Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:48:23 From: Bill Moss Subject: Fwd: ANONOMALIES OF TIGHAR TRACKS(Sept '97' I have been thinking a good deal about aspects of the present status of the Earhart Project and this appears to be the place to air them. #1)The current thinking as I understand it is that Earhart landed the Electra wheel down on the reef flat "smooth enough to roller skate on". A) A problem with that is that a week later Lt. Lambrecht of the COLORADO flew over the island on a search for her plane, he didn't see it. Now, it couldn't have been submerged because my research shows that the typical island in the Pacific has a total tidal difference of about 2 3/4 feet, far less than necessary to cover the Electra at high tide. I also know that we believe that it might have been moved b y the breakers inland but I wouldn't think it would have disappeared from sight in a week. Incidentally, when I was in the area on the LEXINGTON's search the general weather was very normal, no high surface winds or storms. As I recall, no rain squalls. To straighten out this point,I think the next expedition would do well to measure the tidal range. B) The correlation of the picture of the wrecked airplane missing it's right engine with the 'CANTON engine' would be a great breakthrough. What is the status of the Canton recovery trip? Maybe the above is nitpicking ,but I would really like to hear some discussion . Sincerely...Bill Moss ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:42:59 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Reef Environment Bill Moss raises some excellent questions that have puzzled us for some time. Of course, we still don't have hard answers, but I can at least clarify our hypothesis. In July the tidal fluctuation on the reef flat at Gardner Island (Nikumaroro) is on the order of about 4 and a half feet. In other words, at low tide the broad flat expanse of coral is virtually dry and at high tide there's about 4.5 feet of water. Earhart's aircraft, if landed on the reef flat at low tide, should still be able to make radio transmissions even at high tide given the location of the transmitter, battery and dynamotor. The battery, however, could only be recharged at low (or lowish) tide because that would require running the starboard generator-equipped engine and the prop, of course, would have to clear the water. But this is all predicated on calm seas. If the surf kicks up (and it doesn't take a storm, just a 3 or 4 foot swell), it's a different picture entirely. Then you have surf running across the flat at high tide, slamming into the airplane and pushing it around. When the surf is running there's a strong seaward suck that is enough to knock down a six foot man when the water is only knee deep (ask me how I know). The reef edge is laced with canyons that can be 30 or 40 feet wide, 10 or 12 feet deep, and cut shoreward several hundred feet. Inside these canyons, or fingers, the seaward suck is even stronger. An airplane pushed into one of these fingers by the surf would quickly be dragged out and over the reef edge. For most of the atoll's perimeter, the reef slope is precipitous and falls away at as much as a 45 degree angle to a depth of several thousand feet. However, off the western end, there is a broad sandy shelf at 40 to 60 feet before the slope falls away. We speculate that the aircraft was landed on the reef flat shortly before noon on July 2nd and remained there for 2 and half days until about midnight on July 4th. During that time numerous radio signals were heard which were suspected at the time as being from the lost flight. Between 11 o'clock and midnight on July 4th, US Navy radio at Wailupe, Oahu heard the following fragmentary phrases sent in morse code with "extremely poor keying." 281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ....BEYOND NORTH....WON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER....ABOVE WATER.....SHUT OFF The Navy interpreted this as meaning that the airplane was floating at sea 281 miles north of Howland Island and in danger of sinking. Ships were immediately dispatched to that area. Lockheed, however, quickly responded that the airplane would not be able to transmit if it was floating because of the placement of the radios and the need to run the right-hand engine to recharge the battery. We wonder if the message might have been sent by an aircraft threatened by rising surf on Nikumaroro's reef flat. Without knowing his exact position, Noonan can not determine his distance from Howland Island. However, by means of a simple sun shot he can determine his distance from the equator. If he is on Nikuamaoro that distance is 281 nautical miles. Following this line of reasoning, if the airplane is swept away and sinks off the reef edge on the night July 4th, there is no airplane for the USS Colorado's search planes to see when they overfly the island on July 9th. The Senior Aviator does, however, report "clear signs of recent habitation" on an island that, unbeknownst to him, has been unoccupied since 1892. From the file recently found in Tarawa and the artifacts we have recovered on the island, we know for certain that someone, probably two people, were marooned on Nikumaroro at that time. One of those castaways wore women's shoes made in the U.S. of the same style and size as those worn by Earhart on her final flight. The Gilbertese settlers who arrived at the island a year and a half later found the bones of at least one of the castaways but did not, as far as we know, see anything of the airplane. The first anecdotal report we have of airplane wreckage turning up on the island dates from late 1944 or early 1945 when a USN PBY pilot sees an aircraft control cable being used as a heavy-duty fishing line leader. When asked where it came from, the local people tell him that there was used to be an airplane here. When asked where it is now, they just shrug. The next accounts we have date from the mid-1950s. The island's former-schoolmaster tells of seeing airplane wreckage along the lagoon shore opposite the main passage and his daughter, who was a child at the time, remembers a piece of an airplane wing on the reef flat and wreckage up in the trees along the shoreline on the west end near the main lagoon passage. Aerial photography dating from 1953 confirms the presence of an apparent debris field of aluminum on the reef flat in this location. All of this would be consistent with an airplane that remained submerged in 40 to 60 feet of water on the sandy shelf off the west end until storm activity in the late 1940s and early '50s broke it up and threw the pieces up onto the reef flat where they eventually washed up into the treeline or into the lagoon. This is, of course, speculation and theorizing at this point. We're merely trying to fit the known evidence and possible evidence into a scenario that makes sense based on the environment as we know it. As for the trip to Canton Island to investigate the possibility that one of the engines from the Earhart aircraft was, unknowingly, recovered to that island in 1971; we have received preliminary approval for military C-130 airlift and hope to be able to announce a mission date soon. I hope I've clarified our current thinking. I'll be happy to respond if others have questions or observations. Ric Gillespie TIGHAR ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:38:27 From: Fred Madio Subject: Fwd: RE: Reef Environment Rick Gillespie, et al: Some questions, comments, etc. in response to your note: 1.) Is there any "tide-table" information available for on/about Noon 7/2/37 (I assume so) that could support the idea that she might have actually chosen that reef flat as a likely place to survive a landing? Based on the photo(s) that I've seen in "Tighar Tracks", I know that the reef flat area is the only place I (as a former pilot) would choose -- give the likely state of affairs in the cockpit at the time. Meaning fatigue, fear, uncertainty and probably low fuel reserves, etc.. 2.) I'm sure someone has already thought about this, but -- none of this argument about radio transmissions "works" unless the transmitter's antenna survived the landing, and was installed on the aircraft in a position such that it could radiate effectively over long distances. So the question is: is that long wire underneath the aircraft-- as show in several photos -- the high frequency antenna used with the most likely transmitter (or only transmitter?). Were there any antennas on top of the aircraft that could have been "jurry-rigged" into service in an emergency; assuming she and he knew how to do it. Any background research been done and reported on this line of investigation?? 3.) A "nit-pickie" question: what is the basis for saying toward the end of the first paragraph "inside these canyons, or fingers, the seaward suck is even stronger?" 4.) What about that picture of an aircraft that was published on p. 12 of Tighar Tracks volume 13, number 1/2? Where might it fit into the puzzle? If it checks out as being an Electra model 10E, its very presence on land "shoots a hole in" in the idea that it eventually sank off the edge of the reef -- it doesn't look like it would be easily washed away from the place shown in the photo. 5.) What about the C-130. Does it belong to the USAF? If so, can I possibly help in some way? I currently work for The MITRE Corporation which is a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) for the US Air Force. See you all on the 7th of December Regards: Fred Madio ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:28:17 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: More Reef Questions Responding to Fred Madio's questions: 1. Accurate tidal hind-casting (as it is called) for Nikumaroro is problematical. Detailed tidal observations are only available for Canton Island, 200 miles away. Going back 60 years, if we're only 6 hours off it's the difference between high water and low water. We asked NOAA to do the calculation and they said it was probably low tide at noon on July 2, 1937. We asked the US Navy and they came up with high tide. Bottom line: We can't be sure. 2. The Earhart Electra's transmitting antenna was a V which extended from a dorsal mast just behind the cockpit to the tip of each vertical fin. The lead-in wire to the transmitter entered the starboard side of the fuselage just forward of the cabin window. The Western Electric 13C transmitter was mounted in the cabin just forward of the cabin window. Photos taken before the wreck in Hawaii show the transmitter mounted on the floor (the photo of AE that appears on our website with the caption "Sixty years is long enough to wait." shows her sitting on the transmitter). We're not sure what the arrangement was after the repairs. In any event, the transmitting antenna should have been unaffected by the landing or the water. 3. Fred asked: <> In 1989 we had divers in the water doing a visual inspection of the reef edge. They explored some of these fingers and found the seaward current in the them to be very strong. 4. If the wrecked aircraft in the photo is Earhart's and if it is on Nikumaroro, I think that what we're looking at is wreckage that washed ashore. The hypothetical sequence goes like this: aircraft lands on reef flat; aircraft is washed off reef flat and lays underwater for several years; aircraft is broken up by storm action and pieces are tossed back up on reef flat; pieces of wreckage are washed across reef flat, up onto the beach and back into the treeline. I agree that it's probably still right there. 5. Arrangements for the C-130 mission are presently at a "final aprroval pending" stage so I probably shouldn't jinx it by saying too much right now. As soon as things are finalized I'll brief everybody. Thanks for your patience. Ric Gillespie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:32:22 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Smoking Guns Here's an open question for everyone who has subscribed to the Earhart Forum: As TIGHAR's executive director, I'm very much aware that whatever discoveries we have made or will make relating to the fate of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan are meaningful only to the degree to which they are accepted by the general public (that's you guys). It is my perception that the most commonly held view of what happened to the lost flight is that it ran out of fuel and crashed at sea. There is also a shrinking, but nonetheless vehement, minority who are convinced that Earhart was a spy, that the Japanese had a hand in her disappearance, and that there are still secret documents in the U.S. and/or Japan which would expose the cover-up if they were ever made public. It is my further perception that, due largely to the considerable attention TIGHAR's work has attracted in the media, a growing number of people are aware that evidence has been found to suggest a third possibility - that the flight ended at an uninhabited island where the crew perished after surviving for a time. I wonder how accurate these perceptions are? I'm far too deep in the trees to be able to see the forest. Those of us who are on the research and expedition teams are so immersed in the subject and are so familiar with the building preponderance of evidence that it is sometimes difficult for us to understand why there is not a more widespread public acceptance of our conclusions. It has often been said, by me and by TIGHAR's critics, that what will be needed to lay the Earhart mystery to rest once and for all is the proverbial "smoking gun." This is usually described as something with a serial number which can be matched conclusively to the Earhart aircraft. That would seem to be a no- brainer, but I wonder. Should such an artifact be found by TIGHAR I suspect that you would need a stopwatch to measure how long it would take for someone to charge that the object was a hoax, that we had "salted" the dig, etc. Obviously, the more complex the artifact, the less credible the charges of fraud. Unfortunately, we have no control over that. We find whatever we find. My question is this: What steps can we, as an organization, take to assure you - the interested, skeptical observer - that we are proceeding with our work according to the highest standards of ethics and investigative methodology? After all, it is you - not TIGHAR - who is the judge of what is accepted as historical fact. I'd welcome your opinion. Ric Gillespie Executive Director TIGHAR ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:44:27 EST From: Fred Madio Subject: Fwd: RE: Smoking Guns Rick: I'll think about this and get back to you (soon) with a reasoned answrer. But for the moment there is one "nit-pickie" thing that has been wandering around in my mind since the confrence on 12/7/97. And that is: Since the "Norwich City" wreck was probably a prominent landmark on Gardner Is, on 7/2/97 why didn't AE mention it in any of messages that she -- supposedly (i.e: not hoaxes) -- sent after landing on the Island. To me it would seem more logical than describing her position as " --- 281 something ---". Are there any other credible message fragments that would make more sense if words to the effect: "--- we've landed on an island with a shipwreck on the northwest end ---" were inserted into it?? ps: I'm still working on the "K6AZB" thing. It's a long-shot, but you never know. Regards/ Uncle Traveling Fred. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:36:25 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Earhart messages TIGHAR member Fred Madio recently asked, >Since the "Norwich City" wreck was probably a prominent landmark on Gardner >Is, on 7/2/37 why didn't AE mention it in any of the messages that she -- >supposedly (i.e: not hoaxes) -- sent after landing on the Island. To me it >would seem more logical than describing her position as " --- 281 something >---". Good question. Tough question. Fred is right. The wreck of the S.S. Norwich City, a 397 foot long freighter that went aground in 1929, still looked very much like a ship in 1937. Here are couple of thoughts I've had. The "281" message heard by three U.S. Navy radio operators in Hawaii late on the night of July 4, 1937 is one of the more credible (in my opinion) of the many post-loss radio signals thought at the time to be genuine distress calls from Earhart. It was, however, fragmentary so we are forced to play fill-in- the-blanks. The phrases reported were: 281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF As we discussed at the symposium, the Navy interpreted this as meaning that the plane was afloat on the ocean 281 miles north of Howland Island and immediately dispatched ships to the area. They also told the press that Earhart's rescue was imminent. This brought a reply from Coast Guard headquarters in San Francisco that "radio technicians familiar with radio equipment on plane all state definitely that plane radio could not function now if in water and only if plane was on land and able to operate right motor for power." The ships found nothing in the water north of Howland. The captain of the Itasca later concluded that the "281 message" was "probably a faked message originating in the Hawaiian Islands." But was it? The message was sent on Earhart's frequency - 3105 Kilocycles - and used Earhart's call sign - KHAQQ - but that information was widely published and readily available to any hoaxer. (Radio hoaxing was not uncommon in the 1930s.) More interesting is the fact that the fragmented phrases were sent in morse code with "extremely poor keying." Very few people at the time knew that neither Amelia Earhart nor Fred Noonan was adept at morse code. Indeed, most people today find it incredible that anyone would undertake a world flight in 1937 without at least a working knowledge of the only reliable means of sending radio information. The fact, however, is indisputable. On several occasions during the preparations for the flight, both Earhart and Putnam cautioned the Coast Guard to send information only by voice. Following the disappearance, authorities at Lae, New Guinea confirmed that "...neither of them (Earhart and Noonan) could read morse at any speed but could recognize an individual letter sent several times." If the "281" message was a hoax, the hoaxer somehow had access to this little-known information. If it was not a hoax, the original interpretation was clearly not correct. Recognizing that we are engaging in rank speculation, let's see if we can fill in the blanks in a way that may make more sense. 281 NORTH The complete phrase might logically be LINE (meaning equator) 281 NORTH. Here's why. A navigator who does not have a reliable chronometer can not establish his longitude, but he can quite easily and accurately establish his latitude, that is, his distance from the equator. If he is 281 nautical miles from the equator and on land anywhere within the Electra's possible fuel range he can only be on Gardner Island (Nikumaroro) at 4 degrees 41 minutes South Latitude. So why doesn't he say 4 DEGREES 41 MINUTES SOUTH instead of LINE 281 NORTH? Economy. He has to keep the message as short as possible because time is running out (see remainder of message) and his code sending is very slow and awkward. HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ This might be a request for the radio operator at Howland Island (the closest station) to call them. BEYOND NORTH This is an interesting fragment grammatically. There has to be a noun preceding BEYOND, and, to make any sense, NORTH must be an adjective which modifies another following noun. In other words, we need a noun on each end of this fragment (for example CHAIR BEYOND NORTH TABLE) for it to work as an English phrase. It's also clear that this is an attempt to describe the position of something- specifically, the missing noun at the front. That thing, whatever it is, must be important enough to be included in this apparently desperate message. Of course, the most important position AE and Fred would want to communicate is their own, but I haven't been able to come up with even a speculative final noun for WE ARE BEYOND NORTH (?). However, this could be the reference to the Norwich City shipwreck which (I agree with Fred Madio) should logically be included in such a message. I wonder if the complete phrase might have been SHIPWRECK BEYOND NORTH END OF ISLAND, which is a pretty good description of what the Norwich City would look like from the beach on Nikumaroro where airplane wreckage was later reported seen. DON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER Taken verbatim as a complete phrase, this is a directive to the searchers to give up soon. That makes no sense at all. It seems to me much more likely that the initial D was, in fact, a W. The suggested phrase then becomes (SOMETHING) WON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER. Plane? Radio? Battery? ABOVE WATER This fragment undoubtedly reinforced the Navy's impression that the airplane was afloat at sea. A person on land or in a seaworthy boat does not describe their condition as above water. Idiomatically, the expression carries the implication that the condition may be temporary (as in; I'm keeping my head above water). Used in this context, I strongly suspect that it is an explanation for why (something) won't hold with us much longer. If this message was sent from the Earhart's Electra, the aircraft was "on land and able to operate right motor for power" and yet was somehow threatened by rising water. Tide? Rising surf? SHUT OFF This must either be a request or an explanation for why transmissions are about to cease. I can't imagine a circumstance where Earhart would be asking the searchers to shut off something so I tend to suspect the latter meaning. So here's my guess at the original content of the "281 message": LINE IS 281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ SHIPWRECK BEYOND NORTH END OF ISLAND PLANE WON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER RADIO BARELY ABOVE WATER MUST SHUT OFF NOW For what it's worth, among the several messages reported by amateur radio operators was one which said: "Ship on reef south of Equator." It was assumed at the time that "ship" referred to Earhart's airplane (a common usage in 1937). If, by any chance, the message was legitimate it may have been an attempt to describe a distinguishing feature of Gardner Island. Of course, all of this speculation assumes that Earhart and Noonan didn't know for sure what island they were on, otherwise they'd need only transmit the island's name. How reasonable an assumption is that? Hard to say. We don't know if they had with them a chart that showed the names of the islands of the Phoenix Group. We do know that if they had enough foresight to have with them the only available diagrams of what the islands looked like, the shape of Gardner on the chart versus what they saw out the window would have convinced them that they must be somewhere else. Opinions, observations and ideas always welcome. Ric Gillespie TIGHAR ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 11:19:08 EST From: Fred Madio Subject: Fwd: RE: Earhart messages Ric, Thanks for the quick reply. To me "LINE IS 281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ SHIPWRECK BEYOND NORTH END OF ISLAND PLANE WON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER RADIO BARELY ABOVE WATER MUST SHUT OFF NOW" is, at least, a reasonably plausible interpretation of the fragmented message; good job. Now for a follow up question relating to the last sentence in the last paragraph of your response. By -- "We do know that if they had enough foresight to have with them the only available diagrams of what the islands looked like, the shape of Gardner on the chart versus what they saw out the window would have convinced them that they must be somewhere else." -- do you mean that the graphical representation(s) of Gardner did not look much like the real shape of the island -- even when compared to photos taken during the 30s, 40s, and 50s? Am I right, or am I right? R/... uncle traveling Fred ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 11:54:32 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Bad Maps Fred asks: >Now for a follow up question relating to the last sentence in the >last paragraph of your response. By -- "We do know that if they had enough >foresight to have with them the only available diagrams of what the islands >looked like, the shape of Gardner on the chart versus what they saw out the >window would have convinced them that they must be somewhere else." -- do you >mean that the graphical representation(s) of Gardner did not look much like >the real shape of the island -- even when compared to photos taken during the >30s, 40s, and 50s? Am I right, or am I right? You're absolutely right. The first anything-like-accurate map of Gardner was produced by the British Admiralty from a 1935 survey by HMS Wellington, but unfortunately that map was not published and publicly available until after Earhart's flight. The only representation of the island's outline publicly available in 1937 was a U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office chart first published in 1872 and last corrected in March 1935 (without benefit of the Royal Navy's information). It shows a squarish island less than two miles long, with a small inlet at the northwest end. The actual atoll, of course, is a long skinny ribbon of land nearly four miles long surrounding an extensive central lagoon. Interestingly, the more accurate Admiralty chart was not even available to the British Colonial Service in 1937 when Harry Maude and Eric Bevington visited the island in October of that year. They were amazed to find an atoll that was quite different from the one they expected. Ric Gillespie TIGHAR ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:21:42 EST From: Jerry Gerdes Subject: Fwd: Re: Bad Maps Ric and others: I certainly enjoy reading these ongoing dialogs. Sorry I cannot contribute but please keep this forum going. Regards, Jerry Gerdes ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:24:43 EST From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Earhart messages TIGHAR member Fred Madio recently said, >I marvel at your determination and ability to puzzle out the various >incongruities in this matter. Fred is right! The Norwich City was the best landmark available. It could be seen almost as well as the island. Being a critic is usually a sure way to wind up looking stupid .. as I have learned the hard way, so I do my best to hold back. "281 North" did not set well with me from the beginning & it was somethng I asked you about three or four years ago. Referring to ones position by stating that the equator (or destination or whatever) is x miles AWAY in some direction is like the polish pilot story. Approaching a trw, Stanley says to the copilot, "lets make a 360 and get the hell out of here." Since 281 matches the distance from the equator, the temptation is overpowering to try to fit it in somehow. I think you are on the right track in trying to add some words that may have been missing, but I do not believe that 281 North meant the location of the equator (or Howland or anywhere) in relation to their position. Something is still missing. Given their code ability, numbers are especially suspect. 1 & 6 are opposites (.---- & - ....) as are other numbers. Regards, RC #941 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:49:00 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: North or South? Yes. Describing your position by saying where something is in relation to yourself (the tree is 10 feet north of me) rather than where you are in relation to the object (I'm 10 feet south of the tree) seems like a bass- ackwards way of doing it. And it's the main thing about the 281 message that bothers me. At the same time, as you note, the coincidence of the number 281 matching the distance from the equator to Gardner is difficult to dismiss. You mention that, given it's awkward method of transmission, there's lots of room for doubt that what was copied was what was intended. That may be even truer than you think. One of the odd things about the 281 message is that the original document reporting it's reception does not come from the source that received it. In the wee hours of July 5, 1937 an official message from the Coast Guard's Hawaiian Section to the Itasca said that U.S. Navy Radio Wailupe (in Hawaii) had heard...etc. We don't have anything directly from Navy Radio Wailupe. We have copies of all the official radio traffic that passed between government agencies involved in the search, but nothing from Wailupe. Why? I suspect that it's because the guys at Wailupe, upon copying the 281 message, picked up the phone and called the Coast Guard across town and told them what they'd just heard. If that's what happened, it opens up a whole new possibility for transmission error. Not only do we have three experienced operators trying to copy badly sent code, but we have whatever they heard then tranmitted by voice to the first person who rendered it in a lasting written version. What are the chances that somewhere along the way "281 SOUTH" became "281 NORTH?" Spelled out, the two words differ in only two letters. Spoken over the telephone, the words sound somewhat similar. The occurence of the word NORTH in a subsequent phrase might increase the chance of an error. In case you haven't noticed, the 281 message can drive you nuts. Ultimately, it's original content and veracity are unknowable even if we finally prove that the airplane's fate perfectly matches our speculative completion of the message. Still, it's the sort of enigma that makes the Earhart case so fascinating. Ric Gillespie TIGHAR ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 22:40:13 EST From: Jim Cain Subject: Re: Smoking Gun I can understand your concerns about public skepticism regarding the efforts of TIGHAR to uncover artifacts and other information related to the Earhart Project. As an outside observer, the skepticism seems to always be there in press coverage and even in the television documentaries recently produced and aired. The ideal antidote to skepticism related to the TIGHAR theory on AE would be to find the AE Lockheed 10E. How profound and indisputable that would be ! If that aircraft did indeed wind up on Nikumororo (Gardner Island), substantial remains should still be there or nearby (in the water?). The small native population that inhabited the island post 1937 would not seem to have had the motivation, tools or resources to disassemble & move the aircraft such that no substantial parts are left to be found. I think the credibility of the TIGHAR AE theory (in the eyes of the public) has diminished with each successive expedition which did not turn up substantial aircraft remains. The island is small and it has been thoroughly scouted (as I understand). The nearby waters have been scouted. No significant (large) aircraft artifacts have been found. To respond to your question about steps to take, I would first suggest that the TIGHAR Earhart Project needs the backing of a substantial, recognized authority or organization who's ethical standards, credibility and endorsement would significantly enhance the TIGHAR mission and credibility in the eyes of the public. Suggestions might include Lockheed (builder of the aircraft), Allied Signal (formerly Bendix Radio, builder of the AE comm & nav electronics), The Smithsonian, a major university, a Putnam or Earhart based foundation, U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, etc. Second, I would suggest that the expedition team (finders of evidence & artifacts ) should be composed of individuals and organizations with credentials and integrity that can play well under public and press scrutiny. (For example, has any thought been given to contacting the Woods Hole Marine Research Institute to see if they would be interested in assisting with the search of waters around Nikumororo ?). The artifacts found and information obtained to date are all interesting and important, but small pieces of the puzzle are not conclusive evidence and will never overcome public skepticism. If an item is small (shoe parts, bottle caps, pieces of aluminum, etc.) and it takes a lab test to determine that something might be or is related to AE, these can be preceived as possibly faked, misrepresented or mistaken. TIGHAR needs to find some "big stuff" that could not possibly be faked, misrepresented or mistaken. Jim Cain TIGHAR Member ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:39:23 EST From: Fred Madio Subject: Re: Smoking Gun Ric, I think Jim Cain's comments hit the nail right on the head. He was able to put into words what has only been rattling around in the back of my head since you sent out your message last week. I especially agree with his comment that "I think the credibility of the TIGHAR AE theory (in the eyes of the public) has diminished with each successive expedition which did not turn up substantial aircraft remains." To follow up on that line of thinking, I might add my "two-cents-worth" by suggesting that TIGHAR's efforts may soon suffer from too much media exposure. One more "roll of the dice" (meaning the proposed Niku IIII expidition) without producing a blockbuster artifact might lead to irreversible damage to TIGHARs credibility. One of the lingering residual problems with the entire Earhart/Noonan mystery is that it has been "solved" too many times. So -- after all the very professional quality work you all have done to date -- it would be a shame if TIGHARs efforts were to loose credibility at the last moment by being preceived as one more "solution" that went off half-cocked. Therefore,it might be a good time to "make haste slowly." At the moment, I think time is your greatest ally. So far as I know, there are no other groups (not counting the perennial crop of arm-chair-speculators/authors) working this mystery as diligently and carefully as TIHGAR. Whatever artifacts/evidence are still out there to be found will not likely be desturbed and will eventually be found; I don'think you will be "scooped" by anyone at this late date. So -- if it's not too late to do so, it might be wise to delay the next expidition until the odds of success can be noticable improved in your favor. Beside preserving cash, it also buys TIGHAR time to check out some other promising leads (e.g. the engine on Kanton, etc.). While on the subject of the engine and your plans to get it, could I make a suggestion? I recall you saying that you were thinking of an over-fight of Gardner Is. on your return trip from Kanton. Right? If so, I think you might find it very useful to take an Infrared camera along with you and "photograph" some of your candidate sites on Gardner. They are no more difficult to use than a video camcorder, and I have reason to believe that the people with the C-130 might have access to one. If not, they can be rented at a price that is relatively peanuts compared to the cost of fuel for the aircraft. I know from experience that IR imagery can be very useful. If there is anything metallic in the jungle, IR imagery will make it light up. Sorry it took so long to say so little, but to partially quoke Mark Twain (I think) "I didn't have time to make it short" Regards: Fred Madio ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:44:58 EST From: Robert Sherman Subject: Code or Voice? RIC: RE: the "281" message. 3105 was a voice freq. at the beginning of WWII at least. At that time cw was not used on voice freq.. Question: Was the subject msg and/or others during those three days sent in code (cw) or voice?? I suspect from my review of what you have written over the last few years on the subject, all msgs. while the plane was in the air were voice. Were the subsequent msgs. diferent? RC #941 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:31:07 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Code or Voice? Bob Sherman asks: >Question: >Was the subject msg and/or others during those three days sent in code (cw) >or voice?? The 281 message was described as "Keyed transmission, extremely poor keying behind carrier." In other words, although 3105 (and also Earhart's other frequency, 6210) were standard aviation voice frequencies, this message was sent in morse code. There is good reason to believe that Earhart did not have a morse code sending key aboard the airplane for the second world flight attempt, so the only way she could send code would be to either turn the transmitter on and off (in which case the carrier wave would also go on and off) or use the microphone push-to-talk switch. The latter would seem to be the method used in this case because the carrier wave was uninterupted. Most of the radio transmissions suspected of being from Earhart involved neither voice nor code, but were merely unexplained, very weak carrier wave transmissions on 3105. In modern terminology, somebody was heard to "break squelch" on 3105 in a part of the world where no one but Earhart was expected to be on that frequency. In some cases, a voice was heard - sometimes male, sometimes female - but the speech was unintelligible. Anyone who has struggled with HF radio has had similar experiences. As for the radio transmissions when the plane was in flight, everything Earhart sent out was in English. Ric Gillespie TIGHAR ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:51:27 EST From: Robert C. Sherman Subject: Re: Code or Voice? Your reply knocks a couple of props out of my original understanding from reading the earlier Tighar reports. Code msgs keyed by press to talk are modulated carrier, no better than voice & harder to decode than from a key. I wonder how solid the df bearing info was from very weak signals. I admire your philosophy of using only at least reasonably proved facts, and hope the radio data fell within that criteria. I suspect that you have periods of feeling unloved - as it pertains to the monumental amount of work you have done on AE. If you were to quit now, it would not have been a failure. There are kernals of truth in the several recent messages from a couple members, but show me a guy that could not have done something better and we are looking at someone who has never done anything. On the other hand, media exposure is a flimsy, momentary thing of little real substance; primarily a feel good thing. The great unwashed do not retain 0.1% of what the see and hear in the media for more than a few minutes at most. They have a voracious appetite for the new, especially that with spice. History is a thing of the past, thus of little excitement. [If the riddle was solved tomorrow, it would die before the end of the week]. Big names might help bring in some money but only kids buy things because some million dollar star of the moment endorses it. The rest of us know better. I suspect that Canton Isle. will be the clincher. If that engine does not belong to AE's L-10, the investigation for all practical purposes will languish until there is a substantial breakthru. Isn't there someone you can trust in that part of the world to take a look at the engine, check serial #'s, photo it from several angles & make a few measurements? I'm sure that has not escaped you, but it makes a lot of sense before a long expensive trip, thus worth some hard thought and serious looking into. A very merry Christmas to you and Pat and may the new year and beyond be the best ever for both of you. RC #941 ================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:04:41 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Smoking Gun Reply Jim Cain and Fred Madio have each provided some excellent observations and suggestions on the issue of TIGHAR credibility regarding the Earhart case. I'd like to pick some sentences out of each of their messages and offer a response. Jim: >The ideal antidote to skepticism related to the TIGHAR theory on AE >would be to find the AE Lockheed 10E. How profound and indisputable >that would be ! No kidding. There would, inevitably, be a vocal minority who would say we planted it there (Sure. We found the Earhart aircraft someplace else and planted it on Niku just to make ourselves look good.) or that the Japanese or the U.S. government took it out of storage and planted it there for us to find. Those people will be dealt with by the New World Order. For rational folks, the discovery of substantial, conclusively identifiable wreckage from NR16020 on or just offshore Nikumaroro would be sufficient. Jim: >I think the credibility of the TIGHAR AE theory (in the eyes of the >public) has diminished with each successive expedition which did not turn up >substantial aircraft remains. Probably true. That's the problem with conducting a difficult and complex investigation in full public view. It's a whole lot better to pursue the project quietly and only announce results when they are final and conclusive (as in, Hey everybody! We just found the Titanic!). Of course, to do that you have get your funding from someplace other than the public (such as, the Woods Hole Marine Research Institute and the U.S. Navy). That way you can go through the whole tedious and disappointing search process and only disappoint people who understand that searchs are, for the most part, tedious and disappointing. If that was an option for TIGHAR, you can bet that we would take it in a nano-second. We only turned to the general public (as represented by the TIGHAR membership) for funding because there was no other choice. If you want a real laugh sometime, try going to the established community that funds scientific and historical research and ask them for money to search for Amelia Earhart. Jim: >I would first suggest that the TIGHAR Earhart Project needs the >backing of a substantial, recognized authority or organization who's ethical >standards, credibility and endorsement would significantly enhance the TIGHAR >mission and credibility in the eyes of the public. Well, believe it or not, we've tried. Here's what happened. Back when we started the project, we went to Lockheed. The company was generous with photos and research material but said they wouldn't endorse any project that focused attention on "beloved Americans who died in Lockheed airplanes." We then went to the Smithsonian but, incredible as it sounds, we couldn't find anyone there who would pay attention to the scholarly research that was being done. Spokespersons were quick to share TIGHAR's media exposure in the role of learned critics but we couldn't even get them to first read the research material we provided. Then along came NOVA, the highly-respected public television science series. They wanted to do an unbiased, critical televison special about TIGHAR's work. Here at last was an opportunity for real peer review. From May to December 1996 we spent literally thousands of hours familiarizing NOVA's staff with our work, providing photographs, documents, answering innumerable questions and challenges. It was an intellectually stimulating and rewarding experience but, unfortunately, the business side of WGBH (the Boston station that produces NOVA) proved impossible to work with. When we finally, regretfully, terminated our negotiations with NOVA and accepted an attractive offer from ABC and Discovery, WGBH reponded by bringing suit against TIGHAR, and me personally, for the supposed breach of a contract that never existed. Eleven months and many thousands in legal fees later, WGBH dropped the suit. Most recently, we've once again been in contact with Lockheed, now Lockheed/Martin, and have received a far more genial reception. There is still little hope of financial help, but at least the company's Corporate Communications department has recognized the serious nature of our research. We also plan to approach Allied Signal in the near future. We are aware of no Earhart or Putnam-based foundations , although members of the Putnam family are members of TIGHAR and periodically contribute to our work. >Second, I would suggest that the expedition team (finders of evidence & >artifacts ) should be composed of individuals and organizations with >credentials and integrity that can play well under public and press >scrutiny. We tried that too. Our first expedition in 1989 was staffed according to the conventional wisdom that we should have experts with credentials in various fields. Big mistake. Conventional wisdom, it turns out, is based upon a Hollywood convention. For the kind of work we're doing out there you don't need a group of experts (who, too often, tend to be self-important primadonnas), you need a team of bright, brave, level-headed generalists. After you get home you need experts to help figure out what the team found. >TIGHAR needs to find some "big stuff" that could not possibly be >faked, misrepresented or mistaken. Amen. And if we don't find the big stuff it won't matter what corporation or university endorsed the search, nor will it matter how many PhDs were on the team that didn't find anything big. Fred wrote: >If it's not too late to do so, it might be wise to delay the next >expedition until the odds of success can be noticably improved in your favor. >Beside preserving cash, it also buys TIGHAR time to check out some other >promising leads (e.g. the engine on Kanton, etc.). I sure wish we had some cash to preserve. What is important is to maintain the momentum of the project, to keep pushing forward. We do plan to do the Kanton mission before Niku IIII (scheduled for Aug/Sept. of 1998). With luck, the Kanton mission could happen in late February. We have preliminary approval for what amounts to the charter of a military C-130. Prospects for final approval appear good and a go-ahead for the mission is expected within a few weeks. Funding (possibly over $100,000) will have to be raised to pay for the airplane. To have a hope of raising the money we have no choice but to go to the public and the media (unless somebody reading this wants to stroke a check. Just make it payable to TIGHAR). As usual, that means conducting our crap shoot in full public view and subjecting ourselves to charges of being merely publicity seekers. If the expedition is successful in recovering one of Earhart's engines, we'll be heros. If it doesn't, TIGHAR will have run one more expensive trip without achieving dramatic results. >I recall you saying that you were thinking of an over-flight of >Gardner Is. on your return trip from Kanton. Right? If so, I think you might >find it very useful to take an Infrared camera along with you and "photograph" >some of your candidate sites on Gardner. Yes. We're planning on contracting with an aerial survey company to do both large format normal spectrum photography and infrared. Finally, let me say that we have always felt that one of the most important purposes of the Earhart Project is to demonstrate publicly how to figure out the truth. Part of that demonstration is letting everybody see that it's a long, painful process frought with more failure than success. Although the nine years and four expeditions of the Earhart Project don't look much like an Indiana Jones movie, we've actually been quite amazed at how much evidence we have found. Clearly, we need to find more. We are, and have been, eager to ally ourselves with credibility-enhancing organizations, companies or institutions, but we won't relinquish control of the project nor will we abandon substance for the sake of appearances. I hope I haven't responded too negatively to the suggestions made and I further hope that my explanations have provided some insight into what it has been like to push this project forward. Thanks, and I look forward to further discussion on this and other facets of the investigation. Ric Gillespie TIGHAR ============================================================ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:03:48 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: More on Code or Voice Something over 300 alleged post-loss Earhart radio transmissions were reported in 1937. All of them were ultimately declared by the U.S. Coast Guard to be other than legitimate, but that was a politcal rather than a scientific statement. Some were undoubtedly phoney. Many are highly questionable. A few are difficult to dismiss. Those are the ones we have concentrated on. The df bearings were taken on weak signals and went far beyond the acknowledged limits of the equipment. That was fully understood at the time, and yet Pan Am operators who used the equipment regularly believed that the bearings might be legitimate. I respect their judgement. In the end, the post-loss transmissions fall short of providing convincing evidence of the aircraft and crew's survival after July 2nd. They are not a stand-alone solution to the mystery. They may, however, be part of the puzzle. Ric Gillespie TIGHAR ====================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:44:33 EST From: Fred Madio Subject: artifact 2-2-V-1 ------------------ Ric, I've just been re-reading your notes on the web concerning artifact 2-2-V-1 and I have a couple of questions. 1.) Was the "...significant corrosion ... an area roughly 1.5 inches in diameter ..." ever analyised in any way that might indicate the cause of the corrosion? If it could be demonstrated that the corrosion was caused by battery acid, than the case for suspecting that the aluminum skin came from the "patch" gets somewhat stronger. Yes/No/Maybe? 2.) It seems odd to me that this patch (done at Lockheed in Burbank CA ??) was installed with the "AL" facing the exterior of the aircraft. Lockheed is/was not known for "sloppy" workmanship like this (right?). So --- I'm wondering if this could suggest that 2-2-V-1 might be some sort of interior panel installed close to the battery box. Regards/ Fred Madio ================================================================ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:56:49 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Reply re 2-2-V-1 >1.) Was the "...significant corrosion ... an area roughly 1.5 inches in >diameter ..." ever analyised in any way that might indicate the cause of the >corrosion? If it could be demonstrated that the corrosion was caused by >battery acid, than the case for suspecting that the aluminum skin came from >the "patch" gets somewhat stronger. Yes/No/Maybe? We considered having testing done until we learned that while we might be able to prove that the corrosion was due to sulfuric acid, we could not determine whether the acid came from a battery or from bird poop. Bummer. >2.) It seems odd to me that this patch (done at Lockheed in Burbank CA ??) >was installed with the "AL" facing the exterior of the aircraft. Lockheed >is/was not known for "sloppy" workmanship like this (right?). So --- I'm >wondering if this could suggest that 2-2-V-1 might be some sort of interior >panel installed close to the battery box. Excellent point. Like you, we wondered whether the skin being installed label-side-out might be an indication of an interior component or a hasty repair, until we came across an illustration in a book on aircraft construction which shows new Lockheed 10s being built at Burbank with the label side out. Lord knows why they sometimes did it that way, but they did. The fact that the Alcoa labeling on 2-2-V-1 is on the exterior of the skin is actually an argument in favor of it being done at Lockheed Burbank. Ric Gillespie TIGHAR ======================================================== Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 08:23:37 EST From: Fred Madio Subject: Re: Code or Voice ------------------ Ric and Pat, DON'T QUIT NOW. Your leads are solid; follow them and "trust your feelings Luke." Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to both of you. R/... Fred ============================================== Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 08:45:37 EST From: Bill Moss Subject: RECENT DISCUSSIONS I have been reading the recent discussions re 'SMOKING GUN' and agree with a lot of points on all sides. Also have been reading and rereading a couple of TIGHAR TRACKS and an analysis of the Earhart mystery in "DEEPSEEKER" (available on www) and have a couple of observations to make. #1 As to public attitude to the TIGHAR approach to the solution I am unaware of any publicity about the GALLAGHER PAPERS.While the identification of the bones is murky, the sextant box and the Benedictine bottle are pretty solid evidence that a caucasian person or persons were on the island before 1940. I am still persuing the PANAM aspect of the numbers on the sextant box but to date what I considered my best source has turned out to have died about a year ago and the answer of getting access to the PANAM HISTORICAL FOUNDATION has been postponed till after the New YEAR. Also I am awaiting answers from the other four ex PANAMERS. #2 The Canton engine if found and identified with Earhart's plane would be a very important discovery. Every effort should be put into that project but I confess that I have no more ideas as to how to do that. #3 My calculations re the best guess as to the amount of fuel left when the plane reported running on the line 357-157 and the resulting range show that besides Nikumaroro there are 5 other islands ... Baker, Enderbery, Mackean, Birnie, Hull, and Canton. Has any thought been given to them as the location of the crash picture? #4 Finally, I agree that the NIKU IV expedition should have as its prime objective that finding of the wreckage rather than the recovery of incidental small items. I have always been skeptical of the wreckage washing under water in the week after they landed there gear down before the Navy plane searched the island and then reappeared in the late 1950's as the Funafuti people described. So to me, finding enough wreckage WOULD be the highest priority. Bill moss ================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:12:54 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Reply to RECENT DISCUSSIONS Bill, Thanks for your comments. >As to public attitude to the TIGHAR approach to the solution I am >unaware of any publicity about the GALLAGHER PAPERS. The Gallagher Papers (which we've been calling the Tarawa File, but I like Gallagher Papers better, thank you) turned up just after both the ABC and Discovery documentaries were "in the can." In the late 20th century, news does not exist if it breaks after deadline. We put out a press release but nobody picked it up. Consequently, the public per se is not aware of this major development in the Earhart case. >...the resulting range show that besides Nikumaroro there are 5 other >islands ... Baker, Enderbury, Mackean, Birnie, Hull, and Canton. Has any >thought been given to them as the location of the crash picture? Yup. Baker, Enderbury, McKean, Birnie and Canton do not now, and never have had, dense vegetation like that seen in the photo. The picture could have been taken on Hull. At the time Earhart disappeared, Hull was occupied by a number of Tokelau laborers who were harveting copra. The resident manager/overseer was John Jones, an employee of the Burns-Philp Company. When the USS Colorado's aircraft were in the neighborhood searching for Earhart a week later, the Senior Aviator, John Lambrecht, landed his floatplane in the lagoon at Hull. Jonsey came out in a canoe and talked to him. Lambrecht later reported that Jones knew nothing of the Earhart disappearnace and had not even been aware of Earhart's flight. It is theoretically possible that the Electra managed to come down unnoticed on or near Hull Island in a location far from the village, but we are aware of no reports of wreckage found, or folklore about human remains being found, let alone documentation of discovered remains such as we have at Gardner. Ric Gillespie TIGHAR ==================================================== Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 12:28:04 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Sextant Research The following report was sent by TIGHAR researcher Peter Ifland who is an authority on sextants. A little background information is in order. The Gallagher Papers establish that a box for an "old fashioned" sextant was found on Gardner Island in 1940 near the bones which are suspected of being either Earhart's or Noonan's (see The Tarawa File on the TIGHAR website). To date, TIGHAR researchers in the U.S. and in Britain have examined roughly 500 sextant/sextant boxes and have found exactly one which has numbers written on the outside of the box. It is a German instrument manufactured by W. Ludolph of Bremerhaven which is now in the collection of the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Florida. It was given to the museum by a retired Naval officer and PanAm pilot who certified that he borrowed it from Fred Noonan while he was taking navigational instruction from Noonan at PanAm. It is known that it was Noonan's practice to make his celestial observations with a state-of-the-art bubble octant, but also carry a conventional nautical sextant as a "preventer." Ric Gillespie TIGHAR ************************************************************ The "Pensacola Ludolph" Thanks for sending the photographs of the "Pensacola Ludolph". The record seems clear that this instrument once belonged to Fred Noonan. The instrument is a sea-going rather than an aviation artificial horizon bubble sextant. Technically, the instrument should be described as an octant, rather than a sextant, since the scale is calibrated to only 115o, as is common for octants, a little more than an eighth of a circle, while sextants are calibrated to greater than 120o, a sixth of a circle. The style looks to me like the early 1900's. (Note from Ric: Peter is correct. Another researcher has dated the piece to 1919.) There is a full set of telescopes and eyepieces, one of which probably is a low power inverting telescope. The numbers stamped on the scale, "XIX" and "1090" probably are Ludolph's model and serial number (Note from Ric: the "XIX" denotes the year of manufacter) and seem to bear no relation to the numbers "3547" and "173" scrawled by hand on the bottom of the box. The "Pensacola Ludolph" bears a lot of similarities to the sextant and box Gallagher found on Gardner Island. Gallagher's instrument also is "old fashioned" with black painting over the brass frame. Gallagher describes am inverting eyepiece in the box he found. "3500" on Gallagher's box is not that different from "3547" on the Pensacola box but "1542" on the Gardner box is a little more remote from the "173" on the Pensacola box. Gallagher's numbers were stenciled while the Pensacola numbers are crudely hand written. Both sets of numbers appear not to be manufacturers numbers. Octants are commonly described as sextants and Gallagher might not have picked up the difference Why would Noonan have had an almost antique German octant? Despite its age, the Ludolph instrument would be light weight, more than sufficiently accurate for practical navigation, and simple enough to be useful as a teaching instrument. Would Noonan have had access to two Ludolph instruments? Possibly. At one point in his Pan Am career, Noonan seems to have been teaching navigation to other Pan Am pilots and it is possible that several Ludolph instruments might have been available for class room instruction. If the numbers on the boxes are not Ludolph numbers, might they be from Pan Am's numbering system? Invoice numbers? Inventory numbers? Maybe worth checking if the Pan Am records are still available. Did the Gardner Island sextant belong to Noonan? In net, Noonan's "Pensacola Ludolph" strengthens that possibility but does not confirm it. LTM Peter ============================================= Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 08:34:49 EST From: Peter Ifland Subject: National Geographic on AE I suppose by now everyone will have seen the warm, personal, feminine article on AE in the latest National Geographic, January, 1998, pp112-135. They've even set up a forum at www.nationalgeographic.com. Best wishes to all for the holidays. LTM Peter ============================================ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 08:48:25 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: National Geo AE article I was struck by two things that were absent from National Geographic's Earhart article: 1. Linda Finch's face. 2. Any mention whatsoever of TIGHAR, even though top management at National Geo has long been familiar with our research, has met personally with TIGHAR management, and thought highly enough of our work to want to cover our 1991 expedition. What they weren't willing to do was pay a reasonable fee for the media rights they wanted. They didn't get the story so the story ceased to exist. ======================================================== Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 16:49:57 EST From: Tom Cook Subject: 1937 search why wasn't Gardner searched on the ground if evidence of recent habitation was reported from the air? The Navy had seaplanes available, didn't they? ============================================= Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 17:26:44 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: 1937 Search Tom Cook asks: >Why wasn't Gardner searched on the ground if evidence of recent >habitation was reported from the air? The Navy had seaplanes available, >didn't they?> Several factors probably influenced the decision not to put a search party ashore at Gardner. 1. The possible significance of "signs of recent habitation" was apparently not recognized, even though the current Sailing Directions of the time described the island as uninhabited. 2. There was considerable urgency to continue the search and examine the remaining islands of the Phoenix Group where, for all the searchers knew, the airplane could be parked on a beach and its crew in desperate need of rescue. 3. There was also pressure for Colorado to conclude her search and head for home. The battleship had been commandeered for the Earhart search while in Hawaii on its annual ROTC training cruise. Aboard were 196 ROTC cadets and 4 college VIPs who were already long overdue for their return to California and Washington. 4. Colorado's captain was very hesitant to approach any of the islands due to his distrust of the available charts. This was his last cruise in command of the battleship and he was not about to risk putting her aground on a remote coral reef. The aircraft employed in the Colorado's search were floatplanes (Vought 03U-3 Corsairs) capable of landing in the lagoons but that would not have done them much good. The water shallows very gradually in Gardner's lagoon and they could not have gotten the airplane anywhere near the shore without running aground. If they got stuck or hit a submerged coral head they would have been in a real fix. A lagoon landing was actaully made at the next island - Hull - which was inhabited by laborers and a white overseer who paddled out to greet the airplane in a canoe. Pleasantries were exchanged and the airplane took off again without the crew ever leaving the cockpit. Ric Gillespie TIGHAR