Date:         Fri, 2 Jan 1998 12:21:39 EST
 From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:      1937,  signs of Habitation

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?

Ric provided an excellent reply to this.   I agree with all his statements.    However, I would like to add some additional thoughts and information.  Reports of various people  seeing signs of previous habitation on Gardner/Nikumaroro Island are discussed below.    Prior to the disappearance of Earhart 1937, at least one visitor to the island reported seeing signs of human occupation.    Within months of  the Earhart flight, In addition to the Navy, at least one other person saw signs of human activity.

    Lets examine what other visitors saw and what they reported both contemporaneously and during later interviews or correspondence.    This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of visitors to the island.

Reference No.
1.  NIKU Source Book 
2.  TIGHAR TRACKS, March 12, 1992, Volume 8, Number 1/2 
3.  Tom Kings personal files and Email messages to Kenton Spading (and others) 
4.  Kenton Spading's field notes from NIKU III and various Email messages to TIGHAR members. 
5.  TIGHAR TRACKS, June 15, 1993, Volume 9, Number 2  

VISITORS, GROUP NO. 1,  November 1929 
J. Thomas, Eyewitness Account of Gardner Island following the wreck of the Norwich City,   See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 14.  Mr. Thomas was a survivor of  the S.S. Norwich City which ran aground on Gardner Island in November 1929.    Mr. Thomas states in a hand written note,   (original spelling and grammar left intact):  [J.T. referring to Gardner Island]  "Near the palms we found two desused galvanised roofed huts and a large water tank which were in a state [of] collapse, but which indicated to us that the island had at one time been inhabitated most probably with a view of growing coconuts.......]  The huts and water tank Mr. Thomas refers to were undoubtedly left behind by the John T. Arundel group.    Mr. Arundel obtained a coconut (copra) license from the British government on Feb. 1, 1891.  A group of natives were left on the island that year (some were reported to have arrived prior to 1891....).   When the HMS Curacoa visited the island on May 28, 1892, 20 Niue natives (under the command of an Englishman) were working on the coconut project.    Apparently the project  was abandoned later that year.   Later,  Harry Maude reported 111 coconut bearing trees when he visited Gardner in October 1937.   See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 15.      The aforementioned  Document No. 15 mentions that Sir Albert Ellis found coconut bearing trees on the island during his visit in 1890 (a secondary source of info).

VISITORS, GROUP NO. 2,  July 9, 1937 
Lt. John O. Lambrecht's (and crew) report on his flight  over Gardner Island on July 9, 1937 as part of the search for Amelia Earhart carried out by the USS Colorado. See Reference No. 5, Page 6.  Lt. Lambrecht wrote in his report of the flight over Gardner Island:   "Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there"  During an interview with Mr. Lambrecht in 1972 he stated that he saw "markers"  (See Reference No. 5, Page 6).  

VISITORS, GROUP NO. 3,  October 1937
Eric Bevington and Harry Maude (and natives), Excerpts from Mr. Bevington's diary and correspondence with Harry Maude regarding their visit to Gardner in October 1937.    See Reference No. 2, Pages 6 and 7.  Harry Maude and Eric Bevington visited the island  in October of 1937 to conduct a survey as part of a colonial resettlement project.      Mr. Bevington stated in his diary that he saw "signs of previous habitation" on the island.      During an interview in 1992 he stated that (as best he could recall) "it wasn't much.....like someone had bivouaced for the night"      He indicated  (without knowing where TIGHAR had been)  that the place was near the area where TIGHAR found the shoe artifact in 1991 (SE part of the island).   See Reference No. 2, Pages 6 and 7.   Dr. Tom King  (TIGHAR member)  corresponded with Mr. Maude recently.    He asked him about the   "signs of previous habitation" that Eric mentions in his diary.     Maude remembered it as being [a] "pile of sand" (see Reference No. 3).  During the  Niku III expedition,     I found relatively large piles of sand near the shoe artifact site.    It looked like a  Babai pit or an abortive well (see Reference No. 4).

VISITORS, GROUP NO. 4, September 1940
Gerald Gallagher, British Magistrate, Gardner Island reports that a human skeleton, sextant parts, a  women's shoe and other artifacts  have been found on the southeast portion of Gardner Island.   See Reference No. 1 Tab No. 4, Doc. No. 29.

VISITORS, GROUP NO. 5,  TIGHAR EXPEDITIONS , 1989, 1991, 1996, 1997 
TIGHAR's expeditions have found items that support the previous observations of human activity.    A large concrete marker was found in 1989, a bivouac site  (in 1991) in the area described by Bevington, and in the same locale, piles of sand were found in 1997.   (NOTE:   the island had been continuously occupied from 1938 until 1963)  *

***************************** Thoughts: ************************* 
The following discussion appreciates the fact that some of the aforementioned information was obtained from interviews that occurred many years after the event in question.    The frailty of human memory must always be considered.   However, a lot of the information was recorded contemporaneously.  Getting back to Tom Cook's original question......"Why wasn't Gardner searched on the ground if evidence of recent inhabitance was reported from the air?"  All of Ric's comments on this apply.

    In addition, we do not know what sort of questions fellow shipmates asked Lt. Lambrecht after his return to the Colorado and the filing of his official report.    However, it is not too hard to imagine that he saw the corrugated tin roofs of the huts and other debris left behind by the Arundel group 40+ years earlier.    The tin roofs might have seemed "recent" to Lambrecht as opposed to the much older masonry structures he may have have seen on other islands ( McKean Island??  circa mid 1800's?).    In any case, this could have easily have been dismissed as being something built by the Earhart crew and for the all reasons Ric stated.....it was time to move on.   The pilots may have seen other abandoned and occupied structures on other islands making old huts and associated debris a relatively common thing to see.  The Norwich City survivors reported seeing Arundel's  huts and a water tank in 1929 only 8 years prior to the Navy's search.    The huts were apparently still identifiable as huts not just scattered debris.    The British also made a point of placing a Union Jack flag on the island in 1892 and were very concerned about documenting their claim to  the island ( See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 15.)     The "marker"  Lambrecht remembers could easily have been a  flag pole or possibly a landing marker (for landing boats) or maybe a concrete monument claiming British ownership.   Indeed, a large concrete monument was found near the beach during TIGHAR's NIKU I expedition.  Bevington and Maude could have stumbled onto items left behind by the Arundel group.    It is hard to say.    The piles of sand found during the NIKU 3 expedition support Maude's "pile of sand" observation.   The camp fire site found by the NIKU 2 expedition supports Bevington's "bivouac" observation.    If Arundel's group had dug pits in the area, campfires for lunch were probably also needed which logically ties both observations together.  

********************** SUMMARY ********************** 

It is clear that the Norwich City survivor observed structures related to the Arundel project.    In my opinion, it is highly probable that the Navy also observed items left behind by the Arundel workers and thus dismissed them as being related to Earhart.  What Bevington, Maude, Gallagher and TIGHAR  found  (especially Gallagher and  TIGHAR) requires further study.     We have strong evidence now that ties the shoe artifact site (or at least the SE portion of the island)  to the Earhart flight.    These things include:

1.   pieces of a women's shoe, approx. the size that Earhart wore, and pieces of another shoe (possibly a man's?)    found by TIGHAR 
2.   The discovery of a human skeleton, sextant parts and a women's shoe on the SE portion of the island found by Gallagher and his workers 
3.   and, of course, various aluminum and plexiglass items that appear to be from a civilian aircraft with characteristics similar to a  Lockheed Electra  I hope this discussion sheds more light on the subject. 

 Love To Mother Kenton Spading 1382CE 
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 2 Jan 1998 13:03:13 EST
 From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Signs of habitation

I have just a couple of comments on Kenton Spading's excellent and, as always, learned addition to my reply to Tom Cook's question about why the navy didn't search Gardner in 1937.

Kent wonders whether Senior Aviator Lambrecht may have seen, in 1937, the same remains of Arundel's huts reported by the Norwich City shipwreck survivor in 1929.  I think that's certainly possible.  As Kent says, Lambrecht's characterization of what he saw on Gardner as "signs of RECENT habitiation" may be an attempt to contrast them to the obviously ancient "stone" ruins he had just seen at McKean Island.  As a matter of fact, the last remains of Arundel's huts may still be standing.  In 1989, TIGHAR team members John Clauss and Veryl Fenlason came upon and photographed some very delapidated wooden framing along the northwest shore of the island just north of the shipwreck.  At the time we assumed that it dated from the 1938-1963 habitation of the island, but it could be much older.  It has always amazed me how certain objects and structures on the island have survived the years.

Kent mentions that:

>The British also made a point of placing a Union Jack flag on the island in
>1892 and were very concerned about documenting their claim to  the island 
>(See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 15.)

Actually, another flag and placard were placed on the island just a few months before Earhart's disappearance.  HMS Leith visited Gardner on 15 Feb 1937 just long enough to erect a flagpole and placard proclaiming the island to be the property of His Majesty the King. (Niku Source Book, Section 2, Item 2)

>The "marker"  Lambrecht remembers could easily have been a  flag pole or
>possibly a landing marker (for landing boats) or maybe a concrete monument
>claiming British ownership.   Indeed, a large concrete monument was found near
>the beach during TIGHAR's NIKU I expedition.

I have a little trouble with Lambrecht decribing a flagpole as a "marker" rather than as a "flagpole."  If Leith's flagpole was still standing in July , it was apparently gone by October when Maude and Bevington arrived.  The concrete landing marker we found in 1989 doesn't appear in wartime aerial photos and appears to have been constructed quite late in the 1938-1963 colonial period.

Kent speculates:

>If Arundel's group had dug pits in the area, campfires for
>lunch were probably also needed which logically ties both observations
>together.

Except that we found a fragment of a colored can lable in the campfire that might date from 1937 but certainly not from 1892. There's no indication that Arundel's workers spent anytime on the part of the island where the bones and campfire were found.  The remains and artifacts found in 1940 (and suspected at the time as being those of Amelia Earhart) were not a random scattering but were all part of a single scene which can not, in my opinion, be explained by either of the two known instances of previous habitation (ie. Arundel's workers n 1892 and the Norwich City survivors in 1929).

Ric Gillespie
TIGHAR
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 1998 10:57:32 EST
From:         Kenton Spading

In a posting dated Dec 17, 1997, Ric forwarded a message from Harold Mendelson.   I only received Harold's answer to Ric.    I do not have Ric's question to Harold.    From Harold's response I am going to guess that Ric asked him if he knew of any aircraft wrecks that existed on the island prior to Harold's arrival there in Feb. 1942, (or something to that effect.

This from Harold Mendelson in response to Ric's question: "In answer to your question regarding the wreckage of airplanes,  I am almost certain none existed at the time we occupied the island.  Before I left Canton in Dec 1942 the airstrip became operational, and crashes began occurring." 

First, I would like to say "thank you" to Harold.   I have enjoyed reading your messages regarding your time spent on Canton Island.  In regards to the question of wrecks on Canton Island;  I have a reference to one in some files I received from the New Zealand National Archives.  Reference:   Letter from the Acting Secretary, Western Pacific High Command, Suva Fiji, to the Naval Secretary, British Navy Office, Wellington, New Zealand dated 31 May 1940.  I quote......  

"Sir, With reference to the Assistant High Commissioners Confidential telegram of the 19th March, relative to the arrival of six United States Naval seaplanes at Canton Island, I am directed to inform you that the U.S.S. Wright arrived at the island on the 24th March and left the same day, taking away on board the damaged flying boat.

2.  The delay in the notification to you of this matter is regretted."

This message does not say how the airplane was damaged.    Also, no wreckage would have been left behind for Harold to see because apparently the aircraft was hauled away.    In any case, some sort of a mishap occurred there.  Sincerely
,  Kenton Spading    


-------------------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:12:17 EST
 From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Seaplanes at Canton in 1940

The presence of "six United States Naval seaplanes at Canton Island" sometime prior to March of 1940 is new information to me and rather interesting.  Other than the three floatplanes launched from USS Colrado during the Earhart search in 1937, the only U.S Navy aerial activity in the Phoenix Group we previously knew about were photo-mapping flights by a single floatplanes serviced by the seaplane tenders USS Pelican, Swan and Avocet in 1939 (supporting the surveys conducted by USS Bushnell) and an aerial survey/recon mission conducted by nine PBYs of Patrol Wing Two (out of Pearl Harbor) in June of 1941.  Six "seaplanes" is too many to be serviced by a little tender like Pelican, et al. This almost has to be a PBY mission out of Hawaii.  Sounds like somebody banged a coral head or something at Canton and had to be picked up by a tender.  I'm not familiar with USS Wright, but she's not one of the little "bird class" tenders.  At any rate, as Kent says, there does not appear to have been any wreckage left at Canton from this incident.

Ric
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:47:30 EST
 From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      1937 signs of habitation (clean copy)

Due to an undecipherable quirk in the AOL system, messages on the Earhart Forum from or to AOL subscribers occasionally come through garbled.  When that happens (and I know about it) I re-post the message manually and it usually comes through okay.  I just found out that Kenton Spadings recent posting about signs of habitation on Gardner got scrambled for some subscribers (thanks Fred) so I've re-posted it below.

Please let me know anytime I miss a scrambled one.

Ric
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 7 Jan 1998 19:36:00 EST
 From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Nat'l Geo Forum

If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend a visit to National Geographic's website at http://www.nationalgeographic.com.  Click on Forums and scroll down to the Amelia Earhart Forum.  You'll get to read a very short essay by Earhart biographer Doris Rich stating that she thinks AE crashed at sea.  She doesn't actually say why she thinks that, but after six years of research she just does.

The real reason to visit the Nat'l Geo Forum is to read the submissions by various and sundry members of the public who represent the full spectrum of Earhart opinion.  They're all there; the glassy-eyed conspiracy buffs, the Amelia worshippers, the let's-face-it-folks advocates of the crashed-and-sank theory, and yes, the TIGHAR followers, including some esteemed subscribers to the Earhart Search Forum.  Several of the postings are hilarious.  Some intentionally, some not.  (Of course, I couldn't resist throwing in my two- cents worth.)

It's worth a visit.

Ric Gillespie
TIGHAR
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:41:36 EST
 From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Earhart Forum

It seems that some subscribers to the forum are not receiving any postings. This is a mystery rivalling the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.  I suspect a conspiracy.

I have no way of finding out how widespread the problem is without asking each of you (even our esteemed lurkers who never post) to, just this once, acknowledge that you got this message.  No need for anything fancy. Just say,  Got It.

Thanks,
Ric
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:38:05 EST
 From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      One Mystery Solved

Thanks for replying to my little Got It survey.  We've solved the mystery of why we weren't seeing more activity on this Earhart Forum.  We thought we had it set up so that people who registered through our website were automatically enrolled in the forum.  When somebody signed up, I received notice and we thought that was confirmation that they were now on the list.  Wrong.  The only people that were actually on the list were those whom I had added manually from here and that amounted to only about a dozen faithfuls like you. In other words, a list we thought had over a hundred subscribers had only about 12.  Duh.

Fortunately, we've saved all the registrations so now it's only a matter of going back and manually adding each subscriber.  Tedious but do-able.  Things should get more active from here on in.

Thanks again,
Ric
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:56:19 EST
 From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Welcome to the Earhart Forum

Welcome to TIGHAR's Amelia Earhart Search Forum (EARHARTFORUM). If you signed up for the forum some time ago but haven't received any messages until now that's because there was a technical glitch in the software which has now been fixed.  Thanks for your patience.

You recently received a notice from the company that services this email list entitled "You have been added to the EARHARTFORUM list."  It attempts to tell you how to send postings to the list, take yourself off the list, change the way you receive the postings, etc., but it was apparently written by a Computer Science major who should have taken a few more Liberal Arts courses (like maybe English Comp. 101).  In the interest of preserving sanity, here's a simplified and, I hope, more comprehensible guide to using this forum.

How the EARHARTFORUM works.
Any subscriber to the list can post a message which is then sent to all other subscribers.  You can address your post to a particular recipient, but everybody gets to see what everybody else says.

How to receive the postings as a digest.
Postings will come to you as regular email messages almost immediately after they're posted to the forum.  Most people, however, prefer to receive the day's postings to the forum in one lump message (called a digest).  To receive the postings as a digest just send an email to:

listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com

In the text of your message say:

SET EARHARTFORUM DIGEST 

How to send a message to the forum.
To send a message for posting on the forum just send whatever you want to say in an email to this address:

Earhartforum@home.ease.lsoft.com

This is a moderated forum.
All postings come to me first so that I have an opportunity to head-off advertising and inappropriate material.  On rare occasions when I reject a posting I'll email the person who submitted the rejected message and tell him or her why I have not posted their message.  I will also inform everyone on the forum that I have rejected a posting and why, and I will give anyone who wants it the email address of the rejected poster so that they can communicate privately if they so desire.  My purpose is to promote an intelligent and productive discussion of the Earhart disappearance without stifling anyone's viewpoint.

To take yourself off the forum.
Send an email to:

listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com

In the text of your message say:

DELETE EARHARTFORUM youremailaddress


That's all there is to it.  If you find that you're having problems with the forum, or just want to contact me privately, email me, Richard Gillespie, at TIGHAR1@AOL.com

Thanks.
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 19 Jan 1998 20:37:48 EST
 From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Earhart Update

Now that we have the Amelia Earhart Search Forum up and running, I'd like to give everyone a quick update on the status of our investigation.

  1.  Although time is very short, we still have openings at the Amelia Earhart Search Symposium being held in San Francisco this coming Sunday, January 25th. I'll be there along with several of our TIGHAR expedition team members to spend the day reviewing the evidence we've uncovered in ten years of research and to discuss how we plan to push the investigation forward this year.  The significant artifacts we have found on Nikumaroro will be there for discussion and inspection.  The symposium we held in Wilmington, Delaware in early December was a big success with lots of lively debate and really good input from the participants. The symposium in San Francisco will be held at the Golden Gate Club at The Presidio from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. with a reception immediately following.  Lunch is included in the $249 participation fee.  The reception is an additional $20.  All proceeds, of course, go toward the search.  If you think you might like to attend please email me directly at TIGHAR1@AOL.com. 

2.  As soon as we can get some uncertainties regarding refueling sorted out, we'll be flying an archaeological team to Canton Island to check out the possibility that an engine from the Earhart Electra was inadvertently discarded there in 1971 (see The Canton Engine on our website at www.tighar.org).  While we're out there we'll be doing an aerial photo run over Nikumaroro. The three-day trip (Honolulu to Honolulu) will be made in a chartered business aircraft and we'll have some seats available for TIGHAR members who want to help sponsor the expedition. I'll post further details here on the forum as plans are firmed up. At present we anticipate that this mission will happen sometime between mid-February and late March.  

3.  For those who may not be entirely familiar with TIGHAR's approach to solving the Earhart mystery, it may be helpful if I briefly explain how we go about this work.   
a.  We're open to any theory or hypothesis about what happened to Earhart and Noonan so long as it is supported by the facts of the case, so far as they can be determined. 
b.  We attempt to establish the facts through contemporaneous written documents and datable photographs.  Recollections and anecdotes are useful only to the degree that they lead to genuine evidence. 
c.  The ultimate proof of what really happened must come though conclusively identifiable artifacts and/or human remains.  We're not there yet. 
d.  We labor under no illusions that finding out what really happened to Amelia Earhart is terribly important in the larger scheme of things.  This is a fascinating and very challenging intellectual exercise through which we may be able to learn some truths about how to learn the truth.  We think that's a great reason to give it our best shot.  

4.  I'll be posting research needs on this forum.  In our experience there is nothing more powerful than a wide network of interested and knowledgeable people working on a problem.  

5.  I, and other team and research group members, will try to answer whatever questions you may have about the Earhart case.  No, we don't have all the answers and if we don't know we'll say so.  But we've learned a whole bunch in ten years and when we give you an answer we'll back it up with documentation.  At present there are about 125 subscribers to this forum and it's growing at the rate of about 2 a day.  Please feel free to speak your mind.  Let's use our heads and see if we can figure this out.  

Ric Gillespie TIGHAR 
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:10:13 EST
 From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Earhart postings

Okay. Thanks for your patience.  Here's what we learned.

If you're an AOL customer you have to write a posting to the forum as an AOL email if you want to preserve the formatting and returns.  If you write it in another program, such as MICROSOFT WORD, and then paste it into an email you lose the formatting.

I suppose that it's worth noting that we solved this little mystery the same way you solve any mystery.
1.  Gather facts (formatting not coming through)
2.  Develop hypotheses (font problem, text only problem, etc.)
3.  Test the hypothesis by experimentation (this mystery took 4 "expeditions" to solve).

Good ol' scientific method.  The Earhart case is no different, just a bit more complex and a whole lot more expensive.

Ric Gillespie
TIGHAR

-------------------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:24:29 EST
 From:         Kirby Nunn
Subject:      Re: Earhart Update
-------------------
your updates having been coming thru in volumne. No problem. keep.them coming. Having been in the South Pacific during WWII I am most curious about your coming expedition with the aim of finally settling the facts that she did not go down in the water, but rather on the isolated and unihabited islands. I think you are right. How I wish I could be with you. In spirit I am there.

Kirby Nunn
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:40:14 EST
 From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Not another Earhart Update

Thanks to everyone who provided feedback on the formatting problem.  I didn't see any point in cluttering up everybody's mailbox with purely administrative traffic so I didn't post most of those messages.

For many of you, all the messages came through just fine so it must have looked like we were out of our minds here (the charge has been leveled before).  Others saw exactly the formatting problems that I was seeing on this end.  Either way, thanks for helping us sort out the problem  and I promise not to bombard you with repeat messages in the future.

Ric
-------------------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:42:58 EST
 From:         Axelsson Per
Subject:      Radio Communication
------------------
I have been thinking about something concerning the Amelias radio communication. The other day i watched  a tv-program called "Untold stories/The search for Amelia Earhart"(concering the TIGHAR Niku 1 and 2 expeditions) which claimed that Amelias radio communications was picked up by a couple of recievers thus enabling them to home in on Amleias position. My question is now; how credible is this information? And if Amelias radio was working when she went down why did she not tell the Ithasca that she was about to land on an island before touchdown? Wouldn't that have simplified the search for her knowing that she was on land and not somewhere in the sea?

Another thing i've been wondering about is; the radio needs power, power comes from the generators which needs engines to runs and the engines of course needs fuel. Isn't probable to think that Amelia stayed airborne for as long as possible hoping to c some smoke from Ithasca? That should have left her  with no fuel on Niku or whereever she came down?

Another thing (yes once again); the Ithsaca must have been able to get a bearing on Amelia's radio signals. Wouldn't that have made the search easier just searching along that bearing? The search team must have realised that she could be found along that bearing...OR am i gravely mistaking?

Hoping for answers on these questions 

Per Axelsson  
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:44:41 EST
 From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

Per,

Excellent questions.

>Amelias radio communications were picked up by a couple of recievers thus
>enabling them to home in on Amelias position. My question is now; how credible
>is this information?

During the night of July 3rd and 4th bearings were taken by Pan American direction finding stations at Oahu, Midway, and Wake on radio transmissions suspected of being from the Earhart aircraft.  The best information we have about these incidents is contained in three internal Pan Am memoranda written on July 10 and 11. The transmissions were faint, wobbly voice signals heard on 3105 Khz (one of Earhart's two frequencies) but were not intelligible.  The DF equipment was being asked to perform far beyond its intended range and at no time did two stations take simultaneous bearings on the same signal.  Still, three of the four bearings cross in the vicinity of Nikumaroro and it was believed at the time that this may indicate that the signals were coming from somewhere in the Phoenix Islands.  The credibility of the signals was debated at the time.  One Pan Am supervisor was convinced that the bearing taken by the station on Midway originated in South America or Russia.  The communications chief at Wake Island, however, was quite positive that he had heard a transmission from Earhart.

>And if Amelias radio was working when she went down why did she not tell the
>Itasca that she was about to land on an island before touchdown?
>Wouldn't that have simplified the search for her knowing that she was on
>land and not somewhere in the sea?

As noted above, no intelligilble transmissions were heard.  However, an attempt was made to overcome this difficulty.  On the night of July 4th a powerful commercial station in Hawaii, KGMB, broadcast a request for Earhart to signify whether she was on land or sea by sending a specific number of dashes.  Replies were heard by at least six stations but the result was maddeningly inconclusive and there was no way to know if the reply was genuine or a hoax.

>Another thing I've been wondering about is; the radio needs power, power
>comes from the generators which needs engines to run and the engines of
>course need fuel. Isn't it probable to think that Amelia stayed airborne
>for as long as possible hoping to see some smoke from Itasca? That should
>have left her with no fuel on Niku or wherever she came down?

Anything we say about this is, of course, speculative; but if Earhart and Noonan decided to follow the line of position she said they were on (157/337) southeastward in the hope of reaching land before they ran out of fuel, and if they did reach an island, it would seem reasonable to assume that they would not abandon that island to go looking for a better one, but would attempt the best landing possible.  Based upon our best estimation of their fuel condition, they could have reached Nikumaroro with as much as an hour of fuel remaining.

>Another thing (yes once again); the Itsaca must have been able to get a
>bearing on Amelia's radio signals. Wouldn't that have made the search
>easier just searching along that bearing? The search team must have
>realised that she could be found along that bearing...OR am I gravely
>mistaken?

You're mistaken, but not gravely.  Itasca never took a bearing on Earhart. Her DF equipment could not respond to the high frequency Earhart was using. However, a high frequency Navy DF set up on Howland Island did take a bearing on a suspect signal on the night of July 4th.  Although of questionable credibility, this bearing ran northwest or southeast (they couldn't be sure which).  Nikumaroro lies to the southeast of Howland.  Itasca made no search in that direction.  The battleship USS Colorado, however, conducted its search of the Phoenix Islands precisely because of the radio bearings and navigational logic that indicated that the plane should be found on land to the southeast of Howland.

Ric Gillespie
TIGHAR
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:46:15 EST
 From:         Daa390
Subject:      Fwd:  book with rose

Very good idea to have this forum ! I have an unusual question/request. Does anyone know of a book Amelia had with a rose on it? She might have been carrying this with her on her last flight. In any event I believe this was very dear to her. I know this doesn't have any bearing on the search for her but any info. would be appreciated.Thanks.

-------------------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:46:58 EST
 From:         Kirby Nunn
Subject:         Re: Radio Communication

Aircraft radios do not need a generator to operate. They operate off batteries, that are charged by a generator. Further, if Amelia was at a relatively low altitude, radio waves outbound or inbound could not necessarily be detected by either party..Hope this helps some.
                           Kirby Nunn


-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:47:33 EST
From:         Per Axelsson
Subject: Thanx

To Mr. Richard Gillespie and all other who answered my E-mail

I would just like to say thank u for straightening out my question marks. I greatly appreciate it!

With kind regards
Per Axelsson


-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:52:11 EST
From:         Michael Ruiz
Subject:      Fw: Radio Communication

Why did Lockheed maintain that the starboard engine must be operational in order for Amelia to transmit?  Does that mean that the engine must be turning over, enabling the generator to give the batteries enough power to reach the Pan Am stations?  This leads me to my thoughts on the photo:

Question:

Is this a photo of the Lockheed Electra (NR16020)?

Based on information TIGHAR has published, here is my analysis:

Point #1:  This plane has never been on Niku.

On July 9, 1937,  3 Navy Vought O3U-3 floatplanes "repeatedly circled and zoomed the island."

A.)  The plane in the photo is clearly visible from the sky, and the probability is very high that this particular plane should have been spotted by the Navy, and,

B.)  Even in the unlikely event the Navy O3U-3’s missed seeing the aircraft, Maude and Bevington's physical inspection of the island (accompanied by a delegation of Gilbertese villagers) in October 1937, would most certainly have resulted in the discovery of this particular aircraft, particularly if it was easily discovered by British submarine sailors walking down the shore almost ten years later as claimed by the photo's provider.

Point #2:  This aircraft did not send distress signals.

If this is NR16020, it must be in a location where the tools and capability exist to remove the starboard engine if distress signals were actually sent by AE.  Otherwise, no distress signals were sent from this plane, because the starboard engine separated prior to or upon the aircraft assuming this position.

In TIGHAR Tracks, Volume 12, Number 2/3, Oct. 1996, Lockheed experts assert the Electra (NR16020) must be able to operate its starboard (right) hand, generator equipped engine in order for Pan Am Oahu, Midway, & Wake stations to receive distress signal radio transmissions.

The starboard (missing) engine of the plane in this photo did not survive the crash, landing, or placement of this particular plane, which (if the Pan Am stations did actually receive the distress calls) would have made it impossible for this particular aircraft to send distress calls.

Then there is the issue of the Canton engine.  A helicopter crew member allegedly found an engine on a Niku reef flat in the early 70's (waded out through knee deep water to get to it).  The picture in question was supposedly taken "back  in the bush".  This means there would be significant distance between the aircraft in this picture and the engine if they are related.  If the aircraft crashed and the engine bounced out onto the reef and into the water, then this either is not the aircraft or AE never sent distress calls.  An 865 lb. R1430 (51.6 inch by 43.01 inch) P&W engine from an Electra, in water, on reef flat, strongly suggests  that the rest of the aircraft is in water near the reef.  The starboard engine did not survive the landing or placement of the aircraft in this particular picture. Distress signals did not emanate from this aircraft.

Then there is the issue of the alleged radio transmission.   "281 NORTH HOWLAND...CALL KHAQQ...BEYOND NORTH...WON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER...ABOVE WATER...SHUT OFF. It seems reasonable to speculate that, if authentic, this message indicates that the aircraft is somehow threatened by rising water. (Message reported by U.S. Navy Radio, Wailupe, Hawaii, July 4, 1937.)"

First of all, can't send radio messages  if the engine is sitting in water on the reef.  Secondly, if water separated the engine from this airplane in the photo after the radio transmission and carried it into the reef, the port side propeller would most certainly be either damaged or completely destroyed (if not the port engine itself.)

Answer:

This picture is not a post loss photo of NR16020.

I assume:

A.) distress signals were sent;
B.) visual searches of Niku by air and on land in 1937
C.) The Dado, aircraft skin, and plexiglas found on Niku were not  brought there from another island and came from the Electra (therefore placing the Electra on Niku).

If it is NR16020, distress signals were never sent, and numerous close inspections missed seeing it clearly sitting there.  Seems unlikely, based on TIGHAR tracks information.  If it is NR16020, and AE did sent distress signals, then someone  removed the starboard engine.  This would have required equipment and tools.   And as far as I can guess, NR16020 was not close to a facility that could do this.  

Answer to the "mystery":

TIGHAR answered it many years ago:

NR16020 was washed into the ocean and broken up before 9 July 1937.  Noonan and Earhart were deceased by then.  TIGHAR will find additional physical evidence to support this conclusion in 1998.

Thoughts, comments?
Thanks.
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:54:39 EST
From:         tet walston
Subject:      Amelia and radio

According to most accounts, Amelia was not trained in the use of radio, and on her last flight, the trailing aerial AND morse key had been left behind in the U.S. Noonan's Morse ability was poor, as was Amelia's. This meant that she could not communicate with Itasca on 500kcs,the D/F frequency, nor could she gain an accurate null on voice transmissions.

Noonan's skill as a navigator has been praised, yet in his letter to Weems, who ran a Navigation School, he wrote "The greatest difficulty is, of course, the determination of the drift angle. We carried smoke bombs for this purpose (not entirely satisfactory, due to cloud ----" Noonan, presumably carried a Dalton Nav. Computer (he'd listed it as recommended to Pan Am) and we know that he had a drift sight. Speaking from MY experience as a fully qualified military Navigator who was also a Coastal Command Pilot (RAF.  WW2)  Noonan could have carried out a multiple drift method of W/V measurement at any time the sea could be seen for 4 or 5 minutes.Smoke bombs are not necessary, the wind patterns on the water are good enough for obtaining a drift angle. These plotted on the Dalton give an ACCURATE observed W/V

Was Noonan up to it?

Amelia was nor renowned for accurate course flying, and if the plane was flown off course by an average of ONE DEGREE in one direction, that gives an error of ONE MILE in 60 miles. Lae-Howland is 2,561 miles, so this could mean an error of over FORTY TWO miles at the intended destination. Add to this, a possibility of drastic, unobserved, wind changes, and the Electra could have ended up in a most unlikely place.

The flight was ill-planned, Amelia poorly trained, and Noonan perhaps lacking the skill for this kind of flight. The choice of Howland was a doubtful one.  I have always admired Amelia for her courage, but not her skill, and  hope that one day her final resting place can be found.

"Courage is the price that Life extracts........"

Tet Walston
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:56:57 EST
From:         Steve Richardson
Subject:     Re: Radio Communication

Kirby wrote:

> Aircraft radios do not need a generator to operate. They operate off
> batteries, that are charged by a generator. Further, if Amelia was at a
> relatively low altitude, radio waves outbound or inbound could not necessarily
> be detected by either party..Hope this helps some.
>                            Kirby Nunn

This is some input to the general issues raised here and in several earlier related posts.  There is a pretty good sketch of NR 16020's radio installation, including power supplies, in Dick Strippel's book on Earhart.  The sketch includes notes for equipment removed before and during the flight.  Among these are the trailing wire antenna (removed) and the under-belly antenna (disconnected).  For greatest transmitting range at 500 kHz (the frequency that dominates this discussion) the trailing antenna and a matched loading coil were required.  Omitting the antenna greatly limited what the relatively low-power (50 watt) transmitter could accomplish.  At Lae, New Guinea, Earhart got rid of the loading coil as well.  This left no 500 kHz capability.

Itasca's DF equipment covered 270-500 kHz, so there was no chance that they could obtain a good bearing.  Unknown (apparently) to Earhart, a higher-frequency DF had been set up on Howland, able to work at 3105 kHz.  But Earhart didn't transmit long enough at that frequency to enable a fix from what amounted to a breadboard rig, cobbled together as a makeshift.

Itasca's radio logs make instructive reading, but more interesting to me are the entries in Nauru Island's log.  Operators had talked with Earhart the previous afternoon and evening.  On the critical morning, three transmissions were logged through 2031 GMT on 6210 kHz (unheard by Itasca, which seems to have been in Nauru's skip zone).  The first: "Speech not interpreted owing bad modulation or speaker shouting into microphone but voice similar to that emitted in flight last night with exception no hum of plane in background."  The next two were similar. These times fall squarely at the end of NR 16020's calculated fuel exhaustion curves.

So Earhart may well have tried to transmit the fact that she was going down, but the signals were never received by Itasca (skip zones on 6210 kHz) and couldn't be understood by Nauru.

Hope this is of interest.

- Steve Richardson


-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:57:44 EST
From:         Kirby Nunn
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

Another bit of info. I understand that the trailing communications antenna installed on her aircraft, she had removed in Australia. If this info is correct, there is no wonder she couldn't communicate with anyone. This trailing wire antenna is in fact a long wire extended out from the aircraft, and, used for long range communicatios. If the story is true, she had no long range communications capability which could have contributed (or perhaps the cause) of her falure to commicate with anybody after her departure from Australia. (The place where she allegidly had the trailing  wire antenna removed.  For what ever this contributes to the cause. In other words she may have caused own demise.
                                       Kirglo
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 24 Jan 1998 06:27:00 EST
From:         Kirby Nunn
Subject:      Re: Amelia and radio

Tet walston did a beautiful job in summarizing exactly how I feel about the global attempt. Let's hope we can derive more from your efforts.
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 24 Jan 1998 06:59:30 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Antennas, etc.

Over the years a great deal of folklore has grown up around Earhart's trailing wire antenna.  A close look at photos of her airplane at various times during its brief service life (July 1936 to July 1937) and a careful review of Lockheed and Bureau of Air Commerce records disclose the following chronology.

A trailing wire antenna came standard with the Lockheed Model 10.  AE's Model 10E Special was delivered with a trailing wire antenna installed in the tail, visible externally as a small white cone protruding just below the tail nav light.  Sometime in January or February of 1937,  as part of the preparations for the World Flight, that antenna was removed and was replaced by a different type of trailing wire unit mounted in the cabin.  This antenna is visible externally as a mast sticking down from the belly just forward of the cabin door.  On the end of the mast is a lump which is, in fact, the lead weight on the end of the wire.  Oddly, the mast protrudes from the belly at a right angle rather than at the customary shallow angle which allows the wire to play out more directly into the slipstream.

When Earhart wrecked the airplane in Hawaii on March 20, 1937 the trailing wire installation was, of course, crushed.  Photos of the airplane in Burbank on May 20, 1937 (the day after repairs were completed) show no trailing wire in the tail or on the belly.  A letter written to Earhart author Fred Goerner in 1982 by Joseph Gurr who claimed to be Earhart's radio consultant alleged that the trailing wire installation was left aboard at this time but not hooked up.  All we can say for sure is that there is no evidnce of the antenna visible externally when the airplane emerged from the repair shop.

It has often been alleged that the trailing wire was removed in Miami prior to AE's departure from there on June 1, 1937.  Others have it removed at Darwin, Australia on June 28.  As far as I know, all such accounts lack any real documentation.  It appears more likely that the unit was never removed per se, but was simply not reinstalled after the accident in Hawaii.  The reasoning behind such a move is, of course, speculative.  It may be that, because Harry Manning's departure from the endeavor left the flight without anyone who knew morse code, and because the trailing wire was seen as most useful on the 500 Kc frequency which was primarily a code frequency, Earhart decided that its potential usefulness did not outweigh its considerable weight.

Amelia's attitude toward radio has been roundly criticized, and perhaps rightly so.  She saw it as a luxury, not a necessity.  In fact, reading her own account of the world flight, as published in the heavily edited Last Flight, it's hard to find any occasion when she successfully used the aircraft's radio equipment for either voice or DF.

Ric Gillespie
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 24 Jan 1998 07:01:20 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Intermission

Just to let everybody know, I'll be in San Francisco this weekend for the Earhart Symposium so I won't have a chance to post your contributions to this forum until I get home Monday night.  Sorry for any inconvenience.

Ric
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:51:38 EST
From:         David Kelly
Subject:      Location of batteries in the Lockhead 10E

------------------
Can someone tell me the location of the battery units in AE's aircraft....I ask this because if the last radio message was genuine and the aircraft was threatened by rising water the batteries needed to power the radio may have also been threatened and if these batteries were on the floor of the aircraft then it would lead me to suggest that the message may not be genuine as salt water and lead batteries are not very good friends.....Similarly, does the 10E have a cable tray on the roof or is it in the floor????

                                        David Kelly
"The most wasted day of all is one without laughter"

-------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:53:20 EST
From:         Daa390
Subject:      Radio Communication

In a message dated 98-01-23 14:56:45 EST, you write:

>NR16020 was washed into the ocean and broken up before 9 July 1937. Noonan
 >and Earhart were deceased by then.  TIGHAR will find additional physical
 >evidence to support this conclusion in 1998.

I am curious about the time frame on the deaths of Earhart and Noonan. For both of them to die in less than a week seems a little implausable.They did have some provisions and aren't there coconuts on the island ? I certainly am no expert at survival techniques but I would think they could have held out longer than this.The fact that the float plane didn't see them when it flew over Gardner doesn't seem to hard to imagine.I would suspect that they ,at this point ,would be in a weakened condition or might have been in the "jungle" exploring for food or water when the plane made its pass over the island. I think it would be rather difficult for a plane to actually see them unless they had some way of signaling the plane. Is there any other fruit/vegetation on the island that could have helped them to survive? I know the fact that there is an abundance of birds on the island that one could catch was mentioned-- What is your opinion on how long someone could survive on this island? Also, I would think that they would have left some markings or something to indicate their presence on the island.I think it is human nature to try and leave some sign that they did indeed perish there. Thanks !

-------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:58:17 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

I wish to comment on the Nauru Radio Logs [sic].  The actual information comes from a radio message sent by  San Francisco Radio Coast Guard to Itasca late on the night of July 2 which reads: "Following from VKT voice hard fairly strong sigs strength to s3 0843 0854 GMT 48.31 meters speech not interpreted owing bad modulation or speaker shouting into microphone bu 3S CE similar to that emitted from plane in flight last night with exception no hum on plane in back ground  VKT not yet contacted with NRUI on 500 KCX VIS [Sydney radio] gives es hearing voice about 1000 GMT.  PSE that to NRUI".  This message was received at Itasca at aproximately 10 minutes past 1000 GMT, and Dick Stripple has vehemently stated that the times mentioned in the report must be local times, not GMT times, as the time delay to relay this radio message was such that receipt by Itasca could not have happened in about one hour's time.  The GMT times mentioned in the radio report are confirmed by a letter from teh US legation in Australia a few days later.  Why is all this important?  Well, 0843 GMT July 3 corresponds to 2013 Local time July 3 at Nauru (11.5 hours fast relative to GMT), and to 2113 local time July 2 at Itasca (11.5 hours slow relative to GMT).  This message was sent during the early night at both locations, not during the possible flight of Earhart (0000 - 2200??GMT July 2, 1230/July 1 - 1030/July 2 Itasca local time).

After examing well over 3000 radio messages sent back and forth from Washington DC, the west coast to Honolulu and Itasca 9including times of actual sending and receiving on each end0, an hour relay time is well within the realm of possibilities.  Commercial stations (VKT at Nauru was commercial) are presumably even faster, considering the lesser amount of traffic involved.  For example, Navy traffic in 1937 at radio station Wailua was not statistically increased due to the Earhart incident, with well over 400,000 individual messages during the month of July! 

Back to Stripple's assertion that the message was sent during the last phases of AE's flight: he wants to disregard direct evidence contained within radio messages to fit a particular theory that AE sent this message.  This is akin to disregarding data or manipulating it to fit a particular hypothesis.  This is unacceptable practice in either science or history.
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:02:11 EST
From:         dale
Subject:      Amelia

As a new member, I admit that I am fascinated by the Earhart sage, and from the evidence I have seen, I fear that I must come to a couple unsettling conclusions, which I fear may not be very popular.  However, hear they are anyhow:

 1.  Amelia was a victim of her husbands greed.  Everything he did was geared around making Amelia a household name.  THough intentional or not, she was his meal-ticket.

 2.  Amelia was not a very good pilot, and in no way ready for such a long, dangerous flight.  Her navigation skills were not what they should have been (forgivable as she had Noonan with her), and her skills in communications were minimum.  Why in the world would a pilot AND navigator take off without knowing the main communication standard of their time (morse code)

3.  That said, overall, I think Amelia was a very courageous, and intelligent (though overconfident) woman.  What she accomplished for aviation, and women is, in my opinion, still unparelled to this day.

  4.  Fred Noonan also deserves some credit here.  He got her to Lei, and from what I read in the Tighar pages, it sounds like he actually got her to Howland Isle, only didn't know it.  Any navigator needs an exact position to plot an exact course.

-------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:14:24 EST
From:         Per Axelsson
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

Reply to Michael Ruiz;

As far as I can gather from TIGARs information it's resonable to believe that Amelia came down on the Niku reef at low tide enabling a gear down landing leaving the airplane intact and according to Ric Gillespie an estimate left Amelia with an hour worth of fuel on Niku when and if she came down there.

Conclusion; The starboard engine was probably intact and made radio transmissions possible.

The intercepted radio message indicates,as u mentioned, a threat of rising water which adds credibilty to the theory that AE came down on the reef at low tide. When the water finally reached the plane it's reasonble to assume that it would float for some time with (nearly?) empty fuel tanks. This means that the plane would have sunk after some time who-knows-where. The violent storms and severe Niku weather condition might have washed the remains of the wreck ashore somewhere on the island leaving it the position shown on the photo. Naturally it's impossible to say when the wreck ended up where it did but it might have reamined submerged for quite a long time thus explaining the fact that it wasn't found either by the serach planes or by the Gilbertese. I agree that it is a bit odd that the port propeller should have remained intact but stranger things have happened.

I also suspect that storms have later broken up the planes into small pieces (as the one found in the old village) explaining why it can't be seen on up to date aerial photographies. According to certain sources which stories have been told by TIGHAR the villagers took and used the aluminum skin for huts and other things.

I would be grateful for comments.

Per Axelsson
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:13:15 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      I'm  baaaack

As you see from the recent postings, I'm back from the Left Coast.  I do appreciate the many bon voyage responses to my Intermission message.  You guys will spoil me.

The Earhart Search Symposium in San Francisco went really well.  Lively discussion, tough questions, lots of good thinking.  Seventeen people blew off the Super Bowl and spent the day examining and debating the evidence of what did and did not, may have and probably didn't, occur on the other side of the world over 60 years ago.  After all, everyone knew that Denver was going to get creamed and it would be a really dull game.  I am alive today only because the symposium was over before anyone found out how the game went.  Safe back in my office, let me respond to a couple of the messages that came in while I was away:

David Kelly asked about the location of the batteries in the Electra.  The main battery on NR16020, as in all Model 10s, was in the belly on the centerline of the aircraft just forward of the main beam (wing spar).  Earhart also had an auxiliary battery mounted on the floor along the starboard wall of the cabin just forward of the fuselage door.  Cabling ran along the starboard fuselge wall and through the center section out to the engines. These locations, of course, would be submerged if the aircraft was afloat.  However, if the airplane was parked on the reef-flat at Nikumaroro, even the 4.5 foot high tide would not reach the batteries as long as the water was calm.  Surf running across the flat would be a different story and would cause lots of problems, soaking of the radio gear being the least of them.

Daa390 was curious about how long AE and FN might have survived on the island. It's a fascinating question.  Food should not have been a problem.  There were 111 coconut trees in bearing when Maude and Bevington visited the island three months later so we must presume the situation was not much different in July. Fish are abundant on the reef-flat.  Turtles come ashore to lay egss in July and August.  Many of the birds (Red-tailed Tropic Birds in particular) are oblivious to people.  You can walk right up to them and grab them by the neck (we don't, but we could).  Crabs and rats are so common that you have to watch where you step.

Water, however, can be a problem.  As long as it rains and you have the foresight and the ability to collect the rainwater, you're ok.  But it can go weeks without raining.  No rain, no water.  No water, you die.

So what did happen?  If the bones found in 1940 were those of either Earhart or Noonan, which now seems to be quite likely, it would appear that at least one of them survived long enough to establish at least a minimal campsite. The remains of birds and a turtle were present, and the remnants of a campfare in which we found a partially-burned fragment of a label from some canned food.  A bottle was also found in 1940 which, according to one version of the story, contained fresh water.  If that is true, then it's hard to say that the person whose bones were found died of thirst.  Whatever the cause, they apparently died peacefully in the shade of a tree.

The remains of only one person were found in 1940, although we found heels from apparently two different pairs of shoes.  Where is the other body? Whether the cause is thirst or illness or infection from a coral abrasion or eating toxic fish (which are present there), one person is probably going to die before the other, so it may be that the first to die was buried by the person whose bones were found.  In the heat of crab-infested Nikumaroro there would be plenty of motivation to bury your ex-traveling companion.  If that is what happened, the bones of that person may still be there.

Back to the original question of how long might they have survived.  Based on what was found with the bones, my guess would be a few weeks.  Would they have left marks of some kind to signify their presence?  The search pilot from the USS Colorado on July 9 saw something on the ground at Nikumaroro which he described many years later as being "markers of some kind."  If the markers were Earhart's they certainly weren't recognized as such.  I can easily see AE keeping a journal for use in the book she would someday write about her Robinson Crusoe experience.  Finding something like that is the kind of thing a historian dreams about, but in that environment I'm afraid the odds aren't good.  Then again, the can lable survived.

Dale had some comments:

>1.  Amelia was a victim of her husbands greed.  Everything he did was geared
>around making Amelia a household name.  THough intentional or not, she was his
>meal-ticket.

Thanks largely to the 1989 error-strewn biography by Doris Rich, the Amelia- as-victim characterization has replaced Secret Agent Earhart as the most widely accepted view.  I don't buy it.  GP was not Amelia's Svengali.  He was a sharp, often abrasive, sometimes ruthless, promoter and publisher.  His bottom line was money.  AE's bottom line was flying.  Flying took money and working with GP not only brought in the money but made her the most famous woman pilot in the world.  Far from a victim, AE was a willing and eager partner with GP in a marketing business that got each them what they wanted. 

>2.  Amelia was not a very good pilot, and in no way ready for such a long,
>dangerous flight.  Her navigation skills were not what they should have been
>(forgivable as she had Noonan with her), and her skills in communications were
>minimum.  Why in the world would a pilot AND navigator take off without
>knowing the main communication standard of their time (morse code).

Harsh judgements.  Was Amelia a good pilot?  Depends on what you're judging. She wrecked a bunch of airplanes, but so did many professional stunt pilots in thos days.  The accident in Hawaii, despite her protestations about a blown tire, seems to have been a simple case of the airplane getting away from her. She simply didn't have enough time-in-type at that weight to handle the takeoff.  However, the film of her final takeoff from Lae shows a masterful job.  By that time she had flown the Electra two thirds of the way around the world in all kinds of weather, into and out of all kinds of strips, crossed the South Atlantic, found her way (with Noonan's help) across vast uncharted reaches of Africa and Asia.  She was damned good or she wouldn't have made it as far as she did.  Her mistake, as you point out, was in not being more familiar with her radio gear and not being proficient in morse code.  Up until the Lae/Howland leg, radio communication and navigation had not been an issue. She and Noonan had done it all the old fashioned way.  To find Howland within their fuel limitations, however, required either very good luck or real proficiency in radio navigation.  As it turned out, they didn't have either. 

>3.  That said, overall, I think Amelia was a very courageous, and intelligent
>(though overconfident) woman.  What she accomplished for aviation, and women
<is, in my opinion, still unparelled to this day.

Amelia has certainly been an inspiration to several generations.  She was not, however, instrumental in opening aviation careers to women. When that finally happened it was a direct consequence of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s.  Odd as it may seem, today's female airline pilots owe their right to hold their job more to Martin Luther King Jr. than to Amelia Earhart.

>4.  Fred Noonan also deserves some credit here.  He got her to Lei, and from
>what I read in the Tighar pages, it sounds like he actually got her to Howland
>Isle, only didn't know it.  Any navigator needs an exact position to plot an
>exact course.

Fred certainly does deserve more credit than history has tended to give him. Too often he has been made the scapegoat through wholly undocumented rumors of alcoholism.  Noonan was arguably the finest aerial navigator of his day. Sadly, both he and Amelia lacked the specialized radio skills necessary to deal with the difficulties they encountered in finding Howland. 

I generally agree with Per Axelsson's comments to Mike Ruiz.

Whew!  Now, who are those guys in the black limo parked across the street?  I swear, I had no idea it was going to be a great Super Bowl.  If you don't see more messages posted to this forum in the next day or so, call the cops. Okay?

Ric Gillespie
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:40:39 EST
From:          ANDREW MCKENNA
Subject:        Re: Radio Communication

In a message dated 1/27/98 9:15:29 AM, you wrote:

What evidence do we have that the photo, a secondhand print as we currently have it, is not printed in mirror image??  Perhaps we are really seeing the starboard engine in the picture.  Is there  anything in the photo that conclusively defines left and right?

A McKenna

-------------------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:26:14 EST
From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:       batteries in the Lockhead 10E

David Kelly asks:  where are the batteries located in a 10E  Check TIGHAR Tracks magazine dated September 30, 1996, Volune No. 12, Number 2/3 on Pages 17 and 18.  From the diagrams you can see that the batteries were below the floor of the aircraft (in the belly) near the main spar.     
 They would get wet very quickly.  Kenton Spading 
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:31:13 EST
From:         Kenton Spading
Subject:      aircraft wreckage washing ashore

Peter A. suggests the airplane could have sunk and then later been washed ashore.  This is a very real possibility.  For example;  In December  1996 a 8 x 14 foot chunk of the space shuttle challenger washed ashore  at Cocoa Beach Florida eleven (11) years after the crash.  the ocean  does cough up stuff.  Kenton Spading 

-------------------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:42:32 EST
From:         tet walston
Subject:      Navigation

According to some accounts, Amelia was not too skilled at keeping to a heading. From my experience, I know that to fly within an average of one degree is not easy. She would have a directional gyro instrument which has to be corrected EVERY 15 MINUTES, by comparing with the magnetic compass. I do not know if Noonan also had a compass, but he should have.

Had I been trying to reach Howland Island (perish the thought) I would have planned to steer either to the north or south of island. It is vital, when DR ETA is reached, and the destination is not seen, to know which way to turn. (Perhaps this is what had been planned).

They had flown through the night, having made an accurate position fix just before dark, and I would have imagined that Noonan took some astro sights. These are only as reliable IF the aircraft is flown straight and level for up to two minutes, and IF an octant is accurate enough (I used a bubble sextant MUCH more suitable).This was when I flew as navigator in a large plane.

Assuming Noonan was conversant with the mutiple drift method of finding a WV, and use of a smoke bomb is not the best way, he would only be able to know the WV at the moment. Astro navigation is not sufficiently accurate for use in WV determination.

Noonan, presumably, owed a lot of his skill to radio DF during his Airline career. This skill was, of course, supplied by a radio operator, not available on THIS flight. Radio assistance was paramount in US aviation, then and later.

So, all we need is a deviation from the heading required, plus a change of wind after a NIGHT flight of several hours, to a very small island -- and the potential for the disaster was certain.

Amelia must have been tired and in some discomfort in her small cabin. Speaking as one who flew a Photo. Recce. Spitfire at high altitude for the almost unbelievable duration of 6 hours and forty minutes, I know what a pain in the butt (literally) that can be!!

I would like to see some of Noonan's logs, then I could get a better idea of his style of navigation. I sincerely hope that he was better at the job than the navigator of the B24 "Lady be good" (WW2). That log I have seen, and it was less than adequate. The acceptance of the radio bearing should have been checked, if his DR navigation had been better, the tragedy would never have happened -- but SOMEBODY trained him.

My admiration of Amelia as a person, and her courage, is something which I will always express.

It would be wonderful to find her remains, and bury her with full honours.

Tet Walston. Ex PRU. RAF
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:50:52 EST
From:         Kirby Nunn
Subject:      Re: Nauru Messages

I truely belive that Amerlia's removal of her long range trailing antenna was the cause of her inibility to communicate. I sincerely hope that your expedition this year will prove that she did not go down in the ocean, but rather died on a remote island.

Sorry..............................Kirglo
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:06:56 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Mirror Image?

About the wreck photo, Andrew McKenna asks:

>What evidence do we have that the photo, a secondhand print as we currently
>have it, is not printed in mirror image??  Perhaps we are really seeing the
>starboard engine in the picture.  Is there  anything in the photo that
>conclusively defines left and right?

Good question.   My first reaction was no, this image could be reversed.  But then I remembered the prop.  That prop clearly rotates counterclockwise as you look at it head on.  That is the correct direction of rotation if the photo is not reversed and the airplane is not British.

Ric
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:50:46 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      RE: Navigation

I have examined the Noonan/AE maps of both the Oakland to Honolulu and the South Atlantic Crossings in great detail, and I believe I have successfully deciphered all of the notations on them.  The details are really quite extraordinary: much different than most AE researchers suspect.  On the Oakland to Honolulu crossing, complications arise due to the possible influence of Harry Manning, but the handwriting is Noonans.  The approach was to use both radio DF (supplied by PanAm) and obtained in flight, along with a FEW celestial sightings, but a lot of Dead Reckoning.  In general, it appears that the navigators/pilots let the plane go in whatever general direction seemed prudent, then only make MAJOR course corrections when needed.  It seems quite laisse faire (sp?).  There is one dreadful error of sighting a star (20 degrees below the horizon, no less!), but seemed not to interfere with navigation.  RDF was used to pilot the plane directly to Hawaii.

On the Atlantic crossing, things are a little hairier to interpret, but the same general pattern emerges.  Noonan directs the plane to a LOP that should pass through Dakar, but mis-estimates when he arrives.  He knows he is south (not north as Putnam and AE state in Last Flight), so he has AE turn to 36 degrees magnetic (they were traveling approx. 70 degrees, so this is a NORTH turn!!).  Here, Noonan appears to be using the LOP system discussed in much detail by TIGHAR, Weems, and many others.  The chart has many erasers, and what is finally on the chart is a reconstruction of what should have happened, not what actually did!  Talk about deciphering that mess! Cheers to all.
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:48:14 EST
From:         Tom Roberts
Subject:      Fuel

Ric -
In your response to Dale in "I'm  baaaack" you wrote, "To find Howland within their fuel limitations, however, required either very good luck or real proficiency in radio navigation."  This brings to mind the stated opinions of two gentlemen who were provided a forum on the Turning Point and Discovery programs which documented the Niku III expedition.  One of these gentlemen opined that AE did not select the proper propeller pitch (how does he know?) to maximize her fuel, so she couldn't have reached Howland Island, much less gone as far as Gardner/Nikumaroro.  The other gentleman said that severe headwinds had substantially increased her fuel burn rate, and he reached a similar conclusion. I'm sure you have evaluated the Electra's fuel capacity and performance (fuel burn rate) and concluded that she did have enough fuel to reach Gardner/Nikumaroro.  Can you give us a brief summary of your fuel assessment in light of these contrary assertions.
Thank you.   -  Tom Roberts

-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:04:57 EST
From:         Michael Ruiz
Subject:        Re: Radio Communication

I, also, am not an expert on survival time.  In reading TIGHAR'S descriptions of all types of problems one may encounter (poisonous fish, abrasions that infect quickly), I feel they did not last until 9 July.  The temperatures on Niku seem very hot.  My only experience with consistently high temperatures was in the Middle East. You need lots of water, everyday.  I recall something I heard once, if you can't get enough water in temperatures that hot, you are in big trouble by the third day.  And if AE had stomach trouble of some sort in Lae, this would not be good.

AM I correct in understanding that the highest probability is that the aircraft lies on the west end of the island?  I am struggling with the native recollections about seeing an aircraft there (by the ship), but no one manning the Loran station saw it. Is this right?

-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:23:10 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Nav, Fuel, and Survival

I can attest to the research behind Randy Jacobson's comments on Noonan's navigational methods.  Randy has steeped himself in the best original sources available. Excellent work.

Tom Roberts asked about the theory advanced by Roessler and Gomez in their book Amelia Earhart - Case Closed? and who were interviewed for the Discovery Channel documentary.  They hold that AE did not select the proper propeller pitch to maximize her fuel, so she couldn't have reached Howland Island, much less gone as far as Gardner/Nikumaroro.  They also claim that severe headwinds substantially increased her fuel burn rate because she increased the power settings to maintain her desired groundspeed.

Unfortunately, despite the many endorsements the book received by such aviation notables as Chuck Yeager, Paul Poberezny and Patty Wagstaff, Case Closed? is riddled with factual error.  The allegation that Earhart mismanaged her propeller pitch is, of course, totally speculative and seems to me to be quite outrageous given her extensive experience with controllable pitch propellers.  The severe headwinds described by Roessler and Gomez somehow escaped the notice of the weather reporting facilities at Nauru (roughly halfway) and at Howland.  We know that Earhart arrived in the general vicinity of Howland Island pretty much on schedule.  Even a student pilot knows that if fuel is an issue, it's suicide to disregard the best fuel economy power settings for the sake of a higher groundspeed.  Any assumption that Amelia made such a gross error is without foundation.

In a nutshell, here's how the fuel situation looks.  We know that Earhart and Noonan left Lae with 1,100 U.S. Gallons (letters written within days of the event by Eric Chater, Gen'l Mgr of Guinea Airways and James Collopy, Superintendent for Civil Aviation at Lae).  We know that power management tables specially prepared for Earhart by Clarence "Kelly" Johnson of Lockheed , if followed, would give the airplane 24.15 hours of endurance with that fuel load.  We know that Earhart believed herself to be in the vicinity of Howland 19 hours and 12 minutes after takeoff (Itasca log at 0742 local time; We must be on you but can not see you...).  We know that the strength of her transmissions as received by Itasca at that time supported the opinion that she was very close by.  If Earhart followed Johnson's power management recommendations (and there is nothing to indicate that she did not) she should have had just under five hours of fuel left at that time.  This would constitute the 20 percent reserve considered to be the norm for such flights (according to U.S. Army Air Corps Lt. Dan Cooper aboard the Itasca).  In that same 0742 transmission Earhart is also reported to have said, "Have been unable to reach you by radio, but gas is running low."  Such a comment makes perfect sense given that this is the first transmission she has made since starting to burn into her five hour reserve.  She is last heard from an hour later at 0843 when she says she is running on the 157/337 line of position, a line which if followed to the southeast (157), will bring her to Gardner Island/Nikumaroro in 2.7 hours or less (depending on just where she is when she starts her run to the southeast) at her best-economical cruise speed of 130 knots.

Another subscriber asks why, if there was airplane wreckage along the western shore of Nikumaroro (as reported by former residents), the Coast Guard Loran station guys didn't see it.  That's easy.  If there was (is) wreckage in the spot described by former residents, it is well hidden in dense shoreline vegetation.  The Loran station was at the opposite end of the island, three miles away.  The 25 Coasties who manned it were restricted to the immediate area by their commander who was very concerned about fraternization with the natives.  Occasional visits to the village were closely controlled and the main lagoon passage separates the village from the shoreline where the wreckage is aid to have been.  Not only the Coast Guard, but most of the older residents of the village were apparently unaware of the wreckage across the passage.  When we tracked them down and interviewed them in their new village in the Solomon Islands, no one knew anything about an airplane wreck.  It was only when we interviewed some members of the younger generation who now live on Funafuti that we learned of wreckage they had seen as children.  The place they describe is a spot we have walked past along the beach on several occasion.  The shoreline vegetation is so thick there that a 747 could be parked back in the bush and we would never know it.  With a specific area to check out we can hack our way back in and see if there's anything there.  The next best thing is to get really good aerial photography of that spot, which we hope to do next month as part of the mission to check out the Canton Engine.

Ric Gillespie
TIGHAR
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:47:11 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      The Kanton Mission

While discussions of what is known to have happened, and what might have happened, to Earhart and Noonan are interesting and useful, our primary mission at TIGHAR is to find conclusive physical evidence of what DID happen. I am, therefore, pleased to announce that we have, after many frustrating months, succeeded in putting together a practical, economical, and safe (relatively) way to investigate the Canton Engine.  We're going to need some help to pull this off and there are some limited opportunities for a few individuals to accompany the expedition, if that's your idea of a good time.

The Search for the Canton Engine
On Saturday, February 14th an eight-person TIGHAR archaeological team will depart Honolulu aboard a chartered Gulfstream I twin-turboprop aircraft for the 2,000 mile overwater flight to Canton Island, an atoll two hundred miles northeast of Nikumaroro. The team will return to Hawaii on Monday, February 16th.  The purpose of the expedition is to find and, if possible recover, a nine-cylinder radial aircraft engine reportedly brought to Canton in 1971 from an outlying atoll.  The engine may be from Amelia Earhart's lost aircraft.  If sufficient additional fuel can be obtained at Canton, an aerial photo run will be made over Nikumaroro to attempt to confirm the suspected presence of aircraft debris along a particular stretch of the island's shoreline.

The story of how the engine came to be on Canton Island is told in a report entitled The Canton Engine which was first published in TIGHAR Tracks Vol. 13, Nos. 1 & 2 and is now available on TIGHAR's website at www.tighar.org.

You Can't Get There From Here
Few airstrips on Earth are as remote as the 6,000 foot paved runway on Canton Island.  Built in 1941, it was an important transpacific refueling stop during World War Two and, during the 1950s, hosted the Boeing Stratocruisers of Pan American and other airlines.  With the advent of non-stop jet service across the Pacific in the mid-1960s, scheduled air service to Canton came to an end. Aside from a USAF missile test program which was based there from 1970 to 1976, the island was essentially abandoned.  In 1979 Canton became part of the new island nation of Kiribati and the spelling of its name was changed to Kanton.  Today the only residents of Kanton are a few Kiribati families who take weather observations and maintain the airfield.  Last year, a re- enactment of Earhart's world flight refueled at Kanton using avgas that was specially shipped in at great expense.  The jet fuel that is now on the island has been there for nearly a year and can not be assumed to be safe.

The problem has been finding a way to fly a team there and back without relying on refueling at Kanton.  Normally, the only available refueling stop enroute from Hawaii is Christmas Island (Kiritimati), which is also part of Kiribati.  But flying to Kanton via Kiritimati means making a considerable dogleg which puts you at Kanton without enough fuel to get back to Kiritimati.

Straightening The Dogleg
There is, however, another island with an airstrip which is in a more direct line from Oahu to Kanton.  That island is Palmyra, an uninhabited, privately owned atoll which is part of the U.S.  The airfield there, built during WWII, was closed down and unusable until just two months ago when it was reopened to allow inspection of the atoll for possible sale.

TIGHAR has made arrangements to use Palmyra as a refueling point enroute to Kanton.  This will enable us to arrive at Kanton with sufficient fuel remaining to return to Palmyra without refueling. A ship is currently underway from Hawaii to Palmyra carrying jet fuel, refueling equipment, and personnel to service our aircraft enroute to Kanton on Feb 14th and again on our return to Hawaii on the 16th.  If we are able to take on additional fuel at Kanton we will be able to fly an aerial photo run over Nikumaroro.

Wanna Come Along?
This plan is not without its hazards. Palmyra atoll is home to an estimated one million seabirds.  Landings and takeoffs must be made at daybreak while the birds are off fishing. The runway at Palmyra is only 4,500 feet and we'll be very heavy for the early morning departure for Kanton.  For this takeoff, the G1's Roll Royce Dart engines will be boosted with water/methanol injection.  Weight limitations limit us to a maximum of 14 passengers.  The TIGHAR archaeological team comprises eight people, including the man who brought the engine to Kanton in 1971.  The remaining six seats are available for media representatives or private individuals who are willing and able to help fund this important expedition.  To make this work we need a minimum of $10,000 per seat.

If you think you might be interested in participating in this expedition please email me, Richard Gillespie, directly at TIGHAR1@aol.com or phone me at (302) 994-4410 during normal business hours.

You Can Help
We also invite everyone who is interested in helping us find out if the Canton Engine can be found, and if it is indeed one of Earhart's, to make whatever contribution you can. Everyone who helps fund this trip will receive a handsome individualized certificate making them an Honorary Expedition Member for the Earhart Project Kanton Mission.  If you can contribute at least $100 we'll also send you an 8x10 color print of Nikumaroro from the air (if we get to do our photo run) or an 8x10 color print of Kanton (if we don't).

Make your check payable to TIGHAR and send it to:
TIGHAR
The Kanton Mission
2812 Fawkes Drive
Wilmington, DE 19808

You can also phone (302) 994-4410 or fax (302) 994-7945 with your credit card information if you'd like to make your contribution that way.

Wish Us Luck!

Ric Gillespie
TIGHAR
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:08:27 EST
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      RE: Nav, Fuel, and Survival

From my navigational experience (albeit much more recent than Noonan's), the only time you would wish to change (increase) power settings and sacrifice fuel on a long flight would be if you had a control time to meet, and either plenty of fuel or the means to replenish in flight. AE had neither. And the high headwinds theory doesn't fit with the LOP 157/337. Wasn't that line the sun line at around sunrise on that date? It appears that Noonan knew that they had flown far enough to the east (within a couple of miles) irrespective of the headwind component - the island simply didn't appear from the cockpit. What to do? Circling, for a couple of hours with no radio contact wouldn't make sense to me either.  

Peter Boor.
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 1998 15:58:20 EST
From:         Frank K.
Subject: Re: Location of batteries in the Lockhead 10E

RE: Batteries  As you know Ric I worked the restoration on the Finch bird and the battery tray was under the floor. And that was an original installation. I don't remember  looking at that installation on the Lockheed Modification drawings for Amelias Aircraft but the flap motor was also under the floor and I believe that was also true in Amelias.

LTM  Frank K
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 1998 15:58:58 EST
From:         Daa390
Subject:      Re: I'm  baaaack

As a follow up to my question on how long someone can survive on the island: can't one survive on cocconuts ie. don't they have enough "milk/moisture" in them to enable one to survive-- or at least extend one's survival time without fresh water?

-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:00:43 EST
From:         Daa390
Subject:       Re: I'm  baaaack

As another follow up regarding G.P. Putnam as being just in it for the money if you are really interested in what I feel is a pretty accurate account of G.P.'s relationship with A.E. you should read "Whistled Like a Bird". This book gives a facinating account of G.P. and his first wife. It definately describes G.P. in a somewhat different light than Doris Rich or Gore Vidal.
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:02:42 EST
From:         Alfred Hall
Subject:      Re: The Kanton Mission

There were a couple of mysteries surrounding Canton Island when I was there from Dec 1945 to May 1946.  One was the grounded ship near the channel and the other was the remains of an old Lockheed on a part of the island where there  was no airstrip.  I have photos of both.

Tighar was kind enough to identify the  troop ship TAYLOR and I later got in touch with with H> Mendelson who was on the ship and had a fascinating story about it.

Tighar also identified the Lockheed as a model similar to the Model Aerhart was flying but obviously not hers because of the differences in riveting on the skin.

We were in the process of burying a lot of vehicles and equipment when I returned to the states and I have ofter wondered whatever became of it all and Whether anyone had ever figured out where the Lockheed came from.  RIC mentioned that a few of them were used in the early 40s and one may have simply missed the runwaay and ended up on the other side of the channel not far from the old Pan Am buildings.  If anyone has any additional info I would be happy to hear from you.

I will be gone until late FeB but will pick up my mail by the 21st

ANOTHER HOOT
     FROM
THE OLD 'AL'
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:43:35 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Battery

Frank,

The location of the main (only?) battery on Finch's airplane, as you describe it, is the same as Earhart's and, as far as I know, all Lockheed 10s.  Photos taken prior to the fisrt world flight attempt show that AE had an additional battery in the aft cabin.  We can only assume it was still there for the second attempt.  Nobody seems to have taken photos inside the airplane after the repairs were completed.

Ric
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:03:47 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Coconuts and GP

Can you live indefinitely on coconut milk?  In theory, I don't know why not. I do know that the British authorities and the Gilbert Islanders who evaluated the island for settlement in October of 1937 certainly did not see the coconuts then available on the island as an adequate source of water.  Well digging was one of their highest priorities.

Of course, survivng on coconuts assumes that you can either climb a coconut palm (not a common skill among us Europeans), or find enough green nuts on the ground.  Getting at the milk requires that you are able to get through the husk and the nut without just cracking the nut (at which point the milk just dribbles out onto the sand).  I've seen islanders whack open a coconut with a machete as effortlessly as you or I would open a can of beer.  When I try it myself all I manage to accomplish is mangling the coco while gravely endangering my digits.  It's also worth mentioning that, for some people, coconut milk is a terrific laxative, which is rather counterproductive is you're trying to not die of dehydration.

As for George Putnam's relationship with AE; I also recommend "Whistled Like A Bird."  As for Doris Rich and Gore Vidal, the less said the better.

Ric
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 1998 19:25:31 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      EARHART MYSTERY

Lets see if I can sharpen the focus.  GIVEN: From the several very detailed booklets Tighar published for the members on the subject.  A.E. unquestionably got to Howland but did not see it.  She said that they were flying (lop) 337-157.  337 goes nowhere, 157 runs almost over Gardner (Niku..).

Therefore neither A.E's airmanship nor Noonan's navigation is germaine.  The question is: Did they get to Gardner?  Solid evidence shows they had a potential of nearly 20 hours of fuel; more than enough to reach Gardner.  There is no evidence that their fuel burn exceeded flight plan.    There is tantalizing shreds of evidence that they did get to Gardner.  If so, where or how might more telling evidence be uncovered?  The engine at Kanton could be the smoking gun or a disappointment.  The picture (mirror image?) and a number of other bits of evidence might benefit from being looked at from a different angle. Have we overlooked any other interpretations of the existing details?  RC #941        
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 1998 19:30:51 EST
From:         Tet Walston
Subject:      Astro-navigation 1937 style

Can anyone tell me the method used by the best navigators? I was trained in 1942, using a bubble sextant. We took six sights of the same star, having noted the GMT start and end time. A second set of sights would be made on a star at least 45 degrees away in azimuth. The sum of the sight on each star would be divided by six, and the time of the sights would be the midpoint of time elapsed. BEFORE starting to look up the Astro tables, the refractive index of the astro- dome was applied, and the Corriolis effect of airspeed on the bubble!!! That was about as near to real position lines as was possible.

Of course, IF THE PILOT DID NOT FLY STRAIGHT AND LEVEL, AT CONSTANT SPEED, the results would be false.

How good was Noonan using whatever method he knew? How accurately could Amelia fly?

When, if ever, was the W/V checked on that last leg? We will never know, alas.

      Tet walston
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:12:36 EST
From:         David Kelly
Subject:     did they recongnise Howland Is?

My appologies if this sounds like a dumb questions, however, if AE and Noonan got to Howland Is...is it possible that they did not recognise it as Howland Is and hence overflew it???
-------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:20:25 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Recognise Howland?

The only dumb question is the one that isn't asked.

It would have been pretty hard to not recognize Howland.  We know that Earhart had an accurate map of what the island looked like.  There was a runway there. The Coast Guard cutter Itasca was just offshore making black smoke to call attention to the island.  Neither the Itasca nor the personnel ashore on Howland heard or saw an airplane, and they were, to say the least, paying close attention.  No, of the various scenarios of what might have happened, that has to be pretty far down the list.

Ric