you through it. > 6. They DR down the advanced 157/337 line and they stay low to make sure > that they don't miss an island. If Noonan manages to get another sun shot it > only confirms that he's now too far south to make it back to Howland. > Eventually Gardner appears on the horizon. > > LTm, > Ric Ric, I think that what Gary is trying to say is that he'd feel more comfortable with the Tighar hypothesis if Fred had some chances of getting fixes on the way to Gardner... Pure DR'ing from Howland all the way to Niku seems extremely iffy; finding Niku in the end requires mostly luck... Quite a gamble to leave the Itasca behind and "head SouthEast"... Christian D *************************************************************************** From Ric When we construct a hypothesis we don't try to invent a scenario that will sell. We look at the available facts and try to come up with a scenario that might explain them. DRing for three hundred miles at about 120 knots and staying within ten miles or so of your intended course is either not a big deal or I am a better pilot/navigator than the Earhart/Noonan team (which I rather doubt). I try to avoid there-I-was stories but I'll make an exception in this case because it illustrates the point under discussion. In 1979 I sold my beloved but ancient Beech Debonaire and bought a new Cessna 182RG from a dealer in Kansas City, MO. I wanted the radio package to be installed by a shop in Binghamton, NY so I bought the machine deaf and dumb - no radios whatsoever. On the day I ferried the new airplane from Kansas City to Binghamton there happened to be a big ol' low pressure area sitting over Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. Ceilings were down to about a thousand feet and lower in some places, and visibility was a couple of miles - maybe. I was by myself and the map was useless because I had to keep my attention firmly on what was ahead so that I didn't, like, run into stuff. Little towns came and went, but they all looked alike. A road running north/south, a road running east/west, a railroad track, and a grain elevator. All I could do was hold the heading that I had worked out should take me through the low patch and out the other side into decent weather near Cleveland. All in all it was a good 400 miles of straight DR. I won't say it was fun but I hit the shore of Lake Erie within a couple miles of where I was aiming. So the idea of AE and Fred DRing down the LOP doesn't bother me a bit. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:41:43 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > Wouldn't you use one-third of your remaining fuel to travel in one direction > on the LOP Lawrence, I think it is an error to try to quantify some action Noonan may or may not have taken. Mike seemed to take exception to my suggestion AE flew a "short" distance NW. Apparently he interpreted that to mean an inadequate distance what ever that means. And like Mike I would take exception to your one-third. Instead you might consider that IF Noonan flew NW at all he would have flown whatever distance he felt was reasonable. No one can put an exact mileage to that or for that matter even a rough estimate. You would have to be in Noonan's shoes and know where, in his mind, he thought he was then how far he thought he should go in whatever direction he went. If that's confusing it is because no one can know what he did or what he was thinking or where he was at any given time. Therefor, it is a foolish exercise to make silly guesses about what might have happened in those minutes over or near Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:42:28 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Berger's Box: New Evidence? > he saw AE sitting in the right hand seat Why would AE be in the right seat? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:50:52 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Niku IIII Tides Did you keep a record of the high and low tides for each day of Niku IIII? If so, could you please post them to the forum, or send them off forum. Th' WOMBAT ******************************************************************* From Ric No, we did not record daily highs and lows. We were off doing other things. We did, however, record and photograph particular tidal states and events on particular dates and at particular times. Bob Brandenburg has used those observations to correct tidal data for Hull Island and we think we can now accurately hindcast tides for Niku. To test the system we're looking back through photos and video of previous expeditions taken at known times to see if the system can accurately predict (hind-dict?) what the tide was doing. If we can accuratley hindcast to 1989 we can accurately hindcast to 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:52:53 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Berger's Box: New Evidence? To extrapolate the anecdote a little further, if the box was to be used to store charts and the like in, would AE remove it after she came down? The answer to that would probably be yes. I am sure that both AE and FN would have like to confirm or try and establish where they actually came down. Also, would the inventory actually list a box? Perhaps not, why would you list the container, rather than the contents if you listed anything at all? Besides, nothing starts a fire like an inverted eyepiece and a navigation chart :). Regards David Kelly **************************************************************************** From Ric For what it's worth, the inventory DOES record both containers and their contents. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:54:05 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Niku V How deep are the crab borrows? Regards David ************************************************************************** From Ric On average, I'd say 18 inches or so. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:00:00 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: More Information and Help From Cam Warren > From Ron Bright > > Tighar explains the somewhat enigmatic conversation Morganthau had with > Malvina Scheider on 13 May 38 about the "...if we ever release this thing, > goodbye AE reputation..." in the FAQs he referenced. Some regard it as solid > proof AE was up to no good! ... Not speaking for TIGHAR, but just for myself, I could account for that sentence on the supposition that the facts Morganthau (sp?) referred to would show that AE was hopelessly unfamiliar with the radio systems on which her life and Fred's depended. A further destruction of her reputation would follow from information which would show that the flight was essentially of no scientific worth and took place solely for its entertainment value. But I understand that other interpretations are possible. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric Speaking for TIGHAR, once the documented circumstances surrounding the Morgenthau (correct spelling) transcript are understood there is nothing about it that a reasonable person would take to be the least bit mysterious. It is also true that Earhart conspiracy fans find the transcript damning. Draw your own conclusions. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:04:38 EDT From: Mike H. Subject: Re: Tree Carvings? >The bark on the smaller trees such as "Ren" (tournefortia) and "Kanawa" >(cordia) is pretty rough and tough. The big trees are Buka (pisonia) >and their bark is thin and flaky. Which ones show the most promise as places to carve a message? Mike H. *************************************************************************** From Ric If I was going to carve a message I'd pick a Buka. The wood is soft and the tree is big, but if I was trying to survive until I was rescued I don't think I'd waste energy carving messages on tree trunks, and if I was so far gone that I had given up hope I probably wouldn't have the energy to carve some kind of memorial to myself. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:45:56 EDT From: Mike H. Subject: Re: More Information and Help From Cam Warren I've always wondered why Morgenthau made that statement. Why would Morgenthau (and the government in general) care about AE's reputation? Would not their best interests have been served by being able to point out that *she* failed to find the ships, rather than the other way around -- which is one possible interpretation? Or did the government folk all hope the technical aspects of the matter would be too much for anyone at the time? LTM (who has an intact reputation) Mike H., Richmond VA **************************************************************************** From Ric It's pure speculation of course but no politician wants to trash an icon. They prefer to leave that to professional historians. Earhart was immensely popular and for the Coast Guard to have made public a report that she basically committed suicide through incompetence would have likely produced a whole firing squad of people eager to shoot the messenger. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:09:52 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust What exactly is wrong with the following Linda Finch record? Herman *************************************************************************** From Ric This isn't worth getting into very far but let me give you just a few examples. <> Not true, as noted many times on the Forum. The airplane is a re-engined 10A. The only existing 10E is owned by Grace McGuire in New Jersey. <> Linda did not "come upon it in a hangar". The airplane was well known. We (TIGHAR members Kenton Spading and Veryl Fenlason) inspected it and took measurements of it in October 1992. <> It was over 5 million but nothing near that amount was spent on the rebuild of the airplane. <> Pratt provided the engines. The instruments were donated by Collins, who originally agreed to provide some fairly basic stuff then got pressured into vastly upgrading the package. They felt "had". Other major aircraft components were "borrowed" from other Electras and never returned. <> Nope. The rebuild was no better than fairly accurate. <> ...plus two other guys who did much of the flying. <> As you should know by now, Earhart's Electra had a fuel capacity of 1,151 gallons. I'm more than a bit skeptical about the 1,800 gallon figure. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:10:28 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Tree Carvings? Thank you, Jon. We really shouldn't get too excited about carvings on trees when we don't know if they had anything to carve with. Duh, why didn't I think of that? The pieces of glass we've found so far show no signs of the kind of wear that would be produced by carving on wood. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:13:24 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Niku IIII Tides <(hind-dict?)> Us arkologists call it "retrodiction." ********************************************************************* From Ric So you would retrodict something? Sounds like you could get into also as much trouble with that as with hind-dict. (This could turn into a very marginal thread very quickly.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:15:10 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Niku V -- Crab burrows Both our observations and the literature indicate that burrows go to about 50 cm., or 18 inches as Ric estimates. I was thinking about the idea of stuff filtering down to lower depths, and thought I should clarify the fact that we DID dig deeper than 20 cm in one location at the Seven Site -- the putative Head Hole, where we (Gary Quigg, the digging fool) went down over a meter. And there, a handfull of fishbones came out of the sidewall at about 50 cm. Probably the contents of a crab burrow. But what's interesting is that the bones are from a species of fish (a wrass) that we've not found in any of the burn features we excavated. Which suggests that the crab either got a wrass down at the shore and dragged it up to the Seven Site (a possibility) or got the bones from a burn feature other than those we've excavated. There's at least one unexcavated burn feature about 7-9 meters upslope from the Head Hole, near the dead rens that Ric mentioned as candidates for tree carving. If that's where the bones came from, then stuff was dragged down the slope by crabs who dug into the (disturbed?) coral rubble around the Head Hole -- before or after the Gallagher search. If they dragged fish bones they could have dragged human bones, or teeth, or belt buckles, fountain pens, or medals commemorating a visit to Lae. Which just goes to show that the area upslope from the Head Hole, and the vicinity of the Head Hole itself, needs a LOT more attention next time around. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:18:06 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: LOP To Alan I think you missed my point Alan. I was not trying to interpret Noonan's action on July 2, 1937. Ric asked another subscriber what he would do after reaching the LOP and not finding Howland. What would be the most logical search pattern? Let's say you have 300 pounds of fuel left after reaching the LOP. Would you fly in ever increasing circles around that point until your fuel was exhausted? Would you fly in one direction only, let us say North, until your fuel was exhausted? Would you use 100 pounds of fuel to fly North, 100 pounds of fuel to fly back to your starting point, and then 100 pounds of fuel to fly South? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:21:20 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > So the idea of AE and > Fred DRing down the LOP doesn't bother me a bit. I agree, Ric. folks are making too much of the navigation on this flight. It really wasn't that difficult or complicated. Also folks are thinking in too narrow a box. I read that it was cloudy most of the way and not likely Noonan could see the stars often. I read he couldn't get fixes. I don't know where any of that comes from. Certainly not the known facts. Let's suppose, however, it WAS overcast most of the way. What would Noonan need to get from A to B? What if he saw no stars until 10:30 that night? He is passing near Nauru with all of its lights and possibly over one of the two ships nearby. There is such a report. Now he knows roughly where he is without a single celestial shot. When he over flies the Gilbert's we have him arbitrarily at 10,000' or so. We don't know that. We don't know if he dropped down trying to pick up a land fall or not. He could have. He had the fuel to do so. As someone pointed out the moon was not full but neither was it a sliver. If I remember correctly it was in its last third of illumination. I have no idea how much light that would have given off. Enough to spot a Gilbert Island at a temporary low altitude? Who knows. Possible though. I have seen no facts supporting a solid overcast for the entire flight. I have not seen a fact that would prevent Noonan from shooting celestial in and after the Howland area. The obvious feeling is that scattered CU and rough air would have made celestial at 1,000' impractical if not impossible. I have no information that says on July 2, 1937 the air at 1,000' was too rough to shoot a quick sun or planet shot. I have no information that says the scattered CU was of such coverage as to prevent celestial. I also have no information that proves or even suggests the Electra stayed at 1,000' all the way to wherever. We are boxing Noonan in with unsupported suppositions and unnecessarily limiting his resources and capabilities. This was a world class navigator and shooting sun lines was not his only expertise. And even if all the detractors are correct an airplane flying at 120 or so knots is not going to be blown clear to Fiji. Noonan had to know he had a headwind coming in and if he had NO other information would have set a roughly corrected heading to wherever he was going. Sorry, I don't see the problem. For those on the forum who haven't flown or navigated or haven't done so in similar circumstances I can see their difficulty in understanding all this. I can tell you that those of us who have done this have a sense of where we are in addition to all the other aids available. Getting from A to B is a piece of cake, particularly after doing it for 20 to 30 years. Oh, Oh! But why didn't they see Howland if it was all so easy? Reread what I just wrote. I wrote about navigating not spying a tiny speck under adverse conditions. It would have taken but a few scattered clouds, shadows, glare and reflections to miss a piece of land the size and altitude as Howland. Different problem. don't confuse the two. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:29:15 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Airspeed and minimum fuel consumption. Let's suppose you're flying an Electra 10E to AE's spec in still air over the ocean. You have only 50 gal fuel left and you're flying at a height of 1000 ft. You want to eke that fuel out as much as possible until you can find somewhere to land but there is nowhere in sight. What is your preferred airspeed? Regards Angus. ************************************************************************* From Ric I guess it depends on whether you want time or distance. If I want to stay aloft as long as possible I'd back off the power as much as I can and still maintain altitude. Maybe even run out half flaps. Might be able to loaf along at 85 or 90 mph. If I want to cover as much ocean as possible looking for a place to land I'll have to carry more power for a more efficient speed, but without getting into the perfomenace curves I can't tell you what that speed would be. My guess would be somewhere around 120 to 130 mph. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:31:15 EDT From: Bob Perry Subject: Linda Finch's Howland view This may have been covered, in which case delete. The view of Howland has been debated extensively, and someone recently wondered whether or not Linda Finch saw it. There is an excellent video tape of Finch's flight taken from Reid Dennis' chase plane which includes a fine view of Howland close up as they flew over it. Certainly, Finch and Reid had no problem in finding it. It looks like a great place for par 3 hole. The tape, "The Final Hours", was produced by Reid and was on sale in the Hiller Museum when Elgen Long had his program there last year. I'm not pushing the tape, but I haven't seen a better shot of Howland anywhere else. LTM, Bob #2021 *************************************************************************** From Ric National Geo also ran a beautiful still shot of Finch's Electra over Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:38:39 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: hind-dicting Tom King said: "Us arkologists call it "retrodiction." Hmmm. Rather than " . . .dicting" how about ". . .casting. That would give us hinddict, retrodict, hindcasting, retrocasting. Add in "post" and we come up with postcasting and postdicting. Nah. Too simple. So, let's put them together: post-retrocasting? Then there is archocasting/archodicting? Or formercast? How about regressive forecasting? Or post-retro regressive hindcasting? S.W.A.G.-casting? C'mon, guys and gals, how about giving Ric some help here. LTM, who prefers the Weather Channel anyway Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************* From Ric Hey, if a recession is "negative growth" then you can call anything anything. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:44:41 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning I managed to receive a suspicious download from EARHARTFORUM, etc. Ric doesn't send out downloads.....you all. Be careful. Someone is playing games. Carol Dow #2524 ************************************************************************** From Ric No virus can be transmitted via the forum. Everything comes to me first and, because we're Mac-based we're immune to most viruses anyway. I then send the posting to Listserve (never with an attachment) and they distribute it to the subscribers. If you're getting traffic with attachments from the Earhartforum address it's a virus that is reading the addresses that you frequently receive mail from.