Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:43:45 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Altimeter setting

Jim Kelly asks:

>How accurate were the altimeters in the plane?

As with any pressure altimeter, only as accurate as the last setting which,
we must presume, was at Lae.  How far off was the Electra's altimeter 18
hours later?  That would depend on how different the atmospheric pressure was
in the Central Pacific as opposed to Lae.  We don't have the pressure for
either location so, as a line of inquiry, it seems like a dead end.  All we
can say is that Earhart's altimeter may or may not have been off at the time
Noonan observed the sunrise.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:44:39 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: calculations

Dennis McGee asks:

>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?

How big a foul up it is depends entirely upon how much information was
available to the navigator for mid-course corrections enroute.  Even Fred
Noonan wasn't psychic.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:45:16 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: the Morgenthau Myth

Col. Reineck, I would very, very much appreciate it if you would refrain from
referring to the people on the Earhart Forum, myself included, as Ric
Gillespie's people.  Despite your apparent desire to believe that we are all
mere children following Mr. Gillespie's pied piper, each of us really is an
individual, with brains of our own.

Thank you
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:45:49 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Charts

Mike Muenich asks:

>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?

Williams' charts are hand drawn and the copies on file at Purdue have no
other marks on them.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:47:06 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Niku shoes

Chris Kennedy writes:

>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.

Nope.  Gallagher found shoe parts lying about and apparently thought they
were all from the same shoe (woman's, etc.).  He put them in the sextant box
for shipment to Suva.  Later, Dr. Steenson looked at the shoe parts and
offered his opinion that they were from a woman's and a man's shoe.  That's
about all we know.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:47:57 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Testing a theory

If you are willing to sacrifice a pig to establishing a theory and proving
some of you analysis on decomposition and scatter, how about dropping some
aircraft parts and pieces on the reef.  Scrap engines, landing gear, wing
spars and other "heavy" parts could show us how these parts drift and react
to storms etc.  Plot the points of deposit and when you check on the remains
of the pig see if you can locate and plot the heavy stuff.

**************************************************
From Ric

What makes the decomposition experiment practical is the rapid rate at which
organic stuff breaks down on Niku.  How big heavy wreckage moves about on the
reef depends entirely upon storm activity which varies greatly from year to
year.  Fortunately, we have an excellent model in the wreck of the Norwich
City whose breakup is well documented in photos taken over the past 62 years.
 We're taking a close look at those photos now.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:48:59 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Re: LOP

 I thought Commander Thompson's report indicated that the early morning
weather was clear in all directions, with good visibility tp the horizon,
except to the Northwest. I believe he also watched the Northwest quadrent
through the next several hours and that weather continued to deteriorate,
leading him to believe that AE was in the weather front to the Northwest,
since he believed his smoke or the island would have been visable from any
other quadrant.  This was the analysis that lead him to initially search
Northwestly.  The point being that if AE and FN were anyplace other than
Northwest of Howland, they would have seen the sunrise.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:50:40 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      AE and FDR

>From Ron Reuther
>
>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.

AE was no stranger to the White House.  She had been honored there in 1932 by
President Hoover after her Atlantic flight.  she was a guest at the Roosevelt
Whitehouse on at least two occasions, in April 1933 and in March 1935. She
never "flew" the First Lady but during the 1933 visit she arranged for
Eastern Airlines to give her and Eleanor a ride over Washington at night to
see the lights.  She certainly met and talked with the President.  I just
haven't seen anything to indicate that Franklin was doing anything but
humoring his wife.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:51:07 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Charts

    Do any of FN's markings on the used charts reveal any of his navigational
procedures, timekeeping, LoP, alternates etc from which we could glean some
of his navigational methodology and apply to the Lae--Howland leg?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:51:52 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Possibilities

Mr. Dohenyguy said:"  "I would also take what remaining fuel I had
in the tanks and set fire to the entire island."

Good idea, but who gets to write the Environmental Impact Study?

LTM
Dennis McGee #0149
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:52:37 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Electra structural members

Frank Kuhre says:

>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.

and Ric says, "Hmmmmm."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:53:05 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: LOP and offset

Robert Klaus provided a quote from "Hollywood Pilot" in which the author, Don
Dwiggins, quotes Paul Mantz quoting a remembered conversation with Fred
Noonan in which Noonan describes using offset navigation.  Fair enough.

Whether or not Noonan used the offset technique on the approach to Howland is
one of those imponderables we can debate endlessly and never resolve.  So
let's recognize it as a possibility for which there is no direct evidence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:53:33 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Tarawa

Ron Dawson asks:

>Any word on the health situation on Tarawa and what is the status of
>the visit to the National Archives there?

The health situation in Tarawa is much improved and we have tenative plans
for a research trip there in January.  We'll be banging the funding drum soon.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:54:14 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Possibilities

Don Jordan writes:

>For the life of me I don't see why it is so offending to think there might
>be two islands involved.

Maybe you have to have spent way too much time in and over the vast reaches
of the Pacific to grasp how infinitesimally small would be the chances that
Earhart and Noonan could end up on one island and the airplane on another.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:57:17 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: LOP, drift sights, etc.

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> The shadow of
> all those pretty puffy little clouds look just like islands
> even at 1,000 feet.

I have long believed it to be likely that AE and FN successfully arrived in
the vicinity of tiny Howland island and were unable to distinguish it from
all the dappled cloud shadows and whatever mist there was in the area.

Looking forward to Ric's next installment of his report...

LTM (who probably came to appreciate the duality of beauty)
william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:59:41 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Gallagher

Has anybody noticed that Amelia, on her trans-Atlantic flight in
1932, landed in Ireland on the farm owned by William Gallagher?

Cam Warren

****************************

Yes, we noticed. Synchronicity... the psychic folks love stuff like that.
Anyway, we have looked into it in a desultory fashion. Not the easiest thing
to trace, but there is a faint possibility that there is actually a
connection, somewhat tenuous.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:00:58 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Bendix HF/DF

The trailing wire antenna was used for 500kHz transmission.  I
don't think it was used for reception, but I could be wrong.
I don't think anyone has implied that it was part of the D/F
unit.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:03:10 EDT
From:         Bruce Yoho
Subject:      Re: Canton movies

To Tom Robinson

The question of whether the engine was propped up out side the maintenance
hangar or inside it, as our other source stated, and who is correct is what I
will try to answer.

For lack of a photograph for proof all I can say is I never ever put it into
the line maintenance hangar. At the time I was not aware of its importance.
It was just a piece of junk I had found to play with. It was badly decomposed
it was full of sand.

Being a Flight Mechanic flying on these Aircraft I was not going to put my
life in danger by putting this contamination in with 1/2 million dollar jet
engines my life may depend on let alone the attitude of my fellow mechanics.
We had some very expensive stuff in that hangar.

Someone suggested I may have put it inside to keep the rain off of it from a
rain storm.

1. We did not get much rain when I was there. In fact the largest rain storm
I witnessed on Canton was when we returned in 98.

2. If rain had threatened I would have loved it to be in the rain as I had no
water to wash the engine. Water was a premium on the island and rain is fresh
water. We actually had more jet fuel stored at that time on the island than
we had fresh water.

To summarize; The engine was outside propped up by itself next to the corner
of the maintenance hangar. Where the other source stated the engine was does
not matter. What matters is he saw it and he saw it on Canton Island.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:04:06 EDT
From:         Bruce Yoho
Subject:      Re: Some concerns about the Forum

I would like to thank the leadership for their interest in the attitude of
this forum and where it has gone.

Tom King's response exemplifies his Education, Leadership and knowledge of
the forum and subject.

There is a way we can speak and respond without cranking someone's nose just
by how we state it.

Ric's knowledge of AE is staggering he comes up with answers that even
already posted here would take some of us years to find. His ability to
connect possible sources of information and come up with a result is
unbelievable.

So if I may quote a sentence from Califonia's history.

"Can't we all just get along"

Thanks Tom, Ric and Pat

LTM and EB (Who wants to keep moving forward)
Bruce
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:37:11 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Lack of more aircraft wreckage

One of the photos included in the recent expedition report on the website
got me thinking.  (uh-oh, trouble)  The Norwich City wreck has now been
reduced to several unrecognizable hunks of rusty metal.  It was fairly large
and heavy in comparison to a Lockheed Electra.  If that can happen to a
large heavy ship over 70 years time, it seems quite possible that a
relatively small, light airplane could be similarly reduced, or even more
completely obliterated, in a much shorter time span.  Say, for instance, the
54 years between the 1937 landing and the 1991 (first?) TIGHAR Niku
expedition.  The only part about that that troubles me, aside from the
thought that I'd like very much for us to find large, easily identifiable
chunks of NR16020 debris, is the 1988 New Zealand aerial photo(s) which
reportedly appear to show large metal objects in the bush.  Was that the
"cruciform shaped object" the recent expedition looked for?  Are the aerial
photos/radar returns, etc. something that would be suitable for posting on
the website?  Ric, do you think that the "cruciform shaped object" is still
there just beyond where you guys recently chopped the Legendary Scaevola
(TIGHAR's fund raising magician) back to, or are you satisfied that you
searched the area where it was, and it isn't there anymore?

Sorry for all the questions--I suppose they'll all be answered in the report
that explains why we no longer think the wreck photo is NR16020, a report
eagerly awaited by us all.

Re: the Wreck Photo--If it's turned out to be a red herring/dead end for us,
it still shows a Lockheed 10 somewhere right?  Are there areas in the
vicinity of Hong Kong, where Adamant was docked at the time one of her crew
allegedly took the photo, that would A.  be accessible to crew on shore
leave, B.  have the kind of vegetation shown in the photo, and C.  be home
to a wrecked Lockheed 10. (are any known to have gone missing in that
vicinity?)  Certainly Niku is our first priority, but if the wreck photo is
indeed not NR16020, it would certainly be interesting to know what it
was/is.

I certainly agree with Tom King (and, incidentally, Rodney King) in that we
should all try to get along.

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:38:08 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Possibilities

In response to William Dohenyguy's thought of turning the
entire island into a firey beacon:

The whole island wouldn't burn, and you just might want to think twice before
burning up what you may well have to live on.

LTM (who advises discretion about destroying your living quarters)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:42:06 EDT
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Re: some concerns about the Forum

Uh Oh!
And I kept wondering if Rick and Pat are some kind of saints for enduring
the load of the Forum and all the uneducated questions for so long.

But then I had to remind myself that they are Americans and that in America
the word *freedom* has a much stronger meaning than elsewhere in the world.
Granted, most Forum subscribers are Americans and thus used to this kind of
freedom, but Ric spoiled them no end at the beginnings of the Forum. He
wanted to respect peoples freedom I presume.

But where I come from (Europe), it is quite normal that 'students' keep
still and listen while the 'professors' speak. It is a matter of course to
gather all available information (or ask where to find it) before joining
in. If you want to write a thesis, the professor tells you to read a dozen
books on the subject first and then come back. And if you disagree with his
views than go and find a professor that agrees with you. That's the way
science and leading edge research works. One cannot start from the beginning
on every session.

As stated often enough on this Forum, this is *NOT* a chatting room about AE
trivia. It is a research tool where interested grown-ups can (after they
have brought themseves up to speed on the web site and under strict
adherence to 'web discipline' as in 'radio discipline') participate in
scientific research.

Great, huh? Quite a novelty! The Web is an awsome medium that enables us to
participate in things we could only watch on TV until now. But don't go and
spoil it by disregarding the simplest of rules you wouldn't dream of
breaking in a 'real' as opposed to 'virtual' situation. A tool is only as
good as the person using it is skilled. Be aware that you are 'only' a guest
in a private discussion.

LTM (who wanted to speak up about this for a long time now)

******************************

Perhaps we can strike a happy medium somewhere in here.... one does not wish
to stifle free expression of useful, well-reasoned, properly researched
criticism---this is not, and is not intended to be, a "Let's all agree with
TIGHAR" Forum. It is intended to be a research forum, and good research
necessarily involves backtracking, reiterating, reconsidering, and sometimes
changing one's thesis to match the data----it being incorrect to change the
data to match the thesis.

OTOH, I will be a lot more up front about telling people to do their homework.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:43:29 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: AE and FDR

Ron Reuther writes:

>Ric,  Re FDR and AE see "The Sound of Wings"  by Mary Lovell, 1989, pgs.
>198-199 and "East to the Dawn" by Susan Butler, 1997, pgs. 282-283.
>Both of these authors confirm a personal relationship with FD, Eleanor,
>AE, and George Putnam.

Lovell's opinion, in the passage you suggest, is that "it would be incorrect
to say that they were close friends with the Roosevelts, they undoubtedly
enjoyed a relationship that was mutually rewarding."

In the notes to the passage from Butler's book, a telegram dated April 5,
1933 is cited in which AE asks for a 3 minute "interview" with the President
"tomorrow, Thursday, or Friday."  The interview was granted but not until
April 12, the following Wednesday.

All of AE's dealings with FDR seem to be in an offical context whereas her
contacts with Eleanor are frequently casual and social.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:45:18 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: shoes and more shoes

Dave Bush asks:

>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?

We have not pursued this with the manufacturer, but I know from other
pursuits that leather tanning processes have not changed appreciably since
the 1930s.

>As to the missing bones  --  if they were disarticulated as Ric says, could
>they not have been washed out to sea?

It's quite clear from Gallagher's description of the discovery site that it
is near the lagoon shore and, thus, not exposed to ocean wave activity.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:46:27 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: LOP demystified

Alan Caldwell writes:

>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.

Remember that Noonan was counting on RDF to provide the close-in navigation,
just as was done on the Pan Am flights.  No offset was used on those flights.
This is another imponderable and not worth a lot of debate, but the fact
remains that there is no evidence to suggest that Noonan used offset
navigation on July 2nd.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:47:09 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Bendix HF/DF

Warren Lambing asks:

> Would the trailing antenna be the antenna for the Bendix radio?  Would
> that have been the reason for pulling the Bendex radio?

The trailing wire had nothing to do with the only Bendix radio known to have
ever been in the aircraft.

Looks like we need a FAQ on the trailing wire if we don't already have one.
I'll check.  We should probably also have a FAQ on the Bendix Radio Compass
that was installed in October or Novemvber 1936 and removed prior to the
first world flight attempt.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:48:26 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Possibilities

William Dohenguy writes:

>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.

Just when would you do this?  On the night of July 2nd?  If you're on any
island other than Howland (and you ain't on Howland) there is nobody within a
hundred miles to see your conflagration.  July 3rd?  Nope, nobody around.
July 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th?  No luck. If you're psychic and you pick the night
of the 8th and you're on Gardner, the Colorado pilots who fly over the next
day will certainly see the smoke and investigate.  They might even make a
note in their report "Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible
but after repeated circling and zooming we were unable to elicit an answering
wave from possible inhabitants."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:49:16 EDT
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Lost Pan Am Clipper

A short confirmation that evidence of the lost Clipper was found. While Ric
was travelling, the lost Clipper came up, along with the possibility of
Japanese complicity and stolen wealth. I said I would check the Oakland
Trib for the story. I did. Haven't had time to summarize for the Forum.
However, an oil slick was found near the last reported position. Some
compelling human interest stories are part of the tragedy. No conspiracies
or Japanese involvement mentioned in contemporaneous accounts. Once again,
it sounds like a myth purpetuated by lazy minds unwilling to do any serious
investigation into subjects on which they claim expertise.

Blue skies, (from mother who says wear hip boots when wading with experts)
-jerry
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:50:02 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: the Morgenthau Myth

Tom King wrote:

> Col. Reineck, I would very, very much appreciate it if you would
> refrain from referring to the people on the Earhart Forum, myself
> included, as Ric Gillespie's people....

I would like to amplify Tom's comments. Not only am I NOT one of Ric
Gillespie's people, but I am very much an individual. Furthermore, I
don't think that Ric would even want a following of "people".

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:50:45 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: finding islands

While Dave Bush's post makes a lot of sense & I happen to agree with
most of what he says, I'm still concerned that even if in fact AE/FN
were only missing Howland..."by a few miles"..., would not the same
scenario create a similar problem when they reached the Phoenix Island
Chain?      Unless FN was able to plot an accurate, pinpoint course
directly to one of the islands in the Chain, would they not encounter
simiar difficulty in locating any of these islands (some even as small &
insignificant as Howland) which were fairly widely scattered throughout
the Chain?     While they had the advantage of several hours of fuel
remaining when they reached the..."vicinity of Howland"..., it would
seem to me those engines had to  be on the verge of sucking fumes by the
time they hit the Phoenix Island Chain, leaving virtually no reserve of
fuel for any extended search of the area.

Simply stated, I guess my main question in all this has been...if they
had no truly reliable (landfall) point of reference (having been unable
to sight Howland) to confirm the overnight accuracy of all FN's
calculations how could FN then plot a more accurate course to the
Phoenix Islands than he did to Howland?

Sorry to be taking up so much Forum time on this topic, but I really
believe it is very important to establish the fact that FN was at least
able to accurately plot the course that landed the flight on Gardner
Island, given all the unknown & perhaps unknowable (sixty-two years
later) factors that have been discussed on the Forum.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:53:29 EDT
From:         George Myers
Subject:      A note about submerged reefs

I would like to take the opportunity to thank someone connected to this forum
for probably paying part of my salary while employed at Grossman and
Associates, Inc., a few years ago, and relate what I remember the question
was at that time considered there, I believe.

The considered question at the time was whether an atoll's somewhat submerged
reef, or resubmerged since, was a possible landing place or a considered
landing place when inspected from a lower altitude, and whether visualization
may have convinced AE she was landing on solid ground, when she might not
have. At least that is what I think was the question, since I was really not
part of the research working in then in Joel W. Grossman's "Computer Room"
with Victor Ortiz, a Mexican urban archaeologist.

Thanks Again.
George J. Myers, Jr.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:54:08 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Testing a theory

Mike Meunich wrote:

> ... how about dropping some aircraft parts and pieces on the reef.
> Scrap engines, landing gear, wing spars and other "heavy" parts could
> show us how these parts drift and react to storms etc.

The results of this would also vary greatly depending on where exactly
the pieces were dropped on the reef as well as the exact weather
experiences. Since we don't know if the plane landed on the beach,
landing on the flat, or ditched and floated ashore, etc., much less on
which side of the island (though we all have educated guesses) and since
we would have to reproduce very specific storm events at certain tide
levels AND since we don't know the size, weight, and shape of the exact
pieces (whether the wing is attached to the fuselage or whether it is a
piece of the wingtip, etc.), the results of this sort of experiment
would be beyond useless -- almost to the point of random.

Of course, then we have the other aspect of this -- that 100 years from
now, some intrepid group searching for the lost Amelia Earhart will come
across a strange collection of aircraft debris on Nikumaroro and hold a
press conference announcing that the mystery is solved.... "We know of
no other plane crash on the island... on the other hand, the rivet holes
don't line up with the plans we have for the Electra...." Ok, just
joking.

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:01:14 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      More Morgenthau

Perhaps it would be immodest of me to point out that it was I
who recently discovered the reference to the Thompson/Morgenthau
meeting in (where else?) the ITASCA deck log and so advised Col.
Reineck. Diligent - and factual - research wins again!

Incidentally, I largely agree with your analysis of the
Morgenthau business. (Note "largely", i.e., "not entirely")

Cam Warren

*****************************************

From Ric

Could you perhaps share with us exactly what the log says?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:01:58 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Charts

Mike Muenich wrote:

> Do any of FN's markings on the used charts reveal any of his
> navigational procedures, timekeeping, LoP, alternates etc from
> which we could glean some of his navigational methodology and
> apply to the Lae--Howland leg?

Mike --

I would think that a better source for FN's navigational techniques
would come from Miami and the Pan Am experience. He taught a course
there to other Pan Am navigators, along with Mr. Gatty. I think that
before you start a wide search on general navigational techniques, it
would be worthwhile to find out what is known in the group first.

Thomas.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:02:50 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: LOP and offset

Ric wrote:

> Robert Klaus provided a quote from "Hollywood Pilot" in which the
> author, Don Dwiggins, quotes Paul Mantz quoting a remembered
> conversation with Fred Noonan in which Noonan describes using offset
> navigation.  Fair enough.

Ric,

We also had provided you with a reference from another book, Clipper
Ship, that indicated that he had used offset navigation on the initial
Clipper flight across the Pacific for finding the island of Wake, I
think it was. Furthermore, in our discussions with one of the Pan Am
captains, he stated that FN was well-known for this technique and that
the common knowledge was that he was in fact the one who first applied
it in the aviation field. Thus, the person noted, he ALWAYS used off-set
technique. Please keep in mind that this is hearsay and recollection
from almost 70 years earlier.

In any case, whether or not he used it that morning is really beside the
point. If he did, it just means that potentially he would have been even
more likely to find Gardner Island. If he didn't, well, he still had to
make a choice as to which way to fly down the LoP and the obvoius choice
is to fly southeast. So, either way....

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:03:51 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Ric's followers

Tom Van Hare wrote:  "Furthermore, I don't think that Ric would even
want a following of "people".

Yeah, he would, but only if they ate haggis, tossed cabers, and
played their stolen bagpipes.  What says our laddie, now?

LTM, who is still ticked off over this bagpipe thing
Dennis McGee #0149

*************************

You'd also have to paint your faces blue----not the same thing as being blue
in the face, btw.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:06:59 EDT
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: AE and FDR

Lovell (page 198) says Putnam and FDR were boyhood acquaintances, (page 199)
Putnams were personal guests of the President at his inauguration and attended
a private reception party afterward.  Butler says (page 283) "Franklin too,
enjoyed Amelia's company, appreciated her good looks, her sense of humor, her
flying ability, and her intelligence, and didn't hold her project of teaching
Eleanor how to fly against her.  He thought highly enough of Amelia's input to
to grant her that most-highly prized commodity in Washington, time with him
whenever she requested it.  He held her in such high esteem that she had but to
ask Louis Howe, Franklin's liaison in the early years, for an appointment for
the request to be immediately granted. For example..."
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:08:24 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: charts

Absolutely!  These markings and notes by FJN are extremely instructive
in helping to figure out his procedures, and communications with
AE.  Wait until the 8th edition comes out and you will see a
lot of details of map notes.!  I promise.

>From Mike Muenich
>
>Do any of FN's markings on the used charts reveal any of his navigational
>procedures, timekeeping, LoP, alternates etc from which we could glean
>some of his navigational methodology and apply to the Lae--Howland leg?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:11:25 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: lack of more aircraft wreckage
 Dave Porter asks:

>the 1988 New Zealand aerial photo(s) which reportedly appear to show large
>metal objects in the bush.  Was that the "cruciform shaped object" the recent
>expedition looked for?

No, that's a different site.  I'm sure that there is nothing in the spot
where "cruciform shaped object" appears in the old photos.  I'm less certain
that we thoroughly covered the spot where metal objects are indicated in the
1988 photo.  It's really tricky to pin down just where along the beach that
spot is and we didn't have time to cover the entire beachfront.

>Are the aerial photos/radar returns, etc. something that would be suitable
>for posting on the website?

We don't have any radar returns but we'll be posting some very interesting
photos on the website when the report is finished.

>Ric, do you think that the "cruciform shaped object" is still
>there just beyond where you guys recently chopped the Legendary Scaevola
>(TIGHAR's fund raising magician) back to, or are you satisfied that you
>searched the area where it was, and it isn't there anymore?

I think that it was always just vegetation and only gave the appearance of
being something else.

>Are there areas in the vicinity of Hong Kong, where Adamant was docked at
>the time one of her crew allegedly took the photo, that would A.  be
>accessible to crew on shore leave, B.  have the kind of vegetation shown
>in the photo, and C.  be home to a wrecked Lockheed 10.

I have no idea.

>(are any known to have gone missing in that vicinity?)

No.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:12:01 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: the Morgenthau Myth

Tom Van Hare writes:

>Furthermore, I don't think that Ric would even want a following of
>"people".

I much prefer TIGHARs.  If I was looking for obsequious agreement I'd buy a
dog and save myself a lot of keystrokes.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:13:12 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: finding islands

Don Neumann writes:

>I really believe it is very important to establish the fact that FN was
>at least able to accurately plot the course that landed the flight on
>Gardner Island

The beauty of running down the line to the southeast is that your course to
at least one of the Phoenix Group - Gardner - is already plotted for you.
You don't know for sure when you'll arrive but as long as you're on the line
you're bound to hit either Howland, Baker or Gardner.

Seeing any small island in the middle of an ocean is tough, but Gardner is
much larger than the other possibilites on the line and is also the only one
with a large turquoise-colored lagoon (much different from the surrounding
dark blue ocean) surrounded by high, green trees.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:14:45 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Gallagher

Cam Warren wrote

> Has anybody noticed that Amelia, on her trans-Atlantic flight in
> 1932, landed in Ireland on the farm owned by William Gallagher?

Gallagher is a rather frequently occurring Irish name. Also, many
genealogists believe that going back as recently as the era of Charlemagne,
most western europeans are related to each other, meaning that Gallagher,
Earhart, Noonan, Eleanor Roosevelt (who was a cousin of her husband FDR, by
the way) and most people of western european ancestry who are reading this
post certainly have ancestors in common, and one might only have to go back
30 generations to find them (usually not possible to do with documentation).

The bottom line is that life is deeply interweaved, cyclic and complex, and
is filled with fascinating coincidences that are frequently little more than
that: Coincidences.

Which helps illustrate why, as in so many historical mysteries, the evidence
of a Gardner landing by AE is at once so tantalizing but at the same time
perilous to the truth. We have no proof that Amelia was ever on Gardner, but
there are worthwhile indications that the proof may be there.

In my experience, Ric is pretty good at separating meaningful, scholarly
leads from all the noise in the background.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:19:39 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Bendix HF/DF yet again

Attention Warren Lambing -

Earhart let it be known the "Flying Laboratory" was to be used
as a test bed for direction finders. More than one system was
installed prior to her final flight, including one designed by
Fred Hooven, whose company was acquired by Bendix Radio early
in 1937. The Hooven set, a LF unit WAS removed for sure, and
replaced by a Radio Research (also acquired by Bendix) unit,
which included the superhet RA-1 receiver, and utilized the
large loop visible in all the late photos of the Electra. There
is some indication that installation, done in Burbank, was
upgraded in Miami, at which time the loop, according to one
Pan Am source, was apparently replaced.

The 250' trailing wire antenna (probably the SECOND TW installed
on the Electra, replacing the original 40' installation, when
the WE radio was converted for 500 kc) was removed, presumably
at Earhart's request. Her "public" reason was that it would be
a considerable weight saving (true). Privately, she probably had
been told her HF/DF would be all she needed.

Note that wire antennas are "generic", i.e., not usually specific
to any particular receiver and/or transmitter, whereas loops ARE
specific to DF gear. (Ordinarily requiring a "coupler" since
a loop is a "balanced" input device, a straight wire is not).

The WE receiver could have been fitted with a WE loop; it was so
designed. But that would have eliminated the opportunity for
Putnam to "sell" Vince Bendix on a chance to demonstrate his
RDF system.  So the latest (possibly a prototype) Bendix gear
was installed. Conversely, the RA-1 was a perfectly good (nay,
excellent) general purpose receiver, and could have been used
as such.

As for "this subject goes nowhere", I don't agree. The DF (and
AE's radio reception problem) were the principal reason for the
loss of the Electra.

And yes, the presence of the Bendix receiver certainly DOES
explain "some of the radio messages". Those dealing with
7500 kc. Most researchers haven't figured this out yet, hence
their puzzlement.

Cam Warren

***************************************

From Ric

If I may:

>The Hooven set, a LF unit WAS removed for sure,

Agreed.  Hooven's Radio Compass used a globe-shaped antenna enclosed in a
translucent dome which was mounted on the top of the fuselage.  Numerous
photos document that this feature goes away in late February/early March 1937
and is replaced by the Bendix open loop over the cockpit.

Fred Hooven had this to say about the removal of that system in a manuscript
entitled "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" which he wrote in June 1982:

"Before Miss Earhart took off on her Round-the-World flight she removed from
her plane a modern radio compass that had been installed and replaced it with
an older, lighter-weight model of much less capability.  I am the engineer
who had invented and developed the radio compass that was removed and I
discussed its features with Miss Earhart before the installation was made. I
have reasn to beleive that it was the failure of her radio direction finder
to do what the more modern model could have done that caused her to be lost.
I met Miss Earhart for lunch at Wright field in the summer of 1936.  ....
Too much time has elapsed for me to remember when it was that I learned that
my device was not on the Earhart plane when it was lost, or even whether it
was before or after the takeoff that I learned."

Later in the manuscript Hooven says:

"Miss Earhart had announced prior to her flight that she would transit on a
regular schedule, but would use her receiver only for direction finding.
Loop antennas, however, do not function for direction finding much above 1500
kc so her loop was not designed to operate above 1500 kc....
A much improved type of direction finder had recently been developed and Miss
Earhart had had one installed on her plane, but had removed it to save its
extra weight of about 30 lb., the weight of five gallons of fuel.  It
incorporated a super-heterodyne receiver of the highest sensitivity....
The improved sensitivity made it possible to use a much smaller loop than the
older device, and in Fig 2 may be seen the smaller, streamlined housing of
the newer loop as it appeared when installed on the Earhart plane.  Miss
Earhart did not realize that this streamlined loop reduced air resistance to
an extent that would have saved several times the five gallons of fuel that
she had added by removing the radio compass and replacing it with the older
device."

A detailed description of Hooven's career prepared by the Thayer School of
Engineeering ar Dartmouth College where he was a Professor of Engineering at
the time of his death in 1985 shows him as Vice President and Chief Engineer
for the Radio Products Division of Bendix Aviation Corp. from 1935 to 1938.
("Who's Who in America" shows him holding that position from 1935 to 1937.)
The Dartmouth account of his career says that between 1934 and 1935, as a
self-employed individual, he designed, built, and patented an experimental
direction finder which he sold to the U.S. Army.  Bendix bought him out and
made him V.P. and Chief Engineeer of their Radio Products Division as a "base
for experimental development and production of the Hooven Radio Direction
Finder, licensed to Bendix.  Built 5 prototype devices one of which was used
for first automatic blind landings ever made (Wright Field 1936) one of which
was installed on aircraft used by Merrill and Richman in transatlantic flight
1936, one of which was installed on Amelia Earhart's airplane and then
removed owing to bad advice from competitor. One of these prototypes was
installed on the first DC-3 to go into commerical passenger service (American
Airlines. April 1936)"

I have a photo of the Merrill/Richman Vultee "Lady Peace" equipped with the
same "Hooven dome" that appears on NR16020.  The photo was taken September 2,
1936.

A 1995 letter to me from a close friend of Hooven's, - Robert C. Dean,
Chairman of Synergy Research Corporation in Hanover, N.H. - presents a
somewhat different picture.  He says:

"During the Depression, not being able to find a job in mechanical
engineering, he took a job in electrical engineeering with a French company,
American Loth Corporation.  This company had an office in Dayton, OH and
manufactured aircraft radios and direction finders.  For them, Fred invented
an asymmetrical radio direction finder which had different gain on each side
of the loop.  In other words, the signal from a station would be received
stronger on one side than the other side (after the natenna was rotated 180
degrees).  so the operator could tell immediately whether his/her direction
finder was pointing at the station or away from it.
After Fred's direction finder was installed on Earhart's plane, the Bendix
salesperson convinced her (or perhaps her engineer) that the French antenna
was unreliable.  consequently, the Earhart party decided to remove the
Hooven-Loth antenna and reinstall a standard Bendix symmetrical antenna.
Fred always wondered whether this decision may not have sealed her fate.
I have this information from Fred Hooven.  However, it may contain errors."

Another clue that may be part of the puzzle is a photo of the Electra
sporting the "Hooven dome" that appeared in the January 1937 issue of
National Aeronautic (the magazine of the National Aeronautic Association).
AE is posing in front of the airplane with a guy in an overcoat.  The caption
reads:

"Herbert Sharlock, vice president in charge of public relations of the Bendix
Aviation Corporation, is shown with Amelia Earhart as she makes a stop at
South Bend to visit with Vincent Bendix..."

This had to have been taken in the fall of 1936 around the same time the
Hooven radio compass was installed at Wright Field in Dayton.

So what can we deduce from the above, sometimes conflicting, reports?  There
is certainly no support for Cam Warren's claim that the Hooven radio compass
was:

>replaced by a Radio Research (also acquired by Bendix) unit,
>which included the superhet RA-1 receiver, and utilized the
>large loop visible in all the late photos of the Electra.

Perhaps Mr. Warren could describe the documentation that supports his
allegation.  It does seem a bit odd that all this stuff about a high
frequency DF could be going on at Bendix and Hooven be totally unaware of it.

An article in the March 1937 issue of Aero Digest magazine reviews a new
"Bendix direction finder for use with conventional receivers."  The black box
and loop pictured in the article looks just like the ones in the photos taken
when Earhart installed the open loop in early March 1937.

It's not clear to me whether Bendix had yet acquired Hooven's invention at
the time it was installed and then removed from NR16020, but it might not
matter.  My suspicion is that some Bendix salesman convinced AE that the new
loop and adapter would allow her to eliminate the weight of a separate DF
receiver (saving 30 lbs sounds about right) and so she chucked Hooven's fancy
rig.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:20:10 EDT
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Sun lines

If you want to see the sun line in action, check out this website.
(And wave to the cameras!)

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth/action?opt=-p

And while you're looking, take a moment to appreciate how far Amelia
and Fred got successfully.

LTM & HTH
Amanda Dunham
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:21:27 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Two islands

>From Ric
>
>Don Jordan writes:
>
>>For the life of me I don't see why it is so offending to think there might
>>be two islands involved.
>
>Maybe you have to have spent way too much time in and over the vast reaches
>of the Pacific to grasp how infinitesimally small would be the chances that
>Earhart and Noonan could end up on one island and the airplane on another.

Ric, how can you say that after the baggage fiasco on the latest trip.  It is
so simple - the pilot and navigator were simply mislaid and ended up on the
wrong island from the flight.  WHY DIDN'T WE THINK OF THAT POSSIBILITY
BEFORE?  It happens every single day on the airlines.  People head for Rome
and their baggage roams to New Zealand.  That has to be it, no doubt about it!

--
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:22:45 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: HF/DF

>>From Randy Jacobson
>
>The trailing wire antenna ws used for 500kHz transmission.  I
>don't think it was used for reception, but I could be wrong.
>I don't think anyone has implied that it was part of the D/F
>unit.

That wasn't a trailing wire antenna.  The pilot was female, it was a
clothesline.  (NO,NO Pat, please don't hit me?)

--
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush

*******************

WHACKWHACKWHACK!!! Take THAT, you miscreant!

:-P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:28:26 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Lack of more aircraft wreckage

>Was that the "cruciform shaped object" the recent expedition looked for?
>Are the aerial photos/radar returns, etc. something that would be suitable
>for posting on the website?

Cruciform Shaped - Devil's Triangle.  We are looking on the wrong side of the
planet.  Let's get together in Bermuda this fall and search!  Should be
plenty of loose shoes lying around there, among other items of clothing!
Cheaper flights, too, plus plenty of drinking water and margaritas.

--
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush

*************************************

Gettin' a little punchy, there, Dave?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:30:13 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Possibilities

>From Tom King, in response to William Dohenyguy's thought of turning the
>entire island into a firey beacon:
>
>The whole island wouldn't burn, and you just might want to think twice before
>burning up what you may well have to live on.
>
>LTM (who advises discretion about destroying your living quarters)

While FN was into stars, they weren't rock stars, so he definitely would not
have trashed the motel.  And AE surely would not have driven the 10E into the
swimming pool without floats.

--
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush

******************************

I have to agree with the sentiment, if not with the way it's couched. It
strikes me as quite unlikely that Earhart would have done *anything* that
might endanger the aircraft if she could possibly avoid it, as it was
mortgaged to the hilt.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:34:07 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: The Morgenthau Myth

>From Tom Van Hare
>
>Tom King wrote:
>> Col. Reineck, I would very, very much appreciate it if you would
>> refrain from referring to the people on the Earhart Forum, myself
>> included, as Ric Gillespie's people....
>
>I would like to amplify Tom's comments. Not only am I NOT one of Ric
>Gillespie's people, but I am very much an individual. Furthermore, I
>don't think that Ric would even want a following of "people".
>
>Thomas Van Hare

I'll add my views on that, too.  It is okay if I do that, isn't it, Ric?
I mean, I wouldn't want to step on your toes or anything.  We aren't sheep
(is it ok to say that, Ric).  We are individuals, each and every one (did
I say that the way you wanted me to, Ric).  I mean, we are a collection
of non-conformists, whenever Ric lets us be.  We are NOT mindless followers
of the big eye, are we Ric.  I, for one, am not a sycophant of Ric, unless
that's what he wants me to be.  And nobody can accuse me of being a comedian.
After all, this is the Tighar Forum, not the Ric Forum.

******************************************

Gee, Dave, you're a lot of help. <G>

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:34:41 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: shoes and more shoes

Kar Burns has a lot of data on shoe decomposition, I think; it might be worth
bouncing this question to her.  My strong impression from things she's said
is that the rate of decomposition varies wildly depending on moisture,
exposure to sun, etc. etc. -- to say nothing of chewing by critters.

LTM
TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:41:30 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Some concerns about the Forum

Ric wrote,

>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.

    I wanted to just sit back for a while as watch the posts to see
which way the wind was blowing, so to speak.  But, the above statement
just struck me wrong.  Though I agree with the tone and theme of the
post in general, I have trouble with this statement.  This statement
says to me,  if you don't agree with the TIGHAR theory, you don't belong
on this Forum.

    I also agree that the answers to all our questions are on the Web
site, but sometimes you just don't know where to look or don't have the
time to research it.  Ric is able to answer those questions  in great
detail.  It seems no matter what you ask, Ric has the answer at his
finger tips. I have a life outside the Earhart mystery and don't have
time to read the entire web site looking for some small detail.  It's
much easier to just ask Ric!

Don J.

************************************

Guess I'll field this one....

First, in a very real sense, it *is* true that if you don't have a serious
interest in pursuing our line of research, the Forum probably is not for you.
We are open to constructive criticism, and to constructive research that does
not necessarily go in directions we would go, but we are not really
interested in running a bull session about Amelia, or a general-interest
Amelia Earhart discussion group, or a "I'll show you mine if you show me
yours" program for the various theories.

Research or lines of investigation which can be *documented* and shown to be
useful are always welcome, but pure opinion---no. It wastes our time, it
wastes bandwidth, and it clutters the Forum for those who have great demands
on their time but still have an interest.

>Ric is able to answer those questions  in great
>detail.  It seems no matter what you ask, Ric has the answer at his
>finger tips. I have a life outside the Earhart mystery and don't have
>time to read the entire web site looking for some small detail.  It's
>much easier to just ask Ric!

Yes, thereby taking up *his* time with questions that have been answered a
dozen or more times before, keeping him from pursuing real research, writing
up the results of previous research, writing a TIGHAR Tracks, and in general
staying up to the mark with all of the work that TIGHAR generates that is
*not* necessarily Amelia.....

Sorry. There is going to be a lot more referral to the FAQs and the
Highlights and TIGHAR Tracks from now on.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:45:32 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Morgenthau

Mike Meunich writes:

>I presume from Mr. Gillespie'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.

Mantz's letter is reproduced on page 274 of Carol Osborne's book "Amelia My
Courageous Sister." Mantz says that he is trying to determine "whether or not
a search would be practical, even at this late date." and wants a copy of the
"official report of the ITASCA" which he says he saw in San Francisco "but
made no notes."

Eleanor's memo to Morgenthau of May 10, 1938 is reproduced in Reineck's
article "FATE KNOWN!" in the April 1998 issue of Air Classics.  She says that
Jackie Cochran and her husband had just been to the White House where Cochran
was awarded the Harmon Trophy. "She told me they all felt that not enough
search had been made amongst certain islands where Amelia Earhart might be. I
told her to send me a memo on the islands and the reasons why they felt this
and I would transmit it to you and the Navy Department at once.  Now comes
this letter which is evidently inspired by Miss Cochran.  I do not know
whether 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."

I really don't want to spend a lot of time trying to guess what Morgenthau
meant by every phrase he used in the phone call but Osborne's book lists the
people who were present at the meeting as (in addition to Morgenthau):
Mr. Magill
Mr. Bell
Mr. Gaston
Mr. Gibbons
Mr. Haas
Mr. White
Mr. McReynolds
Mr. Upham
Mr. Lochhead
Miss Chauncey
Miss Lonigan
Mr. Foley

It's probably a pretty safe bet that, in 1938, Chauncey and Lonigan are
secretaries.

If it turns out that the ITASCA's deck log does indicate that Morgenthau met
with Thompson in Hawaii on July 29, 1937 we'll need to do some digging to
determine why the Treasury Secretary was in Hawaii at that time.  If he was
there on other business or on vacation it doesn't seem remarkable that he
would want to talk with Thompson.  After all, the Earhart disappearance and
the failed search were a major concern for the Coast Guard and, as its boss,
for Morgenthau.  A special trip to Hawaii, however, would be hard to explain.
 If Morgenthau felt that strongly that he needed to speak to the captain of
the ITASCA, why not have him come to Washington?

First step - let's see what the ITASCA log actually says.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:46:38 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Kanton engine

Walt Holm asked,

>Did Bruce really identify the engine as an R-1340,
>or did he say that it was about that size? (For instance, in his original
>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 don remember now what Bruce said, and I don't think it would do
any good now to put too much faith in what he would say today.  The
waters are too muddy.  However, the next time we talk, I will as anyway.

    As I recall, he was asked that question some time ago on the forum
and he said something like, " When you have been working on engines as
long as I have, you get a feel for a particular one.  and I feel it was
a1340".

    I believe that sentence is accurate.  Bruce will let me know
tonight, won't you Bruce? (ICQ).

Don J.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:50:59 EDT
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Setting the chronometer at Lae

>At one time (1700's), thought was given to taking time from the
>position of Jupiter's moons, but the tables to do so were way too big and
>cumbersome to take on ocean voyages.

The 1937 American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac devoted 26 pages--14 of
which are tables--to "Satellites of Jupiter."  For July 1, for example, it
gave 10 predictions (to the second) of the times of specific moons' ingress,
disappearance, reappearance, and egress.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:08:52 EDT
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Re: HF/DF

Ric wrote:

> We should probably also have a FAQ on the Bendix Radio Compass
> that was installed in October or Novemvber 1936 and removed prior to the
> first world flight attempt.

How sure are we that it was not re-installed?  A manufacturer of any
gizmo is loath to allow a competitor's piece of equipment to replace
a portion of his, even if it works better, especially in a high profile
application such as AE.   i.e.are we to believe that the Bendix loop
antenna and Bendix display were connected to a non-Bendix receiver?
                    LTM,  HAG 2201.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:09:38 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Sun lines

What a COOL site.  For those interested, you can also punch in the
Niku coordinates of 04 degrees 40 min South and 174 degrees 32 minutes West
and Niku will pop up on your screen (well, kind of) and then zoom in or out
etc. - - - yeah, now we get an appreciation for the immensity of the ocean
they were trying to navigate over.

LTM, who's a sucker for hi tech visuals
Dennis McGee #0149

> From Amanda Dunham
>
> If you want to see the sun line in action, check out this website.
> (And wave to the cameras!)
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth/action?opt=-p
>
> And while you're looking, take a moment to appreciate how far Amelia
> and Fred got successfully.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:10:14 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: More Morgenthau

Morgenthal and his family were scheduled to visit Hawaii in late
July of 1937, and there was indeed an opportunity for him to
discuss the AE search with Thompson.  My Itasca deck logs do
not go that far in that month.  Good catch, Cam!
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:11:38 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Ric's followers

Dennis McGee writes:

>Yeah, he would, but only if they ate haggis, tossed cabers, and
>played their stolen bagpipes.  What says our laddie, now?

And Pat writes:

>You'd also have to paint your faces blue-....

There's an old story about a cattle raiding party making its way over the
mountains of Scotland in the dead of winter.  When night fell, as the men
wrapped themselves in their plaids and laid down in the snow to sleep, one of
the Highlanders noticed that the leader laid his head on a big snowball.
"Here!  This will never do!  I willna follow a man who canna sleep withoot a
pilow!"

Alba gobragh,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:14:11 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: the Morgenthau Myth

So,  Does this mean I have to quit the cult?

***************************

I dunno, I'm not really up on this cult stuff, but I *think* you can stay so
long as you send money <G>.

P

>From Ric
>
>Tom Van Hare writes:
>
>>Furthermore, I don't think that Ric would even want a following of
>>"people".
>
>I much prefer TIGHARs.  If I was looking for obsequious agreement I'd buy a
>dog and save myself a lot of keystrokes.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:16:28 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: AE and FDR

Having read just about every book on Earhart, spent time at NASM,
the National Archives, Library of Congress, Nimitz Museum, et al,
I'm pretty well convinced the Roosevelt/Earhart bond was a strong
one indeed. So FDR was humoring his wife, but he also was
apparently willing to move heaven and earth for AE. A fact well
exploited by genial George Putnam, a hustler if there ever was
one.

I haven't got the time to dig up all the references for you, but
one item sticks in my mind. When AE was to make her flight from
Honolulu to Oakland, the US Navy (read "FDR") was going to make
the dirgible Akron (or Macon, I forget which) available as plane
guard! I think THAT indicates SOMEBODY had their teeth in FDR's
leg! And don't tell me just ANY flier would get that kind of
service!

And don't forget AE was going to hit the campaign trail for FDR,
until some wiser head talked her out of it.

Cam Warren

*************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm convinced that you're convinced but that's not enough to convince me.  I
see plenty of evidence that Eleanor and AE got along well and that the First
Lady was willing to use her influence to help promote AE's career.  But as
for FDR being willing to "move heaven and earth" for AE, I don't see the
evidence.

I don't remember reading anything about a dirigible being offered as "plane
guard" but I haven't read as many Earhart books as you have.

I have seen a November 16, 1936 Navy Department memo that refers to the
President "hopng the Navy would do what they could to cooperate with Miss
Amelia Earhart in her proposed flight..".

I've also seen a November 29, 1936 USN feasibility study of Earhart's plan to
fly nonstop from Hawaii to Tokyo with aerial refueling over Midway from a
Navy PBY (they didn't think much of it).

The construction of a runway at Howland and Earhart's use of the island for a
civilian flight benefitted the Department of the Interior as much as it did
Earhart.

I've seen no evidence that either FDR or Eleanor had a direct hand in
deciding how much help the Navy would extend when the flight went missing.

My point is that the traditional, but apparently undocumented, view that FDR
would "move heaven and earth" for Amelia naturally leads to other unfounded
suppositions and gets in the way of figuring out what really happened.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:19:42 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Concerns about the Forum

Getting the Forum is the equivalent of taking your brain out
for a bout of stiff exercise and dead right it's addictive. May I join the
legions calling for a ban on exhibitionist messages where people claim to
have stunning theories/evidence which they can't  divulge just yet? Regards

Phil
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:21:24 EDT
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: AE and FDR

Ric,  Refer to my later note citing at least 2 books where the authors refer
to FDR and AE as more than a humorous relationship.  Ron

*************************************

From Ric

I don't recall anyone suggesting that the relationship was humorous.  I'm
just looking for solid evidence that the relationship between FDR and AE
amounted to more than FDR humoring his wife.

*************************************

From Ron Reuther (additional posting)

Lovell (page 198) says Putnam and FDR were boyhood acquaintances, (page 199)
Putnams were personal guests of the President at his inauguration and attended
a private reception party afterward.  Butler says (page 283) "Franklin too,
enjoyed Amelia's company, appreciated her good looks, her sense of humor, her
flying ability, and her intelligence, and didn't hold her project of teaching
Eleanor how to fly against her.  He thought highly enough of Amelia's input to
to grant her that most-highly prized commodity in Washington, time with him
whenever she requested it.  He held her in such high esteem that she had but
to ask Louis Howe, Franklin's liaison in the early years, for an appointment
for the request to be immediately granted. For example..."

****************************************

From Ric

Lovell (on page 80) explains that Franklin Roosevelt was a guest at "large
house parties of literati and other celebrities at Rye" in the early 1920s.

The passage you quote from Butler's book immediately precedes the example I
quoted in my posting where AE requested and received a three minute
interview.  She wanted to see Roosevelt "today, or Wednesday or Thursday."
He gave her the interview the following Tuesday.  I didn't include Butler's
description of her perception of the relationship because that's all it is -
Butler's perception.  Butler has lots of opinions about Amelia.  She's
entitled to them.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:24:15 EDT
From:         Rollin Reineck
Subject:      Re: the Morgenthau Myth

Re your E mail 31 Aug 99

"I'm curious to know what evidence that such a trip and meeting
occurred'

Are you saying that I would delibertly mislead you and members of the
Forum?   Of course I have the documented evidence that they met.  It's
in the ship's (Itasca) log.

What I find strange is that you have no documented evidence that i'm
aware of.  So far, all that I've heard about is a piece of aluminum that
is consistent with alumnum of the 30s.  You, yourself , said it did not
come from the Earhart Electra, yet you keep toutng it as evidence. Then
there is the partial sole equating to size 9 that was found suspiciously
close to one of the Bushnell towers. (Earhart, as an adult wore size 6
--6 1/2  shoe)  The radial engine is another piece of your evidence that
so far nobody has seen or knows for sure what kind of engine it is, or
where it was found.  But it came from the Earhart airplane.  Now for the
bones.  The two P.hD.s   Dr. Burns and Dr. Jantz said after studying all
the fact that "It is impossible  to know whether the bones were those of
a white female.  It is even less possible (less than Impossible) to be
sure that they were those of Amelia Earhart".  Yet, you describe this as
"The most dramatic archival and scientific evidence in 61 years as to
what happened to AE".

There were two Army lieutenants on Howland .  They were Lt. Daniel
Cooper, Air Corps, and Signal Corps Lt Henry Lau.  Col. Richards is
merely restating ( 1 Nov 1938) what is already known to the Assistant
Chief of Staff for Inteligence,War Department  (3 or 4 star rank) that
the information received onthe radio said they were turning north.  This
brings up a good question.  What documentation do you have that they
turned south.  If there is any, I'd like to see it.

While I am on that subject let me add , I graduated from the Army aerial
navigation school at Kelly Field, Texas less then 5 years after Earhart
disappeared.  My instuctors were Pan Am trained.  I, in turn instructed
celestial navigation.  The off-set technique an essential ,inherent and
basic part of the single line of position landfall procedure.. It is as
baic as putting the gear down before landing an airplane or taking off
into the wind..  No qualified navigator in his right mind would fly a
sunline mission without the off-set...  I would like to know what
evidence you have that says noonan did not use the off-set.

*******************************************

From Ric

I apologize to the Forum for posting this message from Mr. Reineck.  I did so
only because, if I had not, he would have probably claimed that we suppress
criticism.  I have posted his message in its entirety, not because I intend
to respond to his questions (which I do not), but to allow the forum
subscribers to judge for themselves how well Mr. Reineck has been able to
grasp what we've been talking about on this forum for the past year and a
half.

As for whether or not Henry Lau was a U.S. Army Signal Corps Lieutenant,
Commander Thompson's cruise report dated July 24, 1937 lists him as one of
nine Hawaiian employees of the Department of the Interior.  Army Air Corps
Lt. Dan Cooper, in his report dated July 27, 1937, does not list Lau among
the Army personnel present.

I think Mr. Reineck has made his opinions and his expertise quite clear and,
unless the Forum specifically asks otherwise, we won't bother you with his
offerings again.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:25:05 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP and offset

You're right. The offset question is not that important. As Ric pointed out
FN was expecting a steer at destination so an offest would not be needed. AND
if he didn't get the steer he would still have time to turn 20 or 30 degrees
off course to the North and know he was left of track at his ETA. I didn't
offset either and for the same reason. I knew we would pick destination up on
radar or a from a radio beacon but still have time to offset if necessary.
Again I agree there is little significance. I think we can agree they got
pretty close and knew roughly where Howland was but just couldn't find it.
Noonan would have picked his best guess for a position and struck off on a
course he believed would get them to enough islands that they had the best
chance of spotting one. I think all this chat about course, sextants and how
to get from Howland's vicinity to another island tilting at windmills. One,
we'll never know and two, it makes little difference. This is like my law
cases. The biggest job is eliminating the chaff so as to concentrate on the
real issues that have a chance of moving the ball forward.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:27:38 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Charts

Question for Tom Van Hare:  Did Noonan and Gatty teach navigation together?
It would be interesting to know, since Gatty apparently examined the
Nikumaroro sextant box.

TKing
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:29:11 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Some concerns about the Forum

Pat says:

>Sorry. There is going to be a lot more referral to the FAQs and the
>Highlights and TIGHAR Tracks from now on.

I think that's an excellent idea, and can I also suggest a nice, neutral way
to refer people, that doesn't seem to say "You dummy, why didn't you look at
FAQ #16B?"  Maybe a standard format that says something like:

"Your question is addressed in FAQ #16B, and due to the volume of traffic on
the forum we'd appreciate it if you'd look at that FAQ first, then re-contact
us if you have further questions or comments."

LTM (who's getting more protective of thin-skinned correspondents in her old
age)
TK

***************************

This is pretty much what I had in mind. Since links won't post to the Forum,
I will just give the URL for the FAQ index, and people can look for
themselves for the title that best fits their question---although I'll give
the title, too.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:55:26 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: LOP

By advancing FN's LOP on the map to intersect Howland, you are right, an
extention of the lower leg of the LOP would be in line with an area in
very close proximity to Gardner.      However, if you continue to
advance that same LOP forward, through Howland, to some point to the
east of Howland, or if you extend that lower leg of the LOP at some
point west of where the LOP should intersect with Howland, it seems to
me the possibility exists that you could miss Gardner (or any of the
other islands of the Phoenix Chain) completely.

So my point is simply that without knowing exactly where the LOP had
advanced, (not encountering Howland at the time he believed the LOP
should have intersected with Howland) is it not true that FN could not
be certain that by heading southeast on his LOP he would be able to
predict an accurate landfall with any individual island of the Phoenix
Group, rather the best he could expect would be that by following the
LOP to the southeast he would probably be flying into the midst of that
group of islands & then have to search for a particular island upon
which to effect a landing?

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:55:51 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: HF/DF

<< How sure are we that it (the Hooven/Bendix receiver) was not
re-installed?>>

Pretty darn sure.  It required the dome antenna that did not reappear on the
airplane.

<<i.e. are we to believe that the Bendix loop antenna and Bendix display were
connected to a non-Bendix receiver? >>

Well, according to the March 1937 article in Aero Digest, that's what that
particular new Bendix rig was specifically designed for.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:56:32 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Morgenthau's visit

Randy Jacobson writes:

>Morgenthau and his family were scheduled to visit Hawaii in late
>July of 1937, and there was indeed an opportunity for him to
>discuss the AE search with Thompson.  My Itasca deck logs do
>not go that far in that month.  Good catch, Cam!

Yes indeed.  Let's give credit where credit is due.  Good catch, Cam.  This
is probably the "verbal report" Morgenthau mentions in the infamous
transcript.  But if Henry and his family were there on a scheduled vacation
(as opposed to the Secretary making a special trip) I see nothing suspicious
in his visits  with Thompson.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:57:36 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Morgenthau/Itasca

Well, I'm surprised you don't have have a copy of the ITASCA log.

There are three significant entries on Sunday, July 29, 1937.

"0840 Commanding Officer [Thompson] left vessel to meet
Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau on arrival of the Lurline."

"1630 Commanding Officer left to confer with Secretary of the
Treasury."

"1805 Commanding Officer aboard. 1827 Made preparation[s] for
getting underway . . . . 1830 Unmoored from Pier 12 . . . ."

Incidentally, at 2000 they were on course 184 deg., obviously
leaving Pearl Harbor and heading south.


Cam Warren

*********************************************

From Ric

That's a legitimate gotcha.  We only copied the Itasca deck log up until the
end of its direct involvement in the search.  We should have carried it
through the ship's arrival back in port.  Maybe we should both check the log
for even later dates and find out where she went after she left Pearl?

Still, if Randy Jacobson's information that Morgenthau and his family were in
Hawaii on a scheduled vacation (source Randy?) is correct, the whole thing is
sort of a non-issue.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:59:41 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      1937 search

I need a referral to the FAQs please.  I want to know where in them I
can find out if the Phoenix Group and the surrounding waters were
searched again after the Colorado left.  It appears to me, so far that
the Colorado search was just of the islands themselve.  It did not
search the water around them and in fact even steamed south all night on
more than one occason.  How could they see the possibly floating Earhart
plane in the search area if they were steaming at night.  For that
matter they could have rammed the plane and sunk it themselves!  If it
were in water, of cource!  I would like to read more about the search.

Don J.

***********************

The 1937 search is covered pretty thoroughly in the various TIGHAR Tracks
articles on line. What may not be on line is maps of the search, as most of
the articles are text only.

In short, when the Colorado left the Phoenix Islands, that was the last
searching that was done there until 1989. The Lexington searched north of
Howland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 16:00:23 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Postings

Col. "Rollickin' Rollie" Reineck states that TIGHAR claims that the
Canton engine is from AE's plane.

Sorry, Rollie, but I've been following the forum for at least six
months and no one -- not even the unlamented Sactodave -- has made such a
rash statement.

LTM, who snickers at egregious errors
Dennis McGee #0149
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 16:05:10 EDT
From:         Richard Johnson
Subject:      Re: concerns about the Forum

I could not agree more with Mr. Tanner. Several weeks ago Mr. Reineck claimed
to have evidence that would discredit TIGHARS' shoe evidence. I can not take
this guy seriously if he doesn't produce the evidence. As they say, ---- or
get off the pot!

Richard Johnson

> >From Phil Tanner
>
> Getting the Forum is the equivalent of taking your brain out
> for a bout of stiff exercise and dead right it's addictive. May I join the
> legions calling for a ban on exhibitionist messages where people claim to
> have stunning theories/evidence which they can't  divulge just yet? Regards
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1999 16:11:15 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Re: Morgenthau

Mr. Gillespie:

        I picked up from your response that the was a meeting between
Morgenthau and Thompson on Itasca 27 July, 1937. That piece of information is
not in the Mantz letter or the Roosevelt memo, nor did I find it in your
response of August 30.  If so that would certainly account for the "verbal
report".  What leads you to believe that Morgenthau met Thompson on Itasca on
27 July?

****************************************
From Ric

Cam Warren has quoted entries from the ITASCA log dated 29 July 1937 which
indicate that such a meeting took place.  I haven't seen the entries because
we didn't copy the ITASCA deck log for dates after the ship ended its
participation in the Earhart search.  Randy Jacobson says he has information
to indicate that Morgenthau was in Hawaii at that time with his family on a
scheduled vaction.  Assuming that everybody's sources are good, this does
look like it might be the "verbal report" alluded to in the transcript.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:09:43 EDT
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Re: the Morgenthau Myth

I am typing this even though my mouth is wide open !

>From Ric
>I apologize to the Forum for posting this message from Mr.
>Reineck........

???? I'm looking in the message for profanity and abusive language. Is
there something wrong with the e-mail that I received? I don't see any !

>I did so only because, if I had not, he would have probably claimed
>that we suppress criticism....

It would seem that is just what you are doing by no longer posting
Mr. Reineck's messages.

>I have posted his message in its entirety, not because I intend to
>respond to his questions (which I do not),...

Webster's  Dictionary - FORUM ;  3. an assembly for the discussion of
questions of public interest.

>but to allow the forum subscribers to judge for themselves how well
>Mr. Reineck has been able to grasp what we've been talking about on this
>forum for the past year and a half......

   I've made a judgement, the questions, were honest and not abusive.

>I think Mr. Reineck has made his opinions and his expertise quite
>clear and, unless the Forum specifically asks otherwise, we won't bother
>you with his offerings again.  Love to mother,
>Ric

   If your asking for a FORUM VOTE, Then I vote FOR, Mr. Reineck's
postings.

   When I went into the Army part of my oath was to up-hold the
Constitution of the United States of America. Freedom of Speech is one
of the first things that are lost in the down fall of a democracy that
has that in it's constitution .

Will you unplug every voice that asks questions you don't WANT to answer
?

Daryll

**************************

OK. Once more, for those who are having trouble with the concept.

The Earhart Forum is not a government-sponsored public debate on the various
theories pertaining to Amelia Earhart's disappearance.

The Earhart Forum is a research tool *OWNED* by TIGHAR. Free speech rules do
not apply. Members of the Forum are given ample opportunity to pursue
research and contribute to TIGHAR's research. This is not the same as being
given opportunity to say whatever they like so long as they leave the four
letter words out.

Let's put it this way. The Earhart Forum is as much a business tool for
TIGHAR as a high-level management meeting is for MegaCorp. If the agenda for
the meeting is to discuss the marketing strategy for Product A proposed last
week, you'd better not come into the meeting and start discussing the
decision to pull Product X from the market. You will, at the least, be
labelled Not Serious, and at worst a dingbat. And you could lose your job if
you do it often enough.

Fair warning: no more! We are too busy to fiddle with formatting these posts
into acceptable shape so that other busy people get them in readable form,
only to have the content do absolutely nothing to move the research forward.
I don't mind the occasional joke, even the occasional totally off-topic post,
if it's interesting and informative.... but

No more conspiracies
No more spies
No more Japanese involvement
No more endless discourses into irrelevant minutiae

Please don't waste bandwidth sending it. It won't be posted.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:12:35 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      HF/DF yet again

Good move, sharing with the troops the information about Fred
Hooven, an amazing talent. I did an article about him a couple
of years ago for the AES Newsletter, so I am quite familiar with
his accomplishments and thinking. As you probably know, at one
time he was quite enthusiastic about the possibility of Earhart
reaching Nikumaroro (nee' Gardner Island) but abandoned that
theory after further diligent research.

Why his gear was removed from the Electra even Hooven was
unsure, but it's reasonable to assume she was offered something
ostensibly better. ("bad advice by a competitor?") Suffice to
say Hooven later parted company with Bendix with the comment
that he didn't approve of his (Bendix's) business practices.

As for your remark "there is certainly no support for Cam
Warren's claim" that Hooven's DF "was replaced by a Radio
Research" unit. Mr. Warren has a respectable reputation as a
journalist, as testified to by the appearance of his work in
such publications as Newsweek International, and many other
magazines, published here and abroad. Presumably, when he makes
a statement in writing, it carries a high degree of authenticity,
and is not a careless off-hand remark.

I have been intensely researching the Earhart DF question in
particular for over two years now, and have ample reason to
believe my conclusions to date (as stated here and elsewhere)
are valid. You, who are always championing the "scientific
method", should be the first to admit that because an
observation apparently contradicts "conventional wisdom" does
not automatically eliminate it. To the contrary, it should
deserve further attention.

Much as I respect Hooven, I'm quite sure he wasn't aware of
what was going on between Vince Bendix and George Putnam, nor
did anyone else - Navy, Coast Guard, the press, et al - save
for perhaps a precious few other individuals. Hence, no broad
paper trail. I think you've probably come to realize there WAS
a second receiver aboard the Electra, most likely the Bendix
RA-1, and it was a component of the DF system.

If you accept that, and think about all the apparent AE/FN
"puzzles" surrounding the DF equipment, you'll begin to see
a believable pattern. And that is, the clandestine substitution
of a known, reliable system (LF/DF) by a prototype HF/DF one,
to "demonstrate" its (hoped for) superior performance to the
ultimate benefit of Bendix. (That it proved a dismal failure is
good enough reason for the suppression of the information).

The choice is yours - I have pointed out an "unconventional"
hypothesis. Pursue it or ignore it as you see fit.

Cam Warren

********************************************

From Ric

Allow me to correct an apparent misconception.  This is not a game and when I
discuss a point of evidence it is not a "move."  It is a sincere attempt to
share information and explore possibilities.

Allow me to correct you on another point.  I have NOT come to realize that
there was a second receiver aboard the Electra.  I don't know whether or not
there was a second recever and at times I've leaned one way and at times I've
leaned the other. I am perfectly willing to be shown that there was a second
receiver but, especially after your posting prompted me to look into the
whole Hooven/Bendix business more deeply, it looks to me like the available
evidence is coming down hard on the side of one receiver, the Western
Electric 20B, connected to a Bendix loop and cockpit display.

As evidence I offer:

* The absence of the mention of a second receiver in any contemporaneous
accounts.
* The absence of any evidence of a second receiver in photos of the airplane.
* Earhart's statement that she would transmit on a set schedule but would use
her receiver only for direction finding. (The statement makes no sense if she
has a second receiver.)
* The ignorance of any such receiver, even many years later, by the
then-Chief Engineer of Bendix Aviation Radio Products division , even though
he had a keen interest in the Earhart disappearance.

To counter this, you say that you have discerned believable patterns in the
puzzles surrounding the DF equipment which indicate, to you, the clandestine
substitution of a known, reliable system (LF/DF) by a prototype HF/DF one, to
"demonstrate" its (hoped for) superior performance to the ultimate benefit of
Bendix. The absence of a paper trail merely reinforces your conclusion which
you expect others to regard as highly authentic because you are a journalist
with a respectable reputation.

Unless someone can come up with real evidence that there was a second
receiver, we'll have no further posts on this subject.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:13:40 EDT
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Advancing the LOP

>By advancing FN's LOP on the map to intersect Howland.......an
>extension of the lower leg of the LOP would be in line with an area in
>very close proximity to Gardner.

As long as the sun was visible, it wouldn't be necessary to advance a past
LOP.  The same sun that determined the plane's LOP at sunrise would be
useful later, if visible, to get on and maintain the LOP through Howland and
beyond.

>However, if you continue to
>advance that same LOP forward.......to some point to the
>east ......or ......some
>point west of where the LOP should intersect with Howland, ......you could
>miss Gardner (or any of the
>other islands of the Phoenix Chain) completely.

Right--if the sun isn't visible, dead reckoning to and along an advanced LOP
might have to be resorted to.  But if the sun is up, you can sight it and
get an idea of how far you are off the sun LOP that runs across Howland.

"Following the LOP" requires having some guidance, in this case either by
radio bearing, sun sights, or visual sighting of landmarks associated with
the LOP; otherwise it is an extended dead reckoning flight from some past
ascertained position.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:15:39 EDT
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: AE and FDR

Cam Warren wrote:

>I haven't got the time to dig up all the references for you, but
>one item sticks in my mind. When AE was to make her flight from
>Honolulu to Oakland, the US Navy (read "FDR") was going to make
>the dirgible Akron (or Macon, I forget which) available as plane
>guard! I think THAT indicates SOMEBODY had their teeth in FDR's
>leg! And don't tell me just ANY flier would get that kind of
>service!

  In the future Mr. Warren should try to make the time.  It took me all of
five minutes to confirm that USS Akron was lost at sea on April 4, 1933 and
that USS Macon went down off the coast of California on February 12, 1935 -
almost a year and a half before Earhart took delivery of the Electra.  I
think THAT indicates SOMEBODY should double-check his sources before posting
to this Forum.

  LTM (who thinks maybe FDR was just trying to be "humorous.")
  Russ

******************************************

Pat thinks that Russ is right. This thread will also die a swift death unless
someone can come up with something that is actually useful on the topic.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:19:47 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      1937 Search

Some unsigned author wrote

>In short, when the Colorado left the Phoenix Islands, that was the last
>searching that was done there until 1989. The Lexington searched north
>of Howland".


    Holly Molley,  It is no  wonder they didn't find AE.  They never
went back to the original search area again.  All they searched was the
water in between the islands and the islands themselves.  That don't
seem like a good command decision.  Steaming all night through the most
probable area. And then when they dry docked the Colorado, nobody could
figure out what the orange paint streak was down the side.  (anecdotal
of course).  I can't believe it!

Don J.

***************************

Don, I'm not sure what your point is. That SAR techniques were not fully
developed? That SAR techniques were ignored? Or is this merely intended as a
joke?

When Colorado left the search area, the captain of the Colorado was under the
impression that the Lexington would pick up where Colorado left off. Didn't
happen.

The concept that the Electra was somehow bobbing about in the water has been
dealt with, on this Forum and elsewhere. We won't deal with it again.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:22:07 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Morgenthau/Itasca

Documentation for Morgenthal's visit is in the TIGHAR Research Volume 1,
with telegrams on or about July 14th stating that he is scheduled to visit.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:27:43 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: LOP

Don Neumann writes:

>if you extend that lower leg of the LOP at some point west of where the
>LOP should intersect with Howland, it seems to me the possibility exists that
>you could miss Gardner (or any of the other islands of the Phoenix Chain)
>completely.

I guess I'm not doing a very good of explaining this.  Yes, if Noonan has
erred in advancing the LOP then it is not a good navigational line for
finding either Howland or Gardner.  Fred can, however, be reasonably sure that
he HAS advanced the line accurately.  It's a simple dead reckoning exercise
that depends upon information which should be readily available to him
(distance to the line and speed over the ground).  My point is, when Howland
fails to appear on schedule Noonan must decide what is most likely to be
wrong.  There is little chance that somebody has towed the island away and he
should be quite certain of his dead reckoning from the observed LOP at
sunrise so he shoulod be pretty sure that he's on an LOP that passes through
Howland.  What he has no way of knowing without a DF bearing is whether he is
north or south of where he should be.  The sensible thing to do is assume
that the thing that is wrong is the thing that is most likley to be wrong.
Of course, as you point out, if something else is wrong and he's too far
west or east, he ain't gonna find  diddley.

I hope I haven't made matters worse.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:29:04 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: the Morgenthau Myth

(referring to Rollin Reineck)

I, for one would like to read anything the man has to say.  I have a
delete key also if I get offended and I don't get offended so easily.

******************************************************
From Ric

I'll send you, and anyone else who requests it, Mr. Reineck's email address
by private email.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:29:47 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Sun lines

And you can punch in the date:  July 2, 1999 and something like 1700 hours
GMT to see where the day/night line was on that date and at that time.  I
don't know whether it will accept 1937 or not, but the year doesn't matter.
It's the same every year -- very nearly.  Certainly as nearly so as you can
see on that map.

Watch it when you zoom in or out, it will switch back to the "now" date each
time you do that.  Punch in the date and time again and reload.

>From Dennis McGee
>
>What a COOL site.  For those interested, you can also punch in the
>Niku coordinates of 04 degrees 40 min South and 174 degrees 32 minutes West
>and Niku will pop up on your screen (well, kind of) and then zoom in or out
>etc. - - - yeah, now we get an appreciation for the immensity of the ocean
>they were trying to navigate over.
>
>LTM, who's a sucker for hi tech visuals
>Dennis McGee #0149
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:19:15 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Sun lines

I forgot to mention... I think there are some bugs in this program.  If you
try to zoom in on the sunrise line, I think it gets confused and swaps the
light and dark sides.  As mentioned earlier, watch the date and time when
you zoom... I think it will try to go back to the "now" date/time and you
have to set them back to what you want, then "reload" the zoomed image.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:20:52 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: the Morgenthau Myth

> From Pat:
> No more conspiracies
> No more spies
> No more Japanese involvement
> No more endless discourses into irrelevant minutiae
>
> Please don't waste bandwidth sending it. It won't be posted.

In general, I have to agree with this.

I spent two hours and forty five minutes in a meeting last Wednesday, which
could have been handled in an hour, if the moderator had kept the discussion
on topic.  Note that the flights into side topics WERE related to the main
thrust of the meeting, but were not actually productive in moving the actual
topic forward.  With one exception.  One person had a side theory, with good
evidence to back himself up, that perhaps we were approaching the issue from
the wrong direction.  THIS person we needed to listen to, we did, and it
turned out that his evidence was flawed.  But it was the first time we'd
heard it, and it needed to be addressed and dismissed.  But if he'd been
right it would have scratched the entire project.

I see a like situation here.  If one of the first three above subjects were
to come up WITH NEW SUBSTANTIAL* EVIDENCE, then I think we'd have to examine
it here.  If its just the "I think yada-yada" or just a re-hash of something
that we've already cleared away, then it needs to be passed by.

As to the fourth item, it's difficult to tell when minutiae will end up
being important, so I'm not able to be as adamant about that.  Perhaps if we
ask ourselves before we go down that trail "what difference will this make?"
we can figure when to cut these off.

    - Bill  #2229
    LTM (who I can envision saying "Now, children. This isn't helping us.")

-----
* By "SUBSTANTIAL" I don't mean "large" I mean substantiated, as in, first
hand eye-witnesses, contemporary documentation, relevant artifacts and so
on.  The same criteria being applied to evidence now.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:26:54 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Enough is enough

Back in the winter of 1997/98 the National Georgraphic Society website, in
league with an article about Earhart that appeared in National Geographic
magazine, had an unmoderated Amelia Earhart forum.  Although an interesting
idea, it was quickly taken over by conspiracy theorists and soon became an
embarrassing carnival of idiocy.  Eventually Nat'l Geo took it down.

As has become painfully obvious on this forum recently, there is a small but
vocal group of researchers whose conviction that TIGHAR is wrong to
investigate the Nikumaroro hypothesis is only surpassed by their ignorance of
sound investigative methodology.  In an attempt to keep the dialogue as open
as possible, we have posted their postulations and patiently pointed out
their errors.  We've even edited out their insults and irrelevancies and
posted what was left of their messages in an attempt to salvage anything that
might be useful.  Our efforts seem to have only made matters worse.

There is plenty of room on this forum for dissent and debate.  Indeed, peer
review is the essence of scientific inquiry.  There is also lots of room for
dumb questions.  That's why we have FAQs.  There is, however, no longer any
room for stupidity and those few who have diligently demonstrated their
dedication to that trait will have to find another outlet.

They will howl.  They will cry foul.  They wiil claim victory.  But they
won't do it here.

Let's get back to work.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:13:12 EDT
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Carnival of idiocy

Maybe a renewal of the thrashings over whether GMT = GCT is in order.

***********************************************************
From Ric

Or maybe we could spend a few more weeks on "circling" issue.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:16:22 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Enough is enough

Briefly, there is no reason to post what you feel is inappropriate. First
amendment rules do not legally apply in a private venue. Rather, the First
Amendment gives this forum the specific and legally enforceable right to
edit and publish as it pleases.

Personally, I prefer to read only posts that are based on scholarly and
generally competent methodology. In that context, a snide remark or satire
now and then about conspiracies is amusing, partly because it can highlight
the weaknesses of uninformed and sloppy thinking. But I have no time for,
and little patience with, some of the screed we have endured here.

My humble opinion is that the forum would benefit from a tighter focus along
these lines.

LTM

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:19:18 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: the Morgenthau Myth

Pat says:

No more conspiracies
No more spies
No more Japanese involvement

Let me suggest one small amendment to that rule:  None of those things UNLESS
you can put forward credible evidence (i.e. not just opinion, not just
unsubstantiated third-party statements, etc.) to support your proposition.
This is not to say that TIGHAR's going to spend its time investigating the
matter, but since a SUBSTANTIATED conspiracy/spy/Japanese capture hypothesis
would have a direct bearing on TIGHAR's efforts, it seems to me that the
introduction of such an hypothesis ought not to be against the rules.
Saying, in effect, that you're only going to accept posts about the
Nikumaroro hypothesis runs the very real risk of looking like TIGHAR isn't
willing to consider alternatives, and hence is just as closed-minded as every
other proponent of pet theory about what happened to AE.

The Morgenthau matter is a good example of something that SHOULD be brought
forward for examination.  If there were some sort of high level coverup of
what "really happened" to Earhart, this would certainly at the very least
point us toward some new research subjects.  Cam Warren has come up with
something that could be interpreted as suggesting such a coverup.  It's worth
investigating, which is precisely what's being done, despite the fact that
it's neither supportive or nor arguably even directly pertinent to the
Nikumaroro hypothesis.

LTM (who suggests keeping the reins a bit loose)
Tom King
***************************************************************************
From Ric

As any horseman can tell you, a loose rein is only advisable on a
well-schooled horse. Otherwise, you're probably in for a wild ride that goes
nowhere.

I would hope that it goes without saying that, if somebody comes up with
genuine evidence to support a theory that disagrees with the hypothesis
TIGHAR is testing, we'll be eager to share it with the forum and look into
it.  However, experience has shown that people who claim to have such
evidence often cannot produce it.  All we're saying is that we're not going
to burden the forum with such claims.

Cam's information about the meeting between Morgenthau and Thompson is a case
in point.  He said he had documentation and, when asked to produce it, he
could.  On other occasions he has made claims and we have wasted way too much
of everyone's time  finding out that he couldn't back them up.  We'll
continue to consider and investigate any new information he or anyone else
may wish to present, but from now on they'll have to substantiate their claim
before it is presented to the forum.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:21:06 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: HF/DF yet again

> From Cam Warren
>
> As for your remark "there is certainly no support for Cam
> Warren's claim" that Hooven's DF "was replaced by a Radio
> Research" unit. Mr. Warren has a respectable reputation as a
> journalist, as testified to by the appearance of his work in
> such publications as Newsweek International, and many other
> magazines, published here and abroad. Presumably, when he makes
> a statement in writing, it carries a high degree of authenticity,
> and is not a careless off-hand remark.

Nobody can be their own support for their own credibility.  That's circular
logic at it's worst.

Credibility comes from having verifiable, dependable sources.  I'm not
prepared to presume the accuracy of anything anybody says just based on
their own alleged reliabiltiy.

I'm reminded of a highy reputable news agency who used model rocket engines
to "simulate" the effects of gas tank ruptures.  And another report about
Vietnam deserters being "hit."  Just because someones reputation is good
doesn't mean their reporting on any one given incident is any good.

No, I want to see the evidence before I'll believe, or even credit, anyone's
theories.

One of the most obvious reasons is that I want to see if the other guy
perhaps interpreted that evidence through the eyes of his own point of view.
I don't track names really closely when I read things here, so I can't
recall who it was, but someone recently said that TIGHAR claims the Kanton
engine was from the Electra.  I've seen noplace where this was ever claimed.
Rather it was stated that perhaps it was.  PERHAPS.  This leads me to wonder
about this authors ability to read correctly what he or she sees and to
research correctly his or her statements.  Were this same author to then
make claims about other evidence I haven't seen, I'd wonder about that too.
But I take a more general approach.  I assume that anyone is capable of
misinterpreting what they see, so I always want to see the evidence myself.

    - Bill #2229
    LTM (who says "Who told you that, dear?")
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:22:04 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Advancing the LOP

Mark Prange says:
<<As long as the sun was visible, it wouldn't be necessary to advance a past
LOP.>>

True, but a calculation of when you expect to reach the LOP that passes
through Howland certainly seems like a prudent move.  In fact, P.V. H. Weems'
classic text "Air Navigation" (first published in 1931) offers this advice:
************************
Finding a Destination
During the daylight hours it is often impossible to get more than on LOP,
viz, that given by the sun.  If pilotage cannot be used (as when flying over
water) or radio bearings are not available, this single position line may be
uutilized for finding a destination.

The air navigator, having found a position line as he approaches his
destination, continues flying on his course until the position line carried
forward by DR passes through the destination.  he then turns left or right
and follows the LP.  If, after a reasonable time, the destination is not
sighted, he infers that he has turned the wrong way, and so reverses his
track.

*************************

<< "Following the LOP" requires having some guidance, in this case either by
radio bearing, sun sights, or visual sighting of landmarks associated with
the LOP; otherwise it is an extended dead reckoning flight from some past
ascertained position.>>

Following the LOP only requires following a compass heading that has been
corrected for wind drift.  (See Weems above.)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:33:18 EDT
From:         Jim Van Hare
Subject:      drift meters

Tet Walston gave an excellent description of the "double
drift" method of obtaining wind direction and speed, and of
the manner in which the aircraft's drift angle from its
true heading can be observed.  But what is theoretically
possible is not always realistically achievable.  As a USAF
navigator in the 6166th Air Weather Recon Flight at Kimpo
Airfield in Korea I flew many 8-9 hour missions at 1500
feet over the Yellow Sea.  I found the installed driftmeter
on the Douglas WB-26C to be totally worthless, despite
careful alignment of the instrument with the longitudinal
axis of the aircraft.  Unless a driftmeter is
gyrostabilized it is almost impossible to track a foaming
wavecrest (the only visible candidate for tracking if one
is over the ocean) because of the pitch, roll and yaw of
the aircraft.  Instead of tracking in a nice straight line
the observed wavecrest is wiggling left and right and
forward and backward, and one ends up with only a rough
estimate probably accurate to plus or minus 5-10 degrees of
the actual drift angle.  I don't recall reading anywhere
whether there was a driftmeter on their aircraft, but I'm
sure that if Fred Noonan did not have a carefully installed
and properly aligned driftmeter  he would be unable to
achieve even that inadequate level of accuracy.  And of
course, the driftmeter can only be used if the water
surface is visible and there are foaming wavecrests to be
seen.

Someone had mentioned recently that an error of 65 miles
off course after a 20 hour flight seemed excessive.  This
is not at all an excessive level of error.  I recall that
one of our crews flew into a 5000 foot mountain at 1500
feet in the soup, and all were killed. They were 5-6 hours
into an 8-9 hour flight, and the mountain was on the island
of Cheju-Do, 80 nautical miles off course. There was no
radar on the WB-26C  and no provision for celestial
navigation.  They had only a primitive Loran set and the
aforementioned useless driftmeter.  If the Loran wasn't
working (a common occurrence) they would have had to rely
on dead reckoning, which is not necessarily better than
nothing.  So they flew into a mountain and died instantly,
and probably never realized anything was wrong.  Fred and
Amelia did not have Loran or radar and if they did have a
driftmeter I suspect it was not gyrostabilized. They
basically had celestial navigation, and that's only
available if there are visible celestial bodies and if
their chronometers had retained a reasonable degree of
accuracy.

Jim Van Hare

**************************************************************************
From Ric

The drift sight rig in the Electra was pure Rube Goldberg.  To use it, Noonan
had to open the cabin door in flight (there were folding stops at the top and
bottom that held the door open just enough so that he could poke his head
out).  He then had to mount the drift sight in two brackets on the outside of
the fuselage just aft of the door.  I imagine that using the drift sight was
an entertaining experience if not a terribly useful one.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:40:01 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: 1937 Search

My point was, that maybe the aircraft didn't see an Electra on Niku or any other
island because it wasn't there YET.  That goes for the crew also.

The last part was a joke or at least my attempt to make a funny!  Sorry it
didn't work!

Don J.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

And my point is that the notion that the Electra and crew were floating
around in the ocean a week after the disappearance but would wash up on
separtate islands sometime after the Colorado's search is an example of the
kind of possibility for which there is no supporting evidence and, until
somebody can come up with some, we won't spend time discussing.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:43:24 EDT
From:         Skip
Subject:      Re: Enough is enough

Way to go Ric, you have my full support, as always. If they could do a better
job, then why aren't they doing something about it rather than making stupid
waves that don't mount to a hill of beans.

Skip

*************************************************************************
From Ric

No need to beat around the bush Skip.  Just say what you mean.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:53:14 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: LOP

From Randy Jacobson

No one has mentioned this yet, so I thought I would.  Consider that FJN
took a LOP and advanced it to Howland, or somehow determined he was on the
LOP that went through Howland prior to the last message.  He needs one
other piece of information to ensure he stays on it: the winds!  Tracking
back and forth on 157/337 with a generally easterly wind means that the
plane is also moving to the west.  It is hard to determine wind speeds
without drift sights (FJN appears not to have used the smoke bombs useful
for drift sights) and/or with short durations between LOP sightings
(precision typically 5-10 miles or so).  It would only be on the order of
an hour that another LOP reading could give him an indication of the true
wind speed perpendicular to the LOP he's trying to find.  Meanwhile, the
plane is drifting further westward.  It is possible to guestimate the wind
speed, and adjust for it in the heading of the plane.  Of course no one
knows or ever will know the truth.  (Where's Peabody and his Wayback
Machine when we need it most??)

LTM, who shivers in the wind.
Randy

***********************************************************************

From Ric

No doubt about it.  A reasonably accurate assessment of the wind is
essential.  Getting that from the drift sight sounds like a tall order.  How
accurately Noonan was able to judge the wind is probably the biggest
unanswered question in the whole equation.  One answer is pretty obvious -
not accurately enough to hit Howland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:06:09 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Buttonwood news???

Any progress reports from the guy who was tasked with finding Dan Skellie's
Buttonwood crewmates and/or verifying whether or not she paid a call to
Gardner in (?)'46?  Any news from the USCG as to where the ship's logs from
that time are since they aren't in the archives where they're supposed to
be?

Re: all these allusions to things Scottish.  Ric, I always suspected you
were really the Highlander. (there can be only one)

LTM, who says, "watch your head."  Dave Porter, 2288
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I was thinking there had been some postings on this.

Buttonwood seems to have been there all right.  One of Dan Skellie's
shipmates was able to send me copies of island descriptions (from Sailing
Directions) which the crew was given for islands to be visited during that
voyage.  Gardner is among them. So far, however, the logs have not turned up
nor have we been able to verify Skellie's accounts of the unusual activities
he described.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:21:26 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      dirigible

To conclude an off-topic thread -

Cam Warren wishes to point out that his allegation about a dirigible being
used as a "plane guard' for Earhart referred to her 1935 Honolulu to Oakland
flight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:22:45 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Myths, legends, and fact

I've asked before, but I must ask again:

Why do the naysayers of this list remain here? If they don't like the
conclusions TIGHAR arrives at, why don't they go off and start their own
mailing list and discuss their pet theories amongst themselves?

Please, folks, go away and leave us Tigers to our obvious delusions.

Tom #2179
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:33:10 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      the final dirigible posting

The following is a true copy of the original (carbon copy) in
the National Archives:

----------------------------------------
FROM: CINCUS

ACTION: COMBATFOR               RESTRICTED

INFO: COMA[?]RBATFOR                NITE (OPNAV)

0010 IF MISS EARHART DOES NOT ARRIVE WEST COAST ON SCHEDULE

MACON WILL BE EMPLOYED FOR SEARCH PERIOD DIRECT MACON BE

PREPARED UNDOCK ON SHORT NOTICE AFTER MISS EARHARTS FLIGHT

STARTS 1045


            TOR IN CODE ROOM 2240  JANUARY 10 1935

38......ACTION

05  10A   11  13(2)   19  20   PX  BUAER   FILE

-----------------------------------------
Satisfied? (Hopefully, you'll accept my word in future).


Cam Warren
**************************************************************************

From Ric

Nope.  You've merely proven my point that your claims should not be posted
until you have produced your source.

Your original claim was:

<<When AE was to make her flight from Honolulu to Oakland, the US Navy (read
"FDR") was going to make the dirgible Akron (or Macon, I forget which)
available as plane guard! >>

A "plane guard" is a vessel (air or sea) which is deployed to stand guard
during a flight.  The Macon was merely alerted to stand by in case it was
needed in a search.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:01:04 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: 1937 Search

Well, I thought Don's joke did work, and it was a pretty good one.

LTM (who likes to laugh)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:07:26 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Buttonwood news???

Are Skellie's account of unusual activities on the web site?

Thanks Bob Lee

*********************************************************************
From Ric

Look in the Forum Highlights
http://www.tighar.org/forum/ArchivedHighlights.html

You'll find the Buttonwood discussions back in the May highlights.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:12:44 EDT
From:         unknown
Subject:      Re: LOP

>Finding a Destination
>During the daylight hours it is often impossible to get more than on LOP,
>viz, that given by the sun.  If pilotage cannot be used (as when flying over
>water) or radio bearings are not available, this single position line may be
>utilized for finding a destination.
>
>The air navigator, having found a position line as he approaches his
>destination, continues flying on his course until the position line carried
>forward by DR passes through the destination.  He then turns left or right
>and follows the LP.

I see that Weems is using dead reckoning to estimate when reaching the LOP,
and then uses the expression, "turns.... and follows the LP."  Certainly,
predicting when you'll reach the LOP is good practice, and a turn at that
time even without getting a confirming sun sight can be plenty accurate, but
actually tracking along that LOP is verifiable by resuming sun shots, if it
is still visible.  Making the corrections for wind, and flying what is
deduced to be the right compass heading will do for a while, but with the
passage of time it is hard to know whether you're track is really along the
LOP or not.  That is all I mean by wondering whether "following" the LOP is
really what is assuredly being done when no new information is coming in
that tells you whether you're on it or deviating from it.

Dead reckoning can have excellent results--I've heard that Lindbergh's
transatlantic flight done without celestial observations.  His track must
have been very nearly along a plotted great circle.

>Following the LOP only requires following a compass heading that has been
>corrected for wind drift.  (See Weems above.)
>
>Ric

Using dead reckoning to decide the turn onto the LOP is done when the
navigator has either lost sight of the sun, doesn't have precomputations of
its height already worked up yet, or feels that advancing an LOP a short
distance is quite accurate enough, as it usually is.  I am away from my copy
of Weems' "Air Navigation," so don't know whether he intended to follow the
LOP without sun shots.    But a similar example--of a flight to Canton
Island--shows up in Mattingly's, "American Air Navigator," under the
heading, "Running Down a Sun Line":

".....Advancing this line through Canton island, he determines the aircraft
will be somewhere on the advanced line at 04:00."

"Therefore, at 04:00 he......alters compass heading to fly 168 degrees true
which would run down the sun line, and thus fly over Canton Island."
"Until Canton Island is sighted, however, he continues to plot sun lines at
ten-minute intervals to make certain his course will pass over the island."

Interpreting those "sun shots at ten-minute intervals" gives the necessary
"on LOP" or "how far off LOP" information needed to reliably follow the LOP.

Also, doesn't Weems suggest a technique for knowing which side of the
destination you are, when you are on the LOP?  I don't mean the offset
method.  I think it involved just dead reckoning from a position on the LOP,
that is, flying the course that matched the LOP's alignment (at that one
time), and noting whether the sun height obsrvations were tending to get
higher than predicted for the LOP, or lower.  In the case of the July 2
flight, since the sun's subpoint was passing north of Howland, the LOP would
be very slowly moving in a counterclockwise way about Howland.  If Noonan
were once flying along it, flew a good dead reckoned heading but didn't
alter it any, then the LOP would necessarily be very slowly diverging from
his course; if the trend of observed sun heights was higher and higher than
the heights precomputed for the LOP, then the plane's location on the LOP
was NW of Howland; if the trend was getting lower and lower then the plane
was SE.
*************************************************************************

From Ric

That's right.  The trouble is, if he has turned SE along the line, by the
time the sun is high enough to provide a noticiable "cut", he is already too
far down the line to turn back for Howland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:16:23 EDT
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Wind estimates

Since Noonan was an experienced mariner, he should have known how to estimate
the wind within about 3 knots by "seaman's eye".   It's easy to do from the
bridge of a ship.   Been there, done that.   There are obvious discrete changes
in the sea surface characteristics as the wind increases from zero up to about
15 knots.   Above 15 knots, the changes are less discrete and the estimation
error increases.   The question is whether Noonan could read the sea surface
well enough from an altitude of 1,000 feet to guesstimate the wind and use that
information to refine what he was getting from his LOPs.   Any thoughts on
this?

LTM (who always wants to know what ole debbil wind is up to)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:20:51 EDT
From:         Jon Pieti
Subject:      Lines of Reason

As much as I think TIGHAR is probably on the right track, and wish you all
great success, it disappoints me that you have let true objectivity and
openness slip away.

It's easy to understand why you shut off the postings from people that get
obnoxious and/or rant, that's not productive at all.  But it seems that you
are also shutting down some of the earnest attempts to consider any
possibilities of what happened beyond what you have already determined to be
"right".

I know, it's your forum and right to follow your chosen lines of reason, and
I realize that you have limited time & resources, and so must persue the
ones that match the scenario that you think is most likely (without much
deviation).  But to see the Niku scenario presented as the "only real
possibility", and any other scenario (like lost at sea) dismissed as "bunk",
does tend toward tunnel vision.

It is entertaining though!  - Jon Pieti

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll say it again.  We're more than happy to consider any genuine evidence
that suggests a different hypothesis.  I just haven't seen any yet.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:23:29 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Myths, legends, and fact

Tom Robinson wrote:

>Why do the naysayers of this list remain here?

They're looking for attention from a ready-made audience. In my experience,
this sort of person is usually more interested in their own self-promotion
than an intellectually rigorous discussion of whatever subject matter is
involved.

Besides, starting one's own forum or list server requires real work and a
little expertise <grin>, which are not usually found among the
charcteristics of a sloppy and lazy mind.

People with these kinds of motivations tend to post off-topic or unscholarly
remarks, focusing in on personal attacks when they feel threatened. Making
matters worse, the volume of their posting tends to be way above average.
The result is that the majority of the messages can soon become
inappropriately distracting (not to mention boring) and even run counter to
the original purpose of the forum. Further, the severity of the problem is
probably directly proportional to the perceived glamour or romance of the
subject (like Earhart).

This is why most successful list servers, forums and newsgroups are
moderated.

LTM (who knows a slacker when she sees one)
william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:33:09 EDT
From:         Mary Jane
Subject:      Re: Enough is enough

Finally!  Thank you.

For someone who is new to the Forum I have been waiting to see how long it
would be before a stand was taken.  I have learned much from everyone but it
was beginning to read like a "street stick ball game" or some other child
like game rather than quality discussion.
Mary Jane

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks.  Taking a stand against stupidity is tough these days when nobody
seems to want to take a stand against anything for fear that somebody might
get upset.

Well, the stand has been taken and a bunch of people are upset.  I'm glad
that you're not one of them.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:54:25 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: 1937 Search

> Tom King wrote,
>
> Well, I thought Don's joke did work, and it was a pretty good one.

Thanks Tom,

    People need to lighten up a bit on this forum.  This is not a life
and death situation like it was for Amelia.  It is pretty bad when an
obvious little joke goes right over the head of some people.  Tension is
running high and I don't understand why.

    I understand the forum is getting a lot of posts, but maybe that is
because there are a lot more people becoming aware and getting
interested.  When a post is made to the forum, all you have is the name
of the sender. It could be a school kid just starting his fascination
with Earhart, as it was with the 17 years of Spanish boy who I felt was
insulted on his first post.   I have always tried very hard not to
attack anyone personally.  I always pick my words carefully, and  I
don't mind an occasional "poke" in my direction

    Also, if futures post can only relate to the TIGHAR theory, I fear
there won't be many posts.  There just isn't that much going on to help
that theory right now.  We have about talked it to death! There are no
more questions to ask, no more new things to think of, no new evidence.
Whether you believe in the theory or not.  We are kinda stalled right
now.

    Now I am going up and spend the rest of the day on my boat.  I have
been trying to get over my tendency to get sea sick  This time I may
untie it and leave the dock! :-)

Don J.

******************************

Don--- meclazine hydrochloride, otherwise known as Antivert. Ask your doctor
about it. It's the best anti-sea-sick medicine there is.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:58:39 EDT
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Convention/Conference

Have you ever considered a convention or conference?  I think it could be be
very educational and enlightning as well as a lot of fun.  I would really
like to meet some of the folks I read on the Forum and especially Ric and
Pat.  Any thoughts?

MStill

**************************

We used to have a Gathering every year, but it ate our lunch financially. It
was fun, and educational for 'most everyone, a lot of work.... we'd be glad
to do it but the problem is it costs a lot and we can't afford to throw the
money away.

Sometimes, if we are travelling anyway, we will let our members know in that
area and put together an informal evening.

I dunno. Is it time to try again? What would people pay to attend a TIGHAR
conference/convention, held on a weekend, probably in/around/connected to a
major aviation museum? We used to arrange for special tours where people
could climb around on the airplanes, visit the shops, and stuff like that.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:00:55 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Wind estimates

As a PhD in oceanography, trained to observe these sorts of things, I have
found that at elevation in a plane reduces the resolution for the details
that help to sort out specific wind speeds.  It's hard, but requires a lot
of training.  I've only been able to do Beaufort-scale type measurements
from the air, with about 10 knot accuracy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:01:33 EDT
From:         Forest Blair
Subject:      Transmitter power

For avionics experts--

If the Electra had landed (crashed??) on a reef, but damaged the engine that
powered the transmitter,  could the transmitter operate on battery power ?
Do we even know if the transmitter had a battery backup?  If so, and
with the possibility that the Electra could be in water when the tide rose,
how far above the bottom of the fuselage was the battery located? If there
were no backup battery, would there have been another battery (with needed
voltage, etc, for the transmitter) used in the Electra that could have been
connected to the transmitter?

Reason for query?  Just been reading (again) on the website about the
post-landing signals

Forest #2149
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:08:33 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: Alternate theories and enough is enough

It seems to me that Dr. King's suggested amendment to Pat's..."Rules of
Engagement"... for the Forum makes a lot of sense.

Permit posting of those with alternate theories concerning the AE/FN
flight or the methods employed by TIGHAR in the investigation of same,
providing they meet the dual test...Reasonable relevance to the topics
under discussion on the Forum & that the author(s) of such alternate
theories or opinions must...Bear the burden of proof...in substantiating
the validity of such arguments.

Too often on the Forum we find posts that end with..."If you can't prove
it didn't happen, how can you say it isn't true?"... which attempts to
shift the burden of proof from the one who initiated the claim to the
one against whom the claim is being pressed, resulting in the almost
impossible task of trying to prove a negative argument for the person(s)
originating the argument.     If someone has enough confidence in their
own theory/opinion, they should be willing to supply the supporting
proof/evidence to be tested by those persons one is trying to convince
of the validity of such theory/opinion.

When we resort to disparaging attacks upon the character or integrity of
other persons on the Forum, in order to advance our own theory/opinion,
it seems to me we have already lost the credibility we are seeking to
gain for our own position or argument, therefore posting of such
messages seems totally out of place on any forum that seeks to honestly
explore questions & answers raised in presumably civil discourse.

Don Neumann
************************************

We have no, repeat NO objection to any theory or line of argument that is
substantiated with good research and solid evidence.

Our objection, as Don so clearly re-states, is to *any* theory (including
ones about Niku, BTW) which is simply an assertion without any evidence or
research to back it up.

Perhaps where we are interested in being more rigorous than some others is
that we feel that a proposed theory should be posted *with* the evidence,
rather than the evidence be produced much later, under pressure, and in bits
and pieces.

I guess it comes down to this. Do your homework first. Get yer ducks in a
row, and set them quacking. We'll gladly listen, but you (that's generic YOU,
anyone who wants to post) need to look carefully at your sources, do your
research, and be sure that what you say the sources say is what they *really*
say (how's that for twisted syntax).

Any of us can be wrong, but the kind of wrong that comes from not reading the
sources offered as evidence is the easiest to avoid.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:10:06 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Lines of Reason

Jon Pieti wrote:

>>But to see the Niku scenario presented as the "only real
>>possibility", and any other scenario (like lost at sea) dismissed as
>>"bunk", does tend toward tunnel vision.

This is inaccurate. The "lost at sea" scenario has never been presented by
TIGHAR as "bunk". It's a real (and obvious) possibility. The only other
general scenario for which I've seen any credible, documented evidence
(however inconclusive) is that Earhart and Noonan, after having failed to
spot Howland under less than ideal visual conditions, capable as they were
of clear thought and motivated by a desire to survive the day, flew their
LoP down to the Phoenix group, found Gardner, landed, and sooner or later
died there.

The Gardner scenario was recognized as a possibility in the days following
their disapearance. When they weren't found on Gardner after a single
cursory flyover, and searches of other locations turned up nothing, it was
natural (and hardly conspiratorial) for the bureaucracy to endorse the "lost
at sea" idea as the most likely outcome.

Meanwhile, whose bones did Gallagher find on Gardner? And why did he believe
they might be associated with the Earhart flight?

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:11:01 EDT
From:         Tet Walston
Subject:      Deduced W/V

The RAF Air Navigation Manual, AP 1234, of 1944, states the following:

"Drift and Wind Lane Method". This is valuable at heights not in excess of 1500ft.
Providing that the a/c is not  either up or down wind, then the drift will be
seen, and compared with that plotted from the last W/V data.

The Surface wind can be determined by finding the direction of the "wind lanes",
but a correction for height must be applied. Generally (in the Northern Hemisphere
the wind direction at 1500feet is usually TEN Deg. more than at the surface.

The wind speed can be estimated from the appearance of the surface of the sea,
and according to tables, these are from 10 knots to 35 knots, in 5 knot
increments.

Having now calculated the W/V from these observations, a more up to date
course to steer, and thus track and ground speed can be plotted.

LTM

Tet
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:12:06 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Harold Gatty

Do I understand this correctly?  Both Fred Noonan and Harold Gatty were
navigation instructors for PAA.

At, or about, the same time?

At the same location?  Miami?

Harold Gatty saw the sextant box Gallagher had sent to Fiji and, to our
knowledge, he had no comment regarding the numbers on the box.

**********************

Anyone have this at their fingertips?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:12:51 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Re: Taking a stand

        I certainly agree that it is time to eliminate those that make
unproductive and self-serving postings.  Many of us have busy lives and
hardly enough time to read through the valid postings.  It is often several
days before I can get caught up with reading past forum postings.  There are
certainly many valid lines of research to be followed so we don't need to
fill space with pet theories that have no real evidence to support them.  If
I had a vote it would be to get rid of those type of postings and the sooner
the better.

Dick Pingrey 908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:18:19 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      FJN's drift sight on NR16020

Oh boy, you really did it this time.  Now some numbskull is going to suggest
that AE got lost because her navigator fell out of the plane when the door
thingy broke just as he was attempting to use the drift sight.

Regarding the need for good training in horses that are to be loosely
reined:  Let me rejoin the chorus of voices stating that the TIGHAR website
is an excellent training ground.  The case for a Niku landing is made quite
succinctly.  The website deals with fuel, radios, LOP, evidence found on
Niku, documents which point to Niku, etc. etc. etc.  I find it hard to
believe that people think that they can make a useful post to the forum
without first familiarizing themselves with the theory presented on the
website.

Perhaps there could be some kind of "gate" to the forum.  Some sort of quiz
which would demonstrate that the basic principles of the Niku landing theory
have been grasped successfully.  You wouldn't have to agree with
everything--you'd just have to show that you understand where we're coming
from before you can post to the forum.

As for the professional naysayers and spotlight grabbers--I fully support
Ric and Pat editing them in or out as they deem appropriate.

LTM (who really doesn't like cutting people off, but realizes that it's
sometimes necessary)

Dave Porter, 2288

************************************

Well, there do seem to be a consensus building here.... Since the Rules can
be stated succinctly, and enforced even-handedly, I expect we can manage to
run things without too many further ructions.

I will post The Rules separately, and add them to the sign-up document.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:40:13 EDT
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: "Carnival of idiocy" (Ric always could turn a phrase...)

Well, as long as TIGHAR is terminating unproductive discussion threads,
allow me to submit a couple candidates:

1.    The LOP business.  While I have learned more about celestial
navigation techniques in the past few weeks than I ever hoped to know, in
the final analysis what's the point?  An atlas will confirm that
following AE's announced 157/337 LOP southeast though Howland leads to the
Phoenix chain.

According to TIGHAR's hypothesis, that's what our heroes did, and it was a
reasonable thing to have done.  In short, the Niku Hypothesis *assumes*  a
Niku landfall (hence the name).

The question is whether this hypothesis can be proven via reliable evidence,
whether physical, scientific, circumstantial or anecdotal.  Fuel consumption
statistics might be relevant to the question, but endless speculation on
Fred's navigation techniques is not.

2.    HF/DF(LF/MF/NF/OF/PF):  The Electra could have been
bristling like a porcupine with direction-finding gear for all the good it
did.  Either the equipment didn't work, or AE/FN didn't know how to use it,
or it couldn't work because the Electra and Itasca used entirely different
bands for RDF.  Probably all of the above.  What is clear is that Amelia was
unable to get a bearing on Itasca, and Itasca was unable to get a bearing on
Amelia.  Does it make any difference how much and what brand of (ultimately
useless) DF gear the Electra had on board?

I have no sympathy for people who abuse this forum with potshots and ad
hominum attacks, but it seems to me that a lot of equally-pointless
discussions are tolerated because they're friendly.  Tnx for the oppty to
put in my two cents worth.

**************************

From Pat

Well, we do of course tolerate a certain amount of mirth and frivolity in the
cause of not taking ourselves too seriously...... But you are quite correct,
Patrick, that endless speculation concerning peripheral issues is not
productive.

Again, the question becomes one of judgment, which is where (in theory) the
Moderator comes in.

I have been, off and on, a participant in a number of maillists pertaining to
subjects which are of interest to me (and of no interest to anyone on this
Forum). It seems to be a disease of maillists that certain subjects come up
like bloated bodies, regularly disrupting the conversation and causing at
least two or three people to stomp off for a while. After a week or two or
three, it settles down, and they come back... until the next time. But it's
time to break that cycle with the Earhart Forum, if we can.

I will be taking my role as Moderator much more ... seriously, I guess, from
now on. One thing I will plan on doing is returning posts to folks with a
request for documentation, and I have every intention of making this policy
absolutely even-handed. (Just wait until I return one to Ric.... <G>) Ric and
I will be working on drawing up some *very* general guidelines as to what is
a source and what isn't, so anyone who needs/wants to submit a posting can
avoid having to go back three or four times.

It does seem to me that this will go a long way towards moving the research
forward, by moving the work *out* into the group. The problem we (TIGHAR)
have, the problem we have always had, is that there are only so many hours in
a day, and we cannot possibly do all the research, seek out all the sources,
ourselves.

The question of questions is easier. Questions that have been answered before
will be referred to the FAQs, the Highlights, or elsewhere on the Website.
Questions that have not been answered before will be answered, unless they
are completely irrelevant, in which case they will be returned with a note
asking what the relevance is, in case I missed it (duh). Relevant questions
*may* be "farmed out" to those with expertise; not quite relevant questions
may also be farmed out with a request that the answer be sent by private
email.

Everyone who participates in this Forum probably needs to be reminded now and
again (I know I do) that our purpose here is not education of the public, nor
is it even spreading of the Word and the Law about AE's disappearance. Our
purpose is to move the research forward, to come to good conclusions, and
--armed with those conclusions--- do the field work necessary to test the
hypothesis we have developed. Good questions and alternative substantiated
theories are part of this process, but rants, rambles, and whines are not.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:40:54 EDT
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Dirigible

>Cam Warren wishes to point out that his allegation about a dirigible being
>used as a "plane guard' for Earhart referred to her 1935 Honolulu to Oakland
>flight.

  OK, that makes more sense.  I thought he meant the Honolulu to Oakland leg
of the World Flight.

  LTM,
  Russ
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:45:11 EDT
From:         Del
Subject:      Re: Convention/conference

Sounds like a great idea.

May I suggest Wright-Patterson in Dayton OH?  It's probably one of the
greatest starting points of aviation since Orvile and Wilbur were good
ol' Ohio boys and that's where it all started.......

Del

************************

We had the convention there several times. Ate our lunch, financially,
because you have to hold the actual event in a hotel---can't have it in the
museum, not allowed on Federal property.

Here is the real question: What purpose would be served by holding such a
conference? In what way would it improve the Project, and help move things
forward? I know that the world of academia routinely holds conferences on
various subjects, some of them pretty esoteric; is there a model we could
follow in order to figure out if this would be a valuable working conference,
or merely a social event?

The reason I ask is that for a social event, we can't spend the money; but
for a working conference, that's a valid use of Project funds. Those of you
who attend such conferences, we would welcome your feedback.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:12:47 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Harold Gatty

Vern asked if we know whether Gatty and Noonan taught navigation together in
Miami.  I don't think we have any information about that.  They both worked
for Pan Am around the same time and both seem to have taught navigation.
Gatty's only comments about the sextant box are that he thinks that it's of
English manufacture (he doens't say why), was used most recently primarily
just to carry stuff, and that the sextant it once contained is not the kind
you'd use in "modern trans-pacific aviation."

I agree that it would seem that the numbers on the box didn't ring any bells
with Gatty and so, it seems unlikley that they are part of a Pan Am inventory
system.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:12:09 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Kinda Stalled?

>There just isn't that much going on to help that theory right now.  We have
>about talked it to death! There are no more questions to ask, no more new
>things to think of, no new evidence. Whether you believe in the theory or
>not.  We are kinda stalled right now.

Patience Don.  I'm hoping to finish the rest of the expedition report this
week and then there'll be PLENTY to talk about.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:17:47 EDT
From:         Jim Tayloar
Subject:      On the Itasca

My grandfather was on board the Itasca...while the search was going on. He
has always told me that the feelings aboard ship were that AE had in fact
crash landed on or near an island...and that the navy more than likely knew
it but couldn't find her...he said that he had documents from the ship, like
internal memorandums..communications, etc  that were very interesing to
read. I am in process of looking for those papers now...they are stored in
arkansas and my relatives are looking for them for me.  Anyone care to see
them when they are found? I really would not know if they woukld be
important..but at least they would be interesting, I think..please let me
know as soon as possible....Jim

**********************

Yes, of course, we would love to have photocopies of any and all paperwork
from the Itasca. What was your grandfather's name?

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:22:49 EDT
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Satisfaction

 Cam Warren wrote (re the dirigible debate):

>Satisfied?

 Yes.  I accept that Navy made provisions to have the Macon available in the
event of an emergency during Earhart's 1935 solo Hawaii-California flight.

>(Hopefully, you'll accept my word in future).

  No.  As a journalist, I doubt that Mr. Warren would simply tell Newsweek to
"take his word for it."  Anything less than solid, verifiable evidence would
be sloppy, unprofessional, and a waste of time.  With the number of posts to
the Forum growing daily, we no longer afford to deal with claims that do not
meet the same standard.  If he had bothered to include the original text in
his initial posting about the dirigible question, it would have spared us the
several subsequent messages debating its authenticity.

  More importantly, we would have all been able to draw our own conclusions
as to his INTERPRETATION of the document in question.  In my case, I come
down firmly with Ric's take on its meaning.  There is a big difference
between ordering naval assets out on a special assignment and advising that
they stand by in case of emergencies.  Where Mr. Warren sees patterns of
influence peddling and conspiracies, I see support for a burgeoning industry
and concern for safety of lives at sea.  The Navy and Coast Guard also
mounted SAR missions in the same area a month earlier (Dec, 1934) for Charles
Ulm as well as for the 1928 Dole Racers.  Did all of those people have White
House connections too?

  Until recently, Mr. Warren has not seen fit to provide documentation for
the theories and claims he's made here - relying instead on his status as a
journalist and self-proclaimed Earhart expert.  I think it should be clear
now why that just isn't good enough.  Bill Leary hit the nail on the head
when he said that "no one can be their own support for their own
credibility...that's circular logic at its worst."  Reputation and
credibility are based not only on what you say, but on being able to
DEMONSTRATE that it is true.  Do that enough times and people will be
inclined to believe you, but the smart ones will still want to check your
work.  That's what Ric allows us to do every day on this Forum and that's why
so many smart people have been willing to work with him for so long.

  LTM,
  Russ

**********************

I hope it's now clear that *everyone* will need to produce their research and
references... no more unsubstantiated assertions. Yes, one does get in the
habit of saying, Oh, well, So-and-so is good, he always has things backed up
correctly.... but it's sloppy. "Trust, but verify."

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:24:37 EDT
From:         Mark Cameron
Subject:      Re: Enough is enough

Count me in again as an unwavering supporter of this Forum, my time has been
much too short as of late to spend endless hours on useless dribble (LOP and
HF/DF are as interesting as watching paint dry).

LTM (who prefers the straight and narrow to "drifting")
Mark Cameron #2301
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:27:59 EDT
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Convention/conference

Concerning a TIGHAR convention, I'll relate my experience.  Each year, the Alaska
Anthropological Association holds their annual meeting attended by 150 to 300
people, depending on the location.  While there are certainly social aspects
(awards banquet, drinking parties, etc.), the main intent is to present papers on
current research.  Roughly half of the people who attend give a 20-minute paper
on recent excavations, artifact analyses, or other current topics.  As such, it
is extremely useful for all the working professionals and students in the state
to attend.  The Association sometimes makes a little money, sometimes loses a
little money.  We try to set the registration fee to cover the predicted costs of
the facility versus the predicted number of attendees.

Comparing this to TIGHAR's current situation, it appears to me that there are
only a very small number of people who might have current research reports to
present (that aren't already on the forum).  So, we would have a few talks, and
lots of Ric Gillespie show-and-tell.  While I would personally enjoy that, I
don't know how useful it might be in advancing TIGHAR research.  As you say, the
conference would probably "eat your lunch" financially.  A conference of any size
is A LOT of work, too.

Why not develop a more-or-less canned talk/slide show that TIGHAR members could
give in their local cities and/or when they travel.  I know Ric and Tom King
already do this on an informal basis.  I think other TIGHARs would do this if
they didn't have to start from scratch on presentation materials.  Any volunteers
or other thoughts, gang?

LTM (who enjoys a good evening lecture series),
Tim Smith 1142C

******************************

We used to have a slide set that we would sell (at cost) to people who wanted
to give local talks, complete with captions and an outline.... but the
project has gotten to be so complex, and so diverse, that a simple "What I
Did On My Summer Vacation" format is no longer useful.

Perhaps as a part of the 8th Edition we could work something up. Ideas,
anyone? I know it would be fun to get together and shoot the breeze, but as
Tim implies, we really can't afford the time, money, or strain on Ric's vocal
chords for a weekend of show and tell.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:44:57 EDT
From:         Clye Miller
Subject:      Re: Convention/conference

You know....Teleconferences are pretty cheap and so are PC cameras...In fact
run everything over the internet and it's practically free (well maybe not
free) Pick a date and time and everyone bring their own sack lunch....If you
want to share pictures, graphs etc. prepare them ahead of time
electronically.  I can just see Ric/Pat and anyone else in their room with
an electronic background of Niku,  chatting and typing away with dozens of
conference attendees from around the world by voice and electronically. And
again don't forget everyone brought their own lunch!!!  Sure face to face is
great, but also very expensive.  Somebody has to be doing this now.


Clyde

********************************

ummmm, I dunno. Would this accomplish more than simply continuing the Forum?
anyone have experience with this sort of thing?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:53:24 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Convention/conference

Actually, complex as the project is, I've been able to do my own
simple-minded presentation of it, with slides and overheads, pretty
effectively (at least people said they liked it) in about 1.5 to 2 hours,
with time for questions and discussion; I've done it so far twice recently,
once in Madison, WI and once in Lexington KY.  One could built a short,
informal "conference" around such a presentation at little or no cost.  As
for a more complex "conference" along the lines of the professional
organizations Tim mentions, I agree -- much too complicated and costly,
unless everyone who comes is willing to fork out a bunch of money for the
privilige.

LTM (who loves to talk about this stuff)
TK

**************************

I know you've had great success with your presentations, and Ric has too.
When we were giving the Aviation Archeology course we used to have
mini-gatherings, usually on the Saturday evening, that were a lot of fun and
were pretty much a presentation by Ric, then a lot of schmoozing. But how
many people do we have in the project who could make such a presentation?

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:07:23 EDT
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Carnival atmosphere

  May I suggest not being too hasty about cutting off possibly peripheral
threads.  A case in point is the LOP/Offset discussion.
  This started over a question of what Fred Noonan did in the final hours of
the flight.  It lead to several documented and first person reports about
Noonan's navigational practices.  In sum these said that he was in the
practice of using sun lines and offset, which (if Howland was missed) could
well result in NR-16020 running down a course of 157 degrees magnetic from
the general vicinity of Howland Island.  That, if I understand correctly, is
what you believe happened.  The case is bolstered by the proof that the
person in question was in the habit of doing the sorts of things that you
suppose he did when out of sight.
  Research into that supposedly irrelevant issue has also turned up new
leads.  Whether those leads result in relevant information we don't yet know.
 That's what makes research fascinating, you don't know what's in the box
until you open it.

LTM

Robert Klaus

********************************************
From Ric

All we learned from the LOP/offset discussion was that Noonan sometimes used
an offest but sometimes didn't and there's no evidence that he did on July
2nd and it doesn't matter to our hypothesis whether he did or not.

I expect that a number of people now understand some basics of celestial
navigation that they didn't know about before but that's about all we
accomplished. Individually useful, for sure... but did it move the Project
forward?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:07:57 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      seasickness

Actually, I find that the little acupressure wrist bands work real well for
seasickness, but then I'm not a very scientific type.  And I agree very much
with Don.

LTM (who gets sick sometimes)
Tom King

***************************************************************
From Ric

I go for the pills, man.  I'm not sure whether that makes me scientific or a
druggy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:09:32 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Kinda stalled?

>... I'm hoping to finish the rest of the expedition report this
>week and then there'll be PLENTY to talk about.

And this brings to mind... Emily Sikuli's story of aircraft wreckage near
the Norwich City shipwreck, and Ric's quest for long steel structural
members in the Electra.

Someone mentioned that aluminum might take on color from its surroundings.
That may be worth keeping in mind when considering Emily's description of
large steel -- red in color, hence steel.

Consider "anodized aluminum" and all the pretty colors in which it can be
produced.  This is possible because of a porous oxide surface formed on the
aluminum.  to some degree, this sort of thing always happens when aluminum
is exposed to oxygen -- air.  Washed in sea water, it might be more so.  I
don't know.

In any case, I think it is well to consider the possibility that the "red"
Emily reports might be an acquired coloration on aluminum.  If it was
continually being bathed in water containing dissolved iron and finely
divided rust particles, perhaps from the Norwich City hulk, aluminum might
take on a red/rust color.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:11:09 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Harold Gatty

When I scanned the PAA Archives in Miami (University of Miami) for a full
week, I don't remember seeing a single reference to Gatty.  Hmm.  Makes you
wonder what his real role was: probably small, more like an advisor to Juan
Trippe (speculation here, unsupported by any facts).

> From Ric
>
> Vern asked if we know whether Gatty and Noonan taught navigation together in
> Miami.  I don't think we have any information about that.  They both worked
> for Pan Am around the same time and both seem to have taught navigation....

****************************

Interesting. One would think there would be some reference to someone who was
important/central to operations? How deep/wide are the records, Randy?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:12:44 EDT
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Harold Gatty

Re Noonan PAA navigation instruction:

I'm writing the Noonan history for the 8th edition and I don't have, or
know of any conclusive documentation regarding FN as a nav instructor. We
know he worked for PAA out of Miami as both a "Field Manager" and as an
"Airport Manager" in Port Au Prince (based on PAA's corporate magazine). He
was apparently in Haiti during 1930-1933. I think he was "Assistant Airport
Manager" in Miami from some time in 1933 to early 1935. However, I don't
think we have anything concrete indicating he was the main, or key, nav
instructor. If someone knows where this info exists, point me in the right
direction or please send me a copy. I don't know anything about Gatty as I
have no research on him. Thanks.

blue skies, -jerry

********************************

Send same directly to Jerry, but please copy in the Forum.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:13:26 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Another request for Forum Folk in New Zealand

I've just received a letter from Sir Ian Thomson, who was Aide-de-Camp to
WPHC High Commissioner Sir Harry Luke in 1941; alive and living in Scotland,
but doesn't recall anything about "the bones."  He suggests trying to contact
John Eric Pery-Johnston, who "held a Diploma in Pathology and Bacteriology
from New Zealand" and would be 87 today.  According to Sir Ian, Johnston was
the "sole technician" in the Pathology Division of the Medical Department in
1941.  I realize it's a pretty long shot, but I wonder if there are there any
of our correspondents in New Zealand who'd like to see if he can be found?

LTM
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:19:52 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Convention/conference

Pat asks:

>But how many people do we have in the project
>who could make such a presentation?

I'd guess quite a few, particularly if supplied with a kit of material and
something like an instructor's guide, so they wouldn't have to make things up
from scratch.

LTM
Tom King

*******************************

Yeah..... in our copious free time we can make that up...... We did do that
for the slide sets about the 1989 trip. It worked ok for a while, but came
down to really just one person (Veryl); later, Kris started doing it too, but
that's about it.

We're really talking about boiling it all down into a 40 minute set piece
(Rotary clubs and the like don't want an hour), including time for questions.
The mind boggles... what do you leave out?

I expect that this would be something we would have to farm out. I'm not sure
that people as close to the Project as we are could do a good job of drawing
up an outline/guide. The problem is choosing the topics and covering them
adequately, without getting into problems with MEGO*.

Volunteers?

Pat

*MEGO= My Eyes Glaze Over
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:25:08 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Rules and ructions

Pat wrote

>Well, there do seem to be a consensus building here.... Since the Rules can
>be stated succinctly, and enforced even-handedly, I expect we can manage to
>run things without too many further ructions.

Ok, Pat...

Every dictionary in my home stands mute... pray, tell, what is the
definition of "ruction".

Tom #2179

**********************

Gee, this is the second query I've had on this. Is this a word peculiar to my
Tidewater Virginia upbringing?---Virginia transplanted from West Virginia, at
that.

Ruction--- an uproar, a free-for-all, an eruption of angst and weltschmerz,
full of sound and fury, but ultimately signifying very little to nothing.....

A useful word, one much treasured by my father in addressing large gangs of
small children having furious arguments over toys they no longer wished to
play with, the fight having become the object and the point.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:26:46 EDT
From:         Charlie Sivert
Subject:      The sextant box number and another number

I am going to throw this piece of "meat" into the TIGHAR's den, and
wait  to see what happens to it.  In the Spring of this year I saw a
chrono- meter and its box being appraised on the Antiques Roadshow on
PBS.  The  box had the number 3100, or maybe 3400, stenciled on the
front panel. I  have tried to contact the Roadshow people to verify
which number is the  correct one, but have had no
success.

My point is this:  Two navigation instruments, two boxes, and two
similar numbers.  Is there a connection, and how can it be made?  Who
or what organization could have been responsible for the stenciling?

Charlie Sivert  0269E
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:28:05 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: seasickness

IT WAS A JOKE GUYS!!!!!!!

****************************

Hmphph. Seasickness is no joke <G>. Just ask Russ.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:43:13 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      An AE Public Forum?

In an effort to give more people a chance to ask questions, make comments,
and express opinions on the subject of Amelia Earhart, Fred Noonan, and their
disappearance AND, at the same time, maintain and improve the Forum's
usefulness as a research tool for The Earhart Project, we're considering
inaugurating a new feature on the TIGHAR website.

The Amelia Earhart Public Forum would be a "bulletin board" of messages,
indexed by subject ("thread"), and readable by any visitor.  Anyone wishing
to post a message would simply register with their email address and
real-life name.  The Public Forum would be moderated by volunteer TIGHAR
members (not by me or Pat) whose aim would be to keep the Public Forum free
of spam and flame.  There could, for example, be an ongoing thread of
discussion about how Henry Morgenthau arranged for the sabotage of the
Electra to silence AE's threat to expose his affair with her.  If you don't
want to read about it, don't open that thread.  Any question vaguely relating
to Earhart could be raised and answers would come from other readers or from
the volunteer moderators who could either refer the questioner to a FAQ on
the website or just answer it if they felt like it.

Meanwhile, the Earhart Project Forum (this one) would continue as an email
list just as it is now, but with the stricter posting constraints we've been
discussing lately.  It seems to us that this dual system might serve to allow
maximum freedom for interested individuals to exercise their interest in
Earhart, while enabling TIGHAR's own research to proceed - still in full
public view but with fewer distractions.

It would cost some money to set it up, but if it's a good idea we should do
it. How says the Forum?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:45:55 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Two observations

1.  Ric said: "I expect that a number of people now understand some
basics of celestial navigation that they didn't know about before but that's
about all we accomplished. Individually useful, for sure... but did it move
the Project forward?"

    I believe it did, if only to expose forum members to the complexity
of celestial navigation and giving us a better perspective on the challenges
AE and FN faced.  For decades I'd heard what a great navigator FN was (plus
the normal rumors, of course) and was puzzled how a "professional" navigator
could make such an error.  Now I know.  He was under a lot of stress,
probably hungry, tired, and angry (at himself), perhaps a bit nauseous from
the oil and gas fumes, and certainly worried over the mission's
communications problems.  That is not a good environment to solve
complicated problems.

    So, yeah, I found a lot of the LOP/navigation stuff boring to the
max, but it also opened my eyes to the physical and emotional climate inside
that 10E as it loped to its destiny.


    2.  Pat stated about canned presentations: "The problem is choosing
the topics and covering them adequately, without getting into problems with
MEGO*."

    She is right on target.  A few months ago I gave a 30-minute
AE/FN/Niku talk (sans photos) to the local chapter of the Experimental
Aircraft Association. These are plane guys and I am not a boring speaker
(just ask me!) but after about 15 minutes MEGO set in, and during the 10
minute Q&A session, seven minutes were used by people offering their own
hypotheses.   My experience has been that the audience had better be AE/FN
"enthusiasts" or you're going to lose them after 10-15 minutes simply
because of the volume and depth of data TIGHAR has to offer.  It's a tough
call.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:47:00 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Noonan as nav instructor

In the affadavit, dated 6 June 1968, which accompanies the Pensacola sextant,
retired Pan Am Captain William A. Cluthe writes:

"I, hereby, ceretify that the accompanying Navigation Sextant was the
property of Mr. Frederick J. Noonan...
This instrument was borrowed by the undersigned who at that time was studying
navigation under Mr. Noonan in preparing for service in the Pacific Division
of Pan American Airways, for use in practice practical navigation (sic)."

Technically, this is an anecdotal allegation written down at least 31 years
after the fact.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:48:32 EDT
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      course correction

>Date: Wed, 8 Sep
>
>.......NR-16020 running down a course of 157 degrees magnetic from
>the general vicinity of Howland Island.

Rather, 157 degrees true.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:50:22 EDT
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Rules and ructions

Off topic but, hey, its educational.  My reliable old 1974 Webster's New World
Dictionary defines "ruction" as follows:  "n. [altered<INSURRECTION, orig. with
reference to the Irish Insurrection of 1798] [Colloq.] a riotous outbreak or
uproar; noisy disturbance or quarrel."

LTM (who recognizes the value of a good vocabulary)

Tim Smith 1142C
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:51:17 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: seasickness

The best remedy against seasickness is to grow sea legs.
Sailing a lot and getting used to walk about moving ships is a great help...
It's like air sickness. The best way to get rid of it is to fly a lot. Like
learning to fly... In the long run you even like aerobatics.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:58:04 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: seasickness---Last Posts

This is never going to end. . . The only time I really got motion sickness
was when I rode the "Rock-O-Planes" at the country fair with my daughter.  We
rode six times in a row and I discovered that 5 1/2 was my limit!  Haven't been
the same since. I laid in the bushes for hours like a damn drunk, wishing I were
dead.

Don J. (Who will never see Niku, unless they put a Freeway in.)

-------------------------------------------------------------

From Russ Matthews (#0509CE)

<< Seasickness is no joke <G>. Just ask Russ. >>

  The 'scope (Scopalamine) patch is the best - just remember to WEAR it.

**************************

OK, this is marginally relevant to the project, because (after all) you can't
get there without dealing with seasickness.... but its marginality has caught
up with us. I'm starting to feel a bit seasick.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:59:21 EDT
From:         Anna
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

Would this mean no more vapid, shallow, whiny, bitter, crybaby arguing for
the sake of arguing? Cool.Great Idea!

Anna

*******************************

Well, at least it wouldn't be in your mailbox every morning.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 17:00:38 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

    I think the idea sucks.
    Why waste our money and server time giving voice to every one who
has an opinion, valid or otherwise.  I believe in democracy, but not
anarchy, especially if I have to pay the bill.  Individuals with something
to contribute will find their way to the Earthartforum, as for the rest, who
cares.
    Deep six that 90s way of thinking and stick with the carefully
moderated Earfartforum that is now evolving.

    LTM,  who can be a bitch at times
    Dennis O. McGee #0149

****************************

OK, that's one for, one against....

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 17:03:07 EDT
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: Lops and relevance

To Mark Prange,
  I stand course corrected, thank you.

To Ric,
  Yes, I think that it did advance the project in this way:
  By establishing that the person in question (Noonan) was likely to do the
sort of thing which your theory supposes he did (take a 90 degree right from
his intended course) you increase the believability of the theory.  I
understand that for those who are already convinced of the theories' validity
that this is not necessary, but for those who, like myself, think that you
could be right, but haven't proven the case, each link in the chain is
important.
  Is the Forum only for those who believe you are right?  Or are those who
are interested and believe you could be right welcome as well?

LTM (Who is always right)

Robert Klaus

***********************************

This Forum is for anyone who is 1) interested and 2) willing to invest a
little skull sweat in understanding the technical and historical issues
involved.

Being Right is for politicians and preachers. <G> Oh. And mothers.

LTM, who is always right but generally doesn't rub it in.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 17:05:18 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

I think it is an excellent idea.  There are many other investigation that could
benefit from a general bull session.  You never know who or what is going to turn
up.

Don J. (Who's not joking anymore!)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 17:06:05 EDT
From:         Harry Poole
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

For what ever it is worth department, I do not have time to sample a second,
wider ranging forum.  However I may be helpful if you are looking for
speakers for TIGHAR, as I speak quite often at groups like rotary and the
public libraries.  (The latest one was last night).

The trick is to not cover the entire subject, but to cover a few pieces of
interest to your audience, and do them well.  And putting other theories
off-limits during questions,

LTM
Harry #2300
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 17:04:52 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Convention/conference

Sure, I'll volunteer, once the 8th edition and shortbook are put to bed.

*********************

Well, I guess what we need to do is find out how much of a market there would
be for the product. Who would like to be able to give an informed talk,
complete with slides, to local organizations on behalf of TIGHAR, if they had
the support materials we've been discussing?

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1999 17:12:32 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      The sextant box number and another number

Tell us more about the Antiques Roadshow on PBS.   Who are the producers?
Where are they located?  What was the date or approximate date of the
showing?

New information might be developed to aid in idenity of the box recovered on
Niku.

Roger Kelley 2112
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:10:37 EDT
From:         Bob Perry
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

I wouldn't  waste any more time on it if I were you. The idea of a "junk"
bulletin board to humor posters of the type used in your example does
nothing for TIGHAR'S research project.  I dare say that a lot of the folks
who should use that BB would consider their inquiries to be serious and
valid  and would still send them to the Earhart Project Forum.  Also,  there
has been, and will be, a fine line between an inquiry that can be answered
by referring to a FAQ list and a pertinent question, or one that is relevant
but  has not been considered previously by TIGHAR.

Since you have the Project Forum, I suggest that you simply screen out all
of the junk -- much more than you have been doing-- and post only stuff
which you think is worthy of dissemination. Toss the rest of the stuff.

As I mentioned earlier, you may want to re-think the merits of even having
the Project Forum itself and to what extent the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages in maintaining it. By closing it, TIGHAR will  still get lots
of e-mail, but you can dispose of it more readily, and you'll have fewer of
these side issues to  worry with.  Discussions can still be maintained among
a limited group of researchers and/or contributors.

LTM,

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:15:41 EDT
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

Re Public AE Forum: I strongly vote no. I joined this outfit to be part of
real investigative progress. The limited TIGHAR resources should be used
for moving the investigation ahead. TIGHAR is not the center of all things
Earhart. Let some other interested party create an Earhart forum for all
comers.

blue skies, bad idea, -jerry
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:18:11 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Harold Gatty

I focused upon all of the records from 1930 to 1937, but there were many
records I just quickly skimmed.  I particularly looked at navigation, new
planes, routes, and read all of the internal newsletters.  Gatty might have
been there, but it sure didn't register at the time, despite my knowing
about Gatty's involvements in Kiwi airmail and PAA.  It's probably worth
another look, but I sure don't have the time to do so (would take about 2
weeks to do the records justice).

> Interesting. One would think there would be some reference to
> someone who was important/central to operations? How
> deep/wide are the records, Randy?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:19:25 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Harold Gatty

Based upon the Miami PAA records, there was no indication that FJN was the
lead instructor or head of navigational school per se, but the fact that he
was on every single pathfinding flight over water leads one to the probable
conclusion that he was their lead navigator.  The flight manifests also
list student or apprentice navigators, with FJN being the lead navigator.

Strong, circumstantial evidence at best.

> From Jerry Hamilton  2128
>
> Re Noonan PAA navigation instruction:
>
> I'm writing the Noonan history for the 8th edition and I don't have, or
> know of any conclusive documentation regarding FN as a nav instructor. We
> know he worked for PAA out of Miami as both a "Field Manager" and as an
> "Airport Manager" in Port Au Prince (based on PAA's corporate magazine). He
> was apparently in Haiti during 1930-1933. I think he was "Assistant Airport
> Manager" in Miami from some time in 1933 to early 1935. However, I don't
> think we have anything concrete indicating he was the main, or key, nav
> instructor. If someone knows where this info exists, point me in the right
> direction or please send me a copy. I don't know anything about Gatty as I
> have no research on him. Thanks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:23:18 EDT
From:         Skip Hubbard
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

I think it is a good idea. You never know what might appear on the forum that
might turn out to a vital piece of information. After reading every message
that appears as email (and the list is usually long), it would be an
improvement to read pertinent information and when time permits, go to the
forum for the other. When I first started to receive email, I saved them for
reference. But the list got so long and took up a lot of space, that I
started to read the email and then delete it. I only keep the truly important
emails now.

How much would it cost to set up the forum?

Skip Hubbard
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:24:26 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Charts

> From Tom King
> Question for Tom Van Hare:  Did Noonan and Gatty teach navigation
> together? It would be interesting to know, since Gatty apparently
> examined the Nikumaroro sextant box.

Thanks for asking me. I just returned from six days in New York to find
your question this evening. I've been struggling to catch up on the huge
volume of postings, both from this recent outing and my trip to England.

Ok, so the answer is probably best if I just quote it from a transcript
of an interview we did some time ago with an old Pan Am pilot, Captain
Banning (please note that Banning started with Pan Am in 1941, a few
years after Noonan disappeared; they never actually met, so the evidence
cannot be called primary, by any means, and reflects the common wisdom
and discussions that were floating around Pan Am at that time -- the
whole Noonan thing was apparantly an oft discussed topic). This portion
of the interview sprang from the discussions we were having at the time
about sextants and Pan Am:
-----------

"Fred Noonan used Pan Am's sextant. He was working for Pan Am as a
station manager in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, when they brought him back in
1933 or 1934. I've read that in the company records. He may have had one
at home all those years, you never know. He had done some aerial
navigation under contract.

"We had another guy, Harold Gatty. He made the driftsights. He was also
a station manager. Both were famous as navigators, I'm sure they met.
Working for the same company in Miami they almost assuredly met - they
were both working with Navigation (ed note: meaning, the section of Pan
Am dealing with navigation).

"When Fred was put in charge of naviation training for the pilot
schools, Gatty was an executive in the station operation in Miami at the
same time. At one time, Gatty was also in San Juan. Noonan also worked
on the driftsight and I'm sure they conferred about it. You've probably
seen them. We had them on first on all the airplanes from 1936 on, we
had them clear through the DC-4s. We improved them as we went along."

.... (ed note: a later comment is here inserted for the benefit of those
who wish to compare their experience with drift sights during the war
years with the one FN would have used -- the one you are familiar with
is much improved over the one in use in 1937) ....

"They didn't change almost at all, except for things like automatic
averaging and the new drift sight that we got in, I think it was 1941.
With that drift site, you could look straight down at the water and get
a really accurate drift reading."

-----------
So, I would have to say that the fact that Gatty looked at the sextant
box in Gallagher's possession is indeed very interesting. If he (Gatty)
saw it, which he apparently did, and if it was one of the Pan Am types,
either a Pioneer or a Bausch & Lomb, he would have recognized the box,
certainly. In addition, the numbering on the box, if it was Pan Am
numbering, would have been familiar to him. He would almost certainly
have identified it.

Ric, I don't recall if Gallagher actually wrote that Gatty saw the box
or if he just said that he intended to show it to Mr. Gatty. Also, did
he write what Mr. Gatty stated about the box after seeing it?

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:24:57 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Charts, LOP, and FN

After posting the comments in response to Tom King's question about
Gatty and Noonan, it strikes me that I don't recall if we posted the key
points of the transcript with Capt. Gene Banning of Pan Am.

Therefore, here are some other interesting points from this interview as
well, which I will post here, in their original form (pardon me, Ric, if
I already posted this -- I don't recall -- if I did, simply do not post
this message):

With regard to offset navigation, Banning stated:
-----------

"There is also 'Aim Off'. We called it riding down a sun line. You
offset to one side or another and then try to approach it with the
sunrise. You get on the track with the sun line.

"Fred Noonan developed that, you know. They used to use that in ships.
He was a master mariner in the First World War for the British Navy, I
think. You would plot a line of position through the island and then you
would do aim off, taking constant sun shots as you go, staying on the
line. Once the sun rises, you are stuck with only the sun. Unless you
had an awfully good fix shortly before sunrise you'd use aim off. If you
drifted off too much, you could pass on by an island and miss it. So the
fastest and safest way to find it would be to aim off.

"Fred Noonan would always aim off, you see, because it was his technique
-- he developed that procedure. Everyone knew that he designed it.

"You would track toward the destination island right up until you were
an hour and half out, and then you'd decide which side to go. The
weather might have some bearing on it - avoiding thunderstorm. A DC-7
would have about 50 miles or more aim off. A slower airplane, like in
the 1930s, you don't want to have about 20 or 30 minutes of flying down
the LOP. You'd want to be sure you were outside the boundary of 20 or 30
miles either way. There are times when it might be even more than that.

"The premise is that you are not certain that you are on course, so you
want to go off purposely to one side or the other.

-----------
And then, with regard to FN's use of radio homing devices (HF/DF):
-----------

"I remember that Fred Noonan was one of the navigators who was most
distrustful of radio bearings. The early ones were very difficult to use
and interpret. And as a result, he was inclined to be very skeptical.

"On one occasion, at the transmitting station, water got into the
transmitter grounding and it really distorted the signal. If Noonan had
believed the radio bearing they would have flown into the hills and
crashed, but he didn't trust them, instead basing the position on
straight celestial navigation. They lived. One of the copilots who was
with him on that flight is still alive, so you might want to talk with
him too - Scotty Lewis or Fred Ralph flew with him.

"With that kind of gear, the needle swings all over the place and you
take a kind of an average of the various swings to work out the real
bearing to the station. The radio operator would provide the navigator
with the bearing information, but then the navigator would often just
ignore it if the celestial or sun lines were good."

-----------

I hope that in posting this, we don't dredge up too many pointless
discussions and directions. Again, this is just from one interview.

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:30:02 EDT
From:         Bill Zorn
Subject:      Forum changes, proposals

One change I would like to see to the forum, (or forums if that it he next
incarnation) is a return to using the E-mail addresses in the text of the
posting.

I have been contacted by, and made contact with persons outside the forum,
sometimes within the context of discussions within the forum, sometimes far
afield of anything EA, FN or even aviation related.

I have had had no problems, there is always a variation of the O-N-O-F-F
selector switch on my computer, called delete.

Obviously, some people would not want to be contacted, and we should honor
that. Include a note in the text of your posting, if you prefer not to have
your address included.

I propose, as a rule, if the sender includes their E-mail address within the
main body of text, or in the closing, then I would take that as an indication
that they have no problem with that address being made public to the forum.
Or the whole of the WWW for that matter.

I realize their maybe legal aspects to this approach I am not aware of, or
that TIGHAR's experience has shown otherwise. So be it.

As to the idea of branching forums, I was considering suggesting something
along those lines, last week after the "balloon went up" (or was it a
dirigible)?

What it being proposed is structured a bit along the lines of a publication,
with a senior editor,(RIC?) a managing editor (PAT?) and a series of
department editors, with some sort of expertise in the particular area.

Just how many different branches could we go spinning off into, endlessly
Listening, drifing,circling some obscure line of position? Someone could
start off in a discussion of first amendment rights and how they relate to
the forum, and end up in a urination competition with regards to how the
current situation in East Timor relates and illuminates  the  positive
historical role of the US and Canadian military in their democracies (by the
way, if anybody knows of a forum something along those lines, I'd love to
know)(Zornwmh@aol.com).

Next problem I see is finding enough people with the temperament, time and
expertise to handle the job. And I suspect it would be quite the chore some
weeks. (I'm not volunteering, not that anyone is asking.)

If we are taking a vote, put me down for undecided, but more than willing to
go with it, whichever way the headwind skews.

If I may suggest, the first branch to the forum should be a "how to run a
forum" forum.

Or a "best of LTM's"

LTM (who's navigator dropped the driftsite in the drink)

Bill Zorn
*****************************

We stopped including email addresses routinely because a few people
complained of getting spam... I like Bill's suggestion, and second it, that
if you want people to be able to reach you, include your email address
somewhere in the text of your message or as part of your sig.

One thing about additonal Forums---- Ric and Pat will *not* be able to run
them. We are flat out of time. Any additional time put in to the concept will
have to come from volunteers. At this time, Randy Jacobson and Tom King are
the ones leading the concept and offering to moderate the spin-off Forum.

Votes are coming in, we are looking into costs and so on. Results next week,
probably.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:34:41 EDT
From:         Terry Ann Linley
Subject:      Re: an AE public forum?

I don't like the idea of creating a Public Forum as a feature of the TIGHAR
website.  If you are striving to dissociate yourselves from all the
back-stabbing and name-calling postings of the past couple of months, and
move your research forward, then it does TIGHAR absolutely NO good to have
this bulletin board associated with its good name.  Do you really want Tom
King or one of your other key expedition members involved in moderating the
kinds of discussions that are likely to erupt?  I think not!  Please count
mine as a 'no' vote.

LTM (who wants TIGHAR to remain dignified)
Terry

***********************

These thoughts have also occurred to me, Terry. I wonder about TIGHAR seeming
to endorse, as TIGHAR information/discussion, the kind of free-for-all that
would be likely to result from a truly open forum. The best-written
disclaimer in the world would not erase the fact that it would be happening
at our website... which, incidentally, would instantly become much more
expensive to run if my rough figures are right.

There is another possibility under discussion, not ready for posting, but an
opportunity to let another site host the whole thing in more neutral
territory.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:36:09 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: AE and FDR

Ric wrote:

> The passage you quote from Butler's book immediately precedes the
> example I quoted in my posting where AE requested and received a
> three minute interview.  She wanted to see Roosevelt "today, or
> Wednesday or Thursday." He gave her the interview the following
> Tuesday.

Just as an aside, while I don't often discuss this, in my past career I
was a White House staffer and appointee for two different
administrations, serving a total of almost eight years.

While I cannot comment on the way the White House handled itself during
the FDR years, by today's measure the very fact that she was granted an
interview AT ALL is really quite significant, regardless of whether it
was this Tuesday, that Tuesday, or next month. There are many
celebrities, even big donors, who despite repeated requests never meet
with anyone higher than the deputy chief of staff.

I guess at this juncture, for the benefit of the conspiracy theorists
who like to hang their hat here, I should also point out that as a
former White House staffer, you shouldn't listen to anything more that I
have to say.  After all, you all know that I am part of the global
conspiracy and the "big cover-up"; and that the Japanese Government also
controls Area 51 (but that's ok, we still have Area 50, and 49, and 48,
and 47... getting scared yet?); and yes, we really do control
everything.

Ok, just joking that last bit there, really.

Thomas Van Hare

******************************

Tom, if the White House staff really *does* control everything, all I can say
is heaven help us all. <G>

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:37:05 EDT
From:         Roger Kirkwood
Subject:      Emily Sikuli's use of the color word "red"

Emily's Sikuli's use of the word "red" might be applied to the leading edge
paint scheme on the Electra...if I recall correctly, the leading edges of
the wings, horizontal stabilizers and vertical fin had that unique
red-orange paint.

Large structural debris may not have been steel as noted in a previous post.
The assumption that the "red" was a rust color would not apply. The paint
scheme would conveniently and logically explain what Emily remembers as a
long red structural member...

CAVU,

Roger
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:42:42 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

>From Dennis McGee
>Individuals with something
>to contribute will find their way to the Earthartforum, as for the rest, who
>cares.
>Deep six that 90s way of thinking and stick with the carefully
>moderated Earfartforum that is now evolving.

I have to agree with Dennis...

LTM (who loves order and discipline)

Tom #2179

Tom Robison

*********************************

You do realize that agreeing with Dennis makes you somewhat suspect among the
rational? <G>

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:43:50 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Kinda stalled?

From Vern

> That may be worth keeping in mind when considering Emily's description
> of large steel -- red in color, hence steel.

Or... it might be that the word for orange and red are the same in that
language. Someone familiar with that language should really check on
this.

This is not some way out comment; many cultures define the spectrum in
different ways (linguistically) than we do in the Western
European/American cultures. After all, our division of colors is really
quite arbitrary. We say "ROYGBIV", but in some cultures the green and
blue are the same word, for instance, they just have two shades of blue
-- our blue and the kind with more yellow in it. Another example would
be (although this is about tints rather than primary hues): we have blue
and light blue, but when it comes to red and light red, well, we call
that pink.

The bottom line is that the spectrum is actually continuous -- we humans
divide it in our own ways. So, for all we know the islanders may have
just the word for red (and not a word for orange) -- and this is seen as
the kind of red with more yellow in it.

Thomas Van Hare

***************************

Not a bad thought, Tom. Any way to check on this, Tom King et al?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:45:12 EDT
From:         Richard Johnson
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

Great idea Ric. I can check the bulletin board for mindless babble,
while still recieve the forum with more serious discussion of the
issues. I'm in favor of the idea

LTM  ( who never thought I would sign off with LTM ). I'm hopelessly
hooked on this mystery
Richard Johnson
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:45:53 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

>From Ric
>
>In an effort to give more people a chance to ask questions, make comments,
>and express opinions on the subject of Amelia Earhart, Fred Noonan, and their
>disappearance AND, at the same time, maintain and improve the Forum's
>usefulness as a research tool for The Earhart Project, we're considering
>inaugurating a new feature on the TIGHAR website.
>
>The Amelia Earhart Public Forum would be a "bulletin board" of messages,
>indexed by subject ("thread"), and readable by any visitor.  How says the
Forum?
>
>LTM,
>Ric
>

NYET, NEIN, NO, NEGATORY GOOD BUDDY!

Leave that to the non-scientific types, lets keep our focus on the goal!

--
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:54:58 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Boxes with numbers

From Vern...

>From Charlie Sivert
>
>I am going to throw this piece of "meat" into the TIGHAR's den, and
>wait  to see what happens to it.  In the Spring of this year I saw a
>chrono- meter and its box being appraised on the Antiques Roadshow on
>PBS.  The box had the number 3100, or maybe 3400, stenciled on the
>front panel. I  have tried to contact the Roadshow people to verify
>which number is the correct one, but have had no success.

That's one of the instrument boxes I've been looking for all these months!
I'll see what I can do about tracking it down.

Charlie,  Was the number, in fact, stencilled rather than written by hand?
Do you recall any other numbers, possibly hand written, being visible at all?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:58:53 EDT
From:         Craig Fuller
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

Put me in as a vote against it. Especially since it would cost TIGHAR. I
see no reason why we should pay for a place that anyone can vent their
theories on what happened to AE. If they are serious and can back up
their theories then they can post them on this forum. Your arguments that
they can start their own forum and the example of what happened on
National Geographic convinced me.

Craig Fuller
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:58:17 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Fred Noonan, instructor

I expect we'll hear from Randy Jacobson on this subject.  He posted notes on
his research at the University of Miami, Special Archives Collection
containing the Pan American Air archives. I believe his notes were posted on
July 17, 1998 -- last year.  That should be in the July 1998 TIGHAR archive.

*********************************************************
Note: anyone who wants the log, email me, we took it down for space reasons
but I can send it as a text file attachment. But it also may be in the
Highlights. P
*********************************************************

Randy's notes contain several references to Fred Noonan as navigational
instructor in the list of Clipper flights during 1935.

7-17  Alameda to sea and return.  Noonan now navigational instructor.

11-13  Alameda to sea and return.  Noonan instructor.

1936

10-20  Navigational instructor:  Alameda tests.

Maybe Randy can elaborate on these rather brief references.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:01:53 EDT
From:         Mike Real
Subject:      Re: Harold Gatty--long, but the real goods

TRIPPE employed GATTY in May 1935  on a salary of $5500 as PAN AM's
representative in the Australasian area to assist in developing the PACIFIC
OPERATION. GATTY was required to assist TRIPPE's relevant employees in the
mapping of the SAN FRANCISCO-CHINA MID PACIFIC AIR ROUTE  and his partner
in his task of developing a series of navigation techniques for long
distance ocean flying operations, was FRED NOONAN.

Prior to his employment with PAN AM, GATTY had diligently investigated the
doubtful/disputed ownership of a significant number of TINY PACIFIC ISLANDS
on his planned route , and this knowledge together with his seaman's
expertise and aviator's understanding  of the technical difficulties
involved in flying great distances before landing on pin-pricks in the vast
ocean expanses were noticed  by TRIPPE as valuable assets which he could
harness to develop his PAN AM PACIFIC ROUTES.(GATTY , unlike most others
involved, was actually more interested in establishing a route for
LAND-BASED aeroplanes, rather than flying boats).The main islands that he
was interested in were MARCUS,HOWLAND,BAKER,CANTON,WAKE,JOHNSON,KINGMAN
REEF and JARVIS, and all his earlier research material was handed over to
the U.S.NAVY for further evaluation after he had requested the annexation
of the these islands and their use for his company as landing sites.

His negotiations with the U.S.NAVAL WAR PLANS and O.N.I. using ROOSEVELT's
son, ELLIOT, caused a furore with the BRITISH  who had officially claimed
these islands, hence the NEW ZEALAND SURVEYS OF 1935 AND 1938/1939.

GATTY was involved in a secret expedition to visit these islands in the
schooner,KINKAJOU,in November 1935, initiated by TRIPPE to gain sovereignty
of these islands by means of using a pretext of mining guano with the
intention of landing 2 people on each island to validate the claims.GATTY
gained special extended leave periods from the AIR CORPS(for whom he was a
technical advisor), and conducted meteorological observations.

Interestingly, during their sojouns, they were marooned on BAKER ISLAND,and
were nourished and saved from starvation only by GATTY's knowledge of sea
bird habits.

Another interesting aside of GATTY, was his opinion of female pilots:

"Women pilots have not the temperament necessary for jobs as pilots on
commercial airlines. I personally have no time for women pilots. With the
exception of JEAN BATTEN, most of them lack almost everything that is
needed to carry a women through life. I have noted that all who have done
things in the air more or less are spurred on to do it through the
necessary lack of personal charm which distinguishes most women through
life", he said.

In the aftermath of the disclosure of the intent of PAN AM and the  U.S.
NAVY, there was a rush by both the BRITISH and the U.S. to 'colonise' the
islands in question of doubtful ownership, and  while the U.S. sent 2
cutters with volunteer colonists , the BRITISH sent the H.M.S.LEITH,
H.M.S.DUNEDIN  and H.M.S. WELLINGTON , both nations leaving in JUNE
1935.The  U.S. parties beat the BRITISH to the islands, and thereafter
AMERICAN sovereignty was maintained.GATTY's spying activities had procured
these islands for the U.S.A.only days before the BRITISH arrivals.

The Forum might be interested(in light of all the recent discussions about
the possibilities of unknown vessels and aircraft in the region)  to know
about the amount of activity in the region at the time, involving , in
addition to the above two countries, FRANCE and JAPAN ,over at least a two
year period from 1935 - 1937, and obviously most certainly extending beyond
this period considering the storm clouds of war apearing on the
horizon.There were numerous clashes between merchant and naval vessels ;
shortly after the above 'race' to 'colonise' the islands, a JAPANESE
fisheries training vessel, the HAKUYO MARU, left HAWAII bound for PALMYRA
and THE KINGMAN REEF  and was subsequently investigated by the coast guard
cutter despatched to check on this unwanted interloper in the vicinity of
the reef, but instead found the H.M.S.ACHILLES, using a camera-equipped
scout aircraft. Subsequent to this episode, large numbers of BRITISH and
FRENCH merchant ships were noticed loitering in the vicinity of these
uninhabitated islands.(with regard to the FRENCH and JAPANESE,they were a
long way from their respective areas of influence)

and more interestingly, GATTY's comments about these shenanigans:

"The Pacific has started to assume the appearance of a flag pole sitting
contest - with the flag minus the pole . Cruisers sent under sealed orders
and so on; childish business - why the hell can't these diplomats take
their top hats off and do a bit more shirt sleeve diplomacy? Why all this
sneaking around stuff? It's hard lines if two countries like the U.S. and
G.B. can't sit down frankly with each other and sort out their own marbles."

With the chase for islands hotting up ,in fact exploding, a convenient
total eclipse of the sun prompted a scurry of AMERICAN scientific
expeditions to many of the disputed islands which included the building of
that airfield at HOWLAND for the imminent A.E. FLIGHT , which alarmed the
U.S. press as to the reason for the high cost of this private flight to the
government.

The ROYAL NAVY also scattered its groups of scientists around the islands(
sextant boxes lost in the scuffles?), and did not trust GATTY ,as , apart
from his previous treasonable offences in assisting the Yanks in procuring
those other islands, he alerted the U.S. of the BRITISH intention to
conduct a first survey of the islands in 1936. The second survey,THE NEW
ZEALAND PACIFIC AVIATION SURVEY, initiated for the purposes of examining
likely landing sites for the EMPIRE AIR ROUTE across the PACIFIC, was
relocated to and conducted from FIJI by Group Captain R.Cochrane, who was
specifically instructed to conduct the survey in a manner to prevent GATTY
from alerting th U.S. GATTY was persona non grata with the BRITISH.

GATTY rejected a HOWARD HUGHES offer to navigate a LOCKHEED BRISTLING WITH
NEW NAVIGATION AIDS for HIS RECORD BREAKING ROUND-THE WORLD -FLIGHT, in
order to concentrate in getting PAN AM off the ground for its trans-
PACIFIC flights.

When the CLIPPER flown by MUSICK from HAWAII to NEW ZEALAND went missing in
JANUARY 1938 near SAMOA,a GERMAN , LUCKNER, assisted with the search in his
pleasure yacht, SEETEUFEL, which he had been sailing around the ports and
atolls of the PACIFIC rim. No bodies or sizeable wreckage were found ,
although pieces of clothing and a belt belonging to the flight mechanic was
found.( this episode was recently discussed on the FORUM) My sources(as per
attached booklist ) list the cause as a build up of static electricity
around the outlet valves.)The other clipper was lost a few months later
between GUAM and MANILA.

GATTY was offered  a colonel's rank in the ARMY AIR CORPS in the war, but
preferred to take up a similar honorary rank in the AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
instead.

Unfortunately  HAROLD GATTY is the forgotten man of AUSTRALIAN AVIATION
despite his wonderful achievements, and this i am sure is in no small part
due to his 'collaboration ' with the Yanks in the period of island hunting
preceding WORLD WAR II . A great pity.


GATTY's NAVIGATION INSTRUMENT (AERO DIGEST,JANUARY 1932)  (EDITORIAL)

HAROLD GATTY AND THE BRIDGING OF THE PACIFIC(AEROSPACE HISTORIAN, SEPTEMBER
1982) BY F.HOLBROOK AND J.NIKOL

HAROLD GATTY 1903-1957:SERVICE TO AUSTRALIAN-AMERICAN COOPERATION , 1982 MS
by ALAN WARDEN

THE GATTY GROUND SPEED AND DRIFT INDICATOR,(AIR LEGION WEEKLY, DECEMBER
1931) by P.WEEMS

HISTORY OF AIR NAVIGATION by A.HUGHES

WILEY POST,HIS WINNIE MAE AND THE WORLD'S FIRST PRESSURE SUIT by
S.MOHLER/B.JOHNSON (this is supplied free by the SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION )
(supplied free by the SMITHSONIAN)

The Raft Book by Harold Gatty (George Grady Press ,N.Y.,1944)

Nature Is Your Guide by Harold Gatty (William Collins) ,London, 1958

AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHT DAYS(incorporating the GATTY LOG) by H.GATTY and
W.POST.

HAROLD GATTY - THE COMMERCIAL AIR SPANNER OF THE PACIFIC by N.ELLISON

The use of Fish Poison Plants in the Pacific (Read 9.6.47) ,Fiji Society of
Science and Industry, V and P , Vol.3 by HAROLD GATTY

Migration Routes and Navigational Methods of the Polynesians(Read 10.6.57)
,Fiji Society Transactions and Proceedings for the Years 1955-1957, Vol 6
by HAROLD GATTY

Untitled lecture delivered at Wright Field ,October 1931 on the Post-Gatty
Flight(HELD by Michael GATTY) by HAROLD GATTY

GATTY MEMORIAL LECTURE, by B.HILDER, Australian Institute of
Navigation,August 1958

AERONAUTICAL RECIPROCITY AND THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ISLAND RACE 1936-1937, by
F.Holbrook, Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, December
1971,Vol.57,Part 4.

GATTY AS WE KNEW HIM,  Paper Delivered at 14th AGM, U.S.INSTITUTE OF
NAVIGATION, California 20.6.1958

GATTY  PRINCE OF NAVIGATORS by Bruce Brown ,1997
(if anyone is interested in a copy of this  excellent book ,please notify
me whether you want it sent by either air or sea mail - cost of book is $30
plus postage and handling)

******************************************

My goodness. :-) Thank you, Michael.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:03:58 EDT
From:         Charlie Sivert
Subject:      Re: The sextant box number

This message is for Roger Kelley and any other interested TIGHAR
members.  The Antiques Roadshow apparently originates from WGBH,
Boston,  Mass.  The number for contact is 1-800-255-9424.  I do not have
an exact date for the program which I mentioned on previous
posting, and I  do not remember the city location of the program.  That
is the problem  you encounter when you ask for help from Antiques
Roadshow.  If you do not have these two items, you "hit a blank wall"
with any inqury.  Many  of their programs are repeated over time, and
they apparently are not  cataloged as to items shown.  I saw the
program I mentioned in Mar.-Apr.-May,1999.

The box containing the chronograph was apparently about 8 inches
square, was well made of reddish-brown wood (mahogany?) and had the
number stenciled on the front panel.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:05:29 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

The only problem with the Public Forum idea is, that it will eventually,
no doubt, attract every type of bizzarre correspondant from outerspace
visitation to JFK & Waco conspiratorial proponents & then wind up in an
ongoing dialogue of personal attacks from certain individuals who will
insist anyone who disagrees with their particular version of the AE/FN
disappearance is the personification of evil & therefore part of the
overall conspiracy to prevent the "truth" from ever being revealed!

I've searched in vain for newsgroups on the Web dealing with the AE/FN
mystery, there just aren't any (at least I've been unable to find one),
so you would probably find the field wide open for such an endeavor, if
you are so inclined to enter the "fray".

My own experience with well moderated newsgroups reveals that they tend
to keep the group's focus on the subject matter under discussion, while
the "open" discussion groups tend to become free-for-all, anything goes,
with no attempt at promoting any reasonable effort to keep the
discussions either civil or informative & they generally degenerate into
an abusive, name-calling round-table.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:07:06 EDT
From:         Jim Taylor
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

From "My Virtual Reference Desk" website:

Main Entry: ruc-tion
Function: noun
Etymology: perhaps by shortening & alteration from insurrection
Date: circa 1825
1 : a noisy fight
2 : DISTURBANCE, UPROAR

Use in a sentence:

Let's stop all the ruction & leave the forum to its own scientific
mission.

LTM (loves to increase his knowledge base without the ruction associated
with the uninformed or ego-driven),

       JT
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:09:24 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Convention/conference

I'd be pleased (and honored) to do it as often as needed in my area.
Having done several impromptu versions of the Niku search with friends, I am
comfortable with the basics but what ever outline and support materials
Tighar can provide would be very helpful.

LTM, who is mellower today
Dennis McGee #0149

***************************

Well, bless yer heart, Dennis. Mother thanks you.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:13:42 EDT
From:         Pat and Ric
Subject:      The "Rules" as Promised

OK, Forum Folk. Here are some guidelines for posting to the Forum. These are,
necessarily, general guidelines, not rules cast in concrete. Every attempt
will be made to interpret liberally where interpretation is needed, but we
are gonna work within this frame:

1)  No unsubstantiated assertions of fact will be posted. A fact, by
definition, has a source. Post the source with the fact. If your source is a
book, check the note for the primary source. If there are no notes, the
"fact" may well be simply an opinion held by the book's author. Find out
where s/he got the fact before posting. Mother loves facts and enjoys reading
references.

2)  Opinions should be stated as such, and need to be backed up by by a
logical train of reasoning which is based in verifiable fact. Example: It is
TIGHAR's *opinion* that the bones found by Gallagher et al on Niku were
Earhart's. We hold this opinion because of the time and place in which they
were found (verifiable from primary sources), the paperwork that was
transmitted with them (primary sources), and the analysis done by modern
forensic anthropologists which indicates that they are more likely to be from
a tallish female of European ancestry than any other group (working from a
primary source). This is an opinion. Other opinions are possible and valid,
but must have at least some speaking acquaintance with logic and reason.

3)  It is assumed that contributors to the Earhart Forum have familiarized
themselves with TIGHAR's research via the abundance of information available
in the Earhart Project section of the TIGHAR web site, especially the FAQs
and Forum Highlights.   Follow-on questions to materials found in these sites
are welcome. Questions which are relevant to the project will be posted;
questions which are interesting will be posted, even if not 100% relevant;
questions which are irrelevant but interesting will still be answered, but
privately if possible. Questions which can be answered best by a member of
the Forum will be posted with a call for a real answer.

4)  Facts and opinions which diverge from the Earhart Project premise (that
the flight ended at Niku) will be posted if they meet the above criteria.
Otherwise, not. Facts and opinions which follow the Party line slavishly will
be posted ---- IF they meet the above criteria. Otherwise, not.

SOURCES:

Sources closest to a given event, in either distance or time, get the
greatest weight of validity. (Thanks, Dave Porter, for that phrase.)
Something written down *at the time* by someone who was there is better than
something written down forty years later, even if the person was there.

Anecdotal sources are:
Recollections that are related verbally or written down at a time
significantly after the event in question.  Anecdotes are useful *only* in
that they can direct research in ways that will produce more reliable
evidence--- a photo, a primary written source, something that confirms the
anecdote.

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.)

Tertiary sources are:
... not addressed by Gustavson, but include books and articles which use only
secondary sources as references---your college term papers, for instance <G>.

Note that all books are, by definition, secondary sources, unless written
from notes kept at the time by the person who wrote the book. Even then,
editors being what they are, it's wise to take a look at the original notes
if possible.

Thanks, everyone, for participating. We continue to push ahead with the idea
of a more general forum, all votes are not yet counted.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:15:11 EDT
From:         Carol Richards
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

>It would cost some money to set it up, but if it's a good idea we should do
>it. How says the Forum?

It would be entertaining, but how much $ would it take away from funds that
could be used on further research?

LTM (who was always very frugal)

C. Richards
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:17:02 EDT
From:         Jim Kelly
Subject:      Re: Conference/Convention

Re: a conference;
As it turns out in several weeks I'll be at a Water Works conference in
Oshkosh Wisconsin; home of the Experimental Aircraft Association. One of the
functions will be at the EAA museum which I understand is quite a well done
site. I'd be glad to gather info on that as a possibility and pass it on.
While Oshkosh [B'Gosh!] isn't off the beaten path, it's not exactly on it
either. But as I'm sure Ric will agree it's closer than Niku.
LTM [who enjoys a good party]
Jim Kelly #2085

*********************************

Jim, there is virtually no chance that we will have another big "national"
conference/convention in real time. It's just way too expensive in time and
money, we don't have the staff, and people aren't willing to pay the $$$ to
make it possible. Thanks for offering, though.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:17:43 EDT
From:         George Mershon
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

I like it!

George Mershon
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:19:41 EDT
From:         George Kastner
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

If you are actually counting votes, please put me down as ''Nay.''  I think
anything with the TIGHAR name should be extremely carefully controlled by
TIGHAR.  A side forum could be amusing, detailed, barely-related, etc. and
though we ourselves would know that it does not represent the TIGHAR
research mainstream, the general public and the media are absolutely sure
to quote the ''witty'' and the bizarre long before they do the hard work of
trying to understand slow, careful, controlled research.  I fear that the
side forum would begin to represent TIGHAR to the world at large, no matter
how much we protested.  One very small bit of goofiness could change the
organization's image forever.

Your Pal/G. Kastner C862

**************************************

We are counting votes, and also taking close note of the concerns voiced. The
one you mention has occurred to us, believe me.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:40:18 EDT
From:         Kris Tague
Subject:      Re: Presentations

I would be happy to pull together a presentation "canned" I do think it is
possible to give a very high level introduction with some juicy tidbits. Of
course that will need to be after I finish up with (overdue) work from Fiji
trip. That is after I catch up at work...yikes. It is the busiest time of
the year for everything it seems.

Kris

*****************************

Yes, we all know how overburdened everyone is with free time they are *dying*
to spend on something worthwhile (like having a life <G>). Thanks, Kris.
Let's see how life goes the next few months, we are in the midst of turmoils
too.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:42:42 EDT
From:         Kris Tague
Subject:      Re: Conferences

The note on the presentation was in regards to interested TIGHAR
members being able to do local presentations. In terms of a conference
approach I agree that putting one on would be a big time sink . The way to
go is to pick key professional conferences and submit a paper for
presentation on the program - Anthropological, Archaeological, Historical
society conferences that occur every year . I don't think that is a money
making operation but rather a consensus gathering proposition that could
ultimately influence the general knowledge of and acceptance of the TIGHAR
research.

Kris

****************************

Well, in effect that's what we did with the American Anthropological
Association and the bones paper---it worked out well for us. That is
something we definitely should explore.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:43:28 EDT
From:         Pat
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

Skip Hubbaerd asks:
<<How much would it cost to set up the forum?>>

Probably around $500.

***********************

From Pat--

I have some queries out to get hard numbers. When I hear back, I will tell
all.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:44:13 EDT
From:         John Van Zanten
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

I say no - be efficient - stay on task - hoard the money for the best
research possible.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:45:16 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Gatty and the Box

Tom Van Hare writes:

>Ric, I don't recall if Gallagher actually wrote that Gatty saw the box
>or if he just said that he intended to show it to Mr. Gatty. Also, did
>he write what Mr. Gatty stated about the box after seeing it?

The reference to Gatty does not come from Gallagher.  It's a "minute" to the
file from the High Commissioner himself who has taken enough of an interest
in the matter to sow the box to Gatty. Here's the entry:

 August 8, 1941
Typed note to file 4439-40 in red ink (39)
Sir Harry Luke to Vaskess

Transcript:
Sec.,  H.C.,
I return the sextant box which I had retrieved from Captain Nasmyth in order
to show it to Mr. Gatty who has expert knowledge of such matters.  Mr. Gatty
thinks that the box is an English one of some age and judges that it was used
latterly merely as a receptacle.  He does not consider that it could in any
circumstance have been a sextant box used in modern trans-Pacific aviation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:45:44 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: Emily Sikuli's use of the color word "red"

Roger Kirkwood suggests:

<< The paint scheme would conveniently and logically explain what Emily
remembers as a long red structural member... >>

Hmmm.  Good thought.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:46:10 EDT
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

I also vote "Nay."  In addition to all the very good reasons already
posted, I can only add that there's enough junk like that on the web
as it is!
Amanda
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:47:07 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Survey Party

    I was reading over  some research material on the TIGHAR web site
tonight and came across an article about a survey party on Gardner in
1938.  I knew it was there but have never read it before.   As I read it
tonight, some questions came to mind.

    I understand that there were several islanders interviewed by TIGHAR
in the last few years, who indicated they saw airplane wreckage at
various places around the island.  They even played with it, I think.
And if I remember correctly, the Colonist didn't arrive on  Gardner
until sometime in 1940.

    Recently, we have an eye witness who said she remembers seeing a
large piece of red something resembling wreckage out on the reef flat.
These islanders are the only ones, I believe that saw wreckage.

    On July 9th, 1937, Lt.Lambrecht made several passes over the island
during the Earhart search.  He made note of and inspected the Norwich
City from the air.  He did not see or note any wreckage!  At that time
the ship was fairly complete and pieces scattered on the reef would
surely have stood out.  I think it is fair to say, the wreckage was not
there!

    The military had the Loran station on Gardner during the war years,
but none of them reported seeing any wreckage.

    An finally, in 1938 a year after the disappearance a New Zealand
survey team was landed on the  island  and spent several months doing
survey work.  Survey work, I presume means walking the ground and
looking things over.  I would think they would take measurements and
compass readings to various points.  I would imagine they would walk the
beach looking for a good place to land supplies.

    In the report on the web site about the survey party, it says that
we have the report from their trip.  Is there any mention of wreckage
anywhere on the island?  Where can I read that report?  Is it posted
anywhere?  I would very much like to see it.

    Also, do we have any reports form any of the military people on the
island?  It would appear that what ever she saw was not there until
after 1940 and then disappeared again in later years.

Don J.
**************************************************
From Ric

We'll try to get the report and correspondence relating to the New Zealand
Survey up on the website as a Document of the Week sometime soon.

What Don, of course, is getting at is the fundamental question we've been
struggling with for years.  If the airplane or its wreckage was there, why
wasn't it seen by any of the Westerners who came along at various times later?

We've formulated and tested several hypotheses without much luck. I'm hoping
to have the rest of the report up on the website by this weekend.  Until
then, I'd like to suggest that you try to come with a hypothesis that would
explain it.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:48:05 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

>From Jerry Hamilton 2128
>
>Re Public AE Forum: I strongly vote no. I joined this outfit to be part of
>real investigative progress. The limited TIGHAR resources should be used
>for moving the investigation ahead. TIGHAR is not the center of all things
>Earhart. Let some other interested party create an Earhart forum for all
>comers.

I second this motion.  It seems like a bad idea.  Dan TIGHAR2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:50:37 EDT
From:         Jerry Jurenka
Subject:      "Canned" Talks on AE

I have been doing presentations for groups since the early 90s using
slides from the expeditions augmented with self-produced slides that show
things like the Post Loss Radio Signals, etc. from the printed material
and have never had anything less than an enthusiastic response.  After
each expedition, I updated the material to include the latest "finds".
It is a given that a person's attention span is only 20 minutes long and
I have always limited presentations to 25-30 minutes which fits most
group schedules. I'm all for a canned or kit presentation.  Even if the
presenter does not do very well, the facts will still speak for
themselves and the project will be that much more known to the public
which will broaden the base of people who might be helpful with research.

Blue skies
Jerry Anne Jurenka #0772E
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:54:35 EDT
From:         Anna Weber
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

Would it really be THAT expensive? I mean no disrespect when I say that if
ANYTHING would be expensive in dealing with this forum, it would be Pat and
Ric having to spend so much time sifting through and responding to ludicrous,
rude, or repetitive postings that take time away from the relevent issues at
hand. I think the knowlege that so many of the TIGHAR members have that is
not being heard through all the junk is the real waste. But then again, this
opinion comes from someone who has never successfully balanced her checkbook.
Still, how much is your/our time worth?

******************************

Well, I can't answer for the folks *reading* the Forum, only they know how
much their time is worth. But I do have a pretty good handle on TIGHAR's
hourly costs. And yes, it is expensive for us to have to do things that are
not directly and immediately moving the Project or TIGHAR's affairs forward.
REAL expensive.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:55:44 EDT
From:         Barb Norris
Subject:      Re: Convention/Conference

>From Tom King
>
>Sure, I'll volunteer, once the 8th edition and shortbook are put to bed.

I wouldn't mind helping with this project.  I have no fear of an audience
"glazing over" as it's all in the presentation.  Got to keep it appropriate,
that's all.  Overwhelming amounts of detailed info and talking over the
audiences' head will loose them.  But my experience with children and their
parents has been that when the time is up, they beg for more.  Which brings
me to another idea that may be plausible, developing a sort of "In School
Field Trip" growing in popularity as I type.

LTM (who knows a good lecture when she hears one),
Barb Norris
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:00:19 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

Am I correct in understanding that the proposed new public forum would be
moderated by volunteers?  In our *spare* time?  And would allow for
discussions of various conspiracy theories?  Couldn't the same effect,
debunking conspiracy theories and getting *out there* the basics of TIGHAR's
theory, be accomplished just as well and for less money by expanding the FAQ
section of the website? FAQ's grouped into subheadings by topic.  For
example:  CLICK HERE for FAQ's on conspiracy theories:  CLICK HERE for FAQ's
on celestial navigation:  CLICK HERE for FAQ's on NR16020's radio and D/F
equipment:  CLICK HERE for FAQ's on things TIGHAR has found on Niku, etc. As
for the rest of it, isn't there room on this forum for a sincere question
from someone who has checked the website and not found the answer there?
Just kill the irrelevant threads more quickly, and continue to edit out the
insulting garbage, as you have so valiantly been doing.

I think a far better use of our *spare* time would be the canned
presentations previously mentioned.  My speaking style runs somewhere
between Drill Sergeant and Sunday School Teacher, (because I do both) so if
you have the materials and a list of folks in my area who want to hear them,
sign me up.  Perhaps folks that aren't comfortable doing presentations could
take the lead in what would be the major undertaking of organizing and
expanding the FAQ section. (and continually updating it as necessary)

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288

********************************

Well, Sarge, I think you'd probably do fine presenting TIGHAR's viewpoint.

Re: expanded FAQs--- ultimately, setting up FAQs is an HTML coding job.
That's probably about 50% of what I spend my time on now. Web work is
nit-picky and time consuming, but not actually difficult. I have looked at
the FAQs several times recently and thought, ya know, I oughta organize these
into subcategories. But that's as far as it will go until I have a break from
other stuff in about a week.

Yes, there is always room for the honest question or logically
thought-through theory. The folks who are volunteering to moderate the
BB-type Forum... well, it's their spare time.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:01:13 EDT
From:         Suzanne Tamiesie
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum

The major reason that I belong to Tighar is its focussed scientific approach.
I think a free for all public forum on AE would dilute that focus. It
certainly would present a very different picture of Tighar - If that would
have been my introduction to Tighar's AE search, I doubt I would have taken
the time and money to become a member. A non focussed public forum on the
Tighar website will only hurt our reputation for scientific investigation.  I
am not interested in seeing my membership dollars spent on such an effort.

LTM who also spoke her mind freely,

Suzanne 2184
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:01:45 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

With all due respect, I didn't join TIGHAR to be part of a consumer or
entertainment-oriented web program.

In addition, a "free for all" forum stamped with TIGHAR's name could damage
its scientifically-based reputation irreparably.

While I recognize that the idea maybe attractive from a fund-raising
standpoint, I'm not convinced that the net result would be profitable or in
the best interests of real research. I vote a strong "no" on this idea.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:02:05 EDT
From:         Ron Dawson
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

I vote no.  That type of forum would be something like an electronic version
of Jerry Springer.

Thanks but no thanks.

Smooth Sailing,
Ron Dawson 2126
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:03:32 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Testimony of "red"

Certain clinically "colorblind" individuals could describe something that
was green or brown as "red".

william 2243

*****************************

OK, now I'm really deep-dredging my memory.... Tom King, am I recalling
correctly that there is at least one Pacific Island population that has a
genetic quirk of colorblindness? Do you recall who/where?

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:04:59 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      "Ruction"

Thanks to my learned colleagues on this list, I now know what the word
"ruction" means. Thank you.

LTM (who is out searching for a new dictionary)

Tom #2179

**********************

Well, you just never know what little gems will turn up here, do you?

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:05:57 EDT
From:         Ron Feder
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

> Let's stop all the ruction & leave the forum to its own scientific
> mission.
>
> LTM (loves to increase his knowledge base without the ruction associated
> with the uninformed or ego-driven),
>
>        JT

I concur with JT.

RMF
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:07:22 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

I think any TIGHAR involvement at all in another forum, bulletin board, or
whatever would be too much involvement.  However it might be run, I think it
would prove to be more trouble than we can foresee.  The likelihood of
anything of value turning up is so slight that no expenditure of funds or
effort could be justified.

If someone would care to run such a thing on some other web site, let them
have it lock, stock and barrel.  They could link to the TIGHAR web site if
they so desired.  Anyone with an interest in seriously trying to discover
what really happened to Amelia and Fred would soon end up on the, now more
sharply focused, TIGHAR Earhart Search Forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:08:22 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Colors of red

>>From Tom van Hare
>
>>From Vern
>> That may be worth keeping in mind when considering Emily's description
>> of large steel -- red in color, hence steel.
>
>Or... it might be that the word for orange and red are the same in that
>language. Someone familiar with that language should really check on
>this.

Vern again... A valid point, no doubt of that, however it seems clear that
Emily ment the the color of rusty steel.  Consequently, she believed what
she saw was steel rather than aluminum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:09:36 EDT
From:         Mike Real
Subject:      Re: Harold Gatty

Just a few points i would like clarify in my original response to your
request for information on GATTY  which i hope will forestall any likely
questions for their inclusion or exclusion or their vagueness, and just to
inform you that this response is only a synopsis of his activities:

The reason why he had originally investigated the GEOGRAPHICAL and
HISTORICAL value of these strings of obscure PACIFIC islands,( before
TRIPPE developed an interest in him) was because he and DONALD DOUGLAS(the
DOUGLAS), were joint owners in THE SOUTH SEAS COMMERCIAL COMPANY, which was
attempting to establish PACIFIC air routes  as well as to mine phosphate
found on many of the islands.This venture fell through when only one
contract was awarded(to PAM AM) by the U.S. authorities for an air route.

As well as working for the ARMY AIR CORPS, he was earning $5500 from PAN AM
as well as a further $5500 from DONALD DOUGLAS as his representative in
AUSTRALIA with the intention to sell DOUGLAS aircraft and to establish a
factory for them over here.(MUCH money in those days) . Later, his main
source of income during the war was $10 000 per annum from PAN AM.

One of the reasons why i included the paragraph on the CLIPPER
ACCIDENTS,and the portion about the GERMAN luxury yacht assisting in one of
the searches, was to highlight the very real possibilty of unknown and
unrecorded sailings of various vessel types in the PACIFIC and other
oceans, which has been a part of maritime history and folklore from time
immemorial:- i have participated in similar sailings where no one ever knew
we had visited certain PACIFIC islands and would never know about our
adventures OR whereabouts unless we recorded it. The other reason for this
inclusion, was because GATTY was involved with PAN AM in ensuring these
CLIPPERS were being navigated safely to their destinations, and these two
accidents resulted in a serious shortage of aeroplanes and the shutting
down of flight operations temporarily.Their existing bases were too
primitive and hazardous, anyhow, and the U.S. government withdrew
authorization for the use of SAMOA.

This resulted in GATTY concentrating for two more years of solid work
BEHIND THE SCENES for PAN AM, to locate new air bases , and he spent much
time negotiating with the FRENCH for bases in NEW CALEDONIA.

HAROLD GATTY ended the war back with the U.S.Military, where the NAVY also
employed him to produce his famous RAFT BOOK survival booklet,which was
included in every survival kit for all NAVAL AIR PERSONNEL ,and was
distributed as well to all ALLIED aircrews -a phenomenal success and  which
has proved to be a collector's item. It is a totally unconventional booklet
,concentrating on the myriad of small PACIFIC islands and even submerged
coral reefs(too late for A.E. and F.J. unfortunately), and was intended to
be easily understood by stranded crew adrift in a survival craft searching
for a safe haven on land somewhere.

He held the position of DIRECTOR OF AIR TRANSPORT in the SOUTH WEST
PACIFIC, and finally  finished up as a consultant for the NAVY in
WASHINGTON  where he was employed in developing advanced navigation systems
and even assisted BYRD with POLAR navigation methods.

Clearly a man possessing boundless energy and an aptitude for the science
of navigation , amongst many other interesting qualities.

I hope this information will assist you in your report.

SINCERELY,  MICHAEL REAL
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:10:45 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Colors

Tom Van Hare raises a very interesting question about perceptions of color.
I'll look into it; there's a certain amount of literature on the subject,
though not, I think, with specific reference to Tuvaluans.  Generally
speaking, island people tend to make a lot of fine discriminations within
what we call "green" and "blue," but what that means when it comes to "red"
or "orange," I just don't know.

LTM (who likes colorful stories)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:11:50 EDT
From:         Walter Ross
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

Another "NO" vote.  The existing forum would still be viewed as the "real"
forum.  Those who, in the past, have stretched the rules of this forum (not
to mention everyone's patience) would still want to be heard here, on the
"serious" forum.  The new forum rules you have spelled out are the most
straight-forward way to keep the forum on focus and free of unsubstantiated
musings, while still keeping it open to reasonable debate.  (Sorry, I don't
have strong opinions on the subject.)

Walt Ross 0584
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:16:23 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Survey party

>From Don Jordan
>
> I understand that there were several islanders interviewed by TIGHAR
> in the last few years, who indicated they saw airplane wreckage at
> various places around the island.  They even played with it, I think.

Another aspect of this is that the stories of the islanders don't always
jive -- some describe the wreckage as being in the water, others talk of
playing in the airplane on land, etc.

It would be very useful to come up with a single document or email
message that reviews the various recollections of the islanders, posted
together, dated, with individuals identified (with their background --
i.e., "Settled on island in 1939, left 1940, currently lives in Fiji.").
Ric, do you have time to put that together? I believe that you have the
best knowledge of all the interviews.

Thomas Van Hare

********************************

You're a mind reader. Such a compendium will be part of the final section of
the Expedition Report now in the last throes of creation. It will go on the
Web site for easy access.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:11:09 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Testimony of "red"

>From William Webster-Garman
>
> Certain clinically "color blind" individuals could describe something
> that was green or brown as "red".

In my last posting I noted that some cultures define colors differently
than we do -- and in this specific language of the islanders, the name
for the colors red and orange may in fact be the same. This has nothing
to do with color blindness, just linguistic definitions of color.

Another item that has come to mind is that if the wing was underwater,
as viewed from above, the orange would also appear to be more red in
color. This is basic science.... Go down 100 feet in your bright yellow
SCUBA gear and you're all grey.

Thomas Van Hare
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:11:39 EDT
From:         Mark White
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

Please put me down as a NO vote.  Any funding dollars are so scarce.

LTM (whose refrigerator is a bulletin board)
Mark White #2129
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:13:42 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Testimony of "red"

>From William Webster-Garman
>
>Certain clinically "colorblind" individuals could describe something that
>was green or brown as "red".
>
>william 2243
>
>*****************************
>
>OK, now I'm really deep-dredging my memory.... Tom King, am I recalling
>correctly that there is at least one Pacific Island population that has a
>genetic quirk of colorblindness? Do you recall who/where?
>
>Pat


The book is "Island of the Colorblind" by Oliver Sacks, a neurologist also
known for "Awakenings" and "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat"  I can't
remember the name of the island, but I can get it by Monday, as I have the
book at home.  This population has total color blindness, and is very light
sensitive as well.  The Red-Green color blindness is X-linked, and is fairly
common in males, but rare in females.

Dan Postellon
TIGHAR 2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:14:53 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Testimony of "red"

You truly have an amazing store of data.  The congenitally colorblind folk
(more or less) are the people of Pingelap Atoll in Pohnpei State, Federated
States of Micronesia.  See "The Island of the Colorblind" by Oliver Sacks,
Alfred A. Knopf 1997.

LTM (who's colorful)
TK

**************************

Thanks! Glad to know I wasn't imagining it. I must have a read a review of
the book in Smithsonian Magazine or something, while I've read several of
Sachs' other books I know haven't got that one.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:15:28 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Colors of red

Vern says:
>Vern again... A valid point, no doubt of that, however it seems clear that
>Emily ment the the color of rusty steel.  Consequently, she believed what
>she saw was steel rather than aluminum.

That's true.  We asked very specifically about whether there was aluminum,
and she unequivocally said "no."  Of course, as someone else has suggested,
she may have not thought of aluminum as something that could be made into
massive spars.

TKing
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:16:27 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

I agree with John Van Zanten. Save the money for things that matter.

                        Herman


>From John Van Zanten
>
>I say no - be efficient - stay on task - hoard the money for the best
>research possible.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:17:23 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Harold Gatty

I'd like to express our thanks to Michael Real for the wealth of information
he has given us on Harold Gatty.  He obviously is quite a student of Gatty's
fascinating and complex career.

I do have a couple of questions.

It is my understanding that Gatty was instrumental in the founding of the
airline that eventually became Air Pacific, the national airline of Fiji, and
that he spent a lot of time in Fiji before and during the war (hence, Sir
Harry Luke showing him the sextant box in August of 1941).  Is that correct?

Also, it sounds like Sir Harry may have been sticking his neck out a bit to
consult Gatty if he was persona non grata with the Brits.  Any feel for that?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:18:00 EDT
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

I come down on the side of the 'Nays' regarding a public forum....

Not at this time..
There should be no diversion of efforts to solve the mystery and get ready for next
years expedition...No spending of scarce funds on any outside efforts....
Concentrate on things /systems as they are now including the Forum as it is
presently set up...

Then-next year -after the trip/expedition-Tighar can consider other ways of
doing things.....

Keep up the good work---as you are doing now.....

Jim Tierney
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:19:26 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The Rules

Excellent rules, but I can't resist saying something about "anecdote."  For
better or worse, anecdotes are what oral historians and many cultural
anthropologists have to work with, and while one has to treat them with
caution, one has to do the same with written sources (which can be seen,
after all, merely as anecdotes written down).  It's pretty well understood in
the historical anthropology game that written history always has a point of
view, and is likely to be more or less biased (this is why we do historical
archeology; there's all kinds of interesting stuff that people writing about
the times never wrote about).

"Trust but verify" is a good motto for all kinds of historical research.
With anecdote, we can verify by finding written sources and also by finding
independent but corroborative anecdotes.  Case in point with respect to the
bones:  Emily Sikuli reports bones on the Nutiran reef.  Back in 1991 Bauro
Tikana, Gallagher's clerk, reported that he'd heard of bones being found
somewhere on western Nutiran (as well as bones being found on the SE end of
the island).  So we have two independent sources pointing toward bones
somewhere on western Nutiran, but a disagreement about where exactly they
were.  Maybe another source will be found that can help resolve the
differences, maybe not, but between them the two accounts give us something
to work with, and they're no less useful for being "anecdotal."

LTM (who's partial to anecdotes)
TK
*************************************

From Ric

No argument.  It always starts with an anecdote. My experience working for
TIGHAR might accurately be described as 15 years of chasing anecdotes.  We
spent 8 years and 20 expeditions in Maine searching for the White Bird and
all we ever found were anecdotes - dozens of them, told by totally sincere,
honest, and respectable people who passionately wanted to help us.  But it
wasn't until we shifted the search to Newfoundland that we started to find
documentation to back up the stories.  I still don't know where the White
Bird came down, but if I was going to do more searching it would be in
Newfoundland, not Maine.

When, I wonder, does a contemporaneous written account (which we so highly
prize) become an anecdote that has been written down (which we treat with so
much suspicion)?    Bellart's copy of the original ITASCA radio log is about
as contemporaneous as a document can get, having been typed out literally as
the words were heard.  Thompson's "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight" which
claims to describe the same events is dated 19 July 1937, nearly three weeks
later.  We regard both as primary written sources but we give Bellart's log
more weight than Thompson's report.  The transcript of Bellart's 1973
interview with Elgen Long, however, we consider to be anecdote and more
suspect than either of the above.  I guess the truth is it's a continuum.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Sep 1999 08:55:09 EDT
From:         Jerry Ellis
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?---batched posting

    My 2 cents worth: I have no objection to or interest in a public
AE forum, I want to stick with this one.
 jerry ellis #2113

--
Jerry W. Ellis

******************************************************************

From Tom Ruprecht

No no no no no.

I agree that there has been too much mollycoddling of nonproductive junk.

I would much rather know that a message from the list be worth my time and
yours.  You have better things to do with TIGHAR's time and (=) money.  Let
somebody else do it and get on with the job.

LTM (Who also lurks, cuz she never posts...),

    Rupe

********************************************************

From Bill Leary

If we're voting, I say "no."

Such a forum, especially if accessed through the TIGHAR web site, will
become one of the first things people see related to TIGHAR. From the
description of what would be there, it's not something I'd want us to have
"in the store front window" as it were.

To then have us spend money on this potentially negative presentation, to my
mind, just increases my dislike for the idea.

    - Bill

*********************************************

From Pat

I haven't yet done a formal "vote tally"----but I think it's reasonably clear
the nays have it. More tomorrow.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Sep 1999 08:55:56 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Testimony of "red"

Tom Van Hare wrote:

> In my last posting I noted that some cultures define colors differently
> than we do -- and in this specific language of the islanders, the name
> for the colors red and orange may in fact be the same. This has nothing
> to do with color blindness, just linguistic definitions of color.

Just to clarify, my remark about colorblindness was intended as separate
from Tom's perfectly valid idea that cultural perception and habit can
influence the words used to describe color. On the other hand, I've watched
colorblind people function-- and their discussion of color can be genuinely
confusing (for them too). I have no idea if Emily is colorblind (probably
not).

I also think that another possibility mentioned-- that she might have seen
the remains of red or orange-red paint on the leading edge of a wing, bears
investigation.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Sep 1999 08:56:32 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Antiques Roadshow Box

For Charlie Sivert et al

I just MAY be making progress on the quest for that particular Antiques
Roadshow segment, thanks to a very helpful lady at my local PBS station.
Apparently she can search the various program segments for content.  They
may have the tapes.  It's hard to believe all those reruns fitted into the
local schedule are taken from the satellite.  Unfortunately, my available
time ran out on us today (Friday).  We'll get back on it Monday.

Obviously, anything more you might remember would be helpful.  At this
point, we'll go with the Mar-Apr-May, 1999 time estimate.  Do you, by any
chance, remember where they were for that particular segment?

Once we get to see what is there relative to the chronometer box, then the
REAL search can start!  Who has it and where did it come from?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Sep 1999 08:57:16 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Antiques Roadshow Reruns

Hedging bets... Any who would care to do so might watch their local TV guide
for reruns of the Antiques Roadshow and set the VCR to record them.
Then one can fast-forward watching for the chronometer box with stencilled
number to show up.

I've recorded three of them this week -- no chronometer box so far.  All
three of these were done in Britain.  I wonder if those produced in 1998 and
aired in 1999 were all in Britain?  I'll have to check that with the helpful
lady at my local PBS station.

Of course, it would be no great surprise to find that Fred Noonan had a
sextant from Britian.  Harold Gatty did say he thought the Nikumaroro
sextant box was of english origin.  It just leaves us with the same old
question... Who was stencilling that sort of 4-digit numbers on instrument
boxes?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Sep 1999 08:59:21 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Canned Presentation for Local Groups

        I, for one, have been asked several time by groups that know of my
interest in the AE and FN research to speak to them about the TIGHAR project.
 A set of materials for this purpose would be a great aid if you don't mind
if some of us try and build additional local interest and support.  I am
reluctant to do it without good briefing material or the like as I certainly
don't want to present incorrect information.

Dick Pingrey 908C

*************************************

We will look into producing some printed materials and also some slides for
such a presentation, geared toward the Rotary Club/local flying club/local
library audience. One thing we already do is support folks who do things like
this with extra TIGHAR Tracks and whatever else we have available for
handouts.

Thanks for the ideas, guys.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Sep 1999 09:01:52 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Another slice of Gatty

Doesn't the wealth of information we now have about Harold Gatty force a
slight reappraisal of our suspicions about  the attitude of British
officialdom in Fiji to the bones discovered on Gardner? Reading
htttp://www.tighar.org/forum/highlights13.html it seems the Western  Pacific
High Commission records suggest British officials in Fiji might not have
grasped that the Earhart disappearance also involved a man, Noonan, and that
this may have dulled their receptiveness to Gallagher's suggestion that the
bones might be related to the flight.

The sextant box was subsequently shown to Gatty, who dismissed it as
unlikely to have housed an instrument used in trans-Pacific aerial
navigation. But for him to make that point, he must have been told that it
was thought possibly linked to the Earhart disappearance. And if he was a
recent former colleague of Noonan, then Fred's disappearance would have been
every bit as big a deal for him as Earhart's was to the world at large. So
he was in a perfect position to point out that there were in fact two people
aboard, which should have rung a bell with the bigwigs in possession of the
bones. I still think they were wrong to dismiss the bones, but I don't think
we can still infer that one reason they did so was because they didn't
realize there were two people aboard the plane.

I'd like to read a general Earhart online discussion board, but I'd much
prefer it didn't carry the TIGHAR brand name. I think if it did this would
dilute the educational thrust of the project.

LTM, Phil 2276
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:47:55 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Testimony of "red"

William says...

>I also think that another possibility mentioned-- that she might have seen
>the remains of red or orange-red paint on the leading edge of a wing, bears
>investigation.

Well, maybe so, but I haven't any idea how we'd go about investigating it.
Any thoughts?

LTM (who must be feeling uncreative today_
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:48:56 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Canned Presentation for Local Groups

I have a more or less standardized set of slides plus overheads that I use in
my talks; updated it recently to incorporate '99 data.  If you want, I could
write up some "users notes" around the whole thing and make it available for
duplication.  I just need to keep it close to hand for my forthcoming (early
October) trip to San Francisco, where I've invited Sactodave to debate me and
he's more or less accepted.

LTM
Tom

************************

Sounds like a plan. We should compare notes, of course, and review slides in
case we have some stuff you would like to incorporate.

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:49:32 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Another slice of Gatty

I think Phil makes an excellent point.  I'm now in touch with Sir Ian
Thomson, Sir Harry's Aide-de-Camp in 1941 (he was said to be dead, but turns
out to be living in Scotland, which he says might be equated with heaven or
hell, depending on one's perspective), who has no recollection of the bones,
but I've just dropped him a note mentioning the sextant box, and it's just
POSSIBLE that he can provide some insight into Sir Harry's chats with Gatty
on the subject.  I can't think of another way, off the top of my head, to get
a handle on this.  Stay tuned.

LTM
Tom
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:50:05 EDT
From:         Jeff Lange
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

Time for me to put me hand up and vote.
I must agree whole heartedly with Jim Tierney on this and say NO for now.
Let's concentrate on the project(s) at hand, follow the Rules for the forum
and move forward.

Jeff Lange # 0748C
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:50:42 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Another slice of Gatty

>But for him to make that point, he must have been told that it
>was thought possibly linked to the Earhart disappearance.

Astute observation.  There is also specific reference to Noonan in the yacht
Yankee's request to visit various British islands to search for Earhart.  Sir
Harry Luke had a rather low opinion of these "searches" and suspected that
they were a cover for American snooping into possible commercial seaplane
bases.  I can easily see him thinking, "Tell the Americans? Oh right! Let's
just give the Yanks an excuse to invade the Phoenix Group."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:51:06 EDT
From:         Bob Perry
Subject:      Gatty

For Mike Real,

Bouquets for one of the most informative posts I have read!

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:52:38 EDT
From:         Charlie Sivert
Subject:      Re: Antiques Roadshow Box

         I do not remember the location where the program in question
was taped.  Try adding June, 1999 to your tapes to review if you have
no  luck with Mar.-Apr.-May.  In case that you missed my message to
Kelley,  I will repeat the number which I gave him--1-800-255-9424, for
Antiques  Roadshow contact in Boston.  Also, their mailing address is
125 Western  Avenue, Boston, MA 02134.  The web contact is www.pbs.org.
     Best of luck!

Charlie Sivert
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:54:35 EDT
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Two observations

Dennis McGee wrote:

>>For decades I'd heard what a great navigator FN was (plus
>>the normal rumors, of course) and was puzzled how a "professional" navigator
>>could make such an error.  Now I know.  He was under a lot of stress,
>.probably hungry, tired, and angry (at himself), perhaps a bit nauseous from
>>the oil and gas fumes, and certainly worried over the mission's
>>communications problems.  That is not a good environment to solve
>>complicated problems.

I think we all agree with your sentiment here, but I'm not at all convinved
we can conclude that Noonan actually "made an error" - except in the general
sense that he didn't find Howland..

I seem to remember reading that maps at the time showed the position of
Howland slightly in error - by a couple of miles.

Coupled with the problems we've discussed on the forum with distinguishing
small islands from cloud shadows - even at quite close ranges, and especially
when flying into the rising sun - I suggest that it may have been possible
that Noonan navigated accurately (or to within the accepted error range for
the technique) to the Howland position shown on his map, and that AE/FN  just
couldn't find the island visually from that position.

LTM
Simon Ellwood  #2120
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:56:51 EDT
From:         Debbi Richardson
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum?

I'm not sure I have the right to vote,and express an opinion as I have not
yet become an official Tighar member.  I have read the forum daily for
several months and have come to appreciate Ric's sense of humor and
knowledge.  I think I would hate to see a public forum be born, as it would
muddy up waters that are already not clear.  I agree with Bill, it will
probably not send forth a positive image, and those of us who sit the fence,
may jump off to the other side, if the quality of things change.  I don't
want to sound as if I am threatening not to play if I don't get my way, but
rather,I am getting closer to commitment, because of how things are running
now.    Deb

************************

All Forum members have a right to vote---after all, it's them as has gotta
read it!

P
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:58:53 EDT
From:         Jim Dix
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum

NO!
Jim Dix
2132

*************************

Well, I have to say that the Nays have it. If someone wants to take the money
and the time and set up a general Earhart discussion list, newsgroup, or
whatever, that's up to them, but it's clear that TIGHAR should not spend time
we don't have, and money donated for other purposes, on it.

Thanks to all who expressed an opinion.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:59:50 EDT
From:         Jim Dix
Subject:      Re: Antiques Roadshow

For Vern,

Antiques Roadshow is a PBS show done here in the states. It is patterned
after a similar show from British TV. Our local PBS station sometimes
shows the British show when they run out of the American one. Apparently
yours does as well.

I recall the box and chronometer, it was a smallish, 6-8 inch cubic,
nicely finished varnished box with the instrument inside. It belonged to
the owner's relative, father, grand father, uncle, etc, who was a Sea
Captain or navigator of sorts. It was on the US show as I think it was
more recent that they have shown the British version, but for the life
of me I don't know why we're looking for it. The number?

Jim 2132
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:12:38 EDT
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: Antiques Roadshow

 I recall seeing a naval chronometer in a fitted box on the show this year.
I don't remember stenciled numbers, so I'm not sure it's the right artifact.
I don't ordinarily watch Antiques Roadshow, perhaps only three or four
times a year.  I the past year I can only remember shows originating in
Portland Oregon, Chicago Illinois, St. Paul Minnesota and somewhere in
Wisconsin.

I hope this will narrow down the search parameters somewhat.

  I'll be watching reruns myself now.

  Robert Klaus
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:13:17 EDT
From:         Bob Perry
Subject:      Re: Canned presentations for local groups

For Tom King

Maybe I missed your announcement, schedule, location. etc for the SF area
presentation/debate.  Early Oct. is right on us. Pls. advise.

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:16:32 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Testimony of "red"

From William Webster-Garman

> From Tom King
>
> William says...
>
> >I also think that another possibility mentioned-- that she might have seen
> >the remains of red or orange-red paint on the leading edge of a wing, bears
> >investigation.
>
> Well, maybe so, but I haven't any idea how we'd go about
> investigating it. Any thoughts?

I was writing, somewhat rhetorically, of more interviews with possible
witnesses. On the other hand, I'm awaiting Ric's next report with interest.

william 2243

***************************

Said report will be posted as a Research Bulletin on the website this week.
It will probably be far too long to post to the Forum, but I will put a
notice on the Forum when I get it on the website.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:17:28 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Another slice of Gatty

Ric writes:

>I can easily see him thinking, "Tell the Americans? Oh right! Let's
>just give the Yanks an excuse to invade the Phoenix Group."

Indeed.  It's worth noting that as late as 1940 Harry Maude published a
lengthy analysis of British and American claims to the Phoenix Islands,
island by island and in general.  Clearly U.S. designs on the area were still
a matter of interest to the British authorities.  And when we asked Foua
Tofiga why he thought Sir Harry might have kept the bones discovery secret,
his first response was that there was some sensitivity about the Americans.

LTM
Tom
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:19:09 EDT
From:         Tet Walston
Subject:      Red and visibility

If the average person was to see a fairly large object, white with a small
amount of red, the colour they would notice/remember, is red.

TIGHAR searchers are looking for pieces of aluminium, with or without red
on it, in fact it would be good to find such an object in your searches, so
the red for them has little significance.

But Emily, quite naturally remembers the red which she saw, what else she saw
is more important.

Visibility -- it doesn't matter if Howland was not plotted correctly, the
error in that case was minimal, and proving AE and FN were within true
visibilty
distance, that error was not important.

An astro sight of two LOPs is at best, only within 10 nautical miles, one LOP
is not enough. Remember my One in Sixty rule, repeated ad nauseum, after
all those hours of flight, mistakes are expected, they did not know where
they were at the last radio transmission.

LTM
Tet
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:19:47 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Antiques Roadshow

For Jim Dix

Thanks for the input relative to the british version of Antiques Roadshow.
I'll try to get that sorted out with my contact at the local PBS station.

Why the interest in the chronometer and box?  Yes, the number, and the
possibility of establishing a more positive connection between Fred Noonan
and the sextant box found on Nikumaroro.

The number seems to be very similar to the stencilled number Gallagher
described on the sextant box found on Nikumaroro in 1940.  There's also
similarity to the number on the sextant box known to have been in the
possession of Fred Noonan while he was teaching navigation for PAA.  I think
it might be very interesting if we could discover who -- airline, some navy,
shipping company, or whomever was putting such numbers on their instrument
boxes.

At this point we know of three boxes with similar numbers:

3500  stencilled      Found on Nikumaroro

3547  hand written    Once in possession of Fred Noonan

3100 or 3400  stencilled  As remembered by Charlie Sivert

TIGHAR has examined more than 500 sextants, most in boxes, over the US,
Britain, and Europe and found no other box with numbers of any kind.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:20:31 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Another slice of Gatty

It seems to me that the note, repeated below, suggests that Gatty was not
aware of Fred Noonan's practice of carrying a "preventer" (marine sextant)
when he was navigator on PAA flights.  And that he probably had a marine
sextant on board the Electra.  Or... As suggested, the point was not made
for political reasons.

August 8, 1941
Typed note to file 4439-40 in red ink (39)
Sir Harry Luke to Vaskess

Transcript:
Sec.,  H.C.,
I return the sextant box which I had retrieved from Captain Nasmyth in order
to show it to Mr. Gatty who has expert knowledge of such matters.  Mr. Gatty
thinks that the box is an English one of some age and judges that it was
used latterly merely as a receptacle.  He does not consider that it could in
any circumstance have been a sextant box used in modern trans-Pacific
aviation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:22:29 EDT
From:         Richard Johnson
Subject:      Re: An AE Public Forum

I think I voted yes for a public forum. I think I was the only one in
favor of such. I think it must have been a "typo". Please don't hold it
against me.

LTM  ( who has tail between legs and is running )
Richard Johnson

*********************

No, no, that's fine... there were about seven nos to every yes, but others
did vote yes.

If someone else wants to set one up, monitor it and run it, then I suspect
there will be a good audience for it. The question really was: Should TIGHAR
do it? And the answer was obvious once we asked, but that doesn't mean *no
one* should do it.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:38:19 EDT
From:         Mary Jane
Subject:      Shoes in salt water

This evening the National Geographic Discovery program focused their story on
the search and recovery of items belonging to a Japanese sub named I 52 which
was sunk in 1944 by American pilots.

As the cameras viewed the wreckage (three miles below the surface) a shoe
was found near the wreckage and brought to the surface.  The shoe appeared in
fairly good condition after all those years.  I thought this might be of
interest since earlier there was a question on the forum as to how long a
leather shoe might last in salt water.
Mary Jane
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:45:09 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Nasmyth

[I return the sextant box which I had retrieved from Captain Nasmyth in
order to show it to Mr. Gatty who has expert knowledge of such matters.]

Do we know who Captain Nasmyth was? Not a very common name in any spelling,
and I've never seen this spelling before. Might Tom King's new contact in
Scotland know?

ltm, Phil 2276

***********************************************************************
From Ric

We don't know much about Nasmyth except that he was the head of the Royal
Fijian Meteorological Society and was reputed to be an expert in all things
nautical.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:47:10 EDT
From:         Zeke Ulrey
Subject:      Antiques Roadshow

I have been lurking on the list for some time now.  Usually, I am more engaged
with the ongoing internal rumblings -- and the various "catfights" contained
therein -- then an overall quest for knowledge because science/information does
not progress at a steady rate.  (I need something to keep me immediately
involved.)  In any event, I have finally seen a post/topic with which I can
help: The Antiques Roadshow.

I work for KCPT Public TV in Kansas City, Missouri.  I cannot say what program
the sextant was from, but I can tell you that PBS is, currently, producing new
USA episodes and is actually airing the British version until production is
complete.  (You knew that.)  This started about a month ago as PBS beancounters
found that unseen British programs produced higher ratings/revenue then re-run
USA versions.  (Did you know this?)  In any event, I would consider narrowing
your search to those produced during Fall 1998 for airing in Spring 1999.
Good luck.

Zeke Ulrey
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:49:32 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Canned presentations for local groups

Bob Perry says...

>Maybe I missed your announcement, schedule, location. etc for the SF area
>presentation/debate.  Early Oct. is right on us. Pls. advise.

I'll be in San Francisco the week of Oct. 4-7 teaching classes on matters
non-Earhartian at Fort Mason (I make much of my living doing short courses on
things having to do with Federal historic preservation law and policy;
somebody's got to do it...).  I try to schedule a little extra time whenever
I'm there to visit family; SF is where I'm from.  Recently Sactodave (who as
his name implies lives in Sacramento) sent a message to a selected few about
how he'd love to be a fly on the wall when I tried to explain my outrageous,
unprofessional association with TIGHAR to my archeological peers, so I
invited him to set up a public debate.  He said he would; we'll see if he
will.  So, bottom line: I don't currently have anything in the way of a
public presentation on Earhart planned, unless ol' Sacto comes through.

LTM
TKing
***************************************************************************
From Ric

And if he does, we'll sell tickets.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:50:24 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Another slice of Gatty

If the numbers didn't (apparently) mean anything to Gatty, suggesting that
they weren't from Pan Am, then I wonder if the numbers on the Pensacola box
might be from one of the shipping companies for which Fred worked before he
switched to aviation.  Is the Noonan Project already onto this possibility?
The Antiques Road Show chronometer, if it could be traced, might help check
this out.

LTM
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:52:37 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      One for the conspiracy theorists

In the next couple of months, Brookhaven National Laboratory is scheduled to
run an experiment in which conditions miliseconds after the Big Bang will, it
is hoped, be replicated.  There is some concern that this experiment may do
collateral damage -- destroying our portion of the universe.  The equipment
with which the experiment will be conducted is the Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider, whose acronym, of course, is pronounced......

What a way to reform the Forum!

LTM (who assumes the Y2K bug will put everything back to rights)
Tom King
******************************************************************************

Love to mother,
Rhic
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:57:46 EDT
From:         Brad
Subject:      AE Public Forum

I vote yes. Let the idiots go somewhere else so I don't have to waste my time
sorting through their e-mails.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Ain't nobody in here but us chickens.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:58:44 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Wreckage

Ric Wrote,

>If the airplane or its wreckage was there, why wasn't it seen by any
>of the Westerners who came along at various times later?  Until then, I'd
>like to suggest that you try to come with a hypothesis that would explain it.

    We were talking about what would make airplane wreckage not show up
on a beach until after July 9th 1937, (some 7 days after fuel
exhaustion).

    The only way I can think of that would fit the scenario, would be
for the wreckage to be washed into the trees and vegetation and then somehow
migrate out of the trees and down to the edge of the reef.  Not very likely!

    The current theory is that the aircraft landed safely on the reef
and then was destroyed by surf action and pushed up into the foliage to be
hidden.  Then after 1940, an event took place that brought it out of the
foliage and scattered it along the reef and moved some of it into the opening
of the lagoon to be deposited on the opposite side and was seen by the
villagers.  Then before the first Niku trip in 1989 (I think it was) another
event took place that removed all the wreckage from both locations and put it
under deeper water. It would seem to me that with all the Niku trips, someone
would have spotted that something "Red" on the reef by the Norwich City long
before now.

    That it wasn't seen until after 1940, could be explained by saying
that it wasn't on the island until after July 9,1937.  Nobody went back to
search the island after the Colorado left!  Right? I think it is fair to say
that if the Electra, or parts of the Electra were on the island during the
aircraft search, something would have been spotted.  Not all of the wreckage
could have been pushed up into the foliage. Something would have been left
behind on the reef.   There would have been debris on the beach at least.

    The same thing goes for the Kanton Engine.  All islands were searched by
aircraft in the days after July 9th.  Nothing was seen. Therefore you can
reasonable assume, nothing was there until after July 9th.  The only possible
way that could be explained is by a water landing and drifting ashore after
the search.

    I know, I know. . . we want at least one of the post radio signals to be
from the Electra.  That would mean a safe, intact landing on an island.  We
don't want Amelia and Fred to die in an airplane crash.. It's OK if they die
of thirst on an island, but not in an airplane crash.

    The only way I can honestly believe that the Electra ended up on an
island in the Phoenix group, would be if it got there after July 9th. If we
can say that that is possible, then I think a whole new avenue of
investigation will be opened up to us.

    But, to say that the Electra, or parts of it appeared and disappeared at
various times on an island, to me is unbelievable. That in a nut shell is my
problem with the single island, Niku only theory.
And again,  the water landing is the only way the Kanton Engine could be
related to Earhart.  All islands were searched by air, but the water
around them was not.  They didn't even look!  Traveling at night through
the search area was not a good command decision to me.

    I would very much like to read that 1938 survey report if possible,
even if you could just scan it and send it.  I sure would like to read
it.

Don J.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

See if this makes sense to you.

The airplane is landed safely on the reef on July 2nd and sends radio
transmissions until the night of July 4th (when the "281" message is sent)
and shortly thereafter is destroyed by the surf, leaving only a few heavy
structures visible at low tide.  The torn, scattered, and chewed up aluminum
is distributed southeastward across the reef flat.  On July 9th, when the
Navy flies over at high tide there is nothing visible.

The lightweight stuff (most of the airplane) is soon widely scattered and,
over the years, various people at various times stumble across bits and
pieces.  The heavy stuff out near the edge of the reef is either pulled back
out into the ocean by a storm or, by the same means, ends up buried in the
beach.  Perhaps one engine ends up in the shallow water about 50 feet from
shore and attracts the attention of a certain helicopter mechanic.

No moving of wreckage back and forth.  No delayed arrival on the island.
Just the natural fate of a delicate machine subjected to the enormous forces
of nature.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:59:37 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Antiques Roadshow

For Robert Klaus

Thanks for the additional info on the Atiques Roadshow and the chronometer.
The locations you mention may, indeed, help to zero in on the episode.  My
contact at the local PBS station is searching currently.  It seems she has a
big stack of promo sheets WGBH/Raodshow people send out.  These would give
the episode number -- IF the chronometer is listed among the items shown.
It's a place to start.  I've noted the e-mail address, at WGBH, for the
Roadshow people.  That may be the next step, but going in with an episode
number would be a big help.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:00:26 EDT
From:         Mary Jane
Subject:      Re: Antiques Roadshow

Baltimore, Maryland may be the show you are looking for.  Other possibilities
for this years shows were Gloucester, Ma, Rochester, New York and New London,
Ct.  We recall seeing the show and these are our suggestions.
Mary Jane
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:07:42 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Emily

(with regard to Emily)

Did anyone think to ask her to draw what she saw?  That might have elicited a
surprise or two!

Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes I asked her that and she did.

The writng of the report is now completed and it should be up on the webiste
in the next day or so.  I'll advise the forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:09:28 EDT
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      harold gatty

In response to your question below:

<"I do have a couple of questions.
<
<It is my understanding that Gatty was instrumental in the founding of the
<airline that eventually became Air Pacific, the national airline of Fiji, and
<that he spent a lot of time in Fiji before and during the war (hence, Sir
<Harry Luke showing him the sextant box in August of 1941).  Is that correct?
<
<Also, it sounds like Sir Harry may have been sticking his neck out a bit to
<consult Gatty if he was persona non grata with the Brits."

GATTY succeeded in winning the contract to establish an inter-island
(domestic)airline for the FIJIIN government after an endless battle with
QUANTAS (who bitterly resented him for his previous efforts in establishing
PACIFIC routes ) which already had an INTERNATIONAL SERVICE to the main
island of FIJI along with ANA and TEAL, although he had previously
recommended QUANTAS while sitting as a member of the LOCAL AIR SERVICE
COMMITTEE, which had been established to investigate the formation of an
island  air service. The unanimous recommendation of the committee was
presented to the colonial office in Whitehall for consideration, which
rejected it .

After several attempts at joint partnerships, GATTY went out on his own and
the licence was awarded to his company, KATAFAGA ESTATES, the airline being
named FIJI AIRWAYS, which later became the current  AIR PACIFIC.

His time spent before the war in FIJI was only transient ,in the capacity
of PAN AM's CHIEF NEGOTIATOR for landing rights and airbase construction
with the BRITISH authorities, and , of course in this capacity, he was
constantly in discussions with senior governmental personnel, politicians
and senior military personnel from the U.S.A., GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE,
AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND. He did hold the  rank of GROUP CAPTAIN in the
R.A.A.F. in  the early stages of the war , reponsible ,as the COORDINATOR
OF ALLIED AIR TRANSPORT and later DIRECTOR OF AIR TRANSPORT , amongst other
things, for the evacuation of civilians and military personnel during the
retreats from the JAPANESE advances in the South-Western Pacific, and
therefore his military position coupled with these activities naturally
softened the BRITISH attitude to him during this hectic survival period.
Hence LUKE's quite acceptable discussion with him about the mysterious
sextant box.

After the war he settled in FIJI and became a member of the LEGISLATIVE
COUNCIL.There he was visited by many famous people, including TRIPPE  who
sought his advice on establishing environmentally suitable types of transit
accommodation facilities.

It might be interesting for you to know that as a young man , he rubbed
shoulders  with many famously important people; apart from the ones already
stated, these included:-

In the war, he worked  directly with McARTHUR, a resulting fracas with him
causing the resignation of his commission with the BRITISH, promptly taking
up his other position back with the U.S.MILITARY in 1943 where the USAAF
and the U.S. NAVY used him to good effect in compiling those valuable
navigation manuals.

Before the war, he taught ANNE MORROW to navigate for the LINDBERGH'S
transcontinental flight which he had planned for them, and she was warm in
her praise of his techniques and equipment which they experimented with
during their flight  and which proved to be a good test bed preparatory to
his own upcoming NORTH PACFIC flight(the flight of the TACOMA with BROMLEY):

"Colonel Lindbergh wanted me to tell you first that he felt my experience
in the navigation were very successful. He was afraid i would emphasize too
much the things i could not do,chiefly because of the weather. As a matter
of fact i was very much surprised at how easy it was to take sights, how
quickly and easily one could use the curve and then transfer it onto the
mercator chart and - finally - how increasingly good the lines of position
turned out to be. Colonel Lindbergh knew our exact position for the moments
when i took the sights in the morning......"

and further

 .......Excuse me for going into this so minutely.I meant only to tell you
that we were satisfied with the experiment and to thank you very warmly for
everything you did to help us( including the plotting board and your kind
words of encouragement - and for our two very absorbing and interesting
weeks of work)."

Although he did reject  a 'blank cheque' offer to participate in that
flight of HOWARD HUGHES, he was responsible for selecting 'replacement'
crew members and possibly planned the flight, although this fact is hard to
establish. He received 2 telegrams from HUGHES for his contribution to this
successful flight :

  "GREETINGS AND GRATITUDE TRAIL-BLAZING PIONEER NAVIGATOR.HOWARD
HUGHES.NEW YORK."

and shortly after,

  "   WE ONLY FOLLOWED WHERE YOU LED"

MICHAEL REAL
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:10:28 EDT
From:         Michael Real
Subject:      DRIFT

The recent continuing discussions on this subject with new input from
highly experienced airmen has prompted the following  particular related
information which i haven't seen discussed previously, but before i broach
this subject, i would like to mention that i find puzzling the similar
remarks made by many contributors  to the FORUM when discussing the various
 navigation and radio scenarios which A.E.and F.N. could have chosen to
implement during the closing stages of their flight, i.e. "IT DOESN'T
REALLY MATTER BECAUSE WE WILL NEVER EVER KNOW ", or similar words to the
same effect: I would have thought that the whole aim of this FORUM is to
locate the wreck or the best-fitting scenario of where it's final resting
place should be, and therefore if and when it is found , on an island or
submerged somewhere, there must be some possibility that amongst the
wreckage , remnants of navigation and radio equipment and recorded
information of different sorts will hopefully be found to give a better
clue and assist in moving closer to the truth as to what actually did take
place in those last important hours.

The main subject of this post was to inform the people who are interested
in the drift and celestial problems that NOONAN could have encountered
taking into consideration the current known available cloud cover data
which i have interpreted as partially cloudy from time to time over the 20
hour period:

Any good navigator or airman would ascend above such cloud masses to take
celestial observations when they were required, and would descend  below
the clouds to a suitable height above the waves to effect drift readings
regardless of the time of day or night :- during the 1920's and 1930's,the
pioneering flights of KINGSFORD SMITH used waterproof flares consisting of
separate bouyant canisters of calcium phosphide and calcium carbide , which
, when ejected from a suitable aperture in the aircraft, would react
simultaneously  on impact with the seawater creating acetylene gas by one
of the canisters and ignition by the other , the resulting flare lasting up
to ten minutes. Drift readings could also be taken successfully during the
daytime without the need to view the white crests of wavetops if the sea
was becalmed , by using paper bags(smoke bombs) containing fine aluminium
powder dropped onto the water, the resulting easily visible circle could
then be subsequently tracked .

Modern day  bright orange flares are used in a similar manner by aircrews
for search and rescue operations .

Whether or not NOONAN carried these early types of flares is pure
conjecture at this stage, but if he had used them he should have had no
problem in obtaining some idea of the drift he was experiencing during the
dark hours of the  flight.

There are no reasonable grounds to believe that he was unable to effect
these 2 types of observations throughout the preceding night in order to
navigate successfully to the vicinity of HOWLAND - it is what happened at
HOWLAND which is causing this riveting speculation .

REGARDS
MICHAEL REAL

CHARLES KINGSFORD SMITH by  PEDR DAVIS.SUMMIT BOOKS,SYDNEY,n.d.(p61-65)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:13:18 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Debate(s)?

Tom King said " . . . .my forthcoming (early October) trip to San
Francisco, where I've invited Sactodave to debate me and he's more or less
accepted."

    Is this going to be on my local PBS channel or is it more likely to
show up on ESPN in the WWF highlights?

LTM, who learned how to apply a Full-Nelson at age three
Dennis McGee #0149
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:15:56 EDT
From:         Bill Moffet
Subject:      Antiques Roadshow

PBS in Philadelphia/Wilmington area is carrying this program each evening
this week 19:30 - 20:00 hrs and Sat., Sep 18, noon-13:00.  The pgm last
night was British, undated as far as I could see but gave
Sterling-to-dollars conversions as of Jan., 1998.  No chronometer appeared
but credits at end show "Clocks  Simon Bull" and "Producer Michele Burgess".
Maybe this'll help someone with a connection.  I'll try to watch/tape the
programs noted above.
LTM
Bill Moffet, #2156
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:17:13 EDT
From:         Bill Moffet
Subject:      Re. Harold Gatty

I think we've established that Gatty & Noonan "worked together" for PAA, but
in reviewing the postings, I don't see that they ever flew together.  I
wonder if HG even knew that FN carried a "preventer" sextant and if so what
it looked like--in and out of its box.  In short, would not Navigator Gatty
expect Navigator Noonan to carry only a bubble octant--and if shown a box
which he could identify as a case for a marine sextant, comment that it was
unlikely to have been used in trans-Pacific air navigation?
   On the other hand, do we have any detail on Fred's octant or his
preventer?  I note in perusing Peter Ifland's "Taking the Stars" that some
of the bubble instruments of the 1920's and -30's looked more like mariners'
sextants than bubble octants, so probably their empty boxes wouldn't
necessarily prove what they had held.  Have we entered another blind alley?
LTM (who carried a flashlight)
Bill Moffet, #2156
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:25:22 EDT
From:         Jerry Ellis
Subject:      Re: Wreckage

>The airplane is landed safely on the reef on July 2nd and sends radio
> transmissions until the night of July 4th (when the "281" message is sent)
> and shortly thereafter is destroyed by the surf, leaving only a few heavy
> structures visible at low tide.  The torn, scattered, and chewed up aluminum
> is distributed southeastward across the reef flat.  On July 9th, when the
> Navy flies over at high tide there is nothing visible.

    Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the plane was destroyed
as you described below.  The storm(s) that could do all that must have
been significantly intense.  My question is, where are Fred and Amelia
during all this.  How could AE remain on the island to be later buried so
her bones could be found by whoever?

jerry ellis  #2113

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I think you underestimate the power of the sea.  No whopping great storm is
needed.  Just a bit of a swell.  If you could stand on the reef at Niku in
that area on just an average day when there's a swell running .... well - for
one thing, you wouldn't be standing for long.  Russ Matthews was out there
this last trip.  What was it like Russ?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:11:21 EDT
From:         PDJDG
Subject:      Dem shoes

I am indebted to Adam Knott of Alden of Carmel for providing the following
info re "blucher" oxfords:

    "A blucher is distinguished from a bal [oxford] by looking at the two
pieces of leather which are fastened by the laces.On a blucher, the two
flaps of leather run parallel to each other, and they are sewn to the
outside of the shoe.   On a bal, the two pieces of leather form a 'V', and
as they near the toe of the shoe, they disappear under the front of the
shoe.  A bal style shoe is considered more formal and dressy, while a
blucher is often a more comfortable style, and easier to fit."

Mr. Knott offered no information on the origin of the term "blucher",
Napoleonic or otherwise.  The American Heritage Dictionary defines "oxford"
as any shoe that laces over the instep.

Which brings me back to Biltrite's opinion re the shoe remnants found on
Niku in 1991.  Since the identifying characteristics of a blucher (and an
oxford, for that matter) are related to the uppers, it puzzles me how
Biltrite could make such a positive identification from badly-deteriorated
sole fragments alone.

By the way, I attempted to persuade Mr. Knott to join the Forum, but I'm
afraid my explanation scared him off.  ("See, a civil servant named
Gallagher, who was British although his nickname was 'Irish', found some
shoe parts near a skeleton on a remote Pacific island in 1940, and fifty
years later an outfit named TIGHAR found more shoe parts on the same island
that may or may not be from the same pair of shoes...")  Adam, if you're out
there we need your help!

**************************************************************************
Form Ric

Biltrite's identification of the shoe as having had "blucher" style uppers
was based upon the stitching holes visible in the sole which showed where the
uppers had been attached.  As Mr. Knott correctly pointed out, it is how the
uppers are constructed and where they are stitched to the sole that
determines the "blucher" style.  The "oxford" part comes from the fact that
almost all bluchers are oxfords unless they are "jodphur" boots which are
secured with a leather strap rather than laces.  Found with the heel and sole
was a brass shoelace eyelet whic pretty much settled that question.  The
eyelet is too small to accomodate a man's shoelace from the 1930s or '40s and
the heel is datable to the mid-1930s.
Hence, a woman's blucher-oxford.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:14:00 EDT
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Shoes in salt water

Many pairs of leather shoes are seen littering the bottom in area of the
Titanic's sinking.

***********************************************************************

From Ric

Okay, but I don't see how the survival of leather shoes in salt water is
germane to the investigation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:16:00 EDT
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Re: DRIFT

>Date: Tue, 14 Sep

>Any good navigator or airman would......descend below
>the clouds to a suitable height above the waves to effect drift readings
>regardless of the time of day or night.......


The wind vector can be deduced from its effect on the plane's track, even
without descending to see the surface.  When good celestial sights enable
the navigator to get accurate fixes, then successive fixes allow the
navigator to know his drift angle and groundspeed.  He already knows the
true airspeed and heading flown.  From those he can compute the wind speed
and direction, and revise his wind correction angle for the next leg of the
flight.

The climb back up to altitude can be so consumptive of fuel that descending
is avoided unless necessary.
************************************************************************

From Ric

Amen.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:26:43 EDT
From:         Forest Blair
Subject:      Wreckage

Can anyone answer?

If the Electra landed, but damaged engine that powered transmitter,  could a
battery(s) be used--maybe jury-rigged--to power the transmitter?  If such
happened, could be reason signals stopped a couple days after
semi-controlled crash--dead battery(s).

LTM ( who believes Kanton engine was NOT found on Niku)
Forest #2149
**************************************************************************
From Ric

If I understand the system correctly (check me on this guys) the battery
ALWAYS powered the transmitter via the dynamotor.  The engine-driven
generator just recharged the battery.

But transmitting drains down a battery real fast and the reason that Lockheed
 originally said that the plane had to be on land and able to run an engine
is because the alleged post-loss signals went on for way too long to be
powered by an unrecharged battery.

If you want the post-loss signals to be genuine but you don't want the
airplane on Niku, you have to find someplace else to land it and have it
remain intact enough to run the starboard engine but still not be found by
the Navy search, and then separate an engine from the rest of the wreckage
for Bruce Yoho to find it later.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:38:40 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Bay area presentation

For Tom King.

I'd be interested in attending your presentation in the Bay area this fall if
it is still in the works.   I do need the date, time  & location for travel
arrangements and lodging.
Thanks,
Roger Kelley, #2112
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:41:55 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Antiques Roadshow

Charlie Sivert, please note question below ***

My thanks to all who have contributed information about the Antiques
Roadshow and the chronometer with stencilled numbers.  You just never know
what bit of information may prove to be the thing that leads to
identification of that particular program.  We might get lucky and see it in
rerun and capture it on tape.  That would save a lot of trouble!
I wonder if we're all seeing the same reruns?  Reruns from Britain, favored
over US reruns, as Zeke Ulrey points out.

The search of promo sheets didn't find the chronometer.  That's no great
surprise.  Only a few items are listed for each program and the chrnometer
was probably not considered one of the more interesting items.

Now I'll go directly to the Antique Roadshow people and hope to contact
someone willing to put a little effort into identifying the program.  I
THINK a cassette can be purchased, if we can identify it.  Of course, that's
only the first step trying to learn something helpful.

For Charlie Sivert:  What PBS station was it?  That might be importing in
identifying the program.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:06:35 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Wreckage

(Note from Ric:
Don raises a whole bunch of questions and, for the sake of clarity, I've
embedded my answers in the text of his message.)

Ric wrote,

>See if this makes sense to you.
>The airplane is landed safely on the reef on July 2nd and sends radio
>transmissions until the night of July 4th (when the "281" message is
>sent) and shortly thereafter is destroyed by the surf, leaving only a few
>heavy structures visible at low tide.  The torn, scattered, and chewed up
>aluminum is distributed southeastward across the reef flat.  On July 9th,
>when the Navy flies over at high tide there is nothing visible.

I'm not sure what the significance is of the "281" message and why you
bring it up just now.  However,  that message has intrigued me also.  I
would like to know the full text of that message.  Is it on the Web some
place?  I believe it was something like, "281 miles north of Howland"
My thoughts are, what if it were copied wrong by mistake.  It could have
read,

281 miles north to Howland or 381 miles north to Howland.  Maybe it was
degrees, not miles.  There are lots of possibilities.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The "281 message" was reported to the commander of the Coast Guard's Hawaiian
Section (COMHAWSEC) by Navy Radio Wailupe, the primary USN communications
facility on Oahu in the wee hours of July 5, 1937.  We don't have, and
haven't been able to find, a copy of the Navy's original notification to
COMHAWSEC.  It may have come by telephone.  What we have is COMHAWSEC's
relating of the information to ITASCA. The message says:

FOLLOWING COPIED NAVY RADIO WAILUPE 1130 TO 1230 GCT QUOTE 281 NORTH HOWLAND
CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF
UNQUOTE KEYED TRANSMISSION EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND CARRIER FRAGMENTARY
PHRASES BUT COPIED BY THREE OPERATORS

It's the only known case where intelligible information, believed at the time
to probably be authentic, was copied by a highly credible source.  As point
out, we can't be sure that even the "fragmentary phrases" were copied
accurately.  The actual message may have been:

ONE LARGE PIZZA WITH PEPPERONI AND EXTRA CHEESE TO GO

but if we're going to look for anything useful we have to start from the
assumption that the three operators copied the bits that they got fairly
accurately.

The reason I bring it up now is that, fragmented as it is, it seems to
describe just the sort of desperate situation other clues have led us to
imagine.

The "281 Message' is a fascinating puzzle in itself and probably deserves it
own FAQ on the website.
***********************************************************************
From Don
    But, more importantly if you believe that signal was from the
Electra, then you  believe the Electra land safely on the reef and was
able to run the engines and send signals.  And if that were the case, it
meant the Electra was fully intact and operational at that time.  Then
why would they just stand back and watch the sea wash over it without
taxiing it up out of harms way.  At the very least, why would they just
stand back and watch the sea claim all of the survival gear and
equipment they had on board.  It would seem to me that they would have
saved as much equipment as possible and moved it inland above water.
They would have had plenty of time by July 4th.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

If you were standing on the reef at Nikumaroro at low tide, out near the
ocean in the spot where Emily says she saw wreckage, you could look to the
north along the edge of the reef and see a stretch of flat coral before you
that was at least a thousand feet long by maybe two hundred feet wide.
However, between this "runway" and the beach several hundred yards away, the
coral is very jagged and pitted with large depressions.  You probably
couldn't drive a jeep to the beach, let alone taxi an airplane.
You could certainly carry survival gear from the airplane to the beach, if
you had any.  I just haven't seen any documentation that they carried any
"survival gear" to speak of.
************************************************************************
 From Don
   Also, I have seen pictures of airplanes that crashed just off shore
and were wash up on the rocks and destroyed.  One was a C-47 just of the
coast of Oregon.  It did indeed shred the poor thing, but the wings and
fuselage were more or less intact.  In other words, there were plenty of
big parts to see.  It was easily recognizable as airplane wreckage.
Even in the pounding surf!
************************************************************************
From Ric

And from this you conclude that it is impossible that a Lockheed 10 (a
fraction of the size of a C-47) could have been rendered into pieces small
enough to not be seen and recognized on a surf-wept reef?

**************************************************************************
  From Don
  And then there is the Kanton Engine.  It was found within feet of
where it was deposited. (When ever and how ever that was).  If it were
deposited on Niku or any other island, it would have been seen by
someone over the many years since.  Especially on Niku, because there
has been people on and off that island since 1938. If the 1938 survey
party would have found a radial engine or airplane wreckage on that
island long before any war in the area, it surely would have gotten
their attention.  Were there any surveys of any other islands and do we
have access to the other reports?  Something might just turn up in the
others as well.

************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm curious to know how you know that the Kanton engine was found within feet
of where it was deposited.  If you don't think that the surf at Niku can move
something that weighs a thousand pounds I'd ask you to look at what it has
done to chunks of the Norwich City that must weigh several tons.
As for other surveys of other islands, I think that both the New Zealanders
and the Bushnell may have looked at Hull and Sydney, but we've been assuming
that if they had stumbled upon Amelia Earhart we would have heard about it.
TIGHAR is testing the hypothesis that the flight ended at Nikumaroro.  If you
come across evidence - any evidence - that the flight ended someplace else
please let us know.

***************************************************************************
From Don

Ric also wrote,

"The lightweight stuff (most of the airplane) is soon widely scattered
and, over the years, various people at various times stumble across bits and
pieces".

    I would think the fuel tanks would not be broken up and in fact
would float.  They would have washed up on the shore line just like the
wreckage from John Denver's airplane did.  Of course his airplane was
not made of aluminum, so much more would float.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

If floating debris from that part of the reef washes up on the ocean shore, I
wonder how a steel tank from the Norwich City ended up on the lagoon shore?

*************************************************************************
From Don
    And, over the years the only people we have found so far that say
they have seen wreckage are a couple of islanders.  And two of them are
related.  Father and Daughter I think!

*************************************************************************
From Ric

I guess I don't share your view that "islanders" are less credible than white
folks, but we actually have 4 anecdotal accounts of airplane wreckage seen on
the island.
1940/41   Emily Sikuli sees airplane wreckage on the reef north of the
Norwich City.
1944/45   PBY pilot John Mims (a white guy) sees an aircraft control cable
being used as a heavy-duty fishing line leader.  Locals tell him it came from
an airplane that was there when people first came to the island.  Asked where
it is now, they just shrug.
1959 (approx.)  Pulekai Songivalu, the island schoolmaster, sees airplane
wreckage on the lagoon shore opposite the main lagoon passage.
1959 (approx.)  Tapania Taiki (Pulekai's daughter) sees a piece of a wing on
the reef flat near the entrance to main lagoon passage.  She also sees
airplane parts in the bushes along the ocean beach in that same general area.
*************************************************************************
From Don

More from Ric,

"No moving of wreckage back and forth.  No delayed arrival on the island.
Just the natural fate of a delicate machine subjected to the enormous forces
of nature".

    I can't believe that Amelia would have landed  intact on the reef
and then left the plane out there for the sea to claim.  And even if she
did, the sea would have pushed it up on the beach.  Not take it out to
sea.  In all the news reel footage taken after a major hurricane, all
the boats are pushed up on the beach and left high and dry. Most are
intact because they float, but they are far inland.  If it were pushed
into the trees intact, how could a large "Red" heavy structure come out
of the trees and go back out on the reef a hundred yards or so?

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Nobody said it did.

***************************************************************************
  From Don
As I suggested  before, a delayed arrival until after the aircraft
search, could explain why nothing was seen by the Colorado pilots.  But,
to find absolutely nothing  that could be considered aircraft wreckage
on the reef, or on the beach is a little harder for me to explain.  I
have been to many aircraft wreck sites where the Air Force had cleaned
up everything, and there is always something left behind.

Don J.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you wish to contribute to
this aspect of the investigation you'll need offer something more than
opinion.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:08:25 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Shoes in salt water

<< Okay, but I don't see how the survival of leather shoes in salt water is
 germane to the investigation. >>

I think one of the persistent misunderstandings about this whole enterprise
is the impression that Nikumororo is a small island where everything's real
close to the water.  It's bigger, and the places where shoe parts have been
found by TIGHAR, and were probably found by Gallagher et al, are a couple of
meters above the waterline.  Very unlikely they've been submerged in the last
several thousand years.

LTM (who says Keep your feet dry!)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:09:20 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bay area presentation

Roger, I don't have a presentation in the works.  I'm teaching on unrelated
topics in the Bay Area on October 4-7, but the only Earhart presentation
currently "scheduled" is the debate I offered Sactodave when he began telling
his correspondents how he'd love to see me pilloried by "real archeologists."
 He's supposed to be setting something up, but I haven't heard from him
lately.  If I do, and something's set up, I'll put out the info to the Forum.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:12:13 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Shoes in salt water

Mary Jane wrote:

> As the cameras viewed the wreckage (three miles below the surface)
> a shoe was found near the wreckage and brought to the surface.  The
> shoe appeared in fairly good condition after all those years.  I
> thought this might be of interest since earlier there was a question
> on the forum as to how long a leather shoe might last in salt water.

Well, of course it was in good condition -- it was Japanese leather.

Ok, just kidding. The fact of the matter is that temperature matters a
lot with regard to preservation. The same shoe, stuck in the coral of a
reef flat, may not have survived the year. I am not an expert on this,
but this is the general consensus among those of us who dabble in Lake
Superior, Michigan, shipwrecks where low temperatures in the deeps and
the fresh water means that metals aren't even rusted and panels are
fully workable even 100 years after a ship went down.

Thomas.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:14:00 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Transmitters and batteries

Ric wrote

>But transmitting drains down a battery real fast and the reason that Lockheed
>originally said that the plane had to be on land and able to run an engine

To appreciate this, it is useful to keep in mind that the transmitter aboard
the Electra achieved its power gain with vacuum tube technology: A major
component of vacuum power tubes are the ampere-hungry electric heating coils
that keep the plates at the high temperatures required to excite electrons
into a dramatically stepped-up analog signal that mimics the input signal.
Substantial electrical energy is required (and subsequently lost  as
ordinary radiated heat) to generate and modulate all the additional watts
being usefully pumped into the air as broadcast radio waves.

The result is that from the perspective of a lead-acid battery, the vacuum
power tubes in the Electra's transmitter in normal operation acted just like
a toaster, quickly draining the existing charge. If no recharge was applied
simultaneously (from, say, a running engine), useful on-air time from the
Electra would have been measured, at best, in a few short minutes.

LTM (who likes her toast with grape jam and butter)
william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:20:04 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Another slice of Gatty

Tom King wrote:

> If the numbers didn't (apparently) mean anything to Gatty, suggesting
> that they weren't from Pan Am, then I wonder if the numbers on the
> Pensacola box might be from one of the shipping companies for which
> Fred worked before he switched to aviation.

For what it is worth, I still believe that there is a distinct
possibility that the sextant was a USN/BuAir device on loan. We are
looking into this at this time.

I do think also that Tom King has a real valid point here. The numbers
had to come from somewhere -- and if they were nautical in origin, that
might be a very important point of research. What are the numbering
strategies in use by ships in the Pacific at that time or before.

Thomas Van Hare
******************************************************************************
From Ric

Ships in the Pacific?  Which ships?  His Majesty's ships?  The Royal Colony
ships?  Commercial ships of whatever nationality happened to be crossing the
Central Pacific?  All of these carried sextants and I would imagine that
there were as many strategies for keeping track of them as there were fleets,
companies and captains.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:57:34 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Shoes in salt water

Preservation of material in water depends not only on temperature,
but whether it is salt or fresh water, and the amount of oxygen
available to support aerobic bacteria which consume oxygen while
digesting metals, plant and animal materials.  Under favorable
conditions (low temperature, salt water, anoxic (no oxygen) conditions,
animal-drived products can last a long time.  For Niku, a salt-water
environment, often exposed to the air, and at high temperature,
animal-drived products are unlikely to last a long time.  That
is why rubber and not leather, survived so long.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:02:19 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Another slice of Gatty

Re.:  Ships in the Pacific?

Fred navigated the Atlantic in his nautical life, didn't he?

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Jerry Hamilton is the expert on this but, as I recall, although Fred's career seems to
have included some convoy duty in the North Atlantic during the Great War,
the bulk of his later voyages were from New Orleans down through the canal
and to ports on the west coast of South America.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:04:56 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      debris and cold

Don Jordan said:  "But, to find absolutely nothing  that could be
considered aircraft wreckage on the reef, or on the beach is a little harder
for me to explain.  I have been to many aircraft wreck sites where the Air
Force had cleaned up everything, and there is always something left behind."

    I appreciate Don's frustration over the lack of identifiable debris
on the beach.  And certainly many of us share that same concern, but we also
have keep in mind the wave action on the island.  This is a continuous
event, 24/7 as they say nowadays.  The pieces would be continually tumbled
-- 24/7 -- getting pushed and nudged hither and yon, and covered and
uncovered perhaps several times a year.
    I have no serious problem over the lack of a debris field or even
the lack of the big stuff.  As an example, when I stand in the surf I can
feel the sand washing away from under my feet after a wave breaks and
retreats.  Similarly I can look down and see sand being deposited on the top
of my feet.  In theory, if I stood there long enough all 6-feet 2-inches of
Dennis would eventually be buried where he stood.  So, given enough time, I
sure bits and pieces of me would eventually resurface (UGH!) off and on over
the years and may or may not be discovered.


    Tom Van Hare commented:  " . . . low temperatures in the deeps and
the fresh water means that metals aren't even rusted and panels are fully
workable even 100 years after a ship went down."

    The same is true for wood.  There is a company in Wisconsin that is
"logging" the bottom of Lake Michigan, recovering logs that sunk 80-100
years ago during the first wave of logging in the Midwest.  The logs are
from old-growth forests -- the nation's original forests! -- and are dried,
cut, and milled before being sold.  The wood is prized among today's
woodworkers because of its tight grains and large widths.

LTM, who often feels dried, cut, and milled
Dennis McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:58:13 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Another slice of Gatty

Ric wrote:

> Ships in the Pacific?  Which ships?  His Majesty's ships?  The Royal
> Colony ships?  Commercial ships of whatever nationality happened to
> be crossing the Central Pacific?  All of these carried sextants and
> I would imagine that there were as many strategies for keeping track
> of them as there were fleets, companies and captains.

Ric,

I never believed that it would be easy to research nautical sextant
numbering systems, nor even possible. Furthermore, the shipping company
records are probably long gone, destroyed. I was just pointing out that
Tom King did have a valid point.  I asked the question rhetorically
about ship numbering systems.

If you had objected to my statement on the grounds that it was designed
to DISPROVE the core hypothesis that the box might be Noonan's box, that
would be fitting criticism. In that regard, we will continue to focus on
proving that it was Noonan's sextant, holding to the slim evidence of a
pair of numbers.

Thomas Van Hare
******************************************************************************
From Ric

Sorry if I gave the impression that I objected to your statement.  I was just
pointing out that

<<if they were nautical in origin, that might be a very important point of
research. What are the numbering strategies in use by ships in the Pacific at
that time or before?>> seemed to raise a question that is too broad for us
too hope to answer.

As for what we're trying to accomplish with our research into box numbers, I
think we have to go wherever the clues lead us.  If we find out what the
numbers mean it probably won't prove or disprove that it belonged to Noonan
but it may increase or decrease the liklihood that it did.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:00:31 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: DRIFT, corrected

Michael Real wrote:

> Modern day  bright orange flares are used in a similar manner by
> aircrews for search and rescue operations .

Well, been there, done that. But... they are not orange flares, but dye
markers, and we don't use them in regard to checking drift. When you
have a target (meaning a boat, person in the water, raft, etc.), you
drop a dye marker. Even if you miss by a hundred yards, the key is that
with every orbit overhead, you will have a fixed reference point in the
ocean surface currert to reacquire the target -- i.e., "the target is
about 50 yards west of the marker".

This is all off topic, sorry.

On topic, I think it is far more important to recognize that Noonan
would have taken repeated celestial sightings during the night, giving
him a very accurate position and understanding of wind drift at altitude
long before and up to dawn. After that, he was left with an LoP because
the sun is the ONLY star visible. Bottom line, he got close, but the LoP
wasn't enough.

Is this the beginning of another endless discussion on Noonan's
navigation technique?

Thomas Van Hare
******************************************************************************
From Ric

No.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:01:53 EDT
From:         Charlie Sivert
Subject:      Re: Antiques Roadshow

To Vern;

        The PBS station was WUSI, Olney, Il., a repeater station for
WSIU, Carbondale, Il.  I have contacted both stations, and they do not
have tapes of the Antiques Roadshow, and had no suggestions which could
help.  A station in Evansville, In., WNIN, does have some tapes in their
library.  They do not go back beyond 90 days.  I hope to view them  this
week-end, if my #2 son in Evansville will get them.
     I wish you success when making contact with the Roadshow numbers
in  Boston.  All I could get were recorded messages when I called them.


Charlie Sivert, 0269E
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:02:43 EDT
From:         Bill Moffet
Subject:      Antiques Roadshow cont'd

Local PBS show for last night had not chronometer, same clocks guy and
producer as Monday.  Tonite still no chrono, but "Clocks  Richard Price" and
"Executive Producer Christopher Lewis" added in the trailing credits.  I'll
stay tuned.
LTM (who has an attic full of "neat stuff")
Bill Moffet  #2156
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:05:38 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Transmitter & Batteries

Ric wrote...

>If I understand the system correctly (check me on this guys) the battery
>ALWAYS powered the transmitter via the dynamotor.  The engine-driven
>generator just recharged the battery.

That's exactly right.  And we know there were two batteries connected in
parallel.  That's twice the operating time one battery would provide. For
whatever that might be worth.

If we're going to flog this dead mule again, and assume they could not run
the starboard engine, let's keep in mind that the whole thing hinges on how
often they fired up the transmitter and for how long each time.  We can
guess about that from now on and it will still just be guessing
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:07:10 EDT
From:         Mary Jane
Subject:      Re: Antiques Roadshow

I would like to suggest another avenue of inquiry.  The Antiques Roadshow
listed on the Internet contains information by "category" of the names of
appraiser's consulted by the show.  If one were asked   "who would they use
to appraise maritime or nautical artifacts" this might lead to an appraiser
remembering the item and perhaps who appraised it.  Just a thought.
Mary Jane

*************************************************************************

From Ric

...and a good one.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 16:07:51 EDT
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      The Nutiran reef

Ric wrote:

<< If you could stand on the reef at Niku in that area on just an average day
when there's a swell running .... well - for one thing, you wouldn't be
standing for long.  Russ Matthews was out there this last trip.  What was it
like Russ? >>

  I was out on the Nutiran reef at low tide several times on the July trip
and mostly had the good sense to stay away from the breaking water.  On one
occasion I ventured close to the Northwestern edge in order to videotape
"crashing waves."  I wasn't disappointed.  The sea pounds that area
relentlessly and made for some nice footage (with a zoom lens of course).
It's certainly a dynamic environment - evidenced by large slabs of coral
strewn about the reef surface.  I had to set up on top of one big chunk in
order to get clear of the swells and the numerous blacktip sharks.

  On another occasion, several of us decided to save a little time returning
to the ship (moored to the wreck of the Norwich City and so tantalizingly
close) by going over the edge of the reef.  It was one of the calmer days
we'd seen at the island and the whole thing seemed like a good idea.  The
launch came in to get us - and in no time was broadside to the waves, bashing
its hull against the coral.  After some unexpected (and unnecessary) tense
moments, we got her off again.  Needless to say, everyone was happy to
commute the "long way" home from then on.

  LTM,
  Russ
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 16:08:36 EDT
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Bay area presentation

To Tom King:

  Please keep us all informed on the stauts of "The Fray by the Bay."  If
Sactodave accepts, I definitely want to be the proverbial "fly on the wall"
(or "fly in the ointment," as the case may be).

  LTM (who gets mad when you let flies in the house),
  Russ
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 16:21:10 EDT
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Another slice of Gatty

e: Tom King's comment (I wonder if the numbers on the Pensacola box might
be from one of the shipping companies for which Fred worked before he
switched to aviation.  Is the Noonan Project already onto this possibility?)

Answer- we were at one time, but thanks for bringing it up. Ric, my notes
do not indicate that I addressed this topic with Capt. Clark of Delta
Lines. However, I have a vague recollection that maybe you were going to
check this out with him. Did you? Or should I?

blue skies, -jerry
******************************************************************************
From Ric

No, I haven't talked sextants with the Cap'n.  I'd appreciate it if you would.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:02:26 EDT
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: Native recollections

Allow me to come to Don Jordan's defense (even though he never asked).  I
don't for a minute believe that Don is racist.  I think perhaps he was
trying to point out that Niku was continuously inhabited from 1939 to 1964,
and one assumes that there was always at least one resident British colonial
official during this period -- not to mention the American LORAN crew.
Unless the white guys spent all their time on the veranda sipping Mai Tais
(an old Cary Grant movie comes to mind), one further assumes that they got
out and about occasionally.

What's puzzling is that, apparently, none of these European/American
observers noticed anything out of the ordinary at the same time that,
according to islander accounts, visible aircraft wreckage was scattered all
over the place and the village children were even playing with it.  Hard to
believe that nobody would have asked, "Where did all this stuff come from?"
And let's not forget the Wreck Photo, which seems to have disappeared from
the forum of late.  Doubly hard to believe that no Niku denizen, white or
brown, would have stumbled across wreckage of this size in the course of 25
years of continuous habitation.

You are not the first person to note that Pacific Islanders (among others)
have a tendency to tell Whitey what he wants to hear.  I suspect that's what
Don meant.  If any of the above assumptions about European presence on Niku
are erroneous, I'm relatively sure you'll let me know.

Wow.  Three posts in one day.  I GOTTA  get a life.

LTM (who's out beachcombing),

Patrick Gaston
***************************************************************************
From Ric

You know you can count on me.  Your assumptions are erroneous.

In the 24 years that Niku was inhabited (December 1938 to sometime in 1963)
there was a resident European adminstrator on the island for all of ten
months.  Gerald Gallagher, Officer-in-Charge of the Phoenix Islands
Settlement Scheme, arrived on Niku in early September 1940 and left June 4,
1941.  He returned gravely ill on September 24th and died three days later.
Aside from that, as far as we know (and the record is very clear) the only
time there was a British administrator on the island for more than a couple
of days at a time was in early 1949 when District Officer Paul B. Laxton was
there for about three months to reorganize the colony.

The men of the Coast Guard LORAN unit did not get out and about as you
suppose.  Their commanding officer, Ensign (later Lt jg) Charles Sopko,
restricted them to the the immediate vicinity of the LORAN site on the
southeast tip of the island.  There were occasional organized visits to the
village nearly three miles away but it is possible - even probable - that
none of the Coasties ever got across the main lagoon passage to Nutiran
district where the airplane wreckage was allegedly seen.  Maybe that's why,
when I interviewed Sopko several years ago, he was quite sure that there was
no shipwreck on Gardner Island.

There was a New Zealand survey party on the island and living on Nutiran from
December 1, 1938 to February 5, 1939.  There was also a US Navy survey team
on the island for about a week later year.  These would seem to have been the
most likely Europeans to have seen airplane wreckage, and there is no
indication that they did, but that doesn't mean there was none there.

It is not the case that islanders have reported airplane wreckage "scattered
all over the place."  In fact, very few of the former residents we have
interviewed remember any such wreckage.  It seems that, from the very first,
there was very little wreckage and it was widely scattered.

It is true that people of Pacific cultures tend to tell the interviewer what
they think he or she wants to hear.  I've found the same to be true of the
cultures of downeast Maine and the Capeshore Peninsula of Newfoundland.
We're aware of that danger and we try to be very careful. What I really like
about the interviews we did on Funafuti and Fiji is that, in both instances,
the information about an airplane wreck came "out of the blue" in response to
questions on a completey different subject.

You haven't heard much about the Wreck Photo lately because the new
information we have makes it clear that the scenario implied by the photo
conflicts with that described by Emily.  As Don Jordan pointed out, it
doesn't make sense to have a wreck up on land get pulled back onto the reef.
I still think the photo shows a big-engined Lockheed 10, but if I have to
choose between the Wreck Photo and Emily, I choose Emily.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:20:00 EDT
From:         Forest Blair
Subject:      Power for Electra

I still have a hang-up on the engine being used.  Two things are the cause.
Firstly, the Electra per the calcs previously discussed on the forum would
have been nearly out of fuel by the time it reached Niku.  Still, you say,
AE/FN fired it up each time to send signals periodically for about two days.
Wouldn't starting the engine REALLY be a drain on the batteries (unless the
engine ran for some time to make up the starter current  drain) as well as
using precious fuel?  But, remember, the fuel was low  (or gone).

Secondly, remembering the miniature vacuum tubes that were in our portable
receivers in the late 1930's and for the sake of weight, I would think
aircraft electronics in 1937 would have used similar tubes--not like the
really power hungry large ones in our Philco consoles--in transmitters where
possible.  How much "air time" do the Lockheed people estimate the batteries
would satisfactorily produce?

One of the less patient forum members indicated I was flogging a dead mule
again.  Being relatively new to the forum, I do not remember this info
previously being discussed.  I, however,  would like to see your calcs on
transmitter "air time" to be expected via BATTERIES ONLY versus "air time"
USING THE ENGINE ( with an accurate as possible estimate of fuel
availability and usage upon reaching Niku) to charge the batteries, versus
the documented total duration of post-loss messages received.  The hardest
part of this, of course, would be the fuel "guesstimate" on Niku.  Would
using "batteries only" after all the fuel was used equate to the total
post-loss message time?

LTM ( who keeps remembering that one transmission from AE about fuel running
low).
Forest #2149
***************************************************************************
From Ric

To estimate fuel remaining upon reaching Niku I'll need you tell me when they
got there.  That would be sometime after the last radio transmission heard by
Itasca at 08:43 local and when their fuel ran out at 12:10 ASSUMING they were
getting precisely the fuel consumption results specified in Kelly Johnson's
tables.

To give you the total post-loss message time you'll need to tell me which of
the 300 or so alleged post-loss messages were genuine.

No Lockheed people have estimated the amount of "air time" the batteries
would satisfactorily produce.  All we know is that people who were familiar
with the airplane back in 1937 said at that time that the messages had gone
on for too long to be from unrecharged batteries. I'm afraid I can't show you
calculations on transmitter "air time" to be expected via BATTERIES ONLY
versus "air time" USING THE ENGINE.  Perhaps one of our more experienced
radio types knows how much power Earhart's transmitter drew versus the total
capacity of her batteries.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:24:13 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bay area presentation

Well, Sacto recently sent Ric a note saying that what he'd really meant was only that
he'd 'love to be a fly on the wall when he (that is, I) presents anecdotal
evidence as PROOF of AE's presence on Niku, without compelling physical
evidence".  This pretty strongly suggests to me that there isn't going to be
any "fray by the Bay" (nice line, though), and it also suggests what Sacto
does for a living.  Must be a fisherman specializing in red herring.

LTM (who knows a herring when she smells one)
Tom
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Brave Sir Robin of Sacto
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:40:47 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Native recollections

It's important for everyone to be disabused of the notion that there have
been all kinds of European type people running around on Nikumaroro who
should have seen and reported wreckage, and it ought also to be noted that
most normal people just aren't as frantically interested in old wrecked
airplanes as are most who take part in this forum.

Still, we've got to acknowledge that it is a puzzle that all the Europoids
who moored off the stern of the Norwich City, wandered around looking at her,
climbed around on her, and so forth --including the New Zealand group that
was there BEFORE Emily and whose business involved airplanes  -- never seem
to have seen the wreckage that Emily reports.  It doesn't mean that Emily's
testimony's no good, or that there was nothing there, but it is a puzzle, and
thinking about ways to account for it may lead to some new ideas.

The only thing that occurs to me -- and it seems like, and maybe is, a
terrible rationalization -- is that Pacific Island people out fishing on the
reef have their eyes attuned to very different things than people do who are
not from the islands, not out fishing, not experienced with the reef.  I've
been out on reefs with Pacific Island people and had them point out things
that were perfectly obvious to them but didn't register on my optic nerves as
anything at all.  So somebody out on the reef edge fishing is going to notice
stuff that somebody climbing around on a shipwreck isn't.  But why should
they notice airplane wreckage as such, and make anything of it?  And given
that they certainly had never seen airplane wreckage before, why should it be
more evident to them than to a group of aerodrome planners to whom wreckage
was doubtless a fact of life?  I dunno; it's another thing to lie awake
nights puzzling about.

LTM (who just doesn't know WHAT to think)
Tom King
******************************************************************************
From Ric

Let's remember that Emily never said she saw anything that she recognized as
airplane wreckage.  She saw wreckage roughly 500 yards away which her father
told her was from an airplane.  There's no reason to think that anybody else
seeing it from a distance would take it for airplane wreckage.

Did the Gilbertese fishermen on Nikumaroro at that time, who may have been
the only ones to see the wreckage up close, have any familiarity with
airplanes?  Well, the decklog of the seaplane tender USS PELICAN which
visited Niku on April 30, 1939 shows that at least five of the workers then
clearing land on Gardner came aboard the ship while the airplane (probably a
Grumman "Duck") was on the deck.  Does that make them aviation wreckage
experts?  No.  Does it mean that they might later recognize something like a
radial engine with a propeller on it if they saw one?  Maybe.

LTM (who weighs the same as a Duck and so is made of wood and is
therefore....)
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:58:08 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Box numbers

>If you had objected to my statement on the grounds that it was designed
>to DISPROVE the core hypothesis that the box might be Noonan's box,

I think we may be missing the point here - The person who mentioned a box on
PBS said it housed a CHRONOMETER - didn't we hear that FN had at least 2 of
these?  The box with the sextant in Florida had similar numbers to those
reported to be on the box found on Gardner/Niku - but does that mean the two
boxes are the same?  If one box that we know for sure held a sextant
(FLorida) and one box that we know for sure housed a chronometer (PBS), then
we may be assured that the numbering system isn't likely to be a
manufacturer's mark, but rather an inventory numbering system!  Or am I
missing something?

LTM
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I think that woud be a valid conclusion if we could be sure that the similar
stenciled numbers on two boxes was more than coincidence.  To be sure of that
we have to know where both boxes came from, which gets rather circular.
If we can find the chronometer box with the stenciled numbers, and if we can
determine why the numbers are on the box; and knowing that, if it seems
likley that a sextant would be stenciled with a similar number, and if the
source of the stenciled number can be connected to Fred Noonan - then we have
an interesting coincidence that brings the sexant box found on Niku closer to
being Fred Noonan's.

Seems like a lot of work for one little tidbit, but then again, I remember
once reading an old newspaper article where an old coot said he had heard
that bones had been found on Gardner Island .........

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:59:59 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Parker Pen

I caught the Antiques Roadshow tonight, British.  There was no chronometer
nor any other navigational instrument, but there was a whole mess of
fountain pens.  One was a 1930s vintage Parker pen just like Fred Noonan's.
************************************************************************
From Ric

AHA!
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:42:52 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Numbers on boxes

Trusting that TIGHAR is still above water...

Mary Jane, thanks for the suggestion regarding appraisers.  I'll try that
approach on the Antiques Roadshow people.

Tom King makes a very valid point, the Chronometer on Roadshow appears to be
of Maritime origin.  The two numbered sextant boxes we know of may also have
been numbered by some maritime entity.  That's probably where the sextants
came from unless, they were purchased new.

As ric says, we just have to follow where it leads and hope for something
useful to sway probability one way or another.  That's probable the best we
can hope for.

Until we know more about the chronometer box with number, I'm sticking to my
pet theory that the numbers on the sextant boxes are of PAA/Noonan origin.

I see no reason to doubt that PAA, or Noonan himself, had a number of
nautical sextants, if only for training purposes.  That seems a very
reasonable thing to have done when PAA, and Noonan, were begining to train a
crop of navigarors.  We know that at least one of Noonan's trainees borrowed
a nautical sextant from him... the Pensacola sextant.

To me, it seems likely that the training course started out using available
nautical sextants.  I suspect Noonan even favored them over the bubble
octants which may not have been so available for training.  Noonan would
have recognized the advantages of the bubble octant in some situations, and
it's shortcomings,  but he was certainly more at home with the nautical
sextants.  He always had his "preventer" along!

Fred Noonan may even have established the numbering system for navigational
instruments.  It's likely that his system of numbering would contain some
logical element... such as the year of acquisition or, at least, the year
the number was assigned.

A scenario... Fred Noonan has been employed by PAA since some time in 1930.
Now it's early 1935 and Fred is finally function as a navigator.  Navigator
training is probably being set up.  By July 1935 Fred is being spoken of as
a navigational instructor in PAA records.

Fred had a favorite nautical sextant.  He numbered that one first.
Remember, it's 1935.  Quite logically, he numbers it, 3500 and uses it as
his "preventer" right up until July 2, 1937.  Whatever happened on that
date, Gallagher found the box in 1940.

The next number we encounter is 3547.  That does seem a lot of sextants, but
maybe the numbered items are not all sextants. One sextant was finally
numbered, 3547 and that one was definitely used in navigator training.  The
number was hand written and never got stencilled. One of the trainees
borrowed that sextant and never returned it.  He eventually gave it to the
museum in Pensacola.

If we are able to definitely pin down the number on the Antiques Roadshow
chronometer, and it's number and origin do not fit... well, maybe it's
somebody elses numbering system! <G>
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:57:26 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Photo of airplane wreck.

Ric wrote:

"You haven't heard much about the Wreck Photo lately because the new
information we have makes it clear that the scenario implied by the
photo conflicts with that described by Emily.  As Don Jordan pointed out, it
doesn't make sense to have a wreck up on land get pulled back onto the
reef. I still think the photo shows a big-engined Lockheed 10, but if I have
to choose between the Wreck Photo and Emily, I choose Emily."

I might have missed the thread which explained the reasons the wreck
photo was discounted, so please bear with me.

What did Emily say which lead to the wreck photo being discounted?

If the wreckage depicted in the photo is only the nose, cockpit, and
fuselage forward of the wing spar, or the fuselage forward of the
trailing edge of the wing, the large sections missing might
very well have traveled and were deposited at other locations.

Emily might be attempting to describe  one or both of the outer wing
panels, portions of the rear
fuselage,  the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, if not the entire,
intact rear half of the aircraft.

Emily might have been attempting to describe wreckage which no longer
resembled the L-10 but in fact were large chunks of the mutilated
Electra.

I'm not ready to give up on the photo just yet.

LTM
Roger Kelley,  #2112
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I see your logic about the stuff on the reef being pieces left behind when
the stuff in the Wreck Photo washed ashore.  What bothers me is that if
that's the case, I can't see the Wreck Photo wreckage coming ashore anywhere
other than someplace along the Nutiran shore.  Prior to this past summer's
expedition we had never really searched that shoreline and it seemed like a
reasonable possibility that something that once looked like that could be
hiding there.  Now, having spent a lot of time in that area without finding
diddly, I feel that while there once may have been a few pieces in the bush
that were found and used by the locals, I really don't think anything as
large and complex as the Wreck Photo wreckage could have been there.

But that's opinion, not fact.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:59:09 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: The Nutiran reef

Russ wrote

>  I was out on the Nutiran reef at low tide several times on the July trip
>and mostly had the good sense to stay away from the breaking water.  On one
>occasion I ventured close to the Northwestern edge in order to videotape
>"crashing waves."  I wasn't disappointed.  The sea pounds that area
>relentlessly and made for some nice footage (with a zoom lens of course).
>It's certainly a dynamic environment - evidenced by large slabs of coral
>strewn about the reef surface.  I had to set up on top of one big chunk in
>order to get clear of the swells and the numerous blacktip sharks.

Tonight on TV was a report about hurricanes (all the rage on TV, nowadays)
and one segment was about "Hog Island", an island about a half mile
offshore from Long Island, New York.

This island, which had been a small summer resort island in the 18th
century, was completely obliterated by the Hurricane of 1893 (or was it
1898?). Every building, every man-made device, every bit of sand of the
island itself simply ceased to exist, and no trace of it or anyone or
anything was ever seen again.

Anyway, it has only been in the last couple years that archaeologists are
beginning to unearth artifacts from that island on the shore of Long
Island, such as broken dishes, bottles, and other items that were not
chewed to bits by 100 years of wave action.

I mention this to give some idea of what we may be up against on Niku.
Admittedly, it's not encouraging.

Tom #2179
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:17:11 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Power for Electra

Forest Blair asked,

>Wouldn't starting the engine REALLY be a drain on the batteries (unless
>the engine ran for some time to make up the starter current  drain) as well
>as using precious fuel?

I might be able to contribute a little regarding battery drain and tube
type radios.  I made a post some six  months back about an experience I
had with both.

    My first airplane was a 1960 Piper Colt with a generator system and
a tube type Narco VHT-2 radio.  I eventually replace the radio with a
new King radio, but kept the old as a souvenir.  I just opened it up and
looked inside.  There are 21 tubes in that little package.

    Shortly after I got the airplane, we had an air show at the local
airport where it was kept. During the air show, I turned on the radio to
listen to the traffic (this was before I knew better).  I think it might
have been on for about thirty to forty five minutes in the receive mode
only.  When the show was over, I tired to start the engine.  I got about
four blades before the battery went dead.  After propping the engine to
life, I tried to charge the battery by running the engine at higher
RPM.  I had to have about 1250 RPM before the generator light would go
out.  I had to do fifteen hundred RPM before it would start to charge.
In July, it didn't take long for the engine to get hot and I had to shut
down.  The next time I tried to start, several days later, the battery
was very weak.  It turned over very slow, but the engine did start. I
ended up pulling the battery and having it charged at the shop.

    My point is, that a tube radio is a terrible drain on the batteries,
and starting an engine is a terrible drain on the batteries.  Once you
get the engine started, you can't run the thing at a high enough RPM to
do any good.   Even if you do get the RPM up, the engine  will over heat
quickly.   Not so with toadies Alternators.  They will charge at an
idle. Later, I had a Cessna 210 with a generator system and I had much
the same problems.  It took about 1500 RPM to show any charge on the
gauge.  It also heated up quickly on the ground and was a bear to start
when hot.

    I think the post loss radio signals are intriguing, but based on the
fact that there were no more radio calls from the Electra after 08:43 in
the morning, when they theoretically had 3 to 4 more hours fuel
remaining, I just can't believe any of the signals were genuine!  I
think there were too many people calling the Electra and too many people
picking up those signals.

Don J.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:19:45 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Wreck Photo

    All this talk about the wreck photo  got me to thinking (I know,
that is not always good), so I took another look at the photo.

    Two things come to mind.  First, that nose section has funny oblong
holes in it.   Kinda like windows, which the Electra did not have in
that area, . . . or someone cut the metal out for other purposes.  Maybe
Native South Pacificans (Islander is not a politically correct term).

    The other thought was,  the photo looks just like an airplane that
got washed up on some beach, like the Oregon C-47.  All torn to pieces,
but still recognizable as an airplane.

    I too, am not ready to give up on the wreck photo!  On the one hand
we have a twin engine airplane missing an engine, and on the other we
have an engine missing an airplane.

Don J.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:48:01 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Wreckage up close

<< Does it mean that they might later recognize something like a
 radial engine with a propeller on it if they saw one?  Maybe. >>

Sure.  And if they're standing out in the water looking at the thing from six
feet away they can say "Oh, that's one of those thingies we saw on the ship,"
while if someone's looking at it from the Norwich City one can say "There's a
pile of junk; must have come off the ship."  Maybe.

LTM (who's always good for another speculation)
TK
******************************************************************************
From Ric

Works for me.  As everyone will be able to read when the full transcripts of
the Emily interviews go up on the website very soon, Emily described (and
sketched)  a long skinny thing with a round thing at the end (not unlike
Indy's sketch of the "Staff of Ra" in Raiders of the Lost Ark).  Photos of
that part of the reef taken in 1937 and 1938 appear to confirm the presence
of just such a "dash" and a "dot" in the place where Emily says they were,
although in the photos they are slightly separated rather than joined.  That
could simply be a matter of perspective.  The point is, the "headpiece" of
the Staff of Ra (the "dot") could be an engine.  Forensic work on the photos
may be able to pull out more detail and at least establish whether the size
is consistent with a Pratt & Whitney Wasp.

Gilbertese fishermen are probably not going to be very familiar with the
internal structural components of airplanes, so if  they're going to
recognize a piece of junk as being part of an airplane it's going to have be
something pretty obvious.  An engine alone might not be enough, but a
propeller is such a unique and ubiqutous feature that, until recent years, it
was virtually the emblem of aviation.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:49:09 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Numbers on boxes

Vern says:

>The next number we encounter is 3547.  That does seem a lot of sextants, but
>maybe the numbered items are not all sextants.

True, and as long as we're speculating, imagine that the 35 indicates the
year, the 0 or 4 indicates the type of instrument, and the second 0 in one
case and 7 in the other indicates -- something else.  I can't even guess what
that would be, but we don't necessarily have to posit that Fred had 47 of
anything.

LTM (who's no good at playing the numbers)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:23:06 EDT
From:         Art Carty
Subject:      Re: Power for Electra

It occurs to me that something just doesn't jibe here.  On the one hand, there
isn't enough battery life to support the number/duration of transmissions, even
discounting for a number for fake messages.  On the other hand, the engine can
not be run long enough to recharge the batteries to either restart the engine
later or to power the radio, due to overheating.  Do I have this right?

There's a basic bad assumption here somewhere.  Either the batteries need to
last longer than supposed, the engine needs to not overheat as supposed, or the
batteries need to be able to be recharged at a lower rpm.

It seems that a lot rests with some statement(s) from Lockheed; have they ever
been rigourously tested/challanged? Are we sure about the battery life? For all
of the rigor around other parts of the investigation, this seems to not be "up
to standard".

The existence of at least one message after projected fuel exhaution is a key
piece of the puzzle; it would be nice to have a plausible way for it to have
happened.

LTM (who gets a headache trying to figure this out)

Art Carty
#2268
*************************************************************************
From Ric

This is exactly the kind of confusion that results when we start making
assumptions based upon our own personal experiences and then use them to draw
conclusions about something that happened in a completely different context.

As a novelty, let's return to the facts for a moment.  On July 5, 1937, in
the wake of the big flap over the "281 message" which had been interpreted as
meaning that the plane was floating around in the ocean 281 miles north of
Howland, the commander of the Coast Guard's San Francisco Division sent the
following message to USS COLORADO and USCG ITASCA:

OPINION OF TECHNICAL AIDS HERE THAT EARHART WILL BE FOUND ON ORIGINAL LINE OF
POSITION WHICH INDICATED POSITION THROUGH HOWLAND ISLAND AND PHOENIX GROUP
PERIOD RADIO TECHNICIANS FAMILIAR WITH RADIO EQUIPMENT ON PLANE ALL STATE
THAT PLANE RADIO COULD NOT FUNCTION NOW IF IN WATER AND ONLY IF PLANE WAS ON
LAND AND ABLE TO OPERATE RIGHT MOTOR FOR POWER PERIOD NO FEARS FELT FOR
SAFETY OF PLANE ON WATER PROVIDED TANKS HOLD AS LOCKHEED ENGINEERS CALCULATE
5,000 POUNDS POSITIVE BUOYANCY WITH PLANE WEIGHT 8,000 POUNDS

Note that there are three distinct groups of experts quoted -

* "TECHNICAL AIDS" who think that Earhart will be found on the original line
of position.

*  "RADIO TECHNICIANS FAMILIAR WITH RADIO EQUIPMENT ON PLANE" who say that
the radio can't function now, 3 days after the disappearance, unless the
plane is on land and able to run the starboard engine.

* "LOCKHEED ENGINEERS" who say that if the plane is in the water it will
float just fine as long as "the tanks hold."

We don't know for sure who is meant by the term TECHNICAL AIDS, but we do
know that Paul Mantz was Earhart's "technical advisor" and that he was of the
opinion that  the plane came down somewhere on the line of position,
problably on an island in the Phoenix Group.

Likewise, we can't be sure who RADIO TECHNICIANS FAMILIAR WITH RADIO
EQUIPMENT ON PLANE may be.  There was a guy by the name of Joe Gurr who
helped with the radios and in later years was interviewed extensively by Fred
Goerner, but he made no mention of this episode.

Neither do we have the names of the LOCKHEED ENGINEERS who spoke about
buoyancy, but it seems safe to assume that they are not the same people as
the TECHNICAL AIDS and the RADIO TECHNICIANS.

We know that a Lockheed 10 sitting on the ground can start its engines from
its own battery. (duh)  NR16020 even had an extra battery.  If the airplane
was sitting on the reef at Niku intact it should be no big deal to start an
engine.  As for how many rpm for how long, using how much fuel, it takes to
recharge the batteries with a set-up exactly like Earhart's, and whether
cooling would be an issue  - I have yet to hear an educated opinion.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:32:31 EDT
From:         Darrell Houghton
Subject:      Re: Native recollections

<...Emily never said she saw anything that she recognized as airplane wreckage.
She saw wreckage roughly 500 yards away which her father told her was from an
airplane.>

Holy mackerel, 500 yards?! That's 5 football field lengths away! I assume Emily
and her father were on the shore looking out at the reef and the supposed
wreckage? I find that hard to believe. From my own observations from the 11th
floor of a hotel on the beach in Maui, I could discern the makeup of the
offshore reef area to maybe 100 yards. Beyond that the glare and water
refraction made the reef impossible to see clearly. Viewing the reef from the
beach decreases the distance considerably. Ric, from your own experience of
standing on the beach on Niku, could you actually see clearly that far out?
---
Darrell Houghton
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Sorry.  I meant to say 500 FEET, but going back and measuring the shortest
distance from the beach to the spot where debris can be seen in the 1937 and
1938 photos, it's more like 700 feet.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:35:57 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Wreckage up close

Of course, maybe it was the Staff of Ra.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Which would explain the portrait of Harrison Ford hanging in Emily's living
room.

(just kidding, guys, just kidding)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:48:19 EDT
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Euros on Niku

Ric, thanks for setting me straight on the "resident administrator" issue.
Evidently the colony was pretty much left to fend for itself after
Gallagher's demise.  Your response is doubly valuable in that it's the first
concise chronology I have seen of European/American presence on Niku.
Suggest you post it as a FAQ, or perhaps an IABNNQ (Infrequently Asked But
Nevertheless Nagging Questions).

I also appreciate Tom King's acknowledgment that my point is a valid one,
even though I overestimated the number of Euro-types on Niku during its 25
years of habitation.  The New Zealand survey seems to become more and more
crucial.  These guys lived on the island for two months, arriving only 17
months after AE's disappearance.  They were there before the war (so no
possibility of "contamination" by military wreckage) and, more importantly,
before the colonists.  Sixty days -- actually 67 -- is a long time to spend
on a relatively small island.  If they didn't see anything worthy of note,
it probably wasn't there.

Have we had any success in locating the complete records of the 1938 New
Zealand survey?  Are any of the team members still alive?  Any Kiwis out
there on the forum who could lend a hand?

LTM (who bets you didn't know that the "Kiwi fruit" used to be called the
Chinese gooseberry),

Patrick Gaston
***************************************************************************
From Ric

We think we have what records there are.  Quite a bit of information really,
and some very good maps.  We dont know if any of the team is still alive but
we've been actively seeking help from our Kiwi brethren in tracking them down.

The only statement I'd disagree with is, "If they didn't see anything worthy of note,
it probably wasn't there."  I think a more accurate way to put it might be,
"They didn't see anything they perceived to be worthy of note."
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:06:08 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Numbers on boxes

Vern wrote:

> Fred Noonan may even have established the numbering system for
> navigational instruments.  It's likely that his system of numbering
> would contain some logical element... such as the year of acquisition
...
> Fred had a favorite nautical sextant.  He numbered that one first.
> Remember, it's 1935.  Quite logically, he numbers it, 3500...

Returning to our interview some months ago with Capt. Banning, there are
some parallels that COULD support this numbering theory. The following
discussion is based on that interview:

If your numbering theory is correct, since Pan Am first had sextants
built in 1935 by Pioneer, then the box would have held a Pioneer sextant
(that was the only supplier in 1935). We have no idea what one of those
looks like.

The Pioneer sextants were slightly smaller than the later ones from 1937
built by Bausch & Lomb. According to Banning, the Pioneer sextants also
apparently were kept in wooden boxes.

Here is the key quote:
"Pioneers were slight smaller and those were wooden boxes if I remember
right. It had little racks and felt cushioning so it couldn't rattle
around in the box. After all, they are pretty rugged, but the lens are
glass, so you have to take care of it."

My thoughts on this, since the original 1935 Pioneer design was the
first Pan Am sextant and many advancements were made in 1936 and 1937,
it might be perfectly logical for Gatty to declare that the box would
have held a sextant "not suitable for modern aerial navigation".

I guess what I am trying to say is that it is interesting that Gatty
didn't say that the sextant was nautical, he said that it was "not
suitable for modern aerial navigation." That could imply that he
recognized it as an older aerial instrument.

Thomas Van Hare
******************************************************************************
From Ric

Personally, I think that's kind of stretching it.  It seems pretty clear that
Gatty didn't recognize the box or the numbers and his best guess was that it
was "English."

However, the coincidence of Pioneer instruments being developed Pan Am in
1935 and being in wooden boxes is an interesting one.  It's not hard to see
the protoype being number 3500 and ending up in the possession of the
company's premiere navigator after it is superceded by better instruments
from Bausch & Lomb. If we're going to play out that scenario, the handwritten
3547 on the Pensacola box dates from its previous use as a container for one
of the early Pioneer units.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:13:20 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The Nutiran reef

<< Every building, every man-made device, every bit of sand of the
 island itself simply ceased to exist, and no trace of it or anyone or
 anything was ever seen again. >>

Nature has such a way of wiping out our creations and returning the area to
what it once was but it doesn't take a hurricane to do that - only time. A
good example is the old Avon Park gunnery range in Florida. I used the range
in B-47s and took ground school there. 20 years later I visited the area and
it was difficult to find much trace of the base. Buildings and roads were
swallowed up and nature was slowly reclaiming what it once held sway over.

Alan
**************************************************************************
From Ric

"'Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and
level sands stretch far away."
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:33:15 EDT
From:         Tom Cook
Subject:      charging the batteries

Ric; I have been wondering about charging the batteries also (1) They
should have had a full charge to start with from the long flight.  (2)
whether starting the engine with battery power would be a net gain or
loss for the batteries would depend on how long it took to get the
engine started, how much they used the radio in receive and transmit
modes, and how long they could afford to keep it running and at what RPM
considering there remaining fuel as well as any overheating problem,
How well does a single row radial engine cool itself from propwash?  (3)
Could one of those engines be started by turning the prop manually under
dire conditions?  The ignition is by magneto, not depending on  battery
power.  If the batteries sustained a net loss of charge each time they
used the radio that could explain why the messages ended when they did,
or they may have run out of fuel, or the batteries could have gotten wet
and shorted out. TC 2127
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The only part of the above I feel competent to answer with any degree of
certainty is the bit about hand-propping a 1340.  As hung on a Lockheed 10
and sitting on that reef?...  It would take a better man than I am Gunga Din.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:40:26 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Fuel remaining

>From Forest Blair
>
>I still have a hang-up on the engine being used.  Two things are the cause.
>Firstly, the Electra per the calcs previously discussed on the forum would
>have been nearly out of fuel by the time it reached Niku.

Think about this.  The Electra had how many fuel tanks?  These tanks all held
some "unusable" fuel.  Didn't they have a hand pump to pump fuel from the
cabin tank?  Take the pump, pump all the "unusable" fuel from the other tanks
into the main tank.  How much fuel do you have?  How long will the engine run
on that?

LTM
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush

***************************************************************************

From Ric

Interesting questions.  Unknowable answers.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:51:03 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Numbers on boxes

Tom King speculates...

>True, and as long as we're speculating, imagine that the 35 indicates the
>year, the 0 or 4 indicates the type of instrument, and the second 0 in one
>case and 7 in the other indicates -- something else.  I can't even guess
>what that would be, but we don't necessarily have to posit that Fred had
>47 of anything.

Yes, and maybe the 35 is not the year.  I don't know what the 3 is but
maybe the 5 is "sextant, nautical."  Charlie Sivert thinks the number of the
box he saw was 3100 or 3400.  The 1 or the 4, whichever, is "chronometer,
marine type."  That leaves two digits for sequential numbering of those
kinds of things, in case you expect there may be more than 10 of them.

I wonder how many codeing schemes we might be able to conjure up?

LTM (Who says she's rather not know!)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Few people realize that the pizza, known in the 1930s and 40s as "tomatoe
pies," did not become really popular until the development of economical
cardboard boxes in which to deliver them.  The original wooden boxes were
typically stenciled with a numeric code to indicate the size and toppings.
For example, 3500 would indicate a small (3) pizza, with pepperoni (5), and
extra cheese (00).

Perhaps we need to amend our hypothesis.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:06:03 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Survey Party

> From Don Jordan
>
>     On July 9th, 1937, Lt.Lambrecht made several passes over the island
> during the Earhart search.  He made note of and inspected the Norwich
> City from the air.  He did not see or note any wreckage!  At that time
> the ship was fairly complete and pieces scattered on the reef would
> surely have stood out.  I think it is fair to say, the wreckage was not
> there!

Looking at Lt.Lambrecht report, it is of interest that he described the
wreck of the Norwhich in great detail.  There is a trick a Ventriloquist
uses when he has to move his lips, he makes sure the Dummy movements catches
the attention of the audience, so that they are watching the Dummy instead
of him while he moves his lips.  Is it possible that Lt.Lambrecht was so
involved with viewing the wreck of the Norwhich, that he could miss and
smaller debris left by the Electra (if nearby the Norwhich) by the time he
flew over?  For that matter people who where there later and were not
looking for the Electra, is it possible that their attention was focus on
the wreck of the Norwhich, keeping them from noticing or distinguishing what
may be left of the Electra?
Regards
Warren Lambing
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Exactly.  It is beginning to look as though the wreck of the SS Norwich City
was a key factor in the apparent "disappearance" of NR16020.   Although still
largely intact, the ship was obviously a wreck in 1937, with (as Lambrecht
notes) "her back broken in two places."  Only someone intimately familiar
with the weather patterns that affect the island would see anything
suspicious about a little bit of debris nearby on the reef to the north of
the wreck.  Over the years, the more the ship broke up the greater the
"noise" in which any airplane debris might be obscured.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:25:13 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Numbers on boxes

This is an interesting idea, and I would suspect that if there is any validity
to it it would have been most effective as an identification system if more than
one person knew about it (I have in mind, here, Ric's pizza analogy.....what
good is the system if only the guy taking the order knows about it?).  I do not
know whether any "experts/historians" in the area of these sorts of instruments
have already been consulted, and whether this particular question has been put
to them, but if not perhaps someone should?  Something must have tipped "Mr.
Gaty" off  that the box probably didn't hold an instrument used in modern
trans-Pacific navigation (I believe that's roughly what he determined). Perhaps
it wasn't the box itself, but what was stenciled on it?

**************************************************************************
From Ric

We've consluted experts galore and nobody can make any sense of the numbers.
Gatty's opinion of what kind of sextant the box once help was most likely
based upon the internal supports that kept the instrument from rattling
around.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:28:48 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Wreckage up close

For Tom King,

> Of course, maybe it was the Staff of Ra.

    You should know better than to "Joke" on this forum!  I am still getting
E-mails with remedies for seasickness!

Don J.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, but ya gotta admit that it's a beautifu analogy.  Life imitating art.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:39:55 EDT
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Charging and Cooling

  Regarding charging batteries and cooling engines.  Having worked on quite a
few of the American WW-II types I can say that you can charge the batteries,
and keep the engines cool in most cases.
  It's true that overheating is a concern, however, except under very hot
conditions, setting the prop to coarse pitch provides sufficient cooling air
over the engine.  Weren't most of the apparently legitimate post loss
messages at night when it would have been cooler?  I suspect that the earlier
postings reporting overheating experiences on the ground came from light
civil aircraft with fixed pitch props and small cowl openings.
  I've worked engine runs on the AT-6, which has a similar R-1340 and
variable pitch prop, during the summer in California and encountered no
difficulties with overheating.  (Just be careful you don't jump the chocks
with the RPM up and prop pitch coarse.)  The battery would usually completely
recharge during the course of the engine run.
  For a critical battery charging situation; rather than running the whole
start procedure with the electric starter, you can walk the prop through to
purge the lower jugs, and to prime.  Then use the electric start only when
the mags are hot.  This substantially reduces battery drain (and incidentally
saves the starters).
  Also, while I agree it's not possible to hand prop a 1340, it probably is
possible to hand start it.  A procedure I've seen used on the R-1830 of a
Dakota is to rig a cup to go over a prop tip.  This has a long rope attached
for the start crew to pull.  This provides sufficient leverage to kick the
engine over.  The Dakota did take three strong men and a boy, so I don't know
how practical it would be with the Lockheed, but it's certainly possible.

LTM (Who never jumps the chocks, or to conclusions.)

Robert Klaus

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Think night-time, ambient temperature about 80 degrees F, with maybe a 10 to
12 knot breeze.  So the run-up recharges what was used in the start.
Interesting.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:47:47 EDT
From:         David Dunsmore
Subject:      Re: Power for Electra

Ric Gillespie wrote:

> We know that a Lockheed 10 sitting on the ground can start its engines from
> its own battery. (duh)  NR16020 even had an extra battery.  If the airplane
> was sitting on the reef at Niku intact it should be no big deal to start an
> engine.  As for how many rpm for how long, using how much fuel, it takes to
> recharge the batteries with a set-up exactly like Earhart's, and whether
> cooling would be an issue  - I have yet to hear an educated opinion.

How about we try using an existing Lockheed 10 (like that 10A model that
Air Canada still flies for charity flights) and do an experiment on the
ground to see just how long the engine can run from a cold start to almost
overheating, and record what fuel flow reading, RPM and generator charge
it puts out, and for how long?  To be accurate, we may need to hook up a
second battery like on NR16020, drain power like their radio would have,
and hopefully do the test run on a day with a similar ambiant temperature
to what our heroes would have had on Niku.  Just a thought.

LTM, (Who likes any excuse to get close to airplanes!)

David Dunsmore

**************************************************************************
From Ric

If we were going to do an experiment that had any meaning we would need to
use an airplane with the same engines Earhart had.  The 10A uses the smaller
R985. The only operational Electra with 1340s is Finch's and we're not likley
to get any cooperation there.  The next best thing would be a Noth American
T-6 which uses the military variant of the 1340 (the AN-1 rather than the
S3H1).  Fortunately, Texans are a dime a dozen. (No offense to our friends
from the Lone Star state).
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:54:31 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Native recollections

Re Emily on the beach -- let's be clear, too, that this doesn't mean her
FATHER saw the "thing" only from the beach.  He showed it to her from the
beach, but there's no reason to think he hadn't looked at it up close.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

By all means. In fact, Emily decribed her father as a great fisherman.  For
me, the scene really rings true.  The father walking along the beach
accompanied by his daughter points out to the reef edge and says, "You see
that red thing way out there near the breakers?  Do you know what that is?
......."
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:56:31 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Numbers on boxes

Ha!  So we need to search the Domino's archives for orders from Niku in 1937!

LTM (who prefers sausage, mushrooms, and light cheese)
TKing

************************************************************************
From Ric

Volunteers?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:58:59 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Survey Party

>Exactly.  It is beginning to look as though the wreck of the SS Norwich City
>was a key factor in the apparent "disappearance" of NR16020.

If pieces of the Electra were essentially mingled with debris from the
Norwich, it would be all too natural for any witness, on the ground or in
the air, to associate any metallic debris with the Norwich. Perhaps only a
few children, playing close among the wreckage, ever noticed anything
distinctive?

william #2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:00:54 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Numbers on boxes

>for Gatty to declare that the box would
>>have held a sextant "not suitable for modern aerial navigation"

It is not unusual for well-known experts, in certain circumstances, to be
wrong, or misunderstood, or taken out of context.

william #2243
**************************************************************************
From Ric

(Tell me about it.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:03:51 EDT
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Three Observations

Ric,
        From the recent posting three things come to mind. First, it is very
difficult to see an object such as a broken up airplane that is in surf on a
reef.  It could easily be missed from the air even if there was no
distraction.  Second, unusable fuel from tanks could be drained through the
sump drains and put into one tank where it could be used to operate an
engine.  No pump required.  Third, I have hand propped a 450 h.p. R-985 under
ideal conditions.  No way would Fred be able to hand prop a 1340.
Dick Pingrey 908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:05:39 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: The Nutiran reef

Alan wrote:

>Nature has such a way of wiping out our creations and returning the area to
>what it once was but it doesn't take a hurricane to do that - only time. A
>good example is the old Avon Park gunnery range in Florida. I used the range
>in B-47s and took ground school there. 20 years later I visited the area and
>it was difficult to find much trace of the base. Buildings and roads were
>swallowed up and nature was slowly reclaiming what it once held sway over.

And this passage reminds me of my time on Guam, in the early 1970s. We set
out one day to find the former headquarters area of the 20th Air Force of
WWII. After a DETERMINED search, we discovered that we had been through the
area twice... it was almost completely overgrown. After we knew where we
were, it wasn't too hard to find remaining foundations of buildings, and
here and there what was left of a street could be discerned through the
vegetation.

But it was amazing that the area could have become so nearly completely
reclaimed by the jungle in only 25 years.

Tom #2179
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:08:46 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: charging the batteries

Is it possible that they didn't shut down the engine at all?

If I had landed on a reef flat, and knew that people were expecting me at
another island nearby, and if the engine was still running and the prop
wasn't bent, I don't think I'd shut it down. I'd leave it run and get on
that radio RIGHT NOW!

Yes, eventually it will overheat, but if the prop is still blowing air over
the engine, how long can it run? Perhaps Fred gathered some water with
something and splashed it on the engine periodically to cool it?

I think I'd be frantic to get in radio contact at that point, and keep the
engine running at all costs until it seizes.

Pure speculation on my part, of course.

Tom #2179
*************************************************************************
From Ric

You can't run the engine at high tide.
Radio propagation is best at night when it's also cooler.
The alleged post-loss signals went on for three nights.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:12:46 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Numbers on boxes

Many manufacturers use a four digit date code to indicate the year and
month of manufacture. In this case, "3547" could be the 47th week of 1935.
This could also indicate when the device was last calibrated. In either
case, however, I would think the date code would be stamped on the device
itself, and not on the box.

But this could still be a date code. The question is, what does it signify?

Tom #2179
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We could develop a thousand hypotheses about what the numbers signify, but
the only ones that are helpful are ones we can actually test.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:36:31 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: the Nutiran Reef

Warren Lambing said: ...."Is it possible that Lt.Lambrecht was so
involved with viewing the wreck of the Norwhich, that he could miss and
smaller debris left by the Electra (if nearby the Norwhich) by the time
he flew over? "....

We seem to imply with this statement that the Electra had, within the
space of a week's time, been reduced to small pieces of debris no longer
recognizable as fitting the configuration of an aircraft, by observation
from an aircraft whose only mission was to look for & find such plane or
wreckage.    While it has already been argued that the pilot Lambrecht &
his observer may or may not have been as focused on the task at hand as
they should have been, I think we would have to agree it would be very
hard to explain how they missed seeing an in-tact Electra, sitting on
the reef, especially if it were in reasonable proximity to the Norwich
City, the only other readily noticable landmark on the island, which
Lambrecht describes in some detail.

Admittedly, had there been some unusual strong or violent wave or storm
action around Gardner Island during that interval of time, it is surely
possible that the Electra was either swept off the reef or in fact
reduced to unrecognizable aircraft wreckage;  However I seem to recall a
post from Randy Jacobson that no such unusual wave or storm related
activity was recorded for that period of time, which if true, means that
either the Electra was still on the reef (in-tact) at the time of
Lambrecht's flight or that the otherwise normal tidal action at Gardner
Island had indeed been sufficiently strong to render an aircraft the
size of the Electra to pieces of wreckage, indistinguishable from that
of the nearby Norwich City; or that in landing the Electra, AE had
setdown so close to the edge of the reef that such normal tidal action
had swept the aircraft off the reef into the deeper waters surrounding
the island so that there was no visable signs of either the plane or
it's wreckage at the time of the overflight.

The only other possible scenario is that the aircraft didn't land on the
reef near the Norwhich City, accounting for the fact that Lambrecht &
his observer failed to see the plane or wreckage, because it was never
on the reef at that location.

Don Neumann
*************************************************************************

From Ric

I guess you missed my posting in repsonse in a simiar question from Jerry
Ellis on September 14th:

<<I think you underestimate the power of the sea.  No whopping great storm is
needed.  Just a bit of a swell.  If you could stand on the reef at Niku in
that area on just an average day when there's a swell running .... well - for
one thing, you wouldn't be standing for long.  Russ Matthews was out there
this last trip.  What was it like Russ?>>

To which Russ replied:

<<I was out on the Nutiran reef at low tide several times on the July trip
and mostly had the good sense to stay away from the breaking water.  On one
occasion I ventured close to the Northwestern edge in order to videotape
"crashing waves."  I wasn't disappointed.  The sea pounds that area
relentlessly and made for some nice footage (with a zoom lens of course).
It's certainly a dynamic environment - evidenced by large slabs of coral
strewn about the reef surface.  I had to set up on top of one big chunk in
order to get clear of the swells and the numerous blacktip sharks.

On another occasion, several of us decided to save a little time returning
to the ship (moored to the wreck of the Norwich City and so tantalizingly
close) by going over the edge of the reef.  It was one of the calmer days
we'd seen at the island and the whole thing seemed like a good idea.  The
launch came in to get us - and in no time was broadside to the waves, bashing
its hull against the coral.  After some unexpected (and unnecessary) tense
moments, we got her off again.  Needless to say, everyone was happy to
commute the "long way" home from then on.>>

I was a participant in the little adventure Russ describes above, which took
place (now that I think about it) very close to where Emily says the airplane
wreckage once was.  The sea that day was by no means stormy.  In fact, it was
rather calmer than is typical at Niku - and we came very close to rolling the
launch and maybe losing some people.  And that was at LOW tide.

I must confess to a perverse desire to share that experience with anyone who
doesn't think the surf on a normal day at Niku could utterly destroy a
Lockheed 10.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:40:32 EDT
From:         Bill Moffet
Subject:      Re. Antiques Roadshow

Following up:  I watched 5 half-hour and one one-hour Antiques Roadshows on
PBS (WHYY-Phila/Wilmington) this past week.  Four of the short ones
originated in England, Scotland, Wales & one in Amsterdam.  The long one was
from Portland, OR.  None showed a chronometer nor a box for one.  The
Portland episode listed the Senior Producer as Peter Cook, Producer as Aida
Moreno.  The European ones had copyright dates in 1996 (close as I could
tell) and the US one in 1999 by "WGBH Educational Foundation" with a
statement that further info might be found at www.pbs.org, then the antiques
website.  The last BBC episode stated that questions can be addressed to
Antiques Roadshow, P.O.Box 229, Bristol BS99 7JN (no doubt England) however
"experts will answer questions during the next series and cannot answer by
post."  As I stated in an earlier posting, the two clocks experts listed in
the credits were Simon Bull and Richard Price.  I suspect that a TIGHAR with
a "connection" to PBS might be able to thread thru its maze and reach either
or both of these men to quiz them on numbers, stencilled or otherwise, on
chronometer boxes.  I note that WHYY will air this program again  Sept. 20
thru 24 from 19:30-20:00 and on the 25th from noon to 13:00.  I'll try to
watch & tape.
LTM
Bill Moffet #2156

***************************************************************************
From Ric

TIGHAR's only connection to PBS is the experience of having been sued by one
of their larger stations (WGBH Boston).  We won.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 13:26:29 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: the Nutiran Reef

Don Neumann writes:

<<We seem to imply with this statement that the Electra had, within the
space of a week's time, been reduced to small pieces of debris no longer
recognizable as fitting the configuration of an aircraft, by observation
from an aircraft whose only mission was to look for & find such plane or
wreckage. >>

But remember that what Emily describes is not small pieces of debris, but
some fairly massive elements that, if parts of an airplane, must have been
major structural members or parts of the undercarriage.  So two things could
have happened to the rest of the plane -- smashed to smithereens (which
should have, presumably, left a lot of shiny stuff around to be seen), or
lifted more or less intact off the undercarraige and dropped over the reef
face.  Question: would the latter scenario be a reasonable one, given what we
know about the way Electras were held together?

LTM
Tom King

*************************************************************************
From Ric

In my opinion, no.  I've never watched an Electra, or any other kind of
airplane, get torn apart on a reef, so anything I say is pure speculation
based upon what I know about the reef at Niku in that location and about how
Lockheed 10s are constructed.

As the surf picked up I would expect the airplane to "weathervane" so that it
was facing the oncoming waves.  At some point there's going to be a wave big
enough to pick the airplane up and move it some distance "downstream" where
it will then slam down onto the reef and get spun around by the
"weathervaning" effect of the retreating undertow.  That's when at least one,
maybe both, of the main gear legs will fail at the down-lock, fold up, and
dump the airplane onto its belly which will be ripped open, making the
airframe less buoyant.

Now, with the airplane's entire centersection belly in contact with the reef
surface, the next big wave doesn't so much pick up airplane but slides it
across the reef, essentially disemboweling the fuselage and destroying it's
integrity.  At this point the major structural member, the main beam, comes
in contact with the reef and soon gets jammed into one of the many shallow
depressions or "pools" in the reef flat.

With the main beam held firm the airplane becomes the classic immovable
object assailed by the irresistable force.  Water rushes in through openings
in the skin and the fuselage literally explodes into shards of aluminum, many
of which are light enough to get sucked back out over the reef edge by the
retreating undertow.  Within a few hours nothing is left on the reef but the
heaviest elements that offer the least surface area to the waves - i.e. the
main beam and the hardware attached to it (main gear legs, worm gear drive
shafts, etc.) and the engines.  The rest of the pieces of the airplane are
either pulled back out and over the reef edge or swept downstream depending
upon an impossibly complex formula in which size, weight, buoyancy and
surface area are subject to wave size, undertow force, the smoothness or
roughness of the reef surface, etc. etc.

That's what I see in my tiny mind.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 13:33:49 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Radios on airplanes

Does anybody know the specifics on the radio? IE Who built it? What
was the model number? It should be in the original paperwork at
Lockheed if they installed it. If they didn't install it who did?

Assuming that it was a known type then all of the stuff about power
drain and time could be discussed at a bit higher level. There should
be a computation of system capacity. Also what about the antenna they
were using? Any ideas there?

Pilot and electrical engineer.

\_ Greg _/
******************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, we have all those specifics.  How about it radio gurus?  Can we reliably
estimate how much power it would take to transmit for - say - fifteen minutes
using the WE 13C and the dorsal V antenna?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 19:19:29 EDT
From:         Harry Poole
Subject:      Re: Radios on airplanes

Greg asked:

>Does anybody know the specifics on the radio? IE Who built it? What
>was the model number?

From Ric:

>Yes, we have all those specifics.  How about it radio gurus?  Can we reliably
>estimate how much power it would take to transmit for - say - fifteen minutes
>using the WE 13C and the dorsal V antenna?

The life of the two batteries depends on the state of charge, and the
percentage of time transmitting.  The battery was rated at 85 amp-hours (two
Exide 6-FFHM-13-1).  The Westinghouse transmitter required about 50 amps,
and the receiver about 5 amps.

Thus, if transmissions occurred once an hour for 6 minutes, while the
receiver remained on constantly, battery drain would be about (50 X 0.1)+5
or 10 amps per hour.  This results in a radio life of about 8.5 hours.  If
they tried to transmit for 15 minutes per hour, the drain would be more like
(50 X 0.25)+5 or 17.5 amps per hour, with radio life shortened to about 5
hours.  Finally, if they shut the receiver off (especially if they could not
hear Howland),  and restricted transmissions to 3 minutes per hour, they
could continue to transmit for 85/(50 X 0.05) or as long as 36 hours.

LTM
Harry #2300

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Whew!  I asked for specifics and I got specifics.  Does everybody agree with
Harry's figures?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 19:22:49 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Radios on airplanes

From Willima Webster-Garman

Ric Wrote:

>>Can we reliable estimate how much power it would take to transmit for - say
- fifteen minutes using the WE 13C and the dorsal V antenna?

In principle, for a reasonable estimate of maximum transmit time one needs
to know:

1) The factory-rated power consumption (in amperes or watts) of a typical WE
13C. The wattage/power output delivered to the antenna when the mike is
keyed must be factored in with the unit's power consumption in stand-by mode
(that is, tubes energized but not delivering output power). This information
could possibly be acquired from the original manual (or possibly
extrapolated from a manufacturer's plate on the cabinet), for example.

2) The capacity of the battery array on the Electra: The calculation of
battery capacity requires an estimated starting charge, and will be
influenced by the actual rate of drain (average coulombs/sec/volt, i.e.
amperes) over time, ambient temperature, and the age/condition of the
battery.

With the right information, one could easily come up with a reasonable
number in kilowatt hours for the transmitter. However, I'd have to read up a
little on 30s era aviation batteries to estimate a realistic capacity curve.

To illustrate the final calculation only, IF the transmitter consumed (not
broadcast) 500 watts (amperes x volts at the power connection) when keyed,
and IF the battery could deliver 1/4 kilowatt hour under that continuous
load, then its capacity in that case would be 30 minutes.

What specs, exactly, does TIGHAR have on this equipment...?

william #2243
***************************************************************************
From Ric

See Harry Poole's posting of this date on this subject.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 19:29:35 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Power for Electra

From Jim K

Although I'm not a member of TIGHAR I have been following the postings
for quite a while.

I live in Honolulu (just a few short blocks away from the Wailupe Coast
Guard facility) and it was actually the passing through of Linda Finch
that got me interested in this whole Amelia Earhart Search thing.

I went to the brief ceremony (with speeches by Linda etc.) that was held
when Finch was here and took numerous photos of her plane in a 360 deg
fashion. It is very helpful to view those photos when reading the
postings. I can get a real perspective on the physical size etc. and
actually mentally superimpose Amelia standing there giving her speach
instead of Linda. BTW Her plane also had a Loop antenna above the
cockpit. Also one can get other vivid pictures like the orange paint on
the leading edge of the wings

My question is why you made the statement:

"The only operational Electra with 1340s is Finch's and we're not likley
to get any cooperation there"

I know there was some controversy to do with her care home business, but
what about with TIGHAR? I must have missed something in the earlier
goings on that happened before my interest was aroused (you may want to
email me privately with the explanation)

Aloha,
Jim

PS As a boater in Hawaii I can very well appreciate the power of the
ocean. Ask any mariner what happens to their sailboat and how fast when
they tangle with a reef even in calm weather. Most non-ocean sports
people think of the force of water in terms of how it comes out of the
showerhead or garden hose. In a tropical area with reefs it becomes a
very different matter. With even a shall amount of wave action the
forces involve lots of pounds per square inch of force that can grind
objects up like a grist mill.

PPS I can email some of the photos to anyone that would like to see the
Finch plane from a fairly close distance.

******************************************************************************
*************************
From Ric

As far as I know Ms. Finch doesn't have anything specific against TIGHAR.
We've had no contact with her.  She just has a reputation for not being very
difficult to deal with and she steadfastly refuses to even discuss the matter
of Earhart's disappearance.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:05:54 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Report is up
Part Three of the Niku IIIP Expedition Report "The Carpenter's Daughter" is
now up on the TIGHAR website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin.html

You'll find an introduction, the complete transcripts of both interviews with
Emily Sikuli, and an in-depth analysis complete with photos and map.  I
apologize for the length of time to get it researched and written.  I hope
you find it worth the wait.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:42:43 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Recently discovered in P.I.S.S. archives
Patrick Gaston sent this, quite correctly, off forum - but I just had to
share it.

**************************************************************************

TOMATO PIE HUT
Suva, Fiji

SPECIALS FOR JULY, 1937

Order any size of our most popular pie (pepperoni with extra cheese) and
receive a FREE BOTTLE OF BENEDICTINE & BRANDY.

When transmitting order by Morse code, indicate size as follows:
    1500:  Small
    2500:  Medium
    3500:  The Big Kahuna (includes free presentation box)

Please remember to indicate pickup (code 280) or delivery (code 281)

WE DELIVER ANYWHERE IN CENTRAL PACIFIC (Japanese Mandates excluded).  ALLOW
FOUR WEEKS.

LTM (and hold the anchovies)

Patrick Gaston
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:44:26 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Report is up

From Shirley

To Ric and Co.

I spent last night before going to bed reading the Expedition Report and
printed 26 pages so that I can re-read it often.  I think you did a fantastic
job aquiring and reporting the info.  I, for one, find it extremely
interesting and I just know there is something there that willl be found next
time. (smoking gun)

It isn't inconceivable that those very waves and/or swells could have
wrenched parts into the jungle too.  Things do wind up in strange places when
affected by the wrath of moving water.

GOOD JOB!

LTM , who says you're getting very warm.

Shirley Walter 2299
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:21:37 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Pictures

From Don Jordan (djordan@cyberlynk.com)

To Jim K.

Ooooh you shouldn't have offer pictures.....You bet I would like to see
them.  E-mail all you want.

Thanks

Don J.
**************************************************************************

From Ric

Anyone else who would like pictures of Finch's 10E (converted 10A) can email
Jim K. directly at jimk@iav.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:32:22 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Radios on airplanes

From William Webster-Garman

From Ric
>
> Whew!  I asked for specifics and I got specifics.  Does everybody agree with
> Harry's figures?

Yes, based upon a battery rated at 85 amp hours and a transmitter drawing 50
amps, it appears that they had a maximum ideal of less than 1.5 hours of
(continuous) transmitting time available.

Now, let's factor in real-world considerations (based on my own experience
with rated power consumption and batteries): The transmitter probably drew
more than its rated consumption (for example, used, "mushy" tubes will do
that), and the battery probably would have performed at something less than
its rated capacity, for a variety of reasons.

If I found myself sitting in the cockpit of the stranded Electra with these
specs in hand, and if I was pondering how long I could transmit without
recharging the batteries (i.e., running the engine with the dynamo connected
to it), I wouldn't anticipate more than an hour's worth of total broadcast
time. At that point one might mentally divide that time into possible
"transmit & listen" sessions, say 12 sessions of 10 minutes each (with a
little less than half of that time spent actually transmitting-- the rest
listening).

Before I saw the specs in Harry Poole's post, I had been roughly estimating
30 minutes of total possible (unrecharged) airtime for AE & FN. Although
these specs double that, it's still brief. Even with careful battery
management strategies (and rigorously avoiding keeping the transmitter on
standby when not actually broadcasting), I doubt they would have been able
to transmit even very short, spaced messages for more than 2 or 3 days.

If they kept their receiver on for any significant amount of time (hoping
for replies or even general search and rescue calls), this would have cut
things down significantly, perhaps to a day or two of spaced transmitting
and listening: Remember that without transmitting at all, the battery was
probably capable of running the receiver alone for something less than 15
continuous hours.

Does this correspond at all to what we know about the "credible"
transmissions that may have been heard...?

william #2243

**************************************************************************
From Ric
Gosh, I dunno.  This is a much better quantification of the realistic
possibilites than we've ever had before.  The whole post-loss signals thing
needs to be looked at again to see how transmission patterns may or may not
fit the unrecharged scenario.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:53:51 EDT
From:        
Subject:      The flyover

From Patrick Gaston

Warren Lambing wrote:  "Is it possible that Lt. Lambrecht was so
involved with viewing the wreck of the Norwhich, that he could miss and
smaller debris left by the Electra (if nearby the Norwhich) by the time he
flew over?"

You know, we on the Forum rightly object to the various characterizations of
AE as a stumblebum, dilettante or panicky female, but we're fully prepared
to believe the same of Lt. Lambrecht (okay, instead of "panicky female" make
it "male chauvinist biplane jock.")  I don't think it's fair.  There is not
a shred of credible evidence that Lambrecht was derelict in his duty, or was
thrown off the scent by the Norwich City wreckage.  Quite the contrary, his
description of the wreck, including its position, appearance, and estimated
tonnage, attests to a trained eye and an appreciation for detail.

Lambrecht was aware that, "after a careful study of the situation it had
been considered most likely that Miss Earhart was down on one of the islands
of this [Phoenix] group."  He acknowledged that "Miss Earhart could have
landed her plane in this [Niku] lagoon and swam or waded ashore."  He
engaged in "repeated circling and zooming" of the island.  In other words,
here we have an experienced aviator who was specifically looking for
aircraft wreckage -- or survivors -- in the area where AE was regarded as
"most likely" to have set down.  He made a number of passes over the island.
It strains credulity to believe he could not tell rusted steel from shiny
aluminum.  I am as puzzled as anyone by the "signs of recent habitation",
but obviously Lambrecht was simply unaware that no such "signs" should have
been apparent in 1937.  Evidently this fact also escaped his commanding
officers, who didn't jump to commission a followup search after receiving
his report.

The chatty tone of Lambrecht's account may be attributable to the fact that
the document posted on TIGHAR's website is called a "Weekly News Letter"  --
a summary of the entire search, written after the Colorado had completed her
operations, with benefit of hindsight, and perhaps with an eye to
publication in the fleet newspaper.  It is not a debriefing taken
immediately after Lambrecht's arrival back on the Colorado.  Wouldn't we
like to have a record of that conversation!

I don't disagree with the possibility that the Electra may have been washed
off the reef flat by wave action before Lambrecht got there -- but the guy
knew exactly what he was looking for, and I think speculation that he didn't
recognize it when he saw it is venturing pretty far out on the limb.

LTM

Patrick Gaston
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We don't need to impugn the professionalism or sincerity of the Navy's aerial
search in order to explain why it failed to see the Earhart aircraft on the
reef at Gardner Island.  If (please note that I said "If") Emily's
description of the wreckage is accurate, and if (there's that word again) the
wreckage was not appreciably different at the time of Lambrecht's fly over,
then he didn't see anything because there was nothing to see.

We know from the photo taken during the search that the Navy overflight was
done at high tide with surf on the reef.  Emily specifically says that you
could only see the wreckage at low tide.  We have an excellent aerial photo
of that same area taken on December 1, 1938 by an airplane launched from HMS
Leander at the beginning of the New Zealand survey.  The tide is high with no
noticeable surf on the reef and yet, for the life of me, I can't find the
stuff that is quite apparent in the 1937 Bevington photo and the later 1938
New Zealand photo (now viewable on the TIGHAR website in the "Carpenter's
Daughter" research bulletin).
Perhaps if Lambrecht and company had arrived a few hours earlier or later
they would have noticed the stuff on the reef and recognized it as airplane
debris, but they never had the chance.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:58:50 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Radios on airplanes

From Vern

For Harry

>The life of the two batteries depends on the state of charge, and the
>percentage of time transmitting.  The battery was rated at 85 amp-hours
>(two Exide 6-FFHM-13-1).  The Westinghouse transmitter required about 50
>amps, and the receiver about 5 amps.

That anp-hour rating seems low, maybe not in 1937.  Is that a per-battery
figure, or for the two batteries in parallel?

The discharge characteristic of a battery is a complex thing, as pointed out
in another posting, but short drain times with long rest times would tend to
maximize the total amp-hours that could be drawn.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:05:34 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Antiques Roadshow

From Charlie Sivert

To Vern, and interested others,

    I have viewed the tapes loaned to me by WNIN, and I did not locate
the chronometer and the box.  According to the program manager at the
station(WNIN), the A.R. series will resume in November, with more
repeats, so maybe we'll get lucky and finally locate this elusive item.

Charlie Sivert, 0269E
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:11:45 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Shiny aluminum parts

From Dennis McGee

Over the past several days I've seen several direct or oblique
references on the forum to shiny aluminum parts from AE's 10E.  I would
suggest there were few, if any shiny parts after the crash and certainly
none several days later.
    AE and FN had covered, what, about 17,000 miles by the time they
were missed.  There is no record of the aircraft ever being washed during
that time up to an including the departure from  Lae.  Add to the
accumulated 17,000-plus miles of dirt and grime an additional 20 hours of
flight, and that Lockheed was pretty grungy by July 2.  This airplane was
not shiny, considering the film of oil, dirt, and oxidation covering it.
    Even if it did get busted up on the reef at Niku, all of the water
and sand washing over it would not have made it shiny.  The wave action may
have removed the grime, but the sand and normal oxidation would have removed
any luster to the metal.  While sand is commonly thought of as a buffing
agent, I'm guessing the coarseness of common beach sand  would have been
more destructive than buffing.
    Certainly, after the aircraft had laid around a bit the salt air and
normal oxidation wold have reduce the color to a dull gray.  Anyone who has
seen unpainted aircraft after a few weeks in the open air will know of what
I speak.
    So, aluminum parts? Yes.  Shiny aluminum parts?  Not likely.

LTM, who's taken a shine to discretion
Dennis McGee #1049 CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:45:47 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Forensic imaging proposal
Forum subscribers who have read Part Three of the expedition report "The
Carpenter's Daughter", now on the TIGHAR website at:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin.html

are aware that the potential exists for the establishment of photographic
proof that there was aircraft wreckage on the reef at Nikumaroro as early as
October 1937.  At this point, we know that there was something in the place
where Emily says there was airplane wreckage and what we can see in the
photos looks very similar to what she described seeing.

I've known about this ever since I got home from the Pacific and immediately
checked the old photos, but I couldn't say anything publicly until I had had
a chance to really research the rest of Emily's story and write up the whole
thing in a responsible fashion.  I did, however, gather up all the photos we
had that might be helpful in further forensic research and send low
resolution scans of them to our old friend Jeff Glickman at PHOTEK in Hood
River, Oregon.

Jeff is a forensic imaging scientist of proven skill and talent.  I've
personally seen some really incredible successes he has had in pulling out
detail and resolving seemingly hopelessly out-of-focus images from
surveillance cameras for law enforcement.  I also know that he does quite a
bit of national security work that he can't talk about.
Jeff is the one who made it possible for our 1996 Niku IIIP expedition to
find the fabled "water collection device" seen by Coast Guardsmen in 1944 and
which we suspected might be fashioned from an aircraft fuel tank.  The Niku
II expedition in 1991 had searched for it in vain, but after Jeff worked his
magic on some 1941 Navy aerial photos of the island, the 1996 team was able
to cut its way right to the spot.  The tank was there all right, but it was a
steel tank from the village.  Still, we had tested the hypothesis and
conclusively disproved it.  That's progress.
Jeff has also helped us evaluate the film of Earhart's takeoff from Lae and
determine that the belly antenna appears to be missing.
He found light colored debris on the Nutiran reef in 1953 aerial photos in
the area where aluminum wreckage was said to have been seen.
And it was Jeff who established that the proportions of the propeller length
and engine cowling of the airplane in the Wreck Photo are consistent with a
big-engined Lockheed 10.

Naturally, when the possibility arose that we might have THE REAL Wreck
Photo, in fact, several Wreck Photos, I turned to Jeff for help.  Reproduced
below is his reply, which I share with you with his permission.

**************************************************************************

Dear Mr. Gillespie,

Thank you for your continued interest in PHOTEK.

I am in receipt of thirteen low resolution JPEG format images from TIGHAR.
These images are photographs from Nikumaroro taken during the period of
1937 through 1988.  I understand that an informant, Emily Sikuli,
provided an anecdotal report of aircraft wreckage approximately 100
meters north of the bow of the S.S. Norwich City. Due to their
resolution, these images are suited for reviewing their relevancy to
your case, however, they are unsuited to forensic examination.
Therefore, I have reviewed the transmitted images to establish which may
be useful during forensic examination to investigate Emily Sikuli's anecdotal
report. The most important photographs for the examination are in the period
1937-1942.  The following is a list of images I need:

Photo 1, 19371.jpg:  This is a very important photograph.  Please temporarily
loan me your print and please try to obtain the original print.

Photo 2,  1938a1.jpg:  This may be an important supporting photograph.
Please loan me your copy negative from the New Zealand Archive.

Photo 3, 1938s1.jpg:  This is a very important photograph.  Please temporarily
loan me your photocopy and try to obtain a copy negative from the
New Zealand Archive.

Photo 4, 1939a1.jpg:  This may be a useful supporting photograph.
I have your negative in my possession.

Photo 5, 1941a1.jpg:  This may be an important supporting photograph.
Please loan me your copy negative from the National Archive.

Photo 6, 1941b1.jpg:  This may be a useful supporting photograph.  Please
loan me your photocopy and try to obtain a copy negative from the
New Zealand Archive.

Photo 7, 19421.jpg:  This may be an important supporting photograph.
I believe I have the original photocopy in my possession.  Please try to
obtain a copy negative from the USAF Historical Center at Maxwell AFB.

Photo 8, 19431.jpg:  This may be a useful supporting photograph.  Please
loan me your print.

Photo 9, 1953a1.jpg:  This may be a useful supporting photograph.  Please
loan me your photocopy and try to obtain a copy negative from the
New Zealand Archive.

Photo 10, 1953b1.jpg:  This may be a useful supporting photograph.  Please
loan me your photocopy and try to obtain a copy negative from the
New Zealand Archive.

Photo 11, 19751.jpg:  This photograph is not needed.

Photo 12, 19781.jpg:  This photograph is not needed.

Photo 13, 19881.jpg:  This photograph is not needed.

S.S. Norwich City: I need as much dimensional information as possible about
the S.S. Norwich City.
At a minimum I need its length and beam.  I prefer detailed plans with
dimensions
should they be available.


I recommend the following tasks be undertaken in support of this inquiry:

1) Scan 10 photographs; 8 Reflective Scans, 8 Transmission Scans.
             3 hours
2) Preliminary Examination of 10 Photographs
                       10 hours
3) Detailed Examination of 5 Photographs (estimate)
                     40 hours
4) Preliminary Report
                                     4 hours
5) Multidimensional Geometric Triangulation to Determine Size with Error
Analysis     20 hours
6) Final Report
                                         4 hours

                                             --------------

                            Total:          81 hours

My standard labor rate is $225 per hour, however I am honored to be working
with your
project and am sensitive to your financial situation.  Therefore, I am
pleased to offer you the services of my laboratory at my cost of  $86.12 per
hour.  Although my above hours are an estimate, I am providing you a fixed
cost price based on this estimate of $6,975.72 plus expenses.
Typical expenses include outside scanning, magnetic and optical media, and
travel.
Any such expenses require your prior approval.  My price estimate is based
upon my desire to do the most thorough job I can based upon my current
impressions of the low-resolution JPEG's.
Should it be necessary to reduce the price, I can limit the project scope.
Invoices are sent monthly, net 10.  Alternatively, if you provide a one-third
up-front retainer of $2,325.24, I will carry the balance until you are able
to pay it.

Ric, my schedule is very full, and I'd like to get your approval to begin
work as soon as possible.
Please let me know at your earliest opportunity if this works for you.  I
have enjoyed contributing to your investigation and look forward to our
continued relationship.


Sincerely,

Jeff Glickman
Board Certified Forensic Examiner
Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners


Jeff Glickman
PHOTEK
209 Oak Avenue, Suite 202
Hood River, Oregon 97031
Main: (541) 387-3600
Fax:  (541) 387-3601
Email: mailto:glickman@gorge.net
**************************************************************************

It should be obvious to everyone that this is something we really need to do.
We need to get photos we now only have as photocopies.  Some of those will
have to come from New Zealand.  Some we can get right here in the States.
And we'll need to raise the money to pay for the work.  The ol' TIGHAR
coffers are real low at the moment so we need to think of some good ways to
thank all you of you who may be willing to help us put this together.  Your
ideas are welcome.
Tomorrow I'll put up a posting with some details about what we need to do to
acquire the photos we need.  We can also put up on the website all of the
photos Jeff will be working with.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:56:48 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Norwich City as a Beacon

From Monty Fowler

I think the 1937 photo of the Norwich City that TIGHAR recently made
available supports, in a roundabout way, that part of the Niku reef
being a landing site for two simple reasons - it was Big, and it was
Visible from the air.
Big enough that even after eight years, the pounding of the Pacific
hadn't reduced it to fragments. Visible enough that it clearly shows up
as something man made (and therefore indicative as possible civilization
to some desperate aviators) even in the 1978 Geomarix photo. Is there
any indication of how rusty the wreck was in 1937?
I don't know how desperate Fred and Amelia were in those final hours,
but to me, ANYTHING that looked like it held out the possibility of help
being nearby would tip the scales it favor of that location.
Monty Fowler, #2189
******************************************************************************
*************************
From Ric

NORWICH CITY burned when she went aground so I would imagine that she was
pretty rusty by 1937.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:07:41 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Antiques roadshow

From Kathy gire

I have been rather hit or miss with my forum reading lately (mea culpa) but I
did see an edition of Antiques Roadshow this evening that featured a
chronometer.  The show originated in Cincinnati, Ohio, and showed an
instrument made by A. Johanson of London, numbered 8070.

My television market is Sacramento, California.

                                                         Kathy Gire
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:19:58 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Radios on airplanes

To Vern
>
>>The life of the two batteries depends on the state of charge, and the
>>percentage of time transmitting.  The battery was rated at 85 amp-hours
>>(two Exide 6-FFHM-13-1).  The Westinghouse transmitter required about 50
>>amps, and the receiver about 5 amps.
>
>That anp-hour rating seems low, maybe not in 1937.  Is that a per-battery
>figure, or for the two batteries in parallel?

A good question.  I am trying to clarify this issue, as well as a few
related ones.  Normally, I would agree with you that the 85 amp-hour rating
was most likely per battery.  However, I have one clue that it was total,
and for the purposes of AE's transmit time available, I accepted this
conservative rating.

>The discharge characteristic of a battery is a complex thing, as pointed
out
>in another posting, but short drain times with long rest times would tend
to
>maximize the total amp-hours that could be drawn.

And if the 85 amp-hours were per battery, and they took long rest times, it
could easily last for 3 days.  I think Ric's comment that the late radio
messages may need to be re-examined is an excellent one.

LTM
Harry #2300
***************************************************************************

From Ric

...and a daunting one.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:26:45 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Radios on airplanes

From Mike E. #2194:

The radio transmitter was a Western Electric model 13CB, the receiver a
Western Electric model 20BA.

The transmitter specifications list it as drawing approximately 65 amps at
12 volts when on the air in voice mode.  Given the design of the transmitter
(screen modulated AM voice) the difference between voice mode and CW (morse
code) mode would not be very great.  The receiver drew about 5 amps.

It will not take very long, with this kind of power drain, to kill a storage
battery unless the battery is recharged at least periodically.

I will have a complete analysis of this equipment prepared for the 8th
edition of the Project Book.

By the way... anyone ever seen an old John Wayne movie titled "Island in the
Sky"?  The plot (in a hurry):  a C-47 is forced down on a frozen lake in
northern Canada during WW2... massive search is mounted to find it and its
crew before they freeze to death.  Radio, and direction finding, plays a
huge role.  It is also pretty realistic (unusual for Hollywood)...
especially in the depiction of the radio operator's plight... this one may
give you some ideas of what people were up aginst in the Earhart incident.

73 and LTM (who is a huge movie buff)

Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 (who also writes screenplays)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

My understanding is that both "Island in the Sky" and "The High and the
Mighty", (both based on Ernie Gann books) are tied up in the Duke's estate
and so, are not available on videotape.  Pity.  Is there a Black Market?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:28:46 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Recently discovered in P.I.S.S. archives

From Tom King

I wonder if they delivered sushi to the Mandates.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Anyone who reads this posting has only themselves to blame.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:49:21 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Wreckage on the reef

From Don Neumann

Using Ric's scenario:

..."Within a few hours nothing is left on the reef but the heaviest
elements that offer the least surface area to the waves - i.e. the main
beam and the hardware attached to it (main gear legs, worm gear drive
shafts, etc.) and the engines."...

Wouldn't Lt. Lambrecht or his observer have been able to see, at least,
the two radial aircraft engines on the reef, which would have presented
a very different configuration than any of the other debris that might
have remained on the reef from the Norwich City;  Or would the _normal_
tidal wave action at high tide (assuming his overflight was made during
a high tide) be sufficient to totally engulf the engines & render them
unseeable from the air?

(Not trying to be argumentive, just trying to convince skeptics why
Lambrecht & his observer couldn't have seen the wreckage that was still
on the reef, from the air.)

Don Neumann
sandon@webtv.net
**************************************************************************
From Ric

A radial engine is not very different in size and shape from typical a coral
head.
Emily said specifically that the stuff was visible only at low tide.
A photo taken during the Navy search of Gardner shows that the tide was high
and that there was surf on the reef.
At high tide there is about four feet of water standing on that reef - more
than enough to hide a couple of R1340s.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:51:09 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: The flyover

From Warren Lambing

 Please for the record, I never meant to imply that Lt. Lambrecht was
derelict of his duties, nor have I personally come to the conclusion that
anyone involved in the search was derelict of there duties.  I only meant to
point out the possibility of a diversion that the Norwhich could have
caused.  Illusion or tricks are often produced by a diversion of the eye,
for that matter military tactics also use diversions to throw there enemy
off.  However your point of his trained eye and the fact he was looking for
aircraft debris is beyond question and from what I read of his report it
shows he did a professional search.
       However I would like to point out that individuals who came later and
perhaps knew nothing of the Islands connection with AE and the Electra, and
also knew nothing of the history of the Norwhich, may indeed have overlook
any debris left by the Electra assuming it was part of, or associated with
the Norwhich, if they notice it at all.
Regards to the forum
Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:01:13 EDT
From:        
Subject:      LAE Take-Off Film

From Chris Kennedy

Ric, reading yesterday's forensic science message has made me wonder
whether the LAE take-off film on the webpage has been searched by Photek to
see if it gives a glimpse of the shoes Earhart was wearing (of course, the
Niku shoe may still be Earhart's shoe but  not the same shoe she was wearing
when she got on the plane).

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Earhart's shoes are easily seen in the photos of her arrival at Lae on June
29th.  they're same shoes she always flies in, the blucher-oxfords with the
brass eyelets.  Just freeze-framing a good dub of the Lae take-off film shows
what look like the same shoes.  Forensic imaging is a very labor intensive
(read expensive) process and we only use it where the potential results
justfy the cost.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:06:12 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Found piece of plexiglass

From Christian

Moin Ric.

Just one question:

The plexiglass-part which was found at Niku at a former expedition which
matches the specs for a cabin-window.
Which specific weight does it have?
Esp. does it float in salt-water?

Christian

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Nope.  Sinks like stone.  But it has a very low mass in proportion to it's
surface area.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:11:54 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Niku 1111P Expedition Report

From Marty Joy

Ref; the carpenter's daughter.

I noticed something about the two photos shown in this
report that could use some clarification.

Photo #1 taken by Eric Bevington 10-37, shows a view
looking south, of the Norwich City and a section of the
west shore of the island including two objects described
as a "dash and dot"

Photo #2 taken by New Zealand survey party in 12-38 shows
a view looking north through the hull of the ship, and showing
what you think are the same objects as in photo #1, ie:"dash, dot"
If these are the same objects, would they not be reversed,
to "dot, dash?

Marty Joy
**************************************************************************
From Ric

In the eye of this beholder, in both photos the "dot" appears to be closer to
the Norwich City.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:29:23 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Fund raiser

From Dennis McGee

Aye, laddie, H'ive bean ha'round h'nuf to rehcognice a solicitation
whin H'i see won. A'll giff ya' a hundrid dullars to help pie for the photo
work.  Eny h'others h'out there?

LTM, who's all 'burr-y' today
Dennis McGee, #0149 CE

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Translation:  Mr. McGee has offered to donate a hundred dollars toward the
forensic imaging of what may be photos of the Earhart wreck.  He has asked
for no recompense for his generosity save the pride of knowing that he is
participating in a process of discovery every bit as potentially important as
an expedition to Nikumaroro (plus the satisfaction of poking fun at a fellow
Gael).

To make it easier for other's to respond to this Irishman's challenge, let's
say that everyone who matches his contribution will get an 8 x 10 glossy of
the best image Jeff Glickman is able to tease out of the available photos -
whatever that may turn out to be.  Any takers?

Love Tae Mither
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:30:30 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Norwich City as a Beacon

From Chris Kennedy

Mr. Fowler's comment about the Norwich City being a "beacon" is very
good....All
of us who were new to the island on the last expedition commented on how your
attention is instantly drawn to and fixed upon the wreck.  It 1937 it was
probably
even more of a landmark, and for people in distress would certainly have been
a
powerful lure.

--Chris Kennedy
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:50:42 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Antiques roadshow

From Bob Cullinan

Ric...

I've been following the thread regarding the chronometer seen on the
"Antiques Roadshow" program on PBS. The best way to get answers about show
content is to contact the Executive Producer, Aida Moreno. You can phone her
at WGBH-TV, 617/300-5400, or e-mail the show at antiques_roadshow@wgbh.org.
If you explain who you are, the link between Amelia and TIGHAR, and describe
the chronometer in question, I'm sure they'd love to help.

Bob Cullinan
San Rafael, CA

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I've been mostly an interested bystander to this thread, so I'll let the
primary researchers run with this lead.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:22:18 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Ernie and The Duke

From Tom Robison

>>From Ric
>
>My understanding is that both "Island in the Sky" and "The High and the
>Mighty", (both based on Ernie Gann books) are tied up in the Duke's estate
>and so, are not available on videotape.  Pity.  Is there a Black Market?

Indeed, I have been searching for a video of "The High and The Mighty" for
years. I, too, heard that it was tied up in some deal with the Duke's
estate.
Maybe if we all send letters to Ted Turner, he can throw some lawyers at
the problem and get it resolved.

[I KNOW I saw T.H.A.T.M. on TV, but it was many years ago. Why then and not
now?]

And since Ernie Gann was mentioned, I must close with my favorite quote:

"Like the depths of the sea, the atmosphere allows us
minor degrees of penetration and easily reveals it's basic structure.
But there are certain secrets both elements hold in reserve,
and it is not too farfetched to suppose that only the dead
have ever truly discovered them."
                            Ernest K. Gann

But for the life of me, I can't remember what book this was from. Can
anyone help this poor lump of mush I use (sometimes) for a brain?

Thanks,
Tom #2179
**************************************************************************

From Ric

Look, I realize that this thread may seem to be utterly off topic, but I
submit that it touches upon the romantic attachment to aviation that inspires
many of us to do what we're doing here.

My favorite Gann-ism is the prologue to "Fate Is The Hunter":

"I will teach you how to escape death...
There is a raven in the eastern sea which is called Yitai ("dull-head").
This dull-head cannot fly very high and seems very stupid.  It hops only a
short distance and nestles close with others of its kind.  In going forward,
it dare not lead, and in going back, it dare not lag behind.  At the time of
feeding, it takes what is left over by the other birds.  Therfore, the ranks
of this bird are never depleted and nobody can do them any harm.  A tree with
a straight trunk is the first to be cut down.  A well with sweet water is the
first to be drawn dry."

- Taikun Jen, in a conversation with Confucius.

I like to think that, like many of us, Amelia and Fred understood that some
things are more important than being safe.

Love to Mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:25:08 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: "Readily locatable" wreckage

From Patrick Gaston

Oh.  Well, then (speaking as an atty who has paid a lot of experts in his
time) consider whether it's really worth thousands of bux to have Photek
conduct its analysis.  Whatever they come up with is going to be so heavily
caveatted that I doubt it will settle anything ... and if the analysis can't
be verified by firsthand observation, then one must ask what's the point.
Think "Aircraft Skin, Round II"  Or maybe "Loch Ness Monster, Round CCXLIX".

I won't belabor the many inconsistencies in Emily's story, as you already
have identified most of them in your article.  However, if her recollections
are accurate then we seem to be moving toward a scenario where FN died in
the crash-landing but AE survived, eventually dragging herself -- B&B bottle
in hand -- more than a mile down the shoreline, where she expired under a
Ren tree.  Perhaps two or three miles, depending upon where the Fiji Bones
actually were found (whatever Gallagher's shortcomings in island geography,
we have to assume he knew southeast from northwest).

It just doesn't add up.  Any crash violent enough to kill Fred outright
probably wouldn't have left Amelia in shape for a nature hike.  Even if she
did miraculously escape unscathed, why would she abandon the Norwich/Electra
wreckage -- the most visible objects on the island -- and head for the
remote southeast?  The logical thing (and our gal was always cool under
fire) would have been to remain in the vicinity of the wreckage, find the
nearest shade, and wait it out until the searchers came.  Electra breaks up
and washes into the sea?  You would still stay close to the Norwich City --
maybe even inside it.  It's the first thing any searcher would notice (see,
e.g., Lambrecht Report).

My point is that the "Emily Bones" seem increasingly incompatible with the
"Gallagher Bones".  Either we had a violent crash-landing at the island's
northwest corner that killed both occupants of the Electra on impact, or we
had a relatively soft landing farther down along the reef flat, followed by
establishment of a campsite and a slow death by dehydration.  I cannot think
of a plausible unifying theory that would account for two widely-separated
sets of remains. (Key word here is "plausible," not "possible".)
Eventually, TIGHAR may have to choose between one theory and the other.

Feel free to post as much or as little of this as you wish, but I warn you:
My info comes from an absolutely reliable source (I refer to me) and dissent
will NOT be tolerated.

LTM

P. Gaston

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Hey, I LOVE postings like this and I wouldn't change a word.  Like your last
one where you had the island teeming with European adminstrators, it gives me
a chance to address commonly held misconceptions and unwarranted assumptions.
 Let's take them in order:

<<Whatever they come up with is going to be so heavily
caveatted that I doubt it will settle anything ... and if the analysis can't
be verified by firsthand observation, then one must ask what's the point.
Think "Aircraft Skin, Round II"  Or maybe "Loch Ness Monster, Round CCXLIX".>>

Allow me to point out, counselor, that the forensic analysis of vintage
photography has an excellent track record within the context of The Earhart
Project.
- We determined Earhart's actual shoe size through photogrammetric
measurement of a photo of Earhart standing on the wing of the Electra.  The
fact that some critics reject that evidence doesn't make it less credible.
The jury in O.J. Simpson trial rejected the DNA evidence. (duh)
- Close inspection of a photograph taken in San Juan, Puerto Rico allowed us
to disprove our own fondly-held hypothesis that the aircraft skin found on
Nikumaroro was from a patch on the belly of the Electra.  It could still be
from somewhere else on the airplane, but we at least know that it's not part
of that particular patch.
- As explained in my earlier posting, forensic imaging enabled us to
establish the "ground truth" about the reported "water collection device."
Were it not for Photek we might still be spending miserable man-hours and
thousands of dollars bashing the bushes looking for that elusive feature.

We have no way of knowing how "caveatted" (try "laced with caveat") the
photos of presumed wreckage on the reef may be, but anyone who thinks that
forensic imaging cannot result in convincing evidence should talk to some of
the guys now doing time who were convicted on the basis of images Jeff has
pulled from badly out-of-focus security cameras.

The stuff that was on the reef in the late 1930s is not there now, but the
photos may be able to show not only what it was, but if we can track it's
movement over time we may be able to figure out where it went and thus get
the ground truth we need.

<<However, if her recollections are accurate then we seem to be moving toward
a scenario where FN died in the crash-landing but AE survived, eventually
dragging herself -- B&B bottle in hand -- more than a mile down the
shoreline, where she expired under a Ren tree.>>

That may be your scenario, but it's not mine.   I see a safe landing on the
reef followed by a couple of days of radio messages, ending when rising surf
forces an evacuation of the airplane under hazardous circumstances.  If
Noonan died near the wreck - and I think that's a big if - then his demise
was most likley associated with that event. And by the way, it was a
Benedictine bottle (a crucial distinction I'm sure).

<<Even if she did miraculously escape unscathed, why would she abandon the
Norwich/Electra wreckage -- the most visible objects on the island -- and
head for the
remote southeast?  The logical thing (and our gal was always cool under
fire) would have been to remain in the vicinity of the wreckage, find the
nearest shade, and wait it out until the searchers came.>>

For how long?  At what point do you say, "I'm getting pretty thirsty and
hungry.  Maybe I'd better explore this island and see what assets may be
available." ?

<<My point is that the "Emily Bones" seem increasingly incompatible with the
"Gallagher Bones".>>

I address that in the report.  In fact, "Emily's bones" are entirely
consistent with "Gallagher's bones" (i.e. skull found first, not many bones,
big bones, shown to Gallagher who asks her father to make a box for them).
The incompatible parts of the story are those that Emily gets second hand but
Gallagher relates first hand.  There is, of course, room for interpretation
that Emily is talking about different bones and there has been some debate on
that subject between me and Tom King who may wish to share his take on this
issue with the forum.  It's a classic problem of anecdote evaluation and
nobody has any hard answers - yet.

<<Either we had a violent crash-landing at the island's
northwest corner that killed both occupants of the Electra on impact, or we
had a relatively soft landing farther down along the reef flat, followed by
establishment of a campsite and a slow death by dehydration.  I cannot think
of a plausible unifying theory that would account for two widely-separated
sets of remains.>>

You're formulating your own hypothesis and then declaring it to be invalid.
If it please the court:
- The wreckage on the reef reported by Emily and apparently corroborated in
the photos, if it is that of NR16020, indicates only that the airplane was
reduced to bare bones debris by October 1937.
- The failure of the Navy's aerial search on July 9 is an indication that the
wreckage may have been in a similar state by that time - one week after the
putative arrival.
- If the post-loss radio signals are credible, they require an essentially
intact aircraft for the period when the more credible signals were received
(the evening of July 2 through the night of July 4th).  That leaves at least
four days for the surf to reduce the airplane to a condition that would
render it virtually invisible to an aerial search at high tide.
- The scenario thus suggested by the available evidence certainly does not
preclude the destruction of the aircraft and the survival of both Earhart and
Noonan.  The discovery of remains that may be Earhart's elsewhere on the
island in 1940 indicate only that sometime between the arrival on July 2,
1937 and some months prior to the discovery of the skull circa April 1940,
Earhart traveled to the southeastern part of the island.  The absence of a
second set of bones at that location suggests, but does not require, that
Noonan was not with her at that time.
- If Emily's testimony is interpreted to mean that bones other than the ones
found by Gallagher were found near the plane wreck (an interpretation that I
do not share) it could be an indication that Noonan's absence from the
Gallagher site is due to his demise in some event relating to the
evacuation/destruction of the airplane.  The 281 message indicates that such
an evacuation may have occurred in the wee hours of July 5th.  Crossing that
reef in the dark with a strong surf running would be an extremely dangerous
undertaking.

<<I cannot think of a plausible unifying theory that would account for two
widely-separated sets of remains.>>

See above.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:27:34 EDT
From:        
Subject:      More Antiques Roadshow Clues

From pmann
Kathy Gire wrote yesterday with the finally focused observation "I
 did see an edition of Antiques Roadshow this evening that featured a
 chronometer.  The show originated in Cincinnati, Ohio, and showed an
 instrument made by A. Johanson of London, numbered 8070.
 My television market is Sacramento, California."

The only Roadshow program (as listed on their web pages) which
originated in Cincinnati was in their second season.  (It appears that
they have finished their third season of screenings.)  It also seems
that programs are re-run by local stations on their own schedule, so
other areas may have the show at different time periods during the year,
but the Cincinnati show should be a unique "Smoking City" identifier for
the program.
There are 19 Appraisers (also according to the PBS web pages) who
appeared on the Cincinnati show.  The most obvious candidate for the
chronometer appraising is JONATHAN SNELLENBURG  Dealer in Timepieces and
Decorative Objects -  New York, NY.  This offers a possible parallel
track to find about instruments and numbered boxes.
Good Luck!
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:44:34 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Photo Phunding

From Roy Underwood

I'm in for $100. Check's in the mail.

Roy A. Underwood
*******************************************************************
From Tim Smith

Ric;

I'm only half Irish, but I will still give $100 towards the photo analysis.
You
have my credit card number, so give it a go, laddie.

By the way, my other half is German so I'm conflicted between having a drink
and
invading a neighboring country.

LTMutter
*************************************************************************FrFro
m Phil Tanner

Please count me in for 100 what do you call them, "bucks" towards the photo
analysis. I'll write with card authorization. As an aside (and I'm NOT
making a comparison with serious scientific inspection of original images),
when I first saw the images in the latest research report on screen at work
I couldn't make out the shapes. Looked again at home on a bigger, newer
monitor and there they were. Must also say that my mental picture of Niku is
entirely the aerial shot on the web site and the fact that the wreck of the
Norwich City could in itself have hidden wreckage on parts of the reef from
the shore had not occurred, but it makes sense.

ltm, Phil 2276
*************************************************************************
From Shirley

To Roc;

I had the same thought when I read the listing about imaging.

Count me in for $100.00.  I will put money in the mail tomorrow.

Should it be made out specifically or just TIGHAR? (From Ric: Just TIGHAR is
fine.)

And, I hereby offer a challenge to all members, be they TIGHARS or forum only
members to match it.

This is a very important aspect of this search and all should be proud to be
a part of making it happen.  Come on gang - we can do it.

Shirley 2299
*************************************************************************

From Ric

This is a good start.  So far we have pledges totalling $700.  That's 10
percent of the total we need to get this important work done.  Who's next?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:48:22 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Musings

From Alan Millen

Some musings from a mind too long at the office with too little sleep
.............

As a new subscriber, I don't have the luxury of being here when these
questions were probably beaten to death, and if they are in the archives,
please point me to them.  So here goes.

Several years ago the Discovery or History channel had a program on AE's
last flight.  During the program they mentioned both the rumor that AE was
pregnant, and the discovery on Gardner(?) of the grave of an infant.  What
amazed me at the time was, given the sensationalistic nature of the media,
nothing whatsoever was made of the possible link between the two.  Any
thoughts on the subject?

The "Document of the Week, April 8, 1999" was a letter to Gallagher.  The
last name off the signature looks like "Mongelli", or some such.  Does there
exist a roster of the Boys' and Girls' Colleges for the time?

And now, off to sleep.  Terrific forum!

Alan R. Millen

*************************************************************************
From Ric

The rumor that AE was pregnant was started by Albert Bresnick who claimed to
be Earhart's "personal photographer."  In fact, Putnam hired him to take some
photos prior to the first world flight attempt.  The notion that Earhart was
pregnant is utterly without foundation.
The infant grave on the island was classically Gilbertese in construction and
orientation.  The NBC News Productions documentary failed to mention that we
carefully considered and ultimately rejected the possibility that the infant
was in any way connected to the Earhart disppearance, thus leaving that
thought hanging with the viewers.  Cheap stunt.

The letter to Gallagher was thoroughly and successfully researched by TIGHAR
members on this forum.  The author's full name was Ruby Helena Margetts.  if
you'll check the Forum Highlights on the TIGHAR website for April and may of
this year you'll find the whole story.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:50:27 EDT
From:        
Subject:      DRIFT OBSERVATIONS WHEN CLOUDY

From Michael Real

>From bethpage89

>Date: Tue, 14 Sep

>Any good navigator or airman would......descend below
>the clouds to a suitable height above the waves to effect drift readings
>regardless of the time of day or night.......


The wind vector can be deduced from its effect on the plane's track, even
without descending to see the surface.  When good celestial sights enable
the navigator to get accurate fixes, then successive fixes allow the
navigator to know his drift angle and groundspeed.  He already knows the
true airspeed and heading flown.  From those he can compute the wind speed
and direction, and revise his wind correction angle for the next leg of the
flight.

The climb back up to altitude can be so consumptive of fuel that descending
is avoided unless necessary.
************************************************************************
I agree with your explanation in its entirety, but my comments were
directed at navigators experiencing inclement weather conditions ,
requiring  descending below cloud levels to wave-hopping to establish drift
readings when and if required .

regards
MICHAEL REAL
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:51:37 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Antiques Roadshow

From Vern

For Bob Cullinan and Kathy Gire

Thank you both for your input and suggestions!  I too, had considered trying
to contact Aida Moreno specifically at the Roadshow.  Since Bob thinks it's
a good approach, I've gone ahead and done it.

The e-mail is posted.  It certainly should be possible to zero in on the
show Kathy just saw.  It's possible that more than one chronometer has
turned up on the show, and with different numbers.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:58:10 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Possibilities

From Jaume Balaguer

    I know that these "theories" (thoughts) may not help with your hypotesis
so if you don't want to post it, I will understand... (if you think is
irrelevant don't post it)

    I've read the Report about Emily's interview, she said that the bones of
the aviators were found under the pieces of the aircraft. To find the bones
under the pieces, the "pilots" must be inide the aircraft or very near of it.
A hypotesis might be that the pilots died in the crash.  To support the
theory of the radio signals from earhart three days ago from the
desapearance, as you said, at least one engine must be working. I think it's
very dificult to ditch/land and aircraft without breaking the
propeller/engine. If they ditched then the possibilities to comunicate are
very remote. If they land, I think they should land with the landing gear
raised demaging the propeller, because the only hard surface in the island (I
think, and correct me if I'm wrong) was the sand of the beach. Landing with a
taildrager aircraft in the sand would be a bit complicated. Maybe they
managed to run the engine without propeller cooling it with water... I don't
know.

    But if they were able to transmit three days after the landing she must
be in safe place, because they would have to "survive" the grown of the tide
5 or 6 times, and if during that period the high tide were dangerous, they
had to leave the aircraft searching a safer place, or they had to move the
aircraft. The only possibility is that the pilots stay and died in the
cockpit, and then a storm pushed the aeroplane to the sea. But if that was
true there must be remains of the aircraft on the beach, that posterior
inhabitants should have found.

Excuse me, on more time, for my english...
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Our hypothesis is that the airplane was landed with the wheels down on the
hard, flat, smooth surface of the reef near the ocean just north of the
shipwreck.  Radio messages were sent for about two days before rising surf
destroyed the airplane.  The crew, or at least Earhart, reached shore safely.
Emily account of bones being found in the ocean near the wreck is not likley
to be accurate.  It is inconceivable that bones would remain in the wreckage
for that long given the amount of damage to the plane.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:26:43 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Antiques roadshow

To Kathy, Vern, and Interested Others;
                                       Kathy, the program which you saw
was the same one(#203, Cincinnati, Ohio) which I saw in the Spring of
this year.  I have no explanation for the difference in the number on
the box.  Maybe my 78 year old mind has been playing tricks on me
again.  Sorry, gang, for the error, and please accept my apology.

Charlie Sivert, 0269E

*************************************************************************
From Ric

No need to feel badly Charlie.  You've provided a valuable illustration of
one of the problems we deal with all the time.
- You saw something that was mildly interesting but not of great importance
to you at the time.
- You later became aware of a set of circumstances that reminded you of that
event and seemed to give it much greater importance.
-  In your recollection of the details, your mind filled in the blanks with
information that supported the new perception of the event.

As a distinguished veteran of TIGHAR's expeditions in the Round Lake Hills of
Maine, you'll remember how we struggled with the recollections of Ray Beck,
Jim Reed and many others who had seen "an engine in the woods" but could
never take us back to it.

Now think about Bruce Yoho and the Canton Engine and read the three steps
outlined above.  I hasten to say that I am not suggesting that Bruce's memory
is faulty any more than I would have suggested that yours was.  You may have
just as easily been absolutley correct in your recollection of the number on
the box.  The point is, this happens to people all the time and it has
nothing to do with being 78.  It has to do with being human.

Still, a stenciled four-digit number on a box containing a navigational
instrument is interesting and it's probably worth finding out how it got
there.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:33:31 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: "Readily locatable" wreckage

From Tom King

Very elegantly stated, counsellor.  As Ric says, there's room for
disagreement about exactly how to interpret the relationship between Emily's
account and Gallagher's, but certainly the existence of one doesn't disverify
the other.

My own tendency is to speculate that Emily is compressing memories of two
bones discoveries into one -- the first being the discovery recounted by
Gallagher, the second being one that takes place while Gallagher is in Fiji,
and that might be responsible for the "they threw the bones into the ocean"
story that's part of the Kilts account.  But my speculation hangs on the
assumption that Koata returned from Tarawa after the incident of the
Benedictine bottle, and the evidence that he did is thin at best.  So stay
tuned.....

Regarding why one would leave the happy environs of the Norwich City and
traipse off to the other end of the island, Ric's put it in a (coco)nut
shell; you get hungry and thirsty and you'd better see what the island has to
live on.  Interestingly, at Kanawa Point -- one of our candidates for the
bones discovery site -- there are easily gathered giant clams, easily caught
small fish, and (because of the fish) at some times clouds of feeding
seabirds that can be seen from some distance away.  Not a bad destination for
a cool cookie trying to find her way out of a serious jam.

LTM (who prefers serious jam on sourdough toast)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:36:39 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: "Readily locatable" wreckage

From Warren Lambing

> My own tendency is to speculate that Emily is compressing memories of two
> bones discoveries into one -- the first being the discovery recounted by
> Gallagher, the second being one that takes place while Gallagher is in
Fiji,
> and that might be responsible for the "they threw the bones into the
ocean"
> story that's part of the Kilts account.  But my speculation hangs on the
> assumption that Koata returned from Tarawa after the incident of the
> Benedictine bottle, and the evidence that he did is thin at best.  So stay
> tuned.....
      You know it is of interest that you have two accounts of people on the
Island who say the bones were on the plane, clearly the first lady posted
on the site was putting two stories together, but still she had bones on the
aircraft.  My guess, Emily,since she didn't see the bones but heard it
second hand, by the time that story made it to her lots of things could have
been added to it, depending on many people it went through before she
received it.  I do genealogy and have for over 20 years, I have learn that
facts get distorted (not deliberately) over the years, there is always some
truth in oral history, but it gets distorted, so my rule is always try to
confirm it with a public record (and there is a public record to go by) or
some type of other evidence, if two people say the same thing without having
the same source for the information then I look closer for collaborating
evidence and even public records can be question when the source is second
party (example tombstones and death records can have the wrong date of
birth).
        There is a scenario where they could land safely and perish later on
the Electra, but I won't waste the bandwidth on it, it involves needing
someone who did not want the airplane wreck found and going to great lengths
to keep the facts hidden (very unlikely) and of course as Ric said how
likely is it that the bones could stay there under the aircraft?
Regards
Warren Lambing
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:36:46 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Photo Phunding

From Ned

Ric:

I'm in for $100. The check's in the mail.

--Ned

****************************************************************
Ric,
  I'd like to contribute $100 toward the
forensic imaging fund. Please charge my credit
card number for this amount.

Thanks.

jim thompson (2185)


P.S. As a "premium" offer how 'bout high
resolution scans or prints of the findings?
*****************************************************************

From Ric

I thought you'd never ask.  We have already made arrangements to provide high
resolution scans of all 10 photos at a top-secret URL.  The special address
will be disclosed to those who make a $200 contribution to the project.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:36:54 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Duke and rehashing

From Tom Cook

Ric;
Wasn't John Wayne called "Duke"?, not "THE Duke", he got the name from a
favorite dog! We have discussed the MYTH that AE was pregnant before.
For her to have KNOWN that at the time this guy said that she told him
(Feb. I think), she would have close to delivery (big as house, my
mother used to say) by July, and pictures taken late in the trip show
the same slender figure as those at the beginning!
Another subject that we have covered is the difficulty of spotting A/C
wreckage from the air.  I posted a newspaper story of a long CAP search
in a relatively small area, but the wreck was finally found by two
hunters on the ground.  If the Electra was broken up by 9 July 37, it
would have been hard to see at high tide.  They did report "signs of recent
inhabitation" on what was supposed to have been an UNINHABITED island.
That should have been enough to prompt a ground search of Gardner at the
time, as there was widespread speculation even then that they might have
landed in the Phoenix Islands!  I posted this same question nearly 3
yrs. ago in the first month that the forum was operating, I think it is
still on topic..
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Well Pilgrim, you got me on the bit about Marion Morrison being known as
"Duke" even before he became John Wayne.  ( If my name was Marion I'd have
settled for "Spot.")

You're also correct that we've covered a lot of this stuff before.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:37:01 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Plane wreckage in tropical locations

From Phil Tanner

Have just watched a report on BBC World TV about protest on the island of
Vieques, off Puerto Rico, against the continuing use of a US naval bombing
range. It included shots of plane wreckage in a tropical-ish location. Even
my untutored eye could identify this as from a jet plane or planes, but the
report said the site has been in use since an unspecified point in the 50s.
I assume the plane(s) had been a target for bombing from the air. There
didn't seem to be any palm trees in this particular location, but web
searches show Vieques is a holiday destination which does have palm trees. I
know we are moving away from seeing the Wreck Photo as relevant to the
project, but this looked like a conceivable setting for the debris in the
original.

LTM, Phil 2276

*****************************************************************
From Ric

This clearly calls for a clandestine expedition to check out the bombing
range.  Volunteers?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:37:07 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Historic NACA Reports

From Tom Robison

Hi, all-

I can't remember if our favorite Lockheed Model 10E was made of the product
known as "Duralumin", but if it was, those of you interested in its
structure and dissolution of same over time might find the following
interesting:

3.Henry S. Rawdon, Corrosion embrittlement of duralumin V : results of
weather-exposure tests, NACA TN 304, Feb 1929, pp. 30.

Abstract: In a series of weather exposure tests of sheet duralumin, upon
which accelerated corrosion tests in the laboratory by the wet-and-dry
corrosion method in a sodium chloride solution has already been carried
out, a close parallelism between the results of the two kinds of tests was
found
to exist. The exposure tests showed that the lack of permanence of sheet
duralumin is largely, if not entirely, due to corrosion. A corrosion attack
of an intercrystalline nature is very largely responsible for the degree of
embrittlement produced. The rate of embrittlement was greatly accelerated
by a marine atmosphere and by the tropical climate. Variations in corrosion
and embrittlement are noted in relation to heat treatment, cold working, and
types of protective coatings.

Go to http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/ click on 1929, and scroll down to item 3.

There may be other NACA reports here that are pertinent to Amelia's
aircraft as well.

Tom #2179

****************************************************************
From Ric

NR16020 was not constructed of duralumin.  Here's a quick & dirty primer on
the3 use of aluminum in aircraft structures.

Aluminum sheet was used on airplanes very early on (such as the cowlings on
WWI aircraft).  it was light and resisted corrosion very well, but it was too
soft to use for structural purposes.

One way around the problem was to corrugate the aluminum sheet for added
strength (such as in the Ford Tri-Motor) but that also meant using a lot of
aluminum which, of course, increased the weight.

Then along comes duralumin which was aluminum alloyed with other stuff like
zinc and copper.  It was a lot stronger than pure aluminum but it was also
(as noted in the report above) very corrosion-prone.  What to do? What to do?

Long about 1930 along comes the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), with
the bright idea of bonding a thin (5 percent of the total thickness) coating
of pure aluminum on each side of a sheet of alloy, thus obtaining the best of
both worlds.  the process was called "cladding" and the product was named
ALCLAD.

Now the aviation industry had a sheet aluminum product that was strong enough
and durable enough to be practical and before long new designs (such as the
Boeing 247, the Lockheed 10 and the Douglas DC-2) began to appear that did
away with the heavy steel tube internal skeleton completely and used the
ALCLAD skin of the airplane to carry the structural load.  We're still
building flying machines that way today.

To be specific, NR16020 was built of 24ST ALCLAD (today known as 2024).  It
was not augmented with any additional corrosion inhibiting treatment (such as
anodizing) or coating (such as zinc-chromate).  These came along later and
were widely used during WWII.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:37:22 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Attorneys!

From  R. Johnson

There is nothing more satisfying than to see a lawyers' argument just
shot to pure hell. Your reply to Mr. Gaston was outstanding Ric. Your
ability to express your thoughts is amazing. Go get em!

R. Johnson

******************************************************************
From Ric

Awww shucks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:37:28 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re. Antiques Roadshow

From Bill Moffet

Hi, Ric,
I followed the PBS website to appraisers, clock & watch.  Surprise, a Gordon
Converse is listed with a nearby address.  Visited him today.  He says (1)
he appraised the chronometer-in-a-numbered box on AR in Cincinnati some time
ago; (2) he has no idea what the box number meant, nor where it came from,
etc.  In short he's not of any help to us that I can see.  I gave him a very
short version of our quest, the sextant boxes and their numbers & mentioned
AE & FN.  Converse then told me (3) some time ago - perhaps a couple of
years - a man - maybe from Delaware? - had shown him a watch in very bad
condition, stating it had been dug up from the beach of a Pacific
atoll/island along with the wreckage of Amelia Earhart's plane!  He was
unable to say much about the watch except that it was inexpensive & quite
common - could have belonged to anyone.  He thought his visitor was positive
about identification of AE's plane. What have we here?  Have your called on
this guy & he simply has his "facts" scrambled?  Or do we have another
enigma in the search for AE?  I'll keep watching/ taping the AR segments
from WHYY particularly because Vern said (15 Sep posting) Zeke Ulrey favors
reruns from Britain over those from US.  Maybe more that one chronometer was
in a numbered box.  Thought you might want to edit this before posting it.
Suit yourself.  Hey, great job on the Carpenter's Daughter writeup.  I'm
still poring over the separation of the bones, "airplane people" vs. others
(which I think likely came from the Norwich City), particulary since the
latter would have been around since 1929 and were still identifiable ("tall
people") while the much "newer" ones were badly disarticulated and
scattered.
My best to you and Pat and LTM
Bill Moffet
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Gosh - the best I can come up with is that back in 1989 we dug up something
from the beach near the village (based on a metal detector "hit") which
really had us puzzled but proved to be the "bezel ring" from a cheap pocket
watch.  No reason to think it had anything to do Earhart or Noonan.  In the
identification process we consulted with a number of watch experts.  I don't
recall any names but Mr. Converse certainly could have been one of them.  If
so, it's yet another example of how recollections get distorted.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:37:37 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Flyover 'n' more

From Patrick Gaston

To Warren Lambing:

Sorry if my previous post on Lambrecht's flyover read like a personal
attack.  It wasn't meant to be.  There have been a number of posts on the
forum over the past few months implying that Lambrecht maybe didn't take his
duties all that seriously, as indicated by the chatty and sometimes
irreverent tone of his report.  I was just trying to point out that his
procedures seemed thorough regardless of his writing style.

To the extent there is a point lurking here, it's that Lambrecht's failure
to see aircraft wreckage on Niku cannot fairly be explained away as mere
inattention, nor is it likely that his eyes were playing tricks on him.  I
think we have to accept the fact that, one week after AE's disappearance, a
trained observer was unable to discern anything on the island that
reasonably resembled aircraft wreckage.  This raises three possibilities:

1.    The Electra was instantly reduced to smithereens by a violent crash,
which means there was probably nobody left alive to set up a campsite and
eventually perish under a Ren tree;

2.    The Electra landed largely intact but was subsequently destroyed
and/or washed off the reef by surf action;

3.    The Electra came down somewhere else.

Scenario No. 1 is consonant with Emily's recollections of human remains
being found near the purported airplane wreckage.  But it rules out any
post-loss messages and strongly suggests that the campsite, partial skeleton
and shoe fragments found by Gallagher belonged to someone else.  Also, one
would think that a violent crash on the reef flat would have resulted in a
debris field visible from the air.

Scenario No. 2 is, of course, the current TIGHAR theory, and it leaves room
for a connection between the "Gallagher artifacts" and AE.  But if the
Electra came down near the Norwich City wreckage, why didn't AE and FN
remain in that area?  As several Forum members have pointed out, the
shipwreck was a virtual "beacon" for rescuers.  Why walk a mile or two down
the beach and set up camp in the bush when it's obvious that any search
party is going to be drawn to the Norwich City like a moth to a porchlight?
To my tiny mind this counsels against a landing on the northwest corner of
the island and in favor of one farther down the reef flat to the southeast.
Wherever they came down, I'm still not convinced that an intact Electra
could vanish so completely in the space of one week, but guess this will
remain in the realm of the Great Unknowables (sorta like FN's navigation
techniques) unless and until verifiable wreckage is found.  If the post-loss
radio messages are credible, then this utter and complete disappearance took
place over four days (July 5-9) rather than a week.

Scenario No. 3 gets us into the whole grab bag of competing AE theories
which are presently (and properly) off-topic.  This is TIGHAR's forum, and
they have a right to make the rules.  I, for one, have always felt that it
might be profitable to spend a few days poking around the Gilberts, but
enough said.

LTM (who just doesn't know WHAT to think)

Patrick Gaston

P.S. to Tom King:  The Suva Tomato Hut experimented with the sushi idea, but
that four-week delivery time resulted in lots of dissatisfied customers.
You didn't want to be delivering rotten fish to the Japanese Mandates in
1937 if you valued your head.

****************************************************************
From Ric

I think the questions raised were answered in my response to Patrick's
earlier post.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 1999 20:44:17 EDT
From:        
Subject:      slight delay

Due to other pressing business there will be no forum today.  We'll catch up
first thing tomorrow.

Thanks,

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:34:46 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Historic NACA Reports

From Randy Jacobson

Tom Robinson may have been confusing the color "dural", short
for duraluminum, for the material.  Dural was used during the
search to describe the aircraft color.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:35:45 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Plane wreckage in tropical locations

From Tom King

Actually, there's a comprehensive archeological survey of Vieques underway as
we speak, in connection with the Navy's cleanup and disposal of the island.
We can share the wreck photo with the folks who are doing it (R. Christopher
Goodwin & Associates of Frederick, MD) and ask them to keep an eye out.
Can't hurt.

LTM (who hates to miss out on a clandestine mission, but...)

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:37:59 EDT
From:        
Subject:      The Duke

Ric,
  John Wayne was known as "The Duke" in later years, but mostly by the
publicity department.  His friends knew him as "Duke".  He, however did not
pick the name.
  You were very close when you mentioned preferring "Spot" to "Marion".  He
was in fact (like Indiana Jones) named after the dog.  On arriving in
Hollywood he had a large dog that went everywhere with him (a German Shepherd
if memory serves).  The dog's name was Duke.  The frequent hostess of a
series of rowdy parties he attended tried to get under his skin by calling
him by the dogs name.  The name stuck.
  So what has all this to do with AE.?  The hostess in question was Pancho
Barnes, founding member (along with Earhart) of the 99s.

LTM (who never throws rowdy parties)

Robert Klaus

**************************************************************************
From Ric

See?  Right on topic.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:39:56 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Antiques roadshow

From Vern

The Forum has done it again!  I think I have sufficient information to
purchase the videocassette of that episode.  If someone doesn't get it
recorded shortly, I do that.  I do want to see it first hand, and look for
any possible clues that might help locate it.  The really hard part of it is
yet to come -- where is it, where did it come from and who stencilled the
number?  I'll chase it just as far as I possibly can.

As "pmann" suggests, the appraisers might remember the chronometer and other
things they may have encountered with interesting numbers stencilled on
them.  I'll work on that angle also.

Incidently, I did get an automatic "form letter" response to my e-mail to
Aida Moreno.  I suspect substantive response is unlikely, but I don't think
it matters much.  We have the episode identified and I know where to order it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:47:07 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Flyover 'n' more

From Warren Lambing

> From Patrick Gaston
> Scenario No. 2 is, of course, the current TIGHAR theory, and it leaves
room
> for a connection between the "Gallagher artifacts" and AE.  But if the
> Electra came down near the Norwich City wreckage, why didn't AE and FN
> remain in that area?  As several Forum members have pointed out, the
> shipwreck was a virtual "beacon" for rescuers.  Why walk a mile or two
down
> the beach and set up camp in the bush when it's obvious that any search
> party is going to be drawn to the Norwich City like a moth to a
porchlight?

I liked Lambrecht's report, made him seem like a very likable person.  I
can't help to wonder about their fresh water situation?  But as you said
there are many perhaps unanswerable questions.
Regards.
Warren Lambing
**************************************************************************

From Ric

Their fresh water situation is knowable to his extent:
Aside from whatever water they brought with them, they were completely
dependent upon rainfall.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:48:18 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Antiques Roadshow

From Vern

For Bill Moffet

Good work Bill!  Your visit with Gordon Converse saves us a lot of wheel
spinning.  I still want to see exactly what's contained in that episode.

Yes, I can understand his possibly remembering a watch bezel as a whole
watch.  He's seen a lot of watches!  And, if TIGHAR did talk to him, I can
believe that a few scraps of aluminum and a bit of plexiglas became the
wreckage of the Earhart plane.  For him, the plane had been found and the
mystery was solved!
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:09:13 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Reef Landing

Are there any archives that address the theories of the reef landing and
what could happen to the plane even if a non-destructive landing
occured? What about the "topography" below the water of the reef where
it is theorized that Amelia and Fred may have landed.

My first point is that most reefs are not flat planes just below the
surface of the water. There are usually holes (some rather deep) that
could catch the landing gear and result in a ground (reef?) loop or even
worse.  Even if it was low tide and the water was just a foot or two
deep then wouldn't the water hamper a stable nose-up landing? How deep
could the reef be below the water before the landing would be a water
landing.

Also point 2. Assuming a safe? landing - in looking at the distance
between the bottom of the fuselage and the landing gear, it seems that
even if the plane's landing gear was sitting on the reef at the time of
landing, it wouldn't take much of a tide for the plane to become buoyant
and enable the ocean/reef to start destroying the plane. Especially
since the 1937 technology tires could have easily been flattened by the
coral. The plane could have been pushed around a lot just after coming
to a stop. Since there are two low and two high tides at varying times
in 24 hours it seems likely that even in the best conditions the plane
could only last a short time, maybe just hours.

Aloha

Jim

*****************************************************************************
From Ric

You have the usual perception of what a reef is like, but Nikumaroro is
different.  There are large areas on that reef where you could easily ride a
bicycle at low tide.  One such area is just north of the Norwich City, out
near the ocean.  I know.  I was standing there just two months ago.  At low
tide, in July, that area is either dry or just barely awash in maybe an inch
of water. Other parts of the reef are much rougher and are, as you say, pock
marked with depressions that would prohibit a safe landing.  But in the
location where Emily says she saw wreckage an uneventful landing seems
entirely possible.

As for the height of the tide versus the height of a Lockheed 10:
That airplane is probably bigger than you realize.  In the 3-point attitude
(on its three wheels) the top of the cockpit is fully 10 feet off the ground
and six foot man cannot step up onto the trailing edge of the wing
unassisted.  Four and a half feet of standing water (typical high tide at
Niku) is not sufficient to reach the buoyant features of the aircraft (the
wing and fuselage fuel tanks).  As long as the seas remain relatively calm
the airplane should stay more or less in one place.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:38:05 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Models arriving
After about a year of design, refinement and prototype nitpicking, the first
half dozen Electra models have now been delivered to their owners and the
response has been pure Christmas morning.

The next batch of six is here and will go out next week.

Speaking of Christmas, this meticulous 1/48 scale replica of Amelia's
Lockheed 10E Special makes a perfect gift for that special historian/sleuth
on your list.  Go to the TIGHAR website at www.tighar.org and get your order
in now to be sure of delivery by Christmas.

If that special historian/sleuth on your list happens to be you, just make
sure that the appropriate party sees this subtle hint.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:52:13 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Research needed
In trying to get our hands on the best possible version of Eric Bevington's
1937 photo which appears to show debris on the reef in just the spot where
Emily says there was airplane wreckage, I phoned our friend Mr. Bevington at
his home in England.  He explained that he has recently donated his photo
collection to the Rhodes Library at the Bodelian (sp?) Library at Oxford
University and we'll need to get in touch with his contact there, a Mr. John
Penfold, to make whatever arrangements we can about the photo.

Eric, who is now 85 and still very sharp, didn't have a phone number handy
for Mr. Penfold but I suspect that a web search could get us a phone number
and/or email address.  If someone would like to take on this task I'd
appreciate it.

Also, if someone could come with an email address for the photo section of
the New Zealand Archive that could hasten our retrieval of the images we need
from there.

The same goes for the USAF Historical Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.

Eric Bevington was able to give me a current mailing address in New Zealand
for David Wernham who was the Acting Administrative Officer in Tarawa to whom
Gallagher sent his intial Septermber 23, 1940 telegram regarding Koata and
the bottle found with the skull.  I've sent Wernham a letter asking if he
remembers the incident and if he knows what became of the bottle (which is
not mentioned in any of the WPHC correspondence and does not seem to have
been sent to Suva).  The last we hear of the bottle is on September 30, 1940
when Wernham sends a telegram to Irish saying that he has collected it from
Koata.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 26 Sep 1999 09:30:25 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re Research needed
We've had lots of excellent responses with URLs and email addresses for the
Rhodes Library, the New Zealand Archives and the USAF Historical Center.
Thanks to all who helped.

I'll let everyone know how we make out with our requests.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:25:46 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Reef Landing

From Mike Meunich

I have been following with much interest the issue of the ability of the
Electra to land on the reef.  Just finished the recent post, 9/25 re water
depths, height of the Electra, and condition of reef surface.  In order for
AE to land on the reef it would have to be exposed.  Do we have any elevation
data for the reef or portions of the reef.  Do we have sufficient data for
someone to do the calculations necessary to determine the tidal cycles and
elevations for the date and time frame AE could have landed given the Great
Fuel Dabate and other issues?  As I understand it, she could have
arrived/landed between about 8:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.  If tidal tables
establish low tides and resulting reef exposure during this period, theory is
possible, if not, theory questionable since I feel damage to aircraft would
have been substantial.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Direct observation of the reef flat in that area leaves little doubt that it
drys sufficiently at low tide to permit a safe landing.  There are no tide
tables for Nikumaroro and it is not, unfortunately, possible to hindcast the
tidal state at the island 62 years back with sufficient certainty to say
anything meaningful about the tidal state at the possible time of arrival.
Even today, experienced mariners have a hard time predicting the tides at
Niku.  Extrapolating from the nearest place for which tables are available
(American Samoa) has resulted in embarrassment for more than one captain
during TIGHAR expeditions.
Also, the theoretical arrival window is quite a bit smaller than you state.
In local time, the last transmission heard by ITASCA came at 08:43, at which
time the aircraft was close enough to Howland to be heard at maximum
strength.  This has been interpreted to mean that the plane was within 100
miles - maybe as much as 150 miles - from Howland.  To be generous, let's say
the airplane was 150 nm southeast of Howland at 08:45.  That's still 200 nm
from Niku or about an hour and a half of flying time.  That makes the
earliest realistic arrival at something like 10:15.   On the other end, it's
hard to see how their fuel could have been stretched past about 12:30, so we
have a total window of perhaps two and a quarter hours.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:49:15 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Dot and Dash

From Vern

For Ric

I presume the "dots" just north of the Norwich City in the photo, "R.C.S.
Nimanoan tied off to the wreck of the Norwich City, 1937" have been noted.
(TIGHAR Tracks, Sept. 30, 1997, page 26)

There are two "dots" rather close to the north side of the wreck.  Maybe one
is the "dash" here seen end-on.  There's another "dot" near the left edge of
the picture, as printed on page 26.

Actually, the "dot" nearest the wreck seems to have some vertical extent, as
does the one near the left edge of the picture (people?).  The other "dot",
second out from the wreck, is a darker, more definite "dot."  These seem to
close in to the wreck, compared to the other photos, but it could be
perspective.

This photo is, courtesy Eric R. Bevington and dated 1937.  Do we know, is it
from October 1937, as is the other Bevington photo?

***************************************************************************
From Ric

The "dots" you mention in the photo published in TIGHAR Tracks are clearly up
on the beach rather than on the reef.  The objects on the reef visible in the
other photo are also farther to the north than are these objects.  Both
photos were taken in October 1937, the only time Bevington ever visited the
island.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:38:34 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Bevington

From Don Jordan (djordan@cyberlynk.com)

    Somehow I missed what Mr. Bevington's role was in all this at
Gardner Island.  But, it doesn't matter to answer my question.  I
understand he was there in October of 1937 to evaluate the island.  I
don't remember is he went ashore or how long he was on the island
however.

    But the question is, does he remember anything on the reef beside
the NC? And what is his opinion of the TIGHAR  theory?  Also, does he
have any note that he has shared with TIGHAR's?  I would like to read
what ever he has.


Don J.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Bevington was ashore for three days - October 13-15, 1937.
He does not remember anything on the reef other than the Norwich City.
He thinks TIGHAR's theory is interesting but unlikely.
He has a diary that he kept of his visit to the Phoenix Islands which he
allowed us to copy when we visited him in 1991.  We also made photographic
copies of his scrapbook of photos he took on that trip.  We have made
extensive use of these resources in developing our present hypothesis.

It is our hope to eventually make available either on the website or on CD,
all of the hundreds of primary source documents we have assembled in the
course of eleven years of investigation.  We do not, unfortunately, have the
funding at present to act as a piecemeal archive for individual researchers.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:49:03 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Reef and Tide?

From Warren Lambing

Here is a question I am wondering about.  For the Electra to land on a dry
reef and to send radio messages several days, then you have to assume that
the part of the reef it landed on was staying somewhat dry during high tide
and that a swell occur to submerge the aircraft, or at least push it off the
dry part of the reef.   My question is the approximate area where Emily has
seen the aircraft wreckage, is part of that reef area dry during hide tide?
Regards to the Forum.
Warren Lambing

**************************************************************
From Ric

No part of the reef is dry at high tide.  Some parts of the reef are dry at
low tide.  The part of the reef where Emily says she saw wreckage is dry at
low tide.  If the ocean is calm there is about four feet of water standing on
that part of the reef at high tide - which is not enough to reach any of the
radio components on the Electra.  If the ocean is not calm there is sufficent
surf running over that part of the reef to destroy a Lockheed 10.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:30:26 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Tidal data

From Mike Muenich

It is my understanding that tidal calculations are functions of moon, sun,
and earth with some other witchcraft thrown in.  I found several programs on
internet that will calculate forward.  NOAA has a site
www.opsd.nos.noaa.gov/opsoinf.html that does tidal calculations and list one
for the Phoenix Group, Canton.  Site also has a contact for custom work at
www.opsd.nos.noaa.gov/contact.html.  It appears that NOAA might be able to
calculate tidal times and elevations for any site.

*****************************************************************
From Ric

I really wasn't making it up when I said that we've looked into this at great
length. We have concluded that while you can get people (including NOAA and
others) to give you various opinions about what the tide should have been at
a given moment at Niku 62 years ago, the fact is that everybody has to
extrapolate from someplace else (Canton 200 nm away, or Samoa 700 nm away)
and real life experience at the island has taught us that you just can't do
that and achieve the kind of acuracy that woulod be meaningful.  Remember,
you only have to be off 6 hours in 62 years and you're 100 percent wrong
about the state of the tide.
I wish it was something we could know but we're much better off accepting
that we can't know it than we are kidding ourselves into thinking we can.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:03:03 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Tidal data

From William Webster-Garman

Over the years, I can remember several times when even published tide data
conflicted with what I saw with my own eyes.

Given what TIGHAR has already learned about the difficulties of
extrapolating tide data to a point 60 years in the past, and not wanting to
beat a topic that has obviously been well researched, I've looked into this
and here's a basic synopsis of the problems involved:

Tides cycle twice a day (2 lows and 2 highs every 24 hours). They are
complex and influenced primarily by the Moon, the Sun, ocean currents, and
weather conditions. This means that things change relatively quickly over
time, making extrapolations for a given (estimated) time point very prone to
error.

The moon is the biggest single influence on a tide. If it could be
accurately determined where the moon was relative to Gardner at a given
moment (say, noon) on July 2 1937, a very rough estimation MAY be possible,
but only if the moon was very close to one of 4 basic positions:

1) If the moon was essentially overhead (or directly on the opposite side of
the earth), which would tend to cause a high tide, one can't say with 100%
certainty that the tide was high, but it would be most likely that
conditions were at least near high tide on Gardner.

2) If the moon was roughly perpendicular to Gardner (i.e., close to the
horizon) on either side relative to the earth, it would be most likely that
the tide was near its low point.

3) Unfortunately, the moon would have to be near one of these 4 extreme
positions to even justify invoking this kind of crude estimation. If it was
nearer to 45 degrees to the horizon (on either side of the earth), other
factors like the sun, area ocean currents, and the weather would make any
reasonable estimate essentially impossible.

Finally, there is one more problem: We can't really know with sufficient
precision when AE and FN would have arrived at Gardner. We can estimate, and
it would be interesting to learn if the moon was perpendicular to Gardner at
their most likely ETA there (indicating the greatest likelihood of a low
tide waiting to greet them), but the margin of error for their arrival time
alone would be sufficient to forever cloud any conclusions one might be
tempted to draw.

(LTM, who enjoyed shooting the moon)
william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:20:20 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Native Recollections

From Don Jordan (djordan@cyberlynk.com)

In an old post Ric said,
" Did the Gilbertese fishermen on Nikumaroro at that time, who may
have been the only ones to see the wreckage up close, have any familiarity
with
airplanes"?
**********************

    Somebody had to be familiar with airplanes!  Otherwise, how would
they know that rusted thing on the beach was not from the Norwich City
and was in fact an airplane part. If they had never seen an airplane, I
wonder how they knew there was an airplane crashed on the Niku reef?

    It seems odd that Mr. Bevington didn't see any airplane parts and he
was in the area of the ship in October 1937.  If it was already there,
it must have been reduced to very small pieces.  So much so that neither
he, nor the New Zealand survey team who arrived in late 1939 could not
recognize it as airplane parts.

    Emily said the plane was there before she came to the island.  She
said she heard it from those who were there before her.  Who is she
referring to?  I thought the only ones that were there before her, were
the New Zealand survey team members.  They were there in December 1938.
If Emily  arrived  there in  1938 or 1939,  that doesn't leave much time
between their departure and her arrival.

    Can we identify and find any of those people she referred to?

Don J.
****************************************************************
From Ric

The most probable date of Emily's arrival (mid-January 1940) is discussed at
length in "The Carpenter's Daughter" which you'll find at:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin.html

In a recent posting we also discussed how we know that at least some of the
early settlers on Nikumaroro had seen at least one airplane up close.

The fact that neither Bevington nor the New Zealand survey party recognized
the wreckage as airplane-related (even though both apparently took photos
that show the debris) is pretty good support for Emily's assertion that such
recognition was not possible from a distance.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:37:44 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Another AE/FN Book

From Vern

I've not seen this book reviewed by TIGHAR nor mentioned on the forum.
Maybe it doesn't warrant either!

"The Last Flight of Frederick J. Noonan and Amelia Earhart," 1995 by
Bowen P. Weisheit, Major, U.S.M.C.R, (Ret) [address: Bel Air, Maryland]

The book was self-published by the author.  It's 54 pages, 8.5 X 11 format.
I've located only three copies:  1) Smithonian Inst., 2) US Navy Dept.
Library, Naval Hist. Crt., and 3) Enoch Pratt Free Library, Maryland.
I have the Smithonian copy presently.

Weisheit says that both he and Fred studied under Cdr. P.V.H. Weems at the
Weems' School of Aerial Navigation in Annapolis.  He does not claim to have
known Fred Noonan.

"About the Author" says, in part:  (in about 1941)... He was teaching
Celestial Navigation classes as the first instructor at the Weems' School
established at Washington National Airport.  The author entered the Marine
Corps in the summer of 1942 as a Flight Navigation Instructor, and by war's
end had spent many long hours over the Atlantic on anti-submarine patrols
and training flights and over two hundred combat hours in the Pacific.

In the Prologue, Weisheit writes: "At 44, Fred Noonan was a world-class
adventurer who had done it all and lived to tell about it.  He was the best
Aerial Navigator in the world."  But he also believed Fred was a drunk.

On the basis of his experience, supposedly paralleling that of Fred Noonan,
Weisheit presents a rather detailed account of "what Fred would have done."
The flight from Lae to somewhere near Howland Island is recreated in detail
complete with charts prepared by the author.  He is quite sure Fred would
have "aimed off" for a point midway between Howland and Baker Islands where
he would have expected to see one, or both islands.

No sources whatever are cited other than the inclusion of the Itasca log for
2 July, 1937.  It's almost totally "What they would have done."  The surface
and air searches are covered in considerable detail with charts and maps.

Weisheit concludes that they ran out of fuel and went into the deep ocean.
He started with them departing Lea 150 gallons short of a full fuel load.
"Captain Noonan had cut the fuel load... etc."  (If they didn't get into the
air, it wouldn't matter how much fuel they had.)

P.S.  At one point Weisheit Parrots Fred Goerner with the bit about Noonan
being "poured aboard just in time for take off."  Were these people unaware
of the existance of the film clip of Fred and Amelia boarding the plane?

******************************************************************
From Ric

Apparently not.  Everybody wants to solve the Earhart mystery by bringing to
to bear their great insight through their expertise in some related field.
Well, insight and expertise are wonderful, but they don't replace gathering
the available facts.

We're familiar with Weisheit and have a copy of his book here on the shelf.
I'm quite sure his name has come up on the forum but I don't recall exactly
when.  No matter.  As you so correctly point out, the phrase "would have" is
a red flag.  It means the author is guessing.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:59:46 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Reef and Tide?

From Warren Lambing

>> From Ric
No part of the reef is dry at high tide.
Some parts of the reef are dry at low tide.
The part of the reef where Emily says she saw wreckage is dry
at low tide.
If the ocean is calm there is about four feet of water standing
on that part of the reef at high tide - which is not enough to reach any of
the radio components on the Electra.
If the ocean is not calm there is sufficent surf running over that part of
the reef to destroy a Lockheed 10.>>

Ric
       This brings some interesting questions (but I am not sure useful
ones).  First, since the aircraft was at least in 4 feet of water in high
tide, could the hoax radio report that AE was in the water perhaps be true,
except referring to the situation on the reef, instead of the ocean (not
knowing the actual wording of the so called hoax)?  Second, would you wade
ashore through four feet of water (considering the current there going by
the previous account of how TIGHAR almost lost the launch)?  Third could the
tide perhaps be another explanation of the battery life and life of the
radio broadcast, since it is likely they may not be keen to broadcast during
high tide, which would save battery life?  Fourth, is there place somewhere
else on the reef that could stay above water, not necessarily in this part
of the island?  Fifth, could the Electra, been swamp somewhere else on the
reef and the current floated it to this part of the reef?
Regards.
Warren Lambing
****************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not sure what hoax radio message you're referring to.  The reef scenario
fits very well with the "281 message" which the Coast Guard originally
interpreted as meaning that the airplane was afloat and later dismissed as a
hoax.
As for wading ashore at high tide with a big surf running; you'd do it if you
had to but you'd probably get knocked off your feet several times and would
likely end up with some nasty coral cuts (wanna see my scars?).
Possible tidal correlation with suspected post-loss transmissions would be
interesting to trace.  If we took the periods when credible messages were
received and found that they occurred at intervals which seemed to match
tidal cycles, that might be an indication that transmissions were only made
at times when the engine could be run.   If, however, we found that
transmissions occurred at more frequent intervals, that would argue otherwise.
To answer your fourth question, there is no place on the island where the
reef is dry And for your fifth - yes, it is entirely possible and even
probable that the airplane would end up in a different spot from where it
started, but the distance (in my opinion) would not be great.  A few hundred
yards max.  And the direction of travel would have to be more or less
"downstream."  In the case of Emily's wreckage, the airplane may have been
landed and  "parked" farther north on the reef from where she saw the debris.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:09:49 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Another AE/FN Book

From Chris Kennedy

Ric, this posting reminded me of something I heard about Elgen Long
coming out soon with a new book on the flight.
Do you know anything about this?

Thanks,
Chris

****************************************************************
From Ric

All I know is what I read on the forum.  Supposedly Elgen's long-awaited book
will be out next month.  I don't know who the publisher is or whether it's a
real publishing house or a "vanity press" of some kind.
I hope that one of our stalwarts will acquire a copy for TIGHAR at the
earliest opportunity so that we can read where we've gone wrong.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:34:21 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Tidal data

From Randy Jacobson

To William, regarding tidal predictions: the lunar tide actually
lags behind the moon's position by a couple of hours due to friction
and dissipation.  Even more complicated is the fact that the
lunar tide is just one of about 100 tidal components that make
up the full spectrum of tidal excursions.
LTM, who shrinks from making predictions.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:37:38 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Reef and Tide?

From Randy Jacobson

Ric wrote:
<<If we took the periods when credible messages were received and found that
they occurred at intervals which seemed to match tidal cycles, that might be
an indication that transmissions were only made at times when the engine
could be run.   If, however, we found that transmissions occurred at more
frequent intervals, that would argue otherwise.>>

The post-loss radio messages almost always occured at night,
when propagation characteristics are favorable, not only from
Niku, but from all over the globe.  Analysis of the times and
comparison to the "best" tidal hindcasts indicate no correlation
whatsoever.  The radio signals were evenly heard throughout the
nighttime hours.

LTM, who just loves listening to radio hoaxes, especially from
Orson Welles.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:17:15 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Native recollections

From Dave Bush

To my mind, the comments about the artifacts left on the island that have
been identified as coming from other a/c indicate that some of them must have
had at least a rudimentary knowledge of aircraft, though we can probably
never know to what extent they knew or from what source that knowledge came.

LTM
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:20:22 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Tidal data

From Dennis McGee

There have been quite a few postings lately regarding tidal data on
Niku during the AE/FN flight.  So far everything is abundantly clear, but I
do have one question. Are we going to do to "tidal data" what we did to
celestial navigation?  You know, pummel, beat, twist, flog, wrench, pound,
whip, smash, strike, mash, and flail the subject to near-death?
    Just curious, is all.

LTM, who hasn't seen a high tide since Woodstock
Dennis McGee #0149CE

****************************************************************
From William Webster-Garman

It certainly sounds like there is a continued consensus that any attempt to
calculate tidal activity in the vicinity of Gardner on July 2 1937 would be
so replete with unknown variables that the margin for error would be close
to 100%.

***************************************************************
From Ric

Sounds like we're all in agreement that we can move on to more potentially
fruitful avenues of inqury.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:36:31 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Native recollections

From Don Jordan, (djordan@cyberlynk.com)

Ric wrote,

    "The fact that neither Bevington nor the New Zealand survey party
recognized the wreckage as airplane-related (even though both apparently
took photos that show the debris) is pretty good support for Emily's
assertion that such recognition was not possible from a distance".
***************

    I guess what I am trying to figure out is, somebody at some time had
to go out on the reef and look down at the rusty thing and say,  "Oh. .
. that is airplane wreckage!"  "I thought it was from that old ship
wreck, but it isn't".  "It's an airplane!"

    I am trying to determine who, and at what point they recognized it
as airplane wreckage.  Emily refers to "they".  Who is the "they" she
refers to.  There must be more people around who knew it was airplane
wreckage.  Can, or are we trying to locate them?

Don J.

******************************************************************
From Ric

I would say that "they" are most likley to be any of the five Gilbertese
laborers who went aboard USS PELICAN in April 1939 and saw the ship's plane
(probably a Grumman J2F "Duck").  Or was it a Pelican aboard USS DUCK?  Or a
Goose aboard USS Swan?  Anyway, those five guys are the island residents who
had a chance to see an airplane up close prior to the time Emily was on the
island.  They would also inevitably be fishermen who would have occasion to
be out near the edge of the reef.  They would also almost certainly now be
dead.
Remember that when Emily was on the island there were only 16 men and their
families living there.  A man who was 20 in 1940 would now be 79 years old
and it is very rare for a Gilbertese man to reach that age.  It is, in fact,
little short of miraculous that we have found and interviewed three former
residents of Nikumaroro from that time period  - Bauro Tikana, Emily Sikuli,
and Otiria O'Brian.

We'll keep looking for more but the odds are against us.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:45:06 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Question for Loran vets

From Tom King

I'm working on the part of the 8th edition that describes findings in the
colonial village on Niku, and need to check some of our assumptions about
stuff from the Loran station with those who know.  I'll have more questions
later, but right now, I need to ask about sections of creosote-empregnated
posts, about telephone-pole diameter or a little bigger, that we find in the
"new" (i.e. post-48) village, sometimes in lengths about 30 feet long, more
often in sections about 2-3 feet long.  We've assumed that these were antenna
masts, hauled to the village and cut up after the station was abandoned.  Is
this true, Loran vets?

I'd also appreciate anything anyone can tell me about food service items at
the station -- what did you eat off of?  Also fire extinguishers: what kinds
did you have?

Thanks in advance...

LTM (who insists that we verify our hypotheses)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:55:15 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Elgen's book

From Suzanne

Dear Ric,

For what it is worth, according to Amazon.com "Amelia Earhart: The Mystery
Solved" by Elgen and Marie Long will be published by Simon and Schuster ISBN
068480058 this coming November. It is 320 pages and is in hardcover. There is
no synopses or any additional information on the Amazon.com site.

LTM #2184
Suzanne
Verum6@aol.com
*****************************************************************
From Ric

"The Mystery Solved" huh?  Hoo Boy.  Elgen should know better. I tried that
back in 1992 and he was among those who hanged, drew and quartered me.  The
public/media is not going to accept anything short of a (sigh) "smoking gun"
and
Elgen doesn't have one any more than we do.  There's gonna be more blood on
the scaffold, and this time it won't be mine.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:20:47 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Archaeology Column

From Chris Kennedy

This is a bit off-topic, but worthwhile nonetheless:  On page A-26 of
today's Wall Street Journal is a terrific column submitted by Camille
Paglia, Professor of Humanities at the University of the Arts in
Philadelphia, entitled "The Right Kind of Multiculturalism".  If you
have access to the Journal please read the column.  It is a terrific
defense of the achievements, relevance and promise of traditional
archaeology in today's rather cynical world, and for all of us involved
in the Earhart disappearance or other archaeological pursuits is a well
deserved pat on the back.

-Chris Kennedy
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:45:27 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Re: Elgen's book

From Dennis McGee

Ric said:  "I tried that back in 1992 and he was among those who
hanged, drew and quartered me."

    True.  But wasn't that a wry smile I saw on your face as you so
bravely mounted the gallows?  Or was it a grimace?
    TIGHAR's exhausting investigative work since then has not only
repaired any damage but added immeasurably to the base of knowledge we have
on AE/FN.
    Mistakes are only lessons waiting to be learned.

LTM, who has put away her willow switch
Dennis McGee #0149CE
*****************************************************************
From Ric

One of those lessons we've learned is that the public/media fascination with
the Earhart mystery is because of, not in spite of, the controversy
surrounding it.  Elgen's book will add fuel to the fire.  By, at long last,
committing his facts and conclusions to the printed page (as we do here on a
daily basis) he has entered an arena he has previously managed to largely
avoid.

I've requested a review copy of his book from the publisher.  If they send me
one in time, we'll review it for the new issue of TIGHAR Tracks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:20:22 EDT
From:        
Subject:      Native Recollections

 From Don Jordan (djordan@cyberlynk.com)

Ric wrote,
    "I would say that "they" are most likley to be any of the five Gilbertese
laborers who went aboard USS PELICAN in April 1939 and saw the ship's plane
(probably a Grumman J2F "Duck").
***************************

    I once saw a car wreck on the road that was so horrendous, I didn't
recognize it as what was left of an automobile, and I pass that model on
the highway everyday.  And closer to home, on a back issue of "Lost
Birds" magazine the cover photo is of a Presidential C-130 which crashed
into Indian Head Mountain carrying a brand new Chevy Suburban.  You
would never know that twisted pieces of junk laying in the wreckage was
a Chevy Suburban.

    There is a lot of difference between an fully intact Grumman Duck
and a mangled, scattered  Electra.  I just can't help but wonder how
they knew it was what was left of an airplane and not just part of the
Norwich city.

Ric also wrote,
    "Remember that when Emily was on the island there were only 16 men
and their families living there.  A man who was 20 in 1940 would now be 79
years
old and it is very rare for a Gilbertese man to reach that age".

********************

    Yes, but in the case of Emily, we are talking to someone who's
father said it was airplane wreckage.  There must be others kids out
there who are 70 years old now (Women like Emily) who remember
something.  What plans are there to locate them?

Don J.
****************************************************************
From Ric

I think I've said this before in an earlier posting on this subject, but I
entirely agree that there would have to be something present that would be
obviously and unmistakable airplane-related.  My pure speculation guess would
be that the "dot" is an engine with propeller still attached (prop side
down).  That, to my mind, would be just the sort of thing that even a
Gilbertese fisherman would recognize as being part of an airplane, especially
if he had seen one very similar to it on an airplane a few months ago.

Finding more people who were kids on the island is not likley to be a big
help to us in terms of direct witnesses to the wreckage.  That reef edge is
no place for children.  Nonetheless, we're planning to send a research team
to Tarawa in January to do archival research and interview any former
Nikumarorians we can find.  We may also send a team back to the Solomons to
interview people there.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:33:37 EDT
From:        
Subject:      No Subject

From Phil Tanner

[Ric wrote:
One of those lessons we've learned is that the public/media fascination with
the Earhart mystery is because of, not in spite of, the controversy
surrounding it.]

The controversy was aired, albeit briefly, here in the UK yesterday evening
ion our version of the History Channel. Afraid I missed most of the Earhart
section in what proved to be a programme called something like "Puzzles of
the Century", but I did catch it in time to see Ric demonstrate the possible
site for a patch of aluminium (as we call it) suspected to come from the
underside of AE's plane, and the piece of plexiglass. Regrettably, the
caption on a graphic demonstrating Noonan's line of position referred to
"Gardiner" Island.

I suspect from subsequent elements that it would have kicked off with a
conspiracy theorist and brought in Ric to represent the logical view of
things. The idea seemed to be to give a hearing to all the various theories
on any particular mystery, however mad or plain silly.  I'd say that even
having people argue against the existence of the Bermuda Triangle gives the
myth some sort of credence which it doesn't deserve.

Fortunately, each particular puzzle was sectioned off by commercial breaks -
some of the others included lunatic accounts of abduction by aliens and a
guy who thought Glenn Miller staged his own disappearance.

LTM, Phil 2276

*****************************************************************
From Ric

It's just a fact of life that nobody; not us, nor Elgen Long, nor the
conspiracy crowd, is going to get a critical airing of the evidence on
television.  Television is the great equalizer, painting meticulous
historical research with the same brush as pure opinion.  In the jargon of
the trade this is called "balance."
All television does is keep the names and faces in front of the public.  The
Earhart mystery at the turn of the milennium is basically what the Earhart
World Flight was in 1937 - entertainment.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 30 Sep 1999 16:36:42 EDT
From:        
Subject:      A Ukrainian Opinion
This came in as a private email.  Alexandr makes some interesting points.

*****************************************************************
From:   Two.Public@bc.odessa.ua (Public Computer)
To:  A.E.Search Forum

From: Alexandr V.Mandel, 270111, Dobrovolskogo Str., 126,
ap.117, Odessa, Ukraine (I have no E-Mail).

Re: A.E.'s flying skills.

       09.30.1999
    Dear A.E.S.F. subscribers!
  Unfortunately I am not subscriber of A.E.Search Forum by technical
reason  (I  have  not my  own  E-Mail  and  Internet connection),
but I am very interested in A.E./F.N. story many years. I don't know,
which version is correct, but in my opinion TIGHAR's version is very
convincing,  well proved and only  one that is truly scientifically
researched.  By  this reasons I try to track yours researches and to
study yours WebSite in any occasion.
  Subscribers of A.E.Forum discuss  many  interesting  questions  in
their messages. But one from this questions, discussioned frequently,
is very strange for me.  This is a question   about Earhart's flying
skills. I have read (I hope) about it all, that is  available in our
country and in Net, and now I think,  that  this question is primely
artificially created.
  There  were  many  points  of view  about  this matter - from very
admirable  to  critical, both from our and Earhart's contemporaries.
About  these lasts  we now cannot know correctly in all cases, what
is real origin of critics -  real facts,  or  competition  and envy,
or  maybe  method  of  opposition  to  ideas, advanced by A.E..  All
talkings  about  all  that  has emotional character and they will be
only rhetorical. By this reason, for correct conclusion it is needed
to forget for a moment all, that was written about this question  in
sense of discussion, and to make the short non-emotional analysis of
the several initial facts.
  So, A.E. flied 16 years on planes of very much  (it is important!)
different types. In this period she  had (as writes Mr.Dennis McGee,
for example) eleven accidents. A part  from them  (2-3, as it seems)
had an only mechanical origin  (motor cut, etc.).  A  part is linked
with a poor state  of air stations and ground services in that time.
Remains permissible 6-8 cases. And now we must only to look:  is  it
really too much,  relatively normal  or small quantity in the given
conditions (specificity of A.E .'s flying work)?
  The quantity of A.E.'s accidents is usually trying to compare with
the quantity of accidents of conditional "average pilots".  But work
of average pilots has a fully different nature.  For example average
pilots on airlines, both now and then,  fly many months  and  years
between  the same points and by same routes. For the military pilots
these  points  are  their  stationary  air bases and firing grounds.
Naturally they become very  experienced on these routes  and regions
near  it.  They  know  all nearest airstrips  (and  these  airstrips
usually has a good quality), radio stations and beacons, features of
weather conditions, etc. Therefore quantity (and "quality") of their
accidents is relatively little and tends to decreasing by time.
   A.E., by her own words,  was "air vagabond" a considerable period
of her flying career. She flied by the very different routes  across
all the country and everytime arrives to new points.  Thus  she  did
not keep close to the ways, on which the resort services for flights
were well developed (or were developed at all). Reading about A.E.'s
flights,  we - on the contrary - everytime meet  with  the  facts of
landings  and  takeoffs in doubtful conditions, at poor irradiating,
on unfamiliar terrain such as meadows (sometimes sloped),  pastures,
polo  fields,  or  as the best cases  - small flying fields in small
cities.  Both then and now  such  flying  (and especially landings)
considered  as situations  of increased risk  in aviation,  and them
pilots try to avoid it, when it is possible.  And  Locheed-Vega   or
even  Avro-Avian  are  not the JumboJets of course, but all the same
they are not a deltaplanes. But in A.E.'s career in the overwhelming
majority of cases all this "escapades" transited succesfully.
   All these facts must be remembered when we answers on a question:
is it  too many of it or a little -  6-8 accidents in 16 years. In
my opinion  it is  clear,  that  it is not simply  little, but it is
surprisingly  little  for  noted  conditions.  And  this  impression
becomes even more stronger, if to  consider  the "quality" of these
accidents.
  As in yours WebSite is noted, "her mishaps, however, tended  to be
relatively minor".  And,  also,  "she  does not run into hills while
trying to push through in bad weather. She doesn't  get  hopelessly
lost and wander around until she runs out of gas. She has no mid-air
collisions or in-flight structural failures.  She never  has  to use
a  parachute.  And  she doesn't  get  hurt. The only injury she ever
received  was a cut on the scalp when she flipped her Vega  onto its
back in Norfolk" (end of citate).
  And  it  must be  added, that  very few   relatively more serious
accidents  (Vega  flipping,  autogiro crash  and Electra groundloop)
take place in different places and times, in different plane's types
and by technically different reasons - and no repeats. So there were
no regularity or dependence between them,  and there  is not a base
for conclusions about A.E.'s principal deficiences  in some aspects
of flying. If one fly more time in non-standart situations (strongly
overloaded planes as the Electra, or the pioneering constructions as
the autogiro, etc.), and experimenting again and again, -  one will
have more accidents. It is clear. This is a question of statistics -
not skills.  In  these conditions  the skills consists in  keeping
situations  under  control,  and  exits  from it   without   fatal
consequences  for  pilot, another people and a planes. End  we  can
see, that  even  in this situations no one was killed  or  seriously
injured, and  planes not fatally destroyed (if I remember correctly,
Atlantic Crossing in 1932 maked after repair on same Vega!).
  Thus it  is clear  for me,  that  basically  A.E.'s   accidents
were little incidents, which  take  place   in aviation  frequently
(especially in her time), and which generally  received  a publicity
only  due to the fact, that  it  happens with woman-pilot, and  not
simply woman-pilot but A.E.. A nature of such publicity is explained
in several words in "The Fun of It", for example - when manufacturer
explains to A.E., why he couldnt risk hiring woman pilots:  "Because
of  the  way  accidents,  even minor  ones,  were  played up in the
newspapers.  A man  can damage plane and hardly a word be said...but
that  doesnt  apply  when sister stobs her toe".  For  Amelia, with
her persistent struggle for woman pilots acknowledgement,  this rule
works "in square degree". Really, we can remember for example, that
another  great aviator  -  Colonel  Charles  Lindbergh  -  has  a 4
emergency  parachute  jumps  in his career (as I read), but  in this
case all understands that this is not a reason for quick conclusions
about "poor piloting skills" of this famous pioneer.  But  Earhart's
flying career has a same pioneering nature!
  The same conclusions can be drawn about her navigating skills, and
by the same reasons. Already so much is written everywhere about it,
that soon remains only to be surprised, how A.E. at all sometime  in
her career could reach the planned destinations - if to perceive all
this seriously. THESE are TALKS.
  But she really did it  in  all  mentioned  before  conditions, and
succesfully did many long distance flights  with primitive equipment
and make errors (minor, not fatal) seldom. THESE are FACTS.
  A series of myths, which was arisen by the various reasons, by the
way, are effectively exposed now by TIGHAR members. For example this
is  "Africa  Coast  Episode"  during the Last Flight (that really is
practically fiction - in kind in which it usually states). Also this
is a myth about A.E./F.N. full incompetence  in  radioexchange with
"Itacka"  (that  is,  as follows  from yours researches, a result of
direct hoax), and anothers. Good example is standart statement about
Electras' grounloop. It speeks,  that  usually in takeoffs the help
of  co-pilot (Paul Mantz)  was needed for A.E. to control steering
gear and throttles simultaneously, and as if this is the evidence of
A.E.'s poor piloting technics. But really it is important, that L-10
is  a multi(twin)engine  plane with  two  pilots  seats.  And such
cooperation  of  pilots  in takeoff process is a normal procedure on
these planes - no more. Especially - in difficult  conditions  (when
plane is overloaded so heavily, for example). You simply can see any
serious literature or films about work of bombers  in World War II,
for example.  If plane is more heavier (4-motors),  even  the  third
crew  member  (flight engineer)  is needed for safe takeoff process.
A.E. make all work solely, and in Hawaiian accident -  in conditions
of essential side wind, as I remember. This  is hard work  for  any
pilot, and this simple Hawaiian incident  in  any  case  is  not  a
ready material for quick and categorical conclusions,  -  especially
if  recall,  that  correct  technical  origins of accident were not
ascertained fully.
  FACTUALLY: A.E.  and F.N. succesfully makes  biggest part of their
voyage,  partially  in very  difficult weather conditions,  without
serious piloting, landing or navigational problems.  All  this - in
wild rate and in not very good A.E.'s health state. So don't forget
about this FACTS, that now some try to substitute   by the  strange
(sexist's?) theoryes, that were constructed on sand.
 And now we can draw a conclusions. In my opinion, all conversations
about  principal  deficiencies in  A.E.'s  piloting  and navigating
skills are  only  results of latter  (mainly  posthumous)  legends,
produced mainly by the fact of disappearence of L-10E  and its crew.
It was only direct and very easy way to explain this situation (and
it was a very advantageous way for many). So, in general -  this  is
result of very adjustable conclusions  from  the  unverified  facts,
direct errors, which began to transfer from  a book  to a book, from
a movie to a movie and from one article to another. And this is also
a  form  of  passive  counteraction  of  many  to  ideas, which were
persistently  advanced by  A.E.,  for comprometation of  it.  And
it seems that real A.E.- OK, maybe not Best Woman Pilot In The World,
but simply definitely  very good pilot - "fall" twice.    Firstly -
as pilot in her  Electra,  and secondly - as victim of insinuations,
mainly not connected with aviation at all.
  And finally I agree with Mr. Ric Gillespee when he speaks that the
reasons of disappearance of NR 16020 must be searched by studying of
the  CONCRETE FACTS (NOT MYTHS!),  which took place in last hours of
flight.

  Please, accept my great apologies for big volume of the letter
  and my English.
  Bless You.

Sincerely yours - Alexandr

...............................................................
Public Computer

The British Council         E-mail:    Two.Public@bc.odessa.ua

2 Dvoryanska                Tel:       (+380 482) 496 833
Odessa 270026               Fax:
UKRAINE                     Web site:  http://www.bc.kiev.ua/index.htm

The British Council, registered in England as a charity no. 209131,
is the United Kingdom's international network for education,
culture and development services.