TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Alternatives to the Niku Hypothesis => Topic started by: Gerry M. Bruder on October 22, 2010, 01:01:33 PM

Title: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Gerry M. Bruder on October 22, 2010, 01:01:33 PM
Hi! I'm a new member. I'm also inexperienced in using forums, so please excuse me if this question has been addressed elsewhere before. I'm curious to know how TIGHAR responds to the fact that dozens of elderly residents in the Marshall Islands told Fred Goerner and other researchers that they remembered seeing a caucasian female pilot and a male companion in the custody of Japanese soldiers there in the summer of 1937. These reports seem too numerous to have been contrived or part of some conspiracy. Who else but Earhart and Noonan could the two aviators have been? TIGHAR's theory is reasonable and fascinating, but it's undermined by the apparent credibility of a Marshall Islands crash landing. Any comments? Thanks.

Gerry Bruder
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 22, 2010, 05:15:21 PM
Hi! I'm a new member. I'm also inexperienced in using forums, so please excuse me if this question has been addressed elsewhere before.

I've moved your post out of the Chatterbox into the Amelia Search Forum / General Discussion because it is a topic that other people might want to talk about.

Quote
I'm curious to know how TIGHAR responds to the fact that dozens of elderly residents in the Marshall Islands told Fred Goerner and other researchers that they remembered seeing a caucasian female pilot and a male companion in the custody of Japanese soldiers there in the summer of 1937. These reports seem too numerous to have been contrived or part of some conspiracy. Who else but Earhart and Noonan could the two aviators have been? TIGHAR's theory is reasonable and fascinating, but it's undermined by the apparent credibility of a Marshall Islands crash landing. Any comments?

I've tried to outline the alternative theories (http://tighar.org/wiki/Category:Alternative_Theories) that, if established, would make the Niku Hypothesis (http://tighar.org/wiki/Niku_hypothesis) untenable.

I would say that those who claim to have seen AE and FN in captivity were suffering from Helpful Witness Syndrome (http://tighar.org/wiki/Helpful_Witness_Syndrome).  They are undoubtedly persuaded of the truth of their own testimony and would pass lie-detector tests because they are not lying; but the fact that they are reporting what they sincerely and personally believe to be true does not mean that their judgment was correct that the person whom they saw was AE or FN.  Those are two separate issues.  I myself had said things that I was sure were true at the time I said them but have subsequently found out that I was wrong. (Note well: those are the three hardest words for a man to say.  I offer lessons in Remedial Man Talk for those who have not yet learned how to say those words.)  I don't have any trouble doubting the sincere and heartfelt testimony of dozens, if not hundreds, of Helpful Witnesses from any number of Pacific Islands.

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on October 23, 2010, 02:46:12 PM
For me the biggest argument against this theory is the lack of official written evidence.  You only have to look at the communications between Gardner and the PISS to see that some form of written evidence should be avaialble (thats not to say it isn't and just hasn't been found).

Someone would have sent a telegram, radio message, offical memo or even letter home to the fact thant we have AE/FN in captivity.  Then because its 1937 and not WW2 you would expect an official memo from above for the execution of said prisoners.

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 23, 2010, 03:31:41 PM
For me the biggest argument against this theory is the lack of official written evidence.  ...

But that's the greatest strength of any conspiracy theory whatsoever.

The less evidence there is of a coverup, the greater evidence that very absence of evidence provides about the power wielded by the conspirators!   8)
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Ashley Such on October 23, 2010, 05:53:16 PM
For me the biggest argument against this theory is the lack of official written evidence.

I agree to this. Not only that, but the fact that so many people claimed to have seen AE/FN. How can dozens of witnesses they saw the two fliers at many places? Doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Alfred Hendrickson on October 23, 2010, 10:40:03 PM
We have a major conspiracy unfolding right here, Marty! Gerry Bruder claims to be a newbie, and his post count reads 1. But (and here is the conspiracy part) his title is "Administrator", JUST LIKE YOURS! What are you guys trying to pull here? Hmmm?
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on October 24, 2010, 07:50:11 AM
For me the biggest argument against this theory is the lack of official written evidence.  ...

But that's the greatest strength of any conspiracy theory whatsoever.

The less evidence there is of a coverup, the greater evidence that very absence of evidence provides about the power wielded by the conspirators!   8)

Ah yes the big coverup by the men in black!!
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on October 24, 2010, 07:50:51 AM
We have a major conspiracy unfolding right here, Marty! Gerry Bruder claims to be a newbie, and his post count reads 1. But (and here is the conspiracy part) his title is "Administrator", JUST LIKE YOURS! What are you guys trying to pull here? Hmmm?

Quite, phone mulder and scully
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 24, 2010, 08:56:59 AM
We have a major conspiracy unfolding right here, Marty! Gerry Bruder claims to be a newbie, and his post count reads 1. But (and here is the conspiracy part) his title is "Administrator", JUST LIKE YOURS! What are you guys trying to pull here? Hmmm?

You had that title, too, for the first day you were on the Forum.  You just weren't paying attention.   :P

I knew I had something wrong in the setup and have been meaning to fix it for months and months.  I had misinterpreted a question in the JFusion SMF module so that new users were made Forum administrators.  I think I have undone that now, but it will take a little time to verify the fix.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 24, 2010, 08:58:01 AM
Ah yes the big coverup by the men in black!!

(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs474.ash1/25974_343782768788_343782243788_3562481_5190284_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on October 24, 2010, 09:54:29 AM
A DJ as well!!!
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Bruce Thomas on October 24, 2010, 03:00:33 PM
Buffalo Rose!
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on October 24, 2010, 03:39:18 PM
back to the topic:

1. why would the US send AE/FN on a spying mission without some form of training and equipment to boot (+ an audit trail of official documents)

2. IF they had been 'intercepted' by the Japaness as either 1. offical spys  or 2 lost flyers had the japs a. not screemed SPY ot b. not cried 'we've found them'?

It is my beflief that even though some very nasty stuff was happening in China that relations with rhe USA were at least neutral.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 24, 2010, 03:45:17 PM
Buffalo Rose!

Sorry!  I left off the caption, which is, of course, "All your base are belong to us."
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Ashley Such on October 24, 2010, 08:26:46 PM
1. why would the US send AE/FN on a spying mission without some form of training and equipment to boot (+ an audit trail of official documents)

Bingo. I think a lot of people believe the spy theory also because that AE and her husband talked to the government, or something like that. If they did, I'm sure it was no more than what to do if she were to get lost.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 24, 2010, 08:51:30 PM
I think a lot of people believe the spy theory also because that AE and her husband talked to the government, or something like that. If they did, I'm sure it was no more than what to do if she were to get lost.

It was more complicated than that.  AE helped Vidal get and keep his job in FDR's government.  She also got help from the Navy, Coast Guard, and Bureau of Commerce to set up the landing strip for her on Howland and provide various and sundry services en route.

She was indebted to the government for all that help.  Repayment was not (in my view) by providing her services as a spy; it took the form of good publicity for the government and the services.  AE had star power.  She could be pretty persuasive, all things considered.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Gerry M. Bruder on October 24, 2010, 09:58:26 PM
Several points. First, many of the folks who subscribe to the Japanese-capture theory don't think that AE and FN were spying, but rather simply that the two crash-landed in the Japanese-controlled Marshalls (while trying to find the British-held Gilbert Islands) and were picked up. The Japanese may have thought they were spies or knew they were just innocent, lost aviators. Either way, the Japanese would have been reluctant to let the two go or even to announce the rescue/detention to the world. Remember, Japan was illegally fortifying the Marshalls and other islands in the South Pacific, in violation of an official World War I mandate. The Japanese would not have wanted AE and FN to return to the States with information about soldiers, airfields, etc. It would have been safer, the theory goes, to secretly detain the two indefinitely and let the world assume they had died at sea.

According to researchers' books, island residents volunteered descriptions of AE and FN. It wasn't a case of researchers asking leading questions such as, "did you see a tall, slender, caucasian, short-haired female pilot and a male companion in the custody of Japanese soldiers in the summer of 1937?" Islanders reported various, sometimes conflicting details about the fliers, which is understandable; the first researchers arrived 30 years after the disappearance, and by then memories would have been hazy. News of the capture spread quickly and drew dozens of curious onlookers. The Japanese moved AE and FN to various detention centers, and eventually to a prison on Saipan, the regional headquarters. That's why different islanders saw the two in different places. The point is, reports of the fliers in Japanese custody are too numerous to be dismissed as imagination or overly eager cooperation.

Finally, as a retired commercial pilot, I can assure you that the two had some back-up plan in case they couldn't find Howland Island. No sane pilot continues searching for a destination until the fuel runs out. Instead, pilots save enough fuel to hightail it to an alternate. Was AE's and FN's intended alternate the Gilbert Islands or the Phoenix Group?
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Alfred Hendrickson on October 24, 2010, 10:05:57 PM
Hi! I'm a new member. I'm also inexperienced in using forums, so please excuse me if this question has been addressed elsewhere before. I'm curious to know how TIGHAR responds to the fact that dozens of elderly residents in the Marshall Islands told Fred Goerner and other researchers that they remembered seeing a caucasian female pilot and a male companion in the custody of Japanese soldiers there in the summer of 1937. These reports seem too numerous to have been contrived or part of some conspiracy. Who else but Earhart and Noonan could the two aviators have been? TIGHAR's theory is reasonable and fascinating, but it's undermined by the apparent credibility of a Marshall Islands crash landing. Any comments? Thanks.

Gerry Bruder

Welcome!

I am not sure if there is an official TIGHAR response to Goerner's work; there probably isn't. But as a member of TIGHAR, I can tell you a few things. TIGHAR is testing a hypothesis that AE & FN put NR16020 down on Nikumaroro in 1937. There are other hypotheses out there, any or all of which can be tested by whomever wishes to test them. TIGHAR will not be testing the Japanese capture hypothesis, but others may be. TIGHAR doesn't get knocked off of its task by rumors. You should also know that none of us think that our work is undermined by rumors of Japanese capture.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Alfred Hendrickson on October 24, 2010, 10:36:01 PM
Interesting. (just read reply 16)

We all understand that the fate of our duo is not conclusively known. If someone produces evidence that suggests that they eloped to Canada, well, that will be interesting. But as I recall it, the Japanese capture theory has a lot of guesswork in it. Even your short discussion of it here contains plenty of conjecture, phrases like "many . . . folks who subscribe to the Japanese-capture theory don't think", 'Japanese may have thought", "the Japanese would have been reluctant", "Japanese would not have wanted", etc. No disrespect intended, but it looks like guesswork to me.

I have read Goerner's book. It was a few years ago, though. I can't say I was convinced. But, perhaps I should re-read it. What, in your opinion, is a convincing piece evidence in support of Japanese capture? Be very specific. What witness? What specifically did he/she say they saw? Is it corroborated, and by whom?
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 24, 2010, 11:18:22 PM
Several points. First, many of the folks who subscribe to the Japanese-capture theory don't think that AE and FN were spying, but rather simply that the two crash-landed in the Japanese-controlled Marshalls (while trying to find the British-held Gilbert Islands) and were picked up.

You'll have to equip the plane with magic radios to get the reported signal strengths as the plane approached Howland, lunacy or lying on Fred's part to mistakenly judge the "200 miles" and "100 mile" estimates that he made, and magic gas tanks then to fly to the Martials:

(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/2/2b/Flight-radius.gif)
TIGHAR image. All rights reserved.
Quote
The Japanese may have thought they were spies or knew they were just innocent, lost aviators. Either way, the Japanese would have been reluctant to let the two go or even to announce the rescue/detention to the world. Remember, Japan was illegally fortifying the Marshalls and other islands in the South Pacific, in violation of an official World War I mandate. The Japanese would not have wanted AE and FN to return to the States with information about soldiers, airfields, etc. It would have been safer, the theory goes, to secretly detain the two indefinitely and let the world assume they had died at sea.

My fantasies about what the Japanese would have done are directly contrary to the fantasies of the Japanese-capture crowd.

Quote
According to researchers' books, island residents volunteered descriptions of AE and FN. It wasn't a case of researchers asking leading questions such as, "did you see a tall, slender, caucasian, short-haired female pilot and a male companion in the custody of Japanese soldiers in the summer of 1937?" Islanders reported various, sometimes conflicting details about the fliers, which is understandable; the first researchers arrived 30 years after the disappearance, and by then memories would have been hazy. News of the capture spread quickly and drew dozens of curious onlookers. The Japanese moved AE and FN to various detention centers, and eventually to a prison on Saipan, the regional headquarters. That's why different islanders saw the two in different places.

If the researchers didn't supply descriptions or pictures of AE, how did they determine that their helpful witnesses were talking about Amelia?  Dental records?  ESP?

Quote
The point is, reports of the fliers in Japanese custody are too numerous to be dismissed as imagination or overly eager cooperation.

I don't have any trouble whatsoever dismissing them.  Talking about seeing a white woman prisoner thirty years after the fact just doesn't seem hugely persuasive to me.  Of course, if you have documentary evidence that "The Japanese moved AE and FN to various detention centers, and eventually to a prison on Saipan, the regional headquarters," then, of course, I will have to revise my estimate.  But if you're just concocting that as a theory to account for the dozens or hundreds of Amelia sightings in the Pacific Islands, I'm inclined to dismiss it, too.

It is simply not the case that large numbers of people can't make a mistake in interpreting their memories 30 years after the fact.  It's been seven years since I went to Fiji.  There were lots of locals whose faces were familiar to me then that are gone clean out of memory now.  I don't even have to go that far back--I meet students routinely whose faces are familiar enough for me to know that they are former students but whose names have vanished.  This has happened to me within two months of the end of the semester.

By what technique does one go to an island where the Japanese had a prison camp and ask people who was imprisoned there without tipping your interest in AE and FN?  

Quote
Finally, as a retired commercial pilot, I can assure you that the two had some back-up plan in case they couldn't find Howland Island. No sane pilot continues searching for a destination until the fuel runs out. Instead, pilots save enough fuel to hightail it to an alternate. Was AE's and FN's intended alternate the Gilbert Islands or the Phoenix Group?

We have nothing in writing from them.  Ric discussed the problems with the remark AE allegedly made to Eugene Vidal that plan B was to land on a beach in the Gilberts. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Alternative_theories#In_the_Gilbert_Islands)
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Alfred Hendrickson on October 25, 2010, 02:31:16 PM
Gerry, just FYI: There is a short discussion of this topic in the FAQ section:

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/FAQs/captured.htm
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Tom Swearengen on October 26, 2010, 09:30:50 AM



I see that Gerry read Mr Goerners book too. Alot of similiar statements that he made. TIGHAR is testing the theory of the landing at Niku. I think they have pretty well dispelled the theory of AE landing in the Marshalls. As for the spy thoery, Japan would not have announced that they had captured AE. There wasnt any doubt that they were fortifying the Marshalls prior to 1937. Japan even "told" the US not to enter the Marshalls to search for her.
I think it might be interesting to know the whereabouts of Japaneese Naval vessels at the time of the disappearence. I say that because without positive DNA of AE on Niku, or parts of the Electra off the reef, we just have an encampment that is unexplained. IF, Japaneese Naval vessels were in the area of the "landing", they could have been picked up and taken to the Marshalls, and/or other places, which might account for the sightings.
I agree with the statement that they would not have exhausted their fuel, and tried to make it to the Gilberts, or Phoenix group. I think most of us agree with that theory. Maybe the Japaneese were monitoring the flight, and suspected they would not make it to Howland. But, getting vessels that far south would have taken some time, and risk being discovered.
Does anyone have info on Japaneese vessels possibly in the area in 1937? We know they wee around the Marshalls and Truk in the time frame. might be interesting.
On another note----any Electra parts discovered in the ROV missions?
Tom



Gerry, just FYI: There is a short discussion of this topic in the FAQ section:

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/FAQs/captured.htm

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 26, 2010, 10:03:59 AM
IF Japanese Naval vessels were in the area of the "landing", they could have been picked up and taken to the Marshalls, and/or other places, which might account for the sightings.
In my view, it is much easier to suppose that the Helpful Witness sightings were all wrong rather than to imagine a Japanese fleet on patrol between the Marshall Islands and Howland.  If they rescued America's First Lady of the Air near Howland, why would they imprison her?

Quote
On another note----any Electra parts discovered in the ROV missions?

I think the short answer (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/NikuVI/Niku6results.html) is "no."
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Tom Swearengen on October 26, 2010, 12:46:18 PM
Good point on the Japaneese. And too bad about the Electra. In my mind, finding evidence of the plane off the reef would end the speculation that she "landed" there, and didnt arrive there by other means.
Tom
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 26, 2010, 02:09:55 PM
... In my mind, finding evidence of the plane off the reef would end the speculation that she "landed" there, and didn't arrive there by other means.

I've started a separate thread to discuss the mechanics and merits of the underwater search. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,219.msg1665.html#msg1665)

In my view, just finding airplane wreckage--not even with bodies in it!--would not end the speculation about Japanese capture.  There would be no better way for the wicked, militaristic, anti-American Japanese to cover up their maltreatment of AE and FN than to dump the aircraft with their bodies in it on the reef at Niku, knowing that this would throw most people off the scent.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on October 26, 2010, 02:15:47 PM
Wasn't there in the past a theory by someone that the ayatolha (sp) had got the French to lift the plane of NikU and send it to Iran?

I'm surprised that there isn't a crashed and washed up by a Tunami theory to account for the Radio messages but tick the splashed down theories!!!

with regard to US/Jap relations I belive that in 37 the US was for reconicilation (sp) between China and Japan over the 2nd Sino/Jap war and relations were at least cordial but not war/post war frosty.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 26, 2010, 05:54:19 PM
... Wasn't there a commercial Japanese ship in the area early on?

This is a reprint from the e-mail Forum (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Highlights41_60/highlights47.html):

Subject:    Japanese search for AE
Date:    8/2/99
From:    Hugh Graham

Tom King reported that Foua Tofiga said:

>A plane flew over; he was told it was Japanese, from the Marshall
> Islands.

FWIW (probably little), I recall seeing photos of the NY Times front page from July/37 stating: "10 U.S. warships and English and JAPANESE warships search for Amelia Earhart" in a TV doc. Maybe a Jap'se catapult- launched recon plane?

LTM,
HAG 2201.

From Ric

I suppose we need to deal with this. I spent quite a bit of time with Tofiga in Fiji but he never mentioned any of this to me so I have to go entirely upon his brief comment to Tom King. I generally found Tofiga to be an excellent source of information regarding the Western Pacific High Commission, it's procedures and personalities. However, a Japanese plane over Tarawa in 1937 is hard to swallow.

1. There was no Japanese search for Earhart in July 1937. It wasn't until September that Putnam asked, through diplomatic channels, if he could pay for a search by the Japanese of the islands in the mandated territories. The reply came on September 17 from Isoruku Yamamoto, Vice Minister, Ministry of the Imperial Navy, saying that: "...our Imperial nation will have all of the vessels and fishing boats in the area make every possible effort to search for the remains." The Japaneses later claimed that two ships searched the southern Marshall islands - the seaplane tender Kamui (often mistakenly named in Earhart books as the "Kamoi") and the survey ship Koshu. We know that in July, Kamui was enroute from Saipan to Futami in the Osawagara Islands, far, far from the Marshalls and heading west. We don't know where Koshu was but she had no aircraft.

2. It wasn't until 1940 that the Japanese had seaplane ramps or airfields anywhere in the Marshalls, so any Japanese airplane in that part of the world would have to be ship-based. I'm not sure how many carriers the Imperial Navy had in 1937, but I do know that Akagi was in drydock undergoing a refit throughout this entire period. We know of no Japanese naval vessels in or near the Marshalls anytime in 1937 other than possibly the Kamui and Koshu in late September.

3. Had the Kamui, by any chance, been so bold as to send a flying boat as far south as Tarawa it is hard to understand why there was no British diplomatic protest similar to that filed when a U.S. Navy seaplane flew over Canton Island. Tarawa was not a lonely tropical atoll. It was a major British colonial center with offices, adminstrators, a hospital, a school and a radio station. For the Japanese to come prowling around so far outside of their own neighborhood should have brought a serious diplomatic response. No such traffic appears in the official record.

4. It seems far more likely that what Tofiga saw was a scout plane launched from one of the British cruisers that were in the area from 1935 through 1939. HMS Leith, HMS Leander, HMS Wellington, and HMS Achilles all carried at least one Supermarine Walrus.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Alfred Hendrickson on October 26, 2010, 09:37:20 PM
Wasn't there in the past a theory by someone that the ayatolha (sp) had got the French to lift the plane of NikU and send it to Iran?

 ;D  I had forgotten about that one! Thanks for the reminder! That was one amazing yarn, man!
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 01, 2010, 07:00:47 PM
I see another potential customer for Finding Amelia. I mean, as long as you're interested in reading books, and if you want one based on facts ...
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Ashley Such on November 01, 2010, 08:15:39 PM
It was more complicated than that. AE helped Vidal get and keep his job in FDR's government.

Ah, yes, I remember about her sending Eleanor a telegram about Vidal keeping his job.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Sheila Shigley on December 19, 2010, 11:23:25 PM
Has Wayne Green's story been checked out?  I'm sure it must have been, but I searched TIGHAR and didn't find a reference.  Unfortunately his comments include some sarcastic references to TIGHAR's efforts - I didn't include them:

"Back in 1928-1930, when my dad was the designer and manager of Philadelphia’s Central Airport, Amelia kept her Lockeed Orion there. I used to climb into the cockpit and pretend to fly it. And dad had her out to our house in Pennsauken (NJ) for dinner several times. She and Tommy Luddington owned Luddington Airlines, America’s first airline. I still remember being on the inaugural flight between Philadelphia and Newark in 1928.

    In 1936 Bob Wemple, a good friend of my dad’s and Amelia's chief mechanic, came out to dinner at our house and explained that he had just outfitted her Lockheed with larger engines and extra gas tanks so she could, on her around-the-world flight make the hop from Lae, New Guinea, to Howland Island by way of Truk Island so she could take spy pictures of the Japanese installation there for President Roosevelt, who had earlier been the Secretary of the Navy. The Navy wanted to know what the Japanese were doing there.

    With the more powerful engines she would be able to make the trip to Howland Island via Truk in about the same time as she would have been able to do it flying direct with her standard engines. Bob said these pictures were the whole reason for her flight."

http://www.waynegreen.com/wayne/news-archive_2007.html

Another version here:

http://blogs.computerworld.com/tech_visionary_offers_real_dope_on_amelia_earhardt
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 20, 2010, 06:33:19 AM
Has Wayne Green's story been checked out?

There's nothing to check out.  Earhart did not have an Orion.  It was a Vega.  Bureau of Air Commerce inspection reports and dozens of photos show that the Electra had exactly the same engines from the time it was delivered in July 1936 until it disappeared a year later.   In 1936 Bob Wemple could not possibly have known about a planned detour in the flight from Lae to Howland because at that time the flight was expected to be from Howland to Lae.  An Earhart spy mission would be one of the best kept secrets in American history.  To this day there is not a shred of evidence that such a thing occurred, and yet Mr. Green alleges that the plan was casually revealed over dinner.

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Sheila Shigley on December 20, 2010, 07:22:19 AM
While I find it logical the government would ask for surveillance favors (my missionary grandparents were occasionally asked for the same), referring to the wrong plane is hardly the path to credibility (for Green or me!).  Thank you, and I'll do more fact-checking next time.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 20, 2010, 07:35:59 AM
While I find it logical the government would ask for surveillance favors (my missionary grandparents were occasionally asked for the same), referring to the wrong plane is hardly the path to credibility (for Green or me!).

Live and learn!

FWIW, I've added Wayne Green to the article about alternative theories. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Alternative_theories#After_spying)

Quote
Thank you, and I'll do more fact-checking next time.

No problem.  The fact that Green had problems remembering the type of aircraft suggests that he may also have problems remembering the actual dinner conversation.  NR16020, n 10E Special, (http://tighar.org/wiki/Electra) did, in fact, have "oversize" engines and huge interior fuel tanks compared to a standard Electra. 

You could, if you wanted to play detective for a little while, check out some other parts of Green's story to see if they stand up to critical investigation. 

Was his father really designer and manager of Philadelphia’s Central Airport?

Did AE and Tommy Luddington own Luddington Airlines, America’s first airline?

Was Green really on the inaugural flight between Philadelphia and Newark in 1928?

Was Bob Wemple really Amelia's chief mechanic?

Was AE's Vega, in fact, at the airport as he claims it was? 

Just because he is wrong about some things, it does not follow that he is wrong about everything.  It seems not inconceivable to me that Wemple and Green's dad may have speculated about the rationale for the trip, given that there had been six other round-the-world flights (http://tighar.org/wiki/Previous_around-the-world_flights) (by my count).  Unless Green made a recording or transcript of the conversation, we have only his adult "memory" to go on as a record of what was and was not really said that night.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Sheila Shigley on December 20, 2010, 10:06:22 AM
To be fair to Mr. Green, I just found another quote (http://www.waynegreen.com/wayne/news.html):

"We moved from Philly across the river to Merchantville, NJ, to be closer to the airport. I'd often ride my bike to the airport after school and play around the planes…including Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Vega. Well, I think is was the Vega, but it may have been the Lockheed Orion. It was the nicest plane at the airport."

I'll start fact-checking some of the other details...

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Sheila Shigley on December 20, 2010, 10:07:39 AM
To be fair to Mr. Green, I just found another quote (http://www.waynegreen.com/wayne/news.html):

"We moved from Philly across the river to Merchantville, NJ, to be closer to the airport. I'd often ride my bike to the airport after school and play around the planes…including Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Vega. Well, I think is was the Vega, but it may have been the Lockheed Orion. It was the nicest plane at the airport."

I'll start fact-checking some of the other details...I should probably add that even though this has ended up under "capture" theories, I don't necessarily think a possible government surveillance component to her flight precludes crashing onto Niku.


Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 20, 2010, 10:54:28 AM
I'll start fact-checking some of the other details ...

Great!

Quote
I should probably add that even though this has ended up under "capture" theories, I don't necessarily think a possible government surveillance component to her flight precludes crashing onto Niku.

No, they are not mutually exclusive ideas, in principle.

I guess I haven't pulled together all of the material on why thinking that AE and FN were on a spy mission doesn't make sense, given the limitations of the equipment available in 1936-1937.  All I can do at the moment is to make a list of the things that I believe have been discussed in earlier incarnations of the Amelia Earhart Search Forum (http://tighar.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart_Search_Forum).  Feel free to poke around the website for yourself. (http://tighar.org/news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg)

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Sheila Shigley on December 20, 2010, 11:25:23 AM
Thank you - I'll read through these!
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Don Dollinger on December 20, 2010, 01:01:43 PM
Very interesting thread.  Have looked at the most popular theories, crashed in the sea, crashed on or near New Guinea, captured by Japs, landed on Niku (didn't spend much time on abducted by aliens.  lol).  A couple of my thoughts on the captured theory.  I have spent some time in Asia and have been told by more than a few Asians that we (Americans) all look alike to them, as most Asians looked very similar to me until I had been there for some time.  I don't believe the Asians had seen many Europeans (just guessing) so someone of European descent would stick out in there mind but I doubt they could pick any specific one out a line-up then but is even stretched further to think they could 30 years later.   As well as the helpful witness syndrone pointed out by Marty.  They have alot of ancedotal evidence but that is all, wherein TIGHAR has ancedotal evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. 
What more or less got me off the fence is the way that TIGHAR handles the minutiae.  Most of the other theories don't deal with the minutiae because it is means nothing where TIGHAR goes the other way.  For instance, instead of excepting the explanation that all of the post loss messages were hoaxes and that people far away such as Betty could not possibly of picked up xmissions from AE I would have considered minutiae, they proved that it was not only possible but probably that she could have heard what she did and that there were no other known radios capable of broadcasting from that location in the surrounding areas.
Conspiracy Theories normally throw out evidence that doesn't support their case.  TIGHAR does not, to wit: publishing the fact that they found shell casing in the 7 site proving that others (the Coasties) could well of been the source of the evidence.  Lastly TIGHAR is not close minded about the other theories, as they pitched in on the grave dig in Saipan which is completely against the Niku theory.  Lastly, their theory evolves as the evidence mounts such as where on the reef the plane landed and such.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 20, 2010, 03:00:37 PM
... I have spent some time in Asia and have been told by more than a few Asians that we (Americans) all look alike to them, as most Asians looked very similar to me until I had been there for some time.  I don't believe the Asians had seen many Europeans (just guessing) so someone of European descent would stick out in there mind but I doubt they could pick any specific one out a line-up then but is even stretched further to think they could 30 years later.

I speculate as well--without the least bit of evidence to back this up, so you may take this with as much salt as your doctor allows--any white woman imprisoned by the Japanese would come to resemble AE in short order: thin and clothed in a mannish fashion.

Quote
Conspiracy Theories normally throw out evidence that doesn't support their case.  TIGHAR does not, to wit: publishing the fact that they found shell casing in the 7 site proving that others (the Coasties) could well of been the source of the evidence.

My favorite example is the way that TIGHAR tracked down the history of the navigator's bookcase (http://tighar.org/wiki/2-1) that TIGHAR originally thought had to have come from the Electra.  It seems to me that TIGHAR even figured out which B24 wreck it was likely to have come from.

"The best candidate might be the B-24J that crashed on the reef at Canton in 1944 but was not salvaged.  We've long suspected that many of the B-24 parts we've found on Niku, such as the navigator's bookcase that was found a few meters from where we later found 2-2-V-1, are pieces of that wreck that washed ashore at Canton after the war and were brought home to Niku by locals who worked there" (Gillespie,  Forum, 24 September 2004). (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Forum_Archives/200409.txt)

Quote
Lastly TIGHAR is not close minded about the other theories, as they pitched in on the grave dig in Saipan (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Tinian/tigharstinian.htm) which is completely against the Niku theory.  Lastly, their theory evolves as the evidence mounts such as where on the reef the plane landed and such.

Link added to the grave dig in Saipan (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Tinian/tigharstinian.htm) for those who are unfamiliar with that expedition.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Bruce Thomas on December 20, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
One of my favorite phrases, after reading so much on the TIGHAR website over the past several years, appears in the Project Research Bulletin about the heat shields (dados) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/51_HeatShields/51_DetectiveStory.html) found in the colonial village on Niku:  "Along the way we might also uncover information that disproves our heat shield hypothesis. (We are, by far, the leading debunker of our own theories.) That would be okay too."  I think it speaks volumes about the integrity of this entire project.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 29, 2010, 01:15:50 PM
Here is a fresh sample of the kind of anecdote that keeps the Japanese capture theories alive. 

Letter to the Editor: "Look here," (http://www.facebook.com/l/37d99FKXRaswcC0MMi6QoZMa3iQ;www.mvariety.com/2010122933041/letter-to-the-editor/letter-to-the-editor-look-here.php) Mariannas Variety, Thursday, December 30, 2010.  Emphasis added--MXM.

"... Here is a piece of information that might be of interest to all such researchers and others interested in the Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan mystery:  Even if others have looked here before, try again looking on Saipan if you are looking for their remains. A very close relative of mine recalled a first-hand account to me several times that seems to have some thread of truth to it. He told me and others that as a young man in 1937 on Saipan, he and a group of others saw a White (American) woman and a male companion taken prisoner by the Japanese authorities. As the two were brought down from the ship and into plain sight, he and the other observers were under armed guard. The Japanese Troops ordered all of them to 'bow low' and avert their eyes and not to look at these 'secret' prisoners.

"Human nature being what it is, he glanced time and time again at this most unusual sighting of two Americans being led under guard on Saipan Island. He saw them clearly.

"He was 23 at the time and working at the Japanese seaport (now the CPA Saipan Seaport) moving drums of water for a Japanese company that took water from the spring  to the port.  That dock area is where he saw the two white people under guard.  He couldn’t say that the Americans he saw were Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. He couldn’t say for sure what happened to them.  But it makes sense to me that the prisoners, whoever they were, were either killed here on Saipan or sent on to Japan for questioning.  If killed here, their remains might still be found. Where did they bury prisoners during that time?

"So bring your researchers and your squads of investigators and mystery detectives to Saipan and take a look for the remains here.  Wherever they crashed, they would have been brought to the main headquarters of Imperial Japan here on Saipan. Maybe they can put the Earhart mystery to rest once and for all. Or maybe not."

REP. STANLEY MCGINNIS TORRES
17th CNMI Legislature

Here are the kind of questions that spring to mind immediately:

Since neither Rep. Torres nor his informant know whether the woman prisoner died on Saipan, it could well be that opening every grave and testing every set of remains would turn up negative.  While it is true that this would be a very scientific enterprise that might have the chance of proving conclusively that AE and FN were not buried in any of the graves that were exhumed, it seems like a pretty expensive proposition for that kind of finding--no matter how much scientists love to falsify hypotheses.

None of these questions suggest that the Japanese capture theory is false.  They do show why I am personally not inclined to accept Rep. Torres' invitation to go search Saipan.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Tom Swearengen on January 07, 2011, 11:13:18 AM
sounds almost like a quote from MR Goerners book of the mid 1960's.
Tom
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 07, 2011, 11:26:28 AM
I knew Fred Goerner.  He was a fine gentleman and a dedicated researcher. I think his biggest problem in his Earhart investigations was that his training was in journalism (he was a CBS Radio reporter by trade) rather than in historical research.  He put a great deal of faith in peoples' recollections of events 30 years or more in the past instead of relying on primary source documentation. He also had no background in aviation which is a huge disadvantage when investigating an aviation mystery. Fred corresponded with me and other TIGHAR members prior to his death in 1994.  By that time he had changed his mind about some of the conclusions he had stated in his book.

In a letter to TIGHAR member Rob Gerth dated April 13, 1989, Goerner wrote,
< "I truly believed the north of course theory was the most probable when I wrote THE SEARCH FOR AE in 1966, and I chose Mili as the most logical landing place. Through the assistance of Dr. Dirk Ballendorf, who was Deputy Director for our U.S. Peace Corps activities in the Pacific, I was able to disabuse myself of that notion."

Goerner goes on to deride the later researchers who found support for his original conjecture. "It is more than a little surprising that Vincent Loomis, Oliver Knaggs, Buddy Brennan, Paul Bryce, Jim Slade amd all; of the other people who visited Mili in the late 1970's and early 1980's and made such extravagant and unsupportable claims, did not even attempt to contact me before they made their 'expeditions.">

What jumps out at me is his statement, "I chose Mili as the most logical landing place."  For the Japanese Capture Crowd, an Earhart landing at Mili has become an item of faith.  Turns out that Fred made it up. 

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Tom Swearengen on January 07, 2011, 11:29:43 AM
For my 2 cents worth Ric---YOU are on the right track, and will find the answers.
Tom
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 24, 2011, 02:13:09 AM
I'm probably racking up muck here but was nosing around the web and came accross this site.

LEGERDEMAIN With the latest startling revelation regarding the fate of Amelia Earhart! (http://davidkbowman.com/)

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 24, 2011, 08:30:10 AM
I'm probably racking up muck here but was nosing around the web and came accross this site.

LEGERDEMAIN With the latest startling revelation regarding the fate of Amelia Earhart! (http://davidkbowman.com/)


OK, I've added the title to "Alternative Theories." (http://tighar.org/wiki/Alternative_theories) 

Have you read the book?  Got a review of it somewhere?  How should it be classified?
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 24, 2011, 09:15:26 AM
Didn't know it existed till I found the site whilst googling something else. So no i've not read it.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 24, 2011, 09:26:23 AM
Another link that you may or may not be aware of Amelia Earhart's Survival and Repatriation: Myth or Reality?  (2005)by Alex Mandel (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart's_Survival_and_Repatriation:_Myth_or_Reality%3F), quite a lot to read on the subject.  Done a search on his name on the forum and nothing comes up.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Don Dollinger on May 24, 2011, 09:33:34 AM
Intresting stuff but nothing new.  It is truly amazing how these writers can take all that is alreay known, rehash it in their own words, and then "republish" it and then advertised it as being the definitive book on the subject.  I'm definately in the wrong business.   >:(

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 24, 2011, 09:35:56 AM
Another link that you may or may not be aware of Amelia Earhart's Survival and Repatriation: Myth or Reality?  (2005)by Alex Mandel (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart's_Survival_and_Repatriation:_Myth_or_Reality%3F), quite a lot to read on the subject.  Done a search on his name on the forum and nothing comes up.

Thanks for the link, Chris.  It seems to be an excellent rebuttal of Reineck's theory.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Bruce Thomas on May 24, 2011, 10:20:57 AM
I'm probably racking up muck here but was nosing around the web and came accross this site.

LEGERDEMAIN With the latest startling revelation regarding the fate of Amelia Earhart! (http://davidkbowman.com/)


OK, I've added the title to "Alternative Theories." (http://tighar.org/wiki/Alternative_theories)  

Have you read the book?  Got a review of it somewhere?  How should it be classified?

This book was mentioned on the old Forum in late 2007 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/200712.txt) by Karen Hoy:

Quote
Date:         Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:24:53
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: Bolam theory

For William Webster-Garman,

Your theory makes perfect sense. It's all the fault of cute aliens
(isn't everything?)

Jokes aside, there is a published book entitled "Legerdemain" which
is described as "a startling new book on the disappearance of Amelia
Earhart."

This is an extremely badly written, edited and indexed rehash of the
Bolam theory, by David Bowman, who needs to be sent back to 4th grade
to learn how to write coherently.

It seems that everything, from the 1938 Hawaii Clipper crash to a
French message in a bottle, were really connected to Earhart's
disappearance. And AE was really Irene!

This book makes "Amelia Earhart Lives" look like brilliantly written
research. The only startling thing is that anyone actually bought it.

Goodnight, Irene,
Karen Hoy
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 24, 2011, 11:23:53 AM
This book was mentioned on the old Forum in late 2007 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/200712.txt) by Karen Hoy: ...

Thanks, Bruce!

I've met Karen several times since she joined EPAC. (http://tighar.org/wiki/EPAC)

She is one of the most amazing researchers on the TIGHAR team.

She is also quite objective and not the least bit prone to sarcasm, irony, and ridicule (unlike myself).

That is a blistering review of the book.  I think I'll take her word for its contents and leave it off my reading list.   8)
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Bruce Thomas on June 11, 2012, 10:35:53 AM
An addition to the Earhart-and-the-Marshall-Islands theory in an anecdotal recollection of a conversation described by a retired Naval officer (“Captain Greenwood”), apparently in a letter to the alumni magazine of the U.S. Naval Academy (Shipmate) in its Jan-Feb 1987 issue.  I found reference to this in a paper on the website of the Redlands Fortnightly Club (http://www.redlandsfortnightly.org) in California, described as “believed to be the second oldest literary club in the United States.”  The paper’s title is “The Flying Clippers: Their Glory, Romance, Tragedy and Mystery (http://www.redlandsfortnightly.org/papers/taylor08.htm),” by W. Leonard Taylor and Robert W. Taylor.

It seems that Captain Greenwood had a conversation with a young Pan American pilot, Mark Walker, who was lost later in the 1938 disappearance of the Hawaii Clipper. (The scientist Fred Meier, for whom AE had been collecting air samples on the World Flight (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,642.msg12100.html#msg12100), was a passenger on that flight.)  Walker, a Stanford University graduate, is said to have learned to fly while in the Navy before joining Pan American.

Walker was “assigned to work with Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan” (by PAA? the Navy?) in early 1937.  He is supposed to have learned from AE that she had been tasked by “someone high in government” to undertake a spy mission.  Her airplane actually had the capability of flying at 250 miles per hour, and that would have enabled her to secretly divert over the Marshall Islands to gather military intelligence, and then still make it to Howland Island in the proper amount of time for the publicized straight route at 150 mph from Lae.

I came across this article because it mentions that Captain Greenwood’s letter in Shipmate was in response to a November 1986 article that had appeared in the magazine about Earhart’s flight.  The author of that article:  Captain William B. Short, Jr., one of the other two pilots who flew with John Lambrecht in the search of the Phoenix Islands.

Does anyone have access to old issues of Shipmate?  In his article, Captain Short was apparently critical of AE's flight, saying it was a "publicity stunt."
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 11, 2012, 11:10:27 AM
Short's letter to his father (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Short.pdf) is on the TIGHAR website.

The only way to make an Electra do 250 mph would be in a power dive. There was no engine that could be put on the airplane that could make it go that fast.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Bruce Thomas on June 11, 2012, 11:42:30 AM
Short's letter to his father (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Short.pdf) is on the TIGHAR website.

The only way to make an Electra do 250 mph would be in a power dive. There was no engine that could be put on the airplane that could make it go that fast.

Well, yeah, the anecdote with Mark Walker at its center is twaddle, of course. 

But I'm wondering if there are any 50 year-old recollections of the Phoenix Island search that Captain Short threw into the anecdotal soup in his November 1986 Shipmate article -- to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, of course.  And/or whether any of what he wrote in it conflicts with the contemporaneous account he wrote in that letter to his father.

The article seems to have been published post-mortem -- Captain William Byfield Short, Jr., USNA '32, died the previous January according to the VA's national grave locator.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 12, 2012, 03:48:13 AM
Short's letter to his father (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Short.pdf) is on the TIGHAR website.

The only way to make an Electra do 250 mph would be in a power dive. There was no engine that could be put on the airplane that could make it go that fast.
There were about 130 different models of the Wasp engine (although some models were never built) and none produced more than the 550 horsepower continuous rating of Earhart's S3H1 engines so there were no more powerful engines that could have been installed. The next more powerful P&W engines had two rows of cylinders, weighed a whole lot more, and anybody would notice the extra row of cylinders and these engines would not fit in the cowlings.

But if they could have fitted more powerful engines, where does that get you? According to report 487 it takes full power, 1200 hp, to make the plane go 200 mph and it takes 1080 hp to go 190 mph so it takes 120 more hp, 10% more, just to make the plane go 10 mph faster. You would have to add a bunch of extra engines to make it go 50 mph faster since drag increases with the square of the airspeed.

Operating aircraft engines at high power uses a lot of fuel. Earhart's engines burn 120 gallons per hour at the full 1200 hp output and this would make the plane go 200 mph. The plane had only 1100 gallons on board so would use up all the fuel in only nine hours and ten minutes and would have splashed down at 0910 Z after covering only 1833 statute miles. At the 550 continuous rating per engine the plane still burns 110 gallons per hour so would run out of fuel after only ten hours and would fly at about 190 mph so would cover about 1900 SM before splashing down at 1000 Z. If bigger engines were installed it just makes the range even less.

See my website for a more detailed explanations of why there was no spy mission.

Flight planning for spy mission. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/flight-planning-aspects-relating-to-a-possible-earhart-s-spy-flight)

And second spy mission theory (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/was-earhart-a-spy).

gl
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 12, 2012, 03:58:28 AM
And there is no way that they ended up in the Marshalls due to a navigational error because it was impossible to be that far off course. Let me say that again, it was
IMPOSSIBLE to be that far off course. I’m not saying that it was “unlikely” to be that far off
course and I am not saying that it was “highly unlikely” to be that far off course. I AM saying that
it was IMPOSSIBLE to be that far off course.

The generally accepted level of uncertainty for a position found by dead reckoning is 10% of the
distance flown since the last fix. This means that if Earhart and Noonan flew all the way from
Lae to Howland, 2556 SM, inside solid clouds without the opportunity to see any visual
landmarks or to take any celestial sights then it is highly unlikely that they were more than 255.6
SM away from Howland at 1912 Z. (Of course this is not a real scenario since Earhart wrote that
“Noonan must have star sights” so they would have turned around if they could not see the stars.)
Mili is 856 SM from Howland, more than three times the accepted level of uncertainty if they had DRed all the way.

But wait, we know that they had a fix at 0718 Z near Nikumanu Island and it is only 1700 SM
from there to Howland so the expected uncertainty would only be 170 SM so Mili was five times
further away than the accepted uncertainty. And then they saw the Ontario at 1030 Z which was
only 1270 SM from Howland making the uncertainty at 1912 Z only 127 SM so Mili was about
seven times further away than the accepted level of uncertainty. Then they passed Nauru at about
1130 Z and it is only 1143 SM from there to Howland, the uncertainty became 114 SM making
Mili 7.5 times further away. Then they flew over Tabituea which is only 613 SM from Howland
further reducing the dead reckoning uncertainty to only 61 SM. Since Mili is 856 SM from
Howand it is 14 times further away than any possible error in the dead reckoning.

You might say “but what if a strong wind came up and blew them far off course?” Well since it
would only take about five hours to fly from Tabituea to Howland, to be blown off course 856
SM in this time period would have required a wind out of the southeast blowing at 174 mph, you
would think that Itasca would have noticed such a strong wind.

I have attached two images showing the course line from Lae to Howland with turn offs toward
Mili at Ontario and at Tabituea. The course to Howland is 078̊. From Ontario to Mili is 800 SM
and the course is 036̊ meaning that Earhart would have had to make a left turn there of 42̊ in
order to head to Mili. From Tabituea to Mili is 550 SM and the course is 339̊ so Earhart would
have had to make a left turn there of 99̊ in order to head to Mili from there. Obviously they
never made any such turns.

But what if they arrived in the vicinity of Howland at 1912 Z, couldn’t find Howland so they
flew off to the northwest looking for an alternate landing site such as Mili? They didn’t have
enough gas on board to make it to make it to Mili, 856 SM away.

I have been a lawyer for a long time and almost all of my cases involved airplane crashes. Based
on my experience I have come to be distrustful of “eyewitness testimony.” Even if a witness is
trying to be truthful it doesn’t mean that they actually saw what they think they saw. I’ll give you
an example. A number of my cases involved airplane crashes involving fires with the wreckage
badly burned up. We would take the testimony of 3 or 4 and in one case 6 eyewitness who
testified under oath “I looked up and I saw the airplane on fire, fire was coming out of the front
of the plane!” According to those who like the capture theory such testimony from so many eye witnesses would
establish the fact that the plane was on fire while it was still up in the sky, case closed.

Well, not so fast. When a plane catches fire after it impacts the ground, the fire and smoke goes
upward, just like the fire in your fireplace. When a plane is on fire while in flight the smoke trails
back and deposits soot on the tail of the plane, no soot on the tail, no in-flight fire. All these
witnesses that testified under oath that they saw a plane on fire up in the air were wrong. They
weren’t lying, they were just wrong. This is just a sample but when you take sworn testimony
many times you start to realize that eyewitness testimony is not all that reliable. And these
witnesses were testifying shortly after the accidents, not 60 years later.

If you produced a thousand eyewitnesses who testified under oath that a flying saucer landed,
little green men came out and forced Earhart and Noonan into the saucer and then they took off,
no jury would believe that story even with that many witnesses. Jurors weigh the testimony and
compare it to their common sense to decide if the testimony is correct and reject testimony that
doesn’t make sense. This is especially so when the testimony makes impossible claims, such as
Earhart landing in the Marshalls.

It is easy to reject the many conflicting statements about Earhart and Noonan’s capture and death
made many years after the events. There are so many conflicts in the statements that you must
reject a good portion of the statements, keeping only the statements that support your own
favorite theory. Well if so many statements can be rejected, then why can’t they all be rejected?
They were captured here, they were captured there. They were executed, they died of dysentery.
They were buried here, they were buried there, etc.

So no, I am not swayed by the witness statements that some are so fond of.


Most of us have heard of standard deviation and this is the concept governing the uncertainty of
dead reckoning. We can consider that the band of uncertainty contains about 95% of the possible
actual positions of the aircraft so there is only a about a 5% chance that you would be outside the
band. In standard deviation terms, 95% equals 2 standard deviations meaning that one standard
deviation was only half of the band of uncertainty. As you exceed this distance the probability
that you are further away decreases very quickly. In 1 case out of a 21 you will be beyond 2
S.D.s; in 1 case out of 370 will you be more than 3 S.D.s ; in 1 case out of 15,787 will you be
further out than 4 S.D.s; in 1 case out of 1,744,278 will you be out 5 S.D.s; and in only 1 case
out of 506,800,000 will you be out more than 6 S.D.s.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

Going the other way, 68% of the time you will be within half of the uncertainty band, at 1 S.D.,
of the DR position which means that only about 32% of the time will you be in the outer one-half
of the error band. The uncertainty at 1912 Z was 255 SM which is 2 S.D.s so one S.D was 128 SM.
To accidently arrive at the closest Japanese island, Mili, would mean the plane was 785 SM from its
D.R. position over Howland which is 6.1 Standard Deviations and this will happen in less than one
case out of 506,800,000! This means that the odds against this happening is more than 506,800,000
to one! And this is based on dead reckoning all the way from Lae without any fixes. Fixes determined
enroute would have made the resulting uncertainty at Howland smaller so the S.D. would have been smaller
making it even more unlikely than this 506 million to one that they ended up at Mili.

The most complete treatment of the statistics of navigational errors is in the American Practical Navigator, commonly known as "Bowditch," U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office Publication number 9 (H.O. 9) which is the standard navigational authority  in the United States and has been since the first edition in 1802. The 1977 edition has "appendix Q" which  is a 33 page discussion of this topic.

https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/american-practical-navigator-h-o-9/h09-1962-1.JPG?attredirects=0

I was stating my "best case scenario" for those who believe in the MIli theory.

I only cited the odds up to 6 standard deviations, 506,800,000 to 1 since that covered the case of dead reckoning all the way from Lae ( which we know was not the case.) 10 % of the distance to Howland is 255 SM which is two standard deviations so one standard deviation is half of that, 128 SM. It is 856 SM from Howland to Mili which is six point seven (6.7) times the standard deviation for a complete dead reckoned flight from Lae to Howland.

 We know they had a fix near Nukumano only 1700 SM from Howland making the standard deviation for the DR position over Howland 85 SM so it would be 10 S.D. to end up at Mili.

They had  a fix over the Ontario leaving only a 1270 SM dead reckoning leg to Howland making the S.D. only 63 SM making Mili 13.5 standard deviations away.

Next they had a fix over or abeam Nauru leaving only a 1143 SM dead reckoning leg to Howland making the S.D. 57 SM making Mili 15 standard deviations away.

It was reported that they were heard flying over Tabituea which is only 613 SM from Howland making the S.D. 31 SM  making Mili 28 standard deviations away.


Noonan would also have gotten a celestial fix at or after the radio report of "partially cloudy" at 4:53 Itasca time (1623 Z) leaving only 2 hours and 49 minutes (or less) until the 1912 Z report of "must be on you" over Howland. At 150 m.p.h. the plane would have flown 422 SM (or less) making the standard deviation only 21 SM and placing Mili 40 standard deviations (or more) away.

The highest odds I could find was for 7 standard deviations, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

(if you can find a table that shows the odds for more that 7 S.D. please point it out to me, I am quite interested.)

 The probability of being seven standard deviations away is one chance in three hundred and ninety billion, seven hundred million (390,700,000,000) So based on any of these fixes, the probability of ending up at Mili would have been even much lower than this number. The likelihood of being forty standard deviations off course after the 1623 Z fix is astronomical. In fact, there is not any significant difference in the probability of Earhart ending up at Mili as her ending up on the Moon!

The probability of less than one chance in more than 390,700,000,000 meets the definition, in most peoples' minds, of "impossible."

gl
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Bruce Thomas on June 12, 2012, 12:50:14 PM
Short's letter to his father (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Short.pdf) is on the TIGHAR website.

Thanks, Ric.  I didn't pick up from your comment about the typed letter being on the website that you were in effect telling me that the article in Shipmate was just the text of the letter neatly typeset with a couple of pictures of the Colorado and one of the floatplanes. 

But now I know, since the nice people at the USNA Alumni Association responded quickly today to my request for a photocopy of the November 1986 article.  I guess I'll need to make a donation to them in honor of my late father-in-law (also a naval aviator, USNA Class of '43).  :)  Well, at least it wasn't a completely useless exercise:  Finally, I now know what words got cut off at the end of the copy of Captain Short's letter stored on the TIGHAR website when it was turned into a PDF:  "ing possibility."   :D 
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Stephen Hinkle on July 31, 2012, 03:36:40 AM
While I beleive that the Nikumaroro Hypthoesis as the most probable, I wonder how much of these Japanese spy rumors could have come from the planning that lead up to the Battle of Pearl Harbor.   It wonder how many of these islands were used along the path.   See this link:   http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Marshalls/html/WWII/SeaPlaneOps.html
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: John Balderston on July 31, 2012, 08:06:54 AM
". . . I wonder how much of these Japanese spy rumors could have come from the planning that lead up to the Battle of Pearl Harbor."

Stephen, I think many would agree with you that the interwar period (between WWI and WWII) in the Pacific doesn't receive enough attention.  For scholarship as a start you might try Edward S. Miller's "War Plan Orange", or for sort of a "lite" version containing many of the key themes see if you can lay your hands on a copy of Ronald W. Jackson's "China Clipper" from 1980.  Cheers,
John
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Gary LaPook on July 31, 2012, 10:47:49 AM
While I beleive that the Nikumaroro Hypthoesis as the most probable, I wonder how much of these Japanese spy rumors could have come from the planning that lead up to the Battle of Pearl Harbor.   It wonder how many of these islands were used along the path.   See this link:   http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Marshalls/html/WWII/SeaPlaneOps.html
Let's see. From July 2, 1937 to December 7, 1941 is 1,461 days. To put this in perspective, 1,461 days ago the economy was doing fine, the unemployment rate was just 4.9% and the housing bubble had not yet burst. We were not at war with Japan and, if fact, Earhart originally planned to land in Tokyo.

gl
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on August 01, 2012, 03:45:11 AM




Well, in 1937 USA were not at war with Japan, but the Japanese were in China, and I'm sure, the goverment wasn't amused. I'm sure many felt there COULD be hostilities soon. I think, if we speak about the Earhart-mystery, we must think about that the Japanese were very busy in their Mandates, and E.A. and F.N. were rather close.
Sometimes it seems to me, TIGHAR wants to forget that in 1937 Japanese even did exist... ;)

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Stephen Hinkle on August 01, 2012, 12:59:11 PM
I was thinking perhaps the technologies, torpedoes, and other equipment used for the battle of pearl harbor was being  in the design phases and was being tested back in 1937.    I wonder about the Japanese mapping the south pacific routes at that time that could be used for battle, and noting and mapping potential refueling locations, supply lines, emergency escape routes for their troops, etc.   Perhaps the Marshall Islands and other islands in the south pacific were used for testing prototypes and military equipment at the time.     It would seem like the islands would make perfect test sites being small and a lot of water in between, and a lot of open ocean around in which damage to occupied land could be minimized.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 01, 2012, 02:04:36 PM
Should immagine a lot of the testing was going up north on the China mainland.

If I was testing 'secret' stuff then i'd try and keep it close as the further away you are the more eyes have a chance to see.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: C.W. Herndon on August 01, 2012, 02:33:26 PM
Good points Chris. I agree.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Tom Swearengen on August 01, 2012, 07:00:35 PM
IMHO----I personally think the Japaneese were fortifying the Mandated Islands. Alot of work was going on at Truk, as we have seen. I also think that is someone were to have gone there, and was captured, there would not be any record of their demise.
With that in mind, IF AE did somehow manage to find herself at Kwajalein, or Truk, or even Saipan, I dont think we would know about it. Even as famous as she was, Japan cerainly would not tell the world that they captured her. Even in 1937, when our military wasnt ready for war.
I dont think she overflew the Marshalls. She was on course, and on schedule as she passed over the Gilberts. To have made a 90* left turn NORTH to fly over the Marshalls, a LONG WAY AWAY, then try to make it back to Howland, stretches even my vivid imagination. NOT to say that she didnt end up at Kwajalein, Truk, or even Saipan, because evena s far fetched as it sounds, anything can be possible, until proven otherwise.
Stephen does bring up and interesting theory on Japaneese testing things. Yes they could have sent ships out, testing the waters so to speak. (Not sure when Truk actually became operational, but I dont think it was in 1937). But, that doesnt mean that Japan wasnt out there. It is possible that AE DID land at Niku, but wasnt there when the search overflight took place. But, I think that IF she were to have been removed from the island, (unless it was on a submarine) a ship would have been noticed by the searchers.

I'm not supposed to speculate---so I wont. But you get the idea--
Tom
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Malcolm McKay on August 01, 2012, 08:27:24 PM
The Japanese were fortifying the mandated territories, but the League of Nations Mandate was purely for administration, it was not the granting of a colony to another country. That is why the militarization of the islands was so sensitive. Technically the L of N could have revoked the mandate and ordered the Japanese out - it wouldn't have happened in reality but is was an illegal act, that's why the cover up.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Gary LaPook on August 01, 2012, 09:49:49 PM
IMHO----I personally think the Japaneese were fortifying the Mandated Islands. Alot of work was going on at Truk, as we have seen. I also think that is someone were to have gone there, and was captured, there would not be any record of their demise.
With that in mind, IF AE did somehow manage to find herself at Kwajalein, or Truk, or even Saipan, I dont think we would know about it. Even as famous as she was, Japan cerainly would not tell the world that they captured her. Even in 1937, when our military wasnt ready for war.
I dont think she overflew the Marshalls. She was on course, and on schedule as she passed over the Gilberts. To have made a 90* left turn NORTH to fly over the Marshalls, a LONG WAY AWAY, then try to make it back to Howland, stretches even my vivid imagination. NOT to say that she didnt end up at Kwajalein, Truk, or even Saipan, because evena s far fetched as it sounds, anything can be possible, until proven otherwise.
Stephen does bring up and interesting theory on Japaneese testing things. Yes they could have sent ships out, testing the waters so to speak. (Not sure when Truk actually became operational, but I dont think it was in 1937). But, that doesnt mean that Japan wasnt out there. It is possible that AE DID land at Niku, but wasnt there when the search overflight took place. But, I think that IF she were to have been removed from the island, (unless it was on a submarine) a ship would have been noticed by the searchers.

I'm not supposed to speculate---so I wont. But you get the idea--
Tom
Also see:

https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/flight-planning-aspects-relating-to-a-possible-earhart-s-spy-flight

https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/was-earhart-a-spy

gl
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: John Balderston on August 01, 2012, 11:26:52 PM
Fellows, regarding fortification of Truk, former IJN Cdr. and Gordon Prange research assistant Masataka Chihaya's essay "Importance of Japanese Naval Bases Overseas" (The Pacific War Papers: Japanse Documents of WWII, Goldstein, Donald and Katherine Dillon, Potomac Books, Wash DC, 2006, pg. 63) and IJN Chief of Staff Adm. Jisaburo Ozawa's essay "Development of the Japanese Navy's Operational Concept Against America" (ibid, pg. 73) definitively state that IJN did not begin fortifying Truk until after the U.S. attacked Guadalcanal in the summer of 1942.   

". . .At the outbreak of this war there was only one-half of a completed airstrip in Takeshima, a small island less than 1,000 meters long.  There was no underground oil storage, no repair facilities on land.  There was no naval establishment worthy of the name of land except a half-completed small airstrip." (Chihaya).

In the 1930's Japan was guarding sea lines of communication to SE Asia; their fear was U.S. fortification of Guam, and to a lesser extent the Philippines.  In the event of movement into hostilities the strategy was to quickly take Guam and the Philippines, and suck the USN into an all-out massive naval battle in the Marianas region.   
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: John Balderston on August 02, 2012, 12:05:44 AM
Should immagine a lot of the testing was going up north on the China mainland.

If I was testing 'secret' stuff then i'd try and keep it close as the further away you are the more eyes have a chance to see.

Strong points, Chris!  From the 1920's on, the Japanese navy's center for both naval aviation requirements and air tactics development was the Naval Air Arsenal in Yokosuka, and Japanese aviation industry was centered in Nagoya.   Real-world operational test and evaluation "laboratory" was China.  The Mandates were at the end of a long logistics chain - not the ideal environment for development, or minimizing the potential for prying eyes. . .

A great resource is Mark A. Peattie's "Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power, 1909-1941" (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 2001).  On a related note, chief engineer Jiro Horikoshi's "The Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter" (University of Washington Press, 1992) is a great read - weaves together the significant design challenges and the environment of the 1930's and 40's in Japan. 
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 02, 2012, 08:46:13 AM
Some good reading for later, I could almost suggest the mods call a day on the supposed military build up in the mandates but lets not 'stifle' debate  :D

I'm sure the Japanese were at least looking towards building up there forces but can anyone shed some light on their overall strategic aim in 37?

Quick internet scan and in no way a suggestion of academic fact but it was only after the annex of Indo-China in 1940/41 that the US in fact embargoed Japan and thus forced the Japanese to look elsewhere such as Dutch East Indies and Burma for sources of raw materials.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 02, 2012, 11:08:10 AM
It would have been a bit of a publicity coup for the Japanese to capture the Americans pretending to be on a world record flight around the world, Amelia Earhart and Freddie Noonan (1937)

It would have been a bit of a publicity coup for the Soviet Union to capture the American pretending to be on a weather gathering flight, Francis Gary Powers (1960)

The amount of positive publicity and sympathy that the Soviet Union gained from the U2 incident was an excellent example of how to play the undercover war. I am sure the Japanese wouldn't pass up an opportunity to get a little sympathy from the rest of the world either by displaying their capture of 'American spies'.

IMHO

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on August 02, 2012, 12:56:24 PM
It would have been a bit of a publicity coup for the Japanese to capture the Americans pretending to be on a world record flight around the world, Amelia Earhart and Freddie Noonan (1937)

It would have been a bit of a publicity coup for the Soviet Union to capture the American pretending to be on a weather gathering flight, Francis Gary Powers (1960)

The amount of positive publicity and sympathy that the Soviet Union gained from the U2 incident was an excellent example of how to play the undercover war. I am sure the Japanese wouldn't pass up an opportunity to get a little sympathy from the rest of the world either by displaying their capture of 'American spies'.

IMHO

Jeff,
I don't agree. The Cold War lasted for 15 years when the U2 was shot down. There wasn't a Cold War between USA and Japan in 1937, and the Japanese aren't Soviets. If the Japanese got A.E., they would have had more reasons to cover it than to make it public.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Bill Roe on August 02, 2012, 01:31:35 PM
It would have been a bit of a publicity coup for the Japanese to capture the Americans pretending to be on a world record flight around the world, Amelia Earhart and Freddie Noonan (1937)

It would have been a bit of a publicity coup for the Soviet Union to capture the American pretending to be on a weather gathering flight, Francis Gary Powers (1960)

The amount of positive publicity and sympathy that the Soviet Union gained from the U2 incident was an excellent example of how to play the undercover war. I am sure the Japanese wouldn't pass up an opportunity to get a little sympathy from the rest of the world either by displaying their capture of 'American spies'.

IMHO

Jeff,
I don't agree. The Cold War lasted for 15 years when the U2 was shot down. There wasn't a Cold War between USA and Japan in 1937, and the Japanese aren't Soviets. If the Japs got A.E., they would have had more reasons to cover it than to make it public.

I agree with this.  For another thing the U-2 was clearly on an aerial photographic spy sortie.  And was clearly a military airplane.  Earhart and her Electra......well, let's say it would probably have been an embarrassing situation to have "captured" the most well known female aviatrix in the world.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Gary LaPook on August 02, 2012, 03:20:47 PM


I agree with this.  For another thing the U-2 was clearly on an aerial photographic spy sortie.  And was clearly a military airplane.  Earhart and her Electra......well, let's say it would probably have been an embarrassing situation to have "captured" the most well known female aviatrix in the world.
If there was a camera in the plane you destroy the film. Then you notify the world how you "rescued" Earhart and accolades all around. Is Amelia going to dispute this story?

gl

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 02, 2012, 04:40:11 PM
I thought Gary powers U2 was gathering weather data ;)

Were AE and FN not gathering pollen spores ;)
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Bill Roe on August 02, 2012, 05:31:23 PM


I agree with this.  For another thing the U-2 was clearly on an aerial photographic spy sortie.  And was clearly a military airplane.  Earhart and her Electra......well, let's say it would probably have been an embarrassing situation to have "captured" the most well known female aviatrix in the world.
If there was a camera in the plane you destroy the film. Then you notify the world how you "rescued" Earhart and accolades all around. Is Amelia going to dispute this story?

gl

I'm not certain that capability existed in 1937.  If the Japanese had captured her and deemed her a spy, chances are they would have advised the US they have a spy and used her for a negotiation lever in some way.  As a spy, that is. 

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: John Balderston on August 02, 2012, 06:31:47 PM
. . .can anyone shed some light on their overall strategic aim in 37?

Ok, I'll bite (again)  :)

In 1937 Japan's strategic aim was to maintain freedom of navigation to industrial resources in SE Asia and the Indies - rubber, tin, iron and especially petroleum.   In '37 Japan had colonies in Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria.  Military spending to protect these colonial holdings was pushing 50% of a deficit budget; resource stockpiles and foreign currency reserves were dwindling.  In Aug '37 Japan began the full-scale invasion of China, which received the full diplomatic attention of Britain and the U.S. - not good for J. as the two nations pretty much controlled Japan's access to resources, either directly through imports, or with the threat of naval control of Japan's sea lanes.  This attached  WWII propaganda map  (http://2bangkok.com/wwiipropaganda.shtml) provides a pretty good sense of Japan's view of the pre-war situation. 

From Japan's perspective the "mandates" - the Marianas, Carolines and Marshalls - guarded access to the all-important sea lanes.  The Marianas, which through the Bonins were a direct line to and from the home islands, were especially important.  And the Marianas were most unfortunately "perforated" by the U.S.' holding of Guam, less than 120 miles south of Saipan.  The 1923 Washington Naval Treaty had prohibited Japan, Britain and the U.S. from fortifying Western Pacific holdings - all three nations had gotten around the treaty requirement by establishing commercial operations. 

Perhaps the most adroit threading of treaty loopholes was the U.S.' establishment of regular trans-Pacific airline operations - the Pan American Airways "China Clippers".   From Nov. 1935 onward, weekly PAA clipper service from San Francisco to Macau and eventually Hong Kong (via Pearl Harbor, Midway, Wake, Guam and Philippines) established a direct link and complete infrastructure from the U.S. to China - straight through the Marianas.  Perhaps the best measure of the military value of PAA trans-Pacific ops - on Dec. 7 Japan attacked each and every PAA base across the Pacific. 
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Malcolm McKay on August 02, 2012, 06:32:43 PM
I have never bought the spy explanation. The main reason being that the Japanese activities in the islands was like that of other countries with interests in the region a bit of an open secret. In any case if you have a mandate from the League of Nations then construction for administrative purposes like ports, roads, airfields etc, are to be expected. Easy to build things that have dual purposes.

My feeling is that if Earhart came down in the Gilberts somewhere (e.g. a small island) then there may have been a folk memory of a white couple and an aircraft which was transmitted in native gossip further east when the Japanese moved in and started impressing the locals as labour on other islands. Japanese treatment of the indigenous populations of the islands they occupied was pretty bad, unless like in Indonesia they were trying to make a political statement.

I wonder if the Saipan story has its origins in just such a transmitted tale.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Gary LaPook on August 03, 2012, 02:22:34 AM


Perhaps the most adroit threading of treaty loopholes was Pan American Airways' establishment of regular trans-Pacific airline operations - the "China Clippers".   Weekly PAA clipper service from San Francisco to Macau (via Pearl Harbor, Midway, Wake, Guam and Philippines) established a direct link and complete infrastructure from the U.S. to China - straight through the Marianas.  Perhaps the best measure of the military value of PAA trans-Pacific ops - on Dec. 7 Japan attacked each and every PAA base across the Pacific.
Do you think, maybe, that the islands, that just happened to have PAA bases, might have had other strategic value giving Japan a reason to attack them?

gl
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 03, 2012, 03:48:21 AM
Maybe we should look at this in the mirror so to speak and ask what military preperations were being made in 37 by the US, Great Britain and other western nations in their colonies and mandates?
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: pilotart on August 03, 2012, 07:40:11 AM
The American military power in the Pacific had been a fairly gradual buildup (compared to Japan) up until the war in Europe began in 1939.

It wasn't until 1941 that the United States dramatically strengthened its military power in the pacific:

http://gohawaii.about.com/cs/pearlharbor/a/Lest_We_Forget1_2.htm (http://gohawaii.about.com/cs/pearlharbor/a/Lest_We_Forget1_2.htm)

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/shipprofiles/p/pearlharbor.htm (http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/shipprofiles/p/pearlharbor.htm)

http://gohawaii.about.com/od/hawaiianhistory4/ss/lest_we_forget.htm (http://gohawaii.about.com/od/hawaiianhistory4/ss/lest_we_forget.htm)

http://www.pearlharboroahu.com/attack.htm (http://www.pearlharboroahu.com/attack.htm)

http://www.warbirdalley.com/cat.htm (http://www.warbirdalley.com/cat.htm)

On any night/day with solid layers of overcast clouds after October 1936, the US Navy's fleet of Catalina PBY Flying Boats could have been used for a far better aerial recon of the Japanese Activity than sending Amelia and Fred.

I do not know how far out from Hawaii the PBY patrols extended prior to December 7th 1941, but they had the capability for far-ranging  operations.

Radar was not available (before the 'Battle of Britain') to see aircraft hiding in cloud and the PBY's had a range of 2500 miles.

I doubt that Japan would have considered the threat of a clandestine spy mission by Amelia Earhart any comparison with the introduction of the PBY Aircraft to Hawaii, Midway, Guam and the Philippines.

Later on, during the war years, it was Japanese reliance on night transport, which led to the development of the "Black Cat Squadrons." These crews performed nighttime search and attack missions in their black-painted PBYs. The tactics were spectacularly successful and seriously disrupted the flow of supplies and personnel to Japanese island bases.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 03, 2012, 07:45:25 AM
Thanks Art,

tallys with what i've been reading about.  Looks like the three big colonial powers (GB/FR/NL) did little to build up on existing military installations let alone build new ones.

Here's another thought! Why use a plane when you could slip a sub into the area.  Pre war there were less reliable anti sub systems out there and a sub would give greater flexability and a longer pesence in the area.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: John Balderston on August 03, 2012, 09:54:37 AM
Do you think, maybe, that the islands, that just happened to have PAA bases, might have had other strategic value giving Japan a reason to attack them?

Thanks Gary - exactly the point I was trying to make.  The "PAA" bases were infrastructure established for U.S. Navy during the period when fortification was prohibited.  Japan's strategic objective was to protect the sea lanes to SE Asia and the Indies, not "occupy the Pacific".  The objective of IJN's Dec. 7 attacks (Dec. 8 W of dateline) on Pearl Harbor and elsewhere was to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and maintain freedom of navigation in the sea lanes.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: John Balderston on August 03, 2012, 06:03:57 PM
Since this is after all the "Japanese capture theory" thread, I'd like to float a cockamamie spy/capture theory I've kept an eye out for but haven't seen yet.  What if:


What do you think?   ;D
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Bob Lanz on August 03, 2012, 07:20:37 PM
I find it inconceivable that in view of this warning (http://i46.tinypic.com/fp76li.jpg) to AE by the Asst. Sec. of Commerce, that she would risk her life, nor do I believe that the US Government would, and use an untrained civilian to conduct covert operations on their behalf.  AE had enough on her plate than to wander that far off course and spend precious fuel to reach Howland.  Consequently, I don't believe that the Japanese Government was concerned with Amelia Earhart in the least.

Note:  I took the liberty to clean up the directive to make it more readable.

Source: Page 99 of this link (http://www.planefaxreports.com/pfr/pdf/n16020/16020-Registration.pdf) that Art posted on:

Artifact Analysis (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/board,6.0.html) / Re: Artifact 2-2-V-1 - aluminum 'skin' (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg17585.html#msg17585)« on: July 31, 2012, 11:16:50 PM
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Gary LaPook on August 04, 2012, 12:17:38 AM
On May 24, 2010 I attended a talk given by Professor Ernst Tonsing at the California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks California.  Professor Tonsing is a cousin of Amelia's but he was an infant when she disappeared. His great-grandmother was Amelia's grandmother, his grandmother was the sister of Amelia's mother (I think I have that right.) His talk was very interesting with many family stories and photographs. Also present was the daughter of Mr. Foudray, he had worked on the plane at Lockheed. Amelia was a friend of Mr. Foudray and Amelia had taken her flying on several occasions when she was about fifteen years old. Also present was a relative of Amelia's on her father's side.

Most of his talk was about family matters and he related a story that happened about 1951 when he was staying with his grandmother for the summer in Atchison. His grandmother and her sister, Amelia's mother, and Muriel and cousin Lucy were having a discussion in the house. (You can see a picture of Lucy with Amelia on page 24 of  Muriel's book.)

He went into the house and told the four women that he had just heard that someone had said that Amelia had been a spy. All four of the ladies emphatically said it wasn't true and that she was NOT a spy. Cousin Lucy said "Look, I've been a friend of Amelia's since childhood, we've been as close as ...I would know her better than anyone else. She was not a spy, that would have gone against everything that she stood for. She so strongly wanted to prove that a woman could fly around the world fast, she would not compromise that vision for anything."  The other women, Amelia's mother and sister included, agreed.


I have attached a video in two short files of this portion of his talk and I have also attached a photo of Professor Tonsing with the daughter of Mr. Foudray.

gl
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Bob Lanz on August 04, 2012, 03:56:44 AM
Quote
He went into the house and told the four women that he had just heard that someone had said that Amelia had been a spy.


Gary, who was the first person who made that statement to "someone" who the declarant Professor Tonsing heard it from?  I don't have to explain Third Party Hearsay to you.  That statement was for lack of a better word ludicrous.  I am surprised that a man with a PhD would say something like that.  That comment wouldn't pass the smell test in a court of law.  As an attorney, didn't you find it kind of strange or want to question him?  And of course his immediate family members would scoff at such a comment.
Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: Gary LaPook on August 04, 2012, 05:10:49 AM
Quote
He went into the house and told the four women that he had just heard that someone had said that Amelia had been a spy.


Gary, who was the first person who made that statement to "someone" who the declarant Professor Tonsing heard it from?  I don't have to explain Third Party Hearsay to you.  That statement was for lack of a better word ludicrous.  I am surprised that a man with a PhD would say something like that.  That comment wouldn't pass the smell test in a court of law.  As an attorney, didn't you find it kind of strange or want to question him?  And of course his immediate family members would scoff at such a comment.
It doesn't matter from whom Tonsing heard the original story, he was a kid playing outside with other kids, one of them told him, since this only precipitated the event and caused him to ask the question to Amelia's mother, sister and another close cousin. The only thing he was reporting was their response to his question, which is also hearsay, but there are quite a few exceptions to the hearsay rule that allows the introduction of hearsay testimony and the "excited utterance" exception would seem to apply here as well as "statement of personal or family history."

But why do you think Tonsing made up this story? Do you know him? Have you heard that he has a history of dishonesty? Or if you accept that he accurately reported what Amelia's relatives said, why do you think those other relatives lied? Do you have some information that shows that they had a motive to lie about this when their cousin, Tonsing, just a kid, brought it up, they were just talking among family? And this was about 14 years after the disappearance. And I did corner him after his presentation and cross-examined him about it. This was a miniscule part of his talk, maybe one minute out of an hour and a half about growing up in Kansas. He is a professor at California Lutheran University, a pretty straight laced organization.

gl

Title: Re: Japanese capture theories
Post by: JNev on August 07, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
It would have been a bit of a publicity coup for the Japanese to capture the Americans pretending to be on a world record flight around the world, Amelia Earhart and Freddie Noonan (1937)

It would have been a bit of a publicity coup for the Soviet Union to capture the American pretending to be on a weather gathering flight, Francis Gary Powers (1960)

The amount of positive publicity and sympathy that the Soviet Union gained from the U2 incident was an excellent example of how to play the undercover war. I am sure the Japanese wouldn't pass up an opportunity to get a little sympathy from the rest of the world either by displaying their capture of 'American spies'.

IMHO

Jeff,
I don't agree. The Cold War lasted for 15 years when the U2 was shot down. There wasn't a Cold War between USA and Japan in 1937, and the Japanese aren't Soviets. If the Japanese got A.E., they would have had more reasons to cover it than to make it public.

One thing I stumbled across about Howland was the Japanese attack there the day following Pearl Harbor and in days following - from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howland_Island) -

"A Japanese air attack on December 8, 1941 by 14 twin-engined Mitsubishi G3M "Nell" bombers killed two of the Kamehameha School colonists: Richard "Dicky" Kanani Whaley, and Joseph Kealoha Keliʻhananui. The raid came one day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and damaged the three airstrips of Kamakaiwi Field. Two days later a Japanese submarine shelled what was left of the colony's few buildings into ruins.[15] A single bomber returned twice during the following weeks and dropped more bombs on the rubble of tiny Itascatown. The two survivors were finally evacuated by a U.S. Navy destroyer on January 31, 1942. Howland was occupied by a battalion of the United States Marine Corps in September 1943 and known as Howland Naval Air Station until May 1944."

Not that any of that has any bearing whatsoever on AE's disappearance in 1937 - it is merely interesting. 

It does however tell us something of Japanese capabilities in the vicinity in 1941 with WWII breaking loose and how they felt about things at that point. 

The gas these Japanese-obsconded theories get in their tanks may have something to do with perceptions we tend to have of their regional aggressiveness in those years and a sense of a secretive nature about expansion, etc.  I dunno, just 'interesting'. 

My gut feel is that had the Japanese really done her in something would have cracked about it by now.  I also can't quite rationalize how AE would have fallen into their hands anyway (time / space at time) given where she would have reasonably flown (I don't buy the 'spy' stuff), unless Hooven was right about Gardner (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html) and the outcome there.

LTM -