Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:26:38 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: precomputing bethpage98 asks: <> Air navigation tables for 1937 reside in our library: the Libary of Congress. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:30:20 EDT From: Jim Thompson Subject: Bushnell Survey Pat, Thank you for posting my request for more information about naval survey methods that may have been used for the Bushnell survey. I've noted a few questions about aspects of my post. Here is a response. I've included a note at the end asking anyone interested in more info to contact me directly. Thank you. The Bushnell survey contains four sheets number 9, 10, 43, and 45. No. 10 is 1:20000 scale, No. 9 is 1:7500 scale, and both No. 43 and No. 45 are 1:5000 scale. The large scale maps are concerned with the island itself; the smaller scale maps are concerned with the ocean. No. 43 contains depth information for the southern "half" of the lagoon; No. 45 concerns the northern part of the lagoon. Sheet No. 10 covers the area bounded approximately by latitude S4.58 - S4.77 and longitude W174.37 - W174.65. Sheet No. 9 covers the area bounded approximately by latitude S4.64 - S4.71 and longitude W174.47 - W174.56. Note that although Sheet 10 includes the area of Sheet 9, there is only blank space where Sheet 9 would fit [actually there appear to be cut lines where a (reduced) Sheet 9 could be inserted.] Sheets 43 and 45 indicate a total of 22 (survey?) stations arranged around the perimeter of the island and perimeter of the lagoon. Clockwise from the northernmost tip of the island, the ocean-side sites are: "Tow", "And"(which appears on Sheet No. 10 only), "Line", "Base" "Ile", "Ner"[the southernmost ocean-side site], "Den", "Gar", "Age", "Vil", "Bri", and "Rec" (a.k.a. "Rex"). The lagoon-side sites (again going clockwise from the north) are "End", "Mark"(which appears on Sheet No. 45 only), "In", "Sid"[the southernmost lagoon-side site], "The", "Nog" (a.k.a. "Nug"), "Wit" and "Astro". Site "Astro" located at S4 40 18.6 W174 32 27.7 is listed as "origin" on Sheet No. 9. In addition, there are notations of "80' tower" at three of the sites: "Tow", "Line", and "Base" (a.k.a. "Bas" on one sheet). For reference, "Line" is about 11 deg NW of Bauareke Passage, "Base" is about 30 deg NE of the Passage. As mentioned in my previous post, I am interested in knowing how the station names may be derived. Although "Vil" is in the area near the 1938-1963 village,"Tow" is near one of the previously mentioned towers, and "Rec"/"Rex" is near the S.S. Norwich City, are these merely coincidences or was there some methodology used on such surveys? Because this all is somewhat off-topic, please respond to me directly if you have any thoughts on the matter. Thank you. james thompson (2185) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:40:41 EDT From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: Sunrise observation Vern Klein wrote: (clip) > Fred knew it was not going to be easy. Everyone knew it was not going to be > easy. I think there is little doubt that Fred had given this a lot of > thought long before they left Lae. He knew full well that, if they were > near Howland but could not sight it, there was only one way to go. He knew > what bearing to fly to get into the Phoenix island group. If they flew a > heading of about 157 degrees from somewhere near Howland, it would take them > to the Phoenix Islands. (clip) -----Yup, and Fred Noonan wrote in one of his Pan-Am reports after a long cross-water leg, that he considered radio direction finding mandatory to find an island after a long cross-water flight, even though he didn't trust RDF entirely. Question is: why did Fred agree to the Lae-Howland leg without a trailing-wire antenna? LTM(who is always getting lost), HAG 2201. ****************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe because the Electra's own RDF system didn't use a trailing wire. The trailing wire's only function, as I understand it, would have been to allow efficient transmission of morse code signals on 500 KCS, the marine emergency frequency. That frequency would also have been within Itasca's capapability for taking DF bearings. The plan, however, (at least as the Coast Guard understood it ) was for Itasca to be the passive partner in the DF process. The ship would transmit signals upon which the plane would take bearings. A trailing wire would play no role in that procedure. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:42:50 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: 39/40 Bushnell survey > Ric and I have had a number of arugments about this...one tower > is quite close to the location of the shoe remnants. It is entirely > possible that the fire remains as well may be due to that Bushnell > party. > > ************************ > > Well, the can label dated the fire we found to th 1970s or later---the bar > code, you know. Yeah, but those nasty aliens and Voyager crew knew about time travel.... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:55:39 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Sunrise observation Vern wrote: > He knew what bearing to fly to get into the Phoenix island group. If they flew a > heading of about 157 degrees from somewhere near Howland, it would take >them to the Phoenix Islands. Actually, the Sunrise LoP had nothing to do with > that. 157 degrees, more or less, is just the direction to the Phoenix > Islands from Howland Island. Any other direction would take them over > more open water than they had fuel enough to cross. Good post, Vern! Actually, on one of the old Nat'l Geographic Maps in the Earhart collection at Purdue has the island of Canterbury underlined. If FN wanted to go towards the Phoenix (or is it Pheonix?) Islands, he would lay in a course for the middle of the group from Howland, and take that line (about 154 degrees), not 157 degrees. It would give him the best chance of at least sighting one island if he was off on the E/W position around Howland. Lots of ifs and speculation, but at least it makes sense. ************************************************************************** From Ric Canterbury Island? The map in question actually has both Canton and Enderbury islands underlined in pencil. Those happen to be the islands of the Phoenix Group for which the U.S. was claiming ownership. There are also pencil marks to the north and south of Howland which roughly correspond to the aircraft's anticipated max fuel range. We don't know when the marks on the map date from (1st attempt, 2nd attempt or post-loss). ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:03:47 EDT From: JT Subject: Re: Home Again A hearty congratulations and some well-earned sleep for the TIGHAR team! Reading and digesting (burp...excuse me) the digest daily was a mind-expanding exercise. If I had a hat on, I'd take it off to you all. Anyone critical of your hard work, policies, etc. should be summarily tarred & feathered (Pat, you have the honors). You all should be held in the highest regard! LTM (who would probably say, "I'm so proud to be your Mom.") JT `````````````````````````````````````````````````````` I seem to have lost some weight and don't wish to mar my image. I cannot reveal exactly how much weight. I can only say that had I lost ten more pounds, I would have had to file a missing persons report. -Alfred Hitchcock ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:29:32 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Bushnell Survey Regarding the Bushnell Survey: What was its purpose? Who ordered it? Have the reports from this survey been located? If not, where might they be, if they exist today? Was this possibly in connection with some sort of radio nav-aid? (At this stage it would not, I believe, be LORAN... this system did not come into being until a little later, proposed in 1941 and entering the test phase in July 1942... but it was developed from the principles behind the British GEE system, which operated at a much higher frequency, around 200 MHz if I recall correctly). Could this nav-aid been something for use by Pan American Airways? Could our PAA historians tell us if the airline was contemplating route expansion into British or Dutch territory? (My impression, which may be faulty, is that PAA was primarily concerned with China and the Phillippines, plus the US possessions in the Pacific). Why was the US Navy or USCG conducting a survey of a British island, at this stage? Now for the big question... If the Bushnell survey was so extensive as to require the clearing of land to erect these four big towers... then this must have required a LOT of people. (Ever tried putting up an 80 foot tower, on a prepared site? ... let alone, in tropical jungle and heat?) Surely somebody saw -- or even plotted? -- the wreckage of the aircraft if it was on the reef. It must have been a lot more intact than when the later colonists saw it. Wonder if it was reported? Wonder if anyone went out there to investigate it? Surely someone must have. Yes, I know, this is not always a correct assumption to make... a freighter hulk is one thing; but, an airplane? When there were none for hundreds of miles? I think somebody might have gone for a look-see. 73 Mike E. #2194 ************************************************************************** From Ric The survey of Gardner was part of a massive mapping of many of the islands of the Central Pacific. It was done by the U.S. Navy and was probably part of general strategic planning as the political situation in the Pacific deteriorated. The British were not especially pleased but went along with the survey of the Phoenix Group. We're not sure how many men were involved but the survey seems to have been accomplished between November 28 and December 5, 1939 - that's only a week. The work of the on-the-ground team from Bushnell was augmented by an aerial photo-mosaic taken the previous April 30th by a floatplane launched from the seaplane tender U.S.S. Pelican. To our knowledge, nobody mentioned, much less plotted, any aircraft wreckage on the reef. But I would caution about drawing any conclusions about what someone MUST have noticed or what condition the wreck MUST have been in. Emily Sikuli seems to have arrived at the island very shortly after the Bushnell survey team departed. She described the wreckage as being only a few pieces of heavy structure, very rusted, and visible near the edge of the reef "where the waves break" only at low tide. Nothing she saw from the beach was obviously an airplane. The common knowledge that it was an airplane came from native fisherman who had been out to look at it some time earlier. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:36:40 EDT From: Tom King Subject: One for the conspiracy theorists Noting Ric's comment that: "The discussions about breaking Japanese codes, while interesting, are way off topic. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that the Japanese played any significant role in the Earhart story - period." -- I have to mention that in typing up my notes on our first interview with Foua Tofiga, I have the following: "In 1937 (vague about date), he was on Tarawa (at St. Joseph's, apparently), remembers being sent out with others onto the reef to look for a boat or dinghy. A plane flew over; he was told it was Japanese, from the Marshall Islands. Apparently associates this with AE disappearance (TK: My impression was he meant that he and others had been sent out in response to some report or assumption about AE floating around in a boat. Probably should pursue)." This was literally one of the first things Mr. Tofiga said, and it quickly got submerged in discussion of the Kanawa box, the bones, the sextant box, Vaskess, Emily, etc. etc. So we never returned to it. It's scarcely "evidence," being a 60-year-old recollection of seeing something as a child (albeit something VERY unusual at the time) and being told by somebody what it was, but there it is, for what it's worth. LTM (who didn't follow up on it either) Tom King ****************************************************************************** From Ric Swell. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:43:11 EDT From: Choirgirl Subject: Re: Noonan's seat Excuse me, but Fred Nooman was drunk. He had sworn off drinking but broke his promise and was drinking the night before in Lae. Amelia was NOT a good navagator, that's why she had Fred but he wasn't much help. He was drunken--he couldn't navagate or fly!! ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks for straightening us out on that. Just cite your sources and we'll be happy to consider your opinion on Noonan's character and various spelling issues. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:45:27 EDT From: William Subject: Re: Home Again > 1. Barring any last minute revelations, no bones were > located in Fiji that > were consistent with the bones known to have been sent there > in 1941. This is no surprise. Although continuing "reasonable" searches for them is necessary, after 58 years of obscurity, they may very well no longer exist, or be so dispersed as to be unretrievable in practical terms. > 3. In Fiji, valuable contacts and cooperative associations > were made which...may eventually lead us to the sextant box and perhaps > even the bones. This possibility has obviously increased because of TIGHAR's efforts this month. > 5. New, totally unexpected, and highy credible anecdotal > reports from two > independent primary sources indicate that the early settlers > on Nikumaroro in > 1939/1940 were well aware of an airplane wreck on the > island's reef..explains why we've had such > difficulty finding > the proverbial "smoking gun" Also not a surprise. It has been pretty clear that there was plane wreckage on the reef from the late 30s through perhaps the early 60s, and that the remains of two people, possibly of European ancestry, possibly a man and a woman, dating from approximately the same time, were found on the island. Something relating to an aircraft landing and marooning obviously appears to have happened on Gardner before the war, and the evidence is probably still there, somewhere, making possible a solution to this mystery. Congratulations on your safe return and on TIGAHR's continued excellent work. LTM (who knows that island mysteries take time to solve) william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:15:21 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Sunrise observation Oops. Enderbury it is! Must be the druid in me to suggest Canterbury. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:16:32 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Bushnell survey I can speculate that the Bushnell Survey derived in part from the Colorado search for Earhart in 1937. The Captain submited a report to the Hydrographic Office of the US Navy decrying the poor maps, inaccurate locations, etc. of the Phoenix Group. Coupled together with the claim of the US in 1938 to Canton, it would make great sense to map out these important islands. Bushnell afterwords went to Panama to map out the offshore area there (another obvious strategic area). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:27:06 EDT From: William Dohenyguy Subject: Welcome home Welcome home to all the crew. Ric, I know you are preparing a report for the Forum, but I would like to ask a few thousand questions. Did you concentrate your search on land or sea? If the islanders reported a down craft on the reef, did you take the proper equipment to search below the surface? Will there be a fifth trip to Niku? Finding nothing on Niku this time, will you look at other islands in the area as a possibility? Ok, that's all for now. Welcome home. William LTM *************************************************************************** From Ric <> Land. <> The reef is virutally at the surface and most of it dries at low tide. You can't search below the surface of the reef. We did do a visual survey of the portions that are underwater even at low tide. <> This was the fifth trip to Niku. Niku I (1989), Niku II (1991), Niku III Preliminary (1996), Niku III (1997), Niku IIII Recon (1999). There will probably be a sixth trip (Niku IIII) but the date will not be finalized until we've had a chance to analyze what we learned from this past trip. <> On the contrary. The information obtained on this trip appears to greatly reinforce the hypothesis that we have the right place. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:42:56 EDT From: Tet Walston Subject: LOP The message relating to LOP 157/337 which AE/FN reported, is of little value unless a similar LOP (preferably at 90 degrees) was observed. I assume that this LOP was observed at Sunrise, and that FN calculated their arrival at a LOP of that bearing which would intersect Howland on their ETA. This report of being on LOP 157/337 is no more than giving a position on a Longitude, without checking the Latitude! If FN was such a wonderful navigator, and if AE was such a good pilot, how did this flight end in tradegy? Answer, neither were able/trained in radio communications, or the equipment they had on board. Noonan knew the value of this -- his experience with Trans Am proved it. We have, alas, a poorly planned flight (wrong way round), the task of a fatigued crew to find a tiny island. Despite the organised assistance, they were simply unable to use that assistance. I still believe that the flight ended in the sea, but I would like to know if that was so. Full praise to Ric and the Team, but take care, don't make it into what some critics do call "an industry" LTM Tet ****************************************************************************** From Ric It should be apparent to anyone that there is a great deal of industry in TIGHAR's investigation of the Earhart disappearance. We've tried to be industrious in making sure that we understand the context in which the disappearance took place and that we fully appreciate the known facts of the case. Perhaps if you were a bit more industrious in familiarizing yourself with the products of that industry your representation of what happened would be more accurate. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:36:05 EDT From: Hugh Graham Subject: Japanese search for AE Tom king reported that Foua Tofiga said; >A plane flew over; he was told it was Japanese, from the Marshall > Islands. ------FWIW(probably little), I recall seeing photos of the NY Times front page from July/37 stating: "10 U.S. warships and English and JAPANESE warships search for Amelia Earhart" in a TV doc. Maybe a Jap'se catapult- launched recon plane? LTM, HAG 2201. ************************************************************************** From Ric I suppose we need to deal with this. I spent quite a bit of time with Tofiga in Fiji but he never mentioned any of this to me so I have to go entirely upon his brief comment to Tom King. I generally found Tofiga to be an excellent source of information regarding the Western Pacific High Commission, its procedures and personalities. However, a Japanese plane over Tarawa in 1937 is hard to swallow. 1. There was no Japanese search for Earhart in July 1937. It wasn't until September that Putnam asked, through diplomatic channels, if he could pay for a search by the Japanese of the islands in the mandated territories. The reply came on September 17 from Isoruku Yamamoto, Vice Minister, Ministry of the Imperial Navy, saying that: "...or Imperial nation will have all of the vessels and fishing boats in the area make every possible effort to search for the remains." The Japaneses later claimed that two ships searched the southern Marshall islands - the seaplane tender KAMUI (often mistakenly named in Earhart books as the "Kamoi") and the survey ship KOSHU. We know that in July, KAMUI was enroute from Saipan to Futami in the Osawagara Islands, far, far from the Marshalls and heading west. We don't know where KOSHU was but she had no aircraft. 2. It wasn't until 1940 that the Japanese had seaplane ramps or airfields anywhere in the Marshalls, so any Japanese airplane in that part of the world would have to be ship-based. I'm not sure how many carriers the Imperial Navy had in 1937, but I do know that AKAGI was in drydock undergoing a refit throughout this entire period. We know of no Japanese naval vessels in or near the Marshalls anytime in 1937 other than possibly the KAMUI anf KOSHU in late September. 3. Had the KAMUI, by any chance, been so bold as to send a flying boat as far south as Tarawa it is hard to understand why there was no British diplomatic protest similar to that filed when a U.S. Navy seaplane flew over Canton Island. Tarawa was not a lonely tropical atoll. It was a major British colonial center with offices, adminstrators, a hospital, a school and a radio station. For the Japanese to come prowling around so far outside of their own neighborhood should have brought a serious diplomatic response. No such traffic appears in the offical record. 4. It seems far more likely that what Tofiga saw was a scout plane launched from one of the British cruisers that were in the area from 1935 through 1939. HMS Leith, HMS Leander, HMS Wellington, and HMS Achilles all carried at least one Supermarine Walrus. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:39:05 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Japanese seaplane ops Re: Dr. Tom King's 8/1/99 post relating to possible Japanese involvement in the AE/FN search. Here is a web page originally posted by our Radio Historian, Mike E. #2194: ********************************************** Spennemann, Japanese Sea Plane Operations in the Marshall Islands Address:http://life.csu.edu.au/~dspennem/VIRTPAST/Papers_DRS/SeaPlane/SeaPlane Ops.html Changed:8:36 AM on Monday, August 2, 1999 ********************************************** This page, (maintained by Dr. Dirk H.R.Spennemann, Senior Lecturer, Cultural Heritage Studies at Charles Sturt University, New South Wales, Au.) provides a brief description of the establishment of Japanese seaplane routes, throughout the Mandated Territories, during the mid-1930's. In subsequent E-mail correspondence I exchanged with Dr. Spennemann, he suggested that the development of any military facilities in the Marshalls did not begin until the 1940s, however, given the very minimal facilities required for the operation of seaplanes from such areas, it would seem possible that the Japanese may have flown such planes from the Marshalls; Yet it does seem unlikely they would have overflown British Mandated Territory (the Gilberts) without prior notice or permission, especially given the territorial "touchiness" of the several powers involved in the pre-war administration of these islands & the general suspicion generated about the Japanese because of the "security" measures they involked regarding their own mandated territories. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:37:50 EDT From: Angelo Subject: RDF and GP >for taking DF bearings. The plan, however, (at least as the Coast Guard >understood it ) was for Itasca to be the passive partner in the DF process. >The ship would transmit signals upon which the plane would take bearings. A >trailing wire would play no role in that procedure. That's where the trip unraveled: AE did not heed the results of her July 1 1937 test where the Electra's RDF did not work even on a nearby LAE radio transmitter. The only reason that she would have rationalized this RDF failiure as due to being "too close" to a transmitter would be in response to Husband Putnam's plea to "get to the US by the 4th of July". Our analysis of the 'fallback' navigation strategies have merit in that they should identify what was really done by AE and FN in response to the Howland results of the RDF failure. Ang. ************************************************************************* From Ric I'm afraid that you can't lay that one on GP's doorstep. By the time Earhart made the test flight on the morning of July 1st it was already too late for her to make Oakland by July 4th. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:09:28 EDT From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: Japanese search for AE << Tom King reported that Foua Tofiga said; >A plane flew over; he was told it was Japanese, from the Marshall > Islands. >> I was present during that interview with Mr. Tofiga and the key words here are, "he was told." It was my impression that Tofiga seemed skeptical of the plane's identification at the time. LTM, Barbara Norris ************************************************************************** From Ric Sounds reasonable. I hope nobody ever bases any historical conclusions on aircraft identifications my buddies and I made from the schoolyard at Erie Street School. ************************************************************************** From Daryll Greetings to Ric and the Forum; O.K. at the risk of posting something that doesn't conform to the stated goals or hypothesis of the Forum. <...... However, a Japanese plane over Tarawa in 1937 is hard to swallow......> <2. It wasn't until 1940....> You have quoted this year (1940) before. I do not believe that year is written in granite and is subject to challenge. <..... that the Japanese had seaplane ramps or airfields anywhere in the Marshalls, so any Japanese airplane in that part of the world would have to be ship-based.> There is contemporaneous documentation in the Archives in Washington : "CONFIDENTIAL Enclosure No. 1 to Despatch No. 3605 of January 8, 1939, from the Embassy at Paris." An eyewitness account of a seaplane ramp and airplane hanger on Jaluit in the Marshalls. This account is based on information at least a year old if not 2 to 3 years old. <1. There was no Japanese search for Earhart in July 1937..... "...or Imperial nation will have all of the vessels and fishing boats in the area make every possible effort to search for the remains......" Fishing boats by their very nature and business are at sea the majority of the time. The Japanese fishing grounds can be said to be their own waters and international waters ( Mandate Islands and surrounding waters ). There is contemporaneous documentation ( Japanese, 11:20 a.m. July 13, 1937 ) that has been previously posted on the Forum. Concerning the London international news inquiry about the report that a Japanese fishing boat had rescued the Earhart plane. < 3..........it is hard to understand why there was no British diplomatic protest ....... For the Japanese to come prowling around so far outside of their own neighborhood.... This ads some credibility to the time frame. If a massive air and sea search is being conducted by several nations, then a brief Japanese over-flight of one of the northern most islands in the Gilberts, can be explained by the most inept diplomat. Daryll ************************************************************************** From Ric The year 1940 that I have quoted before comes from an article in U.S. Naval Institute PROCEEDINGS entitled "How Japan fortified the Mandated Islands" and is based upon Japanese as well as U.S. Navy records. I'm not sure that the unattributed "eyewitness account" in the 1939 despatch is a better source, but just play to the game - if there was a seaplane ramp and hangar at Jaluit in 1937 it's pretty clear that the sneaky Japanese were trying to keep it secret. How dumb would they have to be to fly the plane over a British administrative center low enough so that even the schoolboys could identify it? It may be true that the most inept diplomat might be able to explain such a flight. My point is that they didn't. Where is the British protest to which the inept diplomat replied? Conspiracy theorists love to make big fires out of wisps of smoke, but there isn't even any smoke on this one. Sure sign of a cover up. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:24:25 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: LOP > This report > of being on LOP 157/337 is no more than giving a position on a Longitude, > without checking the Latitude! Er, I know nothing about navigation techniques but isn't that one of the planks of TIGHAR's hypothesis? That if you can place yourself in terms of both longitude and latitude you aren't lost and don't stay lost, but if you can only manage one or the other you're semi-lost and it might go either way? Still think Ric's response was a bit fierce, though. LTM, Phil 2276. ****************************************************************************** From Ric Fierce? Perhaps. But the person who made that statement is not a newcomer to the forum and has read, or at least has had the opportunity to read, countless well-informed discussions about the navigational situation that faced Earhart and Noonan. That kind of thing makes me fierce. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:06:20 EDT From: Tet Walston Subject: Clutching at straws Thanks Ric, I know that you are as critical of my analysis of AE/FN flights as I am of your conclusions. Whilst I admire your efforts to "find" AE, the clutching at sraws approach, report of bones, shoe remains etc. are at best ephemeral, and by themselves provide only possible info of the end of the flight. My navigation observations and comments are valid. Amelia was not fully trained in instrument/night flying, and FN's reputation as a navigator was based on his TransAtlantic flights with Pan Am. where the use/need of a radio operator was imperative. Neither were fully able to avail themselves of the superb facilities arranged by the US Navy etc. As far as the reported LOP is concerned, this bearing was ONLY valid if they knew where they were ,in reference to this. Noonan had clocks set to GMT and LMT. At sunrise he would "observe" and calculate his LOP. the TIME of this observation should have given what in fact was his Longitude, so now he would have a position. not the best., the cross bearings were too close. So, he did know where they were? Where were they? Wherever they were was not at Howland. I truly would wish that their end can be established, but I have so many doubts. Ric may not like my comments, but to be fair, he allows me to make them! Wherelse could this happen?? LTM, and Ric and the crew- not forgetting Pat. TET ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:13:33 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Kilts: a challenge for the Forum One of the pieces of the "bones on Niku" puzzle that continues to be missing is the account given by ex-coastguardsman Floyd Kilts to the San Diego Tribune in 1960. That is, the account's not missing; what's missing is any associated detail, like notes, maps, other information that may have been in Kilts' possession. Kilts reported what seemed to us, for the first 10 years of the project, to be a pretty crazy story about bones being found on Niku and taken to Fiji. We now know, of course, that the story's not crazy, though many of the details in the Tribune article are. Kilts is dead, but he had a daughter, and it would be really good to track her down, see if she has recollections of her father's story or, better yet, supporting documents. Using internet people-finding resources that I don't understand very well, I've ascertained that Kilts died in September of 1964, in California, at the age of 73, that he was born on August 17 1891, and that his social security number was 557-14-0142. Now, is there anybody on the Forum who'd like to take up the challenge of tracking his daughter? LTM (who thinks this is rather morbid, but understands) Tom King ****************************************************************************** From Ric For starters, Ron Dawson's San Diego contact "Sue" has come up with the following: The San Diego Tribune carried this death notice: Kilts- Floyd C. husband of Ethel Kilts, father of Mrs. Jay Josselyn and Adion ( hard to read name- ink fuzzy) Kilts, brother of Howard and Hilda ( again hard to read- blurred) Kilts. Member of ship no. 5454 VFW San Diego. Services Tuesday 12:20 pm of Bonham Bros Mortuary. Military interment. Ft Rosecrans. Auspices San Diego County Council Burial Team VFW. I also took the liberty to check on his death certificate while I was at the county administration bldg. it read: Floyd C. Kilts found Sept. 11, 1964 8:25 am male-white- born in New York date of birth was August 17, 1891 73 years old Father: Jessee Kilts born in NY Mother: Lulu Hall born in NY Citizen of USA Soc Sec # 557-14-01428 ( researcher's note: the 0 attached to 01428 looked as if someone was trying to erase it but was not successful. ) Occupation: Engineer/Construction for 40 years with the State of Ca. Industry was State of California Served in WWI & WWII married- wife Ethel Kilts housewife Place of death (was not written in) address 3615 Oleander Dr San Diego Ca. in county of San Diego for 32 years in California for 44 years Burial 9-15-64 Ft Rosecrans Bonham Bros Mortuary He died from : Acute myocardialinfraction - time listed as Sudden Arterioscurotic heart disease 9 years other factors: previous mycardial - essential hypertension I also looked in our city phone directory and I did not see any Josseylns or Kilts listed Ron says: On the internet white pages there is a Jay Josselyn listed in San Diego. No address, just a phone. Jay Josselyn San Diego, CA 92101 , 619-223-7219. Seems likely to be the same. I have not called them yet. You would know better the questions to ask. Concerning the son, Sue is sending me a hard copy of the obit and I will see if I can make out the name. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:16:46 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Re: Japanese Greetings to Ric and the Forum again; Yeah, I know, I don't even know why I try. I know you always have the last word, so I guess it's for some of the other members on the Forum. I am replying to your reply in case those questions were directed to me about the posting. It is apparent that you consider the U.S. Naval Institute PROCEEDINGS as the last word in Historical Documentation, if that is the case, so be it. All I did was offer CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTATION from a highly regarded source that predates findings of The U.S. Naval Institute PROCEEDINGS by a year or more. The Japanese when given the Mandate for those islands were permitted to govern the islands as they see fit. They were permitted to have open and closed ports. You view them having seaplanes and facilities for them as fortifications and consequently a violation of the Mandate, that necessitates secrecy on their part. I think you have already admitted that they acknowledged having a seaplane tender and a survey ship in the Mandate waters at sometime. Wouldn't that fall under your criteria as violation and also be something they would want to keep secret. I just don't understand it. The British: I wasn't aware that TIGHAR had copies of all British diplomatic messages ever produced in those years. But you are probably right. I can see the island official initiating the complaint and going through all the channels all the way to London. The complaint would probably have read " The Governor of the island of Tarawa respectfully complains about the Japanese over-flight while they were assisting in the search and rescue efforts for Amelia Earhart." Daryll ************************************************************************** From Ric No last word. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:46:50 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Japanese search The Koshu was a hydrographic ship doing oceanographic surveys in July, 1937. I have documented evidence that it went on July 4th to the Marshalls, arriving July 9th, and resumed oceanographic surveys in late July. It did conduct some sort of a limited survey, probably around the Marshall Islands. Documentation from correspondence from the Japanese Gov't to the US State Dept. and oceanographic research bulletins. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:56:11 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: New forum subscriber After you have had a good night sleep in your own bed and a day or two of rest, I'm sure you will be able to handle these posts a little differently. If I were a 17 year old Spanish boy, I don't think I would post anymore. I'd be too embarrassed. Welcome back! To Norgren, If you would like to contact me by private E-mail, I would be happy to discuss Amelia Earhart, Fred Noonan and general aviation with you. Don Jordan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:41:41 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: clutching at straws Well, while we're being fair, I have to respond to Tet's characterization of our attention to the bones, shoe remains, etc. as "clutching at straws," and "ephemeral at best." First off, documented discoveries of very tangible things like bones and shoes are far from "ephemeral," and certainly no more so than cogitations on navigation. Further, while they certainly "by themselves provide only possible info of the end of the flight," the end of the flight is rather critical to what we're interested in, isn't it? I used to study prehistoric social organization in California. I could have done thought pieces for many years about how folks might have been organized 2,000 years ago around San Francisco Bay, based on extrapolation from general social theory, environmental conditions, and so forth, but none of it would have been particularly meaningful without some hard data. And such data could be gotten only by seeking out the distribution of tangible things like bones in the ground and settlements on it. However interesting it may be to cogitate about Earhart's and Noonan's qualifications, navigational and flying abilities, the state of their equipment, and so forth, it's not going to prove anything without some "ephemera" like bones and shoes and plane parts in places consistent with a plausible hypothesis. If looking hard for such things is clutching at straws, so be it. LTM (who prefers picking straws to clutching them) Tom King ****************************************************************************** From Ric I let that one pass hoping that someone with more patience than I have right now would attempt enlightenment. Thank you Tom, for taking up that cross. Perhaps our greatest problem in trying to solve the mystery of the Earhart disappearance is the expectation - our own and everyone else's - about what MUST be left. We talk about "the smoking gun" and the "any-idiot artifact" as if it is a given that such a thing still survives after 62 years. Maybe it does. Maybe the aircraft component with a serial number or the bone with recoverable DNA still waits in a bush or a box somewhere just waiting until we look in exactly the right place. I sure hope so. But what if it doesn't? What if the forces of nature that have reduced a 400 foot, 5,000 ton steel ship to a scattering of debris have obliterated the remains of a 38 foot, 7,000 pound aluminum airplane? Nothing vanishes without a trace, and traces are what we've found. We can hope for more, but we have no right to demand more. If the "any-idiot artifact" does not exist, or can not be found, then it is likely that the fate of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan will not be accessible to any idiot. Only those with the interest, the education, and the patience to examine the evidence will be able to reach the correct conclusion. The others will go on fantasizing about an intact Electra on the ocean bottom or stewing about government cover-ups. Our job is to be sure that we find all that can be found, within the practical limits of funding and technology, to make it as easy as possible for any interested person to draw a reasonable conclusion. We have to accept, however, that no matter what we find there will be those who cling to their own pre-conceived notions. So be it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:33:18 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Kilts: a challenge for the Forum That's too fast even for the Forum. Ron and "Sue" had already been working on this, right? LTM (who's astounded at the Forum's abilities) Tom King ***************************** No, actually they are psychic and they knew you would be asking . P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:34:05 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: Sextant sights > Since the moon's movements are very quick (astronomically >speaking) and predictable, building a table for moon positions for each day >for each hour just isn't done. Before the advent of the Air Almanac positions for the moon weren't tabulated; but the Nautical Almanac for 1937 does have daily tables of the moon's right ascension and declination for each hour of GCT. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:39:25 EDT From: David Eberle Subject: Oshkosh Ric Greetings and welcome back!! While at the E.A.A. convention at Oshkosh last Thursday, I unfortunately witnessed a collision between a Bearcat and a Corsair. The Corsair pilot's wife was interviewed recently. She was from Texas and her name was Linda Finch Doctor. The interview mentioned she to was a pilot also. Could this be the one and the same? BTW I pledged $100 prior to your departure, will I be billed or should I just put my cc# on file for future convenience? (dumb question) Dave Eberle *************************** Well, a Bearcat and a Corsair doesn't sound survivable, what is the status? And sure, you can send us your credit card number. Also, be sure to tell us what your credit limit is and how much is available :-). (Just kidding.) ---Actually, don't forget the expiration date. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:42:40 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Clutching at straws >>Wherever they were was not at Howland. This is not necessarily supported by the evidence. They could have been within a few miles of Howland and simply missed a visual sighting in the haze. william #2243 ********************************* Is it not the case that pilots generally need to be within 15 or so miles of one of these Pacific islands in order to see it? They really are very flat and very small. Ann Pellegrino reported sighting Howland at 10 to 12 miles. P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:43:37 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Clutching at straws FN never flew cross-Atlantic but cross-Pacific. The LOP info does not provide longitude information, because it was not a 360/180 LOP, the only LOP that provides longitude. I do agree that both were poorly trained in radio navigation, and did not make optimal use of available, but limited Coast Guard (not Navy) assets to assist in homing in on Howland. Speaking for Ric, I believe it is these kinds of inaccuracies that caused his previous posting. ************************* Also speaking for Ric, thank you. P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:45:01 EDT From: Sactodave Subject: Re: Clutching at straws It's true that TIGHAR is assuming many facts, and relying on anecdotal accounts and meager physical evidence to justify continued research on Niku, Tet. Some retired Air Force navigator suggested my comments were not substantive. (They should never have given them authority..) What Ric and the forum never acknowledge is that our observations are true. What was touted to be the "Niku to end all Nikus" turned out to be several days of shipboard nausea, suffered by the Niku contingent, in conjunction with several days of supposed aecheological effort, enjoyed by the Fiji crew. They've found nothing, and they will find more nothing. Niku is NOT where Amelia, Fred, and a Lockheed twin came to grief. **************************** It's so nice to know we can always count on your support and encouragement, Dave. P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:48:20 EDT From: Skip Subject: Re: Clutching at straws I get so tired of skeptics who say this and say that, when in fact, they have no hard evidence that what they say is fact. When people put forth effort in search of the truth, why is there so many who try to put them down? I have been interested in this cause from the very first time that I read "Last Flight" back in 1955. Tighar's research into this mystery has provided answers to many questions. Your conclusions make sense. I feel that you are headed in the right direction and that direction will produce results. Your goal is in the right direction. You can achieve it only if you don't give up. Keep up the good work. Skip ********************************** Wasn't it Edison who said that genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration? Thanks, Skip. I will reiterate: Any person who can produce *evidence*---not theory, not allegation, not point of view, but evidence----- we will embrace with glad cries. But without evidence, it's just an opinion. P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:53:26 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Clutching at straws Throughout the long history of the search for Amelia Earhart & Fred Noonan, there has been much criticism of the piloting skills of Earhart & the Navigational skills of Noonan. However, lest we forget, AE/FN had successfully flown over three quarters of the way around the earth, with no serious problems arising regarding either the manner in which the plane was being piloted or navigated, in spite of severe weather problems over the subcontinent (requiring them to reverse course & land on one occasion, to avoid the consequences of trying to fly through monsoon storms) & with much of the flight occurring during hours of darkness. Whatever the shortcomings of Earhart as a pilot or Noonan as a navigator may have been, I think even their severest critics must give (at least grudgingly) credit to this duo for reaching Lae unscathed. Whatever went wrong on the Lae to Howland leg of their ill fated journey may never be fully known or understood, even if the remains of the plane & crew are ever found; However that should not discourage those who continue the search in an effort to at least try to find such remains, based upon reasonable evidence (both tangible & documentary) which continues to surface, even 62 years after the fact. That is the reason why the publishers of history books are still in business printing constant revisions & up-dates, because history is not a static subject & often subject to change without prior notice. We may not all agree entirely with the TIGHAR hypothesis concerning the outcome of the flight, but at the moment it's the only effort being undertaken, in such a broad area of disciplines, to locate & recover (if possible) whatever remains can be found of the plane & it's crew. The recent investigations in Fiji have developed much additional information that would never have surfaced, except for the persistence of the TIGHAR volunteers in digging through reams of paper & searching all available cellars, attics & tunnels. Constructive criticism is a very necessary & valuable tool in the pursuit of any investigative effort, however lets be careful not to be throwing bricks at the hod carriers! Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:03:17 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Brushfires Let me preface this note by saying that I am an admirer of TIGHAR and its work. You're the only organization making an on-the-scene effort to solve the Earhart mystery, as opposed to us armchair detectives. I can only imagine how tough it is to fund repeated Pacific expeditions without corporate or government backing, and the fact that you are able to scrape together the required bucks year after year is a testament to Ric's leadership and the loyalty of TIGHAR members. However, I do wish you would stop referring to anyone who disagrees with the Niku hypothesis (and that's still all it is) as a "conspiracy theorist". One does not have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to believe that AE >>could<< have come down someplace other than Nikumaroro. For example, there is no documented evidence of Fred Noonan, one of the world's finest aerial navigators, ever missing a target when he had four hours of fuel left to look for it. There >>is<< documented evidence of the following: (a) at one time, AE disclosed that her backup plan, in the event she missed Howland Island, was to head toward the British-controlled Gilberts; and (b) AE overrode Fred's navigational advice on at least one prior occasion, when they were approaching the west coast of Africa. Luckily, Africa is a big place and AE's stubbornness on that occasion did not prove disastrous. Given these facts, however, it is at least possible that a fatigued and disoriented AE could have again decided that she knew better than Fred, and turned back toward a preplanned emergency landing in the Gilberts rather than continuing on into parts unknown (at least to her). If FN had indeed coolly and logically determined that all they need do was fly southeast on the 157/337 LOP in order to reach the Phoenix group, then why did AE radio: "We are running north and south" (or "northwest, now southeast" as Ric would have it)? Why didn't she just say, "We are running southeast"? I do not think it inconceivable that, in a crisis and with her judgment impaired by lack of sleep, AE would finally tune Fred out and trust to her instincts. She had done so before, and she had gotten herself lost before. In addition to the African incident, let's not forget the Mexico City flight, when Amelia had to land and ask directions! One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that this course of action led to a splashdown somewhere ENE of the Gilberts. I suppose that, if AE throttled back to save fuel and set her propellers to maximum pitch, it is just barely possible that she could even have made Mili Atoll, depending upon how far east the duo were when they began cruising the 157/337 line. Obviously I am no navigator. However it is difficult to accept that the anecdotal evidence gathered by Goerner, Knaggs, Brennan, et al., although inconsistent in detail, does not have >>some<< basis in fact. In this regard, I note that, having for years dismissed the Marshalls/Saipan yarns with thinly-veiled contempt, Ric now apparently believes that this same sort of anecdotal evidence carries conclusive weight as long as: (a) it's "credible", and (b) it points to Niku. Quote: "If reports of aircraft wreckage on the reef at Nikumaroro anytime prior to December 7, 1941 are credible, then we know what happened to the Earhart/Noonan flight. It's as simple as that." With all due respect, it is not as simple as that. There are dozens of anecdotes placing Fred and Amelia in the Marshalls and/or the Marianas, which are no less "credible" for the fact that they were recorded by others. TIGHAR has yet to find a single piece of wreckage which can be traced conclusively to NR16020. All of the people who examined the Niku bones firsthand, including two physicians who had lived on the islands for years and presumably were familiar with the decomposition process in that environment, agreed that they appeared to have been around considerably longer than three years. Finally, the contention that "It's as simple as that" assumes that TIGHAR can account for each and every other airplane that was flying anywhere in the Central Pacific in the roughly 15 years prior to 1941. (I recall how, at one point, TIGHAR was certain that absolutely >>no<< WWII-vintage aircraft had gone down anywhere near Niku -- until reports of the Canton crash surfaced.) But that's what makes TIGHAR so endearing -- its rigorous commitment to intellectual honesty, including the willingness to admit when it's wrong. In fact, I hope that TIGHAR is right. I hope that the bones are found, still resting in their Kanawa wood box, and that DNA testing proves them to be the mortal remains of Amelia Earhart. I hope the sextant box has "Property of Frederick Noonan" etched into the side. I hope that Niku V or VI or VII turns up a hunk of airplane wing with "NR16020" still faintly visible on the surface. Your efforts over the past ten years deserve such a reward. But until that happens, how about keeping our minds just slightly open to other possibilities? Not that Amelia was a spy, nor that she was shot down .... but that, maybe, and for reasons we'll probably never know, she simply turned the wrong way. LTM (who can't think of a good tagline) Patrick Gaston P.S. If AE did somehow end up in Japanese custody (notice I'm saying IF), it seems to me there's a fairly simple explanation as to why she might have been kept under wraps. Consider how the Japanese of that era treated female prisoners in general (it wasn't called the Rape of Nanking for nothing). Now suppose some low-ranking Japanese colonial officer abuses, or permits his men to abuse the captured "spy", only to find out a day or so later that she's the World's Most Famous Female Flyer. At that point the options are to let her go so she can tell the press about Imperial Japanese hospitality, or simply warehouse her someplace in hopes that she eventually will succumb to any one of several nasty tropical diseases. Maybe you don't even tell Tokyo, if you want to keep your head. It's a thought.... ************************************************************************* From Ric Thank you Patrick, for a well-reasoned and articulate argument. I'll try to respond in kind. First, a conspiracy theorist is one who postulates that the unavailability of information about an event is due to the conscious and intentional withholding of such information by two or more individuals who have conspired to do so. In the context of the debate over what happened to the Earhart/Noonan flight, those who support the theory that the aircraft crashed at sea are not conspiracy theorists unless, for example, they suggest that authorities had proof of a crash at sea and purposely kept it secret for some reason. Not to put too fine a point on it, a conspiracy may involve a cover-up (as in Nixon, Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Mitchell and company) but a cover-up need not involve a conspiracy. For example, there is ample evidence to show that, in a successful effort to absolve himself from blame, Commander Warner K. Thompson, captain of the ITASCA, intentionally misrepresented, and in some cases fabricated, crucial aspects of the events of July 2, 1937 in his official report entitled "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight" date July 19, 1937. However, if none of his subordinates or superiors was in on the cover-up (and I've seen no direct evidence that they were), there was no conspiracy. In recent years the lable "conspiracy theorist" has taken on a pejorative connotation due to the flimsy evidence often used to support many alleged conspiracies, but there are certainly such things as conspiracies and those who uncover them are not necessarily paranoid schizophrenics. Second, the premises upon which you base your argument for a turn back to the Gilberts are not as solid as you suggest. Her "disclosed back-up plan" was nothing more than a comment to Gene Vidal at some unspecified time prior to the world flight and later recalled by him. As for AE's oft-cited over-riding of Fred's navigational advice on the coast of Africa; the notations on the original chart used by Noonan (now in the Purdue archives) tell a very different tale than the story presented in the heavily-edited, posthumously published "Last Flight." Neither the chart nor the note passed between the crew support the notion of a disagreement about which way to turn. As with Thompson's report, distortion and embellishment have raised questions about the professionalism of the crew which are not warranted by more primary sources. You ask why AE said, "We are running north and south" if, in fact, she was running southeastward on the line of position. The answer, of course, is that she probably didn't say that. We don't know what Amelia actually said. What is clear is that shows clearly that whatever she said at that moment caught the radio operator totally off guard. It is important to understand that two radio logs were being kept aboard ITASCA. One log, supervised by Chief Radioman Leo G. Bellarts, was dedicated to attempts to communicate with the Earhart flight while a separate log, maintained by Radioman Thomas O'Hare, was supposed to record all other traffic but O'Hare, who could overhear what was coming over the speakers, included many Earhart-related entries into the log he was keeping. Both logs are now in the National Archives. At 07:42 local time the Bellart's log shows a transmission from Earhart: KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE MUST BE ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE U BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW BEEN UNABLE TO REACH YOU BY RADIO WE ARE FLYING AT A (sic) 1000 FEET At 07:40 local time, O'Hare's log says: EARHART ON NW SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT CANT HR US AT ALL WE HR HER AND ARE SENDING ON 3105 ES 500 SAME TIME CONSTANTLY AND LISTENING IN FER HER FRQUENTLY At 08:15, Earhart's normally scheduled transmission time a half hour later, ITASCA heard nothing (they were blocking 3105 with their own transmissions). Commander Thompson apparently decided that the "1/2 HR LEFT" version was correct and he ordered the men ashore on Howland to return to the ship in preparation for getting underweigh to begin a search. At 08:43, Earhart's next regularly scheduled transmission time, a full hour after O'Hare thought she said "RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT", and as the ITASCA was preparing to get underweigh, suddenly Earhart was back on the air. It's little wonder that whatever she said came as a surprise and was not recorded with great precision. In fact, O'Hare's log doesn't mention it at all. Bellarts' log says: KHAQQ TO ITASCA WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337 WL REPT MSG WE WL REPT THIS ON 6210 KCS WAIT, 3105/A3 S5 (notation indicating that this was a voice transmission received on 3105 at maximum strength). Normally this would be the end of an entry but crammed into the available space on the same line is an appeneded entry that can be interpreted as either: (?/KHAQQ XMISION WE ARE RUNNING ON LINE N ES S or (?/KHAQQ XMISION WE ARE RUNNING ON N ES S LINE The traditional, and unsupportable, "We are running north and south." comes from Thompson's later report. In any case, it sure doesn't sound like a turn back to the Gilberts. Your allegation that I regard anecdotal accounts that agree with TIGHAR's hypothesis differently than I view those which support other theories is simply not true. You correctly quote me as saying: ""If reports of aircraft wreckage on the reef at Nikumaroro anytime prior to December 7,1941 are credible, then we know what happened to the Earhart/Noonan flight. It's as simple as that." I am just as comfortable saying: "If reports of Amelia Earhart being imprisoned on Saipan are credible, then we know what happened to the Earhart/Noonan flight." You seem to have utterly missed my point that the question here is the credibility of the anecdotes. Whom do we believe? No anecdote or collection of anecdotes can stand by itself. Anecdotes, if they are true or even partially true, should lead the diligent researcher to some kind of hard evidence corroboration - documents, photographs, artifacts, human remains. An excellent example is the tale of bones being found on Nikumaroro. Fro years we regarded it as interesting folklore worthy of investigation until perserverance and luck turned up solid proof that it actually happened. Accounts of aircraft wreckage on the reef at Niku prior to WWII are, in themselves, no more credible than the tales of imprisonment on Saipan unless and until corroborating hard evidence is found. And finally, yes, it IS as simple as that. Not just TIGHAR but any interested individual can account for every airplane that flew over or near Nikumaroro prior to 1941. Until the Pacific war brought unprecedented forces and resources to those remote regions for strategic purposes, any airplane flight was a newsworthy event. It's a bit like wondering whether TIGHAR can document with confidence every manned landing on the moon. And your recollections about TIGHAR's assertions regarding aircraft losses in the Central Pacific during WWII are equally incorrect. We always knew and acknowledged that there had been crashes at Canton, and we had anecdotal accounts of a wartime crash at Sydney Island which, again, diligent research and a little luck brought to light as a documented loss. This posting is far too long, but it illustrates a basic problem we have to solve. We can not correct the myths and answer the misinformed piecemeal. It is essential that we get the 8th Edition of the project book completed so that accurate information is publicly available in an easily accessible form. I can't do that if I'm spending all my time stomping out brushfires like this. Consequently, I have asked Pat to resume her moderating of the forum while I concentrate my efforts on putting out the next (and woefully overdue) issue of TIGHAR Tracks, oversee the writing of the 8th Edition, and producing the video. I'll continue to chime in on the forum as needed but in the role of a regular contributor rather than as moderator. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:50:04 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Oshkosh I saw a pic in the paper Washington Post or LA Times?) of the Corsair standing on its nose with a sheet of fire trailing behind it. From the cutline and photo I surmised the accident happened on the ground. neither aircraft was identified as to type and there was no mention as to the condition of the pilots. LTM, who has a checkride Thursday in a Cessna Dennis McGee #0149 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:51:55 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Niku IIIIP Well! I guess that settles that! Here we are only 3-4 days after the conclusion of Niku IIII and Sactodave has already declared it a failure. Boy, oh boy, am I ever . . .ever . . .(sputter) . . .(sputter) . . .ticked! All that money I spent and that mean old Ric Gillespie and his TIGHAR pirates come up empty handed. "They found nothing" Sactodave declared. I guess Sactodave must have had a call into Dionne Warwick and her friends to come to that conclusion (1-800-GET-REAL). Hey, Sacto at least let us sift through the evidence before you declare Niku IIIIP a failure. I won't say you made a rush to judgement, but I'll bet you're the type of juror Judge Roy Bean would love to have in his court. "Give 'em a fair trail and then hang 'em." Lesson one, Dave, is tolerance. Lesson two is patience. LTM, who is not a lawyer Dennis McGee #0149 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:54:24 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Oshkosh A friend of mine who followed the Oshkosh event told me yesterday that the pilot of the Corsair, I believe, was in serious condition and that the plane was totally destroyed by fire. My best to you and Ric (more to follow). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:56:20 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: clutching at straws >>>>It's so nice to know we can always count on your support and encouragement, Dave.<<<<< To say nothing of being able to count on Dave's unquestionable authority about what's "true." TK ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:57:46 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Brushfires Just a word about anecdotal evidence of landing/capture in the Marshalls and/or Saipan. There's something of a cottage industry in Earhart sighting reports throughout Micronesia -- probably because people have gone in and asked a lot of leading questions, sometimes paying for the answers. And the answers are often worse than anecdotal; they're second and third hand. Example: the other day my wife mentioned in passing that when she was doing her dissertation research in Chuuk (Truk) back in the 1970s, her adopted Chuukese father said that a relative of his (deceased, I think) had seen Amelia Earhart killed by the Japanese, in Chuuk; he then proceeded to recount the story, which featured imprisonment and execution. Had this had anything whatever to do with her dissertation research, she would doubtless have asked questions like: "how did your relative know that it was Earhart and not somebody else?" In asking questions about Chuukese land law -- which were central to her research and also much dearer to the hearts of Chuukese than questions about the fate of some American pilot -- she often found discrepancies and uncertainties that could be sorted out (if at all) only through painstaking interviews with multiple parties. It's safe to say that in order to get at the truth about the various Earhart sightings, one would have to do similar research. In a way, the very ubiquity of Earheart capture and execution stories argues against their validity. She couldn't have been captured and killed in ALL those places, but there HAVE been unprofessional interviewers in all those places asking leading questions. Goerner was certainly among the most professional; he was after all a reporter. But even with Goerner (and here I go into second-hand anecdote), I was recently told about a guy who said he'd translated for him on Saipan and repeatedly told him he was being lied to. I don't know what one does with all this, but I do know that if I were going to try to research AE in the Marshalls, Carolines, or Marianas I'd need a whole lot of time and money, and I wouldn't be very hopeful for the results. The oral historical record is just too tainted. She may have wound up there; she also may have crashed into the sea, or may have been abducted to the Pleides. The trouble with all those propositions is not that they're obviously not true, but only that they're virtually impossible to test. Our own proposition is real HARD to test, but it's clearly POSSIBLE. LTM (who's open-minded but thrifty) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:00:28 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Howland DF Randy Jacobson states that AE/FN "did not make optimal use of available, but limited, Coast Guard (not Navy) assets to assist in homing in on Howland." True of course, but I think he inadvertently indicates the hardware on the island was CG, which it wasn't. The Howland HF/DF, which was limited to 3105 kc, was of Navy origin (a portable, battery powered unit, the "DQ" model, if memory serves) and came from the Navy radio intercept station at He'eia, Hawaii. Comdr. Thompson vetoed the trained Navy operator, insisting on a CG man (Cipriani), who wasn't at all knowledgeable about the gear, but did the best he could. Officially, the Navy had nothing to do with the deal. The account of CG Radio Electrician Anthony and USN Adm. Detzer (OP20-G) is my source, and seems more authentic than the Dwiggins story about Mantz, Lt. Cooper and Richard Black being the instigators. But, feel free to draw your own conclusions. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:01:32 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Re: grasping at straws? Ric, First off, welcome home, and congratulations to you and all other Fiji and Niku team members on a job well done. Looking forward to detailed findings of both expeditions. Now, let me see if I have this right...At the first landfall along NR16020's last known course, TIGHAR has found several artifacts (plexiglass, aluminum, shoe parts, etc.) consistent with that craft and it's occupants. TIGHAR has also collected first-hand, eyewitness reports positively dating the Niku aircraft debris as pre-war. Further, TIGHAR has followed up on reports of other items consistent with NR16020 that have been previously recovered from Niku. (the kanawa wood box, the bones, and Bruce's engine) In the case of the former, previously anecdotal reports have been both clarified and confirmed by TIGHAR research as historically accurate, and the latter case consists of a first hand eyewitness report from (at the time) an independent third party. If this is "grasping at straws", then sign me up as an apprentice straw grasper. LTM (who knows that TIGHAR has collected more evidence than any other AE researcher, and used more scientifically valid methods than any others while doing so) Dave Porter, 2288 ( grrr... ) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:04:38 EDT From: Stumpy Longbottom Subject: Re: brushfires Dear Ric and Pat et al, Tis the old Stumpen Meister here to say thanks to the forum for the high level of interest and to Ric for your great response. You must be very tired old son so take care of yourself. Isn't TIGHAR a great place to be. We can have different points of view and be friends and grown ups about it and we can learn. I just hope the next expedition has the BIG cosmetics bag ready for dear old AE when she wakes up from that cool cave she found back in 37 and comes out to see what all the fuss is about. Also, I think a cooling lemonade for Fred might well be in order. Yours in the ether, Stumpy. ******************************* Thanks, Uncle Stumpy. Your diplomatic touch is always the best, and let's hear it for Friday Prayers. :-) P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:39:36 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: grasping at straws? One tiny correction, Dave. Niku wasn't "the first landfall along NR16020's last known course." Besides Baker, just south of Howland, the first landfall would have been McKean. McKean is a much smaller island than Nikumaroro, and quite barren though alive with birds. We searched it (in one day -- an adventure in itself) in '89. Found lots of ruins and artifacts from 19th century phosphate mining, several wrecked fishing boats, lots of sharks around the periphery, almost lost Ric in the -- uh -- guano pit that occupies the middle of the island, otherwise found nothing even WITHOUT Sactodave's help. Concluded (a) that if NR16020 HAD landed there the Colorado pilots couldn't have missed it, since there's nothing to hide it (unless it sank in the guano pit, which would be an interesting proposition for someone else to investigate) and (b) that there sure wasn't anything to suggest to us that it had landed there. So we've focused on Niku, which is the second of the Phoenix Islands along the LOP. LTM (who likes birds, but really....) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:45:41 EDT From: Max Standridge Subject: Changes I read Ric's exchanges with the various postings pertaining to conspiracy theories, conspiracy theorISTS and interpretations of reports, data, etc, with some interest. One thing I've learned in recent years, for example, is that it is possible to INTERPRET at least one set of anecdotal evidence pertaining to the Saipan-based Earhart "conspiracy" scenario in an entirely different way. That claim pertains to the possible sighting of James Forrestal on Saipan during World War II. My own data suggests that Forrestal may, indeed, have been on Saipan during that period of time, and may even have burned or otherwise destroyed an aircraft. It's a long story, but the bottom line is that it wasn't Earhart's aircraft and it gives an entirely different spin to this particular account. My data suggests James Forrestal was involved in some intrigue during World War II which is possibly off-topic for the Forum. And, just as we must change our interpretation of data as new data come in on top of it, so we must re-examine our current "conspiracy" theories every so often. Often, conspiracy theories even have some grains of truth to them, but have been misinterpreting actual events and placing them in the wrong contexts. For myself, I'm switching, at least for now, to the Digest format. I need the time and drive space for other things, I'm making such changes as I must to cope with graduate school and so forth-- but I've followed with interest the developments of this current expedition.. Best wishes. Max Standridge ***************************************** Thanks for reminding us to stay a bit flexible, Max. And for the reminder about the Digest format, which allows a Forum member to receive one longish email per day with all the Forum postings in it, rather than each posting as a separate email. It can be a sanity saver. If you want to get the Forum as a Digest, send an email to LISTSERV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM with the message SET EarhartForum DIGEST -----nothing else. No please, no thanks, nada, because it is an automatic computer command and no human will ever read it. Be sure you send the message from the email address you're subscribed to the Forum on, and all will be well---you will receive a message back confirming the change. Other useful commands, to send to the same address (note that it is different from the address you use to send postings): SET EarhartForum NOMAIL to stop mail coming while you are on vacation so your mailbox doesn't fill up SET EarhartForum MAIL to start your Forum up again when you get home.... and if you've been out of town and come back and aren't getting your Forum, send this command, because your mailbox probably filled up and I set you to NOMAIL. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:47:23 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: grasping at straws? In my opinion, the most significant find of the last few years has been the Canton engine. To me, that's cold hard steel found by a real live person living in southern California with expertise to know an aircraft engine from a hole in the ground. That certainly got my attention when I first read the report in the news last year. That engine may, or may not be from the Electra! There is only one problem, that engine was not found on Niku! Am I right Bruce? I think we need to find that engine, or at least find out where it came from. Any success in that respect Bruce? I think an engine on an uninhabited island is just as, if not more important than, bones in a box. We need to find that engine! I know, I know. . . easier said than done. I feel that engine is our most significant find to date, if we can believe Bruce, and I think we can. We tend to believe an elderly islander who said they saw airplane wreckage on the reef 59 years ago, when in fact it could have been something from the old ship wreck. Then again, it could have been airplane wreckage. Who knows? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't! Bruce found an engine from an airplane. Definitely, for sure, no question about it! An airplane engine where it shouldn't have been. We have a photo of an Electra look alike in a tropical setting, missing one engine. And we have an engine found in a tropical setting, missing an airplane. Makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand right up! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:48:01 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Oshkosh There were in fact two F4U-4 Corsairs involved in a collision on the runway at Oshkosh. Nobody killed. One over ran another war bird on take off, a Bearcat I think. The other Corsair ran off the runway trying to get out of the way and was substantially damaged. It's on the Web at the NTSB site. I will give the address if anyone is interested. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:57:42 EDT From: Sactodave Subject: Re: Niku IIIIP Good luck on your checkride. Now, as to the Niku trip, Gillespie didn't find a Lockheed twin, the engines to a Lockheed twin, serial numbers from a Lockheed twin, nor it's crew members, their property, remains, or any valid account of the airplane's presence on Niku. What they DID find is the same type of second-hand rumor fodder that now has been imbued with enough significance to justify yet another expedition. Now, tell me YOUR truth. ****************************** And what is Truth? said jesting Pilate.... Our Truth, right at the moment, is that----as usual---- it is far far too early in the process of analyzing the results of the expedition to know what exactly was accomplished. Generally speaking, it takes somewhere between three and twelve months to understand fully the evidence and the implications of that evidence following on any field work. That is one of the major reasons that archeology is generally done in "seasons" (aside from weather conditions, of course). You go, you do your field work, you come back with whatever you come back with, you spend the next year figuring out what the heck you found, then you go back to the field with the new understandings. No, we didn't find the great silver airplane lurking in the scaevola. There is a pretty fair chance that it's not there to be found, but is in tiny shards and/or in the waters off the reef. We can't control that. All we can control is our research, our methodology, and our attention to the myriad of details which make up an archeological project. I do wish to take exception to the phrase "second hand rumor fodder." Rumor fodder it may be, but it is definitely first hand. The people in question saw what they say they saw (whatever that was) personally; we're not talking about something someone they talked to saw. There is always a line to be trod between gullibility concerning orally transmitted evidence/anecdote, and unwarranted dismissiveness of same. We have always said that the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence"----but anecdote (or, to be PC, oral history) can definitely lead a researcher to hard evidence: written accounts from the time in question, in this case. That's what happened with the bones story, if you will recall. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:58:43 EDT From: Sactodave Subject: Re: clutching at straws Tell me this one thing, Tom. Are you paid to do research for TIGHAR? ************************************* I can answer that. No. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:09:42 EDT From: Richard Johnson Subject: Money I believe TIGHAR possesses the most accurate information concerning the disappearance of AE. You people are without question the definitive authority concerning AE. All one has to do is examine the host of other info and this conclusion becomes obvious. To think otherwise is not to think at all. Ric, your scientific approach to the mystery is the only credible way to solve this mystery. Anything less would destroy your credibility and lump you with everyone else who has an opinion. Your efforts this summer in Fiji and Niku, whether they are eventually fruitful or not, are a testiment to your commitment to the truth. Now, might I suggest, it is time to throw some serious money at this thing. I honestly believe that money is the problem here. There is a " smoking gun " on Niku. You can feel it, I can feel it, and I'm sure the forum members feel it. Instead of responding to your uninformed critics, take that time to search for funding. Hire a professional fund raiser to advocate your cause. You might be surprised. Just think for a moment how you could solve this mystery if you had the money to do what you need to do. Honestly, just ponder the possibilities tonight before you sleep. I think you will begin to feel as though I might be right. Boy, what if we could put a permanent team on Niku. If we only had the equipment, the time, the this, the that, etc... All this can be had. It's simply a money matter. Nothing else. Find the money and you find the truth! I know it sounds simplistic, but the evidence awaits you on Niku. Find it while I'm still young! Richard Johnson TIGHARS biggest fan ********************************** What say the rest of you? Obviously, we here at HQ (note my slick use of jargon) hold this subject near and dear to our hearts as money makes all things possible.... P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:15:42 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Brushfires > From Tom King > > The trouble with all those propositions is not that > they're obviously not true, but only that they're > virtually impossible to test. Our own proposition > is real HARD to test, but it's clearly POSSIBLE. I've been meaning to comment on statements similar to this for some time, but haven't been quite able to nail down exactly how to say it without being offensive. I'll comment anyway and hope that people see what I'm getting at, even if I don't say it very well. There's an old joke about a guy who's trying to get into his car one night and drops his keys. His friends come along a bit later and find him looking for them under the street light. The start to help him look but discover that he dropped them as he was putting them in the lock, and his car is parked twenty feet away in the shadows. Why is he looking over here then? Because it's easier to look here... there's more light. My point is, that the comment by Tom King, and other similar comments, seem to come off as saying that the search is aimed as it is because it's easier than the other searches would be rather than because it's the one that best fits the available data. I'm talking perception here. - Bill #2229 ********************************** I can certainly understand the point you are making, Bill, and do not take offense. We are convinced, by the body of evidence we have collected, that the *best* fit for the available data is Niku. That is why our search has focused on that island. One thing that we would like to do, however, is test the null hypothesis: that any given uninhabited Pacific atoll would yield similar bits and pieces and stories and trails. We've never been able to do that, because it would be wildly expensive. The other hypotheses usually put forth as solutions to the Earhart mystery--- that she crashed and sank, that she was captured by the Japanese--- are not hypotheses we are anxious to test because we do not think they account for the established evidence. Crashed and sank accounts for more than capture, but still leaves some big holes that evidence waltzes through. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:21:21 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: clutching at straws So can I, Sactodave. No. Why do you ask? LTM (who doesn't pay real good, either) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:27:24 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Brushfires There is one thing everybody overlooks. It's Murphy's Law. Remember that -amongst other things- Murphy's Law says that "you will always find lost things at the last place you look". I think TIGHAR will simply have to go on looking. ***************** And we intend to do so. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:30:00 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Brushfires Sorry if my comment misled you, Bill, but your analogy isn't quite apt. Let's suppose your man with his car keys wasn't sure where he'd been when he dropped them. Maybe he was standing in the dark next to his car; maybe he was fumbling for his wallet to pay the mugger who accosted him under the streetlight. He doesn't have a flashlight. It makes sense for him to search under the streetlight first, and only invest in the time and trouble to go get a flashlight and search around his car if his initial search doesn't pan out. LTM (who has her keys) Tom King ************************** Which is the essence, if I understand it correctly, of the true interpretation of Ockham's Razor----do the cheaper, easier stuff first. Not that what we've done is either cheap or easy... but compared to searching, say, the moons of Jupiter it's no' so bad. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:35:29 EDT From: Ang. Subject: Re: Money >From Richard Johnson > >think at all. Ric, your scientific approach to the mystery is the only >credible way to solve this mystery. Anything less would destroy your >credibility and lump you with everyone else who has an opinion. Your I'm in full agreement. >time, the this, the that, etc... All this can be had. It's simply a >money matter. Nothing else. Find the money and you find the truth! I Correct in my opinion. There is all sorts of money out there. Its pursuit is an art called "grantsmanship". In my opinion there will always be philanthropists and realists in our global society that are willing to fund reasonable and professional searches for the truth. These sources are both private and public. It's not too far a reach to project that solution of the AE mystery is in our national interests. Look at what was spent by all concerned parties in finding John Kennedy's remains. So.. Keep up the good work. Keep on a high professional plane. Document your findings, plans and theories. Publish your results in recognized journals. Keep the juices (information) flowing. Ang. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:37:16 EDT From: Ron Feder Subject: No bucks, no Buck Rogers > We have a photo of an Electra look alike in a tropical > setting, missing one engine. And we have an engine found in a tropical > setting, > missing an airplane. Makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand right up! I concur. Finding Electra hardware anywhere near Niku would energize the search and probably lead to substantial cash donations. Remember the lines from THE RIGHT STUFF (paraphrasing): "What makes rockets go up? Funding....no bucks, no buck rodgers." TIGHAR cannot sustain itself without some breakthrough. We've plateaud and need to get to a higher level of material discovery. ************************ How about some concrete suggestions for acquiring said bucks? We've been doing this 15 years.... we are about out of fresh ideas. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:38:06 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Wreck explanation George Hurd wrote: <> We didn't, but then we did. The ratio of prop length to engine diameter is wrong for even the radial engined Widgeons. I still think that the aircraft in the Wreck Photo is probably a big-engined Lockheed 10, either a "C" or an "E", but the new anecdotal information we've gotten from former residents of the island, when combined with the other anecdotes, the historical documents, the photos, and the artifacts we've found - all paint a rather clear picture of what happened at Gardner Island, and it doesn't include a scene like what we see in the Wreck Photo. LTM (who is never afraid to change her mind), Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:39:21 EDT From: Jim Myers Subject: Oshkosh accident [From Pat: This is the last posting on this subject, since it is really off topic----but I know it is of great interest.] The best information is at the following URLs: Press Release: http://www.avweb.com/oshkosh/osh99/day2/oshwire.html Photos: http://member.aol.com/lainey533/help.html More aircraft stuff at: http://www.avweb.com Jim Myers ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:42:11 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Clanmere Revealed We've wondered and speculated about this place and its occupant, the enigmatic "Miss Clancy," for a long time. Thanks to Simon Wiseman of Malvern, we finally get to see it, as it exists today. It's on Graham Road, approximately across the road from the Malvern Library. The librarian had told us the building now houses the Local Careers Advice office and Accountants and Insurance Brokers. The partially visible sign at the right seems to fit that. The British opinion is that the building was originally a residence. Sometime between the wars, the owner could no longer afford the servants needed to maintain a large home and it became available for other use. Sometime in that period, Julie Clancy and her partner Ms. Meredith (hence, "Clanmere") set up a nursing home in the building. As Phil Tanner observed, Malvern is a Spa and there are a lot of nursing homes there today. I was disappointed not to see "CLANMERE" carved in stone above the entrance! I suppose there was a sign such as that of the accounts, etc., seen there now. The balcony and stairs may be an addition to provide a required fire-escape. CLANMERE.JPG is a large file. I'll attach it to a separate message. Vern ***************************** And I will post same to the TIGHAR web site. Thanks, Vern. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:44:43 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: cold hard steel? Don Jordan said: <> Bruce Yoho would be the first to admit that the Canton Engine is not "cold hard steel." It is his recollection of an event that occurred nearly 30 years ago for which there is no contemporaneous written or photographic documentation. It is anecdotal. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:46:32 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Brown University----off topic Very much off-topic but maybe Pat will let it sneak through! Brown University, in Providence, RI, has been mentioned in the news quite a lot in recent weeks. I'm reminded of a pet project of my own that has been hanging fire for years. Is there anyone who would be interested and who could do some research at the Brown University Library? This has nothing whatever to do with the Earhart Search, nor with airplanes. It relates to the very first female writer of science-fiction (more like science-fantasy) to be published in the good old days of the pulp-magazines (1930s). Published as C. L. Moore, it was a well kept secret that the author was Catherine Lucile Moore. If anyone is interested, I'll be happy to fill out the story and cite exactly what is in the Brown University Special collections. It won't require any digging to find it. ******************* Just this once, Vern.... If anyone is interested, please reply directly to Vern. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:47:33 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Niku IIIIP RE Sactodave: It is high time to cut him off, direct him to the nearest talk radio show where his talents can shine, and get on with the business of moving forward. Enough of his drivel! blue skies, -jerry *************************** Well, let's see how he goes on. I hate to cut off such a promising source of amusement. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:48:57 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Brushfires Taking the same story, if after searching for several hours under the lamp post, you still don't find the keys, then the obvious conclusion is that they must be elsewhere. If after several expeditions to Niku, nothing substantive was found, it would be time to move on. However, there is enough evidence to suggest continue searching. Think of it this way: you found some some scraps of paper that you knew were in your pocket near the lamp post, so you would think your keys would still be nearby. Doesn't prove it, but it does suggest continue searching. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:49:27 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: clutching at straws I don't get paid either, but it would sure help out in paying the bills! Both Tom and I do it because it is intellectually challenging and fun, even when arguing with Ric. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:58:13 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Brushfires From Pat: > We are convinced, by the body of evidence we have > collected, that the *best* fit for the available data is > Niku. That is why our search has focused on that island. I agree. I'm not saying that it's not the right thing to do. I believe it's the most LIKELY place to look. It was the perception given by the comment that it's being researched because it's the EASIEST place that I was commenting on. Or perhaps cautioning about would be a better way to put it. > One thing that we would like to do, however, is test > the null hypothesis: that any given uninhabited Pacific > atoll would yield similar bits and pieces and stories and > trails. We've never been able to do that, because it > would be wildly expensive. Agreed again. This would be a bit like the experiment done many years ago where they performed a Martian life-finder experiment in the middle of a desert here on earth. Within the limits of the experimental package, they found nothing. What it proved was that perhaps they needed a different set of experiments. In our case, I don't think that such an operation could possibly be justified, nor do I think it's necessary. Perhaps we'll reach a point where we really need to develop some kind of "anecdotal evidence comparison baseline" like this, but at the moment I'm satisfied that the inquery method has been careful enough. Or, in cases where it's possible the interviewer may have poluted the source, it's been clearly stated as such. I'm also satisfied that the artifacts have been given proper attributes (i.e.: it's not said that it's the window of the Electra, but rather that its' COMPATABLE with the window of the Electra.) > The other hypotheses usually put forth as solutions to > ((..omitted..)) I agree with this too. I'm only talking about the way the comments can be perceived, not what I believe is actually happening. From Tom: > Sorry if my comment misled you, Bill, but your analogy > isn't quite apt. Let's suppose your man with his car keys > ((..omitted..)) > get a flashlight and search around his car if his initial search > doesn't pan out. It didn't mislead me at all. *I* know what you're getting at. I was cautioning, I guess, against the potential perception of that sort of comment. This project is already seen, in some circles, as being performed by people who just won't give up in the face of the "obvious" fact that Amelia went down at sea. The chance of us also be perceived as looking where we are because it's easier to prove this theory as opposed to one of the others is something we can ill afford to have happen. Unless I missed something, we're trying to prove this theory because it's more LIKELY rather than because it's EASIER. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:10:57 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: cold hard steel? You mean there is the possibility that Bruce did not find an aircraft engine on an island in the Phoenix Group? You would know better than I if he is mistaken. I have just felt from day one that the engine was real and I would give anything to prove it was found on Niku. That would close the deal for me. The story of that engine is the only thing that is keeping me from believing 100% that Niku is the right island. That damn engine keeps coming to mind. When I think of the other items found, I can think of several logical ways for them to get on that island and several ways for them to end up in the condition there were found in. And then I think of that engine. There is no other way that engine could have gotten to where it was found, unless it was once attached to an airplane. A single row radial engine of fairly low horsepower did not come from a very big airplane. Certainly not one that was capable of trans Pacific flight, unless it was modified for such flight. Yes, it could have come from a lost, undocumented military flight. Very possible! But, where ever that engine was found, you can bet the rest of the airplane it was once attached to is not too far away. There has to be a way to continue the research on Niku, but also make a concentrated effort to locate the source of that damn engine. We can do it with out a lot of money! We can do it like we did the Noonan Project. Look at what all that turned up when we put our minds to it. I'm sure there are those on this Forum who feel as I do about that engine. We don't even have to dig the thing up! Just find out where it came from and then decide what to do with the information. Maybe Bruce was wrong and the thing was found on Niku. Put me on the Hog train. . . wouldn't that be a kicker. . . . Tomorrow I am gong back to the TIGHAR Web site and read Bruce's account again. I haven't looked lately, but assume it is still there. I also wish we could hear from Bruce on the subject. Is he still a member of the Forum? Don ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:13:11 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Emily's story For Tom King... And Ric? Re: "...The previous anectodal accounts placed wreckage SOUTH of the Norwich City. Emily's anecdote places it NORTH of the shipwreck. It's also different kinds of wreckage; Emily was quite specific that it did not include aluminum; it was heavy steel pieces. The wreckage reported earlier was quite explicitly aluminum." Looking at the map... There does appear to be a lot of reef flat extending both north and south of the Norwich City wreckage. Would this look like a good place to try to put a plane down? And I wonder what the shipwreck looked like from the air in 1937? Might it have been mistaken for a sign of habitation? In any case, it was an unmistakable landmark... if one had any hope of communicating his location. ****************************************** Yes, the reef is very broad and flat there, and would look attractive I dare say. The shipwreck would have looked like a ship. The stern had not yet broken off. ****************************************** Emily's story -- North of shipwreck. No aluminum. Heavy steel pieces. It sounds more like some part of the Norwich City, but she was told it was aircraft wreckage, presumably by people who had seen it close up. I see some steel in landing gear, mostly tubular and, of course, engines. What about that "bridge beam" that ran from wing to wing through the fuselage? I would expect that to be aluminum. Did Emily's description sound at all like a couple of engines? Futile Speculation... How did Emily characterize aluminum? Perhaps, to her, aluminum was thin sheets, not heavy structural members. That heavy stuff was steel. Or did she think of steel as rusting while aluminum did not rust away and remained relatively bright? Tapania Taiki's story -- South of the shipwreck. A piece of airplane wing on the reef. And Pulekai Songivalu said there were pieces of an airplane across the lagoon from Taziman Passage. A scenario?... If a wheels-down landing, north-to-south, ended in disaster with landing gear being torn away (perhaps an engine being lost) might some of the heavier steel structures have remained near the point of touch down? These heavy parts had momentum to carry them forward but they may have remained where they came to rest. Larger and lighter parts such as wings and fuselage pieces may have been moved about by wind and sea. Perhaps they traveled southward and remained, for a time. south of the shipwreck. Perhaps even through the passage and across the lagoon. We need a time-line. When was a piece of airplane wing in evidence south of the shipwreck. And when was that not in evidence, but large steel parts of an airplane were still to be seen north of the shipwreck? Do the stories fit together if one views them in the proper time sequence? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:16:08 EDT From: Sactodave Subject: Re: Niku IIIIP There is good reason to eliminate my posts from this forum, I admit it. However, you must admit that TIGHAR has pursued Gillespie's theory as far as any organization should. The only reason TIGHAR is still going to Niku is BECAUSE of Gillespie and King. They are "in charge" of the research group, though I would not spend my money on their hunches. If anyone else was directing TIGHAR's research, they would forget about Niku after the first visit. ************************************************ From Pat--- I'm glad that you are so tuned in to what everyone who is a member and supporter of TIGHAR is thinking. Do you by any chance have a patent on this mind-reading device? If it were not for the support of hundreds of people, there is no way TIGHAR could possibly fund field work on Nikumaroro. ************************************************ There is some validity in the Niku theory. That is, the island is on the 157/337 LOP. Aside from that, the official record of the ariel search effort after AE's disappearance would tend to cast doubt on the Niku landing/crash scenario. (Now, if the search pilot would have spotted "signs of a recent Lockheed twin landing"....) To add insult to injury, someone says the bones they've found on Niku may be AE's! Well, they weren't! ************************************************* And your substantiation for this allegation would be....? ************************************************* Furthermore, these wild goose chases to Fiji have cost TIGHAR's contributors hundreds of thousands of dollars, ************************************************* True; but so long as the contributors are not complaining, what's it to you? As you have gone to great lengths to point out, you have not given us a nickel and never will. You don't have a dog in the fight, Dave. ************************************************* and turned up nothing but second-hand rumors, and whining accounts of government red tape. (It is amusing to note how much veracity Gillespie attributes to the Niku inhabitants, and how little he attributes to the so-called "conspirator theory" anecdotes...) *************************************************** The stories told by the former Niku residents are not second hand; they are first hand accounts. The reason we accord them more respect than we do the tales of conspiracy theorists is that there is independent primary source evidence to support their tales, unlike those told on Saipan and in the Marshalls. *************************************************** The difficult treks to Niku have done much to beautify the island with all that sifting, raking, and trash removal, though I believe a garbage and landscaping contract with one of the local island companies would be cheaper. Yes, you really should remove my posts from this forum. They are not "substantive" **************************************************** And you know what, Dave? You're gonna get your wish. This is the last posting that will appear under Sactodave's name on the Earhart Forum. For those who miss him, you can always go read the newsgroup alt.flame. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:16:51 EDT From: Jerry Gerdes Subject: Re: Money I recall years ago a high degree of concern about loss of independence if money was accepted from certain people or organizations. Fund raising in recent years seems to have found an acceptable compromise or solution. Unfortunately money is the answer. Properly obtained and managed will allow, even demand, more rapid progress. I vote for a professional fund raiser who will work for a reasonable fee. Jerry Gerdes ***************************** Anybody know any fund raisers? P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:23:43 EDT From: Fred Macio Subject: Re: Money Pat & Ric: FWIW I absolutely endorse Mr. Johnson's idea of hiring a professional fund raiser. Or otherwise calling a short "time out" to regroup and raise some serious cash. If your board of directors isn't already supporting the concept, they should. BTW Pat did you ever get a chance to "tap" my credit card for the $200. that we talked about on the telephone almost a month ago? I don't think I've seen it on the monthly statement --- but I could be wrong. Regards/ Fred ************************** I'll check, Fred. But we come back to the first question: how do we find a fund-raiser to work with us? We've tried the various local avenues with no luck... they don't get it. Ideas? P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:24:37 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Clanmere revealed > The British opinion is that the building was originally a residence. > Sometime between the wars, the owner could no longer afford the servants > needed to maintain a large home and it became available for other use. Should point out as a free-with-my-opinions Brit that I suggested to Vern that this is a typical scenario for such a house moving from private to business use around that time, but I have no knowledge that this was definitely the case with Clanmere. Anecdote rather than cold bricks! LTM Phil 2276 **************************** I'll try to get the pic up on the website today, and will send a notice out when I do. P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:25:21 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Why go eastwards? A question for the Forum's experts in navigation and maybe an FAQ. Is it right to assume that in 1937 it was no more difficult to navigate your way around the world starting in the US and going westwards than it was eastwards, and that the distance between Hawaii and Howland is a bit less than that between Howland and Lae? If so, why did Earhart's second attempt go eastwards when the first went the other way? Prompted by Patrick's point about there being no evidence of Noonan ever failing to find a destination with four hours' fuel with which to do so. With respect, I think the argument is a bit specious because the challenge of finding a tiny island after a 19-hour, two-handed flight was highly unusual if not unique. However, there's no doubt that the more fuel Earhart had, the greater the chance of finding Howland, and that she'd hardly be likely to fly towards New Guinea westwards with four hours' spare fuel and fail to find it. So if Hawaii-Howland was even marginally shorter than Lae-Howland, why not maximize the chances of success? LTM, Phil 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:25:57 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Brushfires Fair enough, Bill. Point well taken. LTM (who STILL hasn't found those @#$%$# keys!) Tom ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:51:44 EDT From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: Wreck explanation Ric wrote: > but the new anecdotal information we've > gotten from former residents of the island, when combined with the other > anecdotes, the historical documents, the photos, and the artifacts we've > found - all paint a rather clear picture of what happened at Gardner Island, > and it doesn't include a scene like what we see in the Wreck Photo. ------I realize that Ric is very, very busy, but when can the forum expect to be informed of "the rather clear pic of what happened on Nikumaroro"? LTM (who tends to believe "anecdotal" evidence that is logical), HAG 2201. *********************** Probably the first part of next week. P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:53:08 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Professional fundraisers Yes, but . . . . To raise serious money you do need a serious and professional effort. As an example, look at the new museum in England dedicated to the World War Two 8th Air Force and its heroes. That project had been in the talking stage for decades, but it wasn't until the early 90s when they finally decided to get serious about it. Within about 5 years the building was up, the aircraft were found and restored and the whole project is a booming success. That being said . . . I get real ticked at the arrogance of some professional fundraisers who demand as payment for their services of up to 40 percent of the funds they find. That is true piracy. Nonetheless . . . I vote for a professional fundraiser picked by TIGHAR's Fundraising Selection Committee. The committee should primarily be comprised of TIGHAR members who have experience in fundraising operations, and it should be chaired by a member of the TIGHAR Board of Directors. The Board of Directors would select the committee members and also would have the option of including on the committee any non-TIGHAR members it believes would add substantial insight and experience to this project. I would limit the committee to a membership of about nine to eleven people. Meetings would be via tele-conferencing with the costs shared by the committee members as a tax deductible contribution to TIGHAR. I believe it is important to involve as many TIGHAR members as possible from as diverse a geographic area as possible to make this project, as always with TIGHAR, a true membership-run effort. LTM, who still plays the Lotto Dennis McGee #0149 ************************* Did I just hear you volunteering to put this together, Dennis, or was that my imagination? P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:55:33 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: alternative theories Couldn't agree more with Max Standridge's comment that we should, from time to time, consider at least a mental re-evaluation of all the facts (real & alleged) related to the Earhart Mystery, including even some of the most illogical & evidentially improbable scenarios. If the TIGHAR investigation has proven nothing else, it has shown how often long held, seemingly irrefutable theories can be challenged, with the development of new factual or documentary evidence, uncovered as a result of persistent & painstaking research & inqury. Along that line of thinking, I wonder whether Mr. Standridge would share with us his data concerning the involvement of James Forrestal in the destruction of an aircraft on Saipan, as this story has always generated a particular interest in my mind (of all the many conspiracy theories), since it actually names a particular representative of the U.S. government as being directly involved in the conspiratorial cycle of events surrounding the disappearance of AE/FN, at a specified time & place. Since I realize the Forum might judge such interest on my part as being... "off-topic"..., perhaps Mr. Standridge might wish to respond to my inquiry directly. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:56:33 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Money Well, I do know a couple of professional fund raisers, but when I've brought this up in the past you guys have said you'd had such bad experiences with their ilk, you didn't want to pursue them. I can talk with somebody if you think it'd be a good idea. Incidentally, I'm really honored to see that Sactodave is now blaming me, as well as Ric, for squandering the money of all those poor benighted contributors. It's good to spread the blame, I think. TK **************************** Please do, Tom. And Sactodave is now history. I booted him off the Forum. P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:03:54 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Money Talking of fund raising, has anyone tried Lockheed-Martin and/or Pratt & Whitney ? If anyone could be interested in the project, then this two big aviation names -who were directly involved in the 1937 flight- certainly would After all, wasn't P&W behind the Finch flight of 1997 ? Herman ********************************** Endlessly. Lockheed has, over the years, been supportive in non-cash ways, but they don't give to any aviation-related causes so as to avoid being inundated. P&W did indeed support the Finch flight. That well is now dry. They never want to hear the name Earhart again. P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:05:09 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Null hypothesis I nominate Henderson Island for our null hypothesis This is a remote, uninhabited Pacific island, complete with skeletons (disputed European or Polynesian) and an archeological record. No airplane parts, though. It has some connections to both Moby Dick and the Mutiny on the Bounty. You can find quite a lot on these places. They may be less visited now than they were in the days of the whalers and sealers. Dan Postellon TIGHAR 2263 ****************************** Um, gee, Dan, you wanna run out there and do a survey and get back to us? :-) P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:05:48 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Brushfires Bill says: <> Absolutely. When we started this project ten years ago we did so reluctantly. We had to admit, however, that the theory that the flight ended on either Mckean or Gardner seemed logical on the face of it. Since then, although we've tested and disporoved many sub-theories about exactly what happened and where things may have ended up, the basic hypothesis has become increasingly supported by the information we have uncovered. If there's something easy about testing this hypothesis it has escaped my notice. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:08:58 EDT From: Jim Van Hare Subject: Re: grasping at straws Welcome back from Niku, but please don't fall into the trap that one particular person has once again set for you and for this forum. As the kids say, you've "been there, done that, and even bought the t-shirt" in the not so distant past. There's a game being played here: A few posted messages have forced you on the defensive and have forced your truly interested and supportive forum members on their defensive, and there's nothing out there to defend against! This discussion forum has always carefully and scientifically presented information, and has always honestly tried to determine the reliability of that information. The forum moderator has no need to waste his time and energy defending himself or defending a very legitimate hypothesis. If TIGHAR's hypothesis is correct and irrefutable supporting evidence is discovered, the matter is settled. If another person or group finds irrefutable evidence that TIGHAR's hypothesis is incorrect, the matter is also settled. And either outcome will once again validate the scientific approach as a method of answering a question. Cheers! Jim Van Hare ******************************* The person in question is now history, Jim. Thanks for your support. I don't intend to allow this sort of situation to arise again. Anyone who doesn't like our approach, our hypotheses, our fund-raising, or our hair color can go get their own Forum if they can't figure out a way to criticize *constructively*. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:09:30 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Cold hard steel <> Yes, that is exactly what I mean. That possibility has nothing to do with Bruce's character. I am absolutely convinced that he is telling us what he believes to be the truth - and it may well be the truth. My point is that human memory - his, mine, and yours - is fallible. Our only defense against the inherent fallibility of our recollections is to seek less fallible sources of corroboration. So far, in the case of the Canton engine, we have been unable to find such corroboration. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:10:11 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Emily's story Vern asks: <> That's part of what we really need to look at now. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:10:57 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Sacto Farewell Just a quick note to say that I completely agree with Pat's decision to terminate Sactodave. While we occasionally decline postings that are off-topic or excessively rude, we've never before forcibly ejected someone from the Forum. Sactodave worked hard for that honor. Now, if he wants to know what's happening on the Earhart Forum he'll have to read the highlights on the website. I do want to make it clear that this action was not taken because he was critical of TIGHAR or me or Tom King or you, the members of the forum. We booted him because his criticism was consistently mean-spirited and utterly lacking in substance. I truly hope that he'll have the further honor of being our only exile. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:11:27 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Why go eastwards? My understanding is that the decision to reverse directon had to do with prevailing winds during the monsoon season in India that would not have been a factor earlier in the year. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:12:16 EDT From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: Emily's story << Futile Speculation... How did Emily characterize aluminum? Perhaps, to her, aluminum was thin sheets, not heavy structural members. That heavy stuff was steel. Or did she think of steel as rusting while aluminum did not rust away and remained relatively bright? >> Maybe not so futile. I have to agree with Ric's speculation. Emily's ability to identify aluminum was more than likely limited the thin sheets her father used to his decorate the wooden boxes and combs he made. During our first interview, she mentioned nothing about "rusting" that I recall, only that "the steel struts, the long pieces, were there. The waves washing them in low tide." Emily has led a relatively simple life by comparison to our daily grind. I'll bet she hasn't had much exposure to, or experience with, identification of various metals. Kris, Tom...any thoughts? LTM (who knows aluminum when she bites it), Barbara Norris ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:13:47 EDT From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: Niku IIIIP Sacto wrote: << There is good reason to eliminate my posts from this forum, I admit it. However, you must admit that TIGHAR has pursued Gillespie's theory as far as any organization should. The only reason TIGHAR is still going to Niku is BECAUSE of Gillespie and King. They are "in charge" of the research group, though I would not spend my money on their hunches. If anyone else was directing TIGHAR's research, they would forget about Niku after the first visit. >> Perhaps you'd like to consider the fact that King did NOT go to Niku this trip. None of us get paid in money to participate in TIGHAR's research or expeditions. We get something far more valuable. But I'll let you figure out what that might be. Meanwhile here's a quote to ruminate: "We are more in need of vision or destination and less in need of a map. Leaders create their own destiny by following their internal compass. They make their life a mission, not just a career." So long Dave, and remember to be careful what you wish for, you just might get it... LTM (who says, "Play nice!"), Barbara Norris ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:32:45 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Why go eastward Good question about East to West vs. West to East. I wish I had a really good answer, other than weather. Consulting with my meteorological friends, it appears that the winds across Africa shift dramatically from April through June, and AE's explanation is approximately correct. There appears to be no other reason postulated, and this one seems somewhat weak. Despite all of this, I would still have favored the tail wind by going E to W. The jump from Howland to Lae would have been a piece of cake: just find the continent of New Guinea! The flight from Hono to Howland would be difficult, but with a full load of gas, one could search for much longer upon arrival in the area than from Lae. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:33:27 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Money For Tom King: My wife will be pleased to hear that it is you, and not me, that is responsible for wasteful expenditures in my household. Bless you, my good man! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:34:11 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Null hypothesis I've been advocating a survey of Hull or Sydney Island for quite some time. It appears that the colonists did trade among the islands, and it would be interesting to determine the density of artifacts that might be compatible with AE among the islands. It's possible, but now unlikely, that the plane wreck was on one of these islands, and the various physical plane artifacts made it to Gardner. The bone story, however, puts an entirely different slant on things. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:34:55 EDT From: Jerry Gerdes Subject: Re: Money Next week I have a business and dinner meeting with the President of an aviation related organization. They too have funding problems at about the same order of magnitude we do. I know in the last three years they have increased their fund rasing activities with some success. I'll inquire about their techniques and their access to the Pros. I'll get back with anything useful. Jerry Gerdes ********************** Thanks, Jerry. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:36:48 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Alternative Theories I don't agree that we should spend valuable time disproving the other's theories. It is easier to prove ours, then by inference, theirs are disproven. Anything that you can "prove" about Forrestal being on the other side of the universe would be only a "cover-up" to the conspiracy theorists, so you can't really "disprove" anything in their minds. Blue Skies & LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ********************************* In general, this is the approach we have taken--- in large part because it is not possible to prove a negative hypothesis. However, investigating the null hypothesis is a valid procedure in scientific work. P ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:37:50 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Emily's story Barb, if I read you correctly (quote below), Emily was not describing big, massive junks of metal of whatever kind. Rather, she was speaking of the kind of long, slender structural members you would expect to be left after the "skin" of an airplane had been pretty well torn away and had "migrated" to other places under the influence of sea and wind. This seems to say the airplane landed (not necessarily crashed) at that location on the reef-flat to the north of the Norwich City shipwreck. Some of the pieces not so easily moved about by sea and wind remained more or less where the plane landed. These pieces may have eventually also been dispersed by continued wave and wind action -- and whatever storms occurred. Curious... that's about where the engines should have been and they should have stayed put. If the airplane virtually disintergrated in a crash landing, the engines would have continued going for some distance. I expect some of our folks with crash investigation experience will have something to say about that... At the landing speed of the Electra, wheels up or down, would the engines be likely to tear free? And how far might the engines have traveled? >From Barb Norris >Maybe not so futile. I have to agree with Ric's speculation. Emily's ability >to identify aluminum was more than likely limited to the thin sheets her >father used to decorate the wooden boxes and combs he made. During our first >interview, she mentioned nothing about "rusting" that I recall, only that >"the steel struts, the long pieces, were there. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:39:59 EDT From: Ang. Subject: Re: Emily's story >used to his decorate the wooden boxes and combs he made. During our first >interview, she mentioned nothing about "rusting" that I recall, only that >"the steel struts, the long pieces, were there. The waves washing them in >low tide." Emily has led a relatively simple life by comparison to our daily Have you thought of other twin-engine aircraft of that era? Sikorsky was a prolific producer of a a variety of amphibians. The most common was the S-38, a replica of which has been recently touted on the cover of their EAA Nov.'98 "Sport Aviation" periodical. These are the forerunners of his Clipper series. The Sikorsky style of structure, the S-38 through S-40 at least, included lots of steel tubes, etc. that would be a crude match to the array of pieces described by Emily. (These along with their years of production after 1928 alonf with theri flying activites are outlined in his biography "The Story of the Winged-S". Ang. ************************** Yes, we have looked at all the aircraft that might, by any wild stretch of the imagination, have been in that part of the world. Nothing matches. P ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:40:45 EDT From: William Dohenyguy Subject: Frustration Ever since Ric and the crew came back from Niku, and Tom and the mob returned from Fiji, there has been alot of hostility on the Forum. I guess we all thought Ric would return with a wing, bearing a certain number. And I'm sure we all thought Tom would bring home two flagged draped coffins. Well, it didn't happen. Sometimes you don't get what you hoped for. It takes alot of money for a trip like that, and when there are sparse results, backers head for the hills, and the avid curious tend to get frustrated. It's understandable, but, yes, frustrating. Ric, I think it is time to talk to George again. Not over the phone, but in person. He can't be that elusive, he must want to solve the mystery too. The wreck photo is a smoking gun, who took the pic, when, and where? You have to corner this man, and make him understand the significance of his knowledge. Willian LTM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:44:14 EDT From: Dave Forum Subject: Fundraising Ric mentioned off-forum to me a few months back that TIGHAR has a mechanism in place that will hit donor's credit cards once a month for an agreed upon amount. Perhaps it's time to publicize that option. Perhaps a minimun level ($20) in leiu of the regular $45 annual membership fee, bringing in $240 annually rather than $45 from those who choose the option? Of course, a larger amount could be given if desired, and the option of $45 or $50 one time payment, one year "trial memberships" should probably be kept as well. *********************************** Yes, this is still very much an option, and anyone who wishes to make a monthly gift to TIGHAR, automatically on their credit card, should email me (Pat, that is) at TIGHARpat@mac.com to make the arrangements for which we would be very grateful indeed. Practical minimum is $10 a month. *********************************** On another front, I can't imagine the folks at the Smithsonian NOT being interested in this. Could a presentation of what TIGHAR and the Earhart Project has accomplished thus far serve to open up their coffers a wee bit? Please correct me if I'm speaking out of turn here, but wouldn't the Smithsonian be the eventual "final resting place" for aircraft debris conclusively proven to have come from NR16020? If that's true, it can be coupled with the fact that the evidence definitely points to Niku, and perhaps they can shake loose some "exhibit acquisition" funds. Just some ideas. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ************************************** We know all the folks at the Smithsonian quite well, and you bring up a popular misconception concerning their level of funding which I will now correct: The National Air and Space Museum has NO, that is NO funding for acquisitions. None whatsoever. Very few museums do. The museum world scrambles for every penny just like we do. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:44:47 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: why go eastwards? My own recollection of the reason given for reversing the direction of the AE/FN flight from westward to eastward (after the groundloop mishap of the aborted takeoff from Hawaii) was to avoid storms (hurricanes) that could be developing in the South Atlantic, at that time of year, upon the flight's return trip from Africa to South America, if they flew a westerly route. Considering the fact that by traveling eastward they did run into very heavy monsoon storms across the subcontinent & had to turn back & land on at least one occasion, due to the severity of such storms, it doesn't seem to me that it was the most well thought out decision made by the planners of the flight. Must admit I've often wondered why they would choose to travel the longest, most difficult, overwater (mostly at night) leg of the flight at the near end of the journey, (when both plane & crew are probably the most air weary & fatigued) trying to find a narrow strip of an island in the mid-Pacific. Though I'm not a pilot or navigator, I still believe I would rather face the _possiblity_ of flying through, over or around South Atlantic storm systems, with two entire continents as my potential landfall, than trying to plot a course through the night to such a small speck of land in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Conversely, AE/FN probably considered that Noonan's navigational skills & the prospect of having a radio beam from Itaska to guide them would be sufficient, not anticipating that a failure of their radio receiver/antenna system or directional ring would leave them totally dependant upon the accuracy of Noonan's calculations & Earhart's ability to fly the course he charted. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:17:29 EDT From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: Emily's story You're right, Vern. The crash investigation experience lies in the capable and talented hands of Ric. He'll no doubt offer a bit of feedback on the subject. But my husband, Jeff and & I have been discussing possibilities over the past couple of days and here are a few of our random thoughts... 1. There's always the possibility that it was a relatively soft landing and the plane was in tact. It's our thought that anything light that may have fallen off the plane or was torn off in severe weather would either be washed onto the beach or wash back to the reef face and fall over it. 2. Our thought about the engines, is that if they were torn off or eventually fell off, they were surely heavy enough to sink. Over time, the sand and sinking action would eventually cover the engines. So, they may just be buried in the sand. 3. If you just think of normal shoreline action and something heavy sitting in shallow water, as waves wash over that object the sand softens under the weight and it sinks. If an object lays on the beach even over a short period of time it becomes buried in sand due to wind and wave action. 4. In the event of heavy storms, a mound of sand could be leveled off, giving the appearance that nothing's there. We've experienced this first hand. On a barrier island of North Carolina where we spend a lot of time, the dunes were completely wiped out by a hurricane. They were later reestablished by the placement of old Christmas trees and snow fence along the beach front. It was amazing how quickly the dunes rebuilt themselves. In the event of a hard or soft landing, some debris should be there. Our teams haven't spent much time searching that area due to the debris field from the Norwich City. They KNEW they'd pick up a lot of noise with the detectors in that vicinity. Hopefully, those struts Emily described are there amid the wreckage of the ship. We just have to sort it out. But hey, this group loves a challenge! There you have it Vern...our amateur musings on the subject. LTM (who was a real beach bunny), Barbara Norris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:19:14 EDT From: Mike Rejsa Subject: Re: memories Ric wrote: > My point is that human memory - his, mine, and yours - is fallible. > Our only defense against the inherent fallibility of our recollections > is to seek less fallible sources of corroboration. Ric, while you were gone I announced that I had just been successful in finding an item stolen twice, the first time being some thirty years ago. My intent was to cheerleader a little bit about searches - I spent about a year and a half collecting data etc. and was eventually successful, as I expect TIGHAR will be. Relating to annecdotal evidence: I had a 30-year-old memory of one aspect of this thing that, over the years, I had begun to question; in retrospect it seemed technically very unlikely. When I finally found the person who had done the modification (and also when I found the item itself), I discovered my memory was perfectly accurate and correct. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:20:10 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: frustration William dohenyguy writes: <> Understandable perhaps, but it's not happening. No backers have headed for any hills and the avid curious, while just as frustrated as the rest of us, remain just as avid and just as curious as ever. If there has been an increase in hostility on the Forum since our return I suspect that it is due almost entirely to my own lack of tact. <> Au contraire. The new information resulting from this expedition leads me to think that the Wreck Photo has nothing to do with the Earhart disappearance except as a tantalizing and very misleading red herring. If George (Carrington) wants to talk to me my phone number is (302) 994-4410 but I'm kind of busy these days. This may sound strange, but if a genie had given me this choice before the expedition: "Which would you rather find - more pieces of aircraft debris that are consistent with a Lockheed 10 but not conclusively from Earhart's - or - new anecdotal accounts that greatly clarify the picture of what may have happened and could eventually lead to conclusive proof?" I'd have gone for the anecdotes. I'm delighted at what we found. I think we've got this thing nailed and I think we'll eventually be able to prove it. That may sound like a brash statement (Me? Brash statements?) but I have the benefit of more information than you guys do at the moment. I'll correct that as soon as possible. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:20:49 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Help from NASM? Dave Porter says: <> Pat has already explained that the Smithsonian (that is, the National Air & Space Museum, aka NASM) doesn't have any acquisition coffers to open, but it's also true that, like all of us, they can often find the money to do things they really want to do. Helping TIGHAR to solve the Earhart mystery does not fall into that category. NASM, through the chairman of its Aeronautics department, has adopted the role of learned skeptic toward TIGHAR's hypothesis. It's not a question of them not having access to the facts or being urged to familiarize themselves with the facts. It's a matter of intellectual inflexibility that fosters such arguments as: * Nikumaroro is a tiny island. If there was anything there somebody would have seen it and TIGHAR would have found it by now. * TIGHAR says that photogrammetric measurement of Earhart's shoes shows her to be wearing a size 8 or 9 shoe at the time of her death, but shoes from Earhart's youth in a Kansas museum and the recollections of Earhart's sister prove that she had small feet. * The only way the Earhart mystery will ever be solved is by the recovery of a "smoking gun" - an aircraft component with a serial number. Can you hear an anthropologist at the Smithsonan's Museum of Natural History saying, "The only way we can ever be certain that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor is to find a 'smoking gun' - an early human with the stump of a tail." ? Far from being a champion of sound historical investigation and scientific method, NASM has become the voice of simplistic popular opinion. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:25:10 EDT From: Jon Pieti Subject: A basic premise Bill Leary wrote: >Unless I missed something, we're trying to prove this theory because it's >more LIKELY rather than because it's EASIER. More likely than the scenario where they just went down at sea somewhere? How can you say that? I've been following this forum and the progress of TIGHAR with great interest for some months now, and I admire the thorough work and discipline being put forth in attempting to solve the mystery, and I hope that they are correct and eventually successful... But - the one thing that has been bothering me all along is that just because it isn't feasible for TIGHAR (or anyone else) to expend resources looking for evidence of a loss at sea, or likely that it would be possible to find it after all these years, that doesn't mean that ending for Amelia & Fred is any less probable. I understand that the only place where there is any possibility of finding evidence after 62 years is on one of the islands in the vicinity they are searching. But it's a darn big ocean out there, and just because the Colorado and the rest of the Navy didn't find any evidence of a loss at sea in 1937, doesn't rule it out as a possibility. Let me say it this way: The selection of any group of data to examine does not make a particular outcome scenario of the event being studied any more or any less likely to have occurred. - Jon Pieti ************************* I think, Jon, that the situation is not as simple as "there's a lot of ocean but we can't look there." The truth is, that the *only* explanation which fits *all* the known FACTS---not surmises, not suppositions, but facts--- is that Earhart reached land, almost certainly Nikumaroro. I'll let Ric carry this farther than I can, but remember that any hypothesis about a mystery must account for everything known. If my keys are lost, the most likely place for me to look may well be on the kitchen counter or in my jeans pockets.... unless the last time I saw them the dog was playing with them in the back yard. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:30:23 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Canton Engine, again I must confess that I've not kept notes on all this. I believe we have pretty good, although anecdotal, corroboration that Bruce did, indeed, have an old engine on Canton. But where did he get it? Have all possibilities of finding people who might know where the engine was picked up been exhausted? Do we know who any of those people are? Have we been unable to find them... or found that they are no longer with us? *********************** One of the other mechanics does recall that Bruce had an old engine. P ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:27:31 EDT From: Richard Johnson Subject: Big money If I ever win the Texas lotto, I promise a one million dollar donation to TIGHAR. But I want to go to Niku with ya'll. Seven come eleven baby! **************************** Hey, for a million big ones, you can buy the boat! P ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:28:06 EDT From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: Canton engine To Don Jordan Don, I am still on the forum and very much still interested in the A.E. search. I still contribute what I can and intend to remain a member until the results prove something. The engine is not a fabrication, but is and was a real incident in my life that only, became important after learning of Tighar's existence. Don, If you want to contact me by e-mail I would be happy to discuss any aspects and questions you may have of the engine. LTM (Who knows what she knows) Bruce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:28:39 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Help from NASM? NASM (Tom Crouch) also insists that Earhart didn't have enough fuel to make it to Niku, and discounts the bones because Hoodless didn't identify them as Earhart's. TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:29:49 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: A basic premise Pat wrote: > I can't say it any better than that. Crashed-and-sank would be a great hypothesis if the traditional premises were true: * That it is reasonable to assume that the aircraft ran out of fuel within minutes of the 08:43 transmission heard by ITASCA. * That all of the alleged post-loss radio signals were proven to be either misunderstandings or outright hoaxes. * That the Navy's aerial search of the Phoenix Group (acknowledged at the time as being the most likely place) turned up nothing suspicious. * That nobody ever came across anything during the subsequent settlement of those islands that might indicate that the Earhart/Noonan flight might not have crashed at sea. In short, the dog had the keys. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:30:29 EDT From: Terry Ann Linly Subject: Re: Niku IIIIP Wow! I left for a week of vacation, and all Hell broke loose on the Forum in my absence! I'm sorry Sactodave could not contain himself; he will miss out on much intensely interesting information until results are posted on the website. Barb Norris' quote on 6 August (Re: Niku IIIIP) really hit home: TIGHAR is about vision and mission. It is also about RISK ("You always miss 100% of the shots you DON'T take"), TIMING ("Believing that things happen too slowly or too quickly is an illusion.....timing is perfect"), and about ACTION and PASSION ("As life is action and passion, it is required of a man that he should share the passion and action of his time at peril of being judged not to have lived."...Oliver Wendell Holmes). One of the characteristics that makes TIGHAR different from other organizations is that we ALL contribute in some way to the effort: monetarily, intellectually, physically and/or emotionally. I'm glad to be a part of the organization, even if only a small part. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:31:05 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Canton Engine, again Vern asked: <> *********************** To which Pat replied: <> But he doesn't remember it being airlifted to Canton. What we have for Bruce's story is partial anecdotal support. True corroboration would be: * a helicopter flight log describing the event * photos of the event * the engine itself Similarly, if a wartime resident of Saipan says there was an American lady flier held in Garapan Prison, another resident's assertion that there was a woman in the prison is not enough to say that Earhart was there. True corroboration would be; * official records that mentioned prisoner Earhart * photos of Earhart in Garapan Prison * Earhart's remains in a Saipanese grave By the same token, if a former resident of Nikumaroro says there was an airplane wreck on the island in 1939-1941, another similar report is not enough to say that a plane was there. True corroboration would be: * mention of the wreck in official records * photos of the wreck datable to 1939-1941 which match the description and location given in the anecdotal account * pieces of the wreck LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:31:42 EDT From: Mark Cameron Subject: Re: frustration Ric and Pat Yes, the Forum has been more hostile as of late, but not due to any fault of yours. Most of us are waiting in the wings for the complete story on NikuIIIIP and sometimes frustration leads to outbursts and confrontation, but we're only human. Support for this project seems to be as strong as ever, in spite of the detractors, and the newest info makes it clearer than ever that we're on the right track. In a way, I'm sorry Sactodave abused his role as devil's advocate, his postings were always interesting when he wasn't being abusive. He inspired my first post to the Forum a while ago, leading to membership, and I'll miss his ravings even tho he HAD to go, good decision, Pat. LTM (who knows a good wait makes the results more tantalizing) Mark Cameron #2301 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:44:18 EDT From: Richard Johnson Subject: Money-frustration A couple of days ago I suggested it was time to throw some serious money at this problem. I did not make this suggestion out of pure frustration. I am not frustrated with Rics' progress. As a matter of fact, I think he has acquired a massive amount of information in ten years, and all of it quite promising. Furthermore, I have no right to be frustrated with anything TIGHAR has done. Hell, I've never done anything to help them. I'm just a guy who is very interested in someone discovering the truth. People like Ric who endeavor to persevere will always have my admiration. "Endeavor to Perservere", man that sounds good! Maybe a motto for TIGHAR. Richard Johnson ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:44:47 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: frustration Ric wrote:- >>Au contraire. The new information resulting from this expedition leads me to >>think that the Wreck Photo has nothing to do with the Earhart disappearance Wow ! - Ric joins the "the Wreck's not AE's L10E" club !! I've seen it all . So presumably the new anecdotal evidence you have seems to preclude what's visible in the wreck photo ? I can't wait to hear about the evidence !! LTM Simon #2120 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:47:41 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: A basic premise Pat, who ones suspects is even more fixated on Niku than Ric, has stated: "The truth is, that the *only* explanation which fits *all* the known FACTS---not surmises, not suppositions, but facts--- is that Earhart reached land, almost certainly Nikumaroro." Well, that's a reasonable enough statement, providing all those known FACTS can be presented to us. (Just a brief concise list, with sources, will suffice). May I respectfully request TIGHAR provide the list, since I seem to have missed something in prior postings? Cam Warren ************************** I think I'll let Ric do this one. However, I will say that as islands go, Niku is one of my least favorite places and I am far from "fixated" on it. Too bad that's where the evidence leads, I'd much prefer Bermuda. P ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:48:14 EDT From: William Dohenyguy Subject: Don't need George any more Ric Wrote, "...new information... the wreck photo has nothing to do with the Earhart disappearance"..." I'm certainly impressed. When will the Forum be exposed to this new information? I'm waiting with baited breath. William LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:49:00 EDT From: Mary Joy Subject: Re: Canton engine Actually Vern, there is no corroboration of Bruce Yoho's story with the exception of one of his personal friends that told Ric on the phone, as I recall "Yeah,Bruce had an old engine that he was fooling with". Bruce can't seem to come up with anyone else, including the helicopter pilot or any crew that was on this "sightseeing" trip to some "other island" to verify this story. There are, however, several management types that were on Canton at the same time, that never heard of an interesting old radial engine in the area. Marty Joy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:50:03 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Canton engine >One of the other mechanics does recall that Bruce had an old engine. Yes, but have we found anyone, such as a chopper pilot, who might be able to say where the engine was picked up? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:51:11 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Canton engine Please disregard previous message! I should have asked, have we identified any people who might be able to say where the engine was picked up? If so, do we have any ideas about how to go about finding them? ********************** Too late, it got posted in order .... I don't read everything and then post, I read/post/read/post. Too bad there isn't an "unsend" option on internet email.... P ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:51:45 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Emily's story Barb, >2. Our thought about the engines, is that if they were torn off or >eventually fell off, they were surely heavy enough to sink. Over time, the >sand and sinking action would eventually cover the engines. So, they may >just be buried in the sand. Was this wreckage not on the reef-flat? I wonder how it plays out there? And Bruce picked up his engine from a reef-flat. But we're not sure what reef-flat! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:55:20 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Emily's story Should Emily's description of aircraft debris on the reef flat, in the general vicinity of the Norwich wreck, be considered an accurate observation, we must again confront the fact that the Lambercht overflight of the island (a week after last radio contact) failed to observe any sign of the aircraft or identifiable aircraft debris, even though he clearly described the remains of the Norwich in that same general area of the island. Since I believe Randy Jacobson, in a previous post, determined that there had been no record of any unusual storm activity or wave/tidal action in the vicinity of Niku island for that time frame, doesn't it seem unlikely that the aircraft could have made a safe, wheels down landing on that particular area of the reef flat & then in a week's time been demolished or washed off the flat by relatively normal tidal action, to the point where no identifiable portions of the aircraft remained to be seen from Lambrecht's plane? Naturally, the possibility does remain that the aircraft made it's initial landing in such close proximity to the outer edge of the reef flat that even normal tidal activity could have sucked the aircraft off the flat, into the much deeper surrounding waters, within a week's time & then in the interim time period from Lambrecht's flight until Emily's observation, portions of the plane could have been washed up fom the depths, onto the reef flat, by any subsequent storm & unusual wave/tidal activity. So much speculation, so little solid evidence, I guess that is what makes this search so compelling! Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:56:29 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: AE's shoe size > >From Ric > >* TIGHAR says that photogrammetric measurement of Earhart's shoes shows her >to be wearing a size 8 or 9 shoe at the time of her death, but shoes from >Earhart's youth in a Kansas museum and the recollections of Earhart's sister >prove that she had small feet. Excuse me, but I wear size 8 or 9 shoes and my feet are very small. I'm sure you didn't mean it... ;-) LTM, who's also dainty Amanda Dunham "Well, I take a size 6. But a 7 feels so good, I wear a size 8." Dolly Parton in "Steel Magnolias" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:27:44 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Emily's story Don Neumann says: >So much speculation, so little solid evidence, I guess that is what >makes this search so compelling! Absolutely, Don. The nearness of Emily's wreck to Norwich City really is a head-scratcher, and one always has the option of saying something like "Oh, the Colorado pilots couldn't help but have seen it, so therefore Emily's testimony actually REFUTES the Nikumaroro landing hypothesis." However, one then has to account for Emily's testimony some other way. Around and around we go. But here's a question for all the airplane folks -- two questions, really. (a) It an airplane on a reef is going to get ripped apart by the waves, is it likely that the aluminum body and wings would come off in large chunks, leaving the heavy undercarraige sitting on the reef? (b) If you've got only the undercarraige sitting on the reef, how hard is it going to be for the Colorado pilots to see it? More speculation, obviously, but just wondering. LTM (who's not above speculation) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:28:34 EDT From: Blake Herling Subject: Re: Canton engine Until Ric & the team get all their info sorted out & presentable, I guess we all want something to continually chew on. Re enter..... the "Canton" engine..... Its been a while since the Canton engine thing all came about, & I should have gone back to the web site & reviewed all this stuff before I wrote, but I didnt have the time, so I'm going from memory. Wasnt the engine found during somewhat of a "joy ride" by board, off duty, personel? I read that one of the other mechanics remembers Bruce having an old engine, but where did it come from? I guess thats the $20. question. Joy rides probably dont stick out in the minds of flight crews, but as far as I know, joy rides dont usually go back some where to recover an artifact half buried in the sand of an island beach that was previousley over flown either. Add to this the fact that the whole thing was the idea of one of your passengers (a mechanic) & that there would be a fair amount of effort involved. You think this would stick out in your mind, at least more than other joy rides where all you did was "ride" Well heres where all this is going. I am not a pilot yet, but I do alot of flying with a friend who has a plane. Alot of times one or the other of us will call & say hey I've got an extra $20. wanna go for a ride? & we go, but never & I mean never do we not know where we are. We live & fly around the Rockies so getting lost has potentially nasty side effects. Much like the Pacific ocean. So I said all that to say this ( & to take up time till the latest updates become available) I dont understand how the pilot of any joy ride could not know where he was while flying over the Pacific. Youd have to know, or you may wind up dead. & if you picked up an artifact during your flight it would seem logical that at that point the joy ride would be over & with cargo slung you would head straight home. Is the pilot, or any of the flight crew still around? If so, have they been contacted, or do other documented facts lay waste to the probability of the engine being Earhart's? LTM (who's just trying to pass the time) Blake ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:29:13 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Emily's story Concerning the tidal/wave action that was going on at the island at the time of the Lambrecht flyover, something to keep in mind is that (as I understand it) there was a very strong storm to the northwest of Howland soon after July 2nd. Waves travel fast, and there is always the possibility that these could have travelled to Niku and done their work notwithstanding clear and calm weather conditions on the island at the time of the flyover (also, if the waves were high they could have been breaking over the Electra or its remains, making it impossible to see). It's also interesting that the post loss messages stop abruptly on July 4th. Perhaps this is because of a sudden event such as surf? I believe the webpage has a photo taken by Lambrecht, and as soon as I get this message out I will see what the wave action looks like, as having been on the island gives me some idea of what calm conditions look like. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:56:09 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Canton engine Vern Klein asked: >>One of the other mechanics does recall that Bruce had an old engine. > >Yes, but have we found anyone, such as a chopper pilot, who might be able to >say where the engine was picked up? So far we have not been able to find anyone who remembers the engine being picked up at any island. We're still looking. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:56:43 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: AE's shoe size <<,"Well, I take a size 6. But a 7 feels so good, I wear a size 8." Dolly Parton in "Steel Magnolias">> Dolly stole the line from Popeye's girlfriend Olive Oyle who said (in pre-war cartoon): "I take a size 6 but a size 9 feels soooo good." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:58:04 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: a basic premise > From Jon Pieti > Bill Leary wrote: > > > Unless I missed something, we're trying to prove this theory > > because it's more LIKELY rather than because it's EASIER. > > More likely than the scenario where they just went down at sea > somewhere? Yes. > How can you say that? When people ask me that I usually give some snide remark about how human speech works. I do this because by the time I've gotten around to offering an opinion I've usually considered the facts that lead me to an opinion pretty carefully. However, we all know that friend Jon means "how can I believe that" or "what leads you to that" with the implication that I haven't really thought it through or I'd not say it. > I've been following this forum and the progress of TIGHAR with > great interest for some months now, and I admire the thorough work > and discipline being put forth in attempting to solve the mystery, and > I hope that they are correct and eventually successful... > > But - the one thing that has been bothering me all along is that just > because it isn't feasible for TIGHAR (or anyone else) to expend > resources looking for evidence of a loss at sea, or likely that it would > be possible to find it after all these years, that doesn't mean that ending > for Amelia & Fred is any less probable. No, inability to perform the search doesn't make it less probable. Trying to match a loss at sea with other data, however, DOES (in my opinion, and as always pending any new information) make it the less probable ending. > ((..omitted..)) > Let me say it this way: The selection of any group of data to examine does > not make a particular outcome scenario of the event being studied any more > or any less likely to have occurred. If this were a mathematics discussion, I'd agree. But then, the whole concept of the term "likely" implies judgement and evaluation, not mathematical precision. In a mathematical domain, if I randomly fling an object into a large target area which contains a smaller target, then the chances are damn good that I won't hit that smaller target. However, this isn't a random occurance. The object in thsi case was an airplane operated by persons who had some control over what happened to it. It was operating within certain pretty clearly indisputable parameters (i.e.: it could only go so far, so certain search areas can be eliminated) and with certain desires from it's operators (given a chance to land in the sea or a small island, one expects she'd have chosen the island). I see Pat has responded and has prompted Ric to do so as well. I'll refrain from a list of "I believe" items since I expect he'll do a better job than I will, and will likely remember things I won't. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:58:43 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Emily's story Landing speculation... >Should Emily's description of aircraft debris on the reef flat, in the >general vicinity of the Norwich wreck, be considered an accurate >observation, we must again confront the fact that the Lambercht >overflight of the island (a week after last radio contact) failed to >observe any sign of the aircraft or identifiable aircraft debris, even >though he clearly described the remains of the Norwich in that same >general area of the island. >snip< >Naturally, the possibility does remain that the aircraft made it's >initial landing in such close proximity to the outer edge of the reef >flat that even normal tidal activity could have sucked the aircraft off >the flat, into the much deeper surrounding waters, within a week's time >& then in the interim time period from Lambrecht's flight until Emily's >observation, portions of the plane could have been washed up fom the >depths, onto the reef flat, by any subsequent storm & unusual wave/tidal >activity. > Yep. Speculation. And more speculation.. Maybe they really smashed it up. There was no airplane to be seen, just a debris field near the wreck of the Norwich City... not recognizable? That might also explain shoe parts in various places and pieces of an airplane in various places... And the bones of one castaway. The other is probably buried somewhere. Speculation..... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 11:01:14 EDT From: Richard Johnson Subject: Wreck photo location? Here is an interesting tidbit. While watching "Animal Planet" on cable last night, the host, an Austrialian fellow named "Steve", climbed into the cockpit of a WWII vintage aircraft that was in a jungle setting. The aircraft was gutted and looked like it had suffered years of exposure to the elements. He stated this was a resting place for many old airplanes from the WWII era. So evidently, there are more like the one he was in. This old graveyard of planes just happened to be in the area where they were searching for crocodiles, thus the reason for showing it on tv. He went on to give their location, Northern Austrailia, that is the northern most point, closest to New Guinea. The jungle had palm trees and much vegetation. Much like in the wreck photo. Maybe we should ask the guy who had the wreck photo if he was ever in Austrailia. Richard Johnson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:14:34 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Canton Engine Blake Herling asks: <> A concerted effort has turned up four individuals who were on Canton at the time Bruce Yoho says the engine was recovered. Tom Lawrence, a site manager for Global, the contractor who operated the helicopters. Gerry Kobelski and John Holland, both of whom worked in the SAMTEC operations section which monitored the helicopter contract. Forest Blair, who worked in the SAMTEC civil engineering section for the monitoring of all the construction/refurbishment and was also site's commanding officer. None of these people can support Bruce's account. We don't know and Bruce doesn't remember who the pilot was for the flight in question. We're still looking for any of the helicopter pilots or other crew members who were at Canton during that time period. Speculation about what somebody would or wouldn't have known is not terribly useful at this point. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:18:33 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: The Traditional Premises "Possible alternatives" are now being described (with some implied scorn) as "traditional premises". Well, trying to be gentlemanly about it, let me offer a rational response to your TP list: 1) Running out of gas (or serious engine failure) a couple of minutes after 0843 is a distinct possibility, so is flying off (in the direction of your choice) until gas ran out another, and she had switched to 6210. 2) The best Coast Guard radio intercept authority, Comdr. Anthony didn't "buy" any of the post splash messages, and the Navy (and other respected sources) agreed. (And spoiled a great story, darn!) 3) No, the Navy search did NOT turn up anything suspicious, despite your insinuations. (Of course, had the Colorado dispatched a landing party, they wouldn't have seen anything either, 'cause AE/FN and the Electra were hiding in the scaveola). 4) "anything that MIGHT (my emphasis) indicate . . . ." OK, but don't try that in court as "proof". Random bits and scraps, and old wives tales don't discount the most likely conclusion to the flight of the Electra (which is splash down). (Boy, am I a party pooper! I'll never sell a TV script at this rate!). And please post your list of supporting FACTS as mentioned by Pat. You may convert a skeptic or two! (And they may send MONEY!!). Cam Warren ***************************************** From Ric Jeesh, and you're the one who is always calling ME snide. Let us, indeed be gentlemanly about this. Whether you prefer to call them "traditional premises" or "possible alternatives", I think you'll agree that the evaluation of any of the various propositions requires a search for supporting evidence. Those propositions for which supporting evidence can be found must be seen as more probable than those lacking any such support. For example: One possibility (let us call it the Jacobson Hypothesis) is that the flight was abducted by aliens. The absence of UFO sightings in the immediate vicinity of Howland Island would seem to argue against such an event, but it does remain a possible alternative until some other answer is irrefutably proven. In the meantime, it does not seem to be an explanation that merits further investigation. Now let's look at: <<1) Running out of gas (or serious engine failure) a couple of minutes after 0843 is a distinct possibility, so is flying off (in the direction of your choice) until gas ran out another, and she had switched to 6210.>> You ask for facts. Let's talk about facts. Fact: Two independent, expert, contemporaneous sources -- Collopy and Chater -- writing in response to inquiries shortly after the disappearance, assert that the aircraft left Lae with 1,100 US gallons of fuel aboard. The only contradictory contemporaneous accounts are a press release telegram by Earhart, sent the day before the takeoff, stating that the aircraft was "weighted with gasoline and oil to capacity" (the full capacity of the Electra's tanks was 1,151 US gallons) and an Australian newspaper story that quotes Noonan as saying that the aircraft carried "950 gallons of petrol - sufficient to give a still-air cruising range of 2,750 miles". Is that US gallons or Imperial gallons? Nautical miles or statute miles? If Imperial gallons, that's 1,141 US gallons, a number which bears no relation to any of the other reports. But a load of 950 US gallons would yield a still-air range (according to Kelly Johnson's recommended fuel management tables) of 2,626 nm, not the 2,750 figure attributed to Noonan. If he meant 2,750 statute miles that would be only about 2,400 nautical miles. This would mean that Fred was saying that they were embarking on a journey of 2,223 nautical miles with only enough fuel, in still air, to go another 177 nm. That's a pretty good definition of suicide. However, if what Fred actually said was 915 Imperial gallons (an easy enough misunderstanding) that's 1,100 US gallons, and if he meant 2,750 nautical miles that's right in line with the range to be expected using Kelly Johnson's figures. In short, without being there to stick the tanks ourselves, it seems most reasonable to accept that the fuel load aboard the Electra at takeoff was 1,100 US gallons. That fuel load, if managed according to the tables Johnson provided specifically for Earhart, should have left the aircraft with nearly 4 hours of remaining fuel at the time of the last transmission heard by Itasca. Could she have run out of gas, or had an engine failure, or zip off to Alpha Centauri within a couple of minutes 08:43? Sure. There's just no evidence that she did and lots of reason to suggest that she didn't. <<2) The best Coast Guard radio intercept authority, Comdr. Anthony didn't "buy" any of the post splash messages, and the Navy (and other respected sources) agreed. (And spoiled a great story, darn!)>> Where oh where are the voluminous Coast Guard records to support Anthony's claim that all of the hundreds of alleged the "post-splash" messages were investigated? Let's pick just one - the infamous "281 message" heard by Navy Radio Wailupe. Who investigated that one? Or is it possible that Cmdr. Anthony was merely expressing an opinion that was very much in the Coast Guard's best interest? <<3) No, the Navy search did NOT turn up anything suspicious, despite your insinuations. (Of course, had the Colorado dispatched a landing party, they wouldn't have seen anything either, 'cause AE/FN and the Electra were hiding in the scaveola).>> You've been holding out on us Cam. You apparently have conclusive proof of what John Lambrecht meant by "signs of recent habitation." <<4) "anything that MIGHT (my emphasis) indicate . . . ." OK, but don't try that in court as "proof". Random bits and scraps, and old wives tales don't discount the most likely conclusion to the flight of the Electra (which is splash down). (Boy, am I a party pooper! I'll never sell a TV script at this rate!). >> You know, Cam, it sure sounds like it's not our research or our conclusions that bother you nearly so much as the fact that our work attracts some measure of public support and media attention. Your supposed intellectual outrage comes across as petty jealousy - but that's just my impression. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:59:20 EDT From: Scott Betteridge Subject: Re: emily's story Could it be that if the aircraft landed on it's undercarraige, and was hit by heavy/high waves it could flip the aircraft over. Leaving only the landing gear sticking out of water (what height was the tide at again?), which against a breaking surf i guess would be very difficult to see. Just my thoughts Scott Betteridge ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:00:00 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Emily's story Re: Tom King's recent post... >Absolutely, Don. The nearness of Emily's wreck to Norwich City really is a >head-scratcher, and one always has the option of saying something like "Oh, >the Colorado pilots couldn't help but have seen it, so therefore Emily's >testimony actually REFUTES the Nikumaroro landing hypothesis." However, one >then has to account for Emily's testimony some other way. Around and around >we go. Aside from speculation whether or not the Colorado search could have seen it, I think it's a likely place for the landing to have been attempted. As Tom stated in response to one of my earlier questions, the Norwich City wreck looked like a ship from the air in 1937. It had not fallen apart very much yet. If one was looking for an expanse of reef-flat to set down on and did not get a close look at the Norwich City, it would just look like a ship. A ship would seem to be a "sign of current habitation." A pretty good place to try to set it down. To me, it lends a certain plausibility to Emilys account of that being the place she saw airplane wreckage... the more massive stuff not so easily carried away. Does Emily's story suggest some re-thinking about bones, etc? Maybe there were skeletons up there in the vicinity of the Norwich City. A man and a woman? Maybe Gallagher's bones were neither Amelia nor Fred, but just some poor soul who had picked up a sextant box and was carrying it around -- If the box did'nt get where it was found without human intervention. Maybe the finding of the Tarawa File was just a bit of serendipity that helped to keep TIGHAR's nose to the trail until we could figure out what really happened on Nikumaroro. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:02:12 EDT From: Jim Tweedle Subject: Re: Wreck photo location Around 1955 I recall seeing an aerial photo (in a school textbook, I believe) of a Pacific (island?) covered with dozens of WWII military aircraft (twins, I believe) which had been rendered inoperative and abandoned rather than be transported home. It is my understanding that almost no land-based aircraft were returned home (except maybe B-29's) from the Pacific theatre. Jim Tweedle ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:06:14 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Radio broadcast I have been following this list for a few days and decided to get brave and post. I am responding to why I think AE didn't land in the Drink, and why I am following with great interest the TIGHAR project. The bottom line it makes sense. I have read on the capture by the Japanese theory and the Biography AE sister wrote on her (prejudice perhaps, but it gave a human look to AE). Anyhow what keeps me hook to your project is the radio broadcast. When you look at the nature of HF (High Frequency) and the broadcast reported after the disappearance, it fits perfectly with HF traits and also makes sense. If you are AE and FN, what would you do, you have fuel for several hours you have a ship nearby looking for you, and you have a radio and you have land nearby, why not set down and use the radio to give the ship your location, why try anything else? When you consider HF radio with AM broadcast (Medium Wave for any Europeans out there) it makes even more sense. AM radio uses a carrier and two side bands but only one side band is working with the broadcast, if you listen to AM radio at night time you can here some very distant stations, but sooner or later you here it fade, the fade is cause by one of the sidebands over powering the carrier signal (if you have a radio that has a single sideband tuner and can tune to the side band and hear the broadcast but only until the carrier signal comes back, some shortwave radios come with Synchronous Detectors, which will tune between the sideband and the carrier automatically, so you don't get the fade). Now with HF radio this becomes more of a problem because of the Ionosphere (today to avoid that problem and use less power for more distance, most broadcast on HF are done on the sideband instead of the normal AM mode with the exception of Shortwave broadcast by International Broadcasters, who are putting out usually 100 watts of power), with HF radio you can send a long distance because it bounces off the Ionosphere, the low end of HF 2000 - 9000 kHz will bounce off the Ionosphere between dusk through the night and early morning hours until the sun is up and then the Ionosphere will absorb the signal, the bounce during the lack of sun would make the signal audible at a distance better then if you were nearby, in essence you may hear a signal Stateside (depending on the sunlight where you are listening from) better then from a few miles away. During the Daylight hours the frequencies from 11000 kHz and up will not be absorbed by the Ionosphere (but will be absorbed from nighttime on) now if AE and FN broadcast during the strongest amount of sunlight on the lower end 6000 kHz and down, eventually the Ionosphere would absorb the signal and the only thing you get is the hum from the carrier band, but nothing else would be audible, if it is during the dusk or at night time it would take the bounce and deal with the sideband causing a fade making it inaudible (the advantage to doing code with a key is that it is still legible even with the fade cause from the sideband, but keying the mic. would be worthless since the sideband would cause it to fade out even missing some of the code). I suspect (and please correct me if I am wrong) the reason Lockheed said they could not be sending from there radio if they where in the water, was because of the antenna for the radio on the Electra, I believe the antenna was a wire that was hung out of the belly of the plane, if the belly was in the water no antenna and no broadcast without one ( I know it has been said she took off the antenna, but I highly doubt it, since there has to a least a wire hook to the antenna leads to get out any signal). My reason for following this is because the broadcast after the crash make sense and it is reasonable to think they would set down and call for help with a ship so nearby to them and the description on your web site of the broadcast after the crash makes sense. That said I will be on vacation so I won't be able to see your post again until Sunday. Sorry for such a long post. Regards Warren Lambing ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:07:17 EDT From: Jon Pieti Subject: Re: The traditional premises In response to Cam Warren, you wrote: >***************************************** >>From Ric > >Jeesh, and you're the one who is always calling ME snide. > >Let us, indeed be gentlemanly about this. Whether you prefer to call them >"traditional premises" or "possible alternatives", I think you'll agree that >the evaluation of any of the various propositions requires a search for >supporting evidence. Those propositions for which supporting evidence can be >found must be seen as more probable than those lacking any such support. > >For example: One possibility (let us call it the Jacobson Hypothesis) is >that the flight was abducted by aliens. The absence of UFO sightings in the >immediate vicinity of Howland Island would seem to argue against such an >event, but it does remain a possible alternative until some other answer is >irrefutably proven. In the meantime, it does not seem to be an explanation >that merits further investigation. ****************************************** I'm sorry, but if you are trying to correlate the plausibility of the "UFO Hypothesis" with the liklihood that they went down at sea, it just doesn't compare. You have no evidence to indicate that they did not go down at sea - only some interesting possibilities that they *might* have made landfall instead. As tantalizing as the shoe parts, sextant box, aircraft aluminium pieces, bones, etc. are, NONE of them can be directly linked to AE & FN as of yet. It is still possible that there were other sources for these items than the wreckage of AE & FN. Thus, they do not yet constitute actual proof (yet), and thus, they in no way diminish the "other" possibility that they went down at sea. The wreck photo, the Canton engine story, the stories of wreckage are very interesting, but are all ancedotal thus far. The wreck photo could have been taken anywhere there was jungle. It's a big world out there, and a big ocean covering most of it, especially where they disappeared at. As I said in an earlier post; I sincerly hope that TIGHAR is on the right track, and that they are able to solve the mystery - what a story that would be! But please try to step back and take a fresh look at one of your basic premises: that the evidence is stronger that they landed on Niku than that they went down at sea. Just because an island is the only place where it is practical to recover any evidence doesn't mean that other evidence that you don't or can't look for does not exist. To go back to the analogy: Just because I stay under the streetlamp looking for the keys because it's the only place where it's light enough to see - that doesn't make it any more likely that that's where they really are compared to the possibility that they are up the driveway somewhere. Not until I actually find them anyway. Sometimes we can get so invested in a particular premise, belief, or scenaio that it becomes hard to see it in a truly objective way after a while. I think this may be one of those situations, as I notice that since I've been lurking the forum tends to "shut down" any serious consideration of possible outcomes other than a landing on Niku as being distracting from the search for the truth. Now I don't buy into conspiracy, UFO, Japanese prisoner, or other "junk" scenarios, and I believe that a landing on Niku is a very real possibility, but I think the automatic dismissal of the outcome where they went down at sea is due to it's being virtually impossible to prove at this point, and not an intellectually stimulating scenario. Best of luck - Jon Pieti ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:07:53 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Emily's story Re: Chris Kennedy's suggestion about the tide/wave action and the strong storm NW (sic - NE) of Howland: The storm you refer to is the one that the PBY pilot flew into on the way down from Honolulu, which he could not penetrate and had to return. That "storm" is due to the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), where the southern and northern hemisphere trade winds interact, and is an area of continuous nasty weather. Located at the meteorological equator, in July, at about 5 degrees north latitutde. Every AE search ship went through it and their bridge logs denote nasty weather, fog, high sea state, etc. The records at Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Islands record nothing unusual for surf during the periods of the AE search, as the Itasca, Swan, Colorado, and Ontario deck logs do not record unusual sea swell contditions either. Sorry, but the weather during early July simply does not cooperate for the hypothesis of a major event that helped to break up the plane on Niku. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:44:06 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: The traditional premises I don't disagree with Jon about the need to be objective, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that there actually isn't any evidence for the "crashed and sank" hypothesis. It's just a logical conclusion given the absence of any evidence supporting an alternative hypothesis. We do have evidence -- albeit circumstantial, but if this were a regular old archeological problem we'd regard it as pretty impressive -- for the Nikumaroro hypothesis. That doesn't mean our evidence is any good, of course, but when it comes to "crashed and sank," there isn't really anything to compare it with. LTM (who's crashing and sinking) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 11:01:50 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Expedition Report-Part One TIGHAR's fifth expedition to Nikumaroro, known as "Niku IIIIP," was conducted July 1-27, 1999 and ran concurrently with an on-site investigation in Fiji, known as the "Fiji Bone Search," which attempted to locate the bones and artifacts known to have been sent there from Nikumaroro in 1941. Tom King has already presented an overview of that operation. This is Part One of a three part report on what we've accomplished with this summer's field work. Part One (this posting) will describe the Niku IIIP expedition, its objectives, costs, team, and offer a day by day summary of operations. Part Two, to be posted in a day or two, will describe the interviews conducted in Fiji after the expediton's return from Nikumaroro and discuss the significance of the new information obtained. Part Three will present a revised hypothesis and suggest avenues of investigation which may move the project closer to establishing conclusive proof of what happened to the Earhart/Noonan flight. Niku IIIIP OBJECTIVES The expedition's first mission was to determine whether the anecdotal accounts gathered in Funafuti at the end of Niku III in 1997 might lead directly to discovery of the main body of wreckage and, thus, permit the Niku IIII expedition to be organized as an archaeological recovery operation. Recognizing that the identification of conclusive Earhart wreckage would, by definition, put those artifacts at risk, this purpose of the expedition was not widely publicized. No such wreckage was found on this trip, so the point is now moot. The secondary mission of the expedition was as a preparatory operation to gather information for Niku IIII, an intensive search operation scheduled for 2000. The specific objectives of the expedition were: 1. Test the hypothesis that airplane parts could be found in the dense beachfront vegetation of Nutiran district near a "European-style house," per an anecdotal account by Tapania Taiki who was interviewed by TIGHAR on Funafuti in 1997. Ms. Taiki lived on Nikumaroro as a young teenager with her family in the late 1950s/early 1960s just before the settlement was abandoned. 2. Conduct a reconnaissance of the beachfront areas on the lagoon shore where Pulekai Songivalu, interviewed by TIGHAR on Funafuti in 1997, said he saw airplane wreckage when he served as the island's schoolmaster during the late 1950s/early 1960s. Mr. Songivalu is Ms. Taiki's father. 3. Conduct a reconnaissance of Kanawa Point, one of three geographical locations identified by TIGHAR researchers as possibly fitting the description of where a castaway's remains and campsite were discovered by Gerald B. Gallagher, Officer-in-Charge, Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, in September 1940. 4. Familiarize the project's forensic anthropologist, Dr. Karen Ramey Burns, with the site where shoe parts were found during Niku II in 1991 (known as the "Aukeraime Site") and conduct a further investigation of the site with the aid of remote-sensing data gathered during Niku III in 1997. The Aukeraime Site is the second candidate for where the bones were found in 1940. 5. Familiarize Dr. Burns with the site near the southeast end of the island where village-related artifacts were found during Niku IIIP in 1996. This is the third location suspected of being where Gallagher's discovery took place. TEAM The team assembled to conduct these operations consisted of: Richard Gillespie - TIGHAR Executive Director Karen Ramey Burns, PhD, TIGHAR #2071E - forensic anthropologist Richard Reynolds, TIGHAR #0981CEB - member of TIGHAR's Board of Directors, veteran of the Kanton Mission, and project sponsor Richard Gifford, TIGHAR #0001CEB - member of TIGHAR's Board of Directors and project sponsor Chris Kennedy, TIGHAR #2068E - TIGHAR member and project sponsor Ronald Rich, TIGHAR #2267E - TIGHAR member and project sponsor Jerry Ann Jurenka, TIGHAR #0772E - TIGHAR member and project sponsor John Clauss,TIGHAR #0142CE - veteran of Niku I, II, IIIP, III, and the Kanton Mission. Veryl Fenlason, TIGHAR #0053CE - veteran of Niku I, II, IIIP, and III Russ Matthews, TIGHAR #0509CE - veteran of Niku I, II, IIIP, and the Kanton Mission Gary Quigg, TIGHAR #1025CE - veteran of Niku III Van Hunn, TIGHAR #1459CE - veteran of Niku III Accompanying the expedition as an official representative of the Republic of Kiribati was Senior Examining Officer, Kiribati Customs, Manikaa Teuatabo. Mr. Teuatabo also accompanied the Niku II and Niku IIIP expeditions. COST The direct cost to TIGHAR for the Niku IIIIP expedition was: Airfare - $5,785 (note: several team members paid their own airfare) Ship Charter - $99,492 Kiribati repesentative - $1,904 Equipment and incidentals - $2,500 Total - $109,681 The cost of the Fiji Bone Search was: Airfare - $1,982 (note: one team member paid her own airfare) Accommodations - $1,300 Meals and Incidentals - $2,849 Car rental - $1,351 Total - $7,482 In addition to these direct expenses, TIGHAR's operating expenses during the period of preparation and execution of the expeditions (February through July, 1999) were roughly $90,000. Grand Total - $207,523 OPERATIONS July 1-3 team flies to Fiji and boards expedition vessel Nai'a at port of Lautoka. One large bag of expedition gear (with essentials such as metal detectors and laptop computer) is missing and it takes two days to track it down and get it to Fiji. When the bag finally arrives the screen of the laptop has been cracked in transit, but the computer is still usable. July 5 Nai'a departs Fiji. Once clear of Fijian waters, seas become quite high with head winds and conficting currents slowing progress at times to a little as 6 knots. Structural problems with the mast prevent the use of the sail with consequent loss of its stabilizing and fuel saving effect. July 6-10 Continued high seas make for an unpleasant passage. No one can go out on the exposed decks, the galley is limited in what foods can be prepared and served, spills and breakage are commonplace, and just moving about requires constant vigilance. Most of the team is seasick to at least some degree and a few are truly miserable. July 11 Having arrived at Nikumaroro just before dark the previous evening, the team goes ashore at 07:45 and spends the day surveying and building a trail from the landing to the shore of the lagoon passage where a skiff, walked in over the reef at high tide, will be based to ferry the team over to Nutiran. Seas in the lee of the island are relatively calm - a welcome relief. However, tropical downpours during the day make the heavy work of clearing the trail through the jungle a soggy endeavor. It is also discovered that the ship's water maker, which had been unusable during the voyage out due to the extreme rolling, is not working. Without the ability to make fresh water the expedition must depend entirely upon the tanks of water aboard the ship. This supply should be adequate if carefully conserved, but luxuries such as laundry are out of the question. July 12 In the morning a base camp is established on the Nutiran shore and base lines are "shot in" with the pulse laser from known features on the village shore to permit accurate mapping of the search area. More heavy rain slows the work. In the afternoon, the team begins the process of setting out grid lines 20 meters square in the sector where aerial photography indicates there was once a structure which may be the "European style house." Nearby, the 1953 photo also shows a cruciform feature in the beachfront vegetation which looks alarmingly similar to an aircraft. Hopes are high for a significant discovery but the day's searching yields no sign of a European style house (a structure built of wood frame and boards rather than local materials), let alone an airplane. A grave about four feet in length is found not far from the beachfront. Like the grave excavated on Aukeraime in 1991 and found to be that of an infant, this burial seems to be anomalous in the context of the island settlement and fits folklore about bones said to have been found and buried on Nutiran by the early settlers. July 13 Further gridding and searching reveal a scattering of cultural material (nails, wire, cans, etc.) indicating that a structure of some kind once stood on the spot where the putative European style house is seen in the 1953 aerial photo, but the absence of boards or framing suggests that the structure was made from local materials. An area around the grave is cleared and, after consultation with Dr. Burns, the decision is made to seek permission from the Kiribati representative to excavate the grave. July 14 After a discussion at the grave site with Senior Examining Officer Manikaa Teutabo, permission to excavate is granted and digging begins. Meanwhile, a detailed search of the area where the cruciform object appears in the photo finds only vegetation and what may be a broken oarlock - possibly from one of the lifeboats from the SS Norwich City. Two divers, Van Hunn and Jerry Jurenka, inspect the lagoon passage and inshore reef area at high tide for any anomalous material. The results are negative. Search operations are extended northward along the Nutiran shore in the hope of finding something that better fits the description of a European style house. Late in the day, Chris Kennedy comes upon boards and sheets of corrugated metal. Further investigation reveals the ruins of a structure incorporating wood framing and boards. There are pipes, a faucet, and even a shower head. It seems quite likely that this was a European style house but it does not seem to be present in the 1953 aerial photos. Plantings of coconut and pandanus just inland from this location support the possibility that this structure is a relic of development in the later days of the settlement. That would conform to Ms. Taiki's time on the island in the late 1950s. Among the debris where the house once stood is a small (1.5 inch by 5 inch) piece of aluminum aircraft skin which had been cut through rivet holes along one long edge. The presence of zinc chromate corrosion inhibitor would appear to disqualify it as being from Earhart's aircraft. July 15 On doctor's orders, one team member with a foot infection remains aboard ship and is on antibiotics. Ashore, while Dr. Burns and two assistants, Quigg and Gifford, proceed with the grave excavation, the rest of the team begins to lay out grids and search the area southward from the newly-identified European house. Heavy iron debris from the shipwreck is found as much as ten meters back into the beachfront vegetation along the shoreline directly in front of and southward from the Norwich City, but no aluminum or aircraft-related material is in evidence. Because it will be roughly the half-way point in the expedition, the following day is declared a "day off" for anyone who needs to take a break. Aboard ship, the water maker is still not working. July 16 On this "day off" the entire team turns out for duty except for two people with minor injuries. Further gridding and searching southward from the European house fail to turn up anything of interest. Dr. Burns' team reaches the interment in the grave and finds the bones of a two or three year old child. As previously agreed, as soon as the grave is established to be unrelated to the Earhart mystery, further excavation ceases and the grave is later restored to its original condition and appearance. At 13:00 a satellite telephone communication with TIGHAR's office in Delaware brings the news that Dr. Tom King in Fiji has interviewed a former resident of Nikumaroro who reports having seen aircraft wreckage (heavy structures, not aluminum sheet) on the reef north of the Norwich City shipwreck in the years prior to WWII (1939-1941). Reports dating from the late 1950s had placed scattered aircraft wreckage on the reef and along the shoreline south of the shipwreck. This new information matchs our previously-formulated hypothesis that the landing had been made on the reef and the airplane destroyed by surf action, but indicates a more northerly specific location than we had previously contemplated. Later in the afternoon Gillespie and Clauss conduct a reconnaissance of the lagoon shore in the area where Mr. Songivalu reported seeing airplane wreckage. While access to the area by skiff is not as difficult as had been anticipated, the beachfront vegetation is quite heavy in most areas until a low ridge of land about 50 meters inland from the lagoon shore marks the beginning of open Buka (Pisonia grandis) forest. A variety of lightweight flotsam (plastic, styrofoam, etc.) indicates that this first 50 meters of shoreline is occasionally subject to flooding, but conducting a thorough search of the entire shoreline by visual means would be labor intensive and time consuming. July 17 Temperatures hover near 100 degrees Fahrenheit as they have since the team's arrival on the island. Shifting the Nutiran shoreline search northward based on the new information, the team begins inspecting the dense beachfront scaevola from the point of land just off the bow of the Norwich City wreck and working northward. In an attempt to inspect open areas inland, Gillespie leads several team members into vegetation so thick that it takes hours to cut their way out and resume an organized search. The methodology developed for searching what can only be described as the beachfront scaevola wall is for transects to be cut into the bush on a heading 90 degrees to the shoreline and flagged with colored tape. The flagged transects are spaced 25 meters apart and go back into the scaevola far enough to be well beyond any evidence of washed up material (typically 30 or 40 meters). Searchers then space themselves along the beach closely enough to be sure they can visually cover the area between themselves and their colleagues on either side - and start cutting their way in, staying on line as much as possible, much like the beaters in an old-fashioned tiger hunt. When the line reaches the end of the flagged transects the searchers make their way back to beach, move down to the next block, and start all over again. Yet another grave is identified on the point just off the bow of Norwich City but excavation is not an option due to lack of remaining time. In the afternoon, at low tide, an inspection of the reef north of Norwich City permits a preliminary evaluation of areas that appear flat and smooth enough to permit a Lockheed 10 to land intact. That evening aboard Nai'a the water maker is still not working despite heroic attempts at repair by the ship's crew. Team members accomplish some semblance of laundry by showering fully clothed. Quasi-clean clothes are then dried overnight in the ship's drier. July 18 In the morning, while most of the team continues to work northward along the Nutiran shore, cutting 40 meter transects back into the bush at five to ten meter intervals, Gillespie, Matthews, Clauss and Burns conduct a reconnaissance of Kanawa Point. The cove just east of the Point is found to be very deep in soft silt, making the landing of a skiff difficult (and dangerous if you don't realize that what looks like a sandy bottom is, in effect, quicksand. Hop out of the boat to push it ashore and - gloop - you're gone). Kanawa Point, while probably orignally quite open and pleasant when shaded by Kanawa trees, is now so covered in dense scaevola as to be impossible to search visually from any practical standpoint. On the lagoon shore across the cove to the east of Kanawa Point, a feature first noted by Tom King in 1989 was noted. The coral shelf above the water line is strewn with the shells of an estimated 300 giant clams over an area easily 20 meters long by perhaps 5 meters wide. In some cases the shells have been there so long as to be cemented into the coral and, in at least one spot, a number of shells are neatly stacked, back to front. There is no doubt that this is where a human or humans harvested, opened, and possibly ate clams. A few clams still grow in the surrounding shallow water. A scattering of shells was also found on the shore of Kanawa Point itself. The Aukeraime Site was also visited briefly. There has been a significant increase in lagoon shore scaevola growth since TIGHAR's last visit in 1997. A metal detector inspection of a spot where remote-sensing data gathered in 1997 suggested there might be metal in the ground was negative. With time short, a decision was made to forego a visit to the southeast corner of the island. In the afternoon, at low tide, further inspections and measurements were taken on the reef flat north of Norwich City and the pulse laser was employed to measure the length of areas that were smooth enough to permit a safe landing. The longest area measured was 213 meters (700 feet). It has been estimated that Earhart's aircraft, at near empty weight and landing into a 10 to 15 knot wind as is common on the reef flat, could come to a stop in as little as 91 meters (300 feet). With one more full day of work remaining before the ship must depart for Fiji, the water maker is finally working. July 19 Inspection of the heavy beachfront vegetation north of Norwich City continues. In addition to the search conducted at the southern tip of Nutiran in the area around the initially-supposed "European style house" and the gridding and searching done near the ruin that does seem to fit that description, the entire length of the Nutiran beachfront from the north point southward to the west point just below the shipwreck, a distance of some 700 meters (nearly half a mile) has been searched visually to a depth into the vegetation of 30 to 40 meters. The search turns up no aircraft-related debris. Norwich City debris is present on the reef and in the first few meters of beachfront vegetation from a point perhaps 50 meters north of the bow to at least 500 meters southwestward down the beach. The reef and shoreline north of the wreck are free of any type of cultural debris other than flotsam (buoyant objects) and these occur primarily on the open beach and in the first 20 meters of vegetation. After nine solid days of heavy physical labor in the intense heat, many team members are becoming dangerously exhausted. July 20 Departure day. The skiff must be brought out of the lagoon by noon at high tide and the morning is spent finishing up some last minute searching, breaking camp and recovering all of the equipment back across the lagoon passage. By 14:00, everything and everyone is off the island and that evening Nai'a sets a course for Fiji. July 21-25 As if to make up for the rough outward passage, the trip back to Fiji is smooth and fast, arriving in the port of Suva a full day ahead of schedule. This permits us to terminate the charter a day early and thus save nearly $5,000. Part Two of this report will detail the interviews conducted in Fiji after the expeditions return from Nikumaroro and before its departure for the United States. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:00:58 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Emily's story Does Emily's story suggest some re-thinking about bones, etc? Maybe there were skeletons up there in the vicinity of the Norwich City. A man and a woman? Maybe Gallagher's bones were neither Amelia nor Fred, but just some poor soul who had picked up a sextant box and was carrying it around -- If the box did'nt get where it was found without human intervention. Maybe the finding of the Tarawa File was just a bit of serendipity that helped to keep TIGHAR's nose to the trail until we could figure out what really happened on Nikumaroro. Whose bleached bones are those on the forecastle, skipper? Did anyone check the wreck for signs of anyone trying to inhabit or scavenge? Of course, with so many years gone by there may be precious little evidence of past habitation. Was it the fire and the tent on the bow of the ship that the pilot listed as "signs of recent habitation; or was it the "Vacancy" sign on the nose of the twin engine airplane parked on the beach? Blue Skies & LTM, Dave Bush #2200 -- Blue Skies, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:02:33 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: The traditional premises >From Jon Pieti > and I believe that a landing on Niku is a very real >possibility, but I think the automatic dismissal of the outcome where they >went down at sea is due to it's being virtually impossible to prove at this >point, and not an intellectually stimulating scenario. If we were to become heavily invested in believing that the only scenario of any value was the lost at sea hypothesis, then it would be a huge waste of time and energy to look anywhere, period. So the whole Niku thing would be a waste. Blue Skies & LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:27:53 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Premises, premises Replying to Cam Warren: <> Indeed I am, but let's make it more than yet another exchange of cute jibes. Let's see if we can nail down some points we can agree on and then see where the logic leads us. <<1) I've long been sold on the full fuel load.>> I can't think of a better place to start than to see if we can agree upon how much fuel was aboard NR16020 when it left Lae. It sounds like we're close, but let me ask you specifically: Given that nobody can ever really, really know for sure without the help of Mr. Peabody's WayBack Machine, do you agree that 1,100 US gallons is the most well-documented number to use as an amount of gasoline aboard the aircraft when it left Lae? We can squabble about the other stuff in due course but let's start with this piece of information which, as points of discussion in the Earhart mystery go, is one of the simplest to discuss. <> If our objective is to find areas of agreement, doesn't it make more sense to proceed a step at a time? A shotgun approach would almost certainly result in nothing more than another agreement to disagree. I'm willing to try to convince you and I'm equally willing to be shown the error of my ways. Who knows how far we'll get but at least the other forum subscribers will have a chance to look at each point of evidence along the way from both sides. So - 1,100 US gallons. Yes? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:28:47 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radio broadcast Warren Lambing wrote: <> No. The transmitting antenna was a wire that led from a mast behind the cockpit back to each vertical tail - in other words, a V. The opinion that the aircraft could not transmit if afloat was based upon crucial radio components being submerged and the fact that the supposed transmissions continued for several days which would have required that the battery be recharged from the right-hand, generator-equipped engine. To do that, they obviously had to be able to run that engine. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:04:12 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The traditional premises Jon Pieti writes: << I'm sorry, but if you are trying to correlate the plausibility of the "UFO Hypothesis" with the liklihood that they went down at sea, it just doesn't compare. You have no evidence to indicate that they did not go down at sea - only some interesting possibilities that they *might* have made landfall instead.>> What we're talking about here is fundamental logic. All premises for which there is neither supporting evidence nor disqualifying evidence are, indeed, equal. Fuel exhaustion, mechanical engine failure, in-flight fire, or being abducted by aliens would seem to fit into that category. Abduction by the Japanese can be included only if you postulate that the abductors traveled outside of their territory to someplace the aircraft could have reached. Your statement "You have no evidence to indicate that they did not go down at sea - only some interesting possibilities that they *might* have made landfall instead." is self-contradictory. You're saying, ""You have no evidence to indicate that they did not go down at sea - only some interesting evidence that they did not go down at sea." We continue to test the hypothesis that the flight ended at Nikumaroro no because we are somehow fixated on it because it is the only hypothesis (at least, that I am aware of) for which supporting evidence has been, and continues to be, found. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:08:08 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Emily's story Randy Jacobson writes: <> Granted. But neither is a "major event" necessary to accomplish a thorough break-up of an airplane on the reef in the area indicated by Emily. Based upon personal (and very recent) experience on that same stretch of reef, I can say with great confidence that an airplane parked there would be okay as long as the sea remained very calm but any appreciable swell results in formidable surf running across that reef-flat. The hypothesis works without a storm. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:09:41 EDT From: William Dohenyguy Subject: Re: Niku IIIIP Report I read your first report with great enthusiasm and interest. I know I'm going to sound like an armchair quarterback, but that's the way of the world. There were several aspects of your report which seemed very delinquent in it's presentation. First, two divers in the water searching the reefs edge. Can you please tell me what equipment they took with them to aid in their search for metallic parts? Considering wave and tidal action may have buried "smoking guns" two meters below the surface. How did they conduct their search? Are they qualified research divers or recreational divers? Second, it appears to me, from your report, that a hand full of your searchers, staff, crew are really not qualified to make the journey. I do not make that statement to be antagonistic, I simply ask if backers with money can go and qualified individuals with less funds stay behind. I have great admiration for the Tighar organization and greatly respect the work that you do. I'm a subscriber, not a member, yet. Third, $95,000.00 for a ship from Lae to Niku? Is this a quality craft or the only Tug available? If I did not word this correspondence correctly and it angered you, then I humbly apologize, it was not meant to be a derogatory inquiry. William LTM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:02:30 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Canton engine Thanks for the conversation about the Canton engine. I hope I will be able to help in some way. I have tried to contact Bruce Yoho, but have been unsuccessful so far. I hope if he reads this post he will contact me by the above E-mail address. Again, I don't think we need to find the engine, just find out where it was found and make a determination as to what to do. I still think that where there is an engine, there will be pieces of airplane. If we don't at least rule out the engine, we may see in the tabloids in 10 years. "Earhart engine found and then lost by TIGHAR". At that point it will then become fact! One other quick question. Did you say that the Electra did not have an corrosion resistant paint on the inside. I think the US plane had a green color paint and the Japanese had a blue color. If the Electra had none at all, that might help to identify parts if they are found. I know you probably covered this on the Web site, but I hate to go back there and read the whole thing again when I can just ask you... Thanks and hope to hear from Bruce soon. Don ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:03:08 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Emily's story Dave Bush asks: <> The information offered by both Emily Sikuli and by Otiria O'Brian merits close examination and comparison with the other information we have before we go modifying hypotheses. The first steps in that process are accurate transcripts of the videotaped interviews. I'm workin' on that. <> Norwich City carried no cargo and she burned at the time she went aground, so scavenging does not seem like it would have been a fruitful endeavor. Early visitors to the island often used the wreck as a mooring and we have photos taken aboard the wreck by Bevington (October 1937) and by the New Zealand Survey (Dec. '38 - Feb. '39). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:05:44 EDT From: Dave Niimi Subject: Re: Radio broadcasts One thing to think about also with these Radio transmission theories and the wreck photo both can't neccessarily be true if the photo is of AE's plane. I say neccessarly just in case the plane landed in one piece but was wrecked say in a storm or something that passed on top of or near the island. Maybe Rick and answer this since he's been to Niku but unless there is a large field on Niku the plane would have touched down probley on the beach IF there were Radio signal heard anywhere in teh world from AE after the crash. Obviously if the wreck photo is AE's plane then Radio transmission would only be possible for battery life as long as all radio functions worked right after the crash and from wreck photo not sure what would be possible with the wreck. Just somethings to consider when putting both in the same thought. DN ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:09:45 EDT From: Came Warren Subject: Re: Premises, premises <> Yes, 1100 gallons, according to the absolute best source, Bob Iredale, the Standard Oil (Socony Vacuum) rep at Lae. He said Earhart took off with full tanks. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay. This is precisely the sort of thing we need to get straight. Eleven hundred gallons is not "full tanks." Bureau of Air Commerce records make it very clear that the total fuel capacity of NR16020 was 1,151 US gallons. That 51 gallons of gas represents about 150 nautical miles of range that the airplane either did or didn't have. Both Chater's written account (dated 25 July, 1937) and Collopy's letter (dated 28 August, 1937) explain that one tank containing about 50 gallons of 100 octane fuel was not topped off because only 87 octane fuel available in Lae and they didn't want to dilute the higher grade fuel that was needed for the very heavy takeoff. I am not familiar with a contemporaneous report by Iredale. Please explain why he is the absolute best source. What did he say and when did he say it? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:11:13 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Expedition Report - Part One William Dohenyguy says: >There were several aspects of your report which seemed very >delinquent in it's presentation... > >First, two divers in the water searching the reefs edge. What the report said was, "Two divers, Van Hunn and Jerry Jurenka, inspect the lagoon passage and inshore reef area at high tide for any anomalous material. The results are negative." I say again " lagoon passage and inshore reef area." Not the reef edge. >Can you please tell me what equipment they took with them to aid in their >search for metallic parts? Eyeballs. >Considering wave and tidal action may have buried "smoking guns" two meters >below the surface. How did they conduct their search? As is apparent from the aerial photograph available on the website, the lagoon passage and inshore reef areas are solid coral. No sand. No need for remote sensing equipment. What you see is what you get. >Are they qualified research divers or recreational divers? Van has been trained in search diving. As far as I know, Jerry Ann has not. No diving was contemplated on this expedition. I had originally planned to put people out on the reef flat on foot at low tide to search the shallow water on the off chance that some piece of aircraft wreckage had somehow survived in that dynamic environment. Van noticed that the water at high tide was very clear and suggested that a snorkel search might be much faster and just as thorough. He was right. >Second, it appears to me, from your report, that a hand full of your >searchers, staff, crew are really not qualified to make the journey. I do >not make that statement to be antagonistic, I simply ask if backers with >money can go and qualified individuals with less funds stay behind. Five of our twelve team members on this trip were also sponsors. They would not have gone had they not been sponsors but neither would anyone else. It was a compromise that, I'll admit, made me a bit nervous - but I was pleasantly surprised. All of the team gave all they had. Niku is a very tough environment in which to do the work we do. Casualties are a fact of life, but we've never hurt anyone seriously and I hope we can maintain that record. As it turned out, there were no veteran team members who could have gone but were left behind for reasons of funding or to make room for a sponsor. >Third, $95,000.00 for a ship from Lae to Niku? Is this a quality craft >or the only Tug available? As explained in my report, the expedition did not go from Lae to Niku. It went from Fiji to Niku. Lae is a city in New Guinea. Fiji is an island nation about 1,000 nm from Niku. As has also been explained previously, the expedition vessel Nai'a is the same ship that brought us through the cyclone in 1997. It is a fine vessel with fine crew. It's not clear to me whether you think that the cost of the charter was too high or too low. It also doesn't much matter. >If I did not word this correspondence correctly and it angered you, >then I humbly apologize, it was not meant to be a derogatory inquiry. No need to aplogize. Didn't anger me a bit. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:13:04 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Circumstantial evidence I confess to being one of the sources of irritation during Mr. Gillespies's absence. I noted in his "catch-up" of 07/31/99 @ 12:35 his reply concerning engine changes ala Goerner. Unfortunately I haven't been with this program as long as a number of other people and thus I, as well as other newcomers, must often make irritating inquires. As I understand it the 7th edition of the "facts" is no longer in print and the 8th remains uncompleted. I read all of the other background volumes, Goerner et. al. to gain perspective. Most, if not all, have substantial anecdotal evidence, "stories", from any number of native sources. Goerner anecdotes, in the circumstantial world, are as credible as Emily. TIGHAR is the only entity that has found any hard evidence, albeit also circumstantial, to substantiate its theory, thus my interest in TIGHAR. However, circumstantial evidence is not the oft refered to "smoking gun". In order for circumstantial evidence to "prove" a theory, it must be overwhelming to the exclusion of all evidence to the contrary. Thus when I read Goerner, who claims to have a "document" that substantiates an engine change, that document must be excluded, found to be an "illusion", or its contents explained in the context of TIGHAR's theory. Several postings after my inquiry seem to indicate that Goerner's records exist, that some, or many of his claims were not totally accurate. However, there appears to be no complete inventory of these assets or their content. Merely stating that the issue is analogous to cantaloupes or pumpkins does not resolve the issue In reference to the Japanese code issue, although I did not raise it, I do believe it relevant. Not because aircraft transmissions would be monitered, to my knowledge they weren't, but because Japapese merchant ship and IJN movements could have been. Admiral Layton's history, "And I Was There", indicates that a number of Japanese codes, merchant, naval, and others were monitered and tracked from the 1920's. U.S. Naval intercepts could once and for all reject the various theories that involve the movements of KOSHU and KAMUI or any other vessels that could be identified. They certainly didn't move or operate without instructions. finally, I have reservations about the current excitement over Emily's recollections. I appears contrary to most of what TIGHAR has developed to date. Why these ancecdotes are any more valid than the natives interviewed by Goerner, Loomis/Ethel, el al. escapes me. We seem to be stretching a number of theories, or suddenly discounting others, to make her recollections fit. Since I have only a limited knowledge of her statements, this comment may well be premature. A full report on the content of her interviews may well dispell my concerns, but that will have to wait until a full report can be distributed. Until then, please excuse my inquires if you feel that they are inappropriate. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:13:41 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: the traditional premises Ric wrote: > We continue to test the > hypothesis that the flight ended at Nikumaroro not because we are somehow > fixated on it because it is the only hypothesis (at least, that I am aware > of) for which supporting evidence has been, and continues to be, found. I agree: Rather than "fixated", I think the term "focused" would be a more accurate description for TIGHAR's continued investigations into a possible landing on Gardner. LTM (who likes her words well chosen) william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:43:02 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Emily's story Re. habitation of or scavenging from the Norwich City: there's a reference in one of the early colonial accounts to storing stuff in the hulk, I believe. As for checking it NOW for signs of habitation or scavenging, which I take it was the intent of Dave's question, the wreck is far, far too wrecked for that. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:44:19 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Circumstantial evidence Mike Muenich says: >Why these (e.g., Emily) ancecdotes are any more valid >than the natives interviewed by Goerner, Loomis/Ethel, >el al. escapes me. Two factors make them more valid from the standpoint of this perhaps biased correspondent. For one thing, we collected 'em, and we've tried to be very, very careful not to lead the witnesses, put words in their mouths, and otherwise pollute the sources. We've also not paid them, or given them any reason to think they had anything to gain by telling us what we wanted to hear. The other factor, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is the very fact that there are so many anecdotes about Japanese capture, all over the place. They can't all be right; they contradict one another. Maybe some of them are right; we have no way of knowing. We don't know if Emily is "right," either, and we don't take what she says as gospel. It's a bit of anecdotal data, which gets fed into the mill along with everything else as a basis for generating hypotheses that we can test against harder data. But this whole "smoking gun" business is a bit troubling. How many gunshot murder cases have been conclusively solved, I wonder, without ever finding a gun, smoking or not. In archeology, definitive proof of how specific events occurred is very, very rare. Reaching a conclusion is almost always a matter of generating hypotheses and testing them by piling up lots and lots of little bits of data that either support the hypothesis or don't. Right now we've got some pretty good pieces of data supporting the Niku hypothesis, but none is by itself definitive, and there are lots of soft spots and contradictions within the data set. This is very characteristic of real data; it would be very strange if it were any other way. LTM (who's wary of smoking guns) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:48:04 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Premises, premises So strike "full tanks". I was factoring in the short hi-octane tank as containing only 50 gallons, which I guess was misleading. Chater and Collopy obviously got their (correct) info from Iredale. Copious correspondence between Iredale and Goerner can be found in the Nimitz Museum. Another matter, re "circling". The AP man aboard ITASCA, who was in the radio room monitoring all the Earhart messages, quoted her as saying "circling" in a dispatch filed July 3. (Check Randy's CD #1) Under the circumstances, I'd say that pretty well settled the question. (From memory, don't have the time to dig up all the quotes) others present seem to agree. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:50:44 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Amelia on British TV Channel 4 showed a half-hour biog documentary last weekend - appeared to be an American programme dated 1996 made by an outfit or channel called something like A&E, with a fresh voiceover. The script seemed simplistic, but I enjoyed the archive footage. Am I allowed to say she seemed hugely attractive in an unconventional way? There were soundbites i.a. from her late sister, Tom Crouch and Doris Rich. The idea that her last flight landed anywhere but in the sea got very short shrift. The script repeated the unsubstantiated claim that Noonan had a drink problem, but interestingly said so did Earhart's father and one of the two men who flew across the Atlantic with her. No evidence for any of this, but I think if she had these earlier experiences it makes the scenario of her taking an alcoholic on a round the world flight all the less likely. LTM, Phil 2276 ******************************** AE's father did have a drinking problem, as did one of the guys on the early transatlantic flight. I agree with you, Phil. P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:52:41 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Premises, premises I think we are exagerating the fuel aspect. I'm confident that AE/FN would never take off with insufficient fuel for the flight. As for the 1,100 gallons/1,151 gallons riddle, I'd like to remind that no airplane has empty tanks after landing (unless it crashed because it ran out of fuel). Therefore if N16020 was refueled with 1,100 gallons at Lae, it stands to reason that there were 1,151 gallons in the tanks when it took off and that Bob Iredale of the Sonoco Oil Company was perfectly right when he said the airplane took off with "full tanks". I think we can safely assume there were 1,151 gallons on board. That would give the Electra ample range for the flight to Howland. **************************** The amount of fuel on the aircraft is very well documented in the Chater Report, which is on TIGHAR's website as a Document of the Week (but I don't remember which one so you'll have to go and look). "Stands to reason" is fine unless there is paper, which there is. P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:57:46 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Emily's story This question may have been aswered before and in that case I apologize for asking again. But what were Bevington and the New Zealand Survey party doing at Gardner Island in 1937 and 1939 ? Had their visit anything to do with the AE/FN disappearance or did they have other business to attend to ? How sure are we today that the wreck photo was taken around 1941and by whom ?. Could it be that the wreck photo was taken by Bevington or the New Zealnd party ? Herman ****************************** Bevington and Maude were surveying a number of the Phoenix Islands in order to report back to the Western Pacific High Commission on the advisability of placing Gilbertese colonists on some or all of the islands. There is no chance that Bevington or Maude took the wreck photo, as both are still alive and well and have the photos they did take. The Kiwis were surveying Gardner against the possibility of using the lagoon as a seaplane base. They decided it wasn't suitable, but did make good maps. I suppose it is barely possible that one of them took the photo with a private camera; the official photos they shot are in the custody of (we think) the National Archive in Wellington. We have photocopies of same. I don't know that we "know" the photo was taken in 1941---that's the story that came with it. We don't know who took it; the story that gave that information did not check out at all. HTH. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:01:47 EDT From: Natko Katicic Subject: Eighth Edition and so on Mike Muenich writes Aug. 12.: >As I understand it the 7th edition of the "facts" is no longer in print and the 8th remains uncompleted.< Mike, Like the reef flat on Niku, the search for AE by TIGHAR is a very dynamic environment - to say the least. I have been monitoring the proceedings on the Forum carefully for over a year now and in this short time so much has happened, been discovered, so many hypotheses checked and discarded, other avenues of investigation taken upon yielding new insights and information again that it is next to impossible to put a document together that would contain anything that you could call 'facts' with justification. At best you can call it 'facts as of Aug. 99' because some will be outdated before the document comes out of print (or CD burner). Mix into this two cups of day to day administration, taking forward the search project (the primary objective), organizing the expeditione, and (at least until now) moderating this Forum and you will understand that the day having only 24 hours there was no one to do it. Ric has now asked several TIGHARs with numbers and lots of letters behind their names (see Forum Highlights) who have expertise in certain aspects of the search to take the responsibility to put together their 'facts' update which they luckily accepted (and we are grateful). Naturally as dedicated as they may be, these are people with lives, jobs and families so we have to give them some time. But even then there will be no silver tablet, no royal road to wisdom and expertise. Just hang on Mike and follow the Forum carefully. By the way, the web site has developed into a very comfortable tool for bringing yourself up to speed. Also don't forget the Forum archives at http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/earhartforum.html Just read Ric's answers to all the stupid questions since November 1997 and you will have all the facts. LTM (who also likes to have all the facts together) Natko. ****************************** No, guys, Natko is NOT on the TIGHAR payroll . Thank you, sir. I do recommend the FAQs and the Forum Highlights. After all, I put a lot of work into those pages, I'd like to see people use them! Because of space limitations on the server, we don't keep a complete set of archives on Listserv. I believe the ones there now go back to Jan. 1999. We do, however, have the complete set on our computers, and are happy to send them out as plain text files attached to email to anyone who is a true glutton for punishment. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:09:51 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Niku graves If I'm reading the website and Ric's report correctly, the Niku graves discovery summary is as follows: 1. The grave found on an earlier TIGHAR expedition was excavated, found to contain the remains of an infant, and restored. 2. A grave found on the recent expedition was excavated, found to contain the remains of a child, and restored. 3. Another grave found on the recent expedition was not excavated due to time constraints. 4. All three graves are thought to be from the P.I.S.S (rather unfortunate acronym) settlers. 5. All three graves are isolated, single graves in different locations. My question then is this: Did the Gardner Island settlers have a regular cemetery somewhere on the island, or are we going to continue to run across isolated, single burial sites on each trip? If no regular cemetery, I imagine there must be quite a few graves about the place with twenty years of settler history there. I suppose that on the chance that one of them may yield up the mortal remains of AE or FN they'll all have to be excavated in turn? (much thanks for the patience and understanding of the Kiribati governmental officials) Do you plan to excavate the recently found grave on the next trip? Ric, the expedition narrative was fantastic. I now have pictures in my head of what Niku must be like. Can't wait to compare them to the video. LTM (who likes videos MUCH better than grave excavations) Dave Porter, 2288 *********************************** You are correct in your memory of each grave site. It is the cultural norm in the Pacific (you see it in Fiji as well as on Niku and so on) to bury relatives on the family property. In the yard, IOW. So each plot of land on Niku generally has one to several grave sites on it. These are very organized, very formal, burials. They all look alike, and are clearly what they are even all these years later. So no, no cemetery as we know cemeteries, but defined burials with all honor given. Why the two children were buried not on the family land is open to question. Illegitimacy? Tom? Also, Tom, what do you think about the other isolated grave(s)? I am personally inclined to think that an adult's grave away from the family is going to be either a visitor or a person who has no family on the island for some other reason. I wouldn't see a traditional Gilbertese grave for a Norwich City body.... the Gilbertese weren't there at the time, and they'd have no reason to go back and set up such a site later, would they? But this is out of my pay grade. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:11:02 EDT From: Matt Mondro Subject: Re: Emily's story > we have photos > taken aboard the wreck by Bevington (October 1937) and by the New Zealand > Survey (Dec. '38 - Feb. '39). Is there any chance you guys could put more pictures such as this on the website, id love to see them, along with any electra photos or ones from the expeditions to Niku? I know its probably not on your priority list right now. -- Matt Mondro mmondro(at)mail.ford.com ************************** Yes, there is a serious chance that this will happen. I gotta get this scanner humming, we haven't done a document of the week in about.... five months :-(. Before Labor Day, I promise. P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:07 EDT From: Ross Schlichting Subject: Re: Emily's story Could you post on the website the S.S. Norwich City Photos taken by Bevington and The New Zealand Survey party? Also it would be great to see some of the photos from the recent expedition. Just want to see more of how NIKU looks today. Thanks, Ross Schlichting ***************************** Yes, I promise!! Really! P ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:38:04 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Radio broadcasts On 8/12/99, Mike Muenich wrote: "In reference to the Japanese code issue, although I did not raise it, I do believe it relevant. Not because aircraft transmissions would be monitered, to my knowledge they weren't, but because Japapese merchant ship and IJN movements could have been. Admiral Layton's history, "And I Was There", indicates that a number of Japanese codes, merchant, naval, and others were monitered and tracked from the 1920's. U.S. Naval intercepts could once and for all reject the various theories that involve the movements of KOSHU and KAMUI or any other vessels that could be identified. They certainly didn't move or operate without instructions." *********************************************** Unfortunately, the radio intercepts from Station Baker (Guam), prior to WWII, were probably never decoded or translated, as they were "bundled" together & shipped to Hawaii &/or Washingon, DC, since the personnel at Station Baker was not trained to decode or translate the messages. They were able to identify call signs & locations of the various Imperial Navy vessels, which did enable them to trace any large movement of the fleet, especially pre-war fleet maneuvers of special interest to the US Navy Dept. Believe Randy Jacobson has traced the location of such intercepts, however they have never been sorted or properly organized & filed, although there is an ongoing effort by some WWII Cryptanalyists to undertake the tedious task of sorting, decoding & translating all such intercepts. Whether this daunting project will ever see completion in our lifetime remains questionable. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:39:44 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Niku graves Pat says/asks: >Why the two children were buried not on the family land is >open to question. Illegitimacy? Tom? Response: Maybe, but we don't actually know that they WEREN'T buried on family land. As the land was cleared it was surveyed and parcelled out, at least after the initial period when the people were working for government rather than working their own plots. We have sketch-maps from Paul Laxton (administrator in the late 1940s) showing land divisions in some areas. I suspect that the baby burials at Aukaraime and Nutiran are kids who died after their parents had received land parcels there, even though they may have still lived most of the time in the village, and that the kids were buried there in accordance with custom and in the expectation that the land would eventually be settled. Pat goes on... >Also, Tom, what do you think about the other isolated grave(s)? I am >personally inclined to think that an adult's grave away from the family is >going to be either a visitor or a person who has no family on the island for >some other reason. I wouldn't see a traditional Gilbertese grave for a >Norwich City body.... the Gilbertese weren't there at the time, and they'd >have no reason to go back and set up such a site later, would they? But this >is out of my pay grade. Response: I dunno. The only foreigner's grave we know about on Niku is Gallagher's, and he was buried on government land, in a rather elaborate version of a traditional Gilbertese grave (i.e., it's got a coral-slab-lined platform, but then it has a concrete structure on top that, in accordance with his wishes, is similar to Robert Lewis Stevenson's in Samoa.). I suspect that burial of an outlander on government land would be the norm if there was one, and government land could have been defined to include "bush reserve" -- i.e., unallocated land. I'd guess (but I'm only guessing) that people would not want to bury a potentially dangerous dead guy on land that was going to be allocated to somebody in the future. As to whether they'd make an outlander's grave a traditional one, I don't know that, either, but I suspect they'd mark it somehow, to keep track of where it was, try to avoid stepping on it, etc., and if you're going to mark it, why not mark it in a way that says "grave" to whoever may see it? Incidentally, there's a fair amount of variability to the character of graves in the village. We found one that was lined with upended bottles rather than coral slabs. Some alcoholic navigator, no doubt. LTM (who's gravely concerned about all this) TKing ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:41:43 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Niku IIIIP Report With regard to Mr. Dohenyguy's challenging the qualifications of some members of the team, TIGHAR is not now, nor will it ever be, an organization with an unlimited assets. To Ric's credit, he makes excellent use of the fiscal and human resources available. Also, as anyone who has assembled a project team knows, the synergism of the group can be as important to the success of the mission as are the specific skills that each individual brings to the table. In this regard, it would be hard to imagine a more capable team. All twelve members of the team put in 9-hour work days in a tropical environment, where dense scaevola and loose coral rubble hindered all activity. Had proficiency with a machete been a requisite, then a couple (myself included) would have been excluded. As to the Nai'a, she's no tug, and a lot of bang for the buck. Probably the minimum size for open ocean, but she was operated by an excellent crew. As a first-timer, it exceeded my expectations as the support vessel. The search for Amelia is both physical and intellectual. With this in mind, I would ask Mr. Dohenyguy to delineate qualifications for his team and explain how it would be funded. Skeet Gifford, TIGHAR 0001CEB ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:42:11 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Canton Engine Don Jordan asks: <> Most US aircraft from 1939 onwards were either treated with a zinc chromate wash (yellowish green in color) or were anodized ( an electrolytic process that left the aluminum rather dark instead of silvery). The Lockheed Model 10 was just plain Alclad 24ST aluminum. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:42:49 EDT From: John Clauss Subject: Re: Niku graves The third grave was right on the edge of the beach under a large tree a little SW of the Norwich. It appears to be quite old and has been disturbed by over wash from large waves. Manakaa Teuatabo (the rep from Kiribati) and one of the Fijian crew members looked at the site and also felt that it was old. Before getting too excited about this let me say that there are property demarcations and the remains of houses just inland from this area. That argues that this grave is located on the shore side of a designated property which is in line with what we have observed in the village. We really didn't have time to take it any further than that. John Clauss ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:43:57 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: circumstantial evidence Mike Muenich says: <> I don't recall Goerner ever claiming that he had such a document, but if he did it was his responsibility to make it public if he expected anyone to believe him. There is abundant documentation (Bureau of Air Commerce inspection reports, photographs, etc.) to establish beyond doubt that Lockheed 10E c/n 1055 was delivered with Pratt & Whitney R1340 S3H1 "Wasp" engines in July 1936 and took off from Lae, New Guinea a year later with those same powerplants. The credibility of Goerner's allegations on this issue is not helped by the fact that he quite obviously has no idea what he's talking about. On page 82 of "The Search For Amelia Earhart" he says, "The Lockheed Electra's power had been publicized as twin 550-horsepower Pratt & Whitney Junior Wasp engines...". The truth is that all Lockheed 10Es came equipped with 550 hp Pratt & Whitney Wasps. The 10A featured the 450 hp Wasp Junior (not Junior Wasp). Later in the book Goerner claims that Earhart's engines were replaced with "Wasp Senior" engines of greater horsepower. There never was any such thing as a "Wasp Senior" of any horsepower and the Model 10 airframe was simply incapable of carrying any engine larger than the 550 hp Wasp. << In reference to the Japanese code issue, although I did not raise it, I do believe it relevant. ... U.S. Naval intercepts could once and for all reject the various theories that involve the movements of KOSHU and KAMUI or any other vessels that could be identified. They certainly didn't move or operate without instructions.>> It would be nice to have copies of such intercepts if they existed but, as far as I know, the U.S. Navy was not monitoring IJN movements in the Central Pacific in 1937. if you know otherwise and can direct us to those records we would be most appreciative. <> I hope so. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:44:30 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Smoking guns Tom King wrote: <> Just recently here in Delaware we sent a prominent attorney to Death Row for murdering his mistress and there was no gun (smoking or otherwise), no witnesses, and no body. Just ask Tom Capano if you need a smoking gun to prove a case. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:44:55 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Premises, premises Herman de Wulf writes: <> NR16020 was not refueled with 1,100 gallons at Lae. Chater and Collopy both state that the total fuel load aboard the aircraft at departure was 1,100 US gallons - and anything Iredale told Goerner is anecdote and, by definition, is less useful than a contemporaneous document. I'm really glad that Cam Warren has given us the opportunity to address this issue of how to weight various kinds of evidence. It's the all-important first step in any investigation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:46:13 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Premises, premises Cam Warren writes: >So strike "full tanks". I was factoring in the short hi-octane >tank as containing only 50 gallons, which I guess was misleading. >Chater and Collopy obviously got their (correct) info from >Iredale. Copious correspondence between Iredale and Goerner can >be found in the Nimitz Museum. Okay. So we agree that 1,100 US gallons is the best figure, but I'm not sure we agree on WHY it is the best figure (and this could become an important point in future discussions about facts that are not so easy to determine). I say that 1,100 gallons is the best figure because it is documented in two, independent, written, contemporaneous accounts by aviation authorities. I also say that your assumption that Chater and Collopy, who were both present at the takeoff, got their information from Iredale is purely speculative. Most importantly, I maintain that any anecdotal account Iredale may have given Goerner at least 23 years after the fact (Goerner did not begin his investigation until 1960) is of far less value than the contempraneous written accounts. Do you agree? (It's pointless to get into the "circling" question if we don't first get our rules of evidence straight.) LTM, Ric >Another matter, re "circling". The AP man aboard ITASCA, who >was in the radio room monitoring all the Earhart messages, >quoted her as saying "circling" in a dispatch filed July 3. >(Check Randy's CD #1) Under the circumstances, I'd say that >pretty well settled the question. (From memory, don't have the >time to dig up all the quotes) others present seem to agree. > >Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:46:39 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Wreck photo date Herman asked: << How sure are we today that the wreck photo was taken around 1941 and by whom?>> The Wreck Photo was supposedly taken in 1947, but as Pat said, we really have no idea when it was taken or by whom. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:47:14 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Niku graves In the report I neglected to mention that there was yet one more *possible* grave encountered near the base of tree about 20 meters in from the veggie line quite a ways up the beach beyond the Norwich City. (Sorry to be vague about the location but all the mapping isn't in yet.) I say *possible* grave because the "headstone" was supported by a big ol' gnarled tree root which may have simply pushed up the coral slab so that it gives the appearance of being a headstone. Then again, the tree root could have come along later. As for excavating graves on Niku, I don't like to do it and we only do it if we come across what appears to be a highly anomalous burial in the context of what we know about the practices of the people who lived here (accurately described by Pat). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:48:22 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Wreck photo date I thought the story was from Carrington that the photo was taken near the end or just after WWII. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:21:30 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Wreck photo date >From Randy Jacobson > >I thought the story was from Carrington that the photo was taken near the end >or just after WWII. The most original source we have for what Carrington said are notes kept by a Lockheed employee who was present when Carrington first brought the photo to Lockheed. I quote: "The photos had come from a former British seaman, a diesel mechanic, who had been (he said) on H.M.S. Adamant, a submarine tender, when it was in the central Pacific in late 1946 and early 1947. Either the last week in 1946 or the first week in 1947..." Adamant's logs indicate that she was moored in Hong Kong for all of December 1946 and January 1947. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:22:34 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: 1100 Gallons More or Less Well, I came across one quote from Bob Iredale, in a July 28, 1985 letter to Goerner he said: "Yes, I fueled the Lockheed and did it personally. Fred [Haig, 'our Aviation Officer'] arranged 20x44 gallon drums [presumably he's talking Imperial gallons, since 44x1.2= 52.8 US, since they were most likely US 55 gal. drums] of Avgas 80 octane shipped out to us from California many months before. I can assure you all tanks [in the Electra] were absolutely full - the wing tanks and those inside the fuselage. After she had done a test flight I topped them off again before her final take off. I think she took somewhere around 800 gallons all up. Fred Noonan was with me at the fueling and checked it out. He was also with me when we changed the engine oil as was Amelia. . ." Iredale later reconfirmed this at Goerner's request, both in a telephone call and by means of a written questionnaire. I don't recall off-hand if there was mention of the "take off tank". Note that Elgen Long says the volume of fuel "shrank" considerably while in storage at Lae, due to the high ambient temperature. (I do know for sure that you can get MORE gas in a tank if the gas is chilled - but you'll have to check with a petroleum engineer to get the precise hot vs. cold figures). Cam Warren **************************************** From Ric So Iredale, reminiscing nearly half a century later, says that all of the tanks were topped off prior to the final takeoff. He later confirms this memory to Goerner by phone and in a written questionnaire, and you don't remember him changing his mind and mentioning that one tank was not topped off. And yet you accept the 1,100 gallon figure which directly contradicts Iredale whom you have described as "the absolute best source." I submit that it is just as important to understand WHY we believe something to be true as it is to know WHAT we believe to be true. Let me say this one more time. Eleven hundred US gallons is the most credible figure for the Electra's fuel load at takeoff because that is the number specified in the best available contemporaneous documentation, i.e. Chater and Collopy. Agreed? (Elgen Long's speculations about shrinking fuel are not relevant to this discussion.) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:23:49 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: IJN >From Ric >It would be nice to have copies of such intercepts if they existed but, >as far as I know, the U.S. Navy was not monitoring IJN movements in the >Central Pacific in 1937. if you know otherwise and can direct us to >those records we would be most appreciative. The "Mid-Pacific Strategic Direction-Finder Net" was designed for just that purpose. The on-line date that has been given as July 1937. "The Code-breakers" by David Kahn. Capt. Safford said the most important pre-war information obtained with the "Blue Book" was the post-modernization trails of the NAGATO (1936). It showed a speed of 26+ knots. That meant the MUTSU and the MUTSU class battleships would have the same speed. This caused the 12 new U.S. battleships to have to raise their maximum speed to 27 knots. This prompted Capt. Safford to quote Shakespeare- " there is a Divinity which shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we may." SRH-305. Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:43:18 EDT From: William Dohenyguy Subject: Clarification To Skeet Gifford: I knew I was going to step on a few toes with my last correspondence, but I was hopeful my size nine Reeboks would cause no permanent damage. Let me preface this next paragraph by saying I'm no expert in arranging expeditions, but since you asked. I do not believe it is a good practice to allow unqualified individuals to take part in an adventure such as the Niku expedition simply because they can afford to go. I realize without their support there would be no expedition, certainly a Catch 22 situation. However, this conundrum can be conquered. On all the digs I went on, the hard work, the dirty work, was always done by the locals. They were hired because they were familiar with the area and could overcome the hostile environment simply because they were used to it. And just as important, each dig crew, contained only the most qualified individuals, there was no room for dead weight or excess baggage (there I go again). As far as raising funds for such an adventure is concerned, that is outside of my pay grade. Skeet, I'm not questioning Ric's ability to put together an expedition. Obviously, he knows what he is doing. I was just bring up a point. I apologize for stepping too hard. William LTM ***************************** From Pat You know, you're making some assumptions that aren't actually justified. "I do not believe it is a good practice to allow unqualified individuals ..." Who says these folks were unqualified? (Skeet? Dick? Chris? Did you feel unqualified? Did you feel like excess baggage or dead weight? From what Ric said when he got home, you were essential to the work that got done and desperately needed.) Other than experience level, they were as qualified as the others. And the *only* way to get experience on Niku is ... to go to Niku. Let me know if you can find a flight. "On all the digs I went on, the hard work, the dirty work, was always done by the locals." Fine. You tell me where to find the locals. Or have you simply forgotten that Niku is uninhabited? Not to mention that training "locals" is time-consuming, expensive, and inexact to say the least. No matter --- the point is that anyone who is going to work on Niku is going to be imported there. We have found repeatedly that for the kind of work *we* are doing (which is search work, not dirt-moving) we need educated, intelligent people who are familiar with technological society and can differentiate between cultural "noise" and the Real Stuff. Every time we have attempted to use "locals" (members of the ship's crew, for instance) it has resulted in hours, if not days, of wasted time and effort. "Skeet, I'm not questioning Ric's ability to put together an expedition. " Actually, you ARE questioning our abilities and the qualifications of the participants. So let me clue you up: we have run almost 50 expeditions, in various parts of the world, most of those parts being hostile as to climate and distant as to medical care. We have done so in extremes of financial crunches, with the barest minimum of equipment, and we have done so successfully and SAFELY. The sum total of injuries requiring medical care beyond a sticky bandage: two---in 15 years. A broken wrist, caused by unsafe (in retrospect... at the time it seemed ok, but we wouldn't permit it now) behavior on the part of an individual who was not part of the expedition and was not under our control, and some stitches needed by another individual, who was not part of the TIGHAR team and was not under our control, and who was clowning and showing off. (We now make it clear that *all* participants, no matter who they are working for, are under our control or they don't leave the ship.) "As far as raising funds for such an adventure is concerned, that is outside of my pay grade." Yup. And so is staffing and leading field work, obviously, or you would not refer to it as an "adventure." Adventure is what happens when things go wrong. Adventure is a sign of incompetence. We don't have adventures.... at least not on the ground, where we can control things. Usually the weather throws enough at us that there is plenty of "adventure" to go around---the other leading definition being "terror and discomfort remembered from the vantage of security and safety." I would *really* like to hear from Veryl, John, Kenton, and some of the other "veterans" on this topic. LTM, who thinks there's more to running an expedition than most people think there is, Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:44:39 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Armchair Archeologists In recent days there seems to be a frenzy of posts, the gist of which seems to be demanding a "rush to judgement", for conclusions as yet not supported by factual evidence developed to date. The AE/FN mystery is now over 62 years old & given that basis there is a strong possibility that it is going to take some additional years in time to uncover such factual evidence. Additionally, even if TIGHAR is successful in locating & properly identifying the remains of the Electra, (or its crew) it will not necessarily follow that all the many questions about the reasons why the flight failed its objective (reaching Howland safely) will be answered satisfactorily or completely & as Mr. Gillespie has often warned, such discoveries will probably not convince some folks to abandon their long held, contrary theories about the causes which resulted in the flight's failure to achieve its objectives. From my perspective, given the fact that there doesn't appear to be any other group or individuals actively working to locate the plane & crew, (TIGHAR's primary mission) I'd suggest the rest of us "armchair Archeologists" allow the mission to proceed, unless or until such activity proves successful in finding the plane &/or it's crew or that the evidence or lack thereof forces us to conclude that the..."Well is finally dry"... & that we must reluctantly concede that "Mother" was right all along & doesn't really want the mystery solved, at least not by this generation of seachers....but of course there is always "next year"! Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 12:24:54 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: IJN Okay, Daryll. We'll stand by and eagerly await your report on the movements of KOSHU and KAMUI in July 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 12:28:36 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Clarification While ALMOST entirely supporting what Pat has said about qualifications and such, let me make a couple of points as the project's long-term archeologist, with the appropriate Piled-higher and Deeper in the subject, founding member of the Soc. of Professional Archeologists (defunct), etc. etc. etc. -- First off, the question of "qualifications" is something that archeologists argue about all the time -- who has 'em, what they are, what kind are necessary for what kinds of work, etc. The jury is by no means in on the subject, and probably never will be, and my personal belief is that professional qualifications, in terms of degrees and such, are highly overrated. You need to have technically qualified people in charge, but to do the work you simply need people who are bright, observant, careful, able to work in a team, able to make judgements, willing to question authority, and in decent condition. Experience helps a lot, too, but even it can be overrated; the downside of experience is that it can make you jump to conclusions, or miss things that a fresh eye will see. Then there's the matter of what kinds of experience are relevant. Personally, I wouldn't know a piece of a Lockheed Electra if it fell on my head (well, I would now, but I certainly wouldn't have ten years ago), so people with airplane experience are real important members of the team. There are lots of other kinds of non-archeological esperience that are important -- some of which we've had access to, others of which we'd dearly love to have but haven't. Bottom line is that there are lots of definitions of what a qualified team is. I think the Niku IIII team fell well within reasonable parameters. Re. William Dohenyguy's statement that "On all the digs I went on, the hard work, the dirty work, was always done by the locals." -- I reckon the digs you've been on have been in countries other than the U.S.; here the hard, dirty work is usually done by undergraduates and what we sometimes call "shovel bums" -- people who migrate from dig to dig and make a living at it (Actually they're unionized now, and I'll probably get in trouble for calling them that, but I regard it as a rather honorable term). However, you make a point that's actually not been entirely lost on the TIGHAR team over the years, and it's one that we've argued about. It's the one point in Pat's response that I kind of disagree with. I've worked with teams of "locals" in places like Chuuk and Yap, the Marianas and Palau, and they're certainly as able as anyone else to get on top of a project's purposes and to master the necessary techniques. They sure beat a lot of college students. Moreover, they're used to working in the environment, with the tools (e.g., bush knives), and they can do a lot of things a whole lot more efficiently than we can. I think there's a lot of merit in the idea of having a small team of "locals" to do the cutting and clearing and other heavy work -- AND to apply their own unique areas of intellectual expertise. Foua Tofiga suggested to us in Fiji, for example, that we take along some Fijians who know all about coconut crab behavior, to work on the possible bones discovery sites by tracking down crabs to see where they may have taken stuff. I'm rather embarrassed to say this had never occurred to me, in all the time we've talked about learning how crabs do their thing with bodies. Of course, Pat's right about the distinct dearth of "locals" on Niku, but there are Fijians, Samoans, I Kiribati, and Tuvaluans within easy enough striking distance. The downside is that, unlike us idiots, they won't work for free, so it would be cost item. But I think it's very much worth considering. LTM (who doesn't much like hard work) Tom King **************************** Well, as I said---when we tried using the ship's crew, it worked out very poorly indeed. I think I'd rather have undergraduates . By the time we finished finding, paying, equipping, training, monitoring, and cleaning up after a gang like that, we're better off doing it ourselves with educated volunteers. But this is an old argument between Tom and us, and no doubt will never be fully resolved... Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 12:35:30 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Premises, cont. I suppose if you can create your own junk science discipline - "aviation archaeology" - you get to make your own rules, including your own flexible definition of objectivity. How silly of me to assume you'd be interested in hearing what THE MAN THAT FUELED THE ELECTRA might have to say on the subject. Ordinarily one would consider Chater and Collopy secondary sources. They were not in charge of, nor apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with the fueling procedure, and were merely reporting what they were told by someone else (more than likely Iredale). Incidentally, I have a photo of Iredale in his white STANAVO (the local Standard Oil avgas brand name) coveralls, servicing AE's plane. So he WAS there. And - I think we agree - the plane DID have at least 1100 US gallons of fuel on board at takeoff. Re "circling"; Hazlick's report saying Earhart used the expression "circling" was filed the next day, from the ITASCA, which is pretty contemporary in my book, and I'd think he'd qualify as a "primary source". Reflecting on our recent exchanges, I somehow get the impression that TIGHAR "evidence" is highly selective, and heavily weighted in the direction of Ric's current mindset. But maybe you'll convince me other wise, when you send me (or publish on the forum) that list of "facts" that will assure us the Electra landed on Nikumaroro. Let's see - I think the TIGHAR position is that AE made a smooth wheels-down landing on the reef flat, ran the engine as necessary for several days while sending a series of (ambiguous) radio messages. Then along came a big wave that washed the plane into the depths, where it was when Lambrect & company flew over. The Navy guys didn't see AE/FN since they were resting in the trees. And the radio signals were heard by Pan Am DF stations hundreds of miles away, but not by any ship searching in the vicinity, nor by Comdr. Anthony standing a 24 hour radio watch in Honolulu. Later, another wave washed the Electra back up on the reef, or into the trees, and AE/FN died of thirst, (perhaps boredom!) to be later buried by passing samaritans. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I'm just trying to summarize the situation. Oh, and here's a bone for you; Paul Mantz told a reporter (at the time of AE's disappearance) that he was sure she'd head for the Phoenix Islands. Am I a nice guy or what? Thank you for your courteous attention. Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric You've made it pretty clear where the problem is. You may be a nice guy but you call the most basic standards of evidence evaluation "junk science." You somehow think that we made up standards that are fundamental to any historical inquiry. You can't even differentiate between a primary source and a secondary source. Debating the Earhart case under these circumstances is like trying to play poker with someone who doesn't understand what the numbers and pictures on the cards mean. There are rules to this game. I didn't make 'em up. You can learn this stuff in school. There are two general categories of sources - primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources are: "Accounts by eyewitnesses or contemporaries of the events, or surviving objects from the time." (A Preface to History, Carl Gustavson, McGraw-Hill, 1955) Secondary sources are: "...(H)istorical accounts written by persons who have studied the primary sources, or who are using the works of those who have." (ibid.) Thus, Iredale, Chater and Collopy (and others) are all primary sources for the takeoff from Lae. Anything Goerner, you or I have written on that subject is a secondary source. Bellarts, Thompson and Hazlick (and others) are primary sources for what Earhart said on the radio. Gerald Gallagher, Emily Sikuli, Bilimon Amaran, Thomas Divine, and about half the residents of Saipan are primary sources for Earhart's ultimate fate. Primary sources that are "survivng objects from the time" include photographs, pieces of airplane debris found on Nikumaroro, and a piece of cloth dug up on Saipan said to a blindfold used in Earhart's execution. Obviously, a primary source is not necessarily an accurate source of information so conventions have been established to evaluate the different forms that primary sources can take. Central to these conventions is the recognition of the frailty of human memory. Accounts written down at or near the time of the event are given greater weight than accounts written down, or given verbally, after the passage of time. When two or more accounts written down at or near the time of the event disagree (a not uncommon problem) an effort must be made to assess which account is more credible. Where information is in the form of recollections written down or given verbally many years later (anecdotal accounts) the only way to assess its accuracy is to seek more reliable forms of evidence (contemporaneous documents, photographs, artifacts) which might support, fail to support, or actively reject the anecdotal information. It should be clear from the above that no matter how loudly you shout about "THE MAN THAT FUELED THE ELECTRA", the information he gave Goerner in 1985 was a 48 year-old memory. If his was the only information we had about the subject we would begin a search for real documentation. Fortunately, we already have that documentation via Chater and Collopy and can say with some degree of certainty that Iredale's recollection was correct except that he seems to have forgotten about the one partially filled tank. Now, since you insist upon talking about Hanzlick, let's talk about Hanzlick. The question at issue is whether or not Earhart said she was "circling" in her transmission received by Itasca at 07:58 local time. Fortunately, we have the most contemporaneous document possible, short of a tape recording, to tell us what the people in Itasca's radio room heard, or at least thought they heard. The log kept by Chief Radioman Bellarts, typed on the form as he heard the words, shows very clearly that the original entry was: KHAQQ CALLING ITASCA WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR U ..... Some time later (how much later is impossible to say) the word "drifting" was partially erased, the platen of the typewriter was realigned not-quite-accurately, and the word "circling" typed over the erasure. All later representations of that transmission, including Hazlick's, quote it as: KHAQQ CALLING ITASCA WE ARE CIRCLING BUT CANNOT HEAR U ..... What did she really say? It's impossible to know for sure. What we do know is that Bellarts, typing along, essentailly taking dication from Amelia, thought she said "drifting." Why did he later change his mind? It's not hard to envision a scene where either he or someone looking over his shoulder says, "Wait a minute. That can't be right. Drifting doesn't make any sense." Someone, possibly even Hazlick, says, "I thought she said she was circling." And Bellarts says, "Yeah, you must be right. I'll change it." All we can say for sure is that there was some question about that word. Drifting doesn't make much sense, but frankly neither does circling. What makes sense in the context of the message is: KHAQQ CALLING ITASCA WE ARE LISTENING BUT CANNOT HEAR U ..... But this is speculation. My point is that Hanzlick's statement (a primary source, as you say) does NOT trump Bellart's log (a more contemporary primary source). This is not a judgement call about whether you prefer to believe the radio operator or the newspaper reporter. It's a simple, straightforward evaluation of physical evidence, in this case, the original Itasca radio log. As for giving you a list of facts, there seems to be little point in dealing cards to someone who thinks that a pair of fours beats three kings. And by the way, your understanding of TIGHAR's hypothesis is not correct. I'll be setting our hypothesis and the evidence for and against it in subsequent postings to the Forum. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 13:25:56 EDT From: Doc Holloway Subject: Possible funding source Have you thought about the possibility of contacting Clive Cussler? According to his books, he is very much into finding lost ships. Why not a lost airplane? LTM R.L."Doc" Holloway ************************************************************************** From Ric I've talked to Clive. We use pretty much the same techniques and technology. In fact, way back in 1989 we used an underwater magnetometer belonging to Schonstedt Instrument Co. that they had previously had on loan to Mr. Cussler. We'll do our thing and let him and Dirk do theirs. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:40:46 EDT From: John Clauss Subject: Re: Clarification/team members William, After having been on many of those 50 expeditions I would put forward that two of the most important qualifications for the team are the ability to be compatible with one another in tough situations and close quarters and dedication to the project. This assumes that all are physically capable of doing what is required of them. As Skeet and Pat have said these operations require a diverse array talents and capabilities. If we had only athletic types that could work all day and barely break into a sweat we probably wouldn't get anywhere. In the last five years Tighar has been able to field teams with impressive depth and diversity. At any given time during these expeditions there are at least a dozen things going. Ric can't direct every task, he must delegate the work to the rest of us and act as the team's manager pulling all the components together so that we end up with a cohesive focused operation. You can't imagine how tight and productive one of these teams is till you have done seen it. As far as the team member/sponsor thing goes there is no differentiation once we step onto the plane in LA. There are only team members and we work that way. We are extremely grateful for our sponsors' ability to make an operation like this possible (that goes for all of you out there also). Do they get any slack when it come to work load.....NO! Does Ric take every person that wants to write a check and come along.......no. He interviews and pre qualifies each one and seems to do a pretty good job walking this tightrope. I am not sure how much more discussion is warranted on this subject. We field excellent teams that get the work done. LTM , who loves to sweat John ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:41:47 EDT From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: 1100 Gallons More or Less > From Cam Warren: > Well, I came across one quote from Bob Iredale, in a July 28, > 1985 letter to Goerner he said: > "Yes, I fueled the Lockheed and did it personally. Fred [Haig, > 'our Aviation Officer'] arranged 20x44 gallon drums [presumably > he's talking Imperial gallons, since 44x1.2= 52.8 US, since > they were most likely US 55 gal. drums] of Avgas 80 octane > shipped out to us from California many months before. (snip) -----Hi Cam: Hate to nitpick, but 44 Imp. gals.=44x1.25=55 US gals, as you correctly surmised. LTM(who always remembers that it takes 5 US gals. to make up 4 real gals. :>') HAG 2201. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:44:13 EDT From: Earl Kindley Subject: Written Conduct Mr. Warren, I am interested in your perspectives and point of view --when submitted within the bounds of civility. Be advised, neither your point --nor your credibility-- are well served by shouting, sarcasm, bitterness, or "written conduct" that is.... less than gracious. E.G. Kindley. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:45:45 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: Premises, cont. Dear Mr. Cam Warren, Your comments on the Earhart Search Forum are most interesting. Do you have a web site representing you position? If so, do you moderate an open forum for discussion of your position on the fate of Amelia Earhart? Please advise of the internet access address for the web site and forum if they exist. Thank you, Roger Kelley, #2112 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:46:41 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: IJN Ric said on 8/14/99: ..."It would be nice to have copies of such intercepts if they existed but, as far as I know, the U.S. Navy was not monitoring IJN movements in the Central Pacific in 1937. if you know otherwise and can direct us to those records we would be most appreciative"... According to John Prados book: ..."Combined Fleet Decoded"... , Station Baker (Guam) was able to identify & locate the ships participating in the Imperial Japanese Navy's Combined Fleet Exercises in 1930 (decoded, translated & analyzed by 1934), which led to a major revision of the War Dept.'s War Plan Orange, changing the Asiatic Fleet's role from one of defending the Phillippines to "fleeing" that theater of operations at the outbreak of hostilities in the Pacific; further providing for a series of intermediate stages of setting-up advanced bases across the Pacific mandated islands, generally following the original recommendations of Marine Lt. Col. "Pete" Ellis, who died (was killed?) while attempting to conduct his own personal, unauthorized, covert inspection of the Japanese Mandated Islands in the 1920's. Subsequently, the US Navy installed HF/DF stations at the advanced listening posts in the Phillipines (Cavite) & Guam (Baker) during the first half of 1937, after further intercepts by the Guam station during 1933 provided additional, more detailed analysis of IJN Combined Fleet Exercises conducted in that year, simulating Japanese defense of an American attack of the Japanese mainland through the Bonin Islands. All of which seems to suggest that the US War Dept. & the US Navy Dept. were exceedingly interested in maintaining very close radio surveillance of IJN Fleet activities, in & around the mandated islands, throughout the 1930's. In his book..."And I was There"... Rear Adml. Edwin Layton also confirms that such monitoring of IJN Fleet radio activity from Guam continued right up until the Island was captured by the Japanese, early in 1942. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in a previous post, most of the intercepts from Guam were probably never decoded, translated or analyzed, unless they involved major IJN Fleet activity, such as the combined fleet exercises; therefore any "local" traffic involving the AE/FN flight (if in fact there ever was such radio activity by the Japanese) will probably remain forever buried in the massive bundles of similar "routine" message intercepts, unless or until some enterprising person (with no other kind of life) volunteers to visit the facility where all this material is stored & begins sorting through the bundles, a document at a time! Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:48:56 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: The Great Fuel Debate I do not enter this controversy without a great deal of trepidation, but it seems to me that the entire debate comes down to how much fuel was left in the "takeoff" (100-octane) tank when AE departed Lae. Chater could not know for certain how much fuel was in AE's plane prior to the final refueling. All he knew was that Vacuum put in 654 imperial gallons, which was enough to fill 'er up. (By the way, 654 imperial gallons translates into 785.4 US gallons, which might coincide nicely with Iredale's recollection of "somewhere around 800 gallons all up," except that he apparently was talking Imperial gallons, too.) Chater guesstimates that the takeoff tank was approximately half-full on departure. I have no idea if this tank was equipped with a dipstick or glass, but if that were the case Chater probably would not have used the term "approximately." I think he eyeballed it, or talked to someone who did. Chater also refers to the short tank as having a capacity of 81 gallons, which seems a rather odd size unless he was again using the measure with which he was most familiar: Imperial gallons. Eighty-one imperial gallons is just shy of 100 US gallons. So, knowing that the Electra's reported fuel capacity is 1,151 US gallons, Chater subtracts 50 US gallons to account for the half-full "takeoff tank," et voila! the Lockheed leaves the ground carrying 1,100 US gallons of fuel. In other words, Chater's "1,100 gallons" is an estimate based upon another estimate -- the amount of fuel left in the short tank. He could have been off 20 gallons either way. As for Iredale, I wouldn't rush to dismiss his story as a mere reminiscence dimmed by 50 intervening years. You think the guy who fueled AE's plane never once thought about it before Goerner looked him up? I'm betting that in the days and weeks following AE's disappearance, Iredale mentally reconstructed the refueling procedure again and again, step by step, to make sure he hadn't left anything undone. And he remembers filling up *every* tank. I will leave it up to others to debate whether AE could have gotten the heavily-laden Electra off the ground with a half-and-half mixture in the takeoff tank, or whether an extra 50 gallons would have made much difference in the long run. And, of course, there's the continuing debate over whether the Electra actually held something more than 1,151 gallons, which would make Yorkshire pudding of Chater's estimate, and which I am, accordingly, not about to touch with a 10-foot dipstick. Hey, I just bring up these little questions so the smart people can solve 'em. LTM (who liked those '59 Imperials with the great big fins) Patrick Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:52:35 EDT From: Mike Rejsa Subject: Re: Circling > Drifting doesn't make much sense, but frankly neither does circling. Just a thought - "drifting" makes sense if you consider them to be talking about their radios. If AE was having trouble staying on frequency??? Or possibly if Hanzlick was thinking about his frequency drifting while AE said some other word (or someone else in the room said "You're drifting" while he was busy listening to AE). Frequencies are often spoken of as "drifting" in my experience. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:35:21 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: IJN > Unfortunately, as I mentioned in a previous post, most of the intercepts > from Guam were probably never decoded, translated or analyzed, unless > they involved major IJN Fleet activity, such as the combined fleet > exercises; therefore any "local" traffic involving the AE/FN flight (if > in fact there ever was such radio activity by the Japanese) will > probably remain forever buried in the massive bundles of similar > "routine" message intercepts, unless or until some enterprising person > (with no other kind of life) volunteers to visit the facility where all > this material is stored & begins sorting through the bundles, a document > at a time! > > Don Neumann As you mention there was monitoring of the Japanese fleet, I remember watching a TV documentary concerning Naval Intelligence before the bombing of Pearl, and the question was asked with all of the information concerning the intelligence leading to the conclusion of the bombing of Pearl, why was not action taken earlier? The answer ,there was lots of information, to much to be analyze and put together, easier now after the fact to put it together, I suspect there are lots of radio messages not decoded, after Pearl what would have the reason to decode the previous radio intercepts. It would be interesting to see if any intercepts talk about the Japanese naval search for AE, which I read was suppose to be taking place from microfilms from Newspapers of that time. However I don't believe AE was involved in spying, or even capture by the Japanese. Regards Warren Lambing ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:36:05 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: IJN Mr. Neumann, do you have some more precise idea of the volume of documents which may exist for, say, all of 1937 and into the middle of 1938? Any ideas on how they are being kept (just stuffed in boxes/divided by year)? Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:36:33 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: Premises, cont. Cam, You're doing great. You've got him running. You are correct about his theory, but he changes it so often that it is hard to keep current. I can't imagine anyone making a wheels down landing on anything except a runway, or well known hard surface. Land a tail dragger in 3 to 4 inches of water is asking for real trouble. I also want t point out that two of the pivital points of the Gillespie theory are the shoes (partial sole and heel) and the the no-offset navigation by Noonan for the last leg of the flght. I have the evidence that completely destroys the shoe evidence and i'm now putting something together on the 157/337 LOP. ************************************************ From Ric I can hardly wait. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:37:10 EDT From: Chuck Boyle Subject: Re: Niku graves The grave that Tom King referred to lined with upended bottles rather than coral slabs are most likely similar to those upended bottles that marked some of the grave locations on Atafu Island. Atafu is about 200 miles from Gardner Island. I seem to remember when I was stationed at the Atafu Coast Guard Loran Station during WW11 that some graves were marked with beer cans. I checked the pictures I have and saw only upended bottle marked graves. No Beer cans. They also have traditionally marked grave. We did not have any alcoholic navigators while I was on Atafu. Chuck Boyle 2060 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:37:50 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Adamant Odyssey Was there any indication that HMS Adamant was ever in the region of Niku during that era. Regards Bob Lee PS: Your trip report was great, like reading an adventure novel. *************************************** From Ric Adamant's logs were checked from 1945 (when she was in Australia) through 1948 (when she returned to Portsmouth, England). During that time she was never anywhere near the Phoenix Group. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:39:12 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Circling > Mike Rejsa wrote: > Just a thought - "drifting" makes sense if you consider them to be > talking about their radios. "Drifting" is a part of the radio venacular and it could very easily be what AE said, or was understood to have said, especially in the context of AE's reported adjacent remark that she and Fred are "listening" but cannot hear the Itasca's transmissions. william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:38:33 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Possible funding source >>From Doc Holloway >Have you thought about the possibility of contacting Clive Cussler? >According to his books, he is very much into finding lost ships. Why not a >lost airplane? >************************************************************************** >>From Ric >I've talked to Clive. We use pretty much the same techniques and technology. > In fact, way back in 1989 we used an underwater magnetometer belonging to >Schonstedt Instrument Co. that they had previously had on loan to Mr. Cussler. >We'll do our thing and let him and Dirk do theirs. Maybe there's a money-making avenue here, Ric... Talk Cussler into writing his next book about the search for Amelia. Let him throw in all the Japanese angles and the extra-terrestrial angles and whatever other crazy theories are out there. Send Dirk Pitt on a couple slam-bang, shoot-em-up expeditions to Niku. And offer TIGHAR's expertise as technical consultant to the story... for, oh, say, 20 per cent of the royalties. That ought to bring in a dime or two. [Actually, I'm a little surprised that Cussler hasn't already had Dirk Pitt out there looking for Amelia] LTM, Tom #2179 ************************************************************************* From Ric Pardon my ego, but I write for a living. I'd be loath to suggest that Clive Cussler write about Earhart even if I thought he was a good writer. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:42:14 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: My two cents here I have not paid enough attention to the forum over the last month or so. However, I gleam from the postings that nothing of significance was found on Niku. However, some interesting interviews were made in Fiji. To this is significant criticism of you and the forum in general. The fact is that the thoery which the forum has built up maybe right, maybe wrong or even somewhere in between. However, unless we pursue this thoery, modifiying it according to the evidence which becomes available or even scrapping it if some evidence from an unquestionable source (if there is such a thing) reveals its flaws, we will never know what the truth is. Truth itself is very subjective, and even if you came back with bodies or an electra, there would be no doubt that someone would say that it was all false. My attitude is quite simple keep pursuing the theory until someone produces evidence that throws it into disarray. To date there has been a lot of criticism, but no real evidence. Best of luck in future expeditions. One day, the fate of AE/FN will reveal themselves. Regards David J Kelly ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks David, but let me correct any impression that this year's field work turned up nothing of significance. The Niku Team accomplished exactly what it set out to accomplish - we conducted a reconnaissance that will allow us to organize and equip Niku IIII so that it stands the best possible chance of finding the conclusive proof we're all seeking. We did not come across the big silver airplane lurking in the bushes, but the Fiji Team uncovered new anecdotal evidence that may explain why and may give us a better idea about where to look for conclusive proof. As we've said a hundred times, anecdotal evidence can not stand by itself, but it can point the way toward hard evidence. I'm very pleased with the results of this summer's work. Is truth subjective? "What is truth?, said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer." (Francis Bacon, Essay "Of Truth",1625) I guess that depends on what truth you're talking about. Certainly religious truths are subjective. What is gospel to one is superstition to another. But it's hard to debate the truth of, say, gravity. Historical truth is, of course, the subject of constant debate and the acceptance of historical "facts" depends on the weight of the evidence. The better the evidence, the more widespread the acceptance. But is it true? The fundamental paradox of historiography (the study of the study of history) is that, no matter how hard we try and no matter what "proof" we find, we can never really know what happened. We continue to investigate the hypothesis that the Earhart/Noonan flight ended at Nikumaroro, not because we don't have anything better to do, and not because it's the easiest theory to investigate (the Japanese capture theory is much easier) or because we've already dropped a pile of time, energy and money on it, or because our egos won't let us admit that we may be wrong. We continue to follow this trail because it is producing results. If some have difficulty recognizing those results, that's okay. If we're right, the harder we look the more we'll find and the easier it will be for them to understand the evidence. And, as you say, no matter what we find, some will disagree. That's okay too. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:43:49 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: smoking guns > Just recently here in Delaware we sent a prominent attorney to Death Row for > murdering his mistress and there was no gun (smoking or otherwise), no > witnesses, and no body. Just ask Tom Capano if you need a smoking gun to > prove a case. > > LTM, > Ric I didn't mean to suggest that a "smoking gun" was necessary, although it would be nice. If however you intend to rely solely on circumstantial eveidence, then you must carry a far higher standard of proof. The shoe sole, the heel, the aircraft skin and plexiglass come begin to approach the level of the so called "smoking gun" although I suspect that some would then claim that they didn't originate on the island, but were brought there by parties unknown. The point is, unless you can find some piece of evidence that is so conlcusive, not subject to any other explanation, and without reproach, then you must rely on circumstantial evidence so strong that it excludes other hypothesis. Thus each time you eliminate some element of someone elses hypothesis, Goerner, et. al., you strengthen your own. If you fail to do so, you weaken your case and expose it to rejection. Just ask O.J. and the L.A. prosecutors about DNA testing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:45:57 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The great fuel debate Patrick Gaston writes: >...it seems to me that the entire debate comes down to how much fuel was >left in the "takeoff" (100-octane) tank when AE departed Lae. No. Chater's explanation of where the 1,100 US gallon figure comes from is nice to have but the only reason that there is a debate at all is the lack of understanding among the debaters about basic issues of source credibility. Is there ANYONE out there who has at least a BA in History who does not agree that contemporaneous written sources are superior to decades-old recollections? >Chater also refers to the short tank as having a capacity of 81 gallons, >which seems a rather odd size .... We don't have to guess about this. The Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection Report of May 19, 1937 (the last one done before the flight) certifies that the aircraft had 12 fuel tanks of the following capacities - In the wing centersection: 2 ea. of 81 galllons 2 ea. of 16 gallons 2 ea. of 102 gallons In the fuselage: 2 ea. of 118 gallons 3 ea. of 149 gallons 1 ea. of 70 gallons Total - 1,151 gallons >In other words, Chater's "1,100 gallons" is an estimate based upon another >estimate -- the amount of fuel left in the short tank. He could have been >off 20 gallons either way. No. Chater says that the 81 gallon tank containing 100 octane "was approximately half full and can be safely estimated that on leaving Lae contained at least 40 gallons." The only estimate involved is how much fuel was in the tank that was not filled. Chater says that that amount can be "safely estimated" as "at least" 40 gallons. In other words, Chater is quite sure that there was not less than 40 gallons of gas in that tank. If the amount was exactly 40 gallons, that would give the airplane a total fuel load of 1,110 US gallons (1,151 minus 41). It would appear, therefore, that Chater's 1,100 figure at departure allows for warm-up, taxi, and run-up. In any event, I see no reason to dispute the figure as a number to start with when we attempt to determine how long the airplane could remain aloft and how far it could go on the flight in question. >As for Iredale, I wouldn't rush to dismiss his story as a mere reminiscence >dimmed by 50 intervening years... But that's exactly what it is. That doesn't make it wrong and it shouldn't be dismissed. The point is, if credible contemporaneous sources disagree with anecdote, you go with the better source. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:47:22 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Conjunction junction Mike Rejas writes: >..."drifting" makes sense if you consider them to be >talking about their radios. If AE was having trouble staying on >frequency??? Here's one for the English majors. Let's say that Earhart is having trouble with her receiver frequency drifting. Would she say: WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU Or would she say: WE ARE DRIFTING AND CANNOT HEAR YOU I still like WE ARE LISTENING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU because 1. It makes the most sense in the context of the message. 2. It contains the same key phonetic sounds as "drifting" and "circling" (the short "i" and the "ing"). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:48:12 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: Premises, premises At the risk of getting my hand slapped again, I am, with trepidation entering the fuel debate. Does anyone have any knowledge about how much of the fuel load was "usable". Most current POH, "pilot operating handbook" for various aircraft list fuel capacity as "x" gallons, "y" gallons usable. The difference is found in fuel sumps, lines, pumps, etc. which remain when fuel starvation occurs. Generally the more tanks and fittings, the larger the amount of residule fuel that can't be used. Given the age of the aircraft, these calculations may not have been published or generally known. Also given the nature and purpose of the aircraft, It is also possible that the tanks and fuel system were designed so that all of the fuel load could be used. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:46:47 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: The Great Fuel Debate Excuse me but I am getting lost again. This message refers to a "short" tank and a "takeoff" tank, both in the singular. Are we discussing the same tank with two "common" names or two different tanks? There is only one reference to a single tank in the air commerce report, a single tank of 70 gallons (less if Imperial gallons are used) which doesn't seem to match any of the discussion about either the "short" or "takeoff" tanks. Is it possible to identify the common named tanks with the air commerce report to eliminate the confusion? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:00:55 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Radios adrift... >>..."drifting" makes sense if you consider them to be >>talking about their radios. If AE was having trouble staying on >>frequency??? How would she/they know the radio (receiver or transmitter) was drifting in frequency?? The receiver wasn't working in any case and the transmitter was xtal controlled. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:12:38 EDT From: Natko Katicic Subject: Scientific Truth Ric writes Aug.15. : >Is truth subjective? [...] But it's hard to debate the truth of, say, gravity. >Historical truth is, of course, the subject of constant debate and the acceptance >of historical "facts" depends on the weight of the evidence. The better the >evidence, the more widespread the acceptance... Granted that Newton's law of gravity goes largely unchallenged by now. Nevertheless, even in the so called exact sciences like Physics and Cosmology the "truth" that we teach our childern in schools only coincides with the *current* scientific opinion (and consensus) which is by no means always unchallenged. Physics has advanced into dimensions that cannot be observed directly (neutrinos & Co.) but are "proven" by indirect experiments. The implications of new (anything that happened in this century is new) mathematical models are so mind boggling that even their discoverers ultimately deny them. A. Einstein and E. Schroedinger after postulating Quantum Mechanics became its most fervent opponents because they couldn't *belive* the implications of their theory (see the thought experiment called "Schroedingers Cat" in which a cat bound into a quantum mechanical observation would be in a neither dead nor alive state before observation and only at the instant of measurement assume one of the two states). Still the overwhelming evidence (indirect of course - no smoking guns - nobody ever *saw* a neutrino) brought forward by decades of experiments convinced the majority (by far not all) in the scientific community and thus QM became the current scientific opinion and is thought as the *truth* (sic!) in Universities all over the world today. And Physics is supposed to be an exact science. LTM (who is appalled at sacrificing a poor little kitty in a thought experiment) Natko ******************************* We have actually dabbled with the thought of modelling the whole Earhart thing as a probability study, haven't found a volunteer mathematician who was willing to crunch it for us but it would be quite interesting.... probably too many variables. Historical truth is of a different flavor than mathematical proof, in many ways. But even in physics and mathematics, the "best" models are those that work in the real world, accounting for all the facts. That's why QM is generally accepted now---- when applied to the "real" world (granted, at that level, the reality of the world is a little fuzzy) QM explains things and predicts things quite well, whether Einstein and Schroedinger liked it or not. While no one has ever seen a neutrino, cannot one observe their paths, and also their effects on other objects? If we're right, then our models will continue to predict and explain with a fairly high degree of success, whether Cam Warren et al likes it or not. We cannot be there for the actual end of the Earhart flight (lacking a time machine) but we can certainly observe the evidence and the effect of their presence on the island, and later on the island's people. Pat, who agrees entirely with Mother about the poor cat. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:13:46 EDT From: Mike Rejsa Subject: Re: Circling/drifting/listening > Would she say: > WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU > Or would she say: > WE ARE DRIFTING AND CANNOT HEAR YOU Actually I thought of that, Ric... AE was not a radio expert and it is conceivable that when she was trained she heard people talk about 'drifting' as frequency variation by the radio, and misused the word as frequency variation by the operator. In other words, "We are varying our frequency around the desired one *but* cannot hear you." "Listening" of course makes more sense. "Drifting" just has the advantage of being what the guy wrote. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:14:14 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Beer cans Chuck Boyle writes: << I seem to remember when I was stationed at the Atafu Coast Guard Loran Station during WW11 that some graves were marked with beer cans. I checked the pictures I have and saw only upended bottle marked graves. No Beer cans. They also have traditionally marked grave.>> I didn't think that the world had yet been blessed with beer cans in WWII? When, I wonder, beer first sold in cans? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:15:20 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Still circling William Webster-Garman writes: <<"Drifting" is a part of the radio venacular and it could very easily be what AE said, or was understood to have said, especially in the context of AE's reported adjacent remark that she and Fred are "listening" but cannot hear the Itasca's transmissions.>> I must not have been clear on this. There was no "adjacent" remark that they were "listening." The question revolves around the single phrase which was originally copied down as: WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU "Drifting" makes no sense in that context. If she was trying to explain that frequency drift was why she couldn't hear ITASCA she should have said, "We are drifting AND cannot hear you." "Drifting" was erased and changed to "circling." It is my opinion, guess, hunch, speculation that what she said was, "We are listening but cannot hear you." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:16:09 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Circling again To repeat my previous contention; "circling" would fit right into the Earhart's behavior pattern, as it now appears to me. Noonan would be opposed to it, as a "by-the-book" navigator, since search patterns are ordinarily done in a precise mathematical way, with straight lines and right-angle turns. Conversely, seat-of-the-pants Amelia thought she knew better, and overrode Fred. Cam Warren (Who participated in more than a few sonar searches for submarines in WW2) *********************************** From Ric I've never met or flown with either Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan, and I sure wasn't standing in the companionway looking over their shoulders during the world flight, so I don't feel qualified to make pronouncements about behavior patterns. The historical record leaves no doubt that there was, at the very least, some confusion at the time over just what she said. Nobody really knows, or can know, what that word was. If you prefer "circling" that's fine. I like "listening" simply because it makes the most sense. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:17:05 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: smoking guns Mike Muenich writes: <> The danger here is getting bogged down demonstrating the invalidity of bogus allegations when, the truth is, it is impossible to prove a negative hypothesis (i.e. no one can prove that AE was NOT captured by the Japanese or aliens or that she crashed at sea). We can only eliminate those possibilities by establishing that something else DID happen. That's why we don't like to spend time speculating about stuff like what prewar Japanese naval transmissions the U.S. may or may not have monitored. <> Excellent analogy. It would be interesting to get a list of people who were on that jury and see if we recognize any of the names... LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:17:31 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Usable fuel Mike Muenich asks: <> It's a good question to which, unfortunately, there is no good answer as far as I know. We have a Lockheed drawing dated March 12, 1937 entitled "Fuel System Diagram Amelia Earhart Electra" which is a schematic of the system with the same tanks described in the May 19, 1937 Inspection Report. No notation about "usable" fuel appears in any of the paperwork, but the schematic does show that on March 10, 1937 a "stripping valve and wobble pump" was added to the system. This would appear to be an understandable attempt to insure that as much of the fuel aboard as possible was usable. But that's as good as it gets. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:00:12 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Beer cans Ric; Beer was first sold in cans in 1935. From 1942-1947, domestic beer production was ceased but beer was still canned for military use - in silver or olive drab cans (D.B.S. Maxwell, "Beer Cans: A Guide for the Archaeologist", in Historical Archaeology 27(1):95-113, 1993). Spam was first produced in 1936, but that is another story... LTM (who prefers bottled beer herself), Tim Smith 1142C ****************************** Now is this a great Forum or what? P ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:01:05 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: DFing > WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU > >"Drifting" makes no sense in that context. If she was trying to explain >that frequency drift was why she couldn't hear ITASCA she should have >said, "We are drifting AND cannot hear you." "Drifting" was erased and >changed to "circling." It is my opinion, guess, hunch, speculation that >what she said was, "We are listening but cannot hear you." >LTM, >Ric I said this on the Forum before, but it seems no-body listens or cares. Can "Drifting" have been " DFing". "We are DFing but cannot hear you" I know someone will say. How can you DF if you can't hear anybody? I think AE was rotating the loop in an attempt to increase the sensitivity of the antenna enough to be able to hear someone. She was doing the only thing she could do to the radio to help pick up something. She was telling the Itasca in as few words as possible what she was doing. If I recall correctly, Capt. Safford used the loop antenna as one of the reasons that he felt that AE wasn't within a 100 miles of Howland. He felt the loop antenna would have worked under 100 miles. Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:01:42 EDT From: Tet Walston Subject: Beer cans and radio Ric, Chuck Boyle's mention of Beer cans as grave marker, and availability of beer cans in WW2. Yes, there were such things in WW2. The Australians were issuing beer in cans in Egypt/Libya in 1941. I seem to remember sone Pabst in cans in Middle East in 1942. Vern Klein says radio transmitter was crystal controlled. In those days, the best they could do was have prewound coils to control frequency. Crystals were not in use until VHF came along. "Listening" in the message makes more sense, "Drifting" doesn't seem to fit. Regards and LTM Tet ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:28:50 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Possible funding source > Talk Cussler into writing his next book about the search for Amelia. Let > him throw in all the Japanese angles and the extra-terrestrial angles and > whatever other crazy theories are out there. Send Dirk Pitt on a couple > slam-bang, shoot-em-up expeditions to Niku. Can't do it. According to "Sahara" they already have her body in storage. But I do like the bit about Niku. - Bill ************************** Yes, but what in heck would he shoot? A crab? P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:29:19 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: DFing Good one Daryll: We are DFing but cannot hear you. It doesn't explain, though, why they heard the 7500kHz signals later on. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:30:20 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Still circling > WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU > > "Drifting" makes no sense in that context. If she was trying > to explain that Remembering that this is all almost pure speculation (including the idea that she might have said "listening"), from TIGHAR's reading of the logs, the documented fact is that the radio operator originally transcribed the word as "drifting" as he listened to AE: Drifting is a common broadcasting term, and in general, early receivers and transmitters both tended to drift off frequency substantially. Perhaps she was misunderstood by an operator accustomed to hearing the word "drifting" when communications were poor, or perhaps she really said it, erroneously using it to describe a manual "sweeping" of the frequency dial on her receiver. Or perhaps the operator misunderstood another word in the sentence. I agree that it would be easier if she had originally been interpreted as having said "listening". I also agree that the later change to "circling" has a bureaucratic ring to it. Finally, I certainly agree that the syntax doesn't make sense when "drifting" is plugged into the sentence (unless she is misusing the word). I think all three words are candidates (circling around the presumed Howland area for a short time wouldn't hurt the Gardner landing scenario anyway). LTM (who likes good diction) william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:30:59 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: DFing > >From Daryll > I said this on the Forum before, but it seems no-body listens or > cares. > > Can "Drifting" have been " DFing". Good point. She may very well have said "dee-ehfing" (DFing). Rotating the loop to try and pick up a weak signal coming from a somewhat uncertain direction would be a reasonable response to their situation. With all due respect to Ric, I like that speculation better than "listening". william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:32:49 EDT From: Forest Blair Subject: Winds Have been reading article in TIGHAR Tracks, Vol. 12, No. 2/3 entitled "Log Jam" again. Also looking at map on pg 4 of same issue. Do we have any information concerning wind speeds/directions Noonan used to establish headings for Amelia to steer to arrive at Howland? Since they were flying many hours at night over water at an altitude of 8000-10000 feet (am guessing this altitude for best power settings per chart in article) and probably couldn't observe the sea state to estimate wind conditions, how far off target and in what direction would they be if Noonan had estimated an easterly headwind of 5-10 knots more than actual? I ask this since my roommate-the station meteorologist--at Canton claimed he had the most boring job in the AF. His daily forecasts were normally all the same---easterly winds at 5-15 knots. Some days, however, there was not even a breeze-the dog days. To partially answer my last question above, while neither being a pilot nor navigator, I would guess the Electra could be 50-100 miles northeasterly of Howland after 8-10 hours of night flying without weather info necessary to make heading corrections. Such a location would also provide radio signal strengths of S5 as recorded during the last 2-3 transmissions from Amelia. As Ric reads this, he will say something like, "Forest WOULD want this answer since he wants Bruce's engine to have been found on an island closer to Hull". Yes, I guess I do if the engine turns out to be Amelia's since I' m 99.99% certain Bruce didn't go to Niku to find it. About all the artifacts found on Niku? Isn't it possible the natives brought them when the natives were taken from Sydney and Hull? Anyway, would enjoy any discussion on the above. Forest #2149 *********************** Randy, this wind stuff is your department, especially when Ric is out of town which he is. P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:34:07 EDT From: Joe Subject: Re: Expedition Report Dear Ric Im only a reader to this forum, nothing more nothing less. I think the evidence you have collected so far especially the Cats Paw heel convinced me completely! I can't believe the number of people that continue to write here in a negative manner and putting the Tighar Organization down! There is a "Silent Majority" out here who do believe in your accomplishments and are rooting for you to prove them wrong! Continued success..... Joe W3HNK ******************************* Well, free debate is what it's all about.... keeps us on our toes, anyway. P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:36:33 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Re: Wreck photo Ric I may have missed your response, but you said earlier that the wreck photo had become "irrelevant" or words to that effect? Marty Joy ******************************* Well, in light of what we found out this summer, and what we are now thinking, if we are right, the wreck photo cannot be Earhart's aircraft. That's a lot of ifs. This should be covered fairly completely in the next section of the Expedition Report, which will be out (I hope) this weekend on the Forum. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:37:16 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: DFing >Can "Drifting" have been " DFing". > >"We are DFing but cannot hear you" > > I know someone will say. How can you DF if you can't hear anybody? I >think AE was rotating the loop in an attempt to increase the sensitivity >of the antenna enough to be able to hear someone. She was doing the only >thing she could do to the radio to help pick up something. She was >telling the Itasca in as few words as possible what she was doing. You know, Ric, Darryl might just be on to something here. Imagine yourself in the Itasca radio room, straining to hear her words. "DF'ing" would probably not come through very clearly in the best of conditions. This makes sense to me. Does that put me in the whacko camp with Darryl? LTM (who always did mutter a little on the radio) Tom #2179 Tom Robison ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:46:43 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Beer and drifting Sure there was canned beer around back then. My dad's overseas "command" in 1944-45 was the Deepak Mahal, a luxury hotel in Bombay, India, which the US Army had commandeered as a R&R camp for weary GI's. Dad had hotel experience so they shipped him out of Fort Dix to run the place. An immediate headache upon taking command was what to do with an oversupply of government-issue Falstaff, in the olive-drab cans mentioned by Tim Smith. The stuff wasn't that good to begin with and it wasn't getting any better under in an unrefrigerated warehouse. The men wouldn't touch the stuff, and, to make matters worse, the lease on the warehouse was about to expire. What's a fella to do with a couple thousand cases of warm, skunky GI beer? You guessed it. The British R&R camp down the street was sitting on a huge shipment of Ballantine's scotch, which was sitting largely untouched while King George's boys were clamoring for their pints. So dad traded the Limeys straight up. One case of scotch for one case of beer. Cleaned out the whole warehouse. Obviously, since then my father has not been much impressed with British intelligence (military or otherwise). I know that's not much of a war story, but for you veterans and sons of veterans out there, remember it was guys like my dad who provided the real heroes a brief respite from the horrors of war. Now to keep this post even arguably on topic: I agree with Vern Klein. Don't think there's any way Amelia would have known she was "drifting" unless someone on the receiving end told her, and her receiver obviously was hors de combat. Much as it pains me to agree with Ric, I think "listening" makes more sense and the words are congruent phonetically, unlike "DF'ing". Thanks for the info on Electra fuel capacities. Knew I could get it out of you.... *************************** That's actually a pretty good war story, Patrick---- a little reality, although not very John Wayne-ish. No more beer posts, though. Sorry, everyone, but I have a feeling that it's a topic that could *really* subsume the list. Radio types, could AE have known she was drifting off-frequency unless someone on the receiving end told her? P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:47:11 EDT From: Mike Rejsa Subject: Re: DFing > Darryl > "We are DFing but cannot hear you" Darryl, I like that even better than my guess ('drift' misuse). Sounds very similar, expresses a likely occurence, *and* is reasonably good English for our acronym-laden century. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:48:32 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Crystals >Vern Klein says radio transmitter was crystal controlled. In those days, the >best they could do was have prewound coils to control frequency. Crystals >were not in use until VHF came along. Western Electric, who made AE's Model 13 transmitter, offered 2 crystal & 3 crystal models. AE had the '2 crystal model', 3105 & 6210 kc. Vern was correct. If Tet had said 'not in wide use before the war' he would have been right. However, even before WW II when I worked for W.E., they were 'growing crystals' for their K-2 carrier system and their radio business. RC 941 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:26:46 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Winds There is not a lot of wind information at elevation other than at Howland itself, and that only during the day. We can extrapolate winds at the sea surface from the Itasca and Ontario/Nauru, but that doesn't give us a lot of constraints. Running Monte Carlo simulations on AE's navigation suggests that the more likely scenario is that she ended up SW of Howland, due to stronger headwinds at the beginning of her flight, and slightly more northerly winds at the end than forecast. LTM, who doesn't like winds to pick up her dress ala M.Monroe. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:33:20 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Other islands Thanks to Forest for bringing up the subject of the other islands. As long as the subject was brought up, I would like to know what islands the TIGHAR group visited. I think Tom King said you visited one or two of the other islands early on. I know it is probably in the TIGHAR tracks articles somewhere. I would like to read it there also, it you can point me in the right direction. It is so much easier to ask the Masters than to go searching in all that stuff. Don ************************* The only other island we visited was McKean, a barren outcropping of coral which is home to roughly one million seabirds. You can smell it from a mile off shore, and hear it farther than that. The vegetation there maxes out at about 24 inches, and the lagoon is a skim of water over an apparently bottomless pit of guano. There are the remains of walls of buildings from the guano mining activities of the late 1800s there, and nothing else. It is quite certain that had the Electra landed there, it and its crew would have been clearly visible to the Colorado pilots, who overflew it. Check out the TIGHAR Tracks which had reports of the first expedition.... probably winter 1989/spring 1990... don't remember which issues. We've never had the funds to investigate any of the other islands. The ship charters at $4200/day plus food and fuel, and you are talking a number of days to go 'round the group. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:36:17 EDT From: Joe Subject: Re: Drifting She couldn't drift if she was crystal-controlled...if vfo (variable frequency oscillator) controlled, yes, unless she had a scope or if her gear was digital and I doubt that. Otherwise it would have to come from the receiving source to tell her she was "drifting" off frequency! W3HNK ************************ Mike Everette! Where are you now that I need you? Pat ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:37:02 EDT From: Robert Klaus Subject: DFing To jump into the phonetics debate: If she was stating that she was using the DF loop she might have used the word "Deefing" (two syllables) rather than "Dee Eff ing" (three syllables. This would match the sound of "Drifting" much more closely. I've never heard that particular contraction used in aviation English (the manual DF loop being out of service) I have used similar created words. Robert Klaus ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:38:39 EDT From: Forest Blair Subject: Itasca actions When radio signal strengths from Amelia reached the maximum S5, which meant that she probably was within 100 miles of the Itasca, did the Itasca start making extra smoke, fire rockets, play searchlights (even in daylight), fire star shells, etc that could possibly be seen by the Electra? The next question is, if not why not? I just keep thinking that with the partial cloud cover, Amelia just flew by Howland. We once flew over it on purpose at 1000-2000ft. It's pretty darn small. Could still see a landing mat runway, though. Doubt the mat was there for Amelia since it probably was developed in WW2. From a true Monday morning q-back Forest #2149 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:40:39 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: IJN broadcasts From Chris Kennedy : ..."Mr. Neumann, do you have some more precise idea of the volume of documents which may exist for, say, all of 1937 and into the middle of 1938? Any ideas on how they are being kept (just stuffed in boxes/divided by year)? Thanks"... *********************************************** In his post of 7/21/99, Randy Jacobson said: ..."I tracked US Navy message traffic increases during the AE loss/No apparent increase in message traffic from May through August, 1937, despite well over 2,500 Naval messages related to AE!"... *********************************************** ...However, such messages tracked for that period did not include any of the Japanese intercepts, which messages are _still_ classified & probably most are not deccoded or translated. Don't have any idea as to the exact manner in which they are being stored in the National Archives, but Randy said they were kept separate from all unclassified material, probably in file boxes. We have no information as to how they are organized (if at all) nor as to the exact number of intercepts or boxes involved. Randy suggests that it would require proper security clearance to obtain any access to such records. He also learned from an old Washington Post article that ex-WWII crytographers were still engaged in sorting the Japanese & German messages, trying to decode those that weren't during the war years, somewhat of a very daunting task, to say the least. You might find this web page of some interest: ********************************************** NCVA-CRYPTOLOG Frames Pages Address: http//www.usncva.org/clog/index.html *********************************************** This is the publcation for the Naval Cryptological Veterans Association which published a special edition (Fall-1993) on the Naval radio listening post (Station Baker) on Guam, including some very interesting articles written by veterans who served on Guam prior to, during &after WWII. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:43:57 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Re: DFing >From Randy Jacobson > >Good one Daryll: We are DFing but cannot hear you. It doesn't explain, >though, why they heard the 7500kHz signals later on. I think the radio experts should jump in. If the signals were skipping, how would that affect the reception on a loop? She replied about 5 min. after " We are DFing but cannot here you" with "we received your signals but can't get a minimum"( 7500 kc ). I think those quotes are pretty close. I don't know what a signal would sound like between a "skip" and a " just barely in range" signal on a loop. It would seem the direction finder is tuned to 7500 kc and she's talking on her other Frequencies. Wasn't 7500 kc the frequency the Itasca was transmitting weather in 'code' on for the flight? Someone (Itasca ?) requested Tutla, Hawaii, San Francisco to monitor 7500 kc, why they wanted to monitor weather transmissions I don't know. I could be wrong, have to check the radio communications while AE was on Lae, N.G. Daryll ************************* I *think* Mike Everette is on vacation. We may have to wait until he gets back to see what's what. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:44:39 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Re: DFing I wanted to amend my earlier posting. The Itasca was transmitting the letter "A" and the call letters on 7500 kc, not the weather. The Itasca wanted NMC, NPU, NPM ( Hawaii, Samoa, San Francisco ) to listen for the letter "A" (?) or what ever. ********************************************** On 6/26/37 Earhart, for the first time, communicates directly with Black aboard Itasca from Bandoeng, Java: SUGGEST ....... ITASCA TRANSMIT LETTER A POSITION OWN CALL LETTERS AS ABOVE ON HALF HOUR SEVEN POINT FIVE MEGACYCLES STOP....... I WILL GIVE LONG CALL BY VOICE THREE ONE NAUGHT FIVE KCS QUARTER AFTER HOUR POSSIBLE QUARTER TO: EARHART ********************************************** ********************************************** On 6/28/37, the day Earhart arrives in Darwin, Itasca sends the following message to Lae: FOLLOWING FOR AMELIA EARHART PUTNAM LAE QUOTE ITASCA TRANSMITTERS CALIBRATED 7500 6210 3105 500 AND 425 KCS CW AND LAST THREE EITHER CW OR MCW......... ********************************************** The same day Itasca sends this message to Navy Radio Wailupe (Hawaii), Tutilla (Samoa), and CG Hq in San Francisco: TRANSMITTERS CALIBRATED TO 7500 KCS PERIOD WHEN EARHART IS IN FLIGHT IT IS REQUESTED THAT NMC NPU NPM STAND WATCH ON THIS FREQUENCY OF 7500 FOR ITASCA IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE FREQUENCY CHANGES IN TRANSMITTERS ********************************************** Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:45:42 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Drifting > Radio types, could AE have known she was drifting off-frequency unless > someone on the receiving end told her? For what it's worth, (I guess I can't say is worth the cost of a cold beer-:), I don't know much about this radio, but I will bet it had an analog tuner, if for some unknown reason the tuner was moving (slide rule tuners can tend to be touchy to tune), and I don't know how much it would have to move to get off frequency. If the indicator needle moved, you can assume your drifting off frequency. Regards. Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:47:07 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Beer (but no drifting) YES, it's off topic, and YES, I know Pat cut off the discussion, but I must send along one fine story about beer, and courage. After the failure of the hostage rescue mission in Iran in 1980, the crews who survived flew back to a staging base in Oman, to regroup, lick their wounds, and prepare to return to the US. The best book published about the Iranian hostage rescue mission is "The Guts to Try", by Col. James Kyle. Kyle was the on-scene commander at Desert One. He wrote: "By 8:00 a.m. on the morning of April 25, only the C-130 crews, combat controllers, and maintenance personnel remianed as Masirah. "As we were talking, we spotted a small lorry coming down our flight line. It seemed to have come from the other side of the base, near where several British airmen were billeted. "The lorry bounced to a stop in front of our maintenance tent. Two men stepped out, set two boxes down, and sped off in a cloud of dust. "Inside each box was a case of ice-cold beer. Written on the top of one box was a note: 'To you all, from us all, for having the guts to try'." And so as to make this note a little bit on topic, I say all of us "armchair Tigers" here should raise a cupper to Ric and the rest of the expedition crew, for having the guts to try. LTM Tom Robison ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:48:01 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Crystal frequency control For those who may be interested and who were not around in the old days when radio was fun. They didn't have the advantage (and fun!) of growing up with the technology. Sure Amelia's transmitter was crystal controlled. Radio technology had advanced a lot more than many realize by that time. As Bob Sherman has pointed out, the Western Electric 13C transmitter, which appears to be what Amelia had, was offered in several versions. The transmitter could be had with a 500 kc xtal in addition to the two normal communication frequencies. And we have a circuit diagram of a modified 13C transmitter with five xtal controlled frequencies -- 2,000 to 6,000 kc. At that time (mid-1930s) there was still a problem with xtals for frequencies above about 7,000 kc. Radio amateurs were using available commercial xtals in the 40-meter band (7,000 kc) but had to use frequency multiplication for the higher frequency "ham" bands. Harmonic mode xtals had not come on the scene yet. The piezoelectric properties of quartz crystals had been studied since before 1900, however, the first of several patents on xtal circuits for frequency control of radio transmitters was issued to G. W. Pierce in 1924. The first commercial use was in about 1923. In 1926 AM radio broadcast station WEAF, in New York City, became the first station to use xtal control. Within just a few years, all broadcast stations went to xtal control. If you can get hold of an ARRL Handbook, or an issue of "QST," from the early-1930s, you'll see ads by half-a-dozen suppliers of quartz crystals for frequencies up to 7,000 kc. And practically every circuit for any kind of transmitter shown in those publications will use a quartz crystal. The real boost for xtal manufacturing came in late 1939 with the decision to make large scale use of xtal control in military communications. The wisdom of this decision was emphasized by Major General R. B. Colton at a 1944 conference on frequency control in Chicago. He is quoted as saying: "... The Army had radio before they had crystals. Now the Army has communications. That's the difference. Crystals gave us communications." If this isn't already more than anyone really wanted to know about it, There's a very good paper titled: "A History of the Quartz Crystal Industry in the USA," by Virgil E. Bottom at: http://bul.eecs.umich.edu/uffc/fc_history/bottom.html Incidently, that paper made clear why it was that when I arrived in Kansas City, Missouri, shortly after WWII, practically all the engineer types I met had worked in xtal manufacturing. Kansas City and Chicago had been selected as the two inland cities where war-time xtal production would be concentrated. LTM (Who likes to always be on frequency) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:48:46 EDT From: Natko Katicic Subject: Re: alternate theories Bill Leary writes Aug. 18: >According to "Sahara" they already have her body in storage.< Wasn't that Kitty someone or other? And they even found a diary of her last days. Every TIGHAR's dream. I don't think it was AE. Even CC knows she didn't disappear in the desert. Or do we have a new Theory here? kidnapped by Japanese abducted by aliens down in Sahara ... LTM (who also enjoyed her first off-topic posting) Natko. ************************* Why do I let myself get involved in these things? P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:49:33 EDT From: Natko Katicic Subject: Hams If TIGHAR's search for AE teaches us something, then it is perseverance. So I will try once again: I have always wondered what the expression "Ham" exactly means (amateur, semi-pro ?) and where it is derived from (is it an acronym?). Can someone please explain? LTM (who likes to fiddle radio dials) ********************* I have often wondered the same thing. Anyone? P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:28:49 EDT From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Drifting W3HNK is quite right about crystal-controlled units not drifting. Do we have the specs for the equipment that AE was using to receive and transmit? They would certainly clear up a great deal of speculation about the "drifting" quotation. Also, could it be possible that AE was using the term "drifting" in a navigational connotation, as if to suggest that they had somehow lost the ability to reckon or stay on their course? Something to consider, perhaps! Best Wishes To All, Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, # 2211 :) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:29:32 EDT From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Drifting One more quick comment: don't forget also that tube-type equipment was also greatly subject to frequency drift if the the temperature of the tubes was altered by external conditions. Literally, if a breeze blew into the back of the set and chilled the tubes by a few degrees, the radio would drift. Best wishes, Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, # 2211 :) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:32:35 EDT From: Clyde Miller Subject: Re: alternate theories I thought the body in the confederate ironclad in "Sahara" was President Lincoln. Unless of course we're talking about the movie "Sahara" and then it would have been Humphrey Bogart in an iron tank. Which some how brings us back to fuel "Tanks" and now we're back on topic! Clyde (who has too much time on his hands) *********************** Enough!!! UNCLE!!!! stop this before we hurt ourselves P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:33:18 EDT From: Ken Knapp Subject: Re: Drifting AE couldn't know if she was 'drifting'. if her transmitter was drifting, she would have to be informed of that fact by the receiving station (Itasca). And since she states that she cannot hear them, she would have no way of knowing if her receiver was drifting. Also, I think the thought that she may have said "DFing" rather than "listening" has merit. I just wonder, though, if that term would have been used at that time. We could be applying a term used today to a time when it was not used. Ken Knapp ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:34:11 EDT From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: shoe evidence So, what happened to the guy with the evidence "to completely destroy" TIGHARS' shoe and heel evidence? I am listening but can not hear you! Richard Johnson ********************* Dunno. I guess he'll surface..... P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:35:16 EDT From: Margo Still Subject: Re: Hams The most common explaination of "HAM" is that it is a corruption of the word amateur. There are other explaination floating around but this is the most generally accepted among HAM operators. Hope this helps. Love the forum. MStill ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:36:07 EDT From: Kathi Hilton Subject: Re: Hams Here is the explaination I was given thirty some years ago. I can't say as to it's accuracy, however. Years ago there were some radio operators who used Hammerlund radio equipment; the word 'Ham' (so I was told when I asked the same question) sort of stuck as a nickname even tho not all 'Hams' of that era used the Hammerlund equipment. Rather that calling these people Hammerlund radio operators, which would give the Hammerlund Radio Company count- less free advertising, the name was simply shortened by the press to 'ham'. The words 'Ham Radio Operator or 'Ham' are still used to this day; although personally, I prefer Amateur Radio Operator. However, the press will always use 'Ham' because it takes less space to print and is instantly recognized pretty much world wide. I've been licensed continuously since 1967, and served a year in Vietnam with the Air Force as an airborne radio operator for a search and rescue unit. 73 (best regards) Kathi Hilton - N0FKA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:36:38 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Itasca actions Sorry, but the mat was installed on Baker Island, not Howland. Howland never had a plane land on it in its entire career. One plane ditched just offshore, and motored up to it, though, during WWII. Itasca started making smoke about 0630 that morning, but nothing else we are aware of. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:38:02 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: alternate theories > From Natko > > Bill Leary writes Aug. 18: > > >According to "Sahara" they already have her body in storage. > > Wasn't that Kitty someone or other? And they even found a diary > of her last days. No. They FOUND Kitty Mannock crashed in a dry wash, with her log. When St. Julien Perlmutter gets into the Archival Safekeeping Depository looking for information on the C.S.S. Texas the text mentions "The bones of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan and the Japanese records of their execution in Saipan,...". > Every TIGHAR's dream. I don't think it was AE. Even CC knows > she didn't disappear in the desert. Or do we have a new Theory here? No, you just remembered the wrong person. CC, however, does seem to think she was captured by the Japanese... at least for the sake of this book. Back on topic for a moment, did Amelia keep a log or diary or anything like that in the plane with her? - Bill ******************************* She was writing chunks of the book "World Flight" and sending them home... no doubt there was an aircraft/flight log. We don't have any specific info about anything else. P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:41:33 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Beer cans and radio Tet, I am afraid you're definitely mistaken. Crystal control was most assuredly in use in 1937 and had been since the 20s. I have the schematic diagram of this transmitter, a Western Electric Model 13CB. Vern Klein is indeed correct with regard to AE's transmitter. It most emphatically was crystal controlled. The receiver was of the tunable variety. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:42:10 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Circling In my opinion, considering radio technology and the circumstances, neither "drifting" nor "DFing" make any sense at all. I could buy "listening" but I like "circling" better. And it does have the merit of being "contemporaneous documentation," although involving a change of mind about what she was believed to actually have said. Amelia and Fred believed thay had arrived in the near vicinity of Howland. Amelia had just said, "We must be on you but cannot see you." Why fly away from that location? It seems very reasonable to me that they would circle about while continuing to attempt to make contact with the Itasca. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:43:43 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The great fuel debate Mike Meunich asks: <> There is no confusion. The Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection Report specifies that the aircraft has two 81 gallon tanks. The locations of these tanks, and the others, are shown in a schematic attached to an earler (November 1936) inspection. The 81 gallon tanks are in the forward part of the inboard wing sections between the engines and the fuselage. It was one of those tanks (no way to be sure which one, but it doesn't matter) that was not filled. None of the original sources make any reference to a "short" tank or a "take off" tank. Those are not standard aviation terms and, as far as I can tell, are merely descriptive phrases used by the author of that message. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:44:18 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Verbosity Unlimited Way to go, Ric! If you don't want to answer the question, smother them with erudition! "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive . . . ." (Little Orphan Annie, quoting Sir Walter Scott) Politely, without a hint of sarcasm (really!). Cam Warren [space here for snappy comeback] ****************************************** From Ric I take it then that you are now openly accusing me of trying to deceive. Is that correct? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:45:27 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Radio issues Pat, I have not been on vacation... have had much computer problems such that I couldn't access my e-mail for several days. I, too, think Daryll may be onto something with the "Dee-Eff-ing" idea (vs. "Drifting") As for the actual use of the term "drifting" I don't think AE would have used the word. It is indeed correct that she would not have known her transmitter was "drifting" unless someone ELSE told her. And, with crystal control -- which this transmitter most definitely used -- "drifting" was not likely, albeit possible if the crystal was defective... but I am 99.9999% sure we can discount that possibility and let the thread die without further debate. In the case of the receiver, it could indeed "drift" off frequency since it was tunable rather than crystal controlled; however, this is not a term I see AE using... I don't think she'd have known this 'radio jargon" unless she was indeed misusing a term she'd picked up in a conversation somewhere. I don't believe this though. The term is more properly used by radio operators, technicians or engineers to describe what happens electrically in an oscillator circuit. As for tuning-around on the receiver in an attempt to find the Itasca's signal, this isn't the same as "drifting." By the way, this radio was tuned remotely from a control head mounted near the instrument panel. The dial was circular, not slide-rule style. The control head was connected to the receiver tuning mechanism through a tach-shaft, similar to an aotomotive speedometer cable. The receiver was mounted underneath the right-hand seat in the cockpit. (And if the plane was ditched, the cockpit floor undoubtedly would be underwater, which would nuke the receiver REAL QUICK; not to mention many other key parts of the a/c electrical system... we can rule out radio use after a ditching.) I don't think the loop's range should have been considered as limited to only 100 miles or so either, especially on low and medium frequencies. I have used aircraft ADF sets (including one dating from near this era) to take bearings on broadcast stations clean across the continent at sunrise and at night. (I live in NC) As for what it might have done at HF... well, we still have not settled the issue of whether AE carried any HF/DF gear aboard NR16020, or whether she might have been trying to use her low/med freq loop in a manner and at a frequency for which it was not intended. One posting wondered whether AE might have had a "scope" to set frequencies on her radios. No. She would have not carried an oscilloscope because (a) she would not have known how to use one, and would not have wanted the extra weight -- 'scopes were big and heavy then and also required AC power, not available on the Electra; (b) use of an oscilloscope to set RADIO frequencies was not standard practice in the 30s because the 'scopes available did not have the frequency response capability to reach the HF range -- 100 KHz to 500 KHz was the typical cut-off range of a 'scope video amplifier then; (c) a 'scope by itself was useless for this purpose; a frequency standard was also needed; (d) the accepted method of setting frequencies at this time was comparing them to a calibrated oscillator which was in turn checked against a crystal of high accuracy; this instrument was known as a "heterodyne frequency meter," i.e. a frequency standard. Those who are radio-literate may recognize the US Army BC-221 and Navy LM-series, and the commercial Lampkin 103/105 as examples; there are many others. And AE did not have any kind of digital equipment. Digital was not even a concept in the 30s. The advent of digital technology came along with the first digital computers in the late 40s-early 50s; then began the process of reducing everything to "bytes." Digital really was not viable until the late 60s-early 70s for many applications, because the technology to process the information properly was not yet refined. Again, let's not rule out the possibility that what AE actually meant to say was, "D-Fing" and it might have come out garbled, especially if she was not sure of herself in using the term. Or that she might have voiced it thusly: "deeEFFing" so it might sound like "drifting" especially with the generally poor voice quality of a carbon microphone (which she did use), or that the signal went into a "fade" at that instant which could distort the audio. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:46:16 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: DFing Daryll writes: > I said this on the Forum before, but it seems no-body listens or > cares. Can "Drifting" have been " DFing". "We are DFing but cannot hear you" > > I know someone will say. How can you DF if you can't hear anybody? I >think AE was rotating the loop in an attempt to increase the sensitivity >of the antenna enough to be able to hear someone. She was doing the only >thing she could do to the radio to help pick up something. She was >telling the Itasca in as few words as possible what she was doing.>> ************************************************************************* From Ric Let me review for you what was going on and them you can decide whether you still think she may have said "DFing." Up until this transmission it is very clear that Earhart was trying to get ITASCA to take a DF bearing on her and then tell her which way to fly. She had been whistling into the mic and saying things like "PLEASE TAKE BEARING ON US...." At 07:42 a.m. local time it was apparent that the flight had reached the place where they thought Howland should be, but it wan't there and they hadn't heard any of ITASCA's replies. "WE MUST BE ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE U BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW BEEN UNABLE TO REACH YOU BY RADIO WE ARE FLYING AT 1000 FEET" A few minutes later, at 07:58, Earhart says: WE ARE (?) BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU GA (go ahead) ON 7500 WID (with) A LNG (long) COUNT EITHER NW (now) OR ON THE SKD (scheduled) TIME ON 1/2 HOUR She has apprently given up on the idea of having ITASCA DF on her and decides to try it the other way 'round. She tells ITASCA to transmit " a long count" (count slowly to ten and then back down to one) on 7500 kcs, not realizing that ITASCA has no voice capability on that frequency. She want the signals sent either right now or two minutes from now "on the scheduled time on half hour." (Remember that Earhart is using GCT and, for her, the time is 20:28. ITASCA, contrary to Earhart's earlier request, is using local time.) ITASCA immediately sends out the repeated morse code letter A (dit dah, dit dah, dit dah.....) on 7500 kcs. At 08:00 Earhart says: WE RECD (received) UR (your) SIGS (signals) BUT UNABLE TO GET A MINIMUM (unable to get the loop to give her a "null" so that she can take a bearing) PSE (please) TAKE BEARING ON US AND ANS (answer) 3105 WID (with) VOICE. That didn't work so she goes back to trying to get the ITASCA to do the DFing. It should be clear from the above that it makes no sense for her to say, at 07:58, WE ARE DFING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU She can't be "DFing" if she doesn't have a signal to DF on (which she clearly does not). She is about to request, for the first time, a signal upon which she hopes to DF. Do you agree that we can eliminate: WE ARE DFING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU as a reasonable possibility? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:46:45 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Two cents more "We continue to investigate the hypothesis that the Earhart /Noonan flight ended at Nikumaroro . . . . because it is producing results." Forgive me for being so dense, but could you please tell us what results? Are you referring to a) the bones that you think might be in Fiji and might be Amelia's, b) some anecdotal evidence that the witness describes as some rusty wreckage on the reef, c) a very dubious "heel from Amelia's shoe" and d) a piece of aircraft aluminum that's never been identified? Please explain and maybe you'll win some new converts to the TIGHAR Method of Historical Aircraft Recovery. Respectfully, Cam Warren ************************************ From Ric I will, Cam, I will. But I'll do it on my schedule, not yours. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:48:15 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Other islands Things have been awfully quiet on this Forum lately. What is going on? Are there no posts, or are you too busy to respond? I have a question about the other islands in the Phoenix Group. Again it is probably on the Web site, but it is easier to ask the Masters. Can you tell me what has happened to the islands of Hull and Sydney since the war years. In your research, I'm sure you have some information. I know Hull was inhabited for a period, but for how long and is it still? I do have a printed copy of the Lambrecht report and the report from Capt Friedell, so I know what was going on there at that time. Also, do we know of any other airplane crashes in the Phoenix Group? Besides the C-47 on Sydney I mean. More question later.... Don ********************* None of the Phoenix Islands is inhabited at this time, nor since 1964. P ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:49:39 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Itasca actions Forest Blair asks: >(D)id the Itasca start making extra smoke, fire rockets, play searchlights >(even in daylight), fire star shells, etc that could possibly be seen by the >Electra? The next question is, if not why not? According to the captain's report, the ship was making smoke. According to the ship's log, it started making smoke at about 06:15 which is about an hour and a half before Earhart said, "We must be on you but can not see you..". According to ex-destroyer captain Bob Brandenburg, about a hal-hour's worth of smoke is all a ship can do without seriously endangering the integrity of it's boiler. In other words, there is reason to doubt that ITASCA was making smoke at all at a time when it would have done Earhart any good. No other actions by ITASCA are mentioned in the various sources. As to why not, you'll have to ask the ghost of Commander Warner Thompson. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 20:57:28 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: DFing > Do you agree that we can eliminate: > WE ARE DFING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU as a reasonable possibility? Ric -- I might not be so quick to eliminate that as a possibility. For all we know, she might have referred just the act of listening while you idly spin the loop as "DFing" and, also, the more frustrated she might be, the more she might have said something like that, even if it was a little out of context. The one thing I would do though would be to try to determine if the term, "DFing", had entered any kind of common colloquial usage at that time. Any old time radio DFers out there who might enlighten us from their memory? If the term was in use, then I think that the word DFing does make some sense, particularly in light of the fact that we also know that the log doesn't necessarily reflect ALL of the radio traffic -- they might have "stepped on" some of the transmissions, or failed to record parts of transmissions, as I recall that this is evidenced elsewhere in the logs. Also, Amelia was not always known to use standard radio terminology (nor do most of us, actually). All the best, Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:09:17 EDT From: Pat Ward Subject: Silent majority >I can't believe the number of people that continue to write here >in a negative manner and putting the Tighar Organization down! There is a >"Silent Majority" out here who do believe in your accomplishments and are >rooting for you to prove them wrong! Continued success..... > >Joe W3HNK I'd like to comment on "negative manner" and "prove them wrong". Somehow (ok, I know how), this whole issue of what happened to Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan turned into a brawl between various theorists. There are as many who rally around one general theory as the other. The Silent Majority is whoever you think you are siding with at the time, whatever flag you find yourself rallying around.....at the time. That's human nature.... to want to be a part of the majority. It's how you justify what you think at the time (or where you're putting your hard earned cash), with the information available to you. If this search for the truth about Amelia Earhart is ever.....ever?..... solved, then The Vast Majority of the people of the world aren't going to really care who was "proved wrong". The Vast Majority (in my opinion) will wonder why in the world all these interested people didn't cooperate with each other instead of trying to prove each other wrong! Serious researchers with the purest of motives will put solving the mystery above being "right". They won't mind being "proved wrong". They might wish they had seen it first, or sooner, but they will be infinitely happy that somebody finally did it! .... unless, of course, solving the mystery has some other meaning for them......pmw ********************************** From Ric Let's clarify why TIGHAR is looking for Amelia Earhart in the first place. We're not trying to solve the mystery because it is historically important to know what happened to Earhart. It isn't. We're not trying to solve the mystery to honor Earhart's memory. She already has plenty of admirers. We're not trying to solve the mystery to prove anybody wrong. That's just petty. We're trying to solve the mystery to prove a point - that the truth is accessible to anyone who will take the time to learn and employ the basic principles of the scientific method. This is about learning how to think, how to gather and evaluate evidence, how to develop a hypothesis, how to test that hypothesis, how to analyze the results of that testing to improve the hypothesis and test it again, and perhaps ultimately, to be able to reach a rational conclusion. The Earhart Project is an educational vehicle - for us and for everyone else who struggles with the puzzle along with us. That's why I'm so insistent that Cam Warren and others accept some basic principles of historical investigation before we debate specific points of fact. The process of getting there is far more important than the destination. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:11:08 EDT From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: other islands << None of the Phoenix Islands is inhabited at this time >> Then who were all those people we met on Kanton? LTM, Russ ************************* Obviously, they were figments of your imagination.... or else, residents of an island which is part of the Phoenix Group but a certain person (moi) has trouble remembering that fact. Love to Mother, who occasionally (just occasionally) makes stupid mistakes... Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:11:45 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Drifting (aimlessly!) Sheesh! Talk about flogging a dead horse! And trying desperately to prove a premise that was flimsy to begin with! So maybe you've divined that the ITASCA operator changed "drifting" to "circling". Maybe because the concensus was that AE really was heard to say "circling". Odds are she did, and was. She was that kind of a pilot. No, she wouldn't have said "drifting". (I'd bet 1000 Kiribati clam shells on that!). And most particularly not with reference to her transmitter; it's common knowledge that was crystal- controlled. As for her communications receiver, it wasn't working anyway, and finally, AE didn't know diddly about radio. (And please, no lectures on the TIGHAR "scientific approach"!) What deep dark secret do you expect to discover with "drifting"? And why do you fight "circling" (the accepted, and most logical word? By your own admission, "listening" would be seem more likely, but didn't fit.) You people are capable of serious research - or so you claim - why are you grabbing at specks while the pepper blows away? Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Well Cam. We agree on one point. "Drifting" doesn't make any sense and I hope we're through with it. I fight "circling" for the same reason you like it. Circling is not a rational thing for Earhart to be doing and you believe that irrational decisions were part of her pattern of behavior. I don't. The image of AE as an imcompetent stumblebum is one that was cultivated by Warner Thompson in his official report in order to exonerate himself from any culpability in the tragedy. To buy into that image and say that "circling" is probably correct because that's the kind of pilot she was is - well - circular. We will, of course, never know for sure what that word was, but in trying to make an accurate assessment of whether or not the crew of NR16020 was functioning professionally in the emergency it is important to know that there is reason to doubt that she was ever circling. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:13:01 EDT From: Jaume Balaguer Subject: Re: DFing I'm enjoying a lot the discussion about the radio broadcast, and I think you are very near of the real words of Amelia, you are doing, as usual, a great job. I agree with Daryl, DF is a good possibility, I also believe Ric have another good one. But reading some information about Amelia, I find a word that could also be possible: SHIFTING. Shifting making reference to the action to shift the radio transmitter frequency, trying to find an "usable" frequency. I know that is as not as good as some of your hypothesis, but its a possibility. SHIFTING, contain -IFTING like drifting, and know imagine that the radio listener remember that the word begins or sounds like SH... He thought it was Circling but maybe it was Shifting. Amelia must be very tired from his Trans pacific flight, and she could omit some words like: WE ARE SHIFTING THE RADIO TRANSMITER BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU. If a made a mistake or if my hypothesis is impossible, please, don't keep in mind my fault, I'm learning English and I'm not sure if I'm right. One thing more: Was the sky cloudy that day? Because if it was, maybe she had problems to distingish the islands, because "If there are any clouds about to make shadows one is likely to see much imaginary land" (words of Amelia). LTM (Hope to be useful...) Jaume ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:14:17 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: DFing Jaume Balaguer writes: >... reading some information about Amelia, I find a word that could >also be possible: SHIFTING. Shifting making reference to the action to shift >the radio transmitter frequency, trying to find an "usable" frequency. I agree with you that "shifting" is a possiblity but I still prefer "listening." We'll never know for sure. The important thing is to recognize that there is reason to question that she was circling. >One thing more: Was the sky cloudy that day? Because if it was, maybe she >had problems to distingish the islands, because "If there are any clouds >about to make shadows one is likely to see much imaginary land" (words of >Amelia). Yes. There were scattered clouds whose shadows on the water may have looked like islands. (and your English is mucho mejor than my Spanish) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:15:08 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Circling Vern says: >Amelia and Fred believed thay had arrived in the near vicinity of Howland. >Amelia had just said, "We must be on you but cannot see you." Why fly away >from that location? It seems very reasonable to me that they would circle >about while continuing to attempt to make contact with the Itasca. Well, this is another one of those opinion things we could probably debate forever without really resolving anything. I would say that AE and Fred had surely anticipated the possibility that Howland might not appear on schedule. The "we must be on you" transmission came at 07:42 and it hardly seems reasonable to me that they would still be hanging around the one place where they knew Howland wasn't a full quarter of an hour later. If they were on the LoP (as indicated by the 08:43 transmission), the rational thing to do would be to head northwestward along that line as far as they dared before turning back to the southeastward while they still had enough fuel to guarantee landfall if not at Howland, then at Baker, McKean or Gardner. They can continue to try to raise Howland while they take meaningful action. Circling just burns precious fuel. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:15:44 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: DFing Mike Everette writes: >Again, let's not rule out the possibility that what AE actually meant to say >was, "D-Fing" I say again, look at the context of the message. She is not DFing. At his time she doesnt have anything to DF on. R ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:17:15 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: DFing/Circling For What It's Worth Department.... Talked to two old capt.'s and a '36 'pursuit pilot'. None of them had ever heard the term, DF-ing. All three came up with RDF which was the name of the radio direction finding charts [in use until 1955 at least] and of course ADF; but DF-ing was something new to them. Does not prove that AE didn't say that, but sure doesn't substantiate the use of the term. On 'circling', they chided me. All agreed - with grins - that circling was a perfectly good navigational manuever, and whoever denied using it it was a liar. Two of them had extensive over water experience and all said that when they first heard of the event in '37 that they thought anyone attempting to hit an island ... even the size of Hawaii (which had a radio range) without expecting to either take or receive a radio bearing was nuts. In any event they think that given the same circumstances of believing they were there but didn't see the ship or island, they would have made a circle or two first before agonizing about what to do, but might not xmit the fact. RC 941 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:18:03 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Other islands To elaborate a little on Pat's answer to Don Jordan's query about the history of the other islands Phoenix Group: Hull was the only island of the Group that was inhabited at the time of Earhart's disappearance. A guy named John Williams Jones was there supervising a work party of Tokelau islanders who were planting coconut trees under contract to Burns Philp Co., an Australian firm. They had done some work at Sydney also but had moved everyone back to Hull by July. (That's why Lambrecht and company saw huts but no people at Sydney.) No work was done at Gardner. The British put a couple of guys and a radio on Canton late in 1937. When the British set up P.I.S.S. they settled only three islands of the Phoenix Group - Sydney, Hull, and Gardner. Because Sydney and Hull already had trees planted they could support larger populations than Gardner which was still undeveloped. Pan Am developed Canton as a seaplane base for refueling flights to Samoa and New Zealand. During the war, of course, Canton became a huge facility. After the war it became a major refueling stop for transpacific traffic. When Canton was shut down in the early '60s with the coming of jet travel, the British also shut down the settlements on Sydney, Hull and Gardner. Nobody has lived there since. Canton became the downrange headquarters of a USAF missile testing program (SAMTEC) in the early 1970s. During that operation helicopters visited all of the other islands of the Group but there was no permanent settlement. When the islands became part of the newly formed Republic of Kiribati in 1979 a small administrative population was put on Canton (now Kanton) and is still there. No settlement or resettlement of the other islands has yet been undertaken. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:18:51 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: circling As I have said before, I too have no problem with "circling". AE and FN could have circled for some period of time before possibily heading off in the direction of Gardner. william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:19:45 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Itasca actions I was under the impression that there has been an airstrip on Howland at least since the WW2 era. Anyone? william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:22:37 EDT From: Forest Blair Subject: Winds again For Randy Jacobson, Don't understand how you obtained your wind data. What is Ontario/Nauru? How do you know the winds were "slightly more northerly" at the end? Do you have weather logs from the Itasca? How come in the article "Log Jam" it reads the Itasca was reporting "easterly winds at 7 knots" in the AM on 2 July? What if Noonan had calculated headings on the basis of the stronger headwinds at the start for a longer period than they actually were? Was weather info sent to him during the flight? Since in "Log Jam" the comment was made that the Itasca sent weather in code which neither Amelia nor Fred could "read", how did they get weather info after Lae? Is that the Ontario/Nauru bit? What are Monte Carlo simulations? Forest #2149 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:27:41 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: Circling > From Vern > > In my opinion, considering radio technology and the circumstances, neither > "drifting" nor "DFing" make any sense at all. I could buy "listening" but I > like "circling" better. And it does have the merit of being > "contemporaneous documentation," although involving a change of mind about > what she was believed to actually have said. > > Amelia and Fred believed thay had arrived in the near vicinity of Howland. > Amelia had just said, "We must be on you but cannot see you." Why fly away > from that location? It seems very reasonable to me that they would circle > about while continuing to attempt to make contact with the Itasca. Circle about what? Depending upon the great fuel debate, they could have circled for minutes or hours. Minutes might make sense, since there aren't many alternatives, but after the first few circles without success, they are going to plan "B" if they have any fuel reserves. The island isn't going to suddenly appear and I don't see Noonan staying in the vicinity longer than he has fuel remaining to get to an alternate. AE and FN both knew the time/distance/fuel equation and I think we can assume they knew how much fuel was left, even if we don't. If you are an advocate of TIGHAR's theory, and as previously noted during the series of comments in late July, in this forum, the sunrise LOP gave them their position easterly, (not necessarily east of Howland), and someone elected 157/337. 157 takes them to the Phoenix group, his only realistic alternative, plan "B", and he is leaving the area while he still has fuel to get there. While they both made numerous errors in judgment about the flight, I don't see either of them aimlessly circling a spot on the ocean, like McAwber (sic), waiting for something to turn up--they both had to know it wouldn't. Circle to a watery grave, 157 to the Phoenix Group, or 337 to ? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:19:11 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: LOP Here is a thought about the LOP and the procedure FN may have used when he reached that point. In an earlier post, Ric said something like, "Why circle in one spot. That would just burn precious fuel". True, but so would flying back over your same track! I believe the theory is that when Fred reached the 157-337 LOP, the may have circled for maybe 30 minutes while trying to figure out what the hell went wrong. That would be logical. They may have tried to figure out whether they were short or long. They were trying to make contact, but when that failed, they had to decide which way to turn on the LOP. As discussed before, turning north to 337 degrees would be logical. Flying that heading for about one hour would be logical. But then, at the end of the run, turning around and flying right back down the line on 157 degrees over the same track of empty ocean would not seem logical! It would have only burned two hours of fuel for nothing. One hour to get up there and one hour to get back. I would think that the thing to do, would be to turn 90 degrees left or right and fly that heading for about 30 minutes, so that when you turned south to 157 degrees, you could cover new ground. (water) As I understand this "LOP" thing, if FN could see the sun rise and new the time of sun rise at Howland, then he would have been on the LOP line that passed Howland. At that point, flying up or down the LOP would have found the island. Piece of cake! Obviously his LOP didn't go through Howland, if it did I think he would have found the island, or seen the smoke. I think he would have to have been short or long. (Unknown head wind, or lack there of.) If he were long and turned 90 degrees right before going south, they could have flown right in between McKean and Birnie and hit Hull Island. Depending on how "long" of course. If they were short and turned right 90 degrees before going south, they would have seen Howland, Baker McKean or Niku. But if they were short and turned left 90 degrees before going south. . . it's all over. There is nothing there but water, water and more water. Because of that fact, I don't think they would have turned left. You would have to over shoot Howland by about 380 mile before a turn to the south would not hit land somewhere in the Phoenix Group. Of course this is only my opinion, but the point is that I don't think they would have turn right around and flown directly over the route they just covered. And, since virtually all the islands are east of Howland, making a jog to the left (west) would not seem logical. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:20:53 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Circling Ric, you say: >The "we must be on you" transmission >came at 07:42 and it hardly seems reasonable to me that they would still be >hanging around the one place where they knew Howland wasn't a full quarter of >an hour later. (The "We are circling..." message is entered as: 07:58 A.M. VK) I agree that is rather a long time to be "station keeping" while fiddling with the receiver hoping to hear something -- and trying the loop. I'd not noticed there was that much time difference in the two messages. I still think circling a few times in the place where they believed the island should be would be a reasonable thing to do before giving up on the radio (or sighting the island) and heading for the Phoenix islands. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:21:43 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Itasca actions The only airstrip on Howland was the one build in 1937, and no plane ever landed on Howland. During WWII, Baker had a metal runway installed, and was used as a staging area for flights between Canton, Samoa, Funafuti, and I believe one of the Gilbert Islands. Photos from circa 1979 show lush vegetation (grasses) between the metal links on the runway, whereas the rest of the island is bare. This is because iron is a nutrient needed for vegetation growth. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:23:41 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Winds again > From Forest Blair > > For Randy Jacobson, > > Don't understand how you obtained your wind data. What is Ontario/Nauru? USS Ontario was the ship located 1/2 way between Lae and Howland. Nauru is an island about 80 miles north of the Ontario position, and provided weather information to Lae prior to takeoff. > How do you know the winds were "slightly more northerly" at the end? They were more northerly than the forecasts provided AE prior to her takeoff. > Do you have weather logs from the Itasca? Yes, including those provided by the radiomen to AE as she approached Howland. We do not think she received or understood the code. > How come in the article "Log Jam" it reads the Itasca was reporting > "easterly winds at 7 knots" in the AM on 2 July? More northerly means in this case winds coming from less than 90 degrees. What if Noonan had calculated headings on the basis of the stronger headwinds at the start for a longer period than they actually were? If it was a pure headwind, no course correction was needed. The available data (first real position report and report of sighted ship) implies that they were essentially on track for the first part of the trip, but potentially delayed due to stronger headwinds. > Was weather info sent to him during the flight? Yes, but it is unknown if they ever received it, and if they did, understood it. >Since in "Log Jam" the comment was made that the Itasca sent weather in >code which neither Amelia nor Fred could "read", how did they get weather >info after Lae? No one has implied that they in fact did get weather info after Lae. > Is that the Ontario/Nauru bit? No. See above. > What are Monte Carlo simulations? They are brute force computer simulations, based upon statistical variations, and literally thousands of runs are made in accordance with guestimated statistical variances of wind speed, wind direction, flight direction, etc. The results, if the inputs are reasonable, provide an indication (careful use of phrase) of what might have happened, and can show inconsistencies between individual input data. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:24:19 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Deceivery? [at 0758 Earhart says] , > WE ARE [DEE-EFFING] BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU > At 08:00 Earhart says: > WE RECD (received) UR (your) SIGS (signals) BUT UNABLE TO GET > A MINIMUM > (unable to get the loop to give her a "null" so that she can > take a bearing) > PSE (please) TAKE BEARING ON US AND ANS (answer) 3105 WID > (with) VOICE. Maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't see why she couldn't have said she was DFing at 0758 when she was clearly DFing two minutes later. william #2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric Aside from indications that the term "DFing" was not in use in 1937, she couldn't have been DFing before she had even asked for the signals she was hoping to DF upon. Maybe an analogy will help. Guy walks into a bar. He trys to order a beer but the bartender won't wait on him. So he says: I AM (?) BUT CANNOT GET YOUR ATTENTION. PLEASE GIVE ME A HEINEKEN DRAFT. The "circling" advocates are arguing that he probably said, I AM PACING BUT CANNOT GET YOUR ATTENTION. You're arguing that he might have, I AM DRINKING BUT CANNOT GET YOUR ATTENTION. I'm suggesting that he most likely said, I AM TALKING BUT CANNOT GET YOUR ATTENTION. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 16:54:18 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: Scientific Truth Natko Katicic, in his posting of Scientific Truth, and Pat, in her response refers to science and historical truth. In particular, Pat stated: >We have actually dabbled with the thought of modelling the whole Earhart thing as a probability study [but] haven't found a volunteer mathematician who was willing to crunch it for us ... Even in physics and mathematics, the "best" models are those that work in the real world, accounting for all the facts.< Perhaps I can help in modelling AE's flight. I had independently taken a similar approach several months ago, and developed a computerized program to track, as far as is possible, AE's actual flight. I put my spherical trigonometry experience and computer backgound into good use, breaking the problem into four steps: A) Determining a most likely path that AE followed assuming "perfect" great circle navigation. B) Comparing this with actual information from the flight. C) Reviewing sources of potential errors and their likely impact. D) Forecasting AE's most probable final position. In the first stage, I tried to include such factors as great circle position, the increase in Air Speed as a function of fuel (i.e. weight) remaining, the effect on altitude changes, wind and direction on the distance flown each hour, etc. During the second I compared the known flight information with this computerized flight plan. This stage produced a few surprises (to me, at least), especially bearing on when and where Noonan might have selected an offset and follow a 157/337 LOP. The third and fourth steps are being checked now, and the results should be available shortly. However I have progressed far enough to develop preliminary information which supports (surprise) the theory that she landed on Nikumaroro (Gardner Island). If this is of any interest, I can send you a aeries of postings (every couple of days) stepping the forum through this approach, listing the major assumptions, and a series of conclusions. Of course I realize this approach may not be accurate or even of interest, but I still believe it might be helpful as a "scientific" approach. Harry #2300 PS - I still hope to be of help on the next edition. *************************************************************************** From Ric Sounds fascinating. The validity of the conclusions, of course, depend upon the validity of the assumptions and I see a couple of problems right away. Airspeed does not increase as fuel is burned off. Power is reduced to conserve fuel and airspeed remains constant at the most efficient figure for a particular aircraft (in the case of NR16020, 150 mph/130 knots). You also seem to be assuming that Noonan selected an offset on his approach to Howland. I know of no evidence that he did so and some pretyy compelling evidence that he did not. What you're doing sounds somewhat similar to the Monte Carlo simulation that Randy Jacobson worked on. Assumming we can all agree on what assumptions can be made, it might be a useful exercise. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 16:55:25 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: 2 x 4 Greetings to Ric, The old man lifted his Grandson up onto the wagon seat. The old man reaches under the seat and grabs a 3 foot length of 2 x 4. He walks to the front of the wagon and stands before the team of mules. He raises the 2 x 4 and WHACKS them once each between the eyes. The old man then walks back and climbs aboard and sits next to his grandson. The little boy asks, " Grandpa why do you whack the mules on their heads with the board every time we take the wagon somewhere"? And the Grandpa said, " I just do that to get their ATTENTION boy". ********************************************** The Itasca has BEEN sending out signals on 7500 kc all along, on schedule as agreed upon by AE, GP, and the Itasca. ************************************** < from Ric It should be clear from the above that it makes no sense for her to say, at 07:58, WE ARE DFING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU She can't be "DFing" if she doesn't have a signal to DF on (which she clearly does not). iShe is about to request, for the first time, a signal upon which she hopes to DF. Do you agree that we can eliminate: WE ARE DFING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU as a reasonable possibility? LTM, Ric > No! The only reason I'm not letting this go is because I just can't understand (believe) how your process of deduction operates. You base your conclusion on this one little item because you think that the Itasca was sitting idly by waiting for AE to contact them so they could start transmitting a homing signal ?? If the officer that was in charge of the radio room performed his duties that way, He should have been court-martialed . She has had signals being transmitted to her all along from the Itasca. The Itasca is transmitting the Letter "A" and call letters, since at some point after the flight became airborne. I have presented your own documentation below to back up my position that the Itasca had a schedule for the transmission of the homing signal and it wasn't dependant on AE's request. On 6/30/37 Earhart indicates that she will be expecting a LONG CONTINUOUS SIGNAL ON APPROACH. That was the signal she was "DFing" for that she could not hear. I don't think I can explain it any more clearly, whether you accept it or not. If you can't present documentation to back up your position, then I consider this matter not debatable. Daryll ********************************************** On 6/26/37 Earhart, for the first time, communicates directly with Black aboard Itasca from Bandoeng, Java: SUGGEST..... ITASCA TRANSMIT LETTER A POSITION OWN CALL LETTERS AS ABOVE ON HALF HOUR SEVEN POINT FIVE MEGACYCLES STOP POSITION SHIPS AND OUR LEAVING WILL DETERMINE BROADCAST TIMES SPECIFICALLY ...... I WILL GIVE LONG CALL BY VOICE THREE ONE NAUGHT FIVE KCS QUARTER AFTER HOUR POSSIBLE QUARTER TO: EARHART ********************************************** On 6/28/37, the day Earhart arrives in Darwin, Itasca sends the following message to Lae: FOLLOWING FOR AMELIA EARHART PUTNAM LAE QUOTE ITASCA TRANSMITTERS CALIBRATED 7500 6210 3105 500 AND 425 KCS CW AND LAST THREE EITHER CW OR MCW PERIOD .....REQUEST WE BE ADVISED AS TO TIME OF DEPARTURE AND ZONE TIME TO BE USED ON RADIO SCHEDULES PERIOD ITASCA AT HOWLAND ISLAND DURING FLIGHT ********************************************** The same day Itasca sends this message to Navy Radio Wailupe (Hawaii), Tutilla (Samoa), and CG Hq in San Francisco: TRANSMITTERS CALIBRATED TO 7500 KCS PERIOD WHEN EARHART IS IN FLIGHT IT IS REQUESTED THAT NMC NPU NPM STAND WATCH ON THIS FREQUENCY OF 7500 FOR ITASCA IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE FREQUENCY CHANGES IN TRANSMITTERS ********************************************** Later on 6/30/37 earhart sends this message to Black aboard Itasca:.......... NOW UNDERSTAND ITASCA VOICING THREE ONE NAUGHT FIVE ON HOUR AND HALF HOUR WITH LONG CONTINUOUS SIGNAL ON APPROACH ..... EARHART ********************************************** Earhart receives this message in reply: ....... ITASCA WILL TRANSMIT LETTER A WITH CALL LETTERS REPEATED TWICE END EVERY MINUTE ON HALF HOUR AND HOUR ON 7.5 MEGACYCLES WILL BROADCAST VOICE ON 3105 KCS ON REQUEST OR START WHEN WITHIN RANGE ************************************************************************** From Ric You are correct. It's very clear that the agreed upon plan was for ITASCA to send "A"s on 7500 on the hour and half hour. The ship's log documents that they did send "A"s on 7500 at the prescribed times. It is also clear that Earhart did not hear any of these tranmissions until she asked ITASCA, at 07:58, to do exactly what they had been doing all along. When, at 08:00, ITASCA sent "A"s on 7500, Earhart miraculously hears them. I can think of only two reasonable explanations for this phenomenon: 1. ITASCA's signals are so weak, or Earhart's ability to receive them is so limited, that she has to be very close before she can pick up the transmissions. If that is the case, then she could have been trying to DF all along and only now was close enough to hear the "A"s - and she might have said, "We are DFing but cannot hear you." IF the term "DFing" was in use and IF she was misusing the term to mean listening for a signal rather than trying to get a minimum, and IF it has slipped her mind that, at 07:58, ITASCA shouldn't be sending "A"s anyway. 2. A more reasonable explanation would seem to be that she had made no attempt to DF on ITASCA until it became apparent that the easier method of letting them DF on her wasn't working. I don't dispute the documentation you have quoted. I just don't see how it proves, or even suggests, that Earhart was attempting to use her loop antenna prior to 08:00. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:39:01 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: BASIC PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED It appears the good ship TIGHAR has taken a couple of direct hits, and the decks are starting to get slippery with blood. Well, I guess that happens when you keep insisting on "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!". In all sincerity, may I politely point out that much of the misery you have been experiencing is a consequence of your own actions. And even a few of your faithful followers have expressed concern with your frequently abrasive remarks. We "heretics" have occasionally responded in a like manner, mostly due to frustration that a reasonable exchange of dialog apparently cannot occur without potshots from your pen. I can sympathize somewhat; the hundredth question on some bit of trivia can get pretty annoying, but that's the price one pays when you open the floor to all comers. As for your "basic principles of historic investigation", I'll repeat yet again that your rules are just fine with me. The root of the problem is that you continue to break them yourself when convenient (which seems to be most of the time). You honestly may not realize that this is the impression you give people, but instead suffer some subconscious paranoia that THEY are out to get you. I've copied out a few of your past statements to disk; egregious examples of "do as I say - don't do as I do". Suffice to say they prove my point. At the moment, I have no plans to make it public, so you can breathe a sigh of relief. However, it sits here on my shelf. You recently suggested comparing notes to see what we might agree on; and I'm sure common ground exists. Unfortunately that program got no further than the infamous fuel load question. Curiously, we seem to agree on that point, but nothing further has been forthcoming. Older and wiser heads have largely written off Nikumaroro; for reasons I'm sure you are familiar with. (Take another look at your correspondence with Fred Goerner early in 1990, for example). AGAIN I repeat; if you wish to pursue research there by all means do it, but do NOT belittle other theories, at least some of which have as much - or more - circumstantial evidence in their favor as Niku. Incidentally, I certainly do NOT believe Earhart was an "incompetent stumble bum" as you indicate Thompson thought. I note, with interest, that a few other Forum correspondents think that "circling" was quite possibly the proper word. I know you discount Hazelick's report but he was there - you weren't. Yet another case of the Gillespie steam roller at work. And as for my 'profiling" of Earhart, I believe you'll find that such analysis is a perfectly legitimate path to solving a puzzle. I have formed an opinion about Mr. Gillespie too, and it's not altogether complimentary. Note "not altogether"; there ARE some good points to your favor as well. To cite one - you have reluctantly admitted disappointments, such as the Canton engine business that pretty much fell apart. Well enough said. I'm looking forward to your well reasoned and carefully presented case for Nikumaroro. I like to think of myself as an "old school" journalist (circa Cronkite) that maintains an open mind, so if you sell it well enough, I'll be happy to buy it. Sincerely, Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric Allow me to assuage your concern. I am experiencing no misery. If there's blood on the deck I'll leave it to the Forum to decide whose it is. Please spare me (and Amelia) your amateur psychoanalysis and please don't pretend to speak for what impression I give anyone but you. I have tremendous faith that the Forum subscribers are all quite competent to speak for themselves. As for your collection my "egregious examples of 'do as I say - don't do as I do'" let me encourage you to share them with the Forum and anyone else who may be interested. I'm confident that they'll say more about you than about me. (Is attempted blackmail an example of what you mean when you call yourself an "old school journalist?") I'm glad to hear that you accept basic principles of historical investigation but I'm less than encouraged when you turn right around and say something like: <> One more time, Cam. I don't "discount" Hanzlick's report. It's simply that a better source - Bellart's log - makes it clear that there was a question about what Earhart said. Sound investigative methodology is, indeed, as powerful as a steam roller. I'll take your word for it that we agree that NR16020 left Lae with 1,100 U.S. gallons of fuel and we agree that the reason that figure is the best one to use is because it is confirmed in the best available contemporaneous documentation (Chater and Collopy). Next point. Do you agree that the power/fuel management recommendations prepared for Earhart by Kelly Johnson are the best indicator of the aircraft's potential performance? If not, what is the best source for this information and why? **A word of caution.** Your recent postings have been personally insulting and largely devoid of any meaningful content. I have done my best to answer your charges while trying to establish some guidelines upon which we can hold a productive debate, but you're trying my patience. Remember that the rotting skull on the pike at the entrance to the forum is the head of Sactodave. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:39:56 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Circling Vern writes: <> In my experience, the only times a pilot circles are to: 1. Practice making circles. 2. Look at something on the ground. 3. Kill time. 4. Ponder what do next if he has failed to plan properly. I don't see any of those applying to this situation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:41:37 EDT From: Jaume Balaguer Subject: Re: Circling I agree with Ric, that "circling" is least possible. The first thing that I learned in the Pilot course was that in case I get lost I NEVER to do 360 or circles, the only thing that you will obtain is to get more disoriented. And Amelia knew that thing very well... Some experts had advised her to do some human-flight experiments, she acceded to realize some of it. During the test flight before depart the first time from Oakland to Honolulu, Amelia flew to Los Angeles, and there she did some turns (circles) and then she asked to his navigator (Manning) what heading they had to follow to return to San Francisco. Manning made a terrible mistake, and he got wrong about the heading to return to SFO by more than 60°. I think that Amelia lerned a lot form this experiment and I hope that she didn't do such mistake. A experienced pilot should have alternatives in case he get lost, and as Ric said the better chance to find land was "head northwestward along that line as far as they dared before turning back to the southeastward while they still had enough fuel to guarantee landfall if not at Howland, then at Baker, McKean or Gardner." LTM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:43:06 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Deceivery? Cam Warren wrote, >>I quoted Sir Walter Scott - you'll have to ask him what he >>meant! (Besides, his comment was "anecdotal"). Ric, why do you keep posting this guy's sophomoric drivel-? (Do you like the easy target he offers? ) william #2243 *********************** Please note the warning appended to the latest exchange concerning personal remarks from Mr. Warren........ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:20:30 EDT From: Terry Ann Linley Subject: Re: DFing I hate to throw yet another monkey wrench into this discussion, but I just picked up a book entitled East to the Dawn...the Life of Amelia Earhart, which I believe you said was one of the best on the subject. Out of curiosity, I skipped ahead to the section of Susan Butler's book to see if she had anything to say about this circling/DFing/listening subject. She quotes Itasca as hearing at 19:27 GMT: We are circling but cannot see island cannot hear you go ahead on 7500 kilocycles with long count either now or on schedule time on half hour. Where did the part about not being able to see the island come from???? Was that in the original Itasca logs? If so, then circling makes sense. LTM (who loathes going 'round in circles), Terry ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:21:16 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: DFing > Maybe an analogy will help. Guy walks into a bar. He trys to > order a beer but the bartender won't wait on him. So he says: > I AM (?) BUT CANNOT GET YOUR ATTENTION. > PLEASE GIVE ME A HEINEKEN DRAFT. I'm not sure this analogy holds beer. When us kids tried direction finding lo these 35 years ago, we found that we could get a direction based on any transmission from the other kids. It was just easier if they transmitted continuously, usually just counting, but anything would work. Having said that, was the DF equipment on the same frequency as her voice receivers, or was it some other frequency and specifically required that they transmit on the DF frequency for Amelia and Fred to DF at all? - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:22:40 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: DFing Ok, thanks Ric, I understand your logic now. Consider these speculations: If I am in an airplane trying to find an island on a vast cloud-dappled sea and think I am near it and a position where a navy radio is broadcasting a signal trying to communicate with me, but I can't see the location and can't hear the signal, I still think it reasonable that I might start to circle briefly in the area and say, WE ARE CIRCLING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU (After several minutes, still not finding the island or establishing a satisfactory radio bearing, with a large fuel reserve remaining, I may decide to head towards the Phoenix group where I know there's a pretty reasonable chance I'll find land.) After giving the the other possibilities (drifting, DFing, listening) some thought, for what it's worth, I offer the following opinions: Drifting: Syntax and definition (in radio terminology) don't make any sense here, unless she's misusing the word, which doesn't sound like Earhart. DFing: If the term wasn't in use in 1937, I agree that it's unlikely she invented it for use near Howland Island. However, if she had heard the term, and was using it correctly, I still don't see why she couldn't logically say, first, that she was DFing, trying to capture a signal, and a few minutes later, that she had caught a signal but couldn't find the minimum and take a bearing on it. Bear in mind that your analogy of a crowded bar doesn't quite relate to radio communications, where one can be sending a signal to a recipient, and be heard clearly by the recipient, but can't hear the responses (on whatever frequency) of the recipient. I'd be interested to hear more about whether or not the term "DFing" existed in 1937. Based on forum postings, I agree that the term probably didn't exist then, but we don't know with any certainty. Listening: Phonetically similar to "drifting", not a bad candidate. But it's still a stretch for me when "circling" makes perfect sense and is part of the documented record (even though it was a contemporaneous correction that has a bureaucratic ring). If I had to make a choice, based on my own rough estimation of the probabilities, I would say that she most likely said "circling", followed by "DFing" (unless it is established that the term was simply unused in '37), followed by "listening". It seems to me that if she did say "drifting", she was misusing the word and I choose to doubt she would have done that. LTM (who knows that spotty radio communications enhance any mystery) william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:23:35 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Itasca actions Thanks, Randy. That's ironic. LTM (who says she needs nutrients, too) TKing ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:26:44 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Circling A final clarification of my thoughts about "circling": I recognize that circling is not a generally accepted response to being lost in an airplane, and further recognize that this plays a significant part in Ric's reasoning that Earhart probably didn't say she was circling. Noonan was an experienced and highly skilled Clipper navigator looking for a tiny island in an immense ocean, where expensive resources had been gathered to meet them. [speculation begins here] After a long flight over empty ocean, they may have been a little surprised and certainly somewhat disconcerted that they couldn't actually spot the island when everything told them that they were near it. At that time and place, thinking that perhaps they had simply missed spotting the island in the clouds, shadows and haze, a circling response of some sort, perhaps to make a more thorough visual search and to establish reliable radio contact of some kind, might have made reasonable sense to them before possibly embarking on a search for an alternate location to land. In absence of any further information, I prefer "circling", although "DFing" and "listening" are also reasonable candidates. None of these choices affect a Gardner landing scenario, in any event. LTM (who knows that unexpected circumstances in risky business sometimes require unorthodox techniques) william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:40:53 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: DFing And I'm suggesting he said I AM THIRSTY . . . (Which makes even MORE sense!) Cam Warren (Who likes Heineken) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:43:46 EDT From: Robert Klaus Subject: Re: DFing Welcome back to the fray. It looks like everyone was saving up their comments until you got back. To the point. I've been trying to find contemporary reference to use of the term "Dee Effing" or "Deefing". Nothing on point yet, but I have found several textual uses of the contraction "D/F" (not however "DF") for Radio Direction Finding. In English, rather than American the terms "Huff Duff" and "Huff Duffing" appear for High Frequency Direction Finding. Not long after the events in question, during WW-II, there are numerous examples of acronyms becoming words. LTM Robert Klaus ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:44:41 EDT From: Skip Subject: Re: Basic principles considered Cam Warren sincere? He uses the word much too often. I can't speak for the others, but his notes and insults are very annoying. If you ask me, he is the one who is circling seeking attention at the cost of others. I don't believe he has any desire to seek the truth regarding Amelia Earhart and because he feels that it will make him a big noise, he feels that it is his duty to destroy. Whether or not Tighar or anyone else finds out what happened to her or she forever remains a mystery, at least an honest attempt is being made to solve it. Does Cam Warren think that he is an expert on Amelia? I doubt it, just a lot of hot wind and blowing in the wrong direction. I would love to see his face when your efforts produce results. Stick to your guns, Ric. Skip ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:46:38 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Circling Ric, I think we've about beat this one to death. I, for one, am going to drop it with this posting. We'll just never really know. My one further thought is that when pondering the drifting/circling question, one needs to remember that the quality of the audio being heard may have been very bad. There are several stories (anecdotal) to the effect that the modulation of Amelia's transmitter left much to be desired. Screen modulation, used in the WE-13C to reduce battery drain and to reduce transmitter weight, presents some sticky design problems. Antenna loading can easily upset the design operating conditions. And we know they did a lot of fiddling with the antenna. There's also reason to believe they knew there was a modulation problem. Add to this the engine noise (prop. noise), poor microphone and probable bursts of atmospheric electrical noise -- it may have been pretty difficult to understand what Amelia was saying. I do concede that "drifting" seems one of the less likely things for the Itasca operator to have thought he heard. Unless the expected they might already be in the water! Finally, you said: >In my experience, the only times a pilot circles are to: > >1. Practice making circles. >2. Look at something on the ground. >3. Kill time. >4. Ponder what do next if he has failed to plan properly. I guess I'll have to take some number-2 (Look FOR something...) and more of number-3. Killing time while fiddling with the receiver hoping to hear something while not getting far from the location they believed they should be in -- near enough to Howland that they should surely hear the Itasca. There might be a little number-4 in there too. I'm confident that Fred would have had no problem giving Amelia a compass heading that would take them to the Phoenix Islands, no matter how many times they might have circled! So long as they had not got too far from the place his advanced LoP said Howland should be -- circling! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:50:36 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: Basic principles considered In Ric's reasonable response to Cam Warren, he asked: >Next point. Do you agree that the power/fuel management recommendations >prepared for Earhart by Kelly Johnson are the best indicator of the >aircraft's potential performance? A very good approach - however, I only have limited information on these power/fuel recommendations. Are more detailed notes available? Incidently, my computer program assumes that the plane throttles back as its weight decreases, after reaching planned airspeed. However, I also use an increase in airspeed with lower fuel weight during the initial phase, namely the time between takeoff and reaching nominal airspeed. Is this wrong? LTM (who was another "Kelly" Johnson fan) Harry #2300 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:53:06 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Re: Circling I don't think it would be unreasonable for Amelia to circle the area when she reached the point where she and Fred expected to see the island. There are several reasons why I feel this way about the possibility of circling. She still would have quite a bit of fuel. She would be reluctant to leave the area where they expected to find the island. Circling in fairly wide circles by increasing the radius by 10 miles on three or four circles would allow them to check out a fairly large area for the island in a short period of time. Lastly, I recall that is exactly what I did on my student cross country in a J-3 Cub when crossing a range of low mountains in an unexpected cross wind put me north of track. I climbed a couple of thousand feet, circled and was able to pick out recognizable landmarks as a result. I am certain Amelia and Fred would be reluctant to leave the area where they expected to see the island without making a reasonable local search. We have already established that visibility due to possible low clouds shadows may have limited visibility to a few miles. All the more reason to circle the area a few times. Dick Pingrey 0908C ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:53:45 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Silent majority Ric wrote: > We're trying to solve the mystery to prove a point - that the truth is > accessible to anyone who will take the time to learn and employ the > basic principles of the scientific method.... I would like to commend Ric on one of the most erudite and positive answers I have ever read on the subject of why Amelia. For TIGHAR, there is little doubt that the public face of Amelia forms the perfect rallying point to further the organization's core goals -- research and study, archaelogy, preservation, and understanding the value of history. For others, however, the whole Amelia affair has more to do with personal profits. Put the search and others under the harsh light of the sun, and ask that Latin question, "Cui Bono?" -- which translates to "Who is to benefit?" Anytime you ask this of TIGHAR, you find a wonderful set of answers -- most laudable being in the field of education and preservation. Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:56:33 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Circling William Webster-Garman says: >In absence of any further information, I prefer "circling", although "DFing" >and "listening" are also reasonable candidates. None of these choices affect >a Gardner landing scenario, in any event. Thank you, William. I've been puzzling over just what difference it makes whether she was saying "circling" (given that if she was, we don't know how long she was, and therefore what it might have meant re. fuel consumption), "drifting" (which doesn't seem to take us anywhere), "listening" (which also doesn't convey any relevant information as far as I can see), "DFing" (which seems to have the same relevance as "listening"), or "whistling," "thinking," "shifting," "drinking," "glistening," or any number of other possibilities. Am I missing something, or is this whole argument just a tad tangential? Tom King ************************* Nope, you're not missing anything. This thread dies a long overdue death today. P ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:57:59 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Rules of Logic You're doing a commendable job of explaining why some evidence is given greater weight than other evidence, but some folks just don't seem to get it. Sources closest to a given event, in either distance or time, get the greatest weight of validity. This is why the Itasca radio operator's log gets more credibility than the report of the guy who used it as a source for his own report. Why then, some might ask, isn't Iredale (who fueled the Electra) given more credibility than Chater (who reported the fueling)? The answer is simple--and by the rules-- Iredale was closer in distance, but his report isn't--it's a 50 year old oral recollection. Chater, who was at least one step further removed from the fueling operation than Iredale, has a written report FROM THAT DAY. Using the Kennedy asassination as an illustration, the Zapruder film was shot from a distance, and isn't really clear. If then Texas Governor Conally, who was actually in the car with Kennedy, had made some statement prior to his death a few years ago that he distinctly remembered shots from the grassy knoll,(VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: HE MADE NO SUCH STATEMENT) it would be an oral recollection of events 35 years past, and as such, even though he was closer, in distance, to the event than Zapruder, Zapruder's evidence (the film) carries more weight because it is actual documentation from that day. This is why Ric correctly gives greater weight to contemporaneous documentation, and lesser weight to anecdotes (like 50 year old memories) even if they come from sources closer to the actual event. This is why politicians give polling results rather than the raw data. Raw data (what were the exact questions asked, and of whom) cannot be spun for favorable effect. Iredale's memory might be perfectly accurate, but it is subject to 50 years of possible, unintentional, spin. That's why Chater's report MUST be given more weight. As regards TIGHAR's Niku landing theory, it too is based on logic. The only known sources of aircraft debris on Niku are the C-47 crash on Sydney, and NR16020 (which was certainly lost in the vicinity). The plexiglass shard found on Niku by TIGHAR searchers is not consistent with any plexiglass found in C-47s, but is consistent with plexiglass found on Lockheed 10Es. The logical conclusion, since there were no other Lockheed 10Es lost in the vicinity, is that the plexiglass shard came from NR16020, which was last known to be within range of, and on a bearing to Niku/Gardner. Now, if new facts surface which could better explain the evidence found, Ric has already stated that we would go "back to the drawing board". Despite claims on this forum to the contrary, no such new facts have been found or presented. The shoe fragments found are dealt with in the same manner, and have the same conclusion. Shoe fragments found on Niku are from a mid 1930's woman's blucher oxford. Earhart, who disappeared in the vicinity in the late 1930's, was photographed shortly before her disappearance wearing blucher oxfords. The crew of the Norwich City would have been wearing shoes made prior to 1930, because she wrecked on Gardner in 1929. Also highly unlikely that any of them wore women's blucher oxfords, of any vintage. Neither Bevington, Gallagher, or any of the P.I.S.S. settlers were known to wear women's blucher oxfords. Unless some facts surface that show someone else on Gardner island in the mid to late 1930's--someone who wore women's blucher oxford shoes, then the fragments found can be safely assumed to have come from Earhart. The beauty of logic is that when you do it correctly (by the rules) it cannot be refuted unless new, previously unknown, indisputable facts are brought to light which better explain your previously arrived at logical conclusions. TIGHAR's logical conclusion, based on the indisputable facts available, is that NR16020 landed on Niku. I'm only an amateur logician, and new to TIGHAR, so Ric, or anyone else should feel free to correct any errors I've made above. On a decidedly illogical note, the movie MARS ATTACKS was on TV a few nights ago. Did anyone else notice that the main word in the Martian vocabulary was "KHAQQ"? LTM (who apologizes for this being such a long post) Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:27:40 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: circling Terry Anne Linley writes: <<... I skipped ahead to the section of Susan Butler's book to see if she had anything to say about this circling/DFing/listening subject. She quotes Itasca as hearing at 19:27 GMT: We are circling but cannot see island cannot hear you go ahead on 7500 kilocycles with long count either now or on schedule time on half hour. Where did the part about not being able to see the island come from???? Was that in the original Itasca logs? If so, then circling makes sense.>> Mythology strikes again. Although Butler's book is among the better Earhart biographies, that's not much of a compliment. Like the other Earhart books, Butler's treatment of the disappearance is riddled with inaccuracies - and this is one of them. The "cannot see island" bit is pure fiction. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:28:23 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: DFing Bill Leary asks: <<..was the DF equipment on the same frequency as her voice receivers, or was it some other frequency and specifically required that they transmit on the DF frequency for Amelia and Fred to DF at all?>> We don't even know for sure that she had a separate DF receiver, but we suspect that she did. We know that her voice receiver (the Western Electric 20B) was tuned to 3105 kcs and that she wasn't hearing anything. She was also transmitting on that frequency and asking ITASCA to "Please take a bearing on us". (It's worth noting that she did not say "Please DF on us." ITASCA was replying with voice on 3105 and saying that they couldn't take a bearing on that frequency, but - of course - she couldn't hear them. Had she asked for signals on a low frequency - say, 400 kcs - she should have been able to take a bearing with her loop. But she asked for signals on 7500 kcs, a frequency far higher than was commonly in use for direction finding. This is commonly seen as the great error that cost her her life. Maybe it was, but without knowing what the frequency range of her DF receiver was (if she had a separate DF receiver at all), it's impossible to say whether Earhart's request for signals on 7500 kcs was a mistake or not. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:29:18 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Circling William Webster-Garman writes: <> Indeed they do not. What she actually said is unknown, unknowable, and ultimately of little relevance. The only important point to be made from all this discussion is that the original ITASCA log makes it clear that there was some question about what she said at the time. It's entirely possible that we're unwittingly replaying an argument that was first debated in the ITASCA's radio room 62 years ago. "How many ages hence shall this our lofty scene be acted o'er in states unborn and accents yet unknown?" (Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:51:19 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Step Two - Fuel Consumption Yes, I agree Kelly Johnson is an excellent choice, but - a word of caution - he also said (I paraphrase) Earhart ran out of gas and splashed down (it's in his book). Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric Forum please note: The above posting has been edited to remove irrelevant offensive passages. The only reason I didn't bounce the submission entirely is that the question of Johnson's remarks in his autobiography does come up from time to time and is worth discussing. Over the past few days there have been a number of postings and quite a few private emails to me expressing what can only be termed disgust with Cam Warren's behavior and annoyance with me for letting that behavior intrude on the Forum's work. We have received no postings or private communications to the contrary. Therefore, in a last ditch attempt to avoid banning Mr. Warren from the forum altogether, I'll post only those portions of his submissions that deal with facts and evidence. My response to Mr. Warren: Do you agree that the validity of Kelly Johnson's opinion of how far the airplane could go (as expressed in his autobiography) depends entirely upon whether or not he had an accurate figure for how much fuel was aboard? Remember that prior to the discovery of the Chater letter in 1991, the Electra's fuel load was the subject of much debate. The most widely known proponent of the crashed-and-sank school was (and still is) Elgen Long who was very sure that the airplane could not have taken off with more than 1,000 gallons (see the section on "Fuel" in Appendix B of Mary Lovell's "The Sound of Wings"). I don't have a copy of Johnson's book. As I recall the title was something like, "More Than My Share Of It All." Can somebody give us a publication date and quote exactly what Kelly had to say? LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:52:05 EDT From: Tet Walston Subject: Offset Ric, Harry Poole made a reference to fuel/airspeed. The paradox is, alas, that the more fuel is used, if the throttle/pitch settings remain the same, then the endurance of the aircraft flight increases, due to decreased weight. This, does not keep going to infinity (otherwise we'd have perpetual motion) so, at the time the weight is reduced by the exhaustion of the fuel carried, the consumption per hour/minute/second is zero!! but the a/c has lost all power!!! Regarding the LOP. IF Noonan calculated this to intersect Howland at his DR ETA, (and a forward plot could do this) then he should have used the "offset" systm. There is previous evidence that he not only was acquainted with the procedure, but had used it. So, what happened? TIGHAR has their theory, and are trying to prove a scenario which they consider has merit. You know that I believe that they "sank without a trace", but belief is not proof. Thanks for allowing me to have input to your website. LTM and regards. Tet ************************************************************************* From Ric Whether or not Noonan "offset" his interception of the LoP is a bit like the "circling" debate. Unknown, unknowable, of little relevance, but endlessly arguable. Here's a question for you. The "offset" method is, by definition, not an attempt to fly directly to the destination but is the introduction of an intentional error so that, even though you won't know exactly when the destination should appear, you can be confident that you're heading in the right direction and it eventually will appear. At what point then, in the application of the "offset' method, would it make sense for Earhart to say: WE MUST BE ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE YOU... ? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:57:15 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Rules of Logic Beautiful, Dave Porter! One of the best, clearest descriptions of logic in the use of the scientific method. Bravo! ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll second that. In case anyone missed it first time around, here it is again. > From Dave Porter > > You're doing a commendable job of explaining why some evidence is given > greater weight than other evidence, but some folks just don't seem to get > it. Sources closest to a given event, in either distance or time, get the > greatest weight of validity. This is why the Itasca radio operator's log > gets more credibility than the report of the guy who used it as a source for > his own report. Why then, some might ask, isn't Iredale (who fueled the > Electra) given more credibility than Chater (who reported the fueling)? The > answer is simple--and by the rules-- Iredale was closer in distance, but his > report isn't--it's a 50 year old oral recollection. Chater, who was at > least one step further removed from the fueling operation than Iredale, has > a written report FROM THAT DAY. Using the Kennedy asassination as an > illustration, the Zapruder film was shot from a distance, and isn't really > clear. If then Texas Governor Conally, who was actually in the car with > Kennedy, had made some statement prior to his death a few years ago that he > distinctly remembered shots from the grassy knoll,(VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: HE > MADE NO SUCH STATEMENT) it would be an oral recollection of events 35 years > past, and as such, even though he was closer, in distance, to the event than > Zapruder, Zapruder's evidence (the film) carries more weight because it is > actual documentation from that day. This is why Ric correctly gives greater > weight to contemporaneous documentation, and lesser weight to anecdotes > (like 50 year old memories) even if they come from sources closer to the > actual event. > > This is why politicians give polling results rather than the raw data. Raw > data (what were the exact questions asked, and of whom) cannot be spun for > favorable effect. Iredale's memory might be perfectly accurate, but it is > subject to 50 years of possible, unintentional, spin. That's why Chater's > report MUST be given more weight. > > As regards TIGHAR's Niku landing theory, it too is based on logic. The only > known sources of aircraft debris on Niku are the C-47 crash on Sydney, and > NR16020 (which was certainly lost in the vicinity). > > The plexiglass shard found on Niku by TIGHAR searchers is not consistent > with any plexiglass found in C-47s, but is consistent with plexiglass found > on Lockheed 10Es. The logical conclusion, since there were no other > Lockheed 10Es lost in the vicinity, is that the plexiglass shard came from > NR16020, which was last known to be within range of, and on a bearing to > Niku/Gardner. Now, if new facts surface which could better explain the > evidence found, Ric has already stated that we would go "back to the drawing > board". Despite claims on this forum to the contrary, no such new facts > have been found or presented. > > The shoe fragments found are dealt with in the same manner, and have the > same conclusion. Shoe fragments found on Niku are from a mid 1930's woman's > blucher oxford. Earhart, who disappeared in the vicinity in the late > 1930's, was photographed shortly before her disappearance wearing blucher > oxfords. The crew of the Norwich City would have been wearing shoes made > prior to 1930, because she wrecked on Gardner in 1929. Also highly unlikely > that any of them wore women's blucher oxfords, of any vintage. Neither > Bevington, Gallagher, or any of the P.I.S.S. settlers were known to wear > women's blucher oxfords. Unless some facts surface that show someone else > on Gardner island in the mid to late 1930's--someone who wore women's > blucher oxford shoes, then the fragments found can be safely assumed to have > come from Earhart. > > The beauty of logic is that when you do it correctly (by the rules) it > cannot be refuted unless new, previously unknown, indisputable facts are > brought to light which better explain your previously arrived at logical > conclusions. > > TIGHAR's logical conclusion, based on the indisputable facts available, is > that NR16020 landed on Niku. > > I'm only an amateur logician, and new to TIGHAR, so Ric, or anyone else > should feel free to correct any errors I've made above. > > On a decidedly illogical note, the movie MARS ATTACKS was on TV a few nights > ago. Did anyone else notice that the main word in the Martian vocabulary > was "KHAQQ"? > > LTM (who apologizes for this being such a long post) Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:52:51 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Johnson's Tables Harry Poole writes: <> Here are Johnson's recommendations: Time Altitude Manifold Pressure RPM Gallon/per/hour 1 hour 0-8,000 ft 28.5 inches HG 2,050 100 3 hours 8,000 ft 28 inches HG 1,900 60 3 hours 8,000 ft 26.5 inches HG 1,800 51 3 hours 8,000 ft 25 inches HG 1,700 43 Remaining 10,000 ft 24 inches HG 1,600 38 << I also use an increase in airspeed with lower fuel weight during the initial phase, namely the time between takeoff and reaching nominal airspeed. Is this wrong?>> We don't have any hard data on what airspeed was recommended for the climb so anything I say here is just old pilot talk. In a situation like this I would expect that there was a very narrow window between stall and maximum speeds. Anecdotal witness reports suggest that, at first, the best they could do was stagger along just above the water in ground effect. As fuel burned off they'd be able to begin a slow climb but their airspeed might remain pretty much the same. Normally, on a long flight you'd use a slightly higher airspeed than normal for slightly better efficiency - what's known as a "cruise climb" - but I'd be surprised if they had that option. Johnson's tables call for 28.5 inches and 2,050 RPM for the first hour during which they're going to climb to 8,000 feet and burn a 100 gallons (600 pounds) of gas. If it takes the full hour to reach that altitude that's an average rate of climb of only 133 ft/min. Nothing to write home about but I'll betcha they didn't do much better than that. This is just a guess, but I'd say that during that first hour their speed ranged from maybe 100 mph to no more than about 120 mph. Even after they leveled at 8,000 I'd be surprised if they saw their target cruise speed of 150 mph until several hours later. That puppy was HEAVY. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:04:56 EDT From: John Clauss Subject: Re: fuel consumption KELLY More Than My Share of It All Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986 by Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson with Maggie Smith pages 42 thru 46 (hardbound) describe a letter and conversations with Earhart. page 46 "They had been in the air for 23 hours and, so help me, that's all the time they had fuel for. They did not know their location when they sent their SOS. The Navy mounted a tremendous search effort and attempted to locate them with direction finders but couldn't, The two had a rubber dingy with them, and, if undamaged, the plane could have floated with its gas tanks emptied. I am convinced that they attempted to ditch the airplane and didn't get away with it." LTM John ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:06:21 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Aircraft crash sites in the Phoenix Group David Porter made the following statement, ************************ As regards TIGHAR's Niku landing theory, it too is based on logic. The only known sources of aircraft debris on Niku are the C-47 crash on Sydney, and NR16020 (which was certainly lost in the vicinity). ******************* This is not an entirely correct statement. There were at least two known and possibly a third known crash in the Phoenix Gp. There is the C-47 on Sydney for sure. And there is another aircraft crash site not too far from where Bruce found that "Kanton Engine". Unless someone dumped that old engine on the island as scrap, then there is a wrecked airplane close by. An undocumented wrecked airplane! Now whether that airplane wreck is N16020 or not remains to be seen. Most likely it is from an old military wreck. But it is there!!! That is FACT. And if this wreck is undocumented. . . how many more are undocumented? Just because you can't document an event, doesn't mean it didn't happen. That engine can only be explained in one of 4 ways. 1, It was discarded as scrap from a repair ship which was taking it back to the US for an overhaul or salvage or what ever. 2, It is from an old military crash site as yet undocumented. U.S., Japanese or who ever was in the area at the time the plane crashed. 3, It is from a lost civilian flight that disappeared without a trace many years ago. We already know of one such flight that disappeared in the 20's or 30' with a woman pilot and male crew aboard. Granted it was enroute from Hawaii to San Francisco. A long way from the Phoenix Gp.! 4, And last. . . it was from the Electra. We know for a FACT that an engine was found on an island in the Phoenix Gp. We are 99.9% sure it was not on Niku! Again. . . .it could be old military. That is possible! It did not drift ashore, or drift from another island. It is within feet of where it was originally deposited when the even happened. What ever that event was! Everything found on Niku so far has been brought there by man (or women). It could have simply been picked up from another island and found on Niku. There was a lot of travel between the islands by boat. Here is a theory I have been thinking about for some time. It's logical and possible and would make everybody happy. We are trying hard to find a way for the Earhart drama to have been played out on one island. What if there were two islands involved? My theory goes like this. What if the Electra makes a water landing and the crew take to the rubber boat. They think the plane is going to sink, so they abandon it. But it doesn't sink! It drift on and on. Soon the floating plane and the life boat are separated. The crew ends up on one island and the plane washes ashore on another. What supplies the crew salvaged from the "sinking" plane were lost as they tried to come ashore. They were either too weak, or dead from injury or thirst by the time the search plane few over. The Electra was torn to pieces as it washed ashore on the other island. All that was left was the engine. Who said it had to be just one island? Maybe they did find their way to Niku, but there just isn't anything left there to find! Don (Who tries so hard not to P.I.S.S. people off.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:08:03 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Step two, fuel consumption Ric wrote: >I don't have a copy of Johnson's book. As I recall the title was something >like, "More Than My share Of It All." Can somebody give us a publication >date and quote exactly what Kelly had to say? I have the book, Ric, but it is late. I'll send chapter and verse tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. LTM, Tom Robison ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:08:59 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Wreck photo Ric You are keeping us in suspense. What did you discover on the recent expedition to Niku that leads you to believe the wreck photo is no longer valid? You made a great case that it was a photo of an E-10. Correct dimension for the cowl ring, apparent mounting points for large oil tank on firewall, curved lower windshield center-post, correct lightening holes at wing spar area, etc ? What happened to make you change your mind? Marty *************************** Ric is writing that part up now, it will be posted on the Forum and elsewhere as soon as it's finished. P ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:11:30 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Circling (FINAL!!!!) Ric cited, >>"How many ages hence shall this our lofty scene be acted o'er in states >>unborn and accents yet unknown?" (Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1) Agreed (of course): Times without number, sometimes sadly, sometimes happily, but certainly. william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:14:30 EDT From: Jaume Balaguer Subject: Working the DF Were they using the 3,105 frequency? I've read in the New York Herald Tribune that they used the 3,105 at night and the 6,210 KC during the day... why they used the 3,105 arriving at Howland ? I've also read that during the Miami stay they modified the radio communicator..., it seems that trying to improve the 3,105 and 6,210KC frequencies they had canceled the 500 KC emergency channel, because Amelia thought that the powerful equipment of the Itasca constituted sufficient coverage. I don't know if that information will be useful trying to discover why they were not using the 400KC. May be they "ignorance" in how to use the DF (they haven't used a DF before) had contributed to get lost. LTM (who loves everybody and doesn't want to annoy anybody) : ) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:15:21 EDT From: Clyde Miller Subject: Forum track record? Ric, I'm not a member of any other internet forum so I can't speak with authority, but it certainly appears to me that the TIGHAR forum has been tremendously successful and is perhaps the pioneering forum for research available to the general public (I can believe that scientific circles have their own forums etc, but they would be exclusive groups). Forum members from around the world, some who were just dropping by out of curiosity, have contributed tremendously to new information concerning the search. Details and information that would have taking years of research, if ever, keep flowing into the mill because forum members have taken the quest for truth very personally. Perhaps a short review of the details and successes that are directly attributed to the forum's activities (TIGHAR members or not) would be a breath of fresh air. I believe that the forum's direction and successes reflect more than just a search for a lost aviator and navigator. I think it demonstrates the global village at it's best. Here we are all sitting in our homes and offices around the world debating, contributing, detracting, and sniping. What a wonderful time to be alive and what a tremendous use of the super highway. Kudos to TIGHAR for once again being in the frontlines of research. Clyde Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:17:21 EDT From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: Lockheeds Hi all, Any idea where I can order a copy of "Lockheed Aircraft since 1913" by Rene Francillon these days ? Herman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:15:58 EDT From: Kari Subject: Re: LOCKHEED BOOK REQUEST HERMAN---TWO SOURCES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE BOOK YOU ARE AFTER: #1 The Book: FRANCILLON, RENE J LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT - SINCE 1913 1982. Putman, 1st edn, 526pp, cond vg, plates, ills, diags, d/w. The design, development, and service histories of each type of Lockheed are covered in great detail. Book # WIIBK02244 US$ 103.00 The Seller: WORLD WAR II BOOKS , PO BOX 55, WOKING, GU22 8HP, ENGLAND , WOKING, SU , United Kingdom, GU22 8HP Phone 44 1483 722880 / Fax 44 1483 721548 , Email ww2books@churchill.net.uk See their homepage here! Seller Terms: A Note about Privacy: ABE never gives out or sells its client information, other than to bring a bookstore and a buyer together. Your privacy is always respected. #2 The Book: FRANCILLON, RENE J. LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT SINCE 1913. NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS, ANNAPOLIS, MD. 1987. AN UP-TO-DATE SURVEY OF ALL LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT FROM THE MODEL-G FLOAT-PLANE TO THE HIGH PERFORMANCE PLANES OF THE PRESENT, INCLUDING THE F-19 'STEALTH' FIGHTER, AS WELL AS THE POLARIS, POSEIDON,AND TRIDENT MISSILES. 5 1/2 X 8 1/2, 430 PHOTOS, 72 G/A DWS. 576 PAGES. HB FINE/FINE. A PUTNAM AERONAUTICAL BOOK. Book # 2013 US$ 39.95 The Seller: TENNANT'S AVIATION BOOKS , P O BOX 1695 , Auburn , WA , U.S.A. , 98071-1695 , Email TENNGB@AOL.COM ... A member of AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION Seller Terms: POSTAL MONEY ORDERS,BANK DRAFTS, & PERSONAL CHECKS. CASH ACCEPTED, BUT BE ADVISED IT ISN'T PRUDENT TO SEND CASH. NO CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS ACCEPTED. GOOD LUCK KARI ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:21:33 EDT From: Tet Watson Subject: Offset etc. Ric, I am checking the Radio Communications as reported in "The Sound Of Wings" by Mary Lovell. Much of what I will say is conjecture, as is much which is written in the TIGHAR forum. Please bear with me. The Itasca log reports sunrise at 06.15 Local time Howland. AE/FN were now 17.45 into their flight. At 06.45 AE, requesting a bearing says they are "About 100 miles out" IF they were using the offset system, they would now, or earlier, be steering course which would put them in a position where Howland would lie to right or left of their track (preferably at 90deg.) when ETA is reached. They would, or should know how long it takes to reach Howland from that turning point. There is my presumption that a sunrise astroshot, plus observed W/V now it was daylight, would have provided a reasonably accurate DR position, so when ETA Howland/offset is reached, the correct turn is made. This, would be in the region of LOP 157/337. At 07.42 AE reports "WE must be on you, etc".(Itasca log states loud signal strength) Fuel is low. My opinion is that this is when AE/FN calculated that their turn to Howland had brought them over, or close, and that they fully expected to see the Island, though they said that they were down to 1000' At 07.58 "We are circling" etc They had reported that fuel is low, yet it is not until 08.44 that the LOP 157/337 message is heard. The radio logs do not give a clear picture "D/Fing, drifting or whatever. The mystery is what happened to them in that last 1hour2minutes? Their fuel could not have been critically low at 07.42, they were still flying. Bur WHERE were they? That's where your Gardner possibility comes in!! Regards, and thanks, LTM. Tet ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:38:14 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Exped. Report - Part 2, 1st installment The Interviews While still on Nikumaroro during Niku IIIIP we had received word via satellite phone that the team in Fiji had talked to a woman who was a former resident of the island. She described seeing aircraft wreckage on the Nutiran reef north of the Norwich City shipwreck. A few days later, another interview with an early settler, said to be the widow of the island's radio operator, appeared to confirm that villagers on Nikumaroro in the prewar years were aware that an airplane had come to grief there at some time before their arrival. During the voyage back to Fiji, again via sat/phone, we made arrangements to do follow-up interviews with the two women. No video or audio tape had been made of the initial interviews out of concern that cameras or recorders might create an intimidating atmosphere, but a friendly rapport had been established and we hoped that it would be possible to videotape the second interviews. We arrived in Suva, Fiji early on the morning of Sunday, July 25 and were scheduled to fly back to the U.S. the night of Tuesday, July 27, so it was imperative that we waste no time in arranging and preparing for the interviews. Foua Tofiga (pronounced "fowOOa towFINGa") That afternoon, July 25, Kristin Tague and I met with Foua Tofiga who had worked as a clerk for the Western Pacific High Commission in Suva during the years in question and had been instrumental in helping our Fiji Team locate and contact the two women. He also served as translator during the interviews. Kris and I spent a pleasant two hours or so with him at his home. I found him to be a pleasant, well-educated, articulate, and soft-spoken man with an excellent command of English. Having studied the files of the Western Pacific High Commission, I was quite familiar with the names, procedures and personalities of the WPHC and in chatting about those times and those people it was immediately apparent that Mr. Tofiga was entirely genuine in his representation of his experience. He was, in fact, able to clear up several questions we had about the meaning of various abbreviations in the files and flesh out our picture of the various officials with personal anecdotes. Tofiga at Nikumaroro Mr. Tofiga has only been to Nikumaroro once, in late November 1941 with High Commissioner Sir Harry Luke who was touring the Phoenix Islands settlements in the wake of the death of Officer-in-Charge Gerald Gallagher in September. His presence on that trip is confirmed in the published diary of Sir Harry Luke ("A South Seas Diary" Nicholson & Watson, London, 1945) who says: "The party consisted of Dr. Macpherson and 'Mungo' Thompson with Tofinga (sic), the Ellice Islander clerk from the High Commission, as interpreter." Tofiga has no recollection of seeing or hearing about bones or airplane wreckage during that visit but Sir Harry's diary indicates that the ship was only at Gardner one day (Sunday, November 30, 1941). Mr. Tofiga's recollection that it was during his visit to Nikumaroro that the party learned of the attack on Pearl Harbor is apparently in error. The Sextant Box Despite his close association with the top officials of the WPHC, Tofiga had not been aware of the discovery of bones and artifacts on Gardner nor had he seen any of the official correspondence about attempts to identify them. This was because he worked in the Accounts section rather than in Correspondence and, as we know, the whole issue of the castaway of Gardner Island was kept "strictly secret." Tofiga does, however, remember that Henry Vaskess, Secretary of the WPHC, kept a collection of curios on a credenza in his office. The center piece was a wooden box which, Tofiga says, looked very much like the photos we showed him of the Pensacola sextant box. His recollection matches the official record which last mentions the sextant box as being stored in Vaskess' office. Mr. Tofiga doesn't remember whether it had any numbers on it and has no idea what may have eventually become of it. Otiria O'Brian (pronounced "ohSEEria O'Brian") Mrs. O'Brian was interviewed twice by TIGHAR. Once by Kristin Tague, with Foua Tofiga serving as translator, on Monday, July 19th and again by me, accompanied by Kris, with Tofiga again translating, on Tuesday, July 26th. The latter interview was videotaped. Mrs. O'Brian, despite her Irish surname, is a Gilbert Islander by birth. Her late husband, Fasimata O'Brian, was not Irish either but was born in the Ellice Islands. (Perhaps there was an Irishman involved somewhere along the line but that was not clear.) Otiria speaks and understands virtually no English The interviews were conducted in her bedroom in her son's home where she is confined by her frail health. Tofiga translated the questions into Gilbertese, and her answers into English. Throughout both interviews she appeared to be alert and lucid, and although some of her memories seemed to be jumbled, others tracked quite accurately with known documented events. Otiria O'Brian is a Protestant Christian and, to my astonishment, began her videotaped interview by turning to the camera and singing several verses of a Gilbertese song which Mr. Tofiga later explained was a hymn about "Standing firm for Christ." She says she is 80 years old which would make her year of birth 1919, and her general appearance seems consistent with that age. But when asked what year she was born she said she was born in August of 670 and went to Nikumaroro in 178. It is possible that she was using a numbering system that is not familiar to Tofiga or to us. Otiria says she was born on the island of Onotoa in the southern Gilberts. When asked how she and her family came to live in the Phoenix Islands, she says that the government came and told the people that "Those who wished to own land - they could go." That's a good description of what happened and most of the first settlers did come from the southern Gilberts, including several from Onotoa. In both interviews Mrs. O'Brian made it clear that she never lived on Nikumaroro but only stopped there briefly enroute to Sydney Island (Manra) where she and her family settled. Fortunately, the specifics of the settlement of the Phoenix Group are well documented in the official record. From clues gleaned from her answers to various specific questions it is possible to pin down when she was there. - Although she doesn't remember the name of the ship that brought her to the Phoenix Group, she does recall that it was a "big ship" that "belonged to Banaba" (Ocean Island). "Word came from Heaven saying that it was all right to go on this ship because it was from the government." This could be a reference to an endorsement of the Phoenix Island Settlement Scheme (P.I.S.S.) by the London Missionary Society, the predominant religious presence in the southern Gilberts. Ocean Island was the headquarters for the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony which administered P.I.S.S. Its principal vessel was the Royal Colony Ship (RCS) NIMANOA. Indeed, most of the settlers for Gardner (Nikumaroro), Hull (Orona), and Sydney (Manra) were transported in NIMANOA. - Sailing from the Gilbert Islands they came first to Nikumaroro where they went ashore in boats that belonged to the ship and spent one night in the village where there was a "wooden house". About "20 or 10" people, including some women and children, "whose names were for Nikumaroro" stayed behind when, the next day, the others numbering "20 or 30" reboarded the ship and continued on to Orona where some disembarked. The rest, including Otiria and her family, came finally to Manra. - Gerald Gallagher, Officer-in-Charge of the Phoenix Island Settlement Scheme, whom Mrs. O'Brian refers to as "Kela", was already in residence on Nikumaroro when she got there. He had "a house that was just built" and he had "servants to cook for him." She says that he came with them when the ship continued on to the other islands. - Being from Onotoa, I wondered if she might remember the name of the headman on Nikumaroro who had been a prominent figure on Onotoa before becoming Native Magistrate on Nikumaroro. To my surprise, the name she came up with was not Teng Koata, but "Tikana." Bauro Tikana was Gallagher's clerk and interpreter. He arrived with Gallagher in September 1940 at the same time that Koata took a leave of absence and traveled to Tarawa. It seems clear that Mrs. O'Brian was on Nikumaroro, albeit very briefly, sometime after Gallagher's arrival in early September 1940 but before his departure for Fiji in early June 1941. We can further constrain the time because, according to Gallagher's "Progress Report, Fourth Quarter 1940", his house on Nikumaroro was not sufficiently completed to permit occupancy until the middle of November. It is also clear from his report that no ships and no new settlers arrived between his arrival in September and the end of the year. He does mention that "RCS NIMANOA paid a very hurried visit to the District to distribute essential stores" in early January 1941. The ship called at Nikumaroro first, apparently on the 11th, and Gallagher accompanied it to Orona and Manra to check on the progress of those settlements. No mention is made of the ship bringing any new settlers but neither is it specifically stated that it did not. The "Progress Report, First Quarter 1941" specifically states that aside from NIMANOA's brief visit in January, "No shipping has been available for the transport of settlers, stores, or equipment..." through the end of the quarter (March 1941). During the spring of 1941 RCS NIMANOA was being overhauled in Suva and no other ships are mentioned in the record as having visited Nikumaroro. It would therefore appear that there is really only one documented possibility for when Otiria O'Brian spent her night on Nikumaroro - January 11, 1941. This places her visit well after Gallagher had found the bones in September. Indeed, the same ship that brings her to the Phoenix Group carries the box of bones and the artifacts away from Nikumaroro when it leaves (Gallagher's letter that accompanies the shipment is dated December 27, 1940). This may help explain her response to my question: "Was there a shipwreck at Nikumaroro?" "No. It went aground, but was not broken up. Maybe it is still there. There was no damage to it. It was right on the reef but there were no people on board. I remember seeing it. Standing there firm. Nothing broken. No people. Another ship came and took away the people from the ship. The government put a stop to people going on board. When Mr. Kela (Gallagher) arrived he went to that ship and found a person that had been killed but he was put under the ship, below the ship. Mr. Kela then directed certain ones to come and build a box and put this person in it and take it to be buried. The person was lifted and put in the box. The one who died was not a European. He came from Onotoa." The story about the body and the box may be a very garbled rendition of something she heard on the island about the bones Gallagher found and the box built to contain them. We've heard other stories about bones being found near the shipwreck which may or may not be true, but Gallagher certainly made no mention of any such discovery. Her assertion that the one who died was from Onotoa could stem from the fact that the original discovery of the skull seems to have been made by Teng Koata, the Native Magistrate from Onotoa who left the island when Gallagher arrived. If Mrs. O'Brian's recollections about Kela finding a body are difficult to match with known events, her account of an airplane wreck at Nikumaroro is even more confusing. Greatly complicating the issue is the fact that she spent the war years on Sydney Island (Manra) where we know that a C-47 crashed catastrophically on December 17, 1943. How much of what she remembers of that event is mixed up with what she says about what she heard talked about on Nikumaroro is hard to determine. In her initial interview, Kris Tague asked her whether she had seen wreckage of any kind at Nikumaroro. She answered: "Many things I have seen. Things that float or move about in the sea. People said they were parts of an airplane." (Note: As far as we know, Mrs. O'Brian had no idea that Kris had any interest in anything about an airplane. I later asked Mr. Tofiga if, in setting up the initial interview, he had told Mrs. O'Brian that we are searching for an airplane. He was quite sure that he had not.) "People and even members of the government came to look at it. ... Men were making expressions of sadness about the fate of those whose plane crashed. I didn't see because we were there only briefly. ... It is said that they broke up and sank in the ocean. They said that the parts were seen by a ship and they went to look for more of them." In her second interview eight days later, I tried everything I could think of to give her an opportunity to talk about the airplane wreckage without "leading" her. I asked if there was anything unusual about the island. She said the fishing was very good. I asked if there were other wrecks on the island besides the ship that was on the reef. She said there were other wrecks there and on Orona, but volunteered no details. (There were no other shipwrecks at Nikumaroro but there was a shipwreck at Orona). Finally, in desperation, I asked: "Did the people on Nikumaroro say anything about an airplane?" She replied, "We did not stay on Nikumaroro. I was on Manra." (Okay, I thought, let's see if she knows about the crash on Manra.) "How long did you live on Manra?" "We were there when we were young and when we were girls." (giggles) "During the war?" "Yes." "Do you remember an airplane crashing on Manra?" "There was one, but it landed in the lagoon. (As indeed it did.) Nobody died. Only a few days and they went away." I said nothing while she thought for a minute. "We buried three of them and maybe the one who piloted the plane. One died and one lived. I do not know for sure if they were American or British." (In fact, there were nine fatalities in the Sydney Island crash. All died on impact except one who lived for about fifteen minutes.) I then said to her as a statement, not a question, "But you remember nothing about an airplane at Nikumaroro." After a long thoughtful pause she said, "There was a plane that crashed at Nikumaroro. There was a woman. No. A couple. A man and a woman. The man was the pilot. He was the one flying the plane." (Another long pause during which I said nothing.) "A bullet hit in the eye (gestures toward her eye) and of course that made him lose control (moves her hands as if rocking a steering wheel). One died. The Onotoa people came and lifted him out and made a box for him. When he was questioned why he didn't take care, he said that he was hit and he didn't have any control. The Onotoa people were very angry so that that one became very frightened (here she laughs) and he was saying, 'I didn't kill him. I didn't do anything bad to him. He was my brother.' And he left his plane and followed the Onotoa people. One died. The other lived." I then asked, "How did you hear about it?" "This happened before the war. He died. He was buried a day after the war happened." I decided to try again. ""How did you hear about this thing that happened on Nikumaroro?" "This I heard because this happened before we arrived at Nikumaroro. We arrived and we followed the burial procession. The man who died was a government official. He was buried under the flag, not in the common graveyard." This sounds very much like Gallagher's death. He was the only government official to die during this period and he was buried at the foot of the flagpole on Nikumaroro, but that wasn't until September of 1941. Was she there or did she just hear about it? More importantly, how much of her airplane story or stories are rooted in fact? Which details belong to which crash? The pilot of the plane who was questioned by the Onotoa people could be the one brief survivor of the Sydney crash. The C-47 had been circling the island and inexplicably hit a palm tree on a low pass. Was the fatally injured pilot trying to explain to the islanders who found him that a bird had come through the windshield and struck him in the face? Were the protestations of innocence that Mrs. O'Brian found so amusing, in fact, the hysterical apologies of a guilt-ridden dying pilot? We'll never know. It would be tempting to ascribe all of her memories about crashed airplanes to the one accident we know happened on the island where she lived, except that some of the details she offers about the Nikumaroro wreck don't fit the Sydney wreck at all. The mention of "a woman, a man and a woman, a couple" is remarkable. She also describes not a witnessed crash but parts said to be "pieces of a plane." The phrase "the parts were seen by a ship" can be interpreted as "the parts were seen by people on a ship" or it could mean "the parts were seen near a ship." If she meant the latter, then her recollections match those of Emily Sikuli who says she saw aircraft wreckage on the reef at Nikumaroro near the wreck of the S.S. Norwich City. In the next installment we'll review Emily's story. She is younger and much clearer in her memories than is Mrs. O'Brian. She also lived on Nikumaroro for two years. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:43:38 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: fuel consumption So Kelly Johnson in 1986 said: <> Interesting. No indication of how much fuel he thought was aboard the airplane. ITASCA stopped hearing their transmissions at 08:43 local, at which time Earhart had been in the air 20 hours and 13 minutes. Johnson seemed to think they could remain aloft for another 2 hours and 47 minutes. At 130 knots that will take them 362 nm. Niku is 356 nm southeast of Howland. Looks to me like Kelly Johnson thought they had enough fuel to reach Niku as long as they weren't starting from someplace north of Howland (in which case they should have found it by running down the line). Not to be picky, but Earhart never sent an SOS. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:45:36 EDT From: Bethpage Subject: Sumner Line >From Mike Muenich > >......the sunrise LOP gave them their position easterly, (not necessarily >east of Howland), and someone elected 157/337. 157 takes them to the >Phoenix group...... At sunrise and in the early daylight 157/337 was the orientation of the LOP that ran through Howland. (As the morning wore on, the LOP's alignment would be very slowly be backing around through 156/336, 155/335, etc., but if "157/337" is how Noonan labeled the LOP on his chart, it is only natural that Noonan and Earhart would refer to it as the "157/337 Line"). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:06:44 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Editing,Radios Greetings to Ric and the Forum, I don't like butting heads, but I will speak out if I think something is wrong or there is a potential for something to go wrong. I want to make a brief comment about this editing business before I go onto what this posting is about. I have been edited before on this Forum, not for something that was offensive, but just because someone felt that it wasn't the proper slant or perspective on things. Where does this editing stop? The extremes would be "changing the author's meaning" to " the alteration of evidence". We have been told that freedom of speech does not exists on this Forum. Then the term "Forum" should be changed to the word "Club". If Ric feels that a submission is not appropriate, then don't post it, don't use just what you want to use. Ric says he writes for a living and hopes to publish his own book on Amelia Earhart, then that is the place for editing. ****************************************************** I want to refer to some of Ric's replies to Forum members that have been posted lately. Ric presents AE's request for signals on 7500 kc as a mistake or error on her part because this was far above the frequencies used for the day. In my recent postings I have refreshed everyone's memory that this mistake was allowed to happen over several days. This mistake involved not only AE but GP, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. This mistake covered thousands of miles in numerous radio communications. Yet no one said "hey this ain't right". Knowing this can we really say it was a mistake on AE's part ? ************************ < From Ric .....Indeed they do not. What she actually said is unknown, unknowable, and ultimately of little relevance. LTM, Ric > ******************* < From Ric .....Whether or not Noonan "offset" his interception of the LoP is a bit like the "circling" debate. Unknown, unknowable, of little relevance, but endlessly arguable..... LTM, Ric > ********************* The discussions the last few days about what she said, "DFing","Circling", "Listening" is as Ric puts it " of little relevance ". I am surprised to say the least, to hear this coming from a former accident investigator. All of the possibilities are verbs showing the actions that were taking place in the cockpit. How many investigators have agonized over CVR's trying to figure out if the Captain said " gear-up" or "cheer-up". These are all links in our " chain of logic ". If AE's request for signals on 7500 kc was not a mistake and it does not appear to be a mistake since no one wanted to correct her. By implication that would mean that AE had radio equipment on board that was not documented. If AE carried radio equipment that TIGHAR's accepted research techniques have not uncovered, what does that mean? Could it be "secret" radio equipement? The dilemma is that secrets are a foundation for conspiracies and we all know that TIGHAR's hypothesis does not support that position. So there will be no effort in that direction. I know a researcher who claims to know the designation of the radio, has a manual for it with supporting documention but I feel it will not be shared with the Forum. I recall a Forum posting where someone had a schematic of the radio's that showed a modification with a selector switch added to the cicuit. I forget the details but maybe that person is still on the Forum. AE heard nothing on the com. radios but she heard signals on the DF, with only a loop antenna, that she was requesting signals on 7500 kc. I hope this whole affair cannot be blamed on her forgetting to throw a selector switch. I wonder if Vern remembers his posting from a year ago. < Subject: DF trouble in Darwin, 8/15/98 14:57 < Daryll ************************************************************************* From Ric We never edit anything except to delete offensive or off-topic material and we don't do that often enough (as should be apparent). The Coast Guard's failure to question Earhart's choice of 7500 kcs is not evidence that there was a secret receiver aboard the Electra any more than the Coast Guard's failure to heed her requests that they use Greenwich time and communicate with her exclusively voice indicate anything but negligence. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:07:24 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: A Bendix DF? (edited) Ric says: " . . . without knowing what the frequency range of her DF receiver was (if she had a separate DF receiver at all), it's impossible to say whether Earhart's request for signals on 7500 kcs was a mistake or not." AE stated quite clearly in LAST FLIGHT that she had a Bendix DF aboard. Isn't she a good source under the circumstances? So why say "IF she had a separate DF receiver . . ."? (Emphasis mine). Cam Warren ************************************************************************ From Ric Let's take a look at what actually is said in Last Flight. In the chapter entitled "Karachi" she is describing the layout of her instrument panel. "One group of instruments has to do with the engines and is completely duplicated for each motor. There is another nest of flight and navigation instruments, aids in establishing the ship's position in space and its location geographically. In the first are numbered turn and bank, rate of climb, air speed, artificial horizon, and similar indicators. In the latter are compasses, directional gyros, the Bendix direction finder, and various radio equipment. In the center of the instrument board is the Sperry Gyro Pilot, the automatic device which can relieve the human pilot. There are twelve fuel tanks (holding in all 1,150 gallons), six of them in the wings and six in the fuselage, whence complicated plumbing leads to the engines. On long flights there always a tidy bit of bookkeeping to do, for one should know exactly how much fuel has been used and how much remains. The receiver for the Western Electric radio is under the co-pilot's seat and the transmitter is in the cabin. The main dynamo is under my seat. The radio's cuplike microphone is hung beside the window at the left. ....." (She goes on to inventory practically the whole darned airplane.) The loop antenna over the cockpit and the display on the instrument panel are clearly Bendix products. No argument. The question whether the antenna and display are coupled to the Western Electric receiver or whether there's a separate Bendix receiver in the airplane. When Earhart says that the "Bendix direction finder" is on the instrument panel she is clearly talking about a display, not a receiver. The receiver would be far too large to mount the whole thing in the instrument panel. Earhart then goes on to describe the location of all of the components of the radio system right down to where the mic is hung, but no mention of any receiver other than the Western Electric under the co-pilot's seat. I wish you could show me some real evidence that there was another receiver aboard the airplane. It would sure answer some puzzling questions. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:16:06 EDT From: William Dohenyguy Subject: shoes To Dave Porter: Hi Dave, just wanted to play Devil's advocate for a minute. I have a picture of five of my Aunts, taken, circa 1945. They are all wearing Blucher Oxfords. Evidently, a very poplar shoe in the 30,s and 40,s. My point being, Tighar found, on Niku, the remains of a shoe in 1991. However, in the early 1940's, there was a great war in that area, and many women, presumably wearing Blucher Oxfords might have been in the area too. Also, Tighar believes the shoe is a size 8 or 9, I read on the Forum that Amelia's foot was smaller. Just food for thought. William LTM ************************************************************************* From Ric You wanna handle this Dave? (You might ask him who all these women in Blucher Oxfords were who visited Niku and why they don't show up in the islands extensively documented history. The last FAQ on the website deals with the shoe size question.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:18:23 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: working the DF Jaume Balaguer asks: "..they used 3105 at night and 6210 KC during the day. Why did they use 3105 arriving at Howland ?" I've always assumed that it was because the initial part of their approach to Howland was before dawn and she didn't think of trying the other frequency until well after sun up. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:19:19 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Forum track record Clyde Miller writes: << Perhaps a short review of the details and successes that are directly attributed to the forum's activities (TIGHAR members or not) would be a breath of fresh air. >> I have to agree that the forum is the most awesome research tool I've ever seen. To compile even a short review of what we've learned here would be a daunting task. I have to keep moving forward but if somebody wanted to review the Forum archives and assemble such a list we'd be happy to post it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:20:40 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Aircraft crash sites in the Phoenix Group What was the flight from Hawaii to San Francisco that was lost with a female pilot and male passenger(s)? Curious minds wish to know. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:23:33 EDT From: Bethpage Subject: Sumner Line > As I understand this "LOP" thing, if FN could see the sun rise and >knew the time of sun rise at Howland, then he would have been on the LOP >line that passed Howland. At that point, flying up or down the LOP >would have found the island. If FN could see the sun rise and knew the time of sunrise over Howland, and compared the two, then he could compute how much longitude separated him from the LOP that passed through Howland. For example, if he noted the time of sunrise as being 7 minutes later than that predicted over Howland, then he'd know he was west of the LOP by about {[(7/60)15] = 1.75} 1.75 degree, or 1 degree and 45 minutes, of longitude. --About 105 miles in that part of the world. As the sun rose FN would be right near the LOP once his sextant observations of sun height matched what would be predicted for Howland. If his course was straight for Howland, then he'd expect Howland right about where he would hit the LOP In that case, reaching the LOP and not seeing Howland might call for a methodical search or diversion to an alternate, or both. Staying on that LOP first involves a turn onto a compass heading that would carry the plane in the direction of either 157 degrees True or 337 degrees True. Straying off the LOP is detected when the trend of sextant observations of the sun's height show it to be higher, or, lower, than what should be the case along the LOP--that is, higher, or lower than a computation of the sun's height if observed right over Howland. (If the sun were observed to be consistently 10 minutes of angle higher than what was predicted, then the plane had drifted 10 miles off the LOP, in the direction of the sun. A heading correction would be called for to get back nearer the LOP). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:25:05 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Working the DF You are correct about frequencies and time. AE had used 3105kHz all night long, and past dawn. Since it was then daylight, she apparently switched to 6210kHz just after her last transmission, or so we all think. Dawn and dusk are intermediate times for radio transmissions, so one carries on until one is sure that the old frequency doesn't work anymore. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:43:42 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Part 1 on the website The Niku IIIIP Expedition Report, Part 1, is now up on the TIGHAR website complete with a few photos from the expedition. You'll find it under Research Bulletins. There's also a photo there of the Norwich City as she looked when Bevington visited the island in October 1937. Enjoy. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:39:45 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Aircraft crash sites in the Phoenix Group Since I made the statement about the two flyers, I will try to answer the question. I found the article in an old newspaper clipping while looking at microfilm in Modesto, California. It was about the AE search and the hazards of over water flight. It named several flights that had disappeared, or were otherwise unsuccessful. Not all were in the Pacific. In fact I think that was the only one mentioned as being in the Pacific. When I found the article, I read it but didn't copy it because the main subject was about AE and I already had all that information. It was just two or three lines in the paragraph. I did mention it on the Forum about a year ago, but it was dismissed as being way too far from Howland to be of any importance. I agreed, but at the time I was trying to make the point that there could have been other flights in the area that we don't know about. I used this one as an example, because I have done aviation research for many, many years and had never heard that story before nor since. All I remember about the story is that a plane disappeared while trying to fly from Hawaii to California, sometime before Earhart. On board was the female pilot and her mechanic. I believe there was one other man also on board. They gave the name of the plane, but I don't remember it. It was something like "Miss ??????" something or other. I think I gave more details in the original posting to the Forum a year ago, if someone would like to research it. The next time I am in Modesto, I will go to the Library and look again. Don > From Randy Jacobson > > What was the flight from Hawaii to San Francisco that was lost > with a female pilot and male passenger(s)? Curious minds wish > to know. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:41:50 EDT From: Forest Blair Subject: Re: Howland and Baker For Randy, Thanks for the correction on the Howland-Baker bit. It re-kindled the discussion several of us had as we flew over them. Since we were flying from Canton to the Marshalls, we first passed Baker and saw the landing field; then as we passed Howland, we saw no special features to indicate a landing place. Since we were aware of Amelia's flight, but weren't the greatest on the details, some of us assumed Baker was her destination because of the landing facility; some of us said we thought she was headed for Howland. That's where my confusion must have set in. Now, thanks to you and TIGHAR, I'm straight on both of these. One final question-was any grading, marking, fix up, etc. done on Howland to prep for AE, or was she to land on whatever surface she might think looked OK? Forest #2149 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:45:20 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Shoes Excuse me for jumping in on this one... > >William Dohenguy wrote >>> My point being, > Tighar found, on Niku, the remains of a shoe in 1991. > However, in the early > 1940's, there was a great war in that area, and many women, presumably > wearing Blucher Oxfords might have been in the area too 1) There is no documented record of any female of european ancestry being on Gardner in the 30s and 40s (that is, the roughly 20 year period when the Blucher Oxfords in questions most likely arrived on the island). No shipwrecks, no cruise ship visits, no military or medical personnel: Several males of european ancestry, mostly British and American, visited the island, but we know of no women. This tends to lead to a logical possibility that Earhart was the owner of the shoes. Note that this is not proof, just a heightened probability. There may well have been a small number of undocumented visits to Gardner by one or more females of european ancestry during this period. One of those women could have been Earhart, because she disappeared while piloting an airplane in the general vicinity. 2) When we correlate the shoe fragments with Gallagher's discovery of the human remains of a man and a woman, dating from the 1930s and probably of european ancestry, combine this with the island's well-documented history and then factor in all those anecdotal accounts of plane wreckage (remembering that there is no documented instance of any plane ever crashing on Gardner during that period), a body of circumstantial evidence begins to build, pointing to the possibility (but as yet, not proof) that these things appeared on the island because Earhart was there in 1937. william #2243 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:46:01 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: Radial engine applications Re. Don Jordan's discussion of logic and the canton engine. Three of his four of points assume that the radial engine is from an aircraft application. Radial engines, gasoline and diesel were used to power some models of the M4 (Sherman tank) and various tracked vehicles in the 1940s. I'm sure there are other applications for air cooled radials as well. It is illogical to assume a radial engine has to be from an aircraft. LTM Bill Zorn 1562c ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:48:47 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Sunrise LoP revisited I find this interesting to consider, although, like "circling," it has little to do with much of anything. It's my impression that Fred's sunrise LoP was what first caused TIGHAR to seriously consider the possibility that he and Amelia might have ended up on Nikumaroro. This impression is largely from one of the TV programs -- "You're telling me that nobody has looked in the most likely place..." There is little doubt that Fred did make a sunrise observation. The 157/337 line fits a sunrise LoP on that date. This observation, made somewhere considerably to the west of Howland, was the last time he knew with some accuracy where they were east and west. Unless he made some celestial observations during the night, his knowledge of where they were north and south was strictly dead reckoning and without aid of wind data. It's only coincidence that a sunrise LoP on that date passes through both Howland and Nikumaroro. At another time of year, this would not be the case. Anyway, that LoP had nothing to do with their probable decision to make for the Phoenix Islands, nor with the heading chosen to get them there. That was simply logic -- and they probably did not fly a 157 degree heading. Fred had charts of that part of the Pacific. He could see that the Phoenix islands were the only bits of land they could hope to reach. He had little choice but to assume they were near Howland -- according to his navigation, that's where they should have been. That had to be his starting point to plot a course to the Phoenix Islands. As someone pointed out recently, he probably shot for the middle of the island group -- a heading of about 145 degrees. So, how would they have ended up on Nikumaroro? If Randy Jacobson has correctly figured their probable location, taking what little is known about winds into account... >Running Monte Carlo >simulations on AE's navigation suggests that the more likely >scenario is that she ended up SW of Howland, due to stronger >headwinds at the beginning of her flight, and slightly more northerly >winds at the end than forecast. This might account for their actually just making the western edge of the Phoenix group -- and sighting Nikumaroro. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:07:36 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Radial engine applications Point well taken, however can we afford not to know for sure what it isvand where it came from? My own belief is that it is from some military application, but I don't know. Neither does Bruce! I do know that there was an engine found on one of three islands in the Phoenix Gp. Those islands are, Enderbury, Sydney and Hull. I am 90% sure, based on research, that is was one of those three islands. The fact that it was a radial engine is not in question, I have documented eyewitness accounts. Again I say. . . it could me military. I just don't know. Don > From Bill Zorn > > Re. Don Jordan's discussion of logic and the canton engine. > > Three of his four of points assume that the radial engine is from an > aircraft application. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:08:04 EDT From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Shoes and charts I have two questions. 1. Did anybody check to see if the shoe fragments would float in Pacific Ocean water? 2. Is there evidence that Fred Noonan had a complete set of charts for the areas in question? I am aware of strip charts that were prepared for the flight. Did Fred know the locations of all their options? Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:08:41 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Sunrise LoP >From Vern Klein: > >There is little doubt that Fred did make a sunrise observation. The 157/337 >line fits a sunrise LoP on that date. This observation, made somewhere >considerably to the west of Howland, was the last time he knew with some >accuracy where they were east and west. Celestial navigation is practicable by day as well as night. If the sun was not obscured as it rose, sextant observations of its height would indicate how closely the plane was to a LOP running through Howland. Up in front, did the Electra have any overhead windows, or just the windshields and side windows? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:09:55 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Aircraft crash sites in the Phoenix Group Don Jordan writes: <> Sounds like they may have been talking about one of the Dole racers back in 1927 or 1928. After Lindbergh flew the Atlantic, Dole (as in pinapple) put up a huge prize for the first flight to Hawaii. There was a whole bunch of entrants but, as I recall, only one made it. There were several fatalities. The whole thing was a disaster. Don's premise that there might have been undocumented flights across the Pacific that went missing anywhere near Howland or the Phoenix Group just doesn't hold water. It's about as likely that there were undocumented moon shots. Prior to WWII, flying across the Central Pacific was a big deal. The only commercial traffic was by Pan Am via Canton. Their only loss was Musick's S-42B at Samoa. Anybody else who was out there (such as Kingsford-Smith) was headline news. As for the military, the Brits were doing "sovereignty cruises" in the Phoenix Group in 1935-38 using cruisers which usually carried a seaplane, but there is no indication that any were lost. In June of 1941 the U.S. Navy sent a flock of PBYs down from Hawaii to fly around the islands and take pictures. None were lost. During the war there were a number of aircraft lost at Canton. These included a B-24 that went into the drink just after takeoff and a PV-1 Ventura that bellied in. There were probably other wrecks on the island. A few aircraft went missing enroute from Canton to other places and were presumed lost at sea. It is not inconceivable that one or more of these may have crashed on or near one of the uninhabited islands of the Phoenix Group. The C-47 crash on Sydney in December 1943 is the only known instance of an airplane crashing on any of the three inhabited atolls - Gardner, Hull and Sydney - and our experience with the Sydney crash indicates that any crash, however difficult to document, lives in the island folklore. After the war, the only loss we know of is an FAA Lockheed Constellation that bit it bigtime on Canton. Obviously, none of the aircraft that came to grief on Canton are candidates for Bruce Yoho's engine. The Sydney crash is out because we have photos of both engines from the C-47 sitting on Sydney - and, of course, they were double row engines on dry land, not a single row engine in the water. That leaves the remote possibility that one of the aircraft missing and presumed lost at sea out of Canton came down on or near an uninhabited island and escaped notice. But all of those aircraft were B-24s (double row engines) except for one Martin PBM (also double row). There is, of course, one airplane missing in the area which had engines that fit the description of the one Bruce says he found. I think that the most reasonable speculation is that he found one of the engines from that plane. However, since verifying his memory by finding the engine is a very expensive proposition, it seems like the next reasonable step should be to attempt to verify the accuracy of his memory by other means. If need to document that his memory is accurate and then, if possible, learn what island the engine came from. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:10:30 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: The Bendix HF/DF As I have frequently pointed out, solving a puzzle often requires MORE than just collecting a fact or two. One tracks the quarry by following the bent grass - until you come to a river. Then you try to think like your prey - would it (he or she) go upstream or downstream? So it comes down to an educated guess (or first hand knowledge) of what the prey would most likely do. The casual observer would call it a "hunch". "Unscientific" perhaps, but Indian trackers were more often right than wrong. Among the many puzzles surrounding the Earhart disappearance, I personally have been most concerned with the role played by the communications equipment (including the DF), since my experience is primarily in the field of electronics. To fully explain the long hunt for clues is more than I want to do at the moment, but here's a summation. So what DF equipment did AE have (if any)? Why did she toss her (250') trailing wire antenna? Why did she ask for, and hear, a signal from the ITASCA on 7500 kc, and nothing else? Suffice to say, my hypothesis answers these and other questions in a convincing manner (at least, to my satisfaction). No, I don't have hard evidence to connect the dots, unfortunately. But a dot here and a dot there is ample indication I'm on the right trail. Let's just say it's a "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" situation. Background: Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Navy was VERY interested in HF/DF in 1937, following the Coast Guard's success in tracking rum-runners during Prohibition. In '36 the Navy started fitting out PBY patrol planes with radio direction finders for military surveillance and ship location (NOT just to find their way back to base), and because they knew the Japanese and Germans were doing it. Prime contractor, Radio Research Labs, of Washington, D.C. In early '37, Vince Bendix, flushed with his success as an OEM for the auto industry (the Bendix starter drive), wanted to get a piece of the military budget, and bought Radio Research, and other companies, and formed Bendix Radio [All documented]. Note that Bendix was a supporter of aviation (the Bendix Air Races), and as such was a prime target for big time promoter George Palmer Putnam. Note too, that the announced reason for Earhart's "flying laboratory" was to test aircraft DF systems. (Put two and two together and Putnam rubs his hands!) There's a lot of fine points to the story, but suffice to say, it's more than a good guess AE took off with a Bendix DF system, corroborated by Vernon Moore, Bendix project engineer, AE herself in LAST FLIGHT, aviation journalist C. B. Allen (Earhart's close friend and unofficial historian), and others who don't come to mind at the moment. And of course there's the photo of Bendix engineer Karl Remmlein, showing the gear to Amelia on the ramp at Oakland. (He flew out west with her to test the equipment a day or so before she left for Miami, where, apparently, some changes in the setup were made). Hams were getting amazing results with 40 meters in those days, and the Coast Guard/Navy selected 7500 kc (just above the amateur band) [This supported by classified documents in my possession]. So a few people, apparently NOT Comdr. Thompson, were in on the big secret - AE would home in on the ITASCA using 7500 kc. Just in case, somebody said, we better have a HF/DF (covering 3105) on Howland. (And IT was from the secret Navy intercept station on Hawaii). [Documentation on THAT, too.] Unfortunately the system didn't work, and L. A. Hyland of Bendix Radio, later (1964 or so, when queried by Goerner) denied that there was any Bendix gear aboard the Electra (naturally!). So what was wrong with her WE communications receiver? Mistuned to 6540 by Harry Balfour at Lae, so he could conduct "duplex" conversation with AE (i.e., she talked on 6210, he used 6540). And I'll bet HE felt guilty to the day of his death! Why she wasn't able to properly retune her receiver to 3105 is anybody's guess, but I suspect it was a goof aggravated by too many hours in the cockpit. So that's a highly condensed account, based on "following the dots" (in this case, assorted documents of verifiable authenticity and a hunch or two). Incidentally, I have willingly shared my conclusions with Randy Jacobson and Mike Everette, among others, and cited my sources. So, believe it or not - and I'm well aware that "experts" will disagree - that's the HF/DF story. And the principal reason AE/FN missed Howland! Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric Just one quick question. Documentation that the Navy had specifically selected 7500 kcs for experiments in HF/DF in 1937 might be reason to explore the possibilty that it had something to do with Earhart's puzzling selection of that frequency. You claim to have such documentation. Will you share it with us? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:11:25 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Navigation >>From Vern Klein So, how would they have ended up on Nikumaroro? If Randy Jacobson has correctly figured their probable location, taking what little is known about winds into account... >Running Monte Carlo >simulations on AE's navigation suggests that the more likely >scenario is that she ended up SW of Howland, due to stronger >headwinds at the beginning of her flight, and slightly more northerly >winds at the end than forecast. This might account for their actually just making the western edge of the Phoenix group -- and sighting Nikumaroro. Since Fred was such an experienced navigator, and would have had stars to shoot positions from all night long, don't you think that he would have had an excellent handle on the winds they were facing? I am sure that he would have known within a mile or two what the winds were doing to them throughout the majority of the flight. Thus, they should have been able to be almost right on Howland at the end of the flight. Except, as has been mentioned, Howland was not correctly positoned on the known charts at the time, being about 4 miles (?) off. Well, 4 miles in the middle of that ocean is a long, long way given the ceiling and visibility factors. -- Blue Skies, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:12:01 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: A Bendix DF? I hope that what I have to say is not offensive as I disagree with you. Re- Last Flight. page 50 "My flying laboratory became equipped with all that is modern ......THERE IS A BENDIX RADIO DIRECTION FINDER WHICH POINTS THE WAY TO ANY SELECTED BROADCASTING STATION WITHIN RANGE. There is the finest two-way voice and code Western Electric comm- unications equipment in whose installation the Bell Laboratories, under the aegis of Dr. Frank K. Jewett , co-operated . It does appear that there were two receivers on board. One was the Western Electric and the other was a Bendix. Also the loop was a Bendix. *************************************************************************** From Ric I honestly don't see how this is any different from the Karachi quote where it does look like she is referring to the Bendix loop and instrument panel display as the "Bendix Radio Direction Finder"? The quote you cite is from Earhart's description of the preparations made for the first world flight attempt. Between this quote and her Karachi description of the airplane's equipment the aircraft gets wrecked in Hawaii, repaired in California, and dickered with in Florida. I'm happy to acknowledge that she may have had a separate DF receiver aboard, but we need something better than the above to establish that. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:12:33 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Sunrise LoP revisited Vern write: <> As you'll recall, when last heard from our heroes said they were on the line 157/337 and that they were running on that line. Sounds to me like, at least at that time, they were heading either 337 or 157. We all agree pretty much agree that 337 doesn't make any sense other than a a quick look-see. That leaves 157. As long as Fred stays on the LoP he has a virtually guaranteed landfall. <> 145 degrees from where? He doesn't know where he is on the LoP. Striking off from an unknown point for the middle of the Phoenix Group may seem reasonable if you're looking at that little cluster of islands on a world map, but the truth is that those islands are widely scattered pinpoints in an incredibly vast ocean. The LoP is all he's got. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:13:46 EDT From: Fred Subject: Landing logic I'm pretty new in the forum, so what I'm talking about might have been already delt with. I don't know anything about archeology, but I'm a private pilot. Here is the point. You seem to be pretty sure that the wreck photo is AE's 10E. What surprised me is the prop. 9 feet tall is quite heavy, and it is intact. It is also not full-feathering. In my pilot life, I've experienced two engine shut downs in flight. The first was a wooden prop, about 4 feet and 65hp behind. The bloody thing stopped immediatelty, and it took a 3000ft dive to restart the engine. The other was a 7feet, variable pitch, non feathering prop. This one never stopped until we touched the ground. Even with the engine cut, such a prop rotates at about 800-1000rpm. EA's plane was quite fast, and the prop was probably unlikely to stop in flight. This shows that the plane on the photo did not landed wheels up, as the prop would be bent. Just go back on that day, inside AE's plane. She has been described as a not-so-good pilot, but she never appeared as completely dumb. She is lost, Howland is not there and the Itasca is not responding. Fuel is running low, and, suddenly, they see or find an island. Every pilot knows that in such situation, it is much safer to be on the ground then up there. So AE decides to land on that island. The big question is where to land. In the jungle ? That's a very special technique : you must hit two trees at the same time to destroy both wings and hope that the fuselage will continue smoothly on it's own. Few people survived that. There are three places left : the beach, the reef and the lagoon. Ditching in the lagoon is an absolute emergency, and though it is quite safe to ditch a retractable gear, the airplane an all the stuff inside will be lost : radio, food, etc... The beach seem a good idea, but there's a big big problem. Landing a taildragger wheels down on soft sand is crazy. The airplane will nose over. I was always told as a pilot to land wheels up on any kind of soft terrain, such as wet earth, and dry sand. It seems possible to land wheels down on wet sand, as it's quite hard. However, seen from up there (according to recent photos), the beach is narrow and curved. Not very good for a safe landing. A few areas on the inside of the lagoon seem to look quite good, but the sand os probably very soft. The third possibility is the reef. That's stone, and probably smooth enough. She also knows that it is not an excellent idea to land wheels up on rocks, as the sparks can set the whole thing in fire. AE has to choose. She wants to land safely, but a pilot also wants to bring that bird fairly intact on the ground. On the other hand, she needs her right engine for the radio. People seem to believe that it's possible to run an engine after a crash landing. But if the prop was revolving, it will not only be bent, but the engine will probably suffer too. So, what was AE's choice ? The wreck photo seems to point out that she landed wheels down. So it can't be the lagoon, nor the beach. I heard she had already experienced a nose over in her Vega, an she probably does not want to try this with the heavy Electra. The only solution left is the reef. The question is where on the reef ? There are many places that look suitable from the air. So how did che choose ? The main factor when choosing between several emergency landings spot is the wind. It is extremly important, especilally when the place is narrow, like the reef. So where did the wind came from on that day ? The Itasca probably had a meteo station. This could excude a few landing spots. You may wonder how AE could have known the direction of the wind. Ther's a simple trick she probably knew. Just fly a few circles and visualize the center. It will move in the direction of the wind. Greetings to everybody at TIGHAR fred ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:14:10 EDT From: Cam Warreb Subject: Hawaii/California crash Re the reported pre-Earhart crash. Sounds like an incident on "The Pineapple Derby", which went from San Francisco to Honolulu in 1927. School teacher Mildred Doran, flying the MISS DORAN solo, was one of several fliers lost at sea. The Navy, who provided plane watch, spent a good bit of time searching unsuccessfully for any survivors (none found). Capt. Safford participated, and devoted a chapter in FLIGHT INTO YESTERDAY to the event. Other references; The Honolulu Advertiser, circa August, 1927, and the book ABOVE THE PACIFIC (author, publisher unknown). Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:14:51 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: A Bendix DF? Also note page 288 in the Sound Of Wings. Photographs of the bendix receiver, installed in the electra immediately before AE and FN left Miami were shown to the author (Lovell ) by Elgin and Marie Long. Also, East To The Dawn . Page 369. "On March 11, AE flew the electra into Oakland accompanied by Geog McNeely and a representative of the Bendix Aviation who were checking out both direction finder and the radio. Indeed a Bendix official had made a special flight from Washington at the end of Februaryso that Lockheed could install it on the plane." Now go to page 371 same book .The navigation instruments included two magnetic compasses, directional gyro,the Bendix radio direction finder, the Western Electric radio and the cup like microphone........etc. That seems to be fairly conclusive evidence that there was a Bendix direction finder on board. If there were any secrets about the AE flight. one was to test HF/DF as a practical navgation technique. A real conspiracy. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:15:41 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: How blucher oxfords get to Niku William, I don't mind you playing Devil's Advocate at all. I've found that a friendly conversation with a reasonable skeptic is actually a pretty good way of checking for holes in a hypothesis. I think Ric pretty much answered your question, but I'll add a bit to further illustrate "the rules". Since there's never been a blucher oxford factory on Niku, they obviously had to have been brought there from somewhere else. As I said in my previous post, there is physical evidence that Earhart, who was known to wear them, was there, and no one else known to wear them was. You suppose that WWII could be a cause for womens shoes from the '30's to be found on Niku. You're making the same mistake that critics of Niku aircraft debris repeatedly do. Simply, (as explained on TIGHAR's website ) the second world war largely bypassed Gardner Island. As Ric mentioned, the history of the island is fairly well documented. There are no records of nurses passing through en route to various hospitals. There are no records of a USO show coming through to entertain the Coasties at the Loran Station. There are, in fact, (correct me if I'm wrong here Ric) no records of any "western" (i.e. blucher oxford wearing) women having ever been on the island. If you're going to suggest that the shoe parts found weren't from Earhart, (when physical and circumstantial evidence collected by TIGHAR suggests that they were) you're going to have to come up with something more than "WWII took place near there around that time." If you had said that you have a 1940's-1950's vintage photo of five of your aunts wearing blucher oxfords, and that shortly after it was taken, one of them disappeared while on a tour of the South Pacific, we might have something to work with. Remember folks, if (horrors) Johnnie Cochran were a TIGHAR member, he'd say "if you're going to write, first check the website." Love to mothers and aunts with old photo collections, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:13:04 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Howland and Baker The Howland fields (three landing strips) were graded and leveled, with flags lining the runways, along with burning trash bin to indicate wind direction. From the various descriptions of the time, it would have been quite easy to see the three runways on an initial pass-over or approach. Unfortunately, the longest runway, about 3500', was oriented N-S, and would have had a consistent cross-wind component for landing and takeoff. Photos taken later show the nominal disintigration of the runways and overgrowth of vegetation. By 1979, almost nothing was noticeable. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:14:51 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Radial engine applications >Radial engines, gasoline and diesel were used to power some models of the M4 >(Sherman tank) and various tracked vehicles in the 1940s. I'm sure there are >other applications for air cooled radials as well. > >It is illogical to assume a radial engine has to be from an aircraft. Bill is correct, but methinks it is much easier for mother nature to remove a radial engine from an airplane than from a tank. If the engine is found all by itself, with no evidence of the vehicle which it propelled anywhere about, I don't think it is too illogical to assume it is from an airplane. A tank or other tracked vehicle will do just what the engine would do, i.e. tend to stay where it was left. Tom Robison ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:14:10 EDT From: Hugh Graham Subject: Someone sold FN a bill of goods? 3 pro cross-water 1930's pilots told Bob Sherman: > On 'circling', they chided me. All agreed - with grins - that circling was > a perfectly good navigational manuever, and whoever denied using it > it was a liar. Two of them had extensive over water experience and all 3 > said that when they first heard of the event in '37 that they thought anyone > attempting to hit an island ... even the size of Hawaii (which had a radio > range) without expecting to either take or receive a radio bearing was nuts. -----Exactly, and Fred Noonan had written same in a report to Pan-Am when establishing Pacific air routes, i.e.RDF is mandatory to find an island after a lengthy cross-water flight. So logic dictates that FN never would have agreed to the Lae-Howland leg without RDF, and expected AE to do RDF at Howland to get them home. AE had previously removed her trailing-wire antenna which limited 500kc RDF bearings. She requested 7500kc voice 'long count' homing signals by Itasca which, unable to do so, substituted Morse 'A' 's. Now the above doesn't add up. Someone sold FN a bill of goods that didn't materialize. But the fact that a HF RDF set-up was on Howland, which ran out of battery power, sticks out. Also, Vince Bendix promoting 7500kc HF RDF sticks out. And the fact that no record exists of AE ever successfully operating her 7500kc RDF also sticks out. Take your pick. I am also mystified how AE could fly 2000 miles and still not realize her radio receiver was inoperative. Bottom line: I also think it logical for AE to "circle" (or fly a square search pattern) for 15 to 30 minutes while trying to get a null i.e. listening, before heading off on a LOP. So "circling" or "listening" or "DFing" are all synonymous in this context. LTM, HAG 2201. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:15:34 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: More from Johnson's book Excerpts from "More Than My Share Of It All", by Kelly Johnson: [Kelly didn't really say anything in his book that will provide concrete evidence to aid TIGHAR's search. Some things he did say, however, are interesting] "The work I did with her basically was to find out how to get the absolute maximum mileage out of the plane... The two of us, she as pilot and I as flight engineer, would fly her Electra with different weights, different balance conditions, different engine power settings, different alititudes. "We had in those days a gadget known as a Cambridge analyzer to analyze exhaust gas; you used it repeatedly, resetting mixture control and leaning out engine fuel to get maximum miles per gallon. Amelia learned how to do this, too. She also had the advice of another aviation veteran, the famous racing pilot Paul Mantz, on installation of fuel tanks, instruments, and other special provisions for the flight. "Her original intention was to fly around the world to the west, and I listed fuel loads recommended for the first six long hops in a letter to her dated February 17, 1937. "Dear Miss Earhart... The following fuel loads are recommended for the flights noted. These figures are subject to change depending on actual fuel consumption tests which you are going to make, as I discussed with Paul Mantz. A 25 per cent margin (assuming no wind) for range is included in the following figures." [Alas, Kelly did not include those figures in the book, and the rest of this letter, several paragraphs, shows Kelly's deep concern with proper flap settings for take-off] Kelly later says: "With Howland Island, Earhart and Noonan were trying to hit a very, very small speck in the broad Pacific Ocean, an island one and a half ot two miles long and rising only about two feet above water. Fred Noonan was a very good navigator, but it became apparent from radio conversations recorded by the U.S. Navy and others that the sky was so overcast that they could not get down to see any checkpoints nor high enough - above 20,000 feet - to get 'sun shots' to check their navigation. "They had been in the air for 23 hours and, so help me, that's all the time they had fuel for. They did not know their location when they sent their SOS. The Navy mounted a tremendous search effort... The two had a rubber dinghy with them, and, if undamaged, the plane could have floated with the gas tanks emptied. I am convinced that they attempted to ditch the airplane and didn't get away with it. "There has been speculation since that Amelia was on a spy mission to overfly the Japanese and photograph buildups of military facilities and operations. I doubt this. The only camera she had to my knowledge was a Brownie. And there were no openings in the aircraft that would have permitted good aerial photographs. "Also, it has been implied that Amelia may have been a poor pilot. She was a good one when I knew her. She was very sensible, very studious, and paid attention to what she was told." That's about all Kelly Johnson had to say about Amelia Erhart. Tom #2179 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:16:14 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: A Bendix DF? Daryll. yes I remember that posting and it still looks like a can of worms! This is interesting... from Ric's posting: >The loop antenna over the cockpit and the display on the instrument panel are >clearly Bendix products. No argument. The question whether the antenna and >display are coupled to the Western Electric receiver or whether there's a >separate Bendix receiver in the airplane. When Earhart says that the "Bendix >direction finder" is on the instrument panel she is clearly talking about a >display, not a receiver. The receiver would be far too large to mount the >whole thing in the instrument panel. Earhart then goes on to describe the >location of all of the components of the radio system right down to where the >mic is hung, but no mention of any receiver other than the Western Electric >under the co-pilot's seat. This may actually suggest that there WAS a Bendix DF receiver somewhere. Maybe Amelia didn't think of it as a radio receiver but just part of the DF system. And it's probably well to reiterate at this point that the DF arrangement was a simple, manual loop and NOT an ADF system. So, what was it Amelia was talking about on the instrument panel? I've looked again at the schematic diagram we have of the WE-20B receiver. I find no provision for any sort of indicator that might be on the instrument panel of the plane -- not even anything as simple as a signal strength meter (S-meter) that would be very helpful in finding a null in the noisy environment. A meter indication is a lot better for that than the human ear in any case. Magazine articles about the Bendix DF, circa 1937, do speak of indicators from relatively simple left-right meter indicators to pretty elaborate autosyn type indicators to show the bearing of the signal relative the the aircraft heading. Each of these work with the strictly manual loop. However, these do require use of a "sense" antenna and the Bendix "coupling unit." We lack solid evidence that either of these were present on the plane. According to the magazine articles, that "coupling unit" needs to be "tuned" to the signal to be DFed on. It would need to be where the pilot could reach it. Might that be what Amelia spoke of on the instrument panel? It has not been identifed in any photo we've seen of the cockpit and instrument panel. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:17:10 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Electra structural members Just curiosity... I just came upon a photo of the interior of Amelia's Electra before the fuel tanks were installed. It's a good view of that "bridge beam" running through from wing to wing. Is that thing what it appears to be -- a big aluminum casting? Or was it fabricated in some manner that is not evident in the photo? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:16:44 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Crystal controlled receiver? Looking again at the schematic of the WE-20B receiver, I note something I had not paid attention to before. In one corner of the schematic it shows a modification to provide two crystal controlled "channels." If Amelia had this modification, this is the way her receiver tuning would work: Band 1 continuous tuning, 200 to 400 kc Band 2 continuous tuning, 550 to 1500 kc Band 3 crystal controlled 3105 kc Band 4 Crystal controlled 6210 kc When she switched to band 3 or 4, she would be tuned to 3105 kc or 6210 kc. This would be as accurate and as stable as the crystals were. For best sensitivity, the tuning control should be set to approximately these frequencies but this would be pretty uncritical. Tuning off frequency would not loose the signal. It would just be a little weaker. A strong signal would come through no matter where the receiver was tuned. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:18:02 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: navigation Perhaps we might consider for a moment the question of exactly (or in-exactly if that be the case) how Mr. Noonan was able to plot a course from "in-the-vicinity-of" Howland Island to Gardner Island in the Phoenix Chain? Unfortunately, my navagationally challenged mind is having a difficult time trying to absorb & comprehend the many explanations that have appeared on the forum concerning this aspect of the AE/FN mystery. When the LOP that Mr. Noonan plotted failed to intersect with Howland Island at the time he had determined it should, is it safe to conclude that Mr. Noonan did not know whether his calculations had resulted in bringing the flight to a point northwest or southeast of the island or if the flight had "overshot" the island or was still short of reaching their objective? (Assuming of course that he did not utilize an offset navagational error in his calculations.) In other words, since he had failed to make the designated landfall with Howland Island, when & where his calculations informed him that he should find the island, at that point it would seem to my fuzzy thinking brain that he had no definite point-of-reference from which to chart any accurate course in the direction of the Phoenix Chain, or could he simply calculate such a course using only the position of the Sun? (Sorry for trying to oversimplify what is obviously a much more complicated subject than I am able to articulate.) Just one other thought, (again making assumptions) if AE/FN had any reasonably accurate knowledge of how much fuel they had remaining at last radio contact with Itaska & if Mr. Noonan had already plotted a plan "B" course to the Phoenix Islands, it would not seem prudent for them to continue "circling" in the vicinity of Howland, if they were to have any success in reaching the Phoenix Island Group within the contraints of the remaining fuel supply. Additionally, given the estimates of remaining fuel upon reaching Howland, it would seem that upon reaching the "vicinity" of the Phoenix Chain they would have precious little fuel/time left to search for any specific island upon which to land, unless Mr. Noonan had been able to chart an accurate, direct course to any of the individual islands in the chain, which in my unprofessional opinion, would be a navigational feat more remarkable than reaching Howland! Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:21:14 EDT From: Fred Hubschwerlen Subject: Re: Aircraft crash sites in the Phoenix Group The Dole Race was from San Francisco to Hawaii, and 2 planes actually made it. I will check if there was a female pilot in the entries list tonight. Anyway, this has no link with AE. Amities a Maman (~french LTM) Fred ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:22:35 EDT From: Fred HUBSCHWERLEN Subject: Re: Charts Pretty interesting comments. I once read, though I can't puzzle out where, that the charts Fred had were inaccurate, Howland beng far north of the indicated position. Is it possible to check that ? Anyway, it sounds strange because the Itsaca found it's way. Are there any comments about innacuracy in the ship's log ? A little more pilot logic. We know that AE was probably on that solar fix. They knew on which line they were. There are 2 islands on the line : Howland and Niku~. There are thus 3 possibilities. Either north of Howland, between the 2 islands and south of Niku. If they were south of Niku, this means a big big deviation. If they went south, they probably ditched somewhere. That seems strange because of the photo. If they were north of Howland and went north, the conclusion is the same. She never reached Howland, and this excludes 2 more possibilities. The only options left are that she found Niku. Any other island seem quite unlikely, but why note ? If the charts point Howland further south, and if the wind pushed AE in the same direction, we've got two clues saying that she must have found Niku. But AE probably knew were she actually landed, there are not too many islands down there. Why didn't she said anything ? Either the Itsaca did not recieve the message, either her chart was inaccurate, and she was unable to tell on which island she was. Again, this is strange, because the Navy seaplanes found the island. Were AE's chart and the Navy's the same ?? Fred }:0= > Daryll writes > > > 2. Is there evidence that Fred Noonan had a complete set of charts for > the areas in question? I am aware of strip charts that were prepared for > the flight. Did Fred know the locations of all their options? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:23:31 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Hawaii/California crash That's the one. . . thank you Cam. Now I wouldn't have to go look it up again. I thought there were others aboard, but guess I was wrong. It was a long way north, but wonder what the currents were doing in those days? Wonder what kind of engine she had and what kind of shoes she was wearing. My problem with the shoes found on Niku was the condition they were found in. If I remember correctly, there were pretty beat up also. Not much left. Kinda like they had been floating around in the water for ten years. Sorry, couldn't help saying that. Again the point I am trying to make is that just because we can't find documentation only means we haven't looked in the right place. Case in point. . . Niku bone telegrams and the Chater Reports. It took a long time to find that stuff. What else it out there. Don ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:25:14 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Kanton engine Ric wrote, There is, of course, one airplane missing in the area which had engines that fit the description of the one Bruce says he found. I think that the most reasonable speculation is that he found one of the engines from that plane. However, since verifying his memory by finding the engine is a very expensive proposition, it seems like the next reasonable step should be to attempt to verify the accuracy of his memory by other means. If need to document that his memory is accurate and then, if possible, learn what island the engine came from. **************************** That is what I have been saying all along. But, there is no need to find the engine, it probably won't tell us anything anyway....too beat up. We just need to know where it came from and then decide what to do next. As for the only way to prove Bruce's memory is intact is by finding the engine. That is not necessary either! I have done that for $25.00 in phone calls. Bruce's memory is perfectly intact and getting better with every phone call to him. I am verifying his memory by talking to others who were with Bruce on the island. People who have not seen Bruce in 30 years and know nothing of what the research is about. It is amazing how accurate Bruce it! Again let me say loud and clear. . . this may be an old military engine. . . from a Sherman tank or what ever. But it was a radial engine and it was found on an island in the Phoenix Gp. Don ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:26:04 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Winds > From Fred > >The main factor when choosing between several emergency landings spot is the >wind. It is extremly important, especilally when the place is narrow, like >the reef. So where did the wind came from on that day ? The Itasca probably >had a meteo station. This could excude a few landing spots. You may wonder >how AE could have known the direction of the wind. There's a simple trick she >probably knew. Just fly a few circles and visualize the center. It will move >in the direction of the wind. REPONSE: The wind at Itasca could be very different from the wind at Gardner/Niku - I have left airports in neighboring counties and had the winds coming from opposite directions at the two locations within a half hour flight of each other, let alone a couple of hours as in this case. However, do we know the prevailing wind direction at Niku and probabilities of other factors affecting the wind at that particular time of day/year. Blue Skies, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:26:43 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Electra windows Mark Prange asks: <> Just the the windshields and cockpit side windows, all of which were flat glass. The cabin windows were plexi with a slight curve. The cabin door also had a window but we don't know if it was plexi or glass. Reflections in photos suggest that it had some curve to it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:27:40 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Shoes and charts Daryll asks: <<1. Did anybody check to see if the shoe fragments would float in Pacific Ocean water?>> The heel and the sole fragments are rubber. We assume that they would probably float but we didn't test them. <<2. Is there evidence that Fred Noonan had a complete set of charts for the areas in question? I am aware of strip charts that were prepared for the flight. Did Fred know the locations of all their options?>> I don't know what a "complete set" of charts would be but, as far as I know, we don;t have any information about what charts he had with him. We do know that he had good, current charts for other portions of the trip. The biggest question, in my mind, is whether he had charts that showed (or purported to show) the planform of specific islands. It could be an important point becuase the only chart of Gardner then available was wildly inaccurate. anyone coming up overhead the island and comparing it to that chart would probably say, "Whoa! This can't be Gardner!" LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:27:11 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: radial engine applications Don Jordan says: << I do know that there was an engine found on one of three islands in the Phoenix Gp. Those islands are, Enderbury, Sydney and Hull. I am 90% sure, based on research, that is was one of those three islands. >> I'd be interested to hear how you know that. <> I'm curious to know what document it is that confirms the anecdotal eyewitness accounts. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:28:59 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: Navigation The question of the distance Amelia thought she had to fly is an interesting one. >From Dave Bush > >Thus, they should have been able to be almost right on Howland at the end of the > flight. Except, as has been mentioned, Howland was not correctly positoned on > the known charts at the time, being about 4 miles (?) off. Well, 4 miles in the > middle of that ocean is a long, long way given the ceiling and visibility factors. Some documentation shows the distance between Lae and Howland was 2201 NM, others 2222 and even 2227.17. (This is given on the WWW.Nau.edu web site). It might be interesting to compare the distance AE thought she had to fly, and compare it to what it actually was. From the best calculation I have been able to make, I would suggest the actual mileage was 2223.2 NM. If Noonan thought they had 2201 Miles to go (I do not believe so), they would have a shortfall of between 22 and 26 NM, hard to find a tiny Island while flying into the sun, after being awake all night. More likely, there was an error of only 2 to 4 NM. But there was a second source of evidence on the question of Noonan's navigation. Many assume that AE was right on target when she radioed her position of 4 33', 159 7' NE of Bouginville (near the Nukumana Islands). However an accurate plot along the great circle shows that she was acctually 8 NM to the S and the E of that circle. This might have been corrected later. But if not, and it continued, there may be an additional error of as much as 24 miles by the time they reached the Howland area. When Ann Pellegrano followed a similar flight in 1963, she stated they almost missed Howland, even though they had better navigation equipment and knew exactly where it was. One more point might be of interest. When she radioed in at 16:45, AE indicted she was about 200 miles out. But where was that? If you look back along the great circle you will see that 200 miles is close to where the circle path crosses the equator. A most logical point to make a navigtion fix. In summary, although my analysis is ongoing, it appears that AE undershot Howland a few miles, and flew to the East of it. If they then chose the LOP 157/337, and missed Baker for any reason, they would continue onto the Phoenix Islands, most likely Gardner or McKeen. Those Islands were about 300 miles from Baker, which would have taking perhaps 2 hours. Was that amount of Fuel still available? I think so. I find accurate plotting on a large (15 foot map) with the assistance of computer calculations very interesting. If nothing else, it gives more and different meanings to the few cryptic radio messages we have from Amelia. LTM (who finds navigation too much like work). Harry #2300 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:29:30 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Sunrise LoP revisited Ric wrote >>145 degrees from where? He doesn't know where he is on the LoP. This is the key to the hypothesis. The value of the LoP is that it provides a heading to a "known" location from an unknown location on a navigational line. A 157 heading from the Howland Island area on a 337/157 LoP leads to the Phoenix group and specifically, the Gardner Island vicinity. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:30:17 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Kanton engine As I have been reading the various recent postings about the Canton engine, I kept having a nagging rememberance about some of the original TIGHAR source information about the discovery. Finally, after much searching, I found the reference in TIGHAR Tracks Volume 13, #1/2, Sept. 1997, page 16. "I have taken some pictures and airlifted and engine" and "The 'pictures' referred to are 8mm home movie films". What happened to the pictures, have they been analyzed, and what to they depict? Do they resolve or shed any light on any of the recent discussions? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:31:09 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: California/Hawaii flight According to a message from the former director of the Western Air Museum (Oakland, CA) Miss Doran was NOT alone in her Pineapple Derby airplane, nor was she the pilot. That task was handled by one Augie Peddlar. The navigator's name is currently unknown. Perhaps Col. Reineck can find out from back issues of the Honolulu Advertiser. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:31:41 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Emily's anecdote and other statements Like my previous E-mail, I also recalled some discussion about an aircraft on the reef. Found same in TIGHAR Tracks 13, #1/2 Sept. 1997, page 12. Photographic evidence from the 1953 aerial maping was analyzed by Jeff Glickman found four objects which met the necessry qualifications for aluminum debris and one photo one of those objects exhibited a specular reflection. Other articles in that same issue also discuss statments taken from Risasi Finikaso, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taike. Do the recent statements corroborate the previous information? Are they all referring to the same area? Were any detailed measurements taken during the recent trip to cross-reference the photo analysis in an attempt to locate the four referred objects meeting the qualifications for aluminum debris? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 20:52:16 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: A Bendix DF? Rollin Reineck writes: <> You were doing better with the quotes from Last Flight which is, although heavily edited and embellished, fundamentally a primary source. Lovell's mention of a photo shown to her by Elgen Long is, of course, a secondary source. The photo itself would be a primary source if it could be documented as to date and content. What Lovell actually says is. "The Longs also have located photographs of the Electra's interior, taken in Miami, showing an RA-1 receiver fitted on top of the instrument panel directly in front of Amelia." (page 350, The Sound of Wings) There is, of course, no way on Earth that a Bendix RA-1 receiver would fit on top of the Electra's instrument panel. Elgen showed me the same photo. I later obtained a copy of it. It shows a black metal box roughly a foot tall by maybe ten inches wide by about four inches deep mounted on the overhead panel of an Electra cockpit so that it hangs down just above the pilot's left eybrow. There is nothing in the photo to link it with Miami. Indeed, although the cockpit layout looks like Earhart's, there is nothing in the photo which identifies the aircraft as NR16020. There are no people in the photo and the only thing vaguely visible through the windshield is what seems to be the ceiling of a hangar. The box is most certainly not a Bendix RA-1 receiver. Whatever it is, it hangs down far enough so that it should be visible from outside. However, of the dozens of photos of the Electra taken at various times and places during the world flight, I can find none that shows such a box. Personally, I think the photo does show the cockpit of NR16020, but not at Miami. I think the box is probably the remote unit for the Bendix "Radio Compass" that was installed sometime around October 1936 and removed during preparations for the world flight in February 1937. But that's a long story we don't need to get into here. My point is, neither Lovell's claim nor Long's photo establishes the presence of a Bendix receiver aboard the airplane for the second world flight attempt. <> Another secondary source, and this time the information is not even attributed to a primary source. By the way, you left out the first part of the second sentence. What Butler actually said was, "Amelia was undoubtedly the first private pilot to receive a radio direction finder - indeed a Bendix official had made a special flight from Washington at the end of February so that Lockheed could install it on the plane." Perhaps you'd like to comment on the accuracy of that statement. <> Now go to Butler's notes on page 460 same book. Her source for this information is the same passage in Last Flight which fails to mention anything about a Bendix receiver. <> I guess it won't surprise you if I beg to differ. Ltm, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:17:30 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: radial engine/Kanton engine Ric wrote: > Don Jordan says: > >> I do know that there was an engine found on one of three islands in the >> Phoenix Gp. Those islands are, Enderbury, Sydney and Hull. I am 90% sure, >> based on research, that is was one of those three islands. > > I'd be interested to hear how you know that. I don't "KNOW" that. I'm only 90% sure, I could be wrong. Here is the way I arrived at that figure. As you know, I have located and interviewed a pilot from Kanton Island who was there when Bruce was. The name of this pilot you already know and I would prefer to keep it off the Forum for now. This pilot few regular missions to the outer islands from about November 1970 until about June of 1971. This is the time period when Bruce found his engine. At my request, he went back through his pilot's log book to review entries for that time frame. He found there were multiple entries for flights to Hull Island and Enderbury. He also found he had entries for Sydney Island on the following dates. 1,11 and 26 March 1971 and April 13th and 24th 1971. The were two flights to Birnie Island. One to drop off a team on one day and another the next morning to rescue the same team from the island when they were attacked by rats. He has no entries for a flight to Niku, McKean or Rawaki islands. He was aware of some flights to Niku, but he never made the trip. He was a first pilot and often had a different co-pilot. The primary business missions by the SAMTEC people were to Hull and Enderbury, with an occasional trip to Sydney. I am convinced that Bruce found that engine and brought it to Kanton, and did not find it on Kanton, leaves a reasonable assumption that it was picked up on one of those three island. Also, Niku is about 225 miles from Kanton. Fuel would have been a concern and I don't think a pilot would have willingly hovered for the period of time it would take Bruce to inspect and hook up the load, and then fly it all the way back to Kanton just so Bruce could have something to play with. And, Bruce doesn't remember the return flight as being very long. Though he doesn't remember how long! His recollection is that it didn't take very long at all as compared to other such flights. The return from Hull and Sydney is about the same and they would be used as a gauge. Therefore Enderbury would not take very long at all. From this information I would feel 90% sure it was one of the three and with Enderbury as my first choice. Question 2, >> The fact that it was a radial engine is not in question, I have documented >> eyewitness accounts. > > I'm curious to know what document it is that confirms the anecdotal > eyewitness accounts. My answer to this question is a little more complicated. I tape recorded an interview with the above mentioned pilot. The pilot knew and gave me permission to record the session. In the session, the pilot stated he knew nothing of TIGHAR or our research. He talked for thirty minutes about things that happened on Kanton. He remembers Bruce Yoho and Forest Blair, but hasn't seen them since Kanton and doesn't know where they are. I only told him I was looking for a particular pilot who hauled a particular unauthorized load back from one of the missions. He stated he was not aware of any unauthorized loads coming back and check his log book to be sure it wasn't him. After thirty minutes of getting no where, I had to be more specific. So I said. "Bruce Yoho said that he found an old engine on the reef. . . " That was all I said when the pilot cut me off in mid sentence with, "Wait a minute, I do remember an old radial engine". "But I don't know where it came from, who it belonged to or what happened to it". "It was in the maintenance shed area and it was all beat up with only three or four cylinders recognizable. . . the cooling fins and all". The full interview is on audio tape and is in a Word Perfect file. Based on this one interview, and there may be others soon, I have concluded that there really was a radial engine found in the Phoenix Group and last seen in the maintenance shed on Kanton Island. I will send this interview to you (Ric) if you want a copy. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:21:01 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: Re: Radial engine applications I must admit to more than a passing ignorance to air cooled radial engines. However, Tom Robinson wrote: "Bill is correct, but methinks it is much easier for mother nature to remove a radial engine from an airplane than from a tank. If the engine is found all by itself, with no evidence of the vehicle which it propelled anywhere about, I don't think it is too illogical to assume it is from an airplane. A tank or other tracked vehicle will do just what the engine would do, i.e. tend to stay where it was left." Assuming mother nature removed it. One possible scenario: A LTV4 Mk4, basically a lightly armored amphibious personnel carrier, (14 to 18 tons) landing craft hybrid ( a derivation on the M3/ M4 chassis, used in great numbers during and after WW2 by the Marines and Navy in the pacific) breaks down on one of the islands in question, and a field replacement of the engine occurs. Rather than carry the broken engine on to a maintannace station, it gets dumped and abandoned. Abandonment of broken and useless hardware is a time honored military tradition. Assuming it is found all by itself. We don't know this at all, if any debris field was present, do we? Actually I would be suspicious, if in the case of a disintegrating aircraft, if the engine didn't trap at least some bits of cowling, accessories or other debris beneath it's bulk. Problems with the Canton engine is we don't know where it was found. Probably on one of three islands. We don't know anything about the engine, number of cylinders, fuel or carburetor type, accessories, that a photo might tell us. Don Jordan wrote, that Ric wrote: "There is, of course, one airplane missing in the area which had engines that fit the description of the one Bruce says he found. I think that the most reasonable speculation is that he found one of the engines from that plane." How complete a description (lacking photographic evidence) do we have? Number of cylinders? carburetor type? Would an aircraft application radial engine be obviously different from ground based application, especially after years in the elements? Don Jordan "But, there is no need to find the engine, it probably won't tell us anything anyway....too beat up." Even if there were a complete lack of serial numbers or parts to identify with, just observing or measuring a bare block would tell a great deal about this particular engine. Finding this engine in the Canton (kanton?) dump borders on the impossible, so that line of research is out. I'm actually a bit surpassed that this possible origin for the canton engine hadn't come up on the forum before, but then I have observed, even in the hobby shop the aircraft people and the armor people don't mix. LTM (who prefers to fly rather than crawl) bill Zorn ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:22:02 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: Landing logic Hi folks, Speculation as to where on Niku Amelia might have landed her aircraft might very well depend on observations made during an over flight of the island prior to landing. It is logical that Amelia would have been very selective as to where to set her aircraft down. Therefore, upon reaching Niku, she would have made several circuits around the island. Upon sighting the wreck of the S.S. Norwich City, which was relatively intact at the time, she made her decision. Offering the only sign of civilization, the only possibility of resources such as shelter or food, Amelia chose the reef near by. There, she would have attempted to land her aircraft. It might be more than coincidental that anecdotal evidence suggests that aircraft wreckage is located near the Norwich City. LTM, Roger Kelley, #2112 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:22:58 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Dole race Re comment from Fred Hubschwerlen. The "Dole Race" was from Oakland (on San Francisco Bay) to Honolulu (Hawaii). Ms. Doran was a passenger in the aircraft named after her piloted by Augie Pedlar and navigated/co-piloted by USN Lt. Vilas Knope. They disappeared and have not been seen or heard from since. There are a number of good books with much detail about this "race". Ron Reuther ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:23:30 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Dole race To Don Jordan. The "Miss Doran" in the "Dole Race" of 1927 from Oakland to Honolulu, with Miss Mildred Doran as a passenger aboard, was a modified Buhl CA-5 biplane with a single Wright J-5 engine. There are pictures of her shoes in a number of books and newspapers. Ron Reuther ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:24:11 EDT From: Fred Hubschwerlen Subject: Re: Dole race The Miss Doran had a Wright J-6C, like every other participant to that race. That was a radial, single row engine. I think it was uncowled on that airplane. However, Doran, a school teacher, was only a passenger in this flight. Anyway, I still wonder how that engine could have ended on Niku. An other idea : during WW2, the Japanese used several seaplanes carried aboard submarines. One of those even bombed the USA, in Oregon. It is maybe possible that one of those crashed on Niku.... Fly High Fred Hubschwerlen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:24:49 EDT From: Jaume Balaguer Subject: Re: Charts Daryll said: <2. Is there evidence that Fred Noonan had a complete set of charts for the areas in question? I am aware of strip charts that were prepared for the flight. Did Fred know the locations of all their options?> May be I'm not the apropiate person to answer you but I have some statements about the charts. I've read that the charts that they carried there were made specially for AE. These were a very beautiful charts and it were very useful in the shorts flights over the ground (it shows all the airports with frequencies...) but it weren't very good for the long navigation. In the charts there weren't some island of the pacific, and it had been a better choice if they would have carried nautical cartography. I believe that Fred was carrying the maps of that section but not the adequate. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:26:27 EDT From: William Dohenyguy Subject: Shoes, women, and Nikumaroro Both of you are guilty of assuming. I never said women with a certain oxford shoe were running amok on Niku. I simply stated that the shoe in question seemed to be a popular item in the 30's and 40's. I further stated that in the 40's there were women in the area. Mr. Peabody, set your "wayback" machine to 1941. The women's auxiliary ferrying service ( a few made it to the Hawaiian Islands). Women's Air Force service pilots(some made it a little farther). Army Nurse Corps and The Women's Army Corps (WACS). 5,500 which served in places such as Hollandia, Oro Bay, New Guinea, Leyte, and Manila. Granted, not a next door neighbor to Niku, but who knows with winds, tides, waves, and currents. Is it possible that Tighar found the remains of Earhart's shoes? You bet it is. Is it possible that Tighar found the remains of shoes belonging to one of the 5,500? You bet it is. William LTM (who is starting to love this Devil's Advocate stuff,move over Sanctodave) ********************** Fine, William.... but don't push your luck. Also, how do you define "area"? None of the places you mention is what I'd call in the neighborhood. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:29:15 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: radial engine applications >>Radial engines, gasoline and diesel were used to power some models >>of the M4 (Sherman tank) and various tracked vehicles in the 1940s. >>I'm sure there are other applications for air cooled radials as well. >> >>It is illogical to assume a radial engine has to be from an aircraft. > >Bill is correct, but methinks it is much easier for mother nature to remove >a radial engine from an airplane than from a tank. If the engine is found >all by itself, with no evidence of the vehicle which it propelled anywhere >about, I don't think it is too illogical to assume it is from an airplane. >A tank or other tracked vehicle will do just what the engine would do, i.e. >tend to stay where it was left. > >Tom #2179 I can't imagine what you would do with a Sherman tank on an atoll, or how you could possibly land one there. Does anyone have any documentation that a tank was landed on any atoll in the Pacific? Volcanic islands don't count. Dan Postellon TIGHAR 2263 *************************** Well, bulldozers were landed at Niku for the building of the Coast Guard station. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:30:03 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: A bill of goods? Hugh Graham writes: <> When did he do that and how do we know he did? <> As far as I know, no record exists of AE ever successfully using any RDF - period. On the Oakland/Honlulu flight Harry Manning handled the DF. <> Remember that Earhart was not using her radio the way we use a radio today. At quarter to and quarter past the hour she would broadcast whatever she had to say, making no attempt to listen for anything. Probably didn't even put her headphones on. At the hour and half hour she would tune up her receiver, put on her headphones and listen for messages. Most of the time she didn't hear anything because of either atmospheric interference or misunderstandings about frequencies. It didn't much matter because she was not relying on information from the ground - until that morning near Howland. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:30:32 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Crystal controlled receiver I'm aware of no evidence that Earhart had a cystal controlled receiver. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:31:01 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Canton movies Mike Meunich asks: <<"I have taken some pictures and airlifted and engine" and "The 'pictures' referred to are 8mm home movie films". What happened to the pictures, have they been analyzed, and what to they depict? >> Bruce Yoho has quite a bit of 8mm home movied film taken while he working at Canton. Unfortunately, he has been unable to locate the reel that shows the recovery of the engine. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:31:43 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: He's ba-a-a-ack! It's nice to see that Col. Rollin "Rollie" Reineck has rejoined the fray. TIGHAR offers a "big tent" for all of those interested in solving the AE/FN puzzle. Personally, I welcome the colonel's contributions because it allows the moderator an opportunity to recap important points with concise, factual, and accurate data. Welcome back, Rollie! LTM, who remains speechless Dennis McGee #0149CE ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:32:52 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Bendix HF/DF > From Cam Warren > > Hams were getting amazing results with 40 meters in those days, > and the Coast Guard/Navy selected 7500 kc (just above the amateur > band) [This supported by classified documents in my possession]. > So a few people, apparently NOT Comdr. Thompson, were in on the > big secret - AE would home in on the ITASCA using 7500 kc. Just > in case, somebody said, we better have a HF/DF (covering 3105) > on Howland. (And IT was from the secret Navy intercept station > on Hawaii). [Documentation on THAT, too.] Unfortunately the > system didn't work, and L. A. Hyland of Bendix Radio, later > (1964 or so, when queried by Goerner) denied that there was any > Bendix gear aboard the Electra (naturally!). Mr Warren Your theory, fit as good as the shoe they found, and I doubt you find any documentation. To add to it, didn't Thomas say the loop antenna should have work if they were with in 200 miles? That fits with the Bendex radio and loop antenna and DF. It makes sense!!!. The only thing I disagree with on an early post you made, I do think because of the small amount of power the radio on the Electra had, that unless they were on the lower frequencies, the higher ones would only be heard with the skip, since they were not in the air, the only chance they had to heard without the lower frequencies is if they caught the bounce. another words I believe it is very possible they could be heard elsewhere, but not close by, because they were not putting out enough power and they didn't have the lower frequency to use. There are a lot of radio people out there, so if someone thinks I am wrong, please let know why, I am interested hearing your reasoning Regards Warren Lambing ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:35:00 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: HF/DF >From Ric > >Just one quick question. > >Documentation that the Navy had specifically selected 7500 kc >for experiments in HF/DF in 1937 might be reason to explore the >possibility that it had something to do with Earhart's puzzling >selection of that frequency. You claim to have such >documentation. Will you share it with us?" Yes, documentation certainly WAS a reason to explore, etc., which I have certainly been doing. I should clarify that my statement " . . . the Coast Guard/Navy selected 7500 kc" was something of a generalization, if you wish to split hairs. One specific quote (from a classified CG document of 1931) was as follows: " . . . . Headquarters is confident that experiments which are now underway, will shortly succeed in making changes in the present high-frequency direction finding apparatus which will enable accurate bearings to be taken on frequencies of 7000 and 8000 kilocycles . . . ." (Note: this was in 1931!) At the close of this particular multi-page document from the office of the Commandant, USCG is this statement: "This letter and the contents of enclosures are to be kept strictly confidential." The document I have DOES NOT carry any "Declassified" stamp, so, as a journalist I don't wish to disclose the source. (It was not obtained via the FOI act). The Navy is NOT specifically mentioned, but various other sources reveal their intense official interest in HF/DF. Missing unfortunately, is an official document that provides a direct link with Earhart, and I doubt such a piece of paper still survives. Note that people that should have known, including Capt. Safford (who was nominally in charge of DF intercept activity) and Comdr. Thompson, were apparently kept in the dark. You can pursue a search in Treasury/Coast Guard records, now in the National Archives. As I am actively doing. Cam Warren ********************************************* From Ric What you said was: <> As it turns out, what you've got is one 1931 Coast Guard document that says they're doing experiments with high frequency direction finders. And you call that "splitting hairs." << Note that people that should have known, including Capt. Safford (who was nominally in charge of DF intercept activity) and Comdr. Thompson, were apparently kept in the dark.>> So the Coast Guard or Navy gives Earhart this new HF/DF which is apparently so secret that they don't even tell the captain of the ITASCA about it. Why then, did he not question Earhart's request for an impossibly high frequency? Oddly, the authorities are apparently not concerned about the various foreign nationals who will be performing maintenance on the aircraft's radios at various destinations around the world. The guys in Darwin and in Lae who helped Earhart with her radios and later write about the experience fail to mention that her direction finder is a new high frequency unit. Also, this new technology uses an old fashioned open loop antenna (so as not to arouse suspicion?) even though Earhart until recently had a state-of-the-art Bendix Radio Compass installed in the aircraft but had it removed prior to the first world flight attempt. I think your theory needs a little more work. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:26:29 EDT From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: Shoes and Reineck? Perhaps now that Col. Reineck is back he will share his evidence that will destroy the shoe and heel evidence gathered by TIGHAR. For some reason the UFO autopsy film keeps coming to mind. The poor guy who had the film could never say how he obtained it. Please come forward with the evidence Mr. Reineck. If in fact you have some. Otherwise, I am afraid your credibility will be the only thing destroyed in the minds of many. I am still waiting but cannot hear you! Richard Johnson ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:27:14 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Emily's anecdote and other statements Mike Muenich asks: >>Do the recent statements corroborate the previous information?>> Yes. <> The various anecdotes appear to describe the distribution of wreckage over time in a pattern which matches the known natural forces acting upon the island. <> No. A general search of the area turned up nothing, but that is not surprising. The reef flat is a very dynamic environment and it's not reasonable to think that lightweight structures that were there in 1953 would still be there 46 years later. I'll have lots more to say about all this in the rest of the expedition report. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:35:00 EDT From: Frank Kuhre Subject: Re: Electra structural members It is fabricated from several pieces joined together, and runs the entire length of the wing. Some of the pieces are cast as for the tubular sections top and bottom some of it is flat stock bent to specific angles, and others are just flat stock cut and drilled. Your description "bridge beam" is quite accurate it basically was a bridge. LTM Frank ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:39:55 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Charts Time to clear up some mythologies. At the Purdue University Special Collection are all of the AE charts that she sent back from her various stops along the way. Most of them are commercially available nautical and aeronautical charts, some large, some small scale. Most overwater charts were about 1"/degree, or large scale. There are two PAA charts for the Oakland to Honolulu leg, which were not commercially available. The only other non-commercially available charts were those especially produced by Clarence Williams, who made strip charts at very large scale that outlined the flight paths, magnetic deviations, and way points. There are approx. 13 of these charts for the entire world. She obviously did not take them with her, as there is a complete set there. Most of the maps were purchased in NY City or LA, and there is a small scattering of British charts in the collection. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:42:13 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Lost flights Ric wrote. . . >Don's premise that there might have been undocumented flights across the >Pacific that went missing anywhere near Howland or the Phoenix Group just >doesn't hold water. It's about as likely that there were undocumented moon >shots. Prior to WWII, flying across the Central Pacific was a big deal. > >The only commercial traffic was by Pan Am via Canton. Their only loss was >Musick's S-42B at Samoa. Anybody else who was out there (such as >Kingsford-Smith) was headline news. As for the military, the Brits were >doing "sovereignty cruises" in the Phoenix Group in 1935-38 using cruisers >which usually carried a seaplane, but there is no indication that any were >lost. In June of 1941 the U.S. Navy sent a flock of PBYs down from Hawaii >to fly around the islands and take pictures. None were lost. > >During the war there were a number of aircraft lost at Canton. These >included a B-24 that went into the drink just after takeoff and a PV-1 >Ventura that bellied in. There were probably other wrecks on the >island. You got me convinced. There were no undocumented flights lost in the area. That means the Kanton Engine is probably from Amelia's Electra. Damn. . . I don't know why I didn't think of that before. Don (who's in big trouble now) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:45:24 EDT From: Pat Thrashre Subject: Re: Luck William Dohenyguy writes: >What does "don't push your luck" mean? > >William LTM It means that if you decide to start *really* acting like Sactodave, hurling insults and making personal remarks, you too will be dropped from the Forum. Rational discourse will further our research; well-reasoned argument, supported by evidence, is always welcome. But disagreeing just for the sake of being disagreeable wastes my time and a lot of bandwidth. ¿Comprende? Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:47:27 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: How blucher oxfords get to Niku Having a real soft spot for devil's advocates (and loving the picture of women in blucher oxfords running amok on Niku), I have to note that there are records, in the WPHC files, of "shoes" being in stock at the cooperative store on Niku. We don't know what KIND of shoes, of course, and blucher oxfords seem pretty unlikely, but if government procurement practices then were anything like government procurement practices today, there's really no telling. Like everything else, the blucher oxford by itself isn't definitive; it COULD have come from someplace other than Earhart's foot, just like the dado and plexiglass COULD have come from another airplane, the wreckage on the reef COULD have come from Emily's imagination, the bones COULD have come from a Polynesian transvestite, and so on. It's the whole corpus of evidence that's impressive, not any one piece. LTM (who says that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single shoe) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:48:10 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Crystal controlled receiver >From Ric > >I'm aware of no evidence that Earhart had a cystal controlled receiver. My intent was only to call attention to the fact that crystal control of both transmitters and receivers was an existing technology in the 1930s. This had been in question on the forum recently. I do not believe Amelia had the crystal control modification in her WE receiver. That would conflict with some things we do know about her radio setup. Unless there was another receiver on the plane.....?? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:48:58 EDT From: Craig Fuller Subject: Re: Radial engine applications Granted the engine is anecdotal until some documentation (other than verbal) is found (though I believe Bruce 100%)... As far as engine application goes Bruce, an aircraft and powerplant mechanic instructor, identified the engine as a Pratt and Whitney R1340. Did any tanks use that engine? How about an Electra 10E? Craig Fuller AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:50:05 EDT From: Jaume Balaguer Subject: Radio report? Only one stupid question: If they finally decided to fly to Phoenix Islands (after trying to find Howland), Why they didn't report their intentions to Itasca? They lose the radio comunications? or they decided to continue his "adventure" without reporting to radio, having seen that nobody answer him? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:50:50 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radial engine/Kanton engine For Don Jordan You're collecting good information but, in my opinion, you're drawing unwarranted and illogical conclusions from it. You've talked to a pilot who is not the pilot who recovered an engine and you've established that he mostly went to Hull, Sydney and Enderbury. Somehow that makes you 90% sure that the engine came from one of those three islands. At this point the Canton Engine exists only in the form of Bruce Yoho's anecdote with partial anecdotal corroboration by two other parties. Taping an interview and typing a transcript doesn't make the information "documented" in the historical sense. It's still anecdote. I want to establish the facts about the Canton Engine as much as you do, but let's keep our conclusions supportable and our logic logical. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:51:14 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radial engine applications Just for the record, there were no amphibious landings of any kind in the Phoenix Group during WWII. A radial engine, aircraft or otherwise, on a reef in that region is very difficult to explain. The only information we have about the engine comes from Bruce Yoho who describes it as very badly deteriorated, lacking several cylinders and any semblance of accessories. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:52:16 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Bendix HF/DF >Mr Warren > > Your theory, fit as good as the shoe they found, and I doubt >you find any documentation. To add to it, didn't Thomas say the loop >antenna should have work if they were with in 200 miles? That fits with the >Bendex radio and loop antenna and DF. It makes sense!!!. Hey folks, we don't write 'em, we just post 'em. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:54:54 EDT From: Management Subject: NOTICE: Downtime for the Earhart Forum We just got this notice from the host server for the Earhart Forum: ************************** L-Soft is in the process of moving the EASE-HOME server to a new and more powerful machine. Since you have a list hosted on EASE-HOME you will be affected. The move is scheduled to begin at 0930 (Eastern Daylight Time) on Saturday, August 28, 1999. Downtime is expected to be about 2 hours. During this time you will not be able to access your list and no messages will be sent out. Incoming messages will be saved and normal traffic will resume when the new server is restored. As a List Owner, you may wish to notify your subscribers. We regret any inconvenience. ************************** So that means that Saturday morning our time, this weekend, there will be no posts, no mail, no Forum. Those with severe withdrawal symptoms should email us directly for assistance. The Forum will resume on Saturday afternoon. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:55:18 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Book on Lockheeds Thanks to all who cared to help and direct me to places where I can find the book I'm looking for. I'm out of the wood now. Herman De Wulf ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:57:23 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Canton engine Don Jordan says: >As for the only way to prove Bruce's memory is intact is by finding >the engine. That is not necessary either! I have done that for $25.00 >in phone calls. Bruce's memory is perfectly intact and getting better >with every phone call to him. I am verifying his memory by talking to >others who were with Bruce on the island. People who have not seen >Bruce in 30 years and know nothing of what the research is about. It is >amazing how accurate Bruce is! One more time. You can't establish the truth of an anecdote with another anecdote, or even twenty other anecdotes. Of course, the more people you can find who tell the same story the more likely it is that they all saw the same thing, but it doesn't prove anything. Prisons are full of people who were wrongly convicted on the basis of multiple eyewitnesses. Just how bad the problem is has recently been brought to light by the re-examination of cases using DNA matching. Current findings indicate that eyewitness testimony is accurate no more than 50 percent of the time. I personally believe that Bruce is doing his absolute best to tell us what he remembers and I'm encouraged that the recollections of others appear to support parts of his story, but until we have some kind of hard evidence - a log book, a diary, a letter home, a photograph, an engine - the Canton Engine is an enticing possibility. Nothing more. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:09:42 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: LoP Demystified The concept of the Line of Position (LoP) and an understanding of its use in navigation is central to the Earhart mystery but it's not something with which most people are familiar. ("The Post Office? Sure. Just pick up a 157/337 line of position and take Exit 4. You can't miss it." ) However, there's nothing difficult about it once it has been explained in plain English. With apologies to the celestial navigators among us - Let's say that Tom, Dick and Harry are standing in an unobstructed parking lot about the size of - oh - Nebraska. It's a few minutes before dawn and there's not a cloud in the sky. Our heros have been selected for their lightning-fast reflexes and we have equipped each of them with a stopwatch set to local time, a walky-talky, a compass, and a can of white spray paint. We position Tom so that he is facing the horizon where the sun will soon appear. We place Dick facing the same way but a mile behind Tom. Harry gets to stand a mile behind Dick. (push to talk) "Okay gentlemen. When you see the sun first break the horizon, stop your watches." The sun comes up and everybody hits their button. (push to talk) Okay, now take out your compass and your spray can and paint a line on the pavement at right angles to the sun going several feet out to your left and out to right. When we compare the stopwatches we see that Tom stopped his watch just a tiny bit sooner than Dick stopped his, and Harry was a just a tad behind Dick and twice as much behind Tom. In other words, the sun came up at a slightly different moment for each of them depending on where they stood. The line each of them painted on the ground was their Line of Position. Anyone standing anywhere along Dick's line on that morning would have seen the sun at that same moment he did. If they were standing anywhere else they would see it at a different time. Of course, all this is perfectly predictable so, if you have it all written down ahead of time, you can stand in the parking lot on any morning and just note what time the sun comes up and you'll be able to tell exactly what Line of Position you're on - Tom's, Dick's or Harry's, or anywhere in between. You won't know where you are on the line, but you will know what line it is. As everyone knows, the sun always rises in the East so these lines of position will always run North and South, right? Wrong. The sun rises only sort of in the East, and if you stand in the same spot in the parking lot and draw your lines for a week you'll see that each day the sun rises in a slightly different spot on the horizon and your line of position at right angles to it is a little different every day. Now, instead of standing in a parking lot let's say you're flying over the Pacific Ocean and instead of Tom, Dick or Harry let's say your name is Fred. But it's the same deal. By noting what time the sun comes up you immediately know that you're on a particular line just as if it was painted on the water. Because the date happens to be July 2, 1937 the sun comes up at 67 degrees and your line of position at right angles to it is, naturally, 337 degrees going one way and 157 degrees going the other way. That's the only line of position you can get from the sun at dawn and this is the only time (within a day or two) that you would get this particular line. As it turns out, it's a pretty handy line to have. You're headed east-northeastward toward Howland Island flying almost directly into the rising sun so this line of position falls pretty much at right angles across your course. Even though you don't know for sure where you are on the line, it does give you a good check on your progress. It's also useful for finding the island. Because you know what line of position you're on at sunrise, you can "advance" that line across the map until it falls through Howland and measure how far you still have to go to reach that new line. Knowing your speed, you can know at what time you will be on a 337/157 line that passes through Howland. But there is also a happy coincidence to the line you happen to get on this particular day. Advanced through Howland, it also passes through or near three other islands, all of which are to the southeast of Howland - Baker at 40 miles, McKean at about 300 miles, and Gardner at 356 miles. This means that the 337/157 line of position is like an Interstate with four exits. If you miss the one you want all you need to do is head 157 and you'll have three other chances. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:10:16 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: HF/DF I've got good answers for all your questions, but I'm not going to bother you with them at the present. Your right about one thing; my theory still needs work, but it is a lead far more promising than another very futile attempt that comes to mind! Cam Warren ************************************ From Ric S'ok. Take your time. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:10:41 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: Canton movies What about the other film from Canton? Has anyone reviewed it on the possibility it might show engine, location, buildings, reference points, etc.? ****************************************** From Ric Lots of buildings, reference points, big helicopters, tanned guys - no engine. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:26:00 EDT From: Robert Klaus Subject: Radial engines If memory serves the Canton engine was provisionally identified as an R-1340 based on general configuration and size, rather than on the basis of markings or precise measurement (e.g., bore and stroke). Assuming it was correctly identified as a single row Pratt Whitney, how confident are you of the specific ID? Since several jugs were missing, and the size assessment was based on memory, could it have been a 985 rather than a 1340? Could it have been a Japanese copy (license produced) of a Wasp, or a development thereof? Could it have gotten to the reef by other means, such as jettisoned cargo from a ship? Finally, could it have been an abandoned engine from an LVT used by the Coast Guard or the Missile folks? LTM Robert Klaus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:27:01 EDT From: Don Iwanski Subject: Re: Radial engine/Kanton engine A few years back I remember seeing part of a program regarding Amerlia Earhart and the commercial they were broadcasting showed a radial engine laying on a reef flat with waves breaking over it. I don't remember watching the full broadcast for whatever reason, but I do remember the commercial they were running at this time. Does anyone remember this show or of maybe the story of finding a radial engine on a reef flat or coral bed where the serials may have not matched up with the Earhart aircraft? Just wondering. The thread on the radial engine has been interesting and I keep reflecting back to the TV show which I never really watched the whole story, but vividly remember the commercial with the waves breaking over the radial engine. Regards, Don I. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:28:20 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Canton movies Remember, the engine was only on Kanton for about 30 days. Not long at all. The IG inspection caused it to be tossed. The chances of a photo showing it are slim, but we are working that angle also. We are not only looking for pilots who were there, but the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. Anybody may have a picture. However, a picture would only backup what we already know. There was an old radial engine sitting by a maintenance shed on Kanton island in early 1971. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:29:41 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: LoP Demystified An excellent explanation of the LOP. I thought that was the way it worked, but wasn't sure. But I have an honest question. . . .what happens if Fred can't see the sunrise because it is blocked by clouds for a few minutes. How much would that make a difference? And how can he compensate for that. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:30:15 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Sunrise LoP revisited In regards to the LoP, since Fred Noonan undoubtedly shot stars all night, would he not have had a very solid understanding of his approximate position on the LoP just after dawn? Ric wrote: > 145 degrees from where? He doesn't know where he is on the LoP. And later: >... those islands are widely scattered pinpoints in an incredibly vast > ocean. The LoP is all he's got. So, it would be more proper to say, "The LoP AND THE NIGHT STAR SIGHTINGS were all he had." Of course, if aerial celestial navigation was such an exact science, then he would have made Howland after all. Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:31:00 EDT From: Russ Matthews Subject: Hot and bothered Cam Warren wrote: >I've got good answers for all your questions, but I'm not going >to bother you with them at the present. It's no bother, Cam. I think it's pretty clear that everybody here is interested in the Earhart mystery and is prepared to devote at least a small part of each day to pursuing it. Go ahead and dazzle us, we can hardly wait. But, until you can put your evidence where your mouth is...don't bother us with any more of your opinions. LTM, Russ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:33:37 EDT From: Jon Pieti Subject: Sea Classics article This is an admirable response. I can't help but wonder about one issue Mr. Reineck has raised in the Sep 99 (Vol 32, No. 9) issue of SEA CLASSICS. Maybe this has been hashed & rehashed before my interest in the postings on this forum, but I have to ask: What is this about the transcribed Dictaphone record between Henry Morgenthau, and Mrs. Roosevelt's secretary Malvina Scheider, that Mr. Reineck quotes? For those of you who may not have (or care to) read it, the article indicates that Mr. Morgenthau knew of Amelia & Fred's ultimate ending, suppressed the Itasca Official Report, then eventually "modified" the Itasca radio log to cover it up. Sounds like a wild one to me, but I would think that it should be easy enough to confirm this document in the Roosevelt hyde Park Library, as Mr. Reineck states. It's also amusing to note that the inset panel (in the article) by Mr. Owen Gault, seems to support Mr. Reineck's theory, and makes no mention of the possibility of Amelia's making landfall on Nuku, then recommends that people who care to learn more about this visit the TIGHAR website. Won't those people be suprised! - Jon Pieti ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:34:43 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Radio report? Good question! I wonder about that too. They were heard 9 times prior to 08:43 when the last message came it. Only speculation can answer the question. But here is my guess, 1, They ran out of gas and landed on the water shortly after 08:43 2, They found an island and landed to sort things out. 3, They had total radio failure. ( They did have a lot of radio trouble on the trip) Here is another question, They assumed they were running on the 157/337 LOP through Howland, but if for some reason they could not get an accurate sunrise time, how could they be sure? Don ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:35:18 EDT From: David Potenzano Subject: Re: Canton movies This engine thing keeps nawing at me. I read somewhere that some amtracs in WWII had radial engines. Is it possible one or more was used to ferry supplies? I'll try to find out where I read this. LTM(Who never hit the beech) Dave 1611 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:35:51 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: How blucher oxfords get to Niku There's one other possible source for women's shoes during the late 30's/early 40's. Captain Johnson took a yacht with some female companions through the area looking for Earhart, and I believe he landed at Gardner. Once he found out that it was inhabited and nothing from AE, he left. I wonder if some women took a hike somewhere... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:39:39 EDT From: Richard Johnson Subject: Body decomposition In his report concerning the Niku bones, Dr. Hoodless says except in one or two small places all traces of muscular attachment have been obliterated. In a tropical enviornment, how long would it take for the muscle to decompose away from the bone? Just trying to pin down a landing date for the bones. Any forensic experts? Richard Johnson ************************* From Pat In the reports from the Fiji team posted on the Forum, and also archived in the Forum Highlights on the web site, there is discussion about this. A body was discovered in Fiji while the team was there, and our very own Dr. Karen Ramey Burns, forensic osteologist, aided in identifying the body. Turned out it was a tourist who had disappeared about three months before, leaving a suicide note, and the remains were pretty well skeletonized.... ! Not long, in other words. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:40:52 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Electra structural members Frank Kuhre writes: <> I'm sure Frank meant to say that the Main Beam runs the entire length of the centersection - engine to engine - not the entire length of the wing. Frank, what structures or components within the wing are steel? Trying to figure out what our witness Emily Sikuli may have seen, I'm looking for something maybe ten feet long that would be quite heavy and remain as rusty debris on a reef after other wreckage had been swept away. I know the main gear legs are massive castings and I think they're steel, but they're not that long. How about the gear actuating rods? LTM, ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:41:28 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Heading for Gardner? Jaume Balaguer asks: <> By coincidence, I just went through the hypothetical scenario with one of our researchers off forum. I'll let my reply to his questions do double-duty here. ************************************ It's 1912Z (0742 local, "WE MUST BE ON YOU...") and I've reached the LoP ( or my best calculations tell me that I have). No Howland. Damn. I don't know where I am on the line but I do know that I'm somewhere in the neighborhood and not in the South China Sea. Howland is either off to my left (337) or off to my right (157). In other words, I'm either northwest of Howland or southeast of Howland. I can go look to the northwest but I've got to make sure that I can come back to this spot and still have enough fuel to fly southeastward far enough to be sure of reaching land. How far is that? All of the other islands on this line are southeast of Howland - Baker at 40 miles, McKean at about 300 miles but off the line a bit to the east, and Gardner at 356 nm. If, having not seen Howland on my excursion to the northwest, I come back to this spot with enough fuel to fly another 356 miles, I can be quite sure of reaching land. The only way I'm screwed is if I'm aleady more than 356 miles away from Howland in either direction. So it's 1912Z and I'm about to head up the LoP. I have 188 gallons of fuel left (if I've been following Kelly's tables). To cover my 356 nm insurance policy I need at least 2.7 hours at 130 knots. I can't expect to get 38 gallons per hour if I'm down low looking for islands. Lockheed specs show the 10E burning 56 gph at 65% power which yields 158 knots at sea level. Staying backed off to an ecomomical 130 knots should get us about 45 gph (a guess). At that rate my 188 gallons will last me just over 4 hours. Let's play it safe. I can afford to fly up the line for half an hour (65 nm), but if I haven't spotted Howland by then I'll have to turn around and come back here so that I start my run to the southeast with 3 hours of fuel. <> It's interesting that the 2013Z (0843 local)transmission comes at just the time that my speculative scenario has them beginning their run to the southeast. They don't say "we think we are South of Howland but don't know how far", or "we are heading for the Phoenix Islands" because they don't know any of that. At this point they're hoping that they were northwest of Howland all along and that they'll find it just over the horizon to the southeast. Exactly what AE said at the end of the transmission is questionable. It's clear from the log entry that it caught the operator by surprise and he had to go back and cram it in, but something about running north and south on the line is about all they can say about where they are and what they're doing. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:42:42 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: How blucher oxforeds get to Niku Tom King says: <> Some hint as to the quality of shoes in stock at the Co-Op store might be gleaned from the fact that all 10 pairs were inventoried at a total value of 1 Pound, 9 Shillings and 2 Pence. If I remember my medieval British history correctly, there are 12 Shillings in a Pound. I recall my Dad saying that when he was in England during the war, a Pound was worth about $5. So, as a rough estimate, it would seem that the wholesale cost of the shoes at the store was a little less than a buck a pair. Apparently, litter from the remains of women's shoes has long been a problem on Niku. Gallagher ran into it in 1940. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:42:02 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: LoP Demystified That's a really nice explanation; even a dumb archeologist can understand it. It also suggests, does it not, that a miscalculation of airspeed and advancing one's LOP on that basis could put one significantly to the northeast or southwest of Howland when one thought one should be "on" it? In which case flying the LOP would get one neither to Howland nor to Niku? LTM (who's never sure where she is) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:45:28 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: How blucher oxfords get to Niku More documentation on this would be interesting... william 2243 >From Randy Jacobson > > There's one other possible source for women's shoes during the late > 30's/early 40's. Captain Johnson took a yacht with some > female companions... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:21:34 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: How blucher oxfords get to Niku Ric wrote: >>>Apparently, litter from the remains of women's shoes has long been a >>>problem >>>on Niku. Gallagher ran into it in 1940. I love it! william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:22:52 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: LoP Demystified > But I have an honest question. . . .what happens if Fred can't > see the sunrise because it is blocked by clouds for a few > minutes. How much would that make a difference? And how > can he compensate for that. > > Don J. If he can't see the sunrise for a few minutes, he has to start approximating its direction and guessing when it broke the horizon (a dicey business). Celestial navigation techniques quickly break down under cloud cover. william ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:24:14 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: How blucher oxfords get to Niku That's the first time I've heard the Captain Johnson story, Randy. What's your source? LTM (whose oxfords pinch) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:25:06 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Body decomposition To elaborate a bit on Pat's report on the body in Fiji -- the environment was not dissimilar to Niku -- warm and moist, rainforest, though the site was on top of a clay ridge rather than on coral sand and rubble. The body was completely skeletonized, the bones fairly scattered, some entirely missing. No musculature at all. On the other hand, the muscle attachments were clear enough that Kar could tell that the fellow had smiled a lot. On the other hand, there weren't any coconut crabs to chew on the bones. On the other hand, there were dogs and pigs, and some of the bones WERE chewed. On the other hand... Incidentally, an apparently equivalent case of rapid skeletonization has been reported recently on Saipan by the Northern Mariana Islands Historic Preservation Officer, investigating an apparent crime scene for the local police. Study is ongoing, but the last I heard it looked like complete skeletonization in only a few months. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:25:57 EDT From: Walt Holm Subject: Re: Sources for radial engines Greetings Ric, Don, Craig, and the forum: > From Craig Fuller > > Granted the engine is anecdotal until some documentation (other than > verbal) is found (though I believe Bruce 100%)... As far as engine > application goes Bruce, an aircraft and powerplant mechanic instructor, > identified the engine as a Pratt and Whitney R1340. Did any tanks use > that engine? How about an Electra 10E? > IIRC, the engine used in the Sherman tank and its related vehicles was the Wright R-975, which in earlier life had been known as a J-6-9 Whirlwind. This engine is pretty similar in size to a R-1340, so I think the issue bears further investigation. Did Bruce really identify the engine as an R-1340, or did he say that it was about that size? (For instance, in his orginal interviews by Ric or followups by Don, did he specifically rule out a R-985, which is nearly identical in size to a R-975?) Kudos to whomever (I'm too lazy to look back at the old forum summaries) it was who broke us out of the aircraft-centric thinking. -Walt Holm ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:26:46 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: LoP Demystified I wondered that too, Tom, but was thinking that perhaps the answer to both our questions lies in the time that you first see the sun coming up over the horizon. I presume (gulp!) that the angle that the direction the sun came over the horizon for Tom, Dick and Harry was the same (since we are dealing with the sunrise on the same day for all three--not spread over several days so the Sun would take a different angle), and the three LOPs that are painted on that parking lot are parallel to each other. But, if you adjust for the time that each guy saw the sun, and compared this with standard navigation/sun position plot tables, then this would give you some idea of how far east vs. west you are. Same for Fred Noonan, who could then correct any distance miscalculation based upon a miscalculation of airspeed (but I guess he would also have to correct for altitude, since he would see the sun rise from aloft before a person floating on the ocean directly below). Also, I remember the Itasca messages that just before transmission from Earhart stopped she said they were running north and south on the line and her signal came in very loud as if she were quite close. So, perhaps that's the best evidence that Fred did his airspeed/advancing of LOP calculations correctly, whatever the answer to both our questions. O.K., if I am totally wrong, someone please correct me---the boy has guts and is trying! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:27:28 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: LoP Demystified Ric, Thanks for your "LOP Demystified" post. However, having advanced our LOP through the night & when our sun reading at dawn (when our chronometer tells us we should see Howland Island appearing on the horizon to intersect with our own LOP line) fails to coincide with any sign of Howland Island, how do we plot an accurate course to any of the Phoenix Islands when we do not know exactly by how many miles/degrees we have missed our objective, whether we have fallen short or overshot the island, whether we are somewhere northwest or southeast of the island? In other words, even tho we may have a very accurate LOP, since we did not hit our original objective & do not have any definite idea as to exactly where our LOP has deposited us, how can we be sure that by simply heading southeast on the lower leg of our LOP that we will strike one of those (admittedly) small, widely spread out islands of the Phoenix chain, especially with an acknowledged, dwindling fuel supply, that will not permit any extensive seach for one of these islands even if we are successful in navigating ourselves into a "ballpark" area of the Phoenix chain? From all the information which has been developed through the Forum & TIGHAR's investigations of the many questions raised in this case, I've personally concluded that flying southeast to the Phoenix Island Chain was the only reasonable choice that AE/FN had available, once they ascertained that they were unable to sight Howland or make any reliable radio contact with Itaska & after examining the charts of the Pacific surrounding Howland & reviewing the critical condition of their remaining fuel supply. Had they decided to simply ditch the aircraft in the sea at this point, it would seem probable they would have wanted to do so in as close proximity to where they_thought_ Howland should be located (likely right after their only reception of an Itaska radio signal, which was unable to provide them with any directional "fix") & would have communicated that information to Itaska until they actually hit the water, in order to assure a reasonably prompt "pick-up" by Itaska. Since no such radio message was ever recorded, it seems unlikely they ditched the plane at sea, at least not within radio range of Itaska, so now I'm stuck with the problem of trying to establish (if only in my own mind) just how "easy" it would have been for FN to plot an accurate course to any one of the Phoenix Islands & quite frankly, I've concluded such a task was no "piece of cake", given all the above unknowns he had to overcome! Maybe my own lack of any navigational experience is simply blocking my view of seeing & understanding how FN achieved what I would consider IMO(very)HO to be a very remarkable piece of navigation. Thanks for putting up with my continued inability to see what most TIGHAR & Forum members probably believe should be right in front of my nose! Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:28:16 EDT From: Frank Kuhre Subject: Re: Electra structural members Ric, The beam runs the entire length of the wing, although it is in three pieces, 1is the center section and the other two are in the detachable wing sections, which are just outboard of the engine mounts. The steel part you are looking for, do you know any of the other dimensions besides the 10' ? I think that for the length, maybe the flap control rods? The gear was a worm drive, and did not have actuator rods. I will see if I still have the drawings for the repair I did to the truss beam, center cabin. I can't remember whether the cap for the beam was steel or aluminum, I think it was aluminum. If you have other dimensions for the steel part let me know, I'll drudge up the pictures, and see if I can't dust the cobwebs off of my memory. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:29:31 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Radial engines Robert Klaus asks: <> In Bruce's initial descriptions he said it looked like either a 985 or a 1340, but a 985 would be evn harder to explain than a 1340. <> I suppose, if the Japanese in fact had such an engine and if a Japanese airplane little enough to have such an engine somehow ended up a thousand miles from the nearest Japanese airfield. <> We know of no ship that grounded anywhere in the Phoenix and was saved by jettisoning cargo, but it could have happened. How about a cargo plane carrying a shipment of engines and having an engine failure and pushing a 1340 out the door as they happened to be over an island? <> I don't know of any LVTs being used in the Phoenix Group, but it could have happened. There are probably a hundred imaginable scenarios that could put an engine on a reef but some are more probable than others. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:28:45 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Electra structural members >Frank, what structures or components within the wing are steel? Trying to >figure out what our witness Emily Sikuli may have seen, I'm looking for >something maybe ten feet long that would be quite heavy and remain as rusty >debris on a reef after other wreckage had been swept away. I know the main >gear legs are massive castings and I think they're steel, but they're not >that long. How about the gear actuating rods? Ric, Is the "rusty" a for sure observation, as stated by Emily? I keep worrying that, from her first hand experience with aluminum, she may think of it in thin sheets -- good for frying fish, etc. Might she think of more massive things as not being aluminum, but steel? That beam from engine-to-engine that looks to be an aluminum casting would sure make your ten feet, then some. But it's rectangular, or square, in section and full of holes -- in one plane. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:29:56 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Canton movies Don Jordan says: <> If we know that then we also know that a lady flier with short hair who dressed like a man and whom the Japanese referred to a "Meelia" was captured and imprisoned on Saipan. Incidentally, Bruce said the engine was propped up outside the line shack and the most recent witness says he saw it in the maintenance shop. Which one is correct? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:30:21 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: LoP Demystified Don Jordan asks: <<..what happens if Fred can't see the sunrise because it is blocked by clouds for a few minutes. How much would that make a difference? And how can he compensate for that.>> How much difference it would make depends on how much cloud obscures the horizon and how difficult it is for Fred to estimate how much they delay the appearance of the sun. In any event, he can always confirm and correct his line by taking more sun shots once the sun is well above the horizon. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:30:58 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Not Air Jordans, then Apologies if this has already been dealt with - I'm (temporarily, fingers crossed) unable to receive individual Forum messages so have to keep up to date via the web site archive. Ric wrote recently, a propos shoes in the store on Gardner: Cheaper still, in fact. It was 12 pence = one shilling, 20 shillings = one pound. So the whole lot were valued at 1.46 in British decimal currency, used since 1971 (about 100 years too late), which makes about 70 US cents a pair. LTM, Phil 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:31:50 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: How blucher oxfords get to Niku From the letter Capt. Irving Johnson sent to Ms. Bessie Young on June 4, 1940: "On the way down from Honolulu we also searched in the Phoenix Group, but did not call at several inhabited islands including Hull. Three years ago these islands were not inhabited, sut since then they have had a very bad drought in the southern Gilbert Islands and over 1000 of the natives have been transported to the Phoenix Group in order to relieve the food situation. This means that several government officers as well as these hundreds of natives have been in the Phoenix Group. This also means that schooners have crisscrossed many times between the Gilbert Islands and the Phoenix Islands within the last two years." I guess my memory was somewhat corrupted. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:32:55 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Sea Classics article The Morgenthal transcripts must be taken in context. Paul Mantz had asked the Coast Guard for all available information regarding her disappearance, so that he might be able to reconstruct what happened. While CGHQ had a file of radio messages, some of them were restricted (denoting ship movements of the Navy; others were telegrams from individuals that could not be released without consent of the two parties). Thompson's transcripts was a better, more complete source, and had the same problems. It also had the problem that Thompson did not offer a flattering view upon Earhart and her flying capabilities. It is this report that Morgenthal was discussing. He was also in a bind in that FDR and Eleanor were pressuring him to help Mantz. I find no evidence of a conspiracy given this context. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:33:21 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: LoP Demystified The LOP can be taken at any time after sunrise by measuring the height of the sun above the horizon. Doing it at sunrise offers the ability to measure the LOP without a sextant/octant. The LOP remains 157/337 in the vicinity of Howland until aprox. 1900GMT, when the LOP changes to 156/336. This also infers that the LOP, if obtained, was made prior to AE's last transmission. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:34:08 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: Johnson's tables Ric - Please clarify the use of the Johnson's tables. They table lists fuel rate in gallons per hour. However that cannot be constant during each 3 hour period, as the plane is losing weight, and will reach cruising speed by the end of the second entry (4 hours). Once the plane reaches cruising speed, what happens to the fuel rate? It must decrease. Is the rate given in this table the rate that the plane should consume on average at each setting, or is the rate that the plane should consume at the start of each setting (and decrease as time continues), or is there some other factor here that is being overlooked? It may have taking the first full hour to reach cruising altitude (8000 feet), but AE climbed at a rate of the first 4800 feet in 13 minutes when she left Miami. Considering the greater fuel load weight in Lae, and the longer climb distance (to 8000 feet), wouldn't that point to a rate of 8000 feet in 40 to 45 minutes? LTM Harry #2300 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:36:41 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Shoes and more shoes In connection with the Great Shoe Debate (successor to the Great Fuel Debate, may it rest in peace), I think it might be instructive to review what Gallagher actually said about the footwear fragments he saw on Niku in 1940. The following are excerpted from telegrams and letters reprinted in "The Tarawa File," TIGHAR Tracks Vol. 13 No. 1/2 (September 1997): In his initial telegram to the Resident Commissioner dated 9/23/1940, Gallagher reports finding "part of a shoe," which was "a woman's and probably size 10." Pressed for more details by the RC, Gallagher responds on 10/6/1940 by clarifying that "only part of sole remains." Yet in the very next sentence, he nonetheless asserts that the shoe "appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal". On 10/15/1940 Gallagher receives a telegram from no less than Henry Vaskess, Secretary of the Western Pacific High Commission, requesting the basis for Gallagher's belief that the remains found along with the shoe fragments were those of a woman. Two days later, Gallagher replies: "Only experienced man could state sex from available bones; my conclusion [is] based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's." This is Gallagher's last explicit reference to the shoe fragments; subsequent correspondence deals primarily with the skeletal remains, the sextant box and Dr. Isaac's wounded pride. It has always mystified me how Gallagher, who had no known experience as a cobbler, could have reached his very specific conclusions (type of shoe, size, gender of wearer) based upon part of a shoe sole. These inferences could be understandable if a portion of the uppers had survived, or if other evidence found in the general vicinity pointed to a female wearer. But Gallagher specifies that no clothing, hair or personal effects were located; his conclusion is based entirely "on sole of shoe." It is also worth noting that on two separate occasions, 9/23 and 10/17/1940, Gallagher opines that the human remains found on Niku appear to be more than four years old, adding the second time that he is "quite certain" of that fact. Now I realize that TIGHAR also has fragments of a sole, probably a woman's size 8.5 or 9 Blucher oxford, which it believes to be from the same pair of shoes. But what I want to focus on here is the fragments found by Gallagher, because IF they were more than four years old then it stands to reason that TIGHAR's shoe relics also predate 1937. (After all, what are the chances that *two* rather large-footed women both lost American-style shoes on Niku in the 1930's?) There has been a great deal of speculation in previous forums regarding how a pair of "stoutish walking shoes" like the ones worn by our heroine could have been reduced to sole fragments in just over three years. Scavenging by coconut crabs is the generally-accepted theory, but does this also explain the complete absence of clothing on a three-year-old skeleton? Little first-hand research seems to have been done in this area, which is surprising given the importance of the skeletal remains and shoe fragments to the Niku Hypothesis. (As I recall, a pair of leather gloves left behind on one expedition was recovered in pretty good shape a year or two later, but this appears to be TIGHAR's one and only experiment directed at the deterioration of organic substances in the Niku enivronment). So in an effort to develop additional hard data regarding what seems to be a pretty significant piece of the Earhart puzzle, allow me to suggest an appropriate, if somewhat messy, testing regiment for next year's expedition. I assure you I'm *not* being facetious about this; however, the squeamish may wish to stop reading here. 1. Enlist the aid of a shoe manufacturer in finding a pair of shoes roughly similar to 1930's-era Blucher oxfords. 2. Purchase a medium-sized farm animal (sheep, pig, goat) on Fiji and transport it to Niku in vivo. I realize this will make for a less than pleasant voyage, but science is a stern mistress. 3. Lead the animal to a site near where TIGHAR found the shoe fragments. 4. Kill it (humanely, of course). 5. Put the shoes on the carcass and do your best to drape it in clothing similar to that worn by AE, as depicted in the Lae takeoff film. You might puts some coins and keys in the pockets. 6. Come back three years later and see what's left. If the above seems too distasteful, then I suppose you could find a pre-slaughtered animal carcass on Fiji, but let's hope the Naia has a BIG freezer. In any event, I can think of no better or simpler way to determine what would likely happen to clothed-and-shod human remains in three years of exposure to the Niku environment. (Remember that only the skull had been buried; the remaining remains were found lying under a "Ren" tree, indicating continuous exposure since the unfortunate wayfarer's death.) If, after three years, the shoes are seriously degraded, the bones scattered, and the clothing all but gone, then you have concrete evidence in support of the Niku Hypothesis. If the shoes, skeleton and clothing are largely intact, then alternative explanations of the artifacts found by Gallagher (and TIGHAR) must be given serious consideration. I realize that the thought of dispatching a live animal may be offensive to some, but if anyone can come up with a more valid means of determining shoe, clothing and skeletal deterioration rates, the feeding habits of coconut crabs, etc., in the precise environment purportedly experienced by our heroes, I'm all ears. It just seems to me that these factors are crucial to TIGHAR's entire hypothesis, no other physical evidence of AE's presence on Niku having panned out thus far. (My position? Firmly astride the fence.) Sometime I also would like to see the actual correspondence between TIGHAR and Biltrite regarding Artifacts 2-2-G-7 and 2-2-G-8 (the shoe fragments and heel found on Niku in 1991), as it's unclear from the descriptions appearing on the TIGHAR website which comments are Biltrite's and which are Ric's extrapolations therefrom. Maybe you could post the correspondence as a "document of the week" when you get the time. LTM (whose delicacy forbids further comment) *********************************************** From Ric Last things first. Good idea. We can certainly post the correspondence. The identification of the shoe as to size, style and vintage was entirely Biltrite's, not mine. Until I talked to them I only knew Blucher as the Prussian general at Waterloo and Oxford as a school. Your suggested experiment is not at all too distasteful for our taste. As a matter of fact, a crude version of just such a test was attempted during Niku III in 1997 when we laid out the left-overs from a rather delicious leg of lamb to see whether the crabs would disarticulate and scatter the bones. Unfortunately, within two days the weather got so bad that the area flooded and we lost the experiment. More recently, with the help of a colleague (accomplice?) on Saipan, Tom King has been fostering a more elaborate experiment. I'll let him say what he wants to about that. It was also our intention to set up a test similar to what you describe during our recent trip to Niku, but there was just too much other work of higher priority. The biggest problem with such as experiment is selecting exactly where on Niku to set it up. We don't know for sure where Gallagher found his bones and shoe parts, and even if we did, chances are that the specific environment in that location has changed since 1940. Crab population, ground composition and overhead cover are important factors. That said, we can make a few observations based upon our experience with the island (which, I will point out, is now as good or better than Gallagher's at the time he wrote his opinions). - I would not expect any conventional leather shoe to break down to the extent of the one Gallagher found or the one we found in four years, or even ten years, by climatic forces alone. The example of the gloves suggests that leather will be eventually consumed by microbial activity but it takes along time. On the other hand, politically incorrect, non-biodegradable, plastic flagging tape is faded and brittle after two years. - The absence of clothing and hair doesn't bother me. A castaway on Niku might very quickly get down to the barest essentials in terms of clothing. After death, any cloth exposed to direct sunlight would break down very rapidly and the birds would make good use of any available hair. - Jewelry, watches, and coins should survive indefinitely unless carried off by crabs, rats or birds. On the other hand, such items are of no use to a castaway. - I don't know how valid Gallagher's or Isaac's opinion may have been about how long the bones had been laying around. As far as I know, neither of them had any experience in assessing the age of bones that had been laying out in that environment. I do know that, according to Dr. Karen Burns (who does forensic anthropological assessments of bones all over the world) the environment on Niku would make bones look very old very fast. - What puzzles me the most are the missing bones. Big chunks of the body were gone. Most of the right arm. The left leg from the knee down. Virtually the entire rib cage and spinal column and half of the pelvis. Time alone doesn't do that. Dem bones, dem bones doesn't walk around. Gallagher attributes the missing bits and the damage to existing bones to the depredations of coconut crabs, and maybe he's right, but the only way that Birgus latro can handle the missing bones is if the skeleton is so dried out as to be disarticulated (the bones separated from each other). Then Mr. Crab can toddle off with an individual rib or vertabra, and maybe even a tibia (shin bone). But by then it's hard to see why he'd be interested. Crabs aren't like terriers who love to chew on bones. They're into flesh, man. The scattering of the skeleton seems to be a problem regardless of when it got there. The kind of body parts distribution Gallagher describes sounds to me like what you see when dogs find a deer carcass. Dogs would also account for the rapid breakdown of the shoes. Pigs would work too. Trouble is, I can't put dogs or pigs on the island anytime before the bones were found. Emily Sikuli says the early colonists didn't have any animals with them. Mrs. O'Brian doesn't remember one way or the other. It's a puzzlement. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:37:31 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Kanton engine Ric wrote, >You're collecting good information but, in my opinion, you're drawing >unwarranted and illogical conclusions from it. You've talked to a pilot >who is not the pilot who recovered an engine and you've established that he >mostly went to Hull, Sydney and Enderbury. Somehow that makes you 90% >sure that the engine came from one of those three islands. There was a little bit more to the equation than that! But for the life of me I don't see the need for all this squabbling. What is the harm with saying that there was an engine found on a reef in the Phoenix Group. It isn't going to cost us (TIGHAR) anything to investigate it further. And just for the record let me say this. I think you (Ric) are the most knowledgeable individual in the world on the subject of Amelia Earhart. I am proud to be associated with you and TIGHAR and I am proud to be able to stand up and trade shots with you on this subject. I have been studying this mystery since the mid 60's, but have learned more in the last few years from you and TIGHAR that in all those previous years. The Internet had a lot to do with it thought. (Just so you don't have to go out and buy larger hats). I don't mean to offend you or anyone else and I take no offense to comments directed toward me. If we just relax a bit and enjoy this forum we can get the most out of it and maybe, just maybe solve the mystery of Amelia Earhart. You know I don't entirely agree with your theory, but I am no "Sactodave". I had a great conversation with another prominent member of TIGHAR the other day and found to my surprise that there are others who have a slightly different theory than yours and mine. All three theories involve Niku, but in a slightly different way. I listened to his story and he listened to mine, and when finished I found I almost liked his version better than mine. All three are very close. I just have a gut feeling that this engine is going to be more significant that we realize and I am willing to stand up and say so. If it is old military. . . so be it. What is the harm in finding out. Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric Gut feelings are great and should always be followed up on. I agree that squabbling is counterproductive, not to mention tedious for participant and spectator alike. I have no desire to squabble. I appreciate the effort you're making and I think you're doing a good job tracking down new information. I feel I must, however, answer your question: <> The harm is that if we start accepting anecdote as fact instead of as a possibility to be investigated, we no longer have any way of knowing what is true and what is not. We draw conclusions based upon "facts" that may or may not be true and we accept new anecdotes as "fact" because they support our previously drawn conclusions and pretty soon we're all in jail on Saipan. We made the judgement that the Kanton Engine is a possibility worth following up on back when we decided to go there to check it out in 1998. So far we have been largely unsuccessful in our search for hard evidence to support it, but we're still trying. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:38:16 EDT From: Jon Pieti Subject: Lost Pan Am Clipper There is a very interesting story by Justin Libby in the Oct 99 issue of Naval History magazine (published by the U.S. Naval Institute) titled: "Pan Am Gets a Pacific Partner". It discusses how in 1935, Pan Am President Juan Trippe drove the establishment of the "Clipper" Pacific air route from Hawaii to Hong Kong via Midway, Wake, Guam, and the Philippines, and formed a partnership with the U.S. Navy in pursuit of this. Mr. Libby states that in 1935 the U.S. Government, by now wary of Japanese expansion in the Pacific, used this as a "...commercial venture to cloak military prepardness. Thus, endorsed by the President, encouraged by the State Department, and enlivened by profit, Trippe moved rapidly". Hmmmmm... I have great respect for the USNI, and if this is true, it does shed a different light on the possibility of the Government also using Amelia's flight as cover for some recon work in the same area a couple years later when the perception of a threat from Japan in the Pacific was in much sharper focus. Also, if you consider the fact that Henry Morganthau, Roosevelt's good friend, trusted cabinet member, and Secretary of the Treasury is also alledged by some to be the person who was in financial control over Earhart's round-the-world flight in '37, and that Amelia was (I believe I read) a personal friend of Elenor Roosevelt.... it makes for an interesting theory. Now, supposedly, this is all tied together by the Dictaphone transcript between Mr. Morganthau and Mrs. Roosevelt's Secretary in a "relatively recently discovered document in President Roosevelt's Hyde Park Library" according to Col. Rollin Reineck, that indicates Morganthau and the Roosevelt's knew what actually happened to Amelia, and struggled over releasing the official reports for fear of damage to Amelia's reputation. Unless it's confirmed that this dictaphone transcript is the real McCoy, I have a hard time with this "conspiricy theory", but it seems like this document from a Presidential Library should be easy to verify, so it makes me wonder if there is something to this after all.... It's also interesting to note from the Pan Am article, that in 1938 the Hawaiian Clipper (a Martin M-130 Flying Boat) was lost at sea "somewhere west of Guam" on it's way to Manila. "Nothing ever was found of either the crew or the passengers, nor was any debris located by rescue vessels. That last fact baffled investigators, and speculation persisted for years that Japanese agents commandeered the plane and flew it to Koror in the Japanese Palau Islands. Shortly thereafter, a Japanese version of the Martin M-130 flying boat appeared, later code-named Mavis by U.S. naval planners." So what happened to the Hawaiian Clipper? Since they never found any debris or oil slicks floating on the water, I guess they must have made it to an island too, right? There is no *hard* evidence of that, yet it's the same logic I see applied by many on this forum to the theory of where Amelia and Fred ended up. This reiterates my position that just because it's not feasible or cost effective to search for evidence that they went down at sea, that doesn't decrease the liklihood that is what actually happened one iota. All the bits, pieces and ancedotes TIGHAR has collected through diligent researce and investigation are very intriguing, but none can be confirmed to be hard evidence (as of yet). There are other possible explanations for how these items may have gotten to Niku, which seem to get glossed over in the holy grail enthusiasim to uncover the "truth". Until a real link of *hard* evidence is found on Niku or some other island, the probability that they went down at sea is just as strong as ever. As I've said before; I think there is a possibility that they did end up on Niku, of course when they knew they were lost and running out of fuel they would have eventually looked for any speck of land that they could find, but I'll say it again: It's a mighty big ocean out there with very small islands few and far between, and there is a very real chance that they didn't make it. I wholeheartedly hope that TIGHAR is on the right track, and will solve the mystery. But - I believe that TIGHAR and it's supporters have so much invested in the Niku scenario, that there is no hope of true objectivity to other possibilities anymore. If you choose to only investigate one "most likely" scenario for financial and time reasons, that makes sense - you put your resources where you have the best chance for success. But as an interested reader of the Earhart Forum, it's apparent that the Niku scenario has evolved into the "only possible scenario" in many of your hearts, with no hard evidence to justify it, and it galls me to read posts that discount any other possibility. Okay, I've had my say - Jon Pieti ************************************** From Ric Well, I guess I'll have to gall you again and decline to discuss the possibilities you raise. I will, however, in a separate posting, attempt to clear up the persistent Morgenthau Myth. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:39:01 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: How blucher oxfords get to Niku Randy Jacobson writes: <> A file in the archives of the Western Pacific High Commission - WPHC List No. 4, IV, Vol. for 1936-37, M.P No. 1525/1937 (Tonga) - is entitled "Yankee, American Yacht: - Movements of" and describes where Captain Johnson went and what he did in considerable detail. The "Yankee" never went anywhere near Gardner. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:39:41 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Bendix HF/DF If I am going to walk into this (as the old saying goes if the shoe fits, wear it:-) I might as well step in it a little deeper. The shoe you have has only photographic collaboration for it size, without any other shoe AE had with this size. That said I believe that the government records from the Island nation Gardner is in, is documentation of her bones and shoes, still you only have a circumstantial case, with a lot of holes that could be shot into it. The Bendix Radio, why would it have to be top secret? For that matter, why is an interest in HF back in the 30's in real question? Radio was the cutting edge of technology, and HF was an interest to everyone because of it's range. As far as Bendix goes, what better way to sell radios then to have it proven in the field, why would the use of it have to be government sponsor? As far as the Navy officers not knowing about it, there seems to be a lack of communication between the AE's people and the Navy. You got me as far as the loop antenna goes. I am not that familiar with the vintage equipment to know much about the technology to know what antenna was available for the Electra at that time. But if I were Bendix and had an opportunity to test my equipment, what a great way to try it. However a theory is useless without documentation to prove it and it would appear there is no documentation. For the record, I do not consider the TIGHAR Earhart project base solely on theory, I believe you are working with factual evidence, that meets the test of scientific logic. I hope TIGHAR good success Warren Lambing ************************************************** From Ric Bendix did installed a state-of-the art direction finder in Earhart's airplane and bragged about it. The trouble is, that happened in October 1936 and Earhart pulled the unit out and replaced it with the open loop during the first week of March 1937 before the first world flight attempt. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:40:35 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: LoP Demystified Tom King asks: <> Good point. To know when you've reached the advanced line you have to know how fast you're going. At night that can be pretty tricky but in daylight you should be able to read your drift off the waves (with your hand-dandy drift sight) and find out what the wind is doing to you. To assume that there was an error in advancing the LoP is to assume that Fred was not able to accurately assess the wind. I don't know of any reason to assume that. I wonder how hard it is to get a good reading from a drift sight from 10,000 feet? We know that they came down to 1,000 feet at some point during the approach, but you wouldn't want to do that too far out because you don't get the fuel economy down low that you get if you stay high. Anybody out there have experience with drift sights? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:40:09 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Body decomposition Richard Johnson asks: <> I trust that Kar burns will correct me if I'm wrong here, but Hoodless is probably talking about features of the bones themselves rather than material that would decompose away. They're obliterated because they've been chewed off. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:41:10 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: LoP Demystified Tom is right. There were several reports from the Electra indicating cloudy or overcast conditions. Reference "Log Jam" At 02:45 "Cloudy and Overcast". At 03:45 "Overcast", and again at 04:53 "Partly cloudy". I agree that these reports may not be accurate, but there are three references to bad weather. Fred could not get a star shot in an overcast condition, therefore he was guessing at the wind direction and speed. Pure and simple! Then at his ETA, he looks down. . . and no island, so he looks up. . .and no sun. It's daylight, but he may not have been able to see the sun when it rose. My guess is the reported LOP was from Dead Reckoning and not a sun shot. They could have been anywhere! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:44:47 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: The Morgenthau Myth This posting will also be mounted on the TIGHAR website as a FAQ. The Morgenthau Transcript Numerous authors have used a transcript of one side of a 1938 telelphone conversation between Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau and Eleanor Roosevelt's personal secretary Malvina "Tommy" Thompson as evidence that Amelia Earthart had been covertly working for the U.S. Governement. The transcript is available from: FDR Library 259 Albany Post Rd Hyde Park, New York 12538 The document contains a total of 24 pages but almost all of the references to the phone call are on one page. The original purpose of the transcript was to record the details of a Treasury Department staff meeting which took place on May 13, 1938, concerning the WPA, relief, commodities, etc. The secretary transcribed everything that was said, including Morgenthau's side of the phone call that interupted the meeting. What he said can easily be misconstrued to imply that a terrible secret was being kept about Amelia Earhart. H.M.Jr – Henry Morgenthau Jr. Chauncey– ? Gibbons–? H.M. Jr. : (On White House Phone) Oh, hello.- Oh, thanks. Hello, Tommy ( Malvina Scheider). How are you? This letter that Mrs. Roosevelt wrote me about trying to get the report on Amelia Earhart. Now, I've been given a verbal report. If we're going to release this, it's just going to smear the whole reputation of Amelia Earhart, and my..... Yes, but I mean if we give it to this one man we've got to make it public; we can't let one man see it. And if we ever release the report of the Itasca on Amelia Earhart, any reputation she's got is gone, because- and I'd like to- I'd really like to return this to you. (Continuing) Now, I know what the Navy did, I know what the Itasca did, and I know how Amelia Earhart absolutely disregarded all orders, and if we ever release this thing, goodbye Amelia Earhart's reputation. Now, really- because if we give the access to one, we have to give it to all. And my advice is that - and if the President ever heard that somebody questioned that the Navy hadn't made the proper search , after what those boys went through - I think they searched, as I remember it, 50,000 square miles, and every one of those planes was out, and the boys just burnt themselves out physically and every other way searching for her. And if - I mean I think he'd get terribly angry if somebody - because they just went the limit, and so did the Coast Guard. And we have the report of all those wireless messages and everything else, what that woman - happened to her the last few minutes. I hope I've just got to never make it public, I mean.- O.K. - Well, still if she wants it, I'll tell her - I mean what happened. It isn't a very nice story. - Well, yes. There isn't anything additional to something like that. You think up a good one, - Thank you. (Conversation ends) (To Chauncey ) Just send it back. Chauncey : Sure. H.M.Jr: I mean we tried - people want us to search again those islands, after what we have gone through. You ( Gibbons ) know the story, don't you? Gibbons: We have evidence that the thing is all over, sure. Terrible. It would be awful to make it public. (End) The Morgenthau Transcript is a classic example of information that must be reviewed in its correct historical context to be understood. In those days, the Coast Guard was part of the Treasury Department so Morgenthau was technically the head of the Coast Guard. At the end of the unsuccessful search for Earhart, Commander Warner K. Thompson, the captain of the Itasca, wrote up a long report entitled "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight" which reproduced all of the radio traffic pertaining to Earhart's flight, disappearance and the search, interspersed with Thompson's narrative and commentary. The report is dated 19 July 1937. In accordance with Coast Guard regulations prohibiting the release of private messages (many of the radio messages were non- government) the report was classified and not made public. That was convenient for the Coast Guard from a public relations standpoint because Thompson's report (not officially declassified until 23 September 1985) thoroughly trashes Amelia Earhart and lays the blame for the flight's disappearance entirely upon her as an incompetent, willfully negligent, and ultimately "frantic" pilot. Not surprisingly, Thompson fails to mention the numerous errors made by the Coast Guard. He also altered some of the messages received from Earhart - when compared to the original log - so as to support his own theory and justify his own actions. Of course, nobody knew this at the time. What Morgenthau had in his hands was an indictment of an American hero. Meanwhile, Earhart's friend and technical advisor Paul Mantz was not at all convinced that a thorough search had been carried out of the most likely place for the flight to have gone down - the islands of the Phoenix Group. At the time of the search, he and Putnam had both publicly expressed their opinion that the plane was probably on an uninhabited island or reef. Mantz had seen Thompson's report at the San Francisco Coast Guard headquarters immediately after the search but had not taken any notes. On April 26, 1938, knowing that AE and the First Lady had been friends, Mantz sent a letter to Eleanor asking if she could intercede with the Treasury Dept. to get him a copy of the report. On May 10, 1938 Mrs. Roosevelt wrote a note to Morgenthau saying "...Now comes this letter. I don't know if you can send the man these records, but, in any case, I am sending you the letter and let me know whatever your decision may be. Affectionately, E.R." Hence the follow-up call on May 13, 1938 by Eleanor's personal secretary. Now read the transcript again. It makes perfect sense. The reference to Earhart disregarding orders is quite indicative of the basic problem AE had with Thompson. She considered the Coast Guard to be there to help her and, in typical Amelia style, she told them what she wanted them to do. Thompson was not about to take instructions from a girl and, whether by negligence or design, largely ignored the schedules and protocols Earhart had specified. The true significance (or rather insignificance) of the Morgenthau transcript was fully exposed as early as 1987 in Carol Osborne's book "Amelia My Courageous Sister." That has not prevented conspiracy authors from peddling it as something it is not. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:46:13 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: How blucher oxfords get to Niku ? From Herman de Wulf The British loved to confuse the rest of the world with their money, which was invented before the computer. I seem to remember that one pound (?) was divided in 20 shillings, not 12. And each shilling was divided in 12 pence (12 d). Therefore ?1 equalled 240 d. To confuse non-Brits even more, they marked prices in classy shops in... guineas, which were worth one pound and one shilling. At the grocer's they would count with crowns (10/) and half crowns (5/). And lest you forget, in the good old days each British penny was worth four farthings. Herman (who used to count the pennies several times to know exactly how much he had really paid). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:48:47 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Radial engines I for one am gearing myself for just those possibilities. I have said right along that it is most likely military. But, until we found out where it came from and then go there to search the area, anything is possible. Bruce doesn't care one way or the other. I won't let myself dwell too long on the thought that it might be from the Electra, it's too much of a let down when you find that you were wrong. Facing all the critics empty handed is tough. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:49:25 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: LoP Demystified, some more I keep blundering around with navigation because, every now and then, I learn something. Before TIGHAR (BT), I knew nothing at all about navigation. Now I know enough to get myself into trouble with just about every other posting. Ric has said that the Sunrise LoP is a line on the surface of the planet connecting all the points where the sun is seen to peek above the horizon at exactly the same time. In a way, it can also be visualized as the line between night and day. This is not a well defined thing because of light scattering in the atmosphere. It begins to be light before the sun actually appears above the horizon. Of course, this line extends all the way around the earth. There's a corresponding "Sunset LoP" around on the other side. And this pattern of half light and half dark is racing around the earth at roughly 1,000 MPH. The circumfrence of the earth is about 24,000 miles and the sun has to make it all the way around in 24 hours -- 1,000 MPH. You have to make better than Mach-1 (750 MPH) to keep up with it. All of which has nothing to do with navigation except to emphasize that timing is critical. When speaking of observations of the sun, or the moon, one needs to remember that both are seen as a disk, not a point as is the case with stars and planets. The diameter of both sun and moon subtend an angle of about 1/2 degree at the surface of the earth. The fact that they are so nearly the same makes a solar eclipse possible -- total or annular, depending on whether the moon is at a close approach to the earth or is more distant at the time they happen to line up. We tend to speak of observations as though they were all point sightings, but need to remember that some adjustment must be made for the diameter of sun and moon -- unless you are sighting on the center (not easy) rather than an edge. (Long-winded! Trying to cover myself. The Devil is in the details.) The Sunrise LoP is a special case -- the time when the apparent position of the sun is at an elevation of zero degrees above the horizon. A while later it will appear at some angular elevation above the horizon. An observation of the time it appears at a particular elevation provides another LoP. It will always be perpendicular to the direction of the sun. The time and date tell what direction it runs so it can be plotted. Just as an LoP can be determined for the observed elevation of the sun above the horizon, so can an LoP be determined for the observed elevation of any celestial object along with the exact time of the observation. It works exactly the same way. If you can make observations on two objects in considerably different directions (azimuth), you can plot two LoPs that intersect -- that's where you are. It's all a matter of where an object appears to be when viewed from a particular location on the earth at a particular time and date. This, in turn, is a matter of the rotation of the earth (time of day) and the inclination of the earth's axis of rotation as it travels around the sun in its orbit (time of year -- date). Things get a bit more complicated in the case of observations of planets and the moon. They all have motions of their own, relative to the earth, as they travel in their respective orbits. These things are all predictable with great accuracy and are accounted for in the data the navigator uses. It works! I had to stop and think about some things I had written... and go back and rewrite. I learned something! LTM (Who says a day you learn something new is a good day.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:50:03 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Niku shoes As I'm the one who started all the hullabaloo about "how blucher oxfords get to Niku," I gladly yield the issue to the honorable Dr. King and his CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTATION. As you say, sir, the fragments themselves are nothing more than shoe fragments, until they are combined with everything else found. Then, as you said, things start to get interesting. Actually Tom, to give credit where credit is due, the article you penned for the January 1999 issue of Discovering Archeology is what brought me to TIGHAR in the first place. I hope that doesn't make you regret writing it. Re: Ric's Niku shoe posting. Ric, are we (TIGHAR) of the opinion that the "stoutish woman's walking shoe" found by Gallagher in 1940 was the match to TIGHAR's blucher oxford? LTM, who hates mismatched shoes, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:50:11 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: LoP > > But I have an honest question. . . .what happens if Fred can't > > see the sunrise because it is blocked by clouds for a few > > minutes. How much would that make a difference? And how > > can he compensate for that. > > > > Don J. If he can get a sun observation at any time after sunrise it will tell him just what the sunrise shot would tell him. The sunrise shot is not the only daylight opportunity to compute how far off the Howland LOP the plane is; rather it is just the first of many sun shots planned for the day. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:50:39 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: How blucher oxfords get to Niku Hmm. If Johnson "searched in the Phoenix Group" but didn't search any of the inhabited islands (Niku, Hull, Sydney, Kanton), I wonder where he DID search. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:51:54 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shoes and more shoes Just a couple of additions to Ric's response: 1. The apparent suicide that Kar Burns and I (with many others) examined in the field in Fiji had only a few remnants of clothing left, and it had been there only a few months. It's not certain what clothes the guy started out with, but surely there was at least a pair of shorts. There were no shoes found at all, but then again, there weren't any feet, either. The site is on a steep-sided ridge, very heavily forested, and the bones had been scattered, probably by pigs and/or dogs; the feet/shoes probably went off downslope somewhere. 2. An apparent double murder site (or post-murder body deposition site) on Saipan recently investigated by the Northern Marianas police had only remnants of clothing remaining. It's not clear what clothes the victims started out with here, either, but one of them was wearing pantihose, only small fragments of which were found under the skeleton. Both bodies had been completely skeletonized, probably in about 4 months. 3. The experiment to which Ric alluded was one my colleagues on Saipan referred to as "Operation Snoop-Doggy-Dog," in which a dead dog was to be lightly dressed, shod, and placed in an area on Saipan frequented by coconut crabs, fenced to keep other critters out, and then inspected monthly to see where things went and how. Unfortunately, no dog made itself available before the aforementioned murder site came to light and deflected everyone's attention. Something of this kind is definitely worth doing, and we don't necessarily have to go to Niku, or sacrifice a live animal, to do it; another tropical island with appropriate fauna, and an already dead animal, should do. LTM (who thinks this is all REALLY disgusting) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:52:43 EDT From: Jim Kelly Subject: Re: LoP Though its been several [read many] years since the United States Navy tried to 'navigate' me, I do believe that in the "parking lot the size of Nebraska' example would need a bit more embellishing. To wit: if Tom [or Dick or Harry] were standing on a step ladder, the apparent sunrise would be a bit sooner. Therefore, an airplane [hopefully flying higher than your usual stepladder] would need an height adjustment to come up with the LOP. Which leads to the question, how accurate were the altimeters in the plane? LTM [who does not depend on me for position information} Jim Kelly 32085 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:53:39 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Body decomposition Ric says: "I trust that Kar burns will correct me if I'm wrong here, but Hoodless is probably talking about features of the bones themselves rather than material that would decompose away. They're obliterated because they've been chewed off." In case Kar doesn't -- that's right. The muscle ATTACHMENTS are bone, built up for the muscles to attach to, and by the use of the muscles. A skilled physical anthropologist can tell (more or less) whether a person was right or left handed, whether they walked a lot, and that kind of thing from the muscle attachments even on a skeleton that's thousands of years old. With the Fiji suicide, Kar commented while examining the skull that the guy had smiled a lot; she could tell this from muscle attachments. Later we saw photos of him, grinning like crazy. So the missing muscle attachments on Niku don't indicate any particular age; they indicate that something had been chewing on the bones, or that some other sort of erosive process had occurred that looked like something chewing on them. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:54:17 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Niku shoes Re. Dave Porter's point (and thanks, Dave, I'm glad the DA article brought you to the group): "Re: Ric's Niku shoe posting. Ric, are we (TIGHAR) of the opinion that the "stoutish woman's walking shoe" found by Gallagher in 1940 was the match to TIGHAR's blucher oxford?" I don't think we have an opinion as such, but the coincidence is certainly too much to ignore. The question of how Gallagher could tell the thing was a "stoutish woman's walking shoe or sandal" is a good one, to which I for one have no answer, and don't know how one could be found. The matter is complicated by the subsequent report that the box sent to Fiji contained parts of both a woman's and a man's shoe. We're unlikely to sort any of this out until we actually find the Gallagher shoe(s), or at least somebody who's seen them. Neither possibility seems particularly good at the moment. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:58:53 EDT From: James Thompson Subject: Bushnell Survey revisited Earlier this month I posted a request for help to learn how naval surveys such as that done by the Bushnell crew might have been performed. Further, I listed the 3-letter names of the various survey stations and asked what they might mean. Forum members may be interested to know the results based on my original post. Michael Real in Tasmania has offered much useful information on how survey stations are typically named "on-the-spot" based on local features, survey crew members, and the like. He also provided me just what I was looking for: the name of a 1937 book on the subject of naval surveys. It is: HYDROGRAPHIC AND GEODETIC SURVEYING MANUAL For the Use of U.S. Naval Surveys by John G. Kellar. Used copies are apparently available. I've ordered one from Barnes & Noble (a source also provided by Michael). Just for fun -- and without having the book yet as a reference -- and using what Michael suggested as naming conventions I concatenated the station names to see what I'd get. Here's what I got. My comments are in []s: astro [the geographic reference listed as "origin" on Map Sheet No. 10] ocean side stations (anti-clockwise starting at Tatiman passage): bri[tish?]-vil[l]-age-gar-den-ner-ile-base-line-(and)-tow[er] rec [near the S.S. Norwich City] lagoon side stations (clockwise starting at the northerly end of the lagoon): end-(mark)-of-in-sid[e]-the-lag[oon] nog-gun-wit Kinda neat and sorta seems to make sense (except for the last part). When the book comes I hope to know more. As before, because the subject is a bit off-topic, if anyone would like more information please contact me directly. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:59:27 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Radial engines Ric wrote: > There are probably a hundred imaginable scenarios that could put an > engine on a reef but some are more probable than others. ...Or you could just imagine that somebody on a round-the-world flight got lost and landed there. That is certainly as plausible, probably more so since we know that this did happen, than any of the other options being discussed: - Japanese submarine launches a plane which crashes on the island - Sherman tank, retrofitted with a 1340, arrives on the island - Plane above with problem and pushes out its cargo, an aircraft engine - Ship grounds on the reef and dumps an airplane engine to free itself - LTV somehow spends a brief time on island and leaves engine behind Eventually, the proof will be found. Until now, all we have is an increasingly large body of evidence that points to Nikumaroro. The best part of that, however, is that the naysayers have to go ever further out on a limb to explain everything their way.... So, let's go there for them. Melinda T., the world's only Blucher-Ox wearing Sherman tank driver (1340 retrofitted), arrives on the island on unscheduled TDY.... Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:59:58 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: LoP >They assumed they were running on the 157/337 LOP >through Howland, but if for some reason they could not get an accurate >sunrise time, how could they be sure? To run on the LOP through Howland the sun's height is observed and compared with a precomputation of what it would be if flying right above Howland. As long as the observations match the precomputed height--and they seldom do--then the plane is about right on the LOP. If there is a discrepancy, then the number of minutes of angle is the indication of the number of nautical miles the plane is off the LOP. When using a bubble sextant, the natural horizon need not be visible. The disadvantage of the bubble sextant is in its imprecision. Usually the body is dialed into the center of the bubble and the reading taken. (The aviation sextants I have seen are calibrated in minutes of angle. No verniers). The estimate of where the exact center of the bubble is, is not nearly as precise as what is done with a marine sextant using the natural horizon. So instead of just one observation, several are made. Whatever is convenient, or necessary, or possible. Maybe one 30 seconds early, one on time, and one 30 seconds after; the average of the three is used as the height observed. With the bubble sextant although it is usually possible to estimate the center of the body, even with the moon in its various phases, the navigator can use a limb of the moon, dialing it into the center of the bubble, taking the reading, and taking account of semidiameter. When the plane is very stable it is possible to improve precision by using the upper or lower outer edge of the bubble, instead of its center, as the sighting index. For this you just need to have a good idea of the semidiameter of the bubble as well as that of the body observed. Using the 1937 Nautical Almanac, there is considerable arithmetic --mostly interpolation--required to get the coordinates for the sun's subpoint. The latitude is found easily enough from the Apparent Declination column, but figuring the Greenwich Hour Angle takes some time. Doing this ahead of time, (when possible, before the flight), is the preferred way in aviation. If computations of the sun's height are made for 15 or 30 minute intervals, the intermediate heights can be found by interpolation and listed or just graphed, since the height changes per time are very nearly linear for such short periods. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:01:17 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Lost Pan Am Clipper The Navy did find the remains of the lost clipper the next day, after a search out of Manilla, IIRC. The author did not do his homework on this one. AE's flight was part of the Bureau of Air Commerce's thrust to promote civil aviation, and there was a lot of bickering between the Navy and BAC/PAA on the use of Honolulu, Wake, and Midway. It was not pretty. I invite anyone to read the National Archives papers on this. Black once asked the Navy in Pearl Harbor (prior to July 1937) the option of using Howland as an air field in their War Games, and was soundly derided. Sounds like a true conspiracy to me! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:01:58 EDT From: Tet Walston Subject: Re: LoP, drift sights, etc. Ric, I have used drift sights many times, over land and water. Providing that there is a clear view of the land/sea, then the observed drift can be noted. This is found by rotating the sight until the observed picture is seen to be running down the sight wires (usually two, parallel wires). The drift is then read off the lubber line of the instrument. This drift angle, however, will only confirm/deny accuracy of DR course, and to determine W/V at least 3 observations should be made. This is easy to do, thus: 1. Observe drift whilst flying on course. 2. Turn 30deg to port or starboard for I minute. Observe drift. 3. Turn back 60deg. for 1 Minute, Observe drift. 4. turn back to course. These drifts plotted will give an accurate W/V, and only one minute of flight on track will have been lost. As I have stated ad nauseum, any navigator worthy of the name, will make frequent checks of the W/V, and the accuracy of the pilot's flying. The LOP "found" is only of use to give ONE part of a fix. It could be applied as being of use when it is advanced to the plot at DR ETA, which one presumes was ETA Howland. If the DR ETA was incorrect because of false or innacurate W/V, then the LOP was of no use. I still think that FN would probably have used the "offset" system, but we'll never know. LTM Tet ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:02:38 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: LoP >We tend to speak of observations as though >they were all point sightings, but need to remember that some adjustment >must be made for the diameter of sun and moon -- unless you are sighting on >the center (not easy) rather than an edge. Using the bubble sight of an aviation sextant, sighting on the center is usually what is done. Using an edge of the body is possible, but the center of the bubble still has no visible line to bring the edge tangent to. This eyeballing of just where the center of the body is, and where the center of the bubble is, is part of why a bubble sextant is less precise than a marine sextant. >It's all a matter of where an object appears to be when viewed from a >particular location on the earth at a particular time and date. This, in >turn, is a matter of the rotation of the earth (time of day) and the >inclination of the earth's axis of rotation as it travels around the sun in >its orbit (time of year -- date). Since the reference plane is inclined the same as that of the earth's axis, the sun is the only object whose position appears to change because of the earth's inclination and the travel in orbit. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:05:12 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Details Ric wrote, >Incidentally, Bruce said the engine was propped up >outside the line shack and the most recent witness says he saw it in the >maintenance shop. Which one is correct? Probably both! I don't think it matters at this point. Here are the very words of the pilot I interviewed taken from the transcript, "Oh now wait a minute. . . I do remember something about an engine. Let me think a minute. . . what is it that I remember about that. It seems to me that there was this old radial engine in the hanger, or maintenance shack. . . I'm not sure which it was. Anyway, I remember seeing it in one of those places, but it was real beat up and rusty, as I recall." I did not tell him it was a radial engine, only that it was an engine. He came up with "radial". This memory and description was six seconds old as he spoke. He hadn't thought about it is 30 years. I think we are putting too much emphasis on the fine detail. Let me explain why I don't think that the fine detail is as important in this instance. Let's assume for a moment that Bruce really did find and airlift an engine from somewhere to Kanton. And just for the sake of argument, let make up this sequence of events. First, the engine was not dropped off by a hovering helicopter at the place where Bruce said he placed it. The down wash from the rotors would have torn the place apart and it sure would have gotten the attention of all within site. So the chopper dropped it off somewhere else. Let's just say it was dropped off at some secluded portion of the flight line. Bruce has to leave it for a while, Latrine stop, chow time, help secure and tie down the chopper. . . what ever. Maybe to go get something to haul it in. While he is gone, someone comes by and notices this dirty old piece of junk and wonders over to look at it and then moves on. Bruce returns with a vehicle and somehow loads it up and goes to the rear of the maintenance area where he dumps it out of site until he has time to play with it. It may be there for days or even weeks hidden by bushes and may have been seen by several people. Finally he gets interested in it again and moves it to the shop or props it up out side the maintenance area or what ever. Someone else sees it there, but pays no attention. A very short time later it is moved into the shop because it starts to rain, or the sun is hot or it is drawing too much attention where it is. There it stays for the longest period of time, what ever that is. I don't remember exactly how long Bruce said he had it in there. The place has to be cleaned up and yada yada yada. . . you know the rest. Now, thirty years later we find several people who remember something about an old engine on Kanton. The first one says " I do remember an old engine laying off the runway, it was an old radial, but that is all I remember". The second one says, "I do remember an old engine laying in the foliage somewhere, but I don't remember where". The third one says, " I do remember an old engine, but it was laying out behind the maintenance shack". And so on and so forth for how ever many witnesses we find. All their stories may be different, but the common denominator is that they all remember an old engine. So which one is correct? They all are! I don't think that anybody doubts the Kanton engine story at this point. True, we can not prove that it was not found on Kanton, but I am taking the "Leap of faith" and believing Bruce found it somewhere else. As we look for and find other witnesses, their stories may vary a bit. At this point we, the team are trying to find where the engine came from. Not where it was on the island. At least that's my understanding. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:06:58 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: LoP Demystified Don Jordan writes: <> Please read "Log Jam" again. The whole point of that article is that the available evidence indicates that the alleged references to cloudy and overcast conditions are the later invention Warner Thompson. There are not three references to bad weather in the ITASCA log. There is one reference to "PART CLDY" and even that had dashes typed through it. Perhaps Noonan was unable to track his position by celestial navigation during the night or after dawn because the sky was obscured by cloud but I know of no evidence to support that speculation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:07:30 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Electra structural members Frank Kuhre writes: << The steel part you are looking for, do you know any of the other dimensions besides the 10' ?>> Not really, except that it has to be big enough to be seen from about 600 feet away, and the ten foot estimate is nothing more than that - an estimate. << I think that for the length, maybe the flap control rods? The gear was a worm drive, and did not have actuator rods. >> Looking at the parts manual, I guess I'm thinking ot the drive shafts for the worm drive. They start at the gear motor in the belly amidships and run left and right out to the main gear. They should each be about ten feet long and it seems like they'd have to be steel to withstand that much torque. The flap rods would be similar in length but would be farther aft. Sounds like there could be a number of long skinny rusty things for Emily to see. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:07:53 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Electra structural members Vern asks: <> 'Fraid so. We specifically asked what color she meant and she said, "Red." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:14:35 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: calculations Ric said: "At that rate my 188 gallons will last me just over 4 hours. Let's play it safe. I can afford to fly up the line for half an hour (65 NM), but if I haven't spotted Howland by then I'll have to turn around and come back here so that I start my run to the southeast with 3 hours of fuel." Yeah, this is the way I had pictured it also, except that I had them turning immediately to 157 to look for Howland. I hadn't thought of them turning first to 337 for a bit to seek out Howland. But your scenario makes sense considering the four hours or so of "extra" fuel they had to find Howland, and assuming they were thinking clearly after 20 hours of thundering engine noises, muscle-numbing vibrations, poor food, little sleep, body odor and fuel/oil fumes, and oh yeah, lots of fear. But under your scenario AE/FN would have been AT LEAST 65 NM southeast of Howland when they discovered their error. I don't have all of the numbers at my disposal, but being 65 NM off course after 20 hours is a pretty major foul-up isn't it, especially for someone of FN's skill? I realize the reason why they missed Howland is secondary to the mission of finding where they ended up, but nonetheless . . .. I guess the enormity and scale of AE/FN's error is just now sinking in. LTM, who always stays in sight of land Dennis McGee #0149 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:15:44 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: LoP Demystified Don Neumann writes: << However, having advanced our LOP through the night & when our sun reading at dawn (when our chronometer tells us we should see Howland Island appearing on the horizon to intersect with our own LOP line) fails to coincide with any sign of Howland Island, how do we plot an accurate course to any of the Phoenix Islands when we do not know exactly by how many miles/degrees we have missed our objective, whether we have fallen short or overshot the island, whether we are somewhere northwest or southeast of the island?>> As I explained in a recent posting to Juame, just because Howland doesn't show up over the nose when your calculations say you've reached the advanced LoP doesn't mean that you are totally lost. In case you missed it, here it is again: It's 1912Z and I've reached the LoP ( or my best calculations tell me that I have). No Howland. Damn. I don't know where I am on the line but I do know that I'm somewhere in the neighborhood and not in the South China Sea. Howland is either off to my left (337) or off to my right (157). In other words, I'm either northwest of Howland or southeast of Howland. I can go look to the northwest but I've got to make sure that I can come back to this spot and still have enough fuel to fly southeastward far enough to be sure of reaching land. How far is that? All of the other islands on this line are southeast of Howland - Baker at 40 miles, McKean at about 300 miles but off the line a bit to the east, and Gardner at 356 nm. If, having not seen Howland on my excursion to the northwest, I come back to this spot with enough fuel to fly another 356 miles, I can be quite sure of reaching land. The only way I'm screwed is if I'm aleady more than 356 miles away from Howland in either direction. So it's 1912Z and I'm about to head up the LoP. I have 188 gallons of fuel left (if I've been following Kelly's tables). To cover my 356 nm insurance policy I need at least 2.7 hours at 130 knots. I can't expect to get 38 gallons per hour if I'm down low looking for islands. Lockheed specs show the 10E burning 56 gph at 65% power which yields 158 knots at sea level. Staying backed off to an ecomomical 130 knots should get us about 45 gph (a guess). At that rate my 188 gallons will last me just over 4 hours. Let's play it safe. I can afford to fly up the line for half an hour (65 nm), but if I haven't spotted Howland by then I'll have to turn around and come back here so that I start my run to the southeast with 3 hours of fuel. <> It's interesting that the 2013Z transmission comes at just the time that my speculative scenario has them beginning their run to the southeast. They don't say "we think we are South of Howland but don't know how far", or "we are heading for the Phoenix Islands" because they don't know any of that. At this point they're hoping that they were northwest of Howland all along and that they'll find just over the horizon to the southeast. Exactly what AE said at the end of the transmission is questionable. It's clear from the log entry that it caught the operator by surprise and he had to go back and cram it in, but something about running north and south on the line is about all they can say where they and what they're doing. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:15:09 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Sea Classics article Randy jacobson writes: << He (Morgenthau) was also in a bind in that FDR and Eleanor were pressuring him to help Mantz. >> This brings up a point that, I think, is worth some research. What evidence do we have that the President was involved in this thing at all? That AE and the First Lady were acquaintences ("friends" may be too strong a word) and admired each other is beyond question, but I have seen nothing to indicate that FDR knew Amelia personally or even thought much of her. (It has been alleged that Eleanor wanted AE to teach her to fly but the President nixed the idea. As far as I know AE was not an instructor and never taught anybody to fly.) In 1936 Putnam and Earhart were seeking the government's cooperation for the upcoming world flight but, as far as I can tell, they always went through Eleanor, not Franklin. If my understanding of the relationship between the First Couple is correct, this is hardly surprising. Can anyone shed some light on this? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:16:26 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: How blucher oxfords get to Niku Randy Jacobson wrote: << From the letter Capt. Irving Johnson sent to Ms. Bessie Young on June 4, 1940: "On the way down from Honolulu we also searched in the Phoenix Group, but did not call at several inhabited islands including Hull. ...>> What is sort of interesting about this is that Johnson never told the British that he was going to the Phoenix Group at all. That may be why he stayed away from the inhabited islands - Sydney, Hull and Gardner. Incidently, the Brits didn't think much of Johnson and the yacht YANKEE. Note to the file, December 27, 1937 "This is the same vessel that got off with portion of the 'Bounty' rudder from Pitcairn Island." Note to the file, April 17, 1940 "It seems to me that the visit to the Gilbert and Ellice Colony to search for Miss Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Captain F.J. Noonan, is one of the usual american 'ramps' in order to obtain aditional information about those islands in regard to their suitability as seaplane bases." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:17:29 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Johnson's tables Harry Poole asks: << Please clarify the use of the Johnson's tables. >> Sorry. The ony person who might be able to do that would be Kelly, and he's dead. I can, however, speculate that they were never intended to be an in-depth analysis but rather some simple guidelines for Amelia to follow and some idea of what resuits she could expect. Anything more complex would probably have been counterproductive. We had a saying in the aviation insurance business, "Dumb Pilot is a redundancy." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:25:39 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Niku shoes << are we (TIGHAR) of the opinion that the "stoutish woman's walking shoe" found by Gallagher in 1940 was the match to TIGHAR's blucher oxford? >> Let's make that a "stoutish walking shoe" that was "almost certainly a woman's." ("stoutish woman's walking shoe" sounds like Roseanne may have been there.) To answer your question, that's the best guess we've been able to come up with. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:49:59 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: CHARTS > The only other non-commercially > available charts were those especially produced by Clarence Williams, > who made strip charts at very large scale that outlined the flight > paths, magnetic deviations, and way points. There are approx. > 13 of these charts for the entire world. She obviously did not > take them with her, as there is a complete set there. > > Most of the maps were purchased in NY City or LA, and there is > a small scattering of British charts in the collection. Are there any markings on the charts other than those made by Clarence Williams. I presume someone has examined the chart Hawaii--Howland--Lae or its reciprocal route? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:50:48 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Niku shoes Tom, thanks for bringing up the point about parts of both a man and a woman's shoe ending up in Fiji as a result of Gallagher's work. I remember reading this in the TIGHAR tracks issue enclosure which discusses "the" shoe. I will re-read the article tonight, but my memory is that this was a find in addition to the shoe we have all been discussing, and that they were found in some sort of a container and not just lying about. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:51:51 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Sea Classics article Ric, I think there are some pictures of FDR, Eleanor, AE and Putnam together in the whitehouse. Also some commentary in some books (AE's?) that AE and Putnam were guests in the whitehouse several times. I also believe it has been written that AE flew Eleanor at least once. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:18:24 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: science Not infrequently on this forum we get into discussions (okay, squabbles) about TIGHAR's approach to the Earhart puzzle and I find myself trying to explain why it's so important that we remain rigorous in our adherence to accepted standards of scientific investigation. Pat recently came across the following comment about science by physicist Richard Feynman, one of the most incredible intellects of this century. "Science is a way to teach how something gets to be known, what is not known, to what extent things ARE known (for nothing is known absolutely), how to handle doubt and uncertainty, what the rules of evidence are, how to think about things so that judgements can be made, how to distinguish truth from fraud, and from show." (From "The Problem of Teaching Physics in Latin America" in Engineering and Science, November 21, 1963; page 24) There's no way I can improve on that. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:19:44 EDT From: Robert Klaus Subject: LOP and offset Ric, The following long quote is from Don Dwiggins "Hollywood Pilot", a biography of Paul Mantz. While this certainly doesn't prove what Fred Noonan did on that last flight, it does show what Mantz believed he did. This was published in 1967, before LOP and Offset became hotly debated issues. Starting on page 105 with the North South message, QUOTE: "WE ARE RUNNING NORTH AND SOUTH!" North and south of what? The world wondered. Paul Mantz believed he knew the answer. Amelia was trying to tell the world something, to give a last frantic clue to where they were. It didn't make sense to the Navy; it didn't make sense to the Coast Guard. But it did make sense to airmen who had flown with Noonan on the Pan American Clippers and therefore knew the way that Noonan performed in tight situations. And it did make sense to Paul; he remembered Noonan telling him something at Honolulu, when the two were discussing yet untried emergency aerial navigation procedures. "What happens in celestial navigation," Paul asked Noonan, "when you have only one star, or only the sun, and you can't get a second line of position to intersect the first one and give you a fix?" "Simple," Noonan replied. "Lay out speed lines. Shoot a series of sun observations, for instance, at half hour intervals. You'll get a series of base lines at right angles to a line running through the sun. How far apart tells you how much distance you've covered in each half hour. You can then use dead reckoning and advance your speed line to your destination, and estimate when you'll be somewhere on the base line running through it." "Yes," Paul pressed, "but how can you know whether you're to the left or to the right of your course?" "You can't," Noonan said. "So, turn off course before you get to your ETA line, maybe ten or twenty degrees. Make a deliberate error, say, to your left. Then when your ETA comes, turn right and fly until you find your island." It seemed simple when Noonan sketched it on paper. And it made even more sense when Mantz checked an ephemeris and realized Noonan and AE had been flying almost directly into the rising sun on that last day. On July 2 the sun, as seen from Howland Island, rose, 23 degrees, 1 minute 10.1 seconds north of the equator, or about 67 degrees from true north. Amelia had given a "line of position" as 157-337 degrees, and hence a sun line. END QUOTE. This was based on Paul Mantz recollections of course, but keep in mind that he was not only an expert, he was the expert on preparing AEs flight. Robert Klaus (designated naysayer apparently) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:20:20 EDT From: Frank Kuhre Subject: Re: Electra structural members Ric, The rods for the gear are steel, although 10 feet would be total, it was joined (I think) in two pieces with u-joints. The assumption of steel is common among people who have not worked with aluminum. The aluminum pieces can be very thick and heavy. Rust, well aluminum does get corrosion and can take on the color of any materials surrounding it. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:21:16 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Niku shoes Well, the man's shoe is never mentioned in Gallagher's description of the discovery; it turns up only in a note in the WPHC file dated 1 July 1941, with reference to what were by then the contents of the sextant box, but that was because Gallagher had packed the small artifacts in the sextant box. The same note refers to small corks on brass chains, also not mentioned by Gallagher. Later these and the shoe parts were removed from the box and "parcelled;" we don't know what happened to them. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:22:16 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: Morgenthau Mr. Gillespie's response ties Paul Mantz to the request for the "report" made by Mrs. Roosevelt to Morgenthau. The memo states "Mrs. Roosevelt wrote me about trying to get the report on Amelia Earhart" and then several sentences later states "if we give it to this one man" ergo, I presume the assumption of Mantz. There is also a reference to a Mantz letter of 04/26/38 and Mrs. Roosevelt's memo of 05/10/38. I presume from Mr. Gillespies's response that he may have seen these documents. Has he or anyone seen the letter from Mantz to Mrs. Roosevelt and her memo to Morgenthau--they may provide more details as to the requester and possible identify the report or other informantion. The documents should be in her files with the memorandum or nearby. Morgenthau then states "I've been given a verbal report". If its verbal its not Commander Thompson's. When Morgenthau follows with "I'd really like to return this to you", is he referring to Mrs. Roosevelt's memo and letter enclosure or some other document that he has in his possession. Why would he return a memo and enclosure that he doesn't want to act upon, unless its the original, to Mrs. Roosevelt? Morgenthau then states "And we have the report of all those wireless messages and everything else, what that woman - happened to her the last few minutes I hope I've just got to never make it public," Commander Thompson's report villified the "ham" post loss messages and called the operators crooks. Why would Morgenthau give them any credence? How would Morgenthau know anything about AE's "last minutes", Commander Thompson didn't know, his last communication came 2 to 3 hours before fuel exhaustion per the great fuel debate. The transcript is of a one sided portion of a telephone conversation between Morgenthau and Malvina Thompson, who are Chauncey and Gibbons. If Morgenthau's report is verbal, his comment to Chauncey doesn't make sense, you can't return a "verbal" report. If its Commander Thompson's report, send it to whom, the Coast Guard already has it unless this thing is so secret its "eyes only" with a single copy that has to be signed for and accounted for, that is "Purple" level security, not a report on a missing private pilot, even AE. If it's that secret, how do Gibbons and Chauncey stay in the room during the conversation and how do they examine or have knowledge about the report. If it is that secret how does it come up in a WPA conference via a telephone conversation with Mrs. Roosevelt's secretary. Is Gibbons also referring to Commander Thompson's report? If so he must have seen or read something I haven't heard about in this forum. "We have evidence that the thing is all over," Commander Thompson's report isn't evidence. Except for a detailed report of his activities, its largely opinon with some facts gleaned from a radio log and other collateral information, unless the failure of the Navy and Coast Guard to find anything consitutes "evidence" of anything other than 50,000 square miles searched with no result. The Navy's search of the Phoenix Islands does seem rather brief and given the context of this forum, a serious mistake. I agree that the transcript is not evidence of covert opertations for the U.S. Govt., of much else, except the Govt. continuing policy of not disclosing information about the event, but there seems to be several unanswered questions if the transcript is read carefully. I can only hope they haven't been answered here and I have missed them. If so, oop's again. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:25:18 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Tarawa Any word on the health situation on Tarawa and what is the status of the visit to the National Archives there? Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:24:54 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Possibilities Tom Van Hare wrote >Eventually, the proof will be found. Until now, all we have is an >increasingly large body of evidence that points to Nikumaroro. The best >part of that, however, is that the naysayers have to go ever further out >on a limb to explain everything their way.... Here's where I am a little confused. I don't think I every said that Niku was not the place. I may have indicated that in the early days, but now I have talked to a lot of people and done a lot of research. I think there is the possibility that there were two island in this mystery. I thought I posted my theory here a few weeks ago. For the life of me I don't see why it is so offending to think there might be two islands involved. I think that because we did not hears anything else from the Electra after 08:43 in the morning, that one of three things happened. 1, Ran out of gas and ditched 2, Landed on some island (Maybe Niku) 3, Had total radio failure. In the first case, they would leave the plane by rubber boat. The plane drifts one way and they the other. The plane goes to one island and the boat goes to another. ( There is more to the story after that point, but this will do for now. In 2, they land on an island (maybe Niku) and after they send a few messages and have time to locate themselves, they try to take off again. Maybe they were successful and maybe they weren't. It seems that if they were successful that they would have started yelling on the radio again. If they weren't successful, the wreckage might wash up on some other island. And in 3, the first two are still possible, except for the part about yelling for help and sending messages. It could be that AE and FN were on Niku and maybe one died there, but I think that Electra went somewhere else. Otherwise, I think we would have found a lot more wreckage there. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:30:28 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: LOP >From Don Neumann > >Thanks for your "LOP Demystified" post. > >However, having advanced our LOP through the night & when our sun >reading at dawn (when our chronometer tells us we should see Howland >Island appearing on the horizon to intersect with our own LOP line) >fails to coincide with any sign of Howland Island, how do we plot an >accurate course to any of the Phoenix Islands when we do not know >exactly by how many miles/degrees we have missed our objective, whether >we have fallen short or overshot the island, whether we are somewhere >northwest or southeast of the island? > >In other words, even tho we may have a very accurate LOP, since we did >not hit our original objective & do not have any definite idea as to >exactly where our LOP has deposited us, how can we be sure that by >simply heading southeast on the lower leg of our LOP that we will strike >one of those (admittedly) small, widely spread out islands of the >Phoenix chain, especially with an acknowledged, dwindling fuel supply, >that will not permit any extensive seach for one of these islands even >if we are successful in navigating ourselves into a "ballpark" area of >the Phoenix chain? > >From all the information which has been developed through the Forum & >TIGHAR's investigations of the many questions raised in this case, I've >personally concluded that flying southeast to the Phoenix Island Chain >was the only reasonable choice that AE/FN had available, once they >ascertained that they were unable to sight Howland or make any reliable >radio contact with Itaska & after examining the charts of the Pacific >surrounding Howland & reviewing the critical condition of their >remaining fuel supply. > >Had they decided to simply ditch the aircraft in the sea at this point, >it would seem probable they would have wanted to do so in as close >proximity to where they_thought_ Howland should be located (likely right >after their only reception of an Itaska radio signal, which was unable >to provide them with any directional "fix") & would have communicated >that information to Itaska until they actually hit the water, in order >to assure a reasonably prompt "pick-up" by Itaska. > >Since no such radio message was ever recorded, it seems unlikely they >ditched the plane at sea, at least not within radio range of Itaska, so >now I'm stuck with the problem of trying to establish (if only in my own >mind) just how "easy" it would have been for FN to plot an accurate >course to any one of the Phoenix Islands & quite frankly, I've concluded >such a task was no "piece of cake", given all the above unknowns he had >to overcome! > >Maybe my own lack of any navigational experience is simply blocking my >view of seeing & understanding how FN achieved what I would consider >IM(very)HO to be a very remarkable piece of navigation. > >Thanks for putting up with my continued inability to see what most >TIGHAR & Forum members probably believe should be right in front of my >nose! > >Don Neumann We seem to be missing the point here. Fred had extremely good night weather which would have allowed him to make all the night celestial shots necessary to keep them on course and determine the winds they were facing right up until dawn. At dawn, he would have shot the rising sun to further improve his calculations. In other words, he wasn't just flying blind all night long. HE KNEW WHERE HE WAS until shortly after dawn, and certainly, they knew within a few miles where they were when they reached the LOP. However, a few miles right or left of Howland? Also, they could be a mile or two either side of the line. So they were in close, if not exact, proximity to Howland. But missing it by a mile is still too much. They could still be relatively certain of the LOP, just not whether they were left or right of Howland. Given the weather at Howland, it could be very easy to miss the island. It would have been very helpful it Itasca had fired flares aloft, but that wasn't done. So, after flying to the approximate location and not being able to sight Howland, their hope was to turn and run southeast along the LOP, in hopes that they were still north of Howland and would spot it as they flew by, or, if not, they would site one of the several islands along the LOP within their fuel range. If the radio homing (RDF, whatever) had worked properly, that "close proximity" would have resulted in a landing at Howland. Fred, tho, apparently had a back up plan in case. In case the Itasca equipment failed, in case the Electra equipment failed, in case the weather at Howland was impossible to attempt a landing. That back up plan was to fly along the LOP until they found an island. Terra firma, where any landing would mean a greater likelihood of their being found than floating in a very small raft in the middle of a vast ocean. -- Blue Skies, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:32:00 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Shoes and more shoes As to matching the leather shoes -- what techniques were used to preserve leather at that time? Is the process then and now essentially identical, or have we improved the technique to make the leather more durable? As to the missing bones -- if they were disarticulated as Ric says, could they not have been washed out to sea? My experience with beaches and heavy wave action shows that many items are pulled out to sea by the wave action in heavy surf (such as storms) and thus these pieces, for whatever reason, may have been pulled out to sea. Are there any other forms of aquatic life in the form of amphibians (seals, etc.) that might account for the bones being removed into the surf rather than the vegetation line, making them impossible to find. Would large birds such as boobies, et al, be likely to pick up bones with some meat still on them and try to fly away, possibly dropping their prize in a fight with other birds, as I have seen occur frequently on the beach at Galveston? I don't know the answers here, but I am great at posing questions (not necessarily informed ones, tho). Blue Skies, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:33:25 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: LOP Demystified >Then at his ETA, he looks down. . . and no island, so he looks up. . .and >no sun. It's daylight, but he may not have been able to see the sun when it >rose. My guess is the reported LOP was from Dead Reckoning and not a sun >shot. They could have been anywhere! The overcast was down low, not up high where it would block Fred's navigation work. It only made it hard to spot Howland when they were down low. Were there clouds in the vicinity of Gardner, or was it clear. With no one in the vicinity to record the observations who knows. Only the ones who landed there that day! Blue Skies, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:34:05 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Sources for radial engines >>From Walt Holm >IIRC, the engine used in the Sherman tank and its related vehicles was the >Wright R-975, which in earlier life had been known as a J-6-9 Whirlwind. >This engine is pretty similar in size to a R-1340, so I think the issue bears >further investigation. Did Bruce really identify the engine as an R-1340, or >did he say that it was about that size? (For instance, in his orginal >interviews by Ric or followups by Don, did he specifically rule out a R-985, >which is nearly identical in size to a R-975?) I sent off a query to the Mahan Naval History list, asking for sources of military vehicles, naval craft, et. al. (other than airplanes) that may have used radial engines. So far, silence, very odd for this usually verbose group. Either they don't have a clue (highly unlikely) or they are convinced that my one remaining oar in the water has finally slipped from my grasp. Tom #2179 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:34:30 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Canton movies >If we know that then we also know that a lady flier with short hair who >dressed like a man and whom the Japanese referred to a "Meelia" was captured >and imprisoned on Saipan. Incidentally, Bruce said the engine was propped up >outside the line shack and the most recent witness says he saw it in the >maintenance shop. Which one is correct? Which reminds me, you can see a photo of the jail where "Meelia" was held on Saipan on the web site of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (cnmi.com, or something like that) Tom #2179 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:35:11 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: AE and the Roosevelts Ric wrote: >In 1936 Putnam and Earhart were seeking the government's >cooperation for the upcoming world flight but, as far as I can tell, they >always went through Eleanor, not Franklin. If my understanding of the >relationship between the First Couple is correct, this is hardly surprising. >Can anyone shed some light on this? Doris Kearns Goodwin, in *No Ordinary Time*, her excellent and (otherwise) detailed account of the Roosevelts, makes no mention of Amelia Earhart. To be fair, however, the book deals primarily with the war years and does not discuss their lives much before 1939, except in literary "flashbacks". This really is an exquisite book about the Roosevelts, and also the home front in WWII. Delightful reading. Tom #2179 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:36:37 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Charts No markings on the CW charts other than Williams'. Lots of markings on the used charts, mostly annotations by FJN on landmarks, flight progress, etc. Mike Muenich queried: >Are there any markings on the charts other than those made by >Clarence Williams. I presume someone has examined the chart >Hawaii--Howland--Lae or its reciprocal route? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:37:34 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: LOP Maybe the science of navigation is not totally off-topic -- at least it fits the "Voyage of Discovery" aspect of TIGHAR's activities. So, I pursue my own "learning experience..." >From Mark Prange > >Since the reference plane is inclined the same as that of the earth's axis, >the sun is the only object whose position appears to change because of the >earth's inclination and the travel in orbit. By golly, that's right! The "fixed stars!" The time of year only determines which ones will be in sight at night. I think apparent motion of the moon and planets will also be complicated, not due to the earth's orbital movement but to their own orbital motion. The orbits are all slightly inclined to the plane of the ecliptic. These will be pretty long term changes in apparent position. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:38:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP Demystified That's a good analysis and I would only add one comment. Given FN's experience I can't believe he would allow himself to reach his LOP and not make sure he was safely to a known side of his course. That is the only way he could know which way to turn. He had drift to help and a long stretch of water to help set his course. No navigator would have tried to stay right on course. That would be a huge blunder. He wouldn't know how far, necessarily, he was off course but you can bet he knew which side. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:39:10 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP, drift sights, etc. Good information. I've never used drift but DID use celestial navigation as a B-47 copilot for a number of years in SAC. Most of my shots were on stars but I did do quite a lot of sun shots. We had no trouble staying on or close to course across the oceans. Admittedly at 35,000 feet we had a pretty stable platform and it was rarely overcast. Using sun lines the usual practice was to stay slightly to one side of course if we had to turn on one as we didn't have to guess which way to turn. FN, no doubt used the same technique and using drift he would not have been surprised by winds much different than predicted. He should have easily maintained his plane off course a few miles and probably north of track into the cross wind. At the speed he was traveling, two or three sun lines should have been enough to plot a LOP through Howland or fairly close. There's the rub. The shadow of all those pretty puffy little clouds look just like islands even at 1,000 feet. But even though he didn't find Howland he should have had a position good enough to strike out for the other islands. FN was an excellent navigator and with dead reckoning, a couple of sun lines and a little drift information should have got him very close to Howland. Actually seeing it had to have been the problem. As I recall at least one AE transmission was very loud indicating they were fairly close. If they were only a few miles off they could have easily not ever seen Howland. Sorry, Ric - nothing factual here -- just a few years of experience. And yes, B-47s also had radar as did my C-130 so we weren't going to miss destination but I can tell you our DR and sun lines took us where we were going -- like a C-130 to Wake Island during the day. My point is simply that FN had the tools and experience to get his plane within a few miles of Howland but that, obviously, wasn't good enough. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:40:17 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Re: Bendix HF/DF > From Ric > > Bendix did installed a state-of-the art direction finder in Earhart's > airplane and bragged about it. The trouble is, that happened in October 1936 > and Earhart pulled the unit out and replaced it with the open loop during the > first week of March 1937 before the first world flight attempt. Ok this will be my last question on this topic, since I believe this subject goes nowhere, but conjecture, without any facts to substantiate it. But for my own curiosity. I have read and perhaps this is questionable information, that AE had the trailing antenna pull off because it produce drag on the aircraft. Would the trailing antenna be the antenna for the Bendix radio? Would that have been the reason for pulling the Bendex radio? Could a compromise be met, in that the Bendix radio could come back, if it use the loop antenna (which if the information I read was right, cause less drag on the Electra)? The problem with these question are that with 70 or 80 cents you can buy a cup of coffee, and but without 70 or 80 cents, you get nothing and without contrary documentation these question are worthless. Still if the Bendix radio where on board it perhaps would explain some of the radio messages. Regards Warren Lambing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:49:18 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Some concerns about the Forum Some of the things that have been happening on and around the Forum lately are troubling, and at the risk of scratching off scabs, I'd like to say something about them. Generally, it seems like even without Sactodave, there's been an increase in personal sniping at Ric, which Ric unfortunately sometimes returns in kind. I have to sympathize with Ric's impatience; by this time he probably knows more about the subject than any other life form in the universe, and so many of the answers are right there on the web site, etc. etc. But it still irritates people, who often don't know where to look for information, and it generates an impression of defensiveness that leads to charges that TIGHAR, like every other Earhart "investigator," is so enamored of its own theory that it won't listen to any others. Which leads to personal sniping, which then is responded to, and around and around we go. Specifically, there's all the sturm und drang that's been going on about the Kanton engine. Two things worry me about the way this thread has been developing. One is that some of the posts seem to denigrate Bruce Yoho's integrity. I don't think that's right or fair. Personally, I have no doubt that Bruce is telling the perfect truth. Whether it's the perfectly ACCURATE truth is another matter, but I imagine Bruce would be the last to claim infallibility. Granted that oral testimony is always somewhat suspect, I think we can take it as given that there was a radial engine on Kanton that Bruce and others picked up somewhere else. Exactly where it was on Kanton at any given time, and exactly where it came from, are the kinds of matters that can easily get muddled in a person's memory banks. And the fact that someone remembers something only upon being prompted about it doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. The fact that I don't remember what we had for dinner on our last anniversary until my wife reminds me doesn't mean that wasn't what we ate. The recent excitement over "repressed memory syndrome" illustrates that one has to be real careful about the prompted recovery of memories, but nobody I know of is proposing to throw out the whole notion that one can be prompted to remember something one has superficially forgotten. We need corroboration of Bruce's story, not because we don't believe him, but because corroborators may lead to the recovery of more information -- like where in the world the engine actually came from. Which brings me to my second concern. The engine may have been found on Niku, and it may have been found somewhere else in the Phoenix group. From the evidence at hand I can't even hazard an educated guess. We can't tell from the evidence at hand; why argue about it? It seems like people get awfully worked up about things that we simply have no earthly way of resolving without further data (the drifting/circling/DFing/etc. controversy, as well as the question of the engine's origin). And getting worked up leads to rash statements that seem to insult people's intelligence, and/or (as in the case of the engine) seem to represent defense of a position rather than open investigation. I have a couple of suggestions. One is that somebody or bodies take on the responsibility to field questions that are relatively easy to answer, or whose answers are readily available on the web site, to relieve Ric of the irritating work of doing so. Another is that we all try hard not to insult one another, or impugn one another's motives, theories, intelligence, parenthood, etc.etc. -- recognizing that we can do so as much by omission (a dismissive response) as by comission. And I guess another is that we all understand that each of us is entitled to a bad day from time to time. End of sermon Tom King ******************************************* From Ric I certainly agree that personal sniping of any kind - at me, at anyone else, or by me - is not productive and detracts from the usefulness of the forum as a research tool. Believe it or not, I try my best not to snipe and I apologize for my apparent failures. What makes the forum such a difficult balancing act is that we're trying to make progress in a really difficult and complex investigation while still keeping the discussion as open as possible to anyone who wants to participate. Imagine trying to hold a conference on whether Cro-magnons fraternized with Neanderthals in a hall where anyone was free to wander in off the street to listen in and ask questions. Many people will have valuable input, some people will have dumb questions, and every once in a while some Creationist will shout that it's all nonsense. It's not our purpose here to try to convert everyone to our view of what probably happened to Amelia Earhart. The website offers a pretty good overview of what we think and why we think it. This forum is for those who want to help us pursue that line of reasoning to see whether or not it is true. We already have a volume problem on the forum. Yesterday we had to bump our total number of messages allowed to be posted for any one day from 50 to 100. About 99 percent of the people who leave the forum do so because they can't handle the sheer volume of messages. Many, many readers routinely delete postings without reading them based upon their assumed content from the subject line. The more noise there is in the hall, the harder it is to get anything done. I agree with Tom about the Kanton Engine. Let's continue to look for corroboration of Bruce's recollections but let's stop flailing around about where it might have come from. For my part, I'll continue to try to make background information and Frequently Asked Questions easily available on the website and will tell people to go look there as politely as possible - but I'm not going to burn bandwidth on the forum answering the same question over and over. LTM, Ric ************************************** From Pat Believe it or not, I have been trying to field (or turf out) some of the most basic questions... without much success, I guess. Anyway, here are the URLs everyone needs: For the Forum Highlights, where you can find out what has been talked about *every single daggone week* since the beginning of the Forum: http://www.tighar.org/forum/ArchivedHighlights.html For the FAQs: http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaq.html For the Research Bulletins: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/ArchivedBulletins.html For some basic maps: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Mapsindex.html So look in these places FIRST. Thank you. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:50:05 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: LOP The recent explanations--by Vern, Tet, Randy, Ric, and maybe others, too--of position finding from celestial observations have been very clear and well thought out. --Much better than what is available in most books on the subject. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:53:27 EDT From: William Dohenyguy Subject: Possibilities [Note from Pat: This post was edited (by cutting, only, no changes) to remove personal remarks that have no place on the Forum.] From William Dohenyguy I just crashed or landed on an Atoll. Nikumaroro, Baker, Hull, whatever. I want to survive, let folks know where I am. If I landed safely (wheels down) I could run my engines to charge the batteries that work the radio, thus the post disappearance messages (are they bogus?). I would also take what remaining fuel I had in the tanks and set fire to the entire island. The glow, at night, would be seen for a hundred miles. And dear Franklin would not have spent four million dollars of the Tax payers money looking for my bones. William LTM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:58:18 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: LOP >Since the reference plane is inclined the same as that of the earth's axis, >the sun is the only object whose position appears to change because of the >earth's inclination and the travel in orbit. I'm wrong here. The apparent positions of the planets, too, are affected by the earth's travel in orbit, just as Vern said.