TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Randy Jacobson on March 12, 2018, 12:07:28 PM
-
A question has been bothering me for some time, assuming AE's bones were those found, reburied, dug up, and sent to Fiji via Tarawa (gawd...I hope I got that sequence right...).
Since her bones were not originally buried, that suggests either (a) she died after Fred Noonan so there was no one around to bury her, or (b) Fred did out-live her but was incapacitated to bury her. In either event, what happened to FN's remains?
If AE survived Fred, she either buried his remains as best as she could or left them in place on the surface and likely moved away from them.
If Fred outlived AE, he must have died somewhere on the island, so his bones would have been on the surface.
It's interesting that only AE's bones have been found and no remains of Fred. Occam's Razor would indicate that they simply have not been found and now likely disintegrated or scattered by creatures. Is it only me that finds this a somewhat strange circumstance?
Respectfully,
TIGHAR's resident skeptic.
-
I believe Fred's remains are in the cairn discovered by a member of the Betchart Expedition in 2015. The team(s) were unable to relocate it last year.
-
I’ve wondered as well. I’m reading ‘Finding Amelia’ (again) and got to wondering... if Betty’s notes suggest that FN was injured, perhaps he was unable to exit the aircraft?
They’re both on the radio (Betty talks about a woman’s voice and a man’s voice), so they would have to be in the cockpit. If FN was badly injured, it might be that AE was unable to hoist/pull/push him out to the top hatch. And if she could, it doesn’t seem likely that she’d haul him back out to the aircraft and lower him down in thorugh the hatch every time they tried to use the radio. Yet Betty reported two voices... So I wonder if he might have remained in the aircraft from the time it landed until it was washed over the reef? (Would imagine the heat would have hastened his demise).
Just a thought, but perhaps that’s why there’s no second set of bones
-
Randy
It is a good question, one that I think will be hard to answer given the lack of information we have.
It makes sense that the first to die gets buried by the survivor in some fashion, even if that means just getting a bunch of rocks piled on top of them. It would be natural for a survivor to do that, if they we physically able to do so. In this case we simply don't know the timing or status of the first of the two to go, so it is possible that other scenarios played out that leave no trace. Was Fred in the Electra? Maybe. Did he fall and get washed out to sea on his way to/from the aircraft? Attacked by sharks (unlikely)? Is he buried somewhere on the NW end of the island that we simply haven't found yet? It's possible. Was he out hunting food & water and just never came back to camp, now scattered about in some inaccessible place we haven't looked yet? Could be.
Having been there a number of times, I can tell you that it is really easy to get disoriented and turned around in your thoughts about how to navigate through the underbrush, particularly scaevola. It isn't hard to imagine Fred out foraging / exploring and simply getting lost and stuck, weakened and exhausted, out in the scaevola with no food, and no water. AE may have never known what happened to him, just disappeared one day and didn't come back to camp.
People sometimes say things like "haven't you searched the whole island yet?" or "if there was anything there to find, you should have found it by now" but the reality is that there is a lot of territory that we haven't been able to search due to time and manpower constraints. Nikumaroro is much bigger than most imagine, and most of it is heavily vegetated. For those who haven't seen the aerial tour of Nikumaroro, you should check it out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL9FGsvB3E8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL9FGsvB3E8) The combined man-hours of 12 expeditions is still not enough to have searched everywhere. Just last year we found several ancient graves up in the NW end we never knew about. There is still a lot to learn about Nikumaroro.
So, I think that poor old Fred is still out there, probably under a pile of rocks up on the NW end, with a Brandis sextant on his chest, but that is pretty much just my speculation.
Cheers
Andrew
-
If Fred outlived Amelia, he too remained unburied and yet Amelia's bones were the only human remains found on the island.
With the bones were found the remains of a woman's shoe and the remains of a man's shoe. Not the remains of a pair of women's shoes and a pair of men's shoes - just one of each. Why?
Going back to Betty's Notebook, Fred is acting irrationally, possibly due to a head injury. Amelia complains of an injury probably to an ankle (heard as "uncle" by Betty). We think the transmissions heard by Betty occurred on July 5, so they had been on the island for three days. It is reasonable to suppose that during that time they transited back and forth across the reef from the plane to the island at low tide. Walking on the reef is dangerous. It's slicker-than-snot and, near shore, pitted and jagged. I suspect that Fred's head injury and Amelia's ankle injury were sustained in falls on the reef early on.
On the night of July 2, according to Mabel Larremore, "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.” (Message 28 in the Post-Loss Radio Signals Catalog (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html)
On July 5, Fred is out of his head but still ambulatory, climbing over Amelia as he tries to escape the sweltering cockpit via the hatch above her head. As Pat Fontaine suggests, if he dies in the airplane he probably goes with it when it is washed into the ocean the next day. If he makes it to shore and dies there, the only place AE can dig a grave without tools is in the sand beach. His remains get washed away in the next big storm.
Earhart has a swollen foot. She can't wear one of her shoes but she can wear Fred's shoe. That's why there is one woman's shoe and one man's shoe found with her bones.
Speculation, but it accounts for the known evidence.
-
OK, all good scenarios, but then if they are operative, then FN probably did not make it to the Seven Site. Is there any evidence from there that at least two people were involved at that site? And how did AE, with an injured ankle, make it half-way around the island, a very long walk indeed? Even more intriguing, is why she would do so with an injured ankle. If she did, she took a freckle cream jar and a sextant box with her? How bizarre is that, given that she has abandoned the plane site and FN is not around? Freckle cream? The woman must be seriously concerned about her appearance, or found an alternative use for a very small jar.
It still ain't a addin' up to a fully satisfactory explanation, at least to me.
-
OK, all good scenarios, but then if they are operative, then FN probably did not make it to the Seven Site.
Right.
Is there any evidence from there that at least two people were involved at that site?
No.
And how did AE, with an injured ankle, make it half-way around the island, a very long walk indeed?
Sprained ankles heal. It's like when a witch turns you into a newt. You get better.
Even more intriguing, is why she would do so with an injured ankle.
It's amazing what you can do if your life depends on it. The only reason to be at the Seven Site is because it's the best spot on the island for a castaway to hang out. A ridge that catches the cool easterly trade wind. Easy access to both ocean and lagoon for food. Nearby Buka forest where rainwater collects in fallen leaves after squalls. Easy to climb Kanawa trees (back then) to watch for ships.
If she did, she took a freckle cream jar and a sextant box with her? How bizarre is that, given that she has abandoned the plane site and FN is not around?
Not very. She didn't abandon the plane. The plane abandoned her. If Fred's gone, Fred's gone. Nothing she can do about that. The sextant box was described as having been most recently used "merely as a receptacle." She apparently used it to carry the few possessions she had. All of the bottles we found at the Seven Site that we think are associated with the castaway would fit in a Brandis sextant box. Any small bottle is valuable. At some point the freckle cream ointment pot was broken, either by accident of intentionally. One fragment that is easy to grasp safely and has a sharp cutting edge, was found 20 meters away from the rest of the pieces near some turtle bones. An archaeologist who specializes in identifying stone tools found that the sharp edge showed signs of having been used as a cutting or scraping tool.
It still ain't a addin' up to a fully satisfactory explanation, at least to me.
Keep pitching and I'll keep batting.
-
I'll posit that AE, if she landed near the Norwich City, would not have a good clue about the rest of the island's habitability to warrant a long walk to the opposite side of the island. To undertake such a journey, there must have been a good a priori reason.
I can understand a walk-about the general area where she landed: that makes a lot of sense. But to undertake a long journey with a bad ankle (you indicate she may have had it healed it time, but then why continue wearing the larger shoe?) seems far-fetched to me.
I can shrug shoulders with the best of 'em...
-
I’ve wondered as well. I’m reading ‘Finding Amelia’ (again) and got to wondering... if Betty’s notes suggest that FN was injured, perhaps he was unable to exit the aircraft?...
Just a thought, but perhaps that’s why there’s no second set of bones
More than a thought and exactly what I have been thinking. Would it even have been possible for Amelia to extract Fred from the plane unaided? Moving a dead weight body is awkward and difficult under any circumstances. Moving one vertically through a hatch is a challenge indeed.
My guess is all she could do is make him as comfortable as possible. There's also a real possibility he didn't last all that long after the landing. It's perhaps more likely than not, Fred never left the plane (and may still be in it).
-
I might be reaching a bit, but here goes. . . .
We know the inverting eyepiece for the sextant was found at the Seven site and later discarded.
Questions for Ric or Andrew: Was the inverting eyepiece typically removed when the sextant was put away in the box?
Is there any reason to believe AE was at all familiar with the composition and use of a sextant, to the point where she would have known the eyepiece might have been useful in starting a fire? ( I don't believe she would have been)
My point is, I believe since the eyepiece made it to the island, the rest of the sextant did also and Fred is the one who brought it (and it's with him in the cairn). It's not unreasonable to think Fred would have taken it ashore to use the first night to fix their position.
IMO it's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that if Fred died in the aircraft, Amelia would have had the presence of mind to dump the sextant (Fred would have habitually put it away after using it) -- except for the eyepiece -- and take the box ashore without filling it with things from the a/c that might have been useful (don't know she didn't but nothing's been found except for the jackknife).
I know, a lot of "should have's" and "would have's" in there -- forgive me!, but I think they're reasonable speculations.
Thoughts?
-
I'll posit that AE, if she landed near the Norwich City, would not have a good clue about the rest of the island's habitability to warrant a long walk to the opposite side of the island.
It would have been helpful if she had the opportunity to look the island over from the air ...no, wait ...she did.
To undertake such a journey, there must have been a good a priori reason.
If we accept that Earhart died at the Seven Site then she undertook the journey, so it seems safe to assume that she had what she considered to be a good reason. The fact that you cannot think of a good reason is irrelevant. She did it.
I can understand a walk-about the general area where she landed: that makes a lot of sense.
And I agree that she probably did that. In 2015 we knocked ourselves out looking for an initial campsite somewhere on the NW end. What we learned is that it's a wretched place, shielded from the cooling easterly trades, devoid of any source of fresh water, and far from food sources in the the lagoon. Even the shady Buka forest is dank and reeks of bird dung.
But to undertake a long journey with a bad ankle (you indicate she may have had it healed it time, but then why continue wearing the larger shoe?) seems far-fetched to me.
Would you undertake a long walk with a painful ankle if you were dying of thirst and you knew there was a big lake at the far end of the island that might contain fresh water? The photo below was taken during the New Zealand survey in December 1938. This is probably what the island looked like to Amelia a year and a half earlier. The big lake at the southeast end was (and is) salt water, but there's no way ti know that without going there. In this photo the natural "7" of the Seven Site is clearly visible. It is also clear that the dense beachfront vegetation there is naturally thinner than elsewhere along coast, which might invite a hiker to venture inland at that spot.
I've made the hike from the NW end to the Seven Site. You stay at the water's edge where the sand is firm. It's no walk in the park but its not crossing the Sun's Anvil to attack Aqaba either.
I can shrug shoulders with the best of 'em...
Agreed
-
Questions for Ric or Andrew: Was the inverting eyepiece typically removed when the sextant was put away in the box?
I don't know, but I don't think it matters. At some point, it becomes obvious that the sextant is no longer of any use, either because Fred has used it to establish their position as best he can or Fred is dead and AE doesn't have a clue about how to use a sextant. At that point the sensible thing to do would be to look at the instrument and decide if there was anything worth hanging on to. Just about everyone knows that you can start a fire with a magnifying glass. It's not much of a leap to figure out that the lens for the inverting eyepiece is basically a magnifying glass. Good. Keep that. The rest of the sextant is junk.
-
Questions for Ric or Andrew: Was the inverting eyepiece typically removed when the sextant was put away in the box?
I don't know, but I don't think it matters. At some point, it becomes obvious that the sextant is no longer of any use, either because Fred has used it to establish their position as best he can or Fred is dead and AE doesn't have a clue about how to use a sextant. At that point the sensible thing to do would be to look at the instrument and decide if there was anything worth hanging on to. Just about everyone knows that you can start a fire with a magnifying glass. It's not much of a leap to figure out that the lens for the inverting eyepiece is basically a magnifying glass. Good. Keep that. The rest of the sextant is junk.
I think Ric is basically right. Once Fred used the sextant to determine their position (assuming he did) it becomes useless. The island isn't moving anywhere, so no need to carry the whole sextant around, but the box becomes a convenient small carrying vehicle for whatever will fit in it.
At Nikumaroro, you'd use your freckle cream to protect yourself from the sun until it ran out (poisoning yourself with mercury in the process), and then the jar becomes a potentially useful tool, broken or not.
The windward side is where the turtles come ashore, particularly down by the 7 site, so there is a source of food down there.
The NW end is extremely hot. The coral has been stained dark black, and it just radiates heat back at you. Very uncomfortable place to be. Rescue by ship would likely come from the NE, so it makes sense to go where you can see them coming and find a comfortable (relative term) place to wait.
My guess is that AE would have thought that the eyepiece to the sextant could be used to start fires. Not easy to do, but worth taking with you just in case. There are several eyepieces typically found in a Brandis box, see attached photo. Usually there is one long tube that has to be removed to put the sextant in the box, and two shorter tubes that are stored at the top of the box. For the the sextant I own that is complete, the long tube does invert and magnify the image, and the shorter tubes do not. I'm not fully versed in the function of all these parts, but the short tubes have just pin hole openings and my guess is that they are used when sighting the sun vs having the long tube magnify the sun into your eye. Just speculation, I need to take a sextant course one of these days.
Hope that helps.
Andrew
-
Concerning what was believed to be a sextant part; In documents; it mentions Gallagher describing, through second hand information, the found and discarded piece as a thread of an inverted eyepiece,(page 19)
https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bonesimages/wphcdocuments.pdf
The transcript of Gallagher’s copy is:
Confidential. Your telegram No. 2, no sextant was found. Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was probably part of an inverting eyepiece. Gallagher.
The transcript of the W.P.H.C. copy says:
Confidential. Your telegram No. 2, no sextant was found. Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was probably part of thread of inverted eyepiece. Gallagher.
So was the part found a lense or a piece of threaded material?
-
The lens of an inverting eyepiece is threaded so that it can be screwed into the eyepiece.
-
Concerning what was believed to be a sextant part; In documents; it mentions Gallagher describing, through second hand information, the found and discarded piece as a thread of an inverted eyepiece,(page 19)
https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bonesimages/wphcdocuments.pdf (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bonesimages/wphcdocuments.pdf)
The transcript of Gallagher’s copy is:
Confidential. Your telegram No. 2, no sextant was found. Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was probably part of an inverting eyepiece. Gallagher.
The transcript of the W.P.H.C. copy says:
Confidential. Your telegram No. 2, no sextant was found. Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was probably part of thread of inverted eyepiece. Gallagher.
So was the part found a lense or a piece of threaded material?
You are looking at all the data we have.
Gallagher never saw the piece.
The folks at the WPHC never saw the piece.
TIGHAR has not seen the piece.
TIGHAR has not interviewed anyone who saw the piece.
Determining exactly which piece of the sextant it was would not change the search strategy or modify the Niku hypothesis.
Some differences make no difference.
-
My comments won’t advance the discussion about eyepieces, but I wanted to pass along that not all sextants work the same. I have my father’s sextant. (http://)
It’s a US Navy Mark II from January 1946. The long piece, which does have to be screwed into the body to operate the sextant and removed for storage, does not invert the image. It’s more like a rifle scope that blocks out extraneous light and gives a good sharp image of whatever you’re looking at. No pieces with pin holes, too. Instead, there are two glass lenses that you can rotate down into the field of view and rotate them until the glass goes dark (much like polarized sunglasses). I’m pointing to them in the first picture. It allows you to darken them just enough to see what you need to see without excess glare. Again, I don’t expect this to make any difference to the discussion, but thought it useful to know some sextants, even older ones, were much different.
-
My comments won’t advance the discussion about eyepieces, but I wanted to pass along that not all sextants work the same. I my father’s sextant.
It’s a US Navy Mark II from January 1946.
Interesting to see a very different sextant with the new Naval Observatory numbering system and the different style of engraving on the instrument.
My impression is that the calibration certificate reads "1945," not "1946."
I think the "-45" in the N.O. number is related to the year of calibration, too.
I won't die if I'm wrong. Nor will knowing the truth about the year change the search strategy for finding Amelia. Just one of those little things. Like the old xkcd cartoon, "Someone is wrong on the internet." (http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2017/04/14/someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet/) 8)
-
Martin,
I thought the same thing too; here’s a close up of the chit glued to the inside corner of the lid.
(http://). I don’t know... perhaps it was re-tuned at Navy in Jan 46?
Agree that it doesn’t change things, but it’s a part of the family history. I used it back in the late 70’s to shoot our posit in the Chesapeake Bay while a Midshipman at Navy. Proud that the fix was actually in the Chesapeake and not the middle of the Sarhara Desert.
-
Martin,
I thought the same thing too; here’s a close up of the chit glued to the inside corner of the lid.
I don’t know... perhaps it was re-tuned at Navy in Jan 46?
Beautiful photo!
That settles the date of the calibration for sure.
Agree that it doesn’t change things, but it’s a part of the family history. I used it back in the late 70’s to shoot our posit in the Chesapeake Bay while a Midshipman at Navy. Proud that the fix was actually in the Chesapeake and not the middle of the Sarhara Desert.
Well done!
-
In Pat's photo, it's interesting to note what seems to be a local modification to the sextant box to keep the sextant in place. Two other retaining devices are made of wood, but the large one is made from what looks like aluminum. Reminiscent of the "Widgets" which could have served some similar purpose.
-
As a reminder, here are photos of the "Widgets" (aka "Gidgies") found at the Seven Site in 2001.
They are non-ferrous (probably aluminum) and rather crudely custom-made rather than manufactured. The screws are American wood screws.
-
Ricker, no local modification to the sextant box to keep the sextant in place. It’s all original as manufactured. The piece that holds the sextant in place is some robust aluminum and it pivots to lock the hand grip into the wooden receiver.
Ric, those are some very interesting artifacts! They remind me of the hardware to hang a large picture: screwed in to the frame with a wire strung between the holes. But I’m sure it can’t be that. And the saw teeth worked in to the ends - hmmm... I need to put another pot of coffee on and think on this.
-
Ric, those are some very interesting artifacts! They remind me of the hardware to hang a large picture: screwed in to the frame with a wire strung between the holes. But I’m sure it can’t be that. And the saw teeth worked in to the ends - hmmm... I need to put another pot of coffee on and think on this.
They will ruin your day. The saw teeth are clearly meant to grip some surface, probably wood, but only temporarily. These things must rotate. The wood screws go into wood (duh) but what about the second hole? What's that for? A pin to keep the thing from rotating? The rectangular pieces is bent. Is that intentional or was it bent when it was forcibly removed from whatever it was attache to?
If these things were not associated with the sextant box what else could they be?
-
... what about the second hole? What's that for?
I keep dozens and dozens of scraps of metal in a drawer of one of my desks.
You just never know when one of them will come in handy.
It happens.
The hole may have come from some other application. The guy who made these is almost certainly a scavenger-hoarder type of mechanic. Why start with fresh metal when something else can be repurposed?
-
The hole may have come from some other application. The guy who made these is almost certainly a scavenger-hoarder type of mechanic. Why start with fresh metal when something else can be repurposed?
If the second hole was in just one of the two Gidgies I'd agree that the hole might be happenstance, but the two items are completely different in size, color and shape - and yet they both have the Mysterious Second Hole (cue the music). That would be quite a coincidence.
-
The lens of an inverting eyepiece is threaded so that it can be screwed into the eyepiece.
Interesting the way, the message is worded,..it almost seems to indicate that the piece (lense) may have been broken, and may have been quit small.
Part of, etc wording,
-
If the second hole was in just one of the two Gidgies I'd agree that the hole might be happenstance, but the two items are completely different in size, color and shape - and yet they both have the Mysterious Second Hole (cue the music). That would be quite a coincidence.
Gack!
Right.
That's what I get for speculatin' without lookin'.
Pretty definitely two different scraps of metal with analogous holes and teeth in them.
So strange!
-
Interesting the way, the message is worded,..it almost seems to indicate that the piece (lense) may have been broken, and may have been quit small.
Part of, etc wording,
On April 28, 1941 Gallagher wrote:
"Only part discovered was thrown away by finder but was probably part of an inverting eyepiece."
So Gallagher never saw the object. He's guessing based on whatever description he was given. Remember, Gallagher at this time was not fluent in Gilbertese, so the description probably went through a translator.
-
Would have been nice if he'd recorded "where" it was thrown away, if he knew!!
Strikes me that so much of what Tighar has discovered over the years misses by just "this much" of being the elusive smoking gun which would solve this mystery to everyone's satisfaction. People die or become incapacitated just before Tighar finds something they could help identify (Bo McKneely and 2-2-V-1 come to mind) or files are thrown out/lost in a fire (WPHC files and W R Carpenter shipping logs for Gallagher's trunks). Seems something doesn't want the mystery solved! (Cue more music!!)
-
Second pot of coffee hasn’t helped, and I’m flummoxed by these items.
Some observations (probably obvious to those who have looked at the pieces for 17 years...)
1. Location of holes. In the photo with the white background and the wood screw to the left of the two pieces (the ‘white photo’) the two holes in each piece appear to be parallel to the long axis of the piece, but slightly off centerline. I don’t believe this is significant - I’ve owned a few pieces of antique furniture that had hardware with similar characteristics (flaws?). I think it might suggest that the pieces were hand made (thinking one-at-a-time craftsman, rather than factory mass production). And to be clear, I do not want to imply that I think these were part of any furniture.
2. Saw tooth cuts. In the photo with the blue background (‘blue photo’), the teeth on the oval piece look to be cut perpendicular to the plane of the oval; whatever cut them (or filed them) was at 90 degrees. However, in the white picture, the teeth cut in to the rectangular piece appear to be cut at a slight angle as if whatever cut the teeth was not at 90 degrees. I’m guessing here, but I’d say appx 22 degrees (looks about half of 45 degrees). I also believe we’re looking at the top side of the rectangular piece as it was cut. For it to be the bottom of the piece, the cuts would angle back underneath the piece (an undercut) and that’s a very cumbersome cut to make. Think of cutting a 2x4 with a hand saw - you typically hold the handle with the saw angled towards you and it produces an angled cut. It can be held vertically to make a precise vertical cut, but to hold it away from you makes for a very difficult cut to make; much more so on such a small piece. I don’t know if this suggests more craftsman production, or that they were made by two different people/processes, or one person at different times.
3. Right handed person? I found it noteworthy that the rectangular piece might have been cut by a right handed person as the bevel in the cuts are angled off to the right (look at the center ‘V’ cut in the rectangular piece in the white picture and see how the right side of the cut is more beveled than the left side. It’s the same on the left V; the right V is harder to tell as the right side of the V is worn down quite a bit).
4. Screws and saw teeth. Both screws are in the holes closest to the teeth. In the white photo, the metal around the screw holes appear depressed as if the screws were tightened very firmly. This is more apparent in the smaller oval piece than the long rectangular piece, although both have that look. If the screws were tightened firmly, that might suggest that doing so would force the edge with the teeth to dig in to something to better hold the piece in place.
5. Wear in the non-screw holes. Both ‘non-screw holes’ (white photo) appear to be just a little smaller than the screw holes, and have some wear in the 3 and 9 o’clock position. Again, the wear appears more noticeable in the oval piece, but looks to be present in the rectangular piece as well. This suggests to me that something rubbed at 3 and 9 o’clock; laterally to the long axis of the pieces. I don’t know if we can form any conclusions from that, but it seems to me that if something actually pulled at 3 and 9 not only might it cause wear, it might well eventually place lateral stress on the piece causing it to want to pivot on the screw (hope that makes sense). The teeth biting in to whatever they were up against would resist any pivot motion, but that would be a extremely clunky way to secure the piece. That makes me think that whatever caused the 3 and 9 wear was more likely an either/or motion from one position to the other. Think of the rod often used to hold the hood of a car open - it’s either down or up and what wear it causes on the ‘pivot hole’ is most likely from one of those positions. Not suggesting a support rod arrangement, only that the wear might be from a similar ‘this or that position’. The only other way I can think of to make that wear (oval piece) would be if something like a rod was inserted into the hole and repeatedly wiggled back and forth: 3 to 9 to 3, etc., but I think that would also cause the piece to rotate around the screw.
These are just my observations. None of this gives me any clues as to what the pieces might be, how they were used, or whether this is the way they were originally made or something fabricated in the field. I’m starting to mutter to myself...
-
Pat, you need to take a look at all the rest of the unidentified bits and pieces collected over the years. These are good observations, closer and deeper than anything I've seen about them. Well done!
-
Just to throw some avgas on the fire, in 2007 we found two tiny washers that just may be associated with the Gidgies.
-
I'm thinking AE levered the gidgies out somehow to get to a piece of aluminum like what is shown in Pat's sextant box. Andrew, is there a similar piece in the Brandis box?
Perhaps she saw the aluminum as something to replace the jackknife blades after she broke/lost them.
-
I think the Gidgies were homemade (probably by Fred) modifications to the sextant box mounted to wooden structures inside the box. Amelia was using the box as a carry-all, not a sextant box. The wooden structures were in the way and Amelia ripped them out. Gallagher found the cleaned out sextant box. The wooden structures left behind rotted away leaving the Gidgies.
-
Ric,
Your comments about Fred making them sparked a thought; another WAG, actually. I seem to recall reading somewhere that his navigation table in the rear of the aircraft was the folding type (I’ve scoured the site, but can’t find the reference, so I might be in error). If it was the folding type, having some homemade ‘stops’ screwed in to the table to keep it in the stowed position might be something to explore. That might explain the extra holes too: some small bungy cord type of thing latched from one hole across the table to the other hole would keep the table in the stowed position.
The thing I keep stumbling over is the screws and their relation to the pieces. If, for example, they were part of the box or the table stowing system, why take the time to remove the screws? Particularly if it were the table - the expressed belief is that the aircraft wasn’t inhabited during the heat of the day, and folks were up in the cockpit on the radio at night. And if the aircraft was washed off the reef, taking the time to unscrew the screws seems like a stretch to me... unless you scrounged parts and useful things every time you left the aircraft. But a box (or other portable item) that can be grabbed quickly and later plundered for survival ‘stuff’ sounds more palatable.
Gads... let me call it a day before I kill what gray cells I have left.
-
Washers: those are some strange looking washers. The hole in the middle looks much too large for the amount of metal ringing it. It makes me think of a life ring. The inner edge in the center hole and the outer edge do not look too badly corroded (relative to their assumed age) so I wouldn’t think they’re the remains of larger washers that have corroded over time down to the size in the picture.
I can’t see the underside, but if I didn’t know any better, I’d say they look more like grommets than washers, especially the one in front of the rectangular piece in the second picture.
-
I keep thinking those little things look like some hardware I've seen before, but I don't remember exactly what. I think the teeth are meant to hold them in position. I inherited my grandfather's collection of hardware oddments. He saved and re-used likely bits, and I do too. Seems I've seen something like this somewhere--but in a lifetime of collecting, buying and selling old stuff, it could have been 50 years ago.
LTM,
Don White (not the D. White who made the 1946 sextant, though my father was a ship captain and master celestial navigator)
-
I keep thinking those little things look like some hardware I've seen before, but I don't remember exactly what.
You and everybody else. :-\
-
Washers: those are some strange looking washers.
They're not metal. Not sure what they're made from. They're pliable. Maybe rubber.
-
My two cents; ..... it seems that the markings left by the screw heads on the gidgies would rule out the pliable washers from being installed under the screws, unless they were added later on during a re purposing event. As Pat brought out there seems to be wear patterns at 3/9 o'clock, and the oval also seems to have a wear spot at 6/12, depending on which side is up. I have been looking at different tags and fobs, and wonder if the objects may have been key fobs at one time, or tags, thus the one original hole....the teeth and hole nearest the teeth added later during a re-purposing. As far as the wear at the locations Pat pointed out,....if a key ring were inserted into that smaller original hole and when used to turn a lock, the cycling back and forth could create wear at those points, while turning the lock cylinder clockwise/counterclockwise, and the high noon or six o'clock wear could be from the contact between key ring and fob when inserted time and again into lock-sets. It appears that there is rounding of material around the smaller original hole to suggest wear from something rubbing against the metal there.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-METAL-KEY-CHAIN-FOB-AMERICANA-AIRWAYS/263542871718?hash=item3d5c6116a6:g:~GIAAOSwi6JapEtT
https://www.etsy.com/listing/181214973/vintage-french-brass-hotel-number-signs?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=vintage&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=findings&ref=sr_gallery-1-38
I favor tags a bit more than fobs, due to the limited use keys would have on a pacific island during the 30's/40's....the wire attached to tags could create wear patterns similar to fobs, if reused multiple times.
Some manufactures seem to make both shapes pictured, see attachment
-
Might they be eyelets from a long-lost shoe?
"An eyelet is a hole that is punched into the shoe's upper that allows shoelaces to be threaded through. Eyelets are commonly reinforced with a metal or plastic grommet that covers the holes and prevents fraying."
-
Might they be eyelets from a long-lost shoe?
Interesting thought Steve. I want to look into that. Thanks.
-
Interesting, what appears to be a flaw,..was it repeated several times during manufacture? Duplicates out there? A clue to find the source of manufacture?
-
Jerry, Steve: I think you’re on to something. The idea of a key/something fob makes sense, as does shoes. I spent some time digging in my closet for old shoes and found a pair that have plastic (or something pliable that I call plastic without ripping my shoe apart) reinforcers.
Something to check: does anybody have vis on EA’s shoes that show how large the lace holes were? Larger holes would require (I think) larger reinforcers.
Fob: pocket watch, keys (can’t imagine flying around the world with your house or car keys in your pocket, but perhaps low probability?). I do not read anything about a box/trunk/suitcase/etc beingin the aircraft that might have a key - I admit that while I’ve spent hours scouring the posts on this site, I surely could have missed something. Also: my dad’s sextant box has a key lock built into the front face of the box (I do not have the key). IF (big if) FN’s had one, that might also be a key with a fob. I do recall dad saying that the Navy was very anal about them being adrift as a strong knockabout would get them out of calibaration. Keeping the box locked might make sense.
For the more senior members (and pilots): any indication that they could lock the aircraft? Did they use some form of ‘Remove Before Flight’ ribbons (which might have a metal shape fastened to the end with a hole for the mechanism that you use to attach the ribbon to whatever needs attention before flight (wordy, but I hope that comes across)
-
I been a-thinkin'... hope that doesn't alarm anyone:)
Fred's delirium was heard in the background on at least one of the distress transmissions. That means Fred was in the plane while injured. In turn, that offers only three possibilities:
1) Fred was injured on landing and remained in the plane--unable to exit and return.
2) Fred was injured after exiting the aircraft but subsequently returned to the aircraft and was moaning in distress as Amelia broadcast.
3) Fred was injured on landing and exited the plane but subsequently returned to it and moaned in distress as Amelia broadcast.
The fact he was moaning in distress in the plane as Amelia broadcast, suggests to me that it is unlikely he ever exited the plane, as Amelia could not extract him unassisted and he is unlikely to have been able to help himself. It seems even more unlikely that if he was he badly injured but somehow able to exit the plane, that he would return to it in a state of delirium.
I'm still thinking old Fred's with the Electra.
Am I missing something? Did I make something up? (I do that occasionally).
-
The fact he was moaning in distress in the plane as Amelia broadcast, suggests to me that it is unlikely he ever exited the plane, as Amelia could not extract him unassisted and he is unlikely to have been able to help himself.
Which of the entries in Betty's Notebook do you interpret as moaning?
-
The fact he was moaning in distress in the plane as Amelia broadcast, suggests to me that it is unlikely he ever exited the plane, as Amelia could not extract him unassisted and he is unlikely to have been able to help himself.
Which of the entries in Betty's Notebook do you interpret as moaning?
I'm paraphrasing. And certainly, you know the chapter and verse far better than I. "Moaning, delirium." I remember it as suggesting he was out of it and, or, severely injured. Seemingly unaware or detached from Amelia's activities.
Do I have that wrong? Now you're making me go do my own research. Hate that.
-
I'd like to suggest that Fred's mental state of high anxiety or delirium could have been caused by some combination of head injury, dehydration, syndrome and lack of sleep not just one thing. Not a doctor but dehydration and a probable concussion don't go together well.
-
The fact he was moaning in distress in the plane as Amelia broadcast, suggests to me that it is unlikely he ever exited the plane, as Amelia could not extract him unassisted and he is unlikely to have been able to help himself.
Which of the entries in Betty's Notebook do you interpret as moaning?
OK. So in Betty's notebook she refers to Fred as complaining about his head. Complaining about the heat and wanting to get out. There are also two references to his "yelling" which suggests to me some kind of delirium or extreme mental state.
Betty also indicates he exited the aircraft.
It still seems he was badly injured on landing and possibly not in his right mind. Whether he got out of the aircraft, that is, whether he was ambulatory, I have no good guess. But it seems certain he wouldn't have reentered the Electra in a badly injured and or delirious state.
-
The fact he was moaning in distress in the plane as Amelia broadcast, suggests to me that it is unlikely he ever exited the plane, as Amelia could not extract him unassisted and he is unlikely to have been able to help himself.
Which of the entries in Betty's Notebook do you interpret as moaning?
And another thing... If Fred was in his right mind, why would he be continuously disrupting Amelia's emergency broadcasts? Wouldn't he be doing everything he could to assist in describing their location--especially as "location" was his job?
-
So in Betty's notebook she refers to Fred as complaining about his head.
Nowhere in Betty's transcription is there a reference to Fred complaining about his head.
Betty also indicates he exited the aircraft.
Nowhere in Betty's transcription is there a reference to Fred exiting the aircraft.
In Betty's transcription of what she heard, it is apparent the Fred was acting irrationally and was eager to exit the aircraft. A head injury was Betty's interpretation of the cause of Fred's strange behavior.
Some of the credible post loss messages heard by Itasca were in a man's voice. See Message 76 and 82 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html) on July 4. Also Message 102,114,139 and 140 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html) on July 5. Also Message 161 (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html) on July 6
-
So in Betty's notebook she refers to Fred as complaining about his head.
Nowhere in Betty's transcription is there a reference to Fred complaining about his head.
Betty also indicates he exited the aircraft.
Nowhere in Betty's transcription is there a reference to Fred exiting the aircraft.
In Betty's transcription of what she heard, it is apparent the Fred was acting irrationally and was eager to exit the aircraft. A head injury was Betty's interpretation of the cause of Fred's strange behavior.
Thanks for the links; I reviewed them. And to be more precise, my information came from Betty's latter-day comments associated with entries in her notebook.
https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html
Betty's entries and her comments:
"come here just a moment..." in here he kept wanting to get out of the plane because it was so hot and she kept calling him back.
"let me out of here..." in here he complained of his head
"waters knee deep – let me out... " AE and man––in here he was yelling
"I can't make it..." He was yelling again.
"are you here..." He had got out and she was getting ready to go too
In these extreme circumstances, it is far more likely that Fred should be the one on the radio, not Amelia. Why wasn't he? Clearly Fred is in some kind of extreme distress. He is not being helpful at a time when his professional input was critical. Rather he's not interested in helping; clearly he's another source of Amelia's stress.
In these extreme circumstances, it is far more likely that given his experience and professional expertise, Fred should be the one on the radio, not Amelia. Why wasn't he?
And in any event, if Fred participated in any post-loss transmissions, he did so when he was on the plane. There are only two possibilities here: Either he stayed on the plane. Or he exited the plane and returned to it--perhaps multiple times-- even though he'd been acting irrationally and in considerable distress upon landing.
If he did return to the aircraft multiple times, he was ambulatory. There's no way Amelia could have taken him in and out of the Electra if he was anything near dead weight. His behavior in the cockpit upon landing indicates a severely injured person--calling into question his ability to perform any sustained physical or mental activity.
Betty also comments that she thought Amelia referred to the water rising. If Fred succeeded in exiting the aircraft, was he in any shape to even make it through rising water to the beach? And if he did succeed in getting to the beach, how ambulatory was he subsequently?
Again. It's hard for me to imagine Amelia assisting a severely injured Fred in and out of the aircraft just to make minimal contributions to distress calls.
So whaddya think?
-
Thanks for the links; I reviewed them. And to be more precise, my information came from Betty's latter-day comments associated with entries in her notebook.
That's right, and it's an important distinction. Betty's original transcription is a primary source record. The notations she made in the notebook later and her comments to TIGHAR are anecdotal recollections colored by decades orf reminiscing about the event. They may be absolutely accurate - or not. There is no way to know.
In these extreme circumstances, it is far more likely that Fred should be the one on the radio, not Amelia. Why wasn't he?
If Fred had any experience at all with radio it has escaped my notice. His professional expertise was in navigation. Your comment comes dangerously close to being a sexist assumption that the man would surely take over in an emergency.
Clearly Fred is in some kind of extreme distress. He is not being helpful at a time when his professional input was critical. Rather he's not interested in helping; clearly he's another source of Amelia's stress.
Agreed.
And in any event, if Fred participated in any post-loss transmissions, he did so when he was on the plane.
Agreed.
There are only two possibilities here: Either he stayed on the plane. Or he exited the plane and returned to it--perhaps multiple times-- even though he'd been acting irrationally and in considerable distress upon landing.
You were good up until "even though he'd been acting irrationally and in considerable distress upon landing." The transmission Betty heard seems to have been made on July 5. Fred's irrational behavior began prior to that time but Betty's transcription gives us no clue as to when that might have been. The explanation that he hurt his head on landing is a possibility that is completely of our own invention. Mabel Larremore said she heard Amelia, on the night of July 2, say that her navigator was seriously injured - but, again, that's an anecdotal recollection. Was she remembering correctly? No way to know.
If he did return to the aircraft multiple times, he was ambulatory. There's no way Amelia could have taken him in and out of the Electra if he was anything near dead weight.
Agreed.
His behavior in the cockpit upon landing indicates a severely injured person--calling into question his ability to perform any sustained physical or mental activity.
His behavior in the cockpit suggests a seriously irrational person but he can clearly move around. "come here just a moment" "where are you going" "what are you doing"
Forget Betty's impressions and recollections for a moment. Is there anything in Betty's transcription that precludes Fred from being simply drunk on his ass?
Betty also comments that she thought Amelia referred to the water rising. If Fred succeeded in exiting the aircraft, was he in any shape to even make it through rising water to the beach? And if he did succeed in getting to the beach, how ambulatory was he subsequently?
No way to know.
Again. It's hard for me to imagine Amelia assisting a severely injured Fred in and out of the aircraft just to make minimal contributions to distress calls.
Agreed, and yet Fred was undoubtedly in the aircraft at the time Betty made her call. So logically, either he stayed in the sweltering aircraft even though he was ambulatory enough to move around, or he could transit back and forth to the shore without assistance.
-
What are the chances they stayed in the aircraft overnight simply because they could sleep, although badly, unmolested by the crabs. Near dawn/after sunrise they retreated to shore depending upon the state of the tide. Haven't looked that close at day/night and tide cycle to see if there's any correlation there but this makes sense.
May also bear on why they didn't empty the aircraft of everything that wasn't bolted or strapped down. AE, ever the optimist, sure of her abilities and fully expecting to be rescued at any minute just didn't see the situation for what it was -- an extreme survival situation.
Can't you just hear her thinking, "If they'll bring me a little gas, I can fly out of here."
-
Often, as I sit in my comfortable home reading about Amelia and Fred, I imagine what it might have been like to be on that island at night, in darkness and isolation more complete than most of ever experience, with real nightmare monsters in it, and not knowing if or when help might appear. Under those conditions, sleeping in the plane (while it was available) might have felt a lot safer than on the ground. I think of the airplane as a less safe place to stay due to the risk of it being carried away by water -- but would they have realized that, or felt more secure in the known environment that they had brought with them?
As for the gear not being unloaded -- an assumption based on it not having been found -- either they were unable to unload it (for whatever reason) or chose not to. Or they did, and it hasn't been found yet, or is no longer findable. If the people living there later found any of it, they would likely have made use of it themselves, and perhaps left no identifiable traces of it for later searchers.
-
So, I'm not an expert but I am a mom to two children. Every time I think of the post-loss transmissions with AE asking FN questions like, "Where are you going?" (paraphrase), I think of a parent with a young child. I remember asking questions like that numerous times while herding cats...er, I mean keeping my children sitting next to me in, say, a waiting room. Picture a mom completing paperwork or some other task requiring focus, while also making sure her child doesn't spill all of the old magazines all over the floor. She has led the child by the hand and kept him sitting down in the chair, even though he may be trying to get down.
What I mean by this is that someone can be distracted and hurting but still compliant enough part of the time. My opinion is that AE was thrust into a caretaker role. I believe that, just as a mom wouldn't leave her small child home alone, AE wouldn't want to leave FN at a campsite unattended. I believe she'd bring him to the plane each time she used the radio. Just like a three-year-old, FN had no choice but to go along.
I say this because of debates about whether AE would want to take FN with her each time she went to the plane. She likely didn't want to but had to for his own safety. There was no babysitter available! 🤔
-
Is it possible that Fred's "delirium" wasn't actually delirium at all? There has been lots of speculation that Fred had suffered a head injury but it was stated that her navigator "was severely injured" and only alluded to a head injury. Lots of ways to get hurt in a bad landing. Could it be possible that his agitation, abruptness, and storming out of the cockpit were actually just a hot, tired, thirsty, hungry, hurt and frightened navigator, who recognized the full gravity of the situation, trying to reason with a pilot who is playing with the radios under false hope of an imminent rescue rather than grabbing what they could and boot scooting out of there while they still could? Could Amelia, in fact, have been the delirious one?
She had a lot more invested, a lot more at stake, and a lot more to lose if they lost the airplane. She might have been reluctant to let Fred salvage anything from the airframe or engines in case of rescue, even at their own peril. Historically, plane crash survivors who go down in remote areas will tear the fuselage apart to salvage anything useful. Its odd that you found no real evidence of an airplane itself at the beach or the Seven Site. There are a heck of a lot of useful (and portable) things in an airplane, even if they did unload everything that wasn't nailed down in New Guinea. I would be draining oil and gas for fires, tearing seat covers off, ripping the padding out of seats, busting out windows, tearing out wires...The plane isn't going anywhere. Might as well use it to survive.... unless, of course, you have mortgaged your future on that airplane and stand to lose everything if you cant get it recovered intact. Is it possible that Fred, having had enough of pleading with her and enough of her trying to preserve the airplane when it was obvious that rescue wasn't coming, was now telling her in no shortage of words "The bloody plane is sinking. Quit mucking around with the radios and get out!" It might explain how Amelia got a supposedly "delirious" Fred out of the cockpit before the airplane went off the reef and why no equipment from the airplane has been found.
We know he was alive at least for the first few days. If he was off his rocker from a head injury, would Amelia be able or willing to shuttle him back and forth across a slippery reef at night in the dark? What I "hear" from Betty's transcripts is two people arguing on a hot mic, not necessarily someone trying to keep a delirious navigator under control. Its seems more plausible, to me anyway, that Fred was angry, she was panicking, and they were butting heads over what to do.
-
Whoa, isn't it something how we can perceive things so differently from one another? Your reply truly gave me pause; I had never pictured it from your perspective before. It makes so much sense, though. I've taken my above opinion without actually knowing what tones AE and FN spoke with, and hadn't stopped to consider that my first take might not have been accurate. That's what I love about this forum - there's always an opportunity to see something differently. Thanks, Krystal!
-
Is it possible that Fred's "delirium" wasn't actually delirium at all? There has been lots of speculation that Fred had suffered a head injury but it was stated that her navigator "was severely injured" and only alluded to a head injury. Lots of ways to get hurt in a bad landing. Could it be possible that his agitation, abruptness, and storming out of the cockpit were actually just a hot, tired, thirsty, hungry, hurt and frightened navigator, who recognized the full gravity of the situation, trying to reason with a pilot who is playing with the radios under false hope of an imminent rescue rather than grabbing what they could and boot scooting out of there while they still could? Could Amelia, in fact, have been the delirious one?
Of course, anything is "possible." But is it reasonable? No. It's not reasonable that Fred (in his right mind) did not recognize that their first priority was to communicate with rescuers. From the time they landed, that was certainly the priority. It was--by far--their greatest hope for survival.
-
In these extreme circumstances, it is far more likely that Fred should be the one on the radio, not Amelia. Why wasn't he?
If Fred had any experience at all with radio it has escaped my notice. His professional expertise was in navigation. Your comment comes dangerously close to being a sexist assumption that the man would surely take over in an emergency.
Hey! Whoa! No sexism in thought, intended or implied. The references on this very site are replete with descriptions of Amelia's "disinterest and incompetence" with communications equipment and practices. Yes. I made the inference that given Fred's considerable experience in the air and on the sea that he would at least have some basic competence on the mic. And--importantly--as the navigator, he had the most important information to convey to rescuers. And that information would be more efficiently given first-hand.
Could I be wrong? Sure. But it seems to be reasonable, not sexist.
-
I'm sure Fred was very concerned with the radios....for a few days. But even in the transmission of Betty's notebook, you can hear references to the depth of the water and that the airplane is slipping. I'm not saying that Fred was sitting around and rolling his eyes while Amelia was on the radios. More that his "delirium" could be attributed to the fact that the high tide was coming in, the airplane was slipping and she was still firmly planted in the pilot seat and refusing the move. His "I need to get out" could have been "YOU need to get out" or "WE need to get out." I don't think she was incompetent at all. But I think that in the last hours of the Electra, she had to have been growing desperate. As I said, that airplane was the means to secure her future. Everything she had was riding on completing that flight and without the Electra, it was all over. Even if she was rescued. I'm sure she was thinking over and over and over "If we could just get some gas and repairs, I could probably take off right from this island. Howland isn't that far away." Everyone seems to be placing the irrational or delirious behavior on Fred. I'm just saying...what if Fred was actually being the voice of reason?
-
Of course, no one can predict how one or another will act in a desperate, life-threatening situation.
All we can do is speculate around what seems, given the evidence and facts, reasonable.
Fred was, by far, the most experienced professional of the two. He was older. He was male (therefore inculcated with male expectations) and his job was to KNOW WHERE THEY ARE.
Amelia was not accomplished, nor apparently comfortable with radio communications.
There is NO QUESTION, their best hope for survival was communication with rescuers.
It seems unlikely to me, that Fred would be the one hysterically advocating for egress of the Electra, while Amelia was calmly trying to communicate via radio.
-
AE was the pilot and owner of the plane. In all the coverage of communications during and after the last flight, I don't recall any messages that were reported to be from FN. (At least voice transmissions; not sure about Morse code.) As far as we know, for better or worse, AE was the one on the radio.
As for what might cause debilitation in either of them, dehydration is also a strong possibility.
-
AE was the pilot and owner of the plane. In all the coverage of communications during and after the last flight, I don't recall any messages that were reported to be from FN.
I believe that the cockpit was set up so that only AE could control the radio.
Don't have time to check whether that memory is fer real.
Oh, wait ...
It may be that the controls for the rotating antenna were on her side of the cockpit ...
Will try to track this down later.
-
I believe that the cockpit was set up so that only AE could control the radio.
The controls for the transmitter and receiver were on the "knee panel" at the base of the instrument panel on the copilot side.
The knob for manually rotating the loop was on the ceiling of the cockpit roughly in the middle between pilot and copilot.
-
The controls for the transmitter and receiver were on the "knee panel" at the base of the instrument panel on the copilot side.
The knob for manually rotating the loop was on the ceiling of the cockpit roughly in the middle between pilot and copilot.
Isn't the box to the left of the eyebrow panel part of the DF setup?
-
Isn't the box to the left of the eyebrow panel part of the DF setup?
It was, but it was removed before the aircraft left Miami on the second world flight attempt. See "The Miami Cockpit Photo (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/53_MiamiPhoto/53_MiamiPhoto.htm)"
We didn't figure that out until after the Harney Drawings were done.
-
It was, but it was removed before the aircraft left Miami on the second world flight attempt. See "The Miami Cockpit Photo (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/53_MiamiPhoto/53_MiamiPhoto.htm)"
We didn't figure that out until after the Harney Drawings were done.
OK.
Any idea where the microphone was? Left, center, right? AE was the only one who transmitted. Could Fred have done so if he wished? Did they both have headsets?
If Fred had the tuning responsibilities, could he have mucked up the receiver settings?
You have the right to remain silent. There must have been answers to these questions when the flight got lost. Answering them will not change the search strategy. It's just idle curiosity.
-
Any idea where the microphone was? Left, center, right?
Not sure, but it's a small cockpit and the mic cord was fairly long, so I would think the mic would be easily usable from either seat.
AE was the only one who transmitted. Could Fred have done so if he wished?
Did they both have headsets?
I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. There was no planned need for Fred to use the radio.
If Fred had the tuning responsibilities, could he have mucked up the receiver settings?
I'm quite sure that Fred did not have tuning responsibilities. The pilot could easily reach across and use the receiver and transmitter remotes. Could Fred have fiddled with the settings and mucked them up? Sure.
You have the right to remain silent.
A right some would say I should more often exercise.