Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:50:01 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      P&W Data and Other Thoughts

In partial response to interest in engine data as posted by the Forum on 31
December, I offer the following. All of the data pertain to the S3H1 Wasp
engine:

Date    Octane      Takeoff     Rpm MAP Normal      Critical Alt.
11/34       80      550 Hp      2,200   34.5"   550 Hp      5,000 Ft
12/35       80      550 Hp      2,200   34.5"   550 Hp      5,000 Ft
12/39     80/87     610 Hp      2,250           560 Hp      5,000 Ft
05/41       91      600 Hp      2,250   36.0"   600 Hp      5,000 Ft
11/42       91      600 Hp      2,250   36.0"   600 Hp      5,000 Ft

Data for Dec '35 and May '41 are from P&W power curves for the
S3H1/R-1340-AN-1 engines. The remaining three dates represent information
taken from P&W data sheets for the S3H1 engine. With the advent of higher
octane fuel, Pratt & Whitney was able to increase rated power from 550 to 600
horsepower (with one temporary excursion to 610 horsepower).

Availability of higher octane fuels allowed engine manufacturers to increase
manifold pressure through additional supercharging without encountering
destructive detonation.  Chemical energy of the various octane-rated fuels
(about 19,000 Btu/Lb or 138,000 Btu/Gal) was essentially constant even though
additives (primarily tetraeythl lead) decreased the detonation tendency at
higher manifold pressures. Cruise fuel economy at a given power setting is
essentially unchanged with higher octane fuels.

One way higher octane fuel can increase fuel economy is by changing the
engine compression ratio. Efficiency increases somewhat by raising the
compression ratio. This change was not employed on Amelia's engines, however.
The ratio on her engines was 6:1 and remained at this level because she was
using 80 octane fuel. As a matter of historical interest, Pratt & Whitney
maintained this compression ratio during subsequent years even though high
octane fuels became available.

Cruise economy is gained by keeping the manifold pressure up and the rpm low
for a desired engine horsepower output. The piston engine is basically an air
pump. For instance, Kelly Johnson recommended that Amelia run a fuel/air
mixture ratio of 0.072 for all but one cruise power setting. At this ratio,
13.9 pounds of air were mixed with every pound of fuel consumed by each of
Amelia's two Wasp engines.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Birch.  That's an excellent explanation.
So, if all S3H1 engines retained the 6:1 blower ratio, and if higher octane
rating only becomes significant at high power settings, then perhaps the fuel
economy results obtained on Finch's flight might be more useful than we had
at first supposed.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:56:22 EST
From:         George Mershon
Subject:      Coconut Crabs

Happy 2000 and on!

On "Discovery" last evening (12-30-99)  was an interesting show about
crustaceans.   And, they mentioned the coconut crab.  It was stated that
there was no evidence of the crabs climbing trees to cut down a coconut,
even though the crabs did climb trees.  Also reported was the fact that the
crabs are vegetarian.

What was your experience?

George Mershon
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I've read that before and I can tell you from personal observation that
they're not vegetarians - or at least the one sitting in the tree eating the
rat wasn't.  I also have pretty good evidence that the smaller land crabs on
Niku not only eat meat but are active predators.  One day in '89, Pat and i
were standing in the jungle talking quietly when a land crab scuttled by with
what appeared to be a freshly killed rat in its claws.  Made us kinda glad
they don't get any bigger than they do.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:17:17 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Lockheed Tech Reports

In response to Jerry Hamilton's posting on 31 December:

I did not find Report No. 623. There were a few (perhaps less than 1 or 2
percent) of the Lockheed reports listed in their records I wanted that they
could not locate. That these reports are missing could be due to a number of
reasons. They could have been misfiled. Kelly may never have turned over the
reports to the company archives, or someone removed the report and never
returned it for record storage. Noticeably absent were reports on Howard
Hughes' Model 14, for example.

Kelly's widow has about four cartons of material involving her late husband
at her home. I was never able to review these records, although I tried. Even
visited her home one day and got a chance to review the many books in his
library, but not the cartons. May try again.

My opportunity to review the Lockheed archives came about when Walter Boyne,
author of "Beyond the Horizons," ask me to support his research for this
Lockheed Martin-sponsored history of Lockheed. Because it had corporate
sponsorship, I had just about complete freedom to investigate everything they
had in the way of files: corporate, technical, financial, proposals,
biographies, correspondence files, board of directors minutes and so forth. I
reviewed everything I could think of during a period of about 15 months.

As a part of the Lockheed Martin merger, the corporate archive storage and
retrieval function was removed from Lockheed, and the entire operation
subcontracted to an outside firm. I don't know the name or location of this
firm, but could probably find out if it is important.

I do not have a copy of the Model 10E operating manual as I have told Ric
previously. Nor did I find reference to one during my search. The one I have
is for the 10A and it was put together for export reasons. All of the
technical data are given in metric units.

I do have Report No. 465, "Flight Tests on Lockheed Electra Model 10E." This
is about 50+ pages in length (including raw data sheets) and consists of
three parts or sections. Part three includes "fuel consumption tests."
Amazingly, even the calibration curves for the manifold pressure instruments
and tachometers are included. I used this particular test report section to
calibrate my own fuel consumption calculations. I also used the four power
setting data points Kelly provided Amelia prior to the first flight attempt.

I have seven pages in landscape format listing Lockheed and Vega reports I
copied during my research. The period by these reports covers roughly 1932 -
1942. If I can assist you with anything specific, please let me know.
***********************************************************************
From Ric

That's extremely generous of you Birch, and I would urge forum subscribers
not to ask Birch for copies of this data unless you really know how to read
and make use of this kind of technical information.

Where, I wonder, did Elgen Long get the idea that Lockheed recommended an
increase in power settings in the event of a headwind?  On page 233 of his
book he says,
"According to data from the Lockheed Model 10 Flight Manual, with a headwind
of 26.5 mph the correct true airspeed for maximum range is 160.5 mph."
In "Notes" he attributes this to Lockheed Model 10 Flight Manual "Indicated
Airspeed for Maximum Range" page 35a.

I can't imagine that there is only one flight manual for all four variants of
the Model 10 (A,B,C & E), each of which used a different engine.  Elgen
doesn't specify that he is referencing the Model 10E flight manual and, so
far, nobody seems to have seen such a document.  Birch, is there a chart or
graph for "Indicated Airspeed for Maximum Range" on page 35a of the Model 10A
export manual that you have?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:41:06 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Crab Source

Ric says...

>I'm not disagreeing that it would be good to have a controlled experiment,
>but I wonder why we put so much weight on the judgement of one 28 year old
>colonial service officer who had been on Niku for all of three weeks when he
>decided that the bones had been scattered by crabs.

Maybe because it's a primary, written source?????

TK
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The fact that Gallagher's opinion appears in a primary written source gives
us great confidence that it really was his opinion.  It does not make his
opinion correct.  If he reported seeing crabs trotting off carrying bones,
that would be pretty convincing - but all he reports is that some of the
bones weren't there and he attributes that to coconut crabs.

His actual words are ( telegram of 17 October 1940):

"All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs which have also
damaged larger ones."

But from his cataloging of the bones that are present, it is apparent that it
is not only small bones that are missing.  Half of the pelvis is gone (How
much, I wonder, does half of the pelvis of a typical 5 foot 7 inch female
weigh?), plus all of the spine and ribs and several of the long limb bones.

I also wonder about the damage to the ends of the bones.  Hoodless talks
about this and it's apparent that it's not just a matter of the flesh being
cleaned off.  These bones ends sound like they've been gnawed.  I'd sooner
attribute that kind of damage to the rats than the crabs, but no rat is going
to run off with a tibia (or rather, I don't want to meet the rat that could
run off with a tibia).

I still smell more than a rat, or a crab, at work here.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:50:14 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Noonan's Sextant

While I cannot find the reference book I got the info from, I believe FN
used an A-5 model bubble sextant manufactured by Pioneer.  Accuracy is
good-for a bubble sextant.  General speaking if you can shoot a 2 or 3
line fix and get within 10 miles you are doing pretty good.  Besides the
problems of shooting through a moving platform you will get an error
imposed on the bubble itself by aircraft movement.  Personally I say if
you can shoot 10-15 miles with a hand-held bubble sextant you are doing
good.  Holding the thing steady in your hand is also a challenge-in
turbulence, forget it!  I  mainly use the A-10 series which was used by
the AAF in WWII, but I may be coming into possession of an A-7 Pioneer
sometime in the future(late Christmas present).  The A-7 was the next
model after the A-5-not  much difference to the best of my knowledge.
It's accuracy is about the same.  I'm getting the manual to it soon and
then I'll be able to tell what kind of averager it had.  Understand it
was very reliable-all of them are precision instruments to be cared
for.  I've never tried using a marine sextant at all.  You would need an
artificial horizon of some sort.  I can't comment on how well it would
work.  In any case, the real key to successful celestial is
PRACTICE-PRACTICE-PRACTICE.  I've been practicing for 12 years and I am
still learning.  Fred had been doing it since he was a teenager when he
went off to sail square riggers I believe.  Fred and Nathaniel Bowditch
were the best that ever sailed & flew.

Happy New Year to all.  Am going off to go aviate & navigate again. I'll
let everyone know if Y2K shut my airplane down.  The A-10 is along just
in case.

Doug Brutlag
***************************************************************************
From Ric

You may be entirely correct about Noonan using a Pioneer A-5.  The instrument
Manning borrowed from the Navy was a Pioneer bubble octant (serial number
12-36) and if the A-5 was current in March of 1937, then it was probably an
A-5.

But watch out for flat statements in Earhart books.  There are no reference
books on the Earhart disappearance (at least until the 8th Edition is
finished) and folklore abounds.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:02:36 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Where were AE and FN on the LOP?

Ric wrote:

<<If Earhart was on a spy mission, was it to photograph Truk or the
Marshalls?  Same problem.  There's no evidence that Noonan offset his
navigation and no evidence that there was a spy mission.>>

Huh?  I wasn't talking about spy missions.  I just thought it had been
established some time ago that offset navigation was a pretty common thing
for people to do in '37, and it struck me, reading Randy's material, that if
I'd been in Noonan's shoes I'd be pretty concerned about not being able to
see Howland when I go to where it ought to be, and about then not knowing
which way to fly on the LOP, and that that would make an offset somewhat
attractive.

TK
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The point I was tryin to make is that the question of which side of Howland
Noonan may have offset his navigation is the same as wondering whether she
would have spied on Truk or the Marshalls - it presupposes an event for which
there is no evidence.

What I got out of all of the discussions about offset and Noonan was that,
while he was certainly aware of the technique, it was not one he used when he
expected to get DF information.  The reported transmissions from Earhart
contain no clue, that I'm aware of, that an offset was being used and, in
fact, the phrase "We must be on you..." rather clearly implies an attempt to
navigate directly to the island.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:09:55 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Millennium Island

I think what's now "Millennium Island" used to be "Caroline Island."

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:18:25 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Monte Carlo simulations

Ric wrote:

<< I'm out.  All I got is some scrap metal and some shoe parts. >>

And they're on loan from Kiribati.  But then, any country that would gamble
on changing the International Date Line to make them first into the 21st
century has to be a risk taker.

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

Maybe they figure -  What the heck, the place is going to be underwater in 25
years anyway.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:20:51 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Happy 2000

1/1/2000

As the clock strikes 12 over here in Belgium, I wish all those participating
in the Earhart forum a happy and prosperousnew year. May God bless you all.

LTM from Herman
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:35:35 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Fuel Consumption Assumptions

This became a rather LONG post as I checked a few things (sorry)  but it is
also relevant to references I made in earlier postings about weather as I
still don't think a lot of the forum realize what weather does in the
tropics.  (Apologies to everyone who has lived in the tropics for a few
complete years).

Cumulous tend to get to about 8000ft here, but I can't remember exactly what
clouds we've flown through at night (didn't take notice as I wasn't the
pilot.  I am NOT instrument rated and NOT flying very often).  Over 8000ft,
they are usually Alto Cumulous or Alto Stratus.  Once again I opened my
mouth too soon.  Now I have to check night propagation!  However the July 1
forecast suggests Cumulous about 10,000ft and I've never seen cumulous
clouds stop dead at a particular altitude.  (I don't suggest it can't
happen).

As for not seeing that kind of activity on Niku,  I wonder what a year on
Niku is really like?  I know you've seen some rain activity in the area.
But it's the early part of the trip, and the equatorial area that would have
caused them the greatest problems.

On the other hand, have a good look at the Lambrecht photo.  We have been
prevented from a VFR flight of 80 miles by a sky like that.  Our destination
reported sunshine, clear skies and not a cloud in sight.  80 miles.....  AE
could have caught almost any kind of conditions.  However she didn't report
cloud to Itasca.

I do know the following is described about the Inter Tropical Convergence
Zone:

The ITCZ is a band of low pressure which forms over the regions of the
warmest waters and land masses in the tropics. The ITCZ is identified on the
satellite image as the band of bright clouds located just north of the
equator.

The ITCZ is not a stationary band but tends to migrate to the warmest
surface areas throughout the year. In the early part of the calendar year,
the high sun occurs in the Southern Hemisphere causing a southward
displacement of the ITCZ. As the high sun period travels from the Southern
Hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere, the ITCZ follows by migrating
northward attaining its maximum northward displacement during the month of
June.

It forms a band of cloud around the equator which could have been still near
Howland in early July, but not necessarily as far south as Niku.  The
satellite photos show it fairly localised along the strip a couple of
degrees North & South of the equator.

However it doesn't (from my memories of life further North) seem very
seasonal, rather it hangs around all year to some extent.  I may be wrong
about this - I often am!

Now, Back to the Chater report.  On July 1st 7.30am the weather report
suggested:  

EARHART LAE

FORECAST THURSDAY LAE TO ONTARIO PARTLY CLOUDED RAIN SQUALLS 250 MILES EAST
LAE WIND EAST SOUTH EAST TWELVE TO FIFTEEN PERIOD ONTARIO EO LONG ONE SEVEN
FIVE PARTLY CLOUDY CUMULUS CLOUDS ABOUT TEN THOUSAND FEET MOSTLY UNLIMITED
WIND EAST NORTH EAST EIGHTEEN THENCE TO HOWLAND PARTLY CLOUDY SCATTERED
HEAVY SHOWERS WIND EAST NORTH EAST FIFTEEN PERIOD AVOID TOWERING CUMULUS AND
SQUALLS BY DETOURS AS CENTRES FREQUENTLY DANGEROUS

FLEET AIR BASE PEARL HARBOUR

I know this was the previous day, but tropical weather is interesting in its
habits.  It was followed the next day at 10am by:

EARHART LAE

ACCURATE FORECAST DIFFICULT ACCOUNT LACK OF REPORTS YOUR VICINITY PERIOD
CONDITIONS APPEAR GENERALLY AVERAGE OVER ROUTE NO MAJOR STORM APPARENTLY
PARTLY CLOUDY WITH DANGEROUS LOCAL RAIN SQUALLS ABOUT 300 MILES EAST OF LAE
AND SCATTERED HEAVY SHOWERS REMAINDER OF ROUTE PERIOD WIND EAST SOUTH EAST
ABOUT TWENTY FIVE KNOTS TO ONTARIO THEN EAST TO EAST NORTH EAST ABOUT 20
KNOT TO HOWLAND

FLEET BASE PEARL HARBOUR

and

BARO 29.898 THEMO 83 WIND EASTERLY 3 CLOUDY BUT FINE CLOUDS CI CI STR CU
CUMI MOVING FROM EASTERLY DIRECTION SEA SMOOTH. NARU 8 AM UPPER AIR
OBSERVATION 2000 FEET NINETY DEGREES 14 MPH 4000 FEET NINETY DEGREES 12 MPH
7500 FEET NINETY DEGREES 24 MPH

These reports and the fact that I live in the tropics (no - it's not
actually ON the equator, and there ARE variables 20degS) have led to a
number of my suggestions.

1.    In the last takeoff movie at Lae, "look at the clouds!".  Have a close
look at what she was flying in.  Not much blue sky in the background.  Of
course I can't see the original footage, but if that's one of our typical
days....

2.    Observe the forecast winds as Amelia went higher.  7500Ft mostly
headwind at a little over 12 kts.  And This: AVERAGE OVER ROUTE NO MAJOR
STORM APPARENTLY PARTLY CLOUDY WITH DANGEROUS LOCAL RAIN SQUALLS ABOUT 300
MILES EAST OF LAE AND SCATTERED HEAVY SHOWERS REMAINDER OF ROUTE PERIOD WIND
EAST SOUTH EAST ABOUT TWENTY FIVE KNOTS TO ONTARIO THEN EAST TO EAST NORTH
EAST ABOUT 20 KNOT TO HOWLAND.

This also suggests the "Headwinds" I have brought up often when postings
refer to fuel usage and average speed.  I know we can't "assume" AE had a
headwind all the way to Howland, but local conditions would indicate the
likelihood.  What it was though can only be taken from AE's radio report of
"wind 23kts".  The only wind she'd be reporting is head or tail as it has a
direct bearing on her ground speed (assumption based on common practice).

3.    It's the "dangerous Local rain Squalls" I have brought up a few times
with regard to part of the flight.  If I remember correctly I said "No pilot
in his right mind would fly through one".

This bit jumps out from the previous day:  AVOID TOWERING CUMULUS AND
SQUALLS BY DETOURS AS CENTRES FREQUENTLY DANGEROUS.  We can assume that they
meant the centres of the Towering Cumulous were frequently dangerous.
However the following report is extracts from a visit to Lat 6-10S Long
140-130W.

Bear in mind that in 9 days they travelled about the distance AE would go in
one hour:

"May 25, 1997 (Saturday).  We were introduced to the ITCZ (Inter-Tropical
Convergence Zone) somewhat gradually. On our ninth day we saw our first
squall. We still had good winds and moderate seas. Then came squall number
two and then number three. We watched as lightening lit up the sky off in
the distance. As we heard no thunderclaps, we felt that the storm was far
enough away to not begin worrying........

We did get some rain but it was not much to worry about. It was somewhat
refreshing as we had been subject to uncomfortable heat for several days at
that point......

Well the fun was about to begin. I was down below taking my turn at a nap.
Phill was on watch and was studying the sky off in the distance on the port
side. He saw one cloud formation that looked somewhat ominous. Pretty soon I
was called on board and told to make sure I had on my safety harness and was
strapped down. Phill had heard a loud whirring off in the distance and
decided to put a reef in the main. He barely got the first reef in the main
when this whirring increased. ......

We were down to as little sail as we could get. The wind began to blow
furiously. The bambini broke loose and was being held on by only two small
tie lines in the corners. We cut the lines and threw everything that was in
the cockpit into the salon. At about this time the Autopilot went on
vacation. Phill told me to get him a lightweight rain jacket, put in the
storm hatch board and get down below. The last thing I saw was true wind
speeds of 40 knots. ......

We rode this storm for about an hour and a half. There was a steady sheet of
rain making visibility for Phill nearly impossible. He had to just stay on
course and be able to see the instruments. The storm eventually turned into
a normal squall with just moderate to heavy rain and wind speeds of 20+
knots. .......

We checked the instruments and learned that we had seen true wind speed of
44 knots and apparent wind speeds of 44 knots. This was our first and
hopefully our last Force-9 gale. .........As a result of this experience we
made a concerted effort to get as many weather reports as possible. "

Sorry it's so long.  This is the sort of storm we would refer to as a
"dangerous rain squall".  If they are around, they come up suddenly, are
pretty ferocious for a while, then disappear (until you hit the next one).
They tend to live in groups.

RossD.

(We are 9.5 hours into the new year and the Millenium Bug hasn't eaten the
bank computers yet!.  According to the figures I'm just as poor as I was
yesterday...).  No apparent emergencies.  Everything working...

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

Earhart's reported comment of "wind 23 knots" is interesting.  The fact that
she reports in knots strongly suggests that the information comes from Noonan
(and she has no way of knowing what the wind is anyway).  I can't imagine why
Noonan would report a wind other than a wind component that was effecting
their progress, one way ot the other.   Speculating further, it seems like a
23 knot headwind would be something of a concern and not consistent with her
earlier reports of "everything okay."  Her earlier report of "speed 140 knots"
 also suggests a tailwind.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:41:00 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Crab Source

Televisiom continues to fulfill its promise to inform and educate the
ignorant masses.  I even learned the real facts about Coconut Crabs!  The
Discovery Channel did a documentary program on lobsters and crabs.  A few
seconds were devoted to the coconut crab.  Here it is practically word for
word as broadcast.

Coconut Crab:  It gets to be as big as a football and can easily snip off
your finger.  It's a terrestrial night feeder and, like most land crabs, is
a vegetarian.  It climbs trees in search of fruit and eats fallen coconuts.
Some clain that it harvests coconuts from the trees but this has not been
proven.  The young crabs have soft abdomens and protect themselves by using
the shells of other creatures until they grow a hard protective shell of
their own.  This behavior is due to the fact that they are descended from
the ancestors of hermit crabs.

It appears that TIGHAR has some very mistaken ideas about coconut crabs.

Many years ago, I was associated with a guy we characterized as, "A walking
encyclopedia of misinformation."  I think his descendants must have all gone
into producing TV documentary programs to inform the masses.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Here's a scary thought.   Other life forms in the universe are probably
getting most of their information about us from television.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:58:00 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Global Warming in Kiribati

Global warming ? I saw the pictues too. Pretty alarming, no ?
Totally off-topic, in the year of our Lord 1000 people also believed the end
of the world had come. In 2000 some are no wiser. Today it's no longer angels
with flaming swords that are feared but a "millennium bug" or "gobal
warming'. I shouldn't worry too much about that. After all, mankind lived the
most interesting part of its history between 1000 and 2000 ? That includes
flying around they world in Electra's.

Only God knows what's in store but surely not global warming caused by
airplanes ! They weren't around  at the  end of  the  glacier period, or were
they ? I met many meteorolgists and I still have to meet the FIRST who
CONFIRMS that global warming in the Northern hmisphere causes ice to melt at
the Antarctic. They all DENY there is a link.

Perhaps it's all the fault of the dinosaures ? Maybe they caused the ice to
melt. Anyway, anyone who wants to be "politically correct" today will tell us
WE are responsable for the warming up of the globe, especially those among us
who pilot airplanes, not the good old Sun.  So either we sell our airplanes
to save the world or we sell the Sun. Or the dinausares.

From Herman (who believes in progress, not in doomesday scenario's)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We've seen no evidence of rising water levels at Niku over the eleven years
we've been going there.  We've seen storms hit the island and damage stuff
that was previously undamaged for many years, but whether that's evidence of
global warming or just normal cycles is not apparent.

As for Y2K, from what I can see it was an invention of the media.  Yes, there
were some computer problems that needed fixing and they got fixed, but the
media saw a chance to create a news story and a lot of people made a lot of
money.  Now everyone is breathing huge sighs of relief.  Reminds me of the
story about the guy who walked around all day firing a shotgun into the air
every five minutes.  Someone asked him why and he said, "It scares away the
elephants."
"But there are no elephants around here."
"Works, doesn't it?"
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:01:26 EST
From:         Jon
Subject:      Monte Carlo Techniques

I work for the U.S. Navy, developing automated surface missile test systems,
and we use a variation of the Monte Carlo simulation techniques to establish
our initial test parameter tolerance values

- Jon, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme, CA
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:52:11 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      10 miles or 100

>>I still say that AE/FN would not have been that far off target.  FN could
>>have, would have and should have been getting sightings on stars all night
>>long and that means they would have been VERY CLOSE.  Unless the crosswind
>>component changed very drastically during the morning hours or some anomaly
>>cause AE to steer way off course, they should have been on target.
>>
>>LTM (love this mess)
>>Blue Skies,
>>Dave Bush
>**************************************************************************
>From Ric
>
>So what happened?

As has been pointed out so many times - they could have been within ten miles
and missed seeing the island.  I was trying to point out that all the people
trying to place them over 100 miles off course are the ones that are off
course.  Fred's navigation should have put them well within 100 miles, just
that it was one very small target to hit it precisely.

LTM
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
***************************************************************************
From Ric

That's a question which seems to fall in the "unknown and unknowable"
category.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:50:25 EST
From:         Terry Ann Linley
Subject:      Re: Crab Source

My Invertebrate Zoology book (author:  Robert D. Barnes, 1980), states the
following about Birgus latro:

They are terrestrial decapods (land crabs with five pairs of thoracic
appendages), closely related to the hermit crab, and are found in
Indo-Pacific regions.  Adult coconut crabs have abandoned the hermit crab
habit and have acquired a crablike form with a flexed abdomen.  The adults
live in burrows further back from the sea but are still a coastal species.  Bi
rgus can climb trees and has been reported to climb to the tops of palms and
mangroves 60 feet tall, using the sharp heavy ends of the legs like spikes.
It descends backwards.  Coconut crabs feed on carrion and both decaying and
fresh vegetation, and they can husk and open fallen coconuts.  They obtain
water by drinking.

There's more about the respiratory system, but that really isn't necessary
here.  The book has photos of an adult and a juvenile; the latter is pictured
in typical hermit crab manner, with its abdomen housed within a gastropod
(snail) shell.

LTM,
Terry
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:59:21 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100

Ric, I think I told you I was trying to work the celestial backwards to pin
down possible tracks or areas where the Electra could have been for Noonan to
get a sun shot azimuth of 67 degrees. I have been working with the Dept. of
Aerospace Engineering & Center for Space Research Engineering Mechanics at
the University of Texas. I received a reply from that department this morning
showing me how to make the computations. The preliminary results are general
and as follows:

Using an azimuth of 67 degrees exactly and not a fraction off there was no
place south of Howland inbound that Fred could have found a 67 degree
azimuth.  I recognize a slight deviation from exactly 67 degrees could have
occurred but it would not change the general conclusion.

If they were on course due west of Howland inbound he had a 67 degree azimuth
all the way.

They could also have been north of course as much as 120 nm but at about 200
miles west.

It was 7:42a when they reported "WE MUST BE ON YOU..." so the above
information is accurate if the sun shot was made before that time. If the sun
shots were made AFTER that time they could ONLY have been considerably north
of Howland -- 240nm to 300nm north and I seriously doubt they flew in close
to Howland at 7:42a and managed to get that far north in 8 to 20 minutes
which were the only times 67 degrees could have been obtained at that late
time.

I will refine the data and supply all the figures this weekend. (Busy week.)

Alan
#2329
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Very interesting.  If they were exactly on course they would not be due west
of Howland but slightly to the southwest (inbound no wind heading of 77
degrees True).

Does this mean that in order to get a 157/337 sunrise LOP they HAD to be
somewhat north of course at that time?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:00:34 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Crab source

Let me second what Ric said about the dietary habits of Birgus latro, having
gone through a fairly good chunk of the literature on the subject.  The
various studies are conflicting, but it appears that the idea that they're
vegetarian is pretty much folklore, and in fact they're omnivorous.  And as
Ric says, we've seen one of 'em with our own eyes doing kinky things with a
rat corpse.  If he or she wasn't eating the critter, I hate to think what he
or she WAS doing.

The smaller ones do indeed go through a hermit phase, and trot around in
other folks' shells.  When we tried a "controlled" experiment, putting out a
leg of lamb on the beach (It got washed away after a couple of days by the
prelude to Cyclone Hina), the little guys in their borrowed shells were all
over it in a matter of hours.  Again, I can't testify that they were eating
it, but I doubt if they were performing an autopsy.

LTM (who stays strictly out of other people's shells)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:01:38 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Global Warming in Kiribati

Changes in sea level are a well-documented worldwide phenomenon, and there's
every reason for the people of Kiribati (and those who visit and study there)
to be concerned about what may happen to the place.  At various times in
prehistory Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay have been pleasant valleys
with streams running through them; melting ice made them otherwise.  It would
be pretty strange if environmental conditions had stabilized entirely in the
last few hundred years -- with or without human impacts on such conditions.

I don't think we've observed Niku long enough, or with enough rigor, to say
whether there's evidence of sea level rise there, but rising levels have been
pretty clearly documented in the Marshalls and Tuvalu.

LTM (who thought she'd rise to the occasion)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:03:19 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Model 10 Flight Manual

With respect to information contained on page 35 of the manual I have for the
Model 10, it would seem that it is different from the one Long refers to in
his book. First of all, there is no 35a in my copy. Second, page 35 in my
copy is a curve. I will scan this page and send it as an attachment in a
subsequent e-mail today.

At the moment, I am at a loss to explain or understand Long's comment
contained on page 233 of his book.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:05:06 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Crab Source

Terry's textbook says:  "Coconut crabs feed on carrion."

That's consistent with what I've seen.  So they eat dead critters; whether
they catch live ones is another matter.  One can imagine some really icky
experiments.

LTM (who's just carrion on)
Tom King
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Think of it as an opportunity to bring along some people on the next
expedition whom we might not have otherwise considered.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:10:44 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100

<< Does this mean that in order to get a 157/337 sunrise LOP they HAD to be
 somewhat north of course at that time?>>

I wish I could answer that with a definite yes or no but it DOES appear that
the answer must be yes. I checked all the coordinates south of 0 degrees 48
minutes North all the way back to 179W. It is possible but less than likely
that 67 degrees could be found. But there are close fractions. The easy one
would be 67.2 or 66.8 and if they are rounded off or Fred's sextant was not
quite that accurate then he could well have been dead on course. I'll check
out 77 degrees and see how it comes out but generally speaking I found little
probability they could be south of a due east course.

Alan
#2329
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Is it possible to plot a band on a map which encompasses the locations where
the airplane could have been and gotten a 67 degree sunrise (plus or minus a
couple of tenths)?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:25:37 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100

I imagine some other people have tried finding an Island the size of
Howland at sunrise already.  Just out of curiosity, I'm going to grab the
Warrior a couple of mornings and go looking.  I need to know just what it
looks like.  I'll wait until mid year when the weather conditions are
similar to AE's flight.

We have over 70 Islands so I'll find one I haven't seen.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:30:58 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100?

<< Is it possible to plot a band on a map which encompasses the locations
where the airplane could have been and gotten a 67 degree sunrise (plus or
minus a couple of tenths)? >>

Yes, but I wont have time to work on the 77 degree course thoroughly until this
weekend but preliminary checks show that although a 67 degree azimuth could
be obtained at 6:20a to 6:30a from 179W to 176W the sun's elevation was
extremely low - averaging only a degree and a half above the horizon with a
maximum height of 3.3 at the 176W line at 6:30 and at that time They should
have been somewhat west of that longitude, about 60nm or so. ( arbitrarily
figuring 133k GS)

What that tells me is that they could have been on course but probably on a
course somewhat due west to east or even slightly north of that track. There
is a lot of room to maneuver and still find 67 degrees of azimuth but I
suspect we will be able to eliminate being well south of Howland or well
north. It appears to me from first glance your theory that they were pretty
close to track and hit Howland fairly close is supportable. I think it also
makes it more likely they missed Howland simply because they couldn't see it
visually and not because of any gross navigation error.


Alan
#2329
*************************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

This is kinda silly.  FJN doesn't actually measure the 67 degree azimuth to
the sun.   He assumes a position on the globe, the books tell him when the
sunrise is going to be and the azimuth.  There will be a good range of
latitudes that will give him that azimuth +or- a few tenths of a degree.  He
then compares the book time of sunrise to what he observes, and that gives
him a correction towards/away from the sun along a  67/247 line.  What's
important is where Noonan THINKS he is, not where he really is, that
determines the 67 degree line.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:42:18 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      A Bit of History

A number of people, including Amelia Earhart and some authors, have quoted
the range of her Electra 10E as 4,000 miles. This figure derived from a
preliminary estimate developed by Lockheed chief engineer Hall Hibbard before
a purchase contract was ever signed. George Putnam and Amelia were still
negotiating with Lockheed. More important, it was an estimate made prior to
establishing the final number of fuel tanks and resulting total volume. This
would not be finalized for about three months after the purchase order was
signed. In addition, Hibbard was concerned about the takeoff distance with
such an overloaded Model 10E in context with the airfields that Amelia might
encounter. More to the point, he advised Bob Gross (Lockheed president) that
any estimated range was deeply dependent upon fuel management during a long
flight. He had serious reservations about Amelia's ability to monitor and
control fuel/air ratio. Whether this feeling was grounded in fact or just an
apprehension is not know. Everything else can be documented.

Hibbard used a standardized range estimating formula: Range = 0.98 [ No. of
Gallons of Fuel - 10 / Gallons per Hour ] x (Cruising Speed in Mph). The 0.98
factor allowed for fuel consumed during climb to cruising altitude. The
"minus 10" was an allowance for engine warm up. Hibbard selected 40 gallons
per hour average total fuel consumption for long distance flights. This
represents a brake specific fuel consumption rate of 0.48
lb-fuel/horsepower/hour. Cruise speed was estimated at 150 mph with the
engines operating at about 45 percent of full power (247.5 horsepower per
engine). Using this equation and the numbers cited yields a theoretical range
of 4,006 miles.

Unfortunately, no one challenged this figure or tried to understand what it
represented. It was a preliminary estimate to begin with. It was also an
estimate for still air. It was used as a guide for air line operations. And
finally, it was overly general for application to a specific flight profile
of an airplane with a 50 percent over gross weight.

Why did Hibbard use this estimating approach? Probably for a number of
reasons. A primary reason was that Lockheed was financially undernourished at
the time, and did not have the resources to do any elaborate parametric range
study for a single customer. There was no market for 4,000 mile Electras. In
addition, Lockheed was going to sell the Electra to Putnam for a bargain
basement price.

Contrary to what Elgen Long claims, Lockheed did not provide any performance
guarantee with the sale of Amelia's airplane. One reason was that they had a
prior bad business experience with Putnam and didn't trust him. More
important, they were modifying a Model 10 to a point beyond their experience.
There were too many variables. To have provided a specific performance
guarantee would have been an unacceptable business risk, especially with
Putnam. Bob Gross was an astute business man who was willing to take prudent
risks in return for potentially rewarding payoffs. This wasn't one of those
situations.

In spite of this, the 4,000 mile myth has persisted in the minds and writings
of a number of people. In reality, is was significantly less than this number.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Great posting Birch.  Thanks.
What, I wonder, was the previous bad experience with Mr. Putnam?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:29:53 EST
From:         Stephen Frawley
Subject:      Re: Fuel Consumption Assumptions

What assumptions about the headwind has TIGHAR made? Both the forecasts
from Pearl Harbour mention easterlies, Nauru reported upper easterlies and
the average winds for the route have a large easterly component.

Assuming that AE knew the mean upper winds for the route (if such data was
available then) and had seen the first Pearl Harbour forecast, she would
have expected some sort of an easterly. Her "Wind 23 knots" remark could
therefore reasonably be interpreted as referring to a headwind.

How does a 20-25kt easterly affect the ability of the aircraft to reach
Niku?

Stephen Frawley
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'd prefer not to make any assumption about headwinds, crosswinds or
tailwinds.  The distance from Lae to Howland is 2,223 nautical miles, but we
know that they didn't end up right at Howland.  It seems most reasonable to
assume that they reached the LOP near Howland, but not close enough to see
the island, at around 07:30 local time (1900 GMT), just a few minutes before
Earhart's "We must be on you but cannot see you.." transmission.  Because we
dont know where on the LOP they were at that time, we have to pick an
arbitrary number to work from.  Birch Matthews used 2, 246 nautical miles.
If they covered that distance in 19 hours, they made an average ground speed
of 118 knots.  The aircraft's recommended cruising speed was 130 knots.  If
they followed that recommendation, and figuring that climb and descent
balance out, that gives them an average headwind over the entire route of 12
knots.  Whether that's a steady wind on the nose of 12 knots (pretty
unlikley) or a variety of different winds from different directions at
different times, really doesn't matter.  The only questions impacting upon
their ability to reach Gardner Island ar how much fuel they had remaining
once they reached the LOP at (ballpark) 1900 GMT and what were the winds
between Howland and Gardner?  The available information suggests that those
winds were easterly thoughut the morning at something like 12 knots.  Without
getting out my trusty E6B and trying to rmember how to plot a wind triangle,
I would guess that a 12 knot wind from 090 (True) gives an airplane on a 157
degree course (True), a headwind component of maybe, oh, 5 knots.  So running
down the LP at 130 knots indicated at 1,000 feet that morning, the Electra
was making (ballpark) 125 knots over the ground (uh, water).  The arithmetic
is easy.  If they have one hour of fuel they can go 125 nautical miles from
wherever they started.  Two hours - 250 nm.  Three hours - 375 nm.  Gardner
is 356 nm from Howland.  If they start anywhere south of Howland, and have
anything close to three hours of fuel left, and just hold that course - they
should reach land.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:47:45 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      8th edition

Ric:
    You estimate that the 8th edition of TIGHAR's AE/FN saga will be out
by March 2000.  Can we get a discount if we order early, like next week or
so?  I definitely want a copy but would also like to shave a pence or two
off the bookstore (dreaming, right?) price.
    Discounts for early order also makes good business sense by helping
with your cash flow  The cash from the early orders let you pay the printing
costs and not force TIGHAR to dip too far into its limited cash on-hand, or
go too far into debt.
    In ANY event, please put my name on the list for a copy.

LTM, who is Irish, not Scottish
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Pre-publication advance orders for the 8th Edition are being accepted for
$49.95.  Once the monster is actually off the table the price will go up to
$69.95.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:50:03 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      usable fuel

Mr. Matthews said:  "Trapped fuel on the P-39 amounted to 3.1
percent. Somewhere I have a similar figure for the P-51 (can't lay my hands
on it at the moment). Memory tells me it was just slightly greater than the
P-39."

    That 3.1 percent unusable seems to be awfully high, but if that is
what Bell's calculations/demonstration prove, then I guess that is probably
right.

    However, I think it would be erroneous to compare the generic fuel
systems of fighter aircraft with commercial aircraft and arrive at any
meaningful answer.
    Fighters are designed for performance, lethality and durability.
These factors demand an design that is not conducive to conventional fuel
systems and often result in unconventionally shaped cells and plumbing.  If
the main fuel cells are in the wings, for example, they must conform to the
demands of the wings' designers and be fitted around spars, armament, ammo
boxes, spent-ammo ejector-chutes etc. all of which limit the cells' size,
shape and location.  Add to that the weight problems of fuel sloshing around
in the wings during high-speed maneuvers and additional problems arrive.
Additional fuel cells in fighters are often are located where ever there is
room, such as the fuselage or sometimes even in the vertical stabilizer, and
consequently end up in really strange shapes.
    Commercial aircraft are designed for comfort, profitability and
practicality (sometimes).  Consequently their fuel systems tend to be more
standardized, i.e. squares, rectangles, spheres. etc.
    The plumbing of fuel systems in fighters and commercial aircraft are
greatly different also, again complicating the comparison of their generic
"usable fuel" numbers.
    The only validity, I would think, between comparing fighter and
commercial aircraft would be that they both carry fuel and that a certain
portion of that is unusable.
    Now, if you want to compare the fuel systems in BOMBERS and
commercial aircraft of that era that is a another issue.  Anybody out there
have access to Boeing's or Consolidated's data on the unusable fuel in the
4-engine B-17 (or B-29) and B-24, respectively?  Or better yet, stick to
twins and go for the North American B-25, the Martin B-26, or the Lockheed
A-20.  I would think the fuel system of the twin-engine bomber would be
closer to that of a twin-engine commercial aircraft than would fuel systems
of fighters and 4-engine bombers.

LTM, who is Y2K compliant
Dennis O. McGee #1049CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:20:23 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100

Ross writes:

<< Just out of curiosity, I'm going to grab the Warrior a couple of mornings
and go looking. >>

Ross, take GPS, good radios and stay in touch with us.<G>

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:40:53 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100?

<< There will be a good range of latitudes that will give him that azimuth
+or- a few tenths of a degree. >>

You're correct, Randy. If you vary the 67 degrees enough you could cover a
great part of the South Pacific but I think I pointed that out.

Alan
#2329
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm pushing the envelope of my understanding on this issue.  Let me see if
I've got it.

So, the night before the flight, Fred consults his almanac and charts and
says, "Okay, if I'm pretty much on course as we approach Howland (And I'm
Fred Noonan and I WILL be on course.) the sun is going to come up at 67
degrees.  That will allow me to get a 157/337 LOP which I can then
advance...etc...etc."

Fast forward.  There he is, sitting out there over the ocean in the pre-dawn
glow waiting for the sun to come up.  BANG!  There it is.  The first flash of
light on the horizon, and up comes that big red ball.  Now, how in the name
of Manganibuka is he supposed to measure whether that sun is at 67 degrees or
66.8 degrees or 67.4 degrees?  He's lucky if the directional gyro is accurate
to within a couple of degrees after having reset it a couple dozen times
since they took off.  Seems to me that he has to assume that he's pretty much
on course (based on his celestial work during the night) and that the sun is
pretty much at 67 degrees.  As long as its position generally agrees with the
DG he know he's in the right neighborhood.

I think this is what Randy was getting at.  Assuming that the 157/337 LOP was
based upon a precise 67 degree sunrise is crediting Noonan with information
that he can't possibly have.
Am I wrong about this?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:33:37 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: A Bit of History

I can't claim to begin to understand the engineering issues involved in some
of the current threads, but the general thrust of the fuel consumption
debate is causing me to reconsider one of my preconceptions about the
Earhart flight. Namely, that although the mystery surrounding its end has
given the story longevity, it was essentially a bit of a stunt which
wouldn't really have proved anything had it ended in success.

As a layman it looks increasingly to me like even if it wasn't breaking and
dramatic new ground in exploration/pioneering terms, in engineering terms the
demands made of the plane if everything was to go well mean it was a venture well worth
undertaking. Comments? LTM, Phil 2276

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

It's a fascinating point to ponder.  At the time of the World Flight, Pan
American had been flying scheduled passenger service across the Pacific for
the better part of a year in flying boats (four engined Martin M130s).  The
DC-3 had also been in service for a year but not, of course, on long
over-water routes.  Conventional wisdom held that trans-oceanic passenger
travel was most appropriately carried out in large flying boats.  It wasn't
until after World War II that commercial aviation began using land planes
(most notably the DC-4) for trans-oceanic flights.

Earhart's (and Putnam's) billing of the Model 10E Special as a "Flying
Laboratory" was mostly hype.  When queried on the subject, Amelia talked
about studying the effect of long distance flight on the human body and
trying out different kinds of sun glasses.  The one piece of cutting-edge
avionics installed aboard the aircraft (the Hooven Radio Compass) was removed
prior to the world flight.  Even the special long-range fuel tank system of
the 10E Special was not unique to NR16020.  In May 1937, before Earhart and
Noonan had even departed on the second World Flight attempt, another 10E
Special (c/n 1065, NR 16059) had made the first trans-Atlantic commercial
flight when Dick Merrill and John Lambie carried film of the Hindenburg
disaster from New York to London nonstop.  They returned with film of the
coronation of King George VI and flew nonstop westbound more than 24 hours
from London to Boston and still had 170 gallons remaining.  In other words,
in terms of range and endurance, the 10E Special had already demonstrated
more capability than Earhart was attempting.

I think your orignal conclusion was correct.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:41:30 EST
From:         Ty Sundstrom
Subject:      paperwork

Just a note on unusable fuel, for those trying to get a little closer to what
might have been on board; unusable fuel was generally a figure that meant
unusable in normal attitudes within the aircraft's acceptable or approved
maneuvers list.  Most all aircraft will drain more fuel than it is placarded
for, as unusable, for this reason in smooth, straight and level flight.

  I am not sure but I believe that the C.A.A. only required an operating
limitation sheet for aircraft certified at the time of AE's aircraft.  This
sheet would have been the equivalent of an operators flight manual.  This
would have been the minimum documentation on board and a manufacturers flight
manual would have been a much expanded version of this with fuel flow charts
loading graphs, do and don'ts for the aircraft, etc.  It (the operating
limitations) would have possessed weights, empty and loaded, available fuel,
oil, number of crew and passengers, and operating speeds.  A copy of this
sheet was normally placed in the aircraft's file (permanent record) with the
C.A.A.  Has this record been accessed for AE's aircraft?  They would surely
be in federal dead storage but then again if somebody has changed title on
the aircraft recently as in the last 15 years anybody can access the
micro-fiche file in Oklahoma City with the F.A.A.  If not, a request to the
F.A.A. that these files be retrieved from dead storage can be made.  This
stuff has already been done I'm sure so I hope I'm not speaking out of turn.

Ty N. Sundstrom

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

Thanks Ty.  Due to the on-going interest in Earhart's airplane, the FAA long
ago pulled out everything they have to be copied for the curious.  We have
all that paperwork but there's no manual of any kind amongst it and there
seems to be a lot of other stuff missing that you would expect would be there
(like all of the weight and balance for the various modifications).  Maybe
there's more someplace in dead storage but the FAA says not.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:08:25 EST
From:         R. Johnson
Subject:      Dot-Dash Photo Update

Any recent update on the analysis of the dot-dash photos?

R. Johnson

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

What we really need at this point is better imagery to work with.  We have a
copyneg of the 1938 photo (Photo #3 on the Forensic Imaging Update) enroute
from New Zealand but it could be the end of the month before it gets here.
We also really need to get a very high resolution scan of the original 1937
Bevington photo (Photo #1).  It's now at the Rhodes Library at Oxford
University and for some reason they're a bit hesitant to just pluck it out of
the collection, stuff it in a envelope, and send it to us.  I may actually
have to go to England to negotiate a compromise.  Initial results using the
copyneg we have of that photo have been so encouraging that we really want
access to the original.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:20:52 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: Crab source

Ric wrote:

<<Think of it as an opportunity to bring along some people on the next
expedition whom we might not have otherwise considered.>>

There's a fund raiser here too.....Tee shirts that read..."I'm crab bait!"
or "I went on this expedition searching for Amelia Earhart and all I got was
this lousy Tee shirt and multiple crab bites" or "I'm Koo Koo for Niku"  How
about...."Pinch me. I'm crabby!"

Clyde Miller
(who still has too much time on his claws)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:31:40 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Coco Crabs

This was submitted to a listserve of marine biologists who are particularly
interested in the science and preservation of coral reefs.

With apologies to Tom King for the blatant plagarism.  Thanks for the
material.

LTM (who knows not to rewrite good material)
AMCK
=============================================================

Greetings,

Here is a coconut crab (Birgus latro) question for consideration by the Coral
List subscribers.

During 1940 a partial skeleton, woman's shoe, and a sextant box (without
sextant) were reported by the British colonial administrator of Gardner
Island of the Phoenix Islands, now called Nikumaroro, part of the small
nation of Kiribati.  At the time the administrator, a Mr. Gallagher,
speculated that the skeleton might be that of Amelia Earhart.  In his report
to his superiors, Gallagher describes the bones found as having been
scattered by coconut crabs.  The bones discovered consisted of the following:
 a skull, lower jaw, one thoracic vertebra, half pelvis, part scapula,
humerus, radius, two femurs, tibia and fibula.

I am with a nonprofit organization called TIGHAR - The International Group
for Historic Aircraft Recovery.  For the last 12 years we have been
investigating the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred
Noonan based upon the navigational principles in use during 1937, and what
little scientific evidence is left regarding the mystery.  Our theory,
primarily based upon navigational logic (and developed prior to unearthing
the reports of bones being found on the island), is that Amelia and Fred made
it to Gardner (Nikumaroro) Island after not being able to locate Howland
Island, only to perish as castaways.  Artifacts discovered during several
expeditions to Nikumaroro, including part of a 1930's woman's shoe and
aircraft aluminum and Plexiglas, generally support our theory.  We do not
have a smoking gun yet, however.

We'd like to know (a) whether coco crabs actually scatter bones at all (If
they don't, then the bones must have been scattered by something else -- e.g.
dogs brought with the colonists, which would give us a handle on when they
were scattered); and (b) if coco crabs do scatter bones, how far do they
scatter them (horizontally and vertically); and (c) is there any sort of
pattern to the scattering?  Please keep in mind that some of the bones
missing from the list above are quite large.

Unfortunately, for some strange reason nobody seems to have given these
fascinating questions a whole lot of research attention.  Does anyone have
insight into the capability and likelihood of coco crabs scavenging and
scattering the body of a human sized mammal?

The bones were shipped to Tarawa and ended up in the collection of the
Central Medical School in Fiji.  The were apparently discarded in 1990 when
the Medical School reorganized.  Any information regarding the current
whereabouts of the bones would be greatly appreciated.

We are also seeking photos, especially aerial photos of Nikumaroro.  Has
anyone been there?

Please respond to me directly.  For more details about the bones
discovered and our search in general you may visit the TIGHAR website at
www.tighar.org.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Andrew McKenna
=================================================

RESPONSES SO FAR ARE AS FOLLOWS:
=================================================

Dear Andrew,

    Yes, I read with interest your observations and questions concerning
coconut crabs and the fate of Emelia Earhart.  My experience with coconut
crabs in this regard is very interesting but may not be of much help.  Some
years ago, I was hired by the FBI to investigate the famous Palmyra murders
of Muff and Mac Graham.  It turned out that Muff Graham's bones were found
in the sand in Palmyra Lagoon lying just a few feet away from an aluminum
box.  The box was badly chared and contained human colesterol on the
inside.  We think it was used by the murderer (Buck Walker) as a
crematorium and then sealed and dumped into the lagoon.  Subsequent decay
and the production of gas resulted in the box floating to the surface where
it drifted to shore.  Six years later, the box, now badly corroded, broke
open and spilled the bones on the sand.  By this time, the bones were
completely devoid of tissue, and remained in place, within a 6 foot
diameter partially buried in the sand.  No scavenging activity took place
because the bones lacked any organic matter.

    However, coconut crabs do exist on Palmyra, as do wild dogs and other
smaller land crabs.  While conducting our investigation, we did an
experiment with a 100 pound fish carcass, planting the dead animal on the
beach, and, all of these animals were involved in scavenging the carcass
and its bones. A 5 pound head was pulled helter skelter along the beach and
into the low lying jungle.  So, scavenging is a definite possibility in
your case; that I am sure.

    My story has been published in several places if you would like the
references.
                        Dr. Richard Grigg
                        Professor of Oceanography
                        University of Hawaii
=======================================================

     Andrew,

     Coconut crabs can get quite large, especially on uninhabited coral islands
     where they are safe from humans (they are a prized delicacy).  I have seen
     some specimens between 5 and 10 lbs, and they can live for more than 50
	 yrs.  They are the largest invertebrate that lives on land, although they
     breed in the ocean and the larval part of their lifecycle is in the ocean.
     Obviously anything that big that can climb a tree and snap off, husk, and
     eat a coconut is very powerful and capable of moving objects larger that
     itself, although not a whole human body.  When the body deteriorated, it is
     possible that coconut crabs could have dragged limbs and other body parts
     closer to its "home", usually a burrowed hole in the ground.  So it is
     likely that coconut crabs might have been responsible and capable of
     scattering body parts.

     The Phoenix Islands were uninhabited until the 20th century, although
     several were visited in the mid 19th century to collect guano.  For
     example, Howland and Baker (equatorial Phoenix Islands under U.S.
     possession) were initially claimed by the U.S. under provisions of the 1859
     Guano Act.  Kanton (previously Canton) Atoll was subject to disputed claims
     by both the British and U.S. and has been steadily occupied over the past
     30 years at least, and perhaps longer.  It is possible that residents at
     Kanton might have visited Gardner.

     As you know, the rest of the Phoenix Islands were first claimed by the
     British before they all and Kanton becme the Phoenix group of the Republic
     of Kiribati in 1979.  Before independence, and during the 1940s to 1950s, I
     believe, the British colonists moved settlers to several of the Phoenix
     Islands, possibly including Gardner.  The settlements were later abandoned
     due to water and food shortages.  However, during the time of occupation,
     settlers may have had dogs which in turn would have discovered and scattered
     the bones.  Given the nature of hermit crabs, coconut crabs, and ants as
     scavengers, it is very likely that all the bones would have been picked
     clean within a few years, with or without dogs involved.

     Interestingly, the Republic Of Kiribati wants to attempt another settlement
     of the Phoenix, including Nikumaroro, although I have argued against it on
     grounds of threat to wildlife.

     I will be involved in a trip to Howland and Baker next month, but we have
     neither time nor permission to visit the non-U.S. Phoenix Islands. Another
     group is also planning a trip to the non-U.S. Phoenix Islands later in the
     spring, including Nikumaroro.

     I hope the information I have provided is useful to you.

     Good Luck!

     James E. Maragos, Ph.D., Coral Reef Biologist, Remote Refuges
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:55:40 EST
From:         Karn Burns
Subject:      decomposition

re. decomposition

Thanks for the info, Ric. The lamb and the dates were added to the
background info here. I thought I was missing much more. And thanks for
pointing out Gallagher's lack of reliability as an expert witness in this
area of the investigation. His testimony on crab behavior could easily be
thrown out of court for lack of credentials.

The factors to consider in decomposition experiments:

1. TIME: How long is required for a human body to decompose to a dry state
on Niku (dry bones or mummified flesh with dry bone)

2. AGENTS: a. biological - both microorganisms and macroorganisms,
b. chemical  - pH of "soil," pH of rain, ultraviolet radiation, and ____ ),
c.mechanical  - rain, wind, abrasive coral

We have batted all of these factors around without conclusions simply
because there is insufficient data. As I wrote to Tom, I have been relying
only on experience from the southeast U.S. and places such as Haiti (very
similar because it is hot and somewhat dry).

I can think of two ways to produce data that will help with conclusions:

1. Comparative Information: The first comes from Tom's Saipan info: Time and
crab dispersal has already been covered by crime scene investigators in a
parts of the world with similar environmental conditions and crabs. Let's
identify more of those places and learn of their experience. Perhaps I
should continue the communication already begun by the police in Fiji. I
could offer to teach the course that they want for expenses only if they
help me with decomposition data. What do you think? Are there parts of Fiji
which are close enough environmentally?

2. Experimental Information: Haul several pigs or dogs along in the freezer
and place them in well-documented sites on Niku. Don't stop there. Do the
same in a place (such as Saipan) with ongoing meteorological records (as
long as the area can be secured).

Enough for now, LTM,

Kar Burns

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

I guess the question is, how important is it to establish whether or not
coconut crabs scatter bones?  Let's say we littered Niku with dead pigs (with
a control on Saipan) and found that no scattering occurred.  We might then
conclude that whatever scattered the bones of the Gardner Castaway was not
Birgus latro.  We'd then try to determine when the first dogs and/or pigs
arrived at Niku.  If they didn't show up until AFTER Gallagher found the
bones we'd have an even bigger mystery.

However, the only reason we're interested in how the bones got scattered is
to be able to make some judgement about when the castaway died.  I submit
that we're only really interested in that bit of information if we can be
quite certain that the castaway was, indeed, Mrs. Putnam.  If it turned out
that there was good reason to suppose that she somehow survived until shortly
before the first colonists arrived, that would be interesting to know.

So, I guess what I'm getting at is that chasing Birgus latros' eating habits
seems like a worthwhile line of investigation but not at the expense of
limiting our effort to find out who got eaten.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:57:37 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Putnam and Lockheed

Ric,

The troubles that developed between Putnam and Lockheed involved the sale of
the very first 10A. The end result was that both parties resorted to
contacting lawyers. The dispute was finally settled. It left a sour taste in
the mouth of the Lockheed people.

I have to save a couple of heretofore unpublished and interesting tidbits for
my book. I assure you that the episode had nothing to do with the 10E Special
that came along a few years later. Rather, the episode revealed more about
the personality of George Putnam and his tendency to wedge himself into a
situation where he thought he could make a buck.

If it had a bearing on Amelia's last flight and your investigation, I would
share it with you. Hope you understand.

Sincerely,
Birch Matthews
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I understand completely and I'm eager to read your book.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:01:16 EST
From:         From Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100

<Ross, take GPS, good radios and stay in touch with us >

Trust me, I'll have one Very Big Island behind me if I'm flying East...

I'm just going to find an Island a bit off shore that's about the same size
as Howland and go looking for it in similar cloud conditions at 5000ft,
3000ft & 1000ft and see how easy it is to spot from various distances.

There's nothing scientific about the idea, I just want to know what it
looked like trying to find that spot.  I figure the Electra could be
throttled back to 100 knots or so if they were searching.  The little
Warrior cruises at 105.  The part that interests me is how much water is
covered by the fuselage looking forward and to the sides.  I can't see FN
sticking his body out the window at 100kts plus, trying to look past the
body of the aircraft.

As someone who spends a lot of my flying time at around 1000ft - 1500ft I
have a lot of trouble with some of the things in the search reports.  I've
been on a "paper chase" where we had to find bright blue tarpaulins 7 yards
square with black letters on them in fields in an area where we knew they
were.  We were given land marks for reference and directions to fly plus
"clues". Should be a lot easier than finding an aircraft on a beach / reef
right?

Well, amost all of the aircraft involved spent considerable time searching
for at least one of them - and once we found it we wondered how we missed
it.

One of the other little exercises they threw at us is the "downed aircraft".
A white cross in the shape of an aircraft on the ground (with wings &
stabilizer and Ident marks) and the crew camped by it (with a few cold
beers - lucky devils).  We had to prove we had found it.  To that end they
had the thing supposedly on its roof with the Ident showing, but we didn't
know that until it was found.  Out of 20 aircraft beetling around at various
altitudes - many of them missed it.  I was in a Tiger Moth on the day and
whilst I was a little distracted by being asked to fly an unfamiliar
aircraft on a student licence - I was glad it wasn't me down there relying
on being found.

The point of all this?  Most people reading this post would wonder that an
aircraft with a 55 foot wingspan (guess) could not be seen by searchers from
the air.  Over time there have been a lot of aircraft found years later in
areas fully covered by an air search.  There have also been survivor's
reports that "aircraft flew right over us and didn't see us!"

RossD

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

55 feet is correct.  At earlier times on this forum we have had abundant
testimony that agrees with your own experience.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:09:15 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Radio Communication

Ric,

A nagging question but since everyone agrees AE was close to Howland with her
"we're on you..." and her last message at 08:43 -46 of "We are  
157-337...",presumably flying at about 1000ft. altitude, why no further radio
contacts if she decided to turn south and fly on to Niku or the Phoenix Is?
Wasn"t her signal strength the highest at S-5? Or is that the mystery. Or has
this been answered?Her radio was working all right it seems. Unless like
recent plane disasters the last 1000 ft was only seconds and no time for a
last transmission. Was she using a handheld mike or affixed to her helmut?

Ron Bright
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Everybody remembers that in her last transmission received by the Itasca,
Earhart said she was on the 157/337 line, but they tend to not pay attention
to the rest of that same message where she says "Will repeat this on 6210
kcs."    Immediately following the 08:43 message, Earhart changed frequencies
on her transmitter from 3105 (which Itasca had been hearing at S-5) to 6210,
a frequency that was known to be a problem on her transmitter (according to
the inspection done in Lae) and a frequency that Itasca had never heard her
on.  There is also widespread agreement among radio operators that
frequencies in that range can be a problem in the morning hours, especially
over relatively short distances.

In other words, the most likely explanation for why the itasca stopped
hearing transmissions from Earhart is because of the frequency change she
said she was making at that time - not because the airplane suddenly fell out
of the sky.

To answer your other question, Earhart used a hand held mic.  "Boom" mics on
helmets did not come into use until relatively recently and Earhart did not
wear a helmet anyway.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:16:19 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100?

<<  Assuming that the 157/337 LOP was based upon a precise 67 degree sunrise
is crediting Noonan with information that he can't possibly have.
Am I wrong about this? >>

With all the years of experience with his equipment and trade and his
reputation I would never say that. He had done just the same probably hundred
or thousands of times. None of the variables facing him were anything new.

<< he know he's in the right neighborhood. >>

As you know just being in the right neighborhood will not get anyone to
Howland or even close. Both you and Randy are correct that there are or may
be variations in the data. There are many inherent errors such as instrument
error, instrument capability, abnormal atmospheric refraction, optical
resolution of the human eye, dutch roll of the aircraft, rough air, and so
on. We can't account for any of that so we need to go with best information
recognizing it is not absolute precision. Just like the fuel exercise we can
compute it down to the last teaspoon which will give us a base line but still
recognizing all the variables and try to visualize the outer edges.

That is what I'm doing with the celestial. I am looking for a base line,
something that will approximate the perfect solution and then look for the
outer edges of possibilities. To assume perfect micro accuracy is indeed, as
Randy suggested, silly but it is necessary to have a starting point.

Fred was, by all accounts, a superior navigator. Such a person, with his
experience can play fine music with less than great equipment. My navigator
was such a person. We were a select SAC aircrew winning competitions time
after time with a 3nm CEA. (Circular Error Average) Both he and I did the
shots and compared for accuracy. This was pure celestial that was graded
after the flight by standardization personnel. We both knew the short comings
of the equipment and of the many errors we faced.

A good instrument has an error of between .1 and .3 degrees. Not a whole lot.
My airplane had dutch roll but we compensated for it through experience. You
start to get a sense of the movements and you feel out a correction.

Fred may have not been exactly on course but you can bet he was damned near.
On his inbound leg he not only had the sun but the moon was about 30 some
degrees off the sun's azimuth. If he saw one he saw both.

I'm not going to use an azimuth of even .1 off 67. I can't assume any errors
so I'll use none. We need to know under accurate conditions where he most
likely was and THEN start factoring in how far off he could reasonably be.

If we instead assume the DG was a few degrees off and he shot the azimuth a
few tenths off and didn't accurately handle refraction and the atmosphere was
weird that day he could have been anywhere.

At worst we should be able to arrive at general conclusions as to where he
was NOT.

Personally I believe the sun of a gun was on course, knew where he was and
they just missed seeing the island because of little clouds, glare, or
whatever. As you pointed out Ric, with the generator and other noises,
clouds, more sun glare, and whatever else even the folks on the ground would
not necessarily have spotted the plane at 1,000' and a few miles off.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:17:19 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Island search

Ric is right. We have talked about this a lot but I might add that in my
experience the visibility is usually a bit hazy and on a bright morning with
a low sun it is not easy to make out distant objects. Cu look like islands
and it is hard to tell the difference. When you go out keep this in mind as
you try to duplicate the conditions. You can have good reported lateral
visibility and it can still not be perfectly clear.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:15:52 EST
From:         Laurie
Subject:      Re: A Bit of History

Forgive me if this is a question that everyone else but me is aware of - You
mentioned that "one piece of cutting-edge avionics"  that Amelia had aboard
the Electra was the Hooven Radio Compass. What was the reason for them
installing and then removing it? And when was it removed? In Miami? In Los
Angeles?

And while I'm asking potentially obvious questions, how common was it to use
the particular radio direction finder that they used with the circular
antenna? How new on the market was that particular direction finding system?

Thanks - Laurie
LTM -
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We haven't talked about this much and it's a subject that is not touched upon
in any of the Earhart books, and yet it's both interesting and indicative of
Earhart's approach to the world flight.

When the airplane was delivered in July 1936, it had a garden-variety Western
Electric transmitter and receiver, and no DF capability.  Sometime in October
of 1936, one of five prototype "Radio Compass" automated direction finders
invented by Frederick J. Hooven was installed in the airplane at Wright
Field, Ohio.  The "Radio Compass" system was entirely separate from the
aircraft's other radios.  It consisted of a receiver which was mounted in the
cabin on top of the fuel tank just behind the cockpit bulkhead on the
copilot's side.  Photos indicate that it may have also had its own dynamotor
installed in that same location. (The Western Electric receiver was under the
copilot's seat and the dynamotor was under the pilot's seat.)

The Hooven Radio Compass used an antenna that seems to have been more of a
ball (roughly the size of a tether ball) than a conventional open loop.  The
antenna was housed in a translucent dome on the top of the fuselage just
about over the midpoint of the wing.

Exactly why Earhart/Putnam had this piece of equipment installed is not
known.  We know that the world flight was contemplated, if not yet announced,
and it may be that it just fit with the idea of a Flying Laboratory.  One of
the virtues of the Radio Compass (known later as an Automatic Direction
Finder and still in use today as the ADF) over the "old fashioned" manual
unit is that it is easier to use in that it requires fewer mental gymnastics.
 That might also be something that would appeal to Earhart.

The Hooven Radio Compass stayed in the airplane until the first week of March
1937 when, as part of the final preparations for the first World Flight
attempt, the dome disappeared and was replaced by the now-familar open loop
over the cockpit.  Hooven, in later years, wrote about the change.  He was
incensed that Earhart had removed his invention and replaced it with an "old
fashioned" system for the sake of saving 30 pounds.  He also made the point
that the low drag of the faired dome more than made up for the weight penalty
as compared to the high drag of the open loop.

At the same time that this change was made, Bendix came out with a new
coupling unit that permitted their open loop to be used with existing
receivers.  This seems to be what was installed on NR16020 in lieu of the
Hooven Radio Compass.  In other words, Earhart found a way to eliminate on
entire radio (30 pounds) and still have DF capability, albeit not the new
easy-to-use variety.  Ironically, Hooven had also been bought out by Bendix.

Debate still rages about twhether there were one or two receivers aboard
NR16020 during the second world flight attempt, but so far I have seen no
contemporaneous evidence that a second receiver was aboard.  Right up until
his death in 1985, Fred Hooven was convinced that Earhart's decision was the
principal cause of the flight's failure to find Howland Island.  He may have
been right.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:25:54 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: decomposition

All this still leaves you with parts of a shoe including a very small brass
eyelet.  Somewhere close at hand there are likely to be more brass eyelets?
Obviously the team went over the whole area with a very sensitive metal
detector.  Is the detailed report of that part of the expedition posted on
the net?

No matter which way you look at it, there appars to be only two likely
possibilities for Gallagher's shoe and TIGHAR's shoe parts.  Did sailors
wear shoes with a replacement catspaw heel and lace up eyelets?  Were any of
the sailors prone to cross dressing?  Did AE & FN get ashore?

Did sailors on the Norwich Castle wear shoes with lace up eyelets that
looked like a "woman's" shoe?  Were there any female passengers or crew on
the N.C.?  (I know, this has been answered..)

Have graves of the dead N.C. Crew been accounted for?  Is it possible the
bones are from a seaman?

I'm sure all these questions have been considered.  We can surmise that at
some more recent time a passing Yachtie stopped at Niku for lunch (burnt
label fragment with barcode).  And just happened to do it near where TIGHAR
found shoe fragments.  I wonder if said yachtie did a bit of exploring and
found the shoe fragments in the vicinity of a Ren tree and brought them back
to look at over lunch.

Just some more kindling for the fire...


RossD

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

A detailed discussion of the archaeological work that found the eyelet will
be included in the 8th Edition.  I dunno where the other eyelets are.  We
looked real hard and only found one.  we not only used a good metal detector
but we screened and visually inspected the first several centimeters of soil
from the enitre area.  That's how we found the eyelet.

Without rehashing a lot of thoroughly plowed ground -
- there were no women aboard Norwich City
- the heel has been dated to the mid-1930s
- we'v been unable to come up with any credible hypothesis for the presence
of a castaway (probably two castaways - a man and a woman) on Gardner Island
prior to 1940  other than the man and woman who are known to have disappeared
in that same region in 1937.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:30:44 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      usable fuel

Sticking to twins as Dennis McGee suggests, I think that if we want to have
an idea of the amount of unuseable fuel in a Lockheed 10 we better compare
comparable aircraft. P-39 or P-51 were single engined. I don't know about
bombers. I do have some information on Wasp-engined DC-3s, of which there are
quite a few around. I'm reliably told by people who fly them that the
unuseable amount of fuel in a DC-3/C-47 with Pratt and Whitney Wasp engines
is between 10 and 15 US gallons or roughly 5%. Unuseable fuel and oil is 110
lbs. That's the figure in the manual.
Hope this information is of any help ?

LTM from Herman
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Skeet Gifford has consulted the USAF flight manual for th C-47 and finds that
the difference between total and useable capacity of the four tanks is about
1.5 percent (1.58 percent for the mains and 1.48 percent for the aux).
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:41:02 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

Ric, perhaps we have gone over this before but do we have a reason why Earhart
would've changed frequencies?  Might it have been because she thought she wasn't
being heard on her current frequency?

--Chris

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

Yes.  She had two voice frequencies - 3105 and 6210.  3105 was supposed to be
her "nightime" frequency because its propagation properties are better at
night and, of course, when she started trying to call the Itasca it was still
dark.  6210 was supposed to be her "daytime" frequency, but she had been
warned in Lae that her transmitter was "very rough" on that frequency and
that she should "pitch her voice higher to overcome distortion" when using
that frequency.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:45:29 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: Coco Crabs

If this group is planning a trip to Niku...any chance of a TIGHAR or two
hitching a ride.  (Of course only those who have been there can tell us how
much 1 or 2 people could accomplish in whatever time frame the coral group
is intending and whether it's worth the effort to ask.  If nothing else the
Norwhich City site could be quickly addressed?)

Clyde Miller

(who is always looking for a free lunch)
*************************************************************************
From Ric

We're looking into that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:46:31 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Coco Crabs

For Andrew McKenna -- Good stuff!  Jim Maragos is an old friend of mine, but
I'd long since lost touch with him.  If you can send me his e-mail address,
maybe I can prevail upon him to do an experiment or two for us.

LTM (who's not at all crabby today)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:14:37 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Scattered bones

    I agree with Ric that we may be placing too much emphasis on whether
or not crabs scattered the bones found by Gallagher.
    The only relevance to bone scattering, I think, would be if we
started finding other human bones considerable distances apart, i.e. finding
toe bones in one spot and vertebra 10-20 yards away.  But even then, just
the discovery of human bones would be far more important than how widely
they were scattered or how they were scattered.
    Also, no one knows Gallagher's definition of "scattered."  Is it
8-10 bones within a 10-foot radius, a 20- or 30-foot radius?  Is it an
identifiable skeleton with the major bones displaced only a few inches?  It
appears we are up against one of those many unknowable facts we often run
into.

    On a related issue, one of the respondents to Andrew McKenna's query
on coconut crab behavior stated that a scientific party was scheduled to
visit Niku in the spring.  Is there anyway some TIGHAR experts could
piggy-back on that trip and do some more research in conjunction with the
scientific work?   I'm not talking a whole expedition like Niku I-IIII, but
two or three knowledgeable folk that could dedicate their time to tracking
down just one or two facts rather than the broad brush work done so far.

LTM, who's pulled a boner or two over the years
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not sure that you entirely got my point about the crab question.  While
we don't know how scattered the bones found by Gallagher were, he does say
that the remains were found "under a Ren tree" so they don't seem to have
been scattered all that much.  The main issue is that whole bunch of bones,
including some big ones, were just flat missing.  Something picked  up or
dragged them away and the fact that whole chunks of the body are missing (for
example, the spine and the rib cage) suggests that those chunks went off
together rather than piecemeal.  I just have a hard time seeing even Crabzilla
 walking off with a human torso.  This really sounds more like dogs to me,
but dogs didn't arrive until the colonists got there and dogs aren't much
interested in bones that aren't nice and meaty.  Dead critters, human or
otherwise, tend to lose their meatiness very quickly on Niku.  That means the
IF the scattering of the skeleton was more likley attributable to dogs than
crabs, then the castaway was not long dead when the colonists (and dogs)
arrived.

My point was that this possibility is really only of great interest IF the
castaway was none other than..... and we shouldn't let this thread of the
investigation take precedence over, for example, forensic imaging of the
photos that might establish the presence of the airplane on the reef.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 17:56:53 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication Part II

Ric,
Thanks for the answer but a follow up question on AE's frequency change from
3105 (night) to the supposedly better day frequency 6210. You indicate that
radio experts believe the 6210 frequency can be a problem in early morning
and over short distances.

But if, as TIGHAR contends,she flew on some 400 miles south taking some 2 1/2
hours towards NIKU,why wouldn't ITASCA  eventually hear her on 6210 at a much
longer range (well within her 50 watt transmitter capacity) later in the
morning?

Any truth or validity in Carrington's report that AE's receiver crystals
didn't "match" exactly Itasca"s crystals, that is she had to mechanically
switch vs. "hand tune" ?

I believe you and Carrington   both believe that AE's radio signals were
heard sometimearound l0:30 AM (howland time) from 2 July until 6 July 37.
How can we explain her ability to transmit then ,but not  airborne?
I'm certainly not a radio expert, so these are lay questions.

The entire TIGHAR theory rests on the fact she flew  on to NIKU and so a
satisfactory explanation of AE's inability to contact Itasca or anyone (other
ships or stations)must be explained. Aftr all her transmitter was working
fine from 2:00 am inbound to Howland to at least 8:44am. (Some authors add an
8:55am reception from AE repeating the "are running North and South") Don't
know what that means.Happy Holidays,
        Ron Bright
**************************************************************************

From Ric

I don't know where Earhart was at 08:43 (the time that actually appears in
the Itasca radio log) or how long it took her to reach Gardner if that's
where she went.  Neither do I know how long or how many times she continued
to try to call the Itasca after so many failed attempts.  I don't think
anybody knows those answers.

I don't know where Carrington got the idea that the crystals used by Earhart
and Itasca did not match but I do know that Earhart had no way to "hand tune"
the transmitter frequency even if she wanted to.  I don't think Itasca's
transmitters were crystal controlled.  I do know that they calibrated their
frequencies.  Frankly, I don't take anything that Carrington says seriously.

I disagree that TIGHAR must provide a "satisfactory explanation" for why
Itasca did not hear anything form Earhart after 08:43.  We can suggest
reasonable possibilities based upon the available evidence (and there are
several) but it's doubtful that anyone will ever know for sure.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:10:58 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100?/Or how close is close

Alan,
I keep looking at that photograph of Linda Finch"s Electra with the green
2/1/2 mile island with breakers splashing on the shore from several miles out
and it hard to believe that AE/FN couldn't have seen that Island in the
sun...unless the photo has been enhanced or something. And Itasca was blowing
smoke supposedly visible for 40 miles. The photo appears on page 128-129 of
the National Geographic Jan l998.
Regards,
Ron Bright

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

I'll let Alan address your question about whether photos that appear in Nat'l
Geo represent the real world, but I will mention that the claim of smoke
visible for 40 miles seems to be another case of Commander Thompson covering
his butt.  Itasca started making smoke at 06:14 and a ship like that can only
make smoke for about half an hour without seriously endangering its boilers.
By the time Earhart was close enough to see smoke it's almost inconceivable
that there was any smoke to see.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:16:51 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Scattered bones

Ric says...

<< the fact that whole chunks of the body are missing (for
 example, the spine and the rib cage) suggests that those chunks went off
 together rather than piecemeal.   >>

Well, maybe, I've seldom seen a skeleton in the field with a full complement
of vertebrae and ribs -- in fact, NEVER with a full set of ribs -- and the
dead guy that Kar Burns and I looked at in Fiji last summer (who admittedly
was in an area frequented by dogs) had a few ribs and a few vertebrae which
were in a pretty advanced state of decay, and he'd been there only a few
months.  Rib cages and spinal collumns come apart, and the pieces are pretty
easy to carry off.  And being small, they're going to biodegrade a lot faster
than big stuff.  It's the big bones that I have trouble envisioning getting
carried off by crabs or birds.

LTM
Tom King

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

Around here (northern Delaware/southeastern Pennsyvania) we have an overabunda
nce of whitetail deer and there is seldom a shortage of deer carcasses around
to amuse the local canine population.  Something I see repeatedly is an
intact and still articulated spinal column, often with a skull still
attached.  No sign of the rest of the skeleton.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:18:26 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: decomposition

Regarding searching for shoe parts, etc.: the shoe parts found in '91 were
almost all pretty concentrated, right around what turned out, upon excavation
in '97, to be the remains of a fire, which contained a piece of container
label with a bar code on it.  The exception was the "odd" heel -- that is,
the one other than the Cat's Paw replacement heel, which was several meters
away.  One of our problems in searching the site, both by eye and by
detector, is that there's no obvious limit to the site -- we've worked in a
relatively clear area around where the shoe parts were found in '91, but
there's no guarantee that there aren't other parts off in the surrounding
bush, which is VERY dense ferile coconut jungle, ground covered thickly with
fronds and nuts.  Another problem, of course, is figuring out what the
relationship is (if it's not entirely coincidental) between a shoe dating
from the 1930s and a bar-coded label that can't be earlier than the 1970s.
Was the shoe picked up accidentally in detritus that was thrown on the fire
and burned?  If so, where was it picked up?  How far did it travel?  Or is
there some other explanation?  It makes for complicated project planning,
with lots and lots of guesswork and potential for error.

LTM (who's prone to error)
TKing
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:30:48 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

Ron Bright wrote:

>A nagging question but since everyone agrees AE was close to Howland
>with her "we're on you..." and her last message at 08:43 -46 of "We are
>  157-337...",presumably flying at about 1000ft. altitude

Not everyone agrees that she was close to Howland, when she made the
statement that "we must be on you". :-)  Based on my own personal
experiences in using HF radio, over the last 25 years, I suspect that she
was somewhere between 150 to 200 miles (maybe even a bit further) from
the Itasca, to the south (or southeast), (on the 157-337 LOP), when she
thought that she was 'on them'.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm curious as to how radio factors alone would make you think she was that
far away.  Itasca was hearing here at S-5 which is as load as it gets.  She
may well have been as much as 200 miles away and still be heard that loudly,
but how would it be different if she was closer?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:33:19 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Re: Usable Fuel Considerations

With respect to Forum members who have questioned or commented on my "useable
fuel" estimate, I would point out that the number and length of fuel lines in
the modified Electra were in excess of what will be found in a P-39 or P-51.
I venture to say that the total length of fuel lines in the Electra exceeded
the DC-3 as well.

I believe the lines were increased in size after the airplane was
manufactured, possibly at the request of Paul Mantz. I will check my Lockheed
correspondence file, but my memory says the size was increased from 3/8 inch
to 1/2 inch diameter tubing. (At my age you are welcome to question my
memory.) The change makes sense, however. Someone realized that the trapped
fuel fraction was excessive and probably the pressure drop in the system with
smaller lines contributed to the problem. I suspect that adding a wobble pump
was in part due to this (possible) problem. I will check my file and let you
know if my memory is correct.

Certainly the total number of tanks in the Electra exceeded all of the above
airplanes with each having an ullage volume to one degree or another. With
more lines there would be more fittings with the potential to leak. The
pressure drop in the system had to be significant because of the internal
surface area of the tubes and the number of bends and turns necessary to
complete the system. This might be amenable to some rough analysis. Let me
think about that.

I would remind all that my useable fuel estimate (using the Bell test
measurements as a baseline reference) includes a variety of factors. I would
be happy to learn about actual test measurements on other aircraft if any of
the Forum members can provide references.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:39:58 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Off Forum Commentary

Several forum subscribers have emailed me off-forum with comments on my
description of the situation facing Fred with referencing to the sunrise
azimuth.  For what it's worth:
******************************************
From Mark Prange

>...the night before the flight, Fred consults his almanac and charts and
>says, "Okay, if I'm pretty much on course as we approach Howland.......the
>sun is going to come up at 67 degrees.

Right.  He can calculate it to the nearest tenth if he wants, but it isn't
necessary, nor would it be easy to plot with such accuracy.

> That will allow me to get a 157/337 LOP

Right.

>which I can then
>advance...etc...etc."

He would most easily compute that LOP first using coordinates that lend
themselves to plugging into whatever tables he used.  When I used H.O. 208
with that morning's Sun, the position was N 1 deg, W 177 deg 03 min.  28
miles from Howland.

>There he is, sitting out there over the ocean in the pre-dawn
>glow waiting for the sun to come up.  BANG!  There it is.  The first flash
>of light on the horizon......

Right.  That time difference from the precomputed time will tell him how far
west to shift the LOP so that it will represent a line he is really on.

> Now, how in the name
> of Manganibuka is he supposed to measure whether that sun is at 67 degrees
> or 66.8 degrees or 67.4 degrees?

Right, it would be a problem if he really wanted to to that.  A Sun azimuth
is measured with an azimuth circle or an astro compass from a known position
in order to establish correct heading.  Ships at known positions use such
information to correct gyrocompasses.  Aircraft at very roughly known DR
positions can usually get reliable heading information by measuring azimuth
with an astro compass.

> He's lucky if the directional gyro is accurate
>to within a couple of degrees after having reset it a couple dozen times
>since they took off.

Right.

>As long as its position generally agrees with the
>DG he know he's in the right neighborhood.

If he is in the right neighborhood, its azimuth will agree with the DG if
the DG is accurate.  But just because it does is not automatically an
indication of being there.  He could be off course and still estimate the
sun at 067.  If the Sun were visibly 5 degrees off a bearing of 067, the
plane would be well off course.  Position estimation by the Sun's azimuth is
not practicable because of the great distance--around 5400 miles--to the
Sun's subpoint.

>Assuming that the 157/337 LOP was
>based upon a precise 67 degree sunrise is crediting Noonan with information
>that he can't possibly have.

Noonan might have known the azimuth to the nearest tenth for some assumed
position, but plotting the LOP wouldn't need to be done to that accuracy.
And it would not be feasible or conventional to measure the azimuth with
that kind of accuracy in the aircraft.
Mark Prange
*************************************************************************
From Tom MM

Ric:

Yes, you are right.  The only measured value is the sun's altitude.  The
time is read and recorded.  If an azimuth is taken it can be very
approximate and used only as a rough check against the computed value in
order to detect a blunder in using the tables.  From there, the Almanac and
sight reduction tables (from an assumed position) provide the computed
azimuth and altitude of the body IF observed from the assumed position. The
azimuth would probably be plotted to no better than 1/2 degree.  It is not
generally a sensitive value in establishing an LOP or fix.  Small
corrections are also made to the measured sextant altitude via the Almanac.
This process of comparing your measurement with values that you would have
measured if you had been exactly at your assumed position (AP) works much
better than it sounds.  Marine observations can give results to better than
1 nautical mile - aircraft procedures seem to give an accuracy of about
10-15 NM.

Today, the whole process once you sit down with the data takes (using only
tables and plotting) something on the order of 10 minutes per sight. I
doubt it was significantly different in Noonan's time, but fatigue, and
adverse conditions can slow things down or contribute to a blunder.  It can
be convenient to pre-compute azimuth and computed altitude for later use,
but you must then make adjustments to your AP and LOP if you actually take
the sight at a different time than anticipated.  If you miss by more than a
minute (of time) or so, you are better off to recompute.  You must also
recompute if it turns out that you think you are off course and are not
reasonably close to your AP.

In sum, the angle of the 157-337 line is probably a rounded figure (to the
degree).  It would have been based on Noonan's assumed position, which
would be the closest tabulated value to his estimated position at sight
time.  It should have worked pretty well regardless of a course error to
the north or south.  Quite a puzzle - just enough info to give one hope
that a little more analysis will provide the crystallizing insight, but too
little info to close the loop with any certainty.

TOM MM
 **************************************************************************
From Bob Sherman

RE: The deju vue sun line.  In the instant case, the 'line 90d to the azimuth'
of the sun line.  The azimuth can be found in advance [for any case] as you
noted.  The lat & 'local hour angle' of the observer will determine the the
time and the az  ['true' direction] of the body .

Thus 67d was the az.  157/337 the lop.  The time is found in the almanac for
an assumed position.  If the sight coincides with the listed time, one is on a
157/337 [or whatever was 90d to the listed az] which is drawn thru the course
 line at the assumed position*.  One should be on the lop, and at the point it
crosses the course IF the course is correct.  But at that moment, only the lop
is current; all else is dr.  Error in course will move one up or down the lop from
the course.  Any error in sighting the body,  incl. time or computations will result
in moving one forward or backward on the assumed course.  In short, one has
a single line of position, not a fix.

The bottom line is a 'band' for the lop, and a 'broader band' for the dr course,
if it had been some time since last verified.  [for each degree from the proper
heading, one will move one mile at right angles to the course for each 57 miles
of forward travel.]  Long periods of dr without hitting a coast line or determining
ones position fairly accurately, [a small island without a 'homer'] can be fatal.

*Not affecting the accuracy too much and not an error, is the need to move the
lop toward# or away from the point on the course that was used to consult the
almanac, if the body was not sighted at the listed time.  That is the principle of
'pre-computed sights'; get the data for the presumed position and time, then
move the line forward or back according to the seconds difference in 'actual vs
computed altitude' of the body;  [time of sunrise, or sun's altitude at other times]

# and/or to move the lop in the direction of travel to validate the lop for a
future time; error will be for an incorrectly assumed ground speed.

Not for the forum because I was not a professional. navigator.   One of that
crowd should be relied upon for the correct wording & procedure.

Fred made out previously because he had better sighting provisions and he
or someone qualified, operated the df.  [Any lack of trust in df was related to
bearings from far away stations].  AE had good luck with dr because at various 
places along her course or at least near the destination, there was a landfall or
some prominate landmarks to verify position.    Given AE's experience - perhaps
colored by her good luck - she should have known that finding HOW would require
some help.  Her lack of interest in DF indicates to me that she was relying on some
other plan to zero in on HOW when Fred got them close.  [DF on the Itasca or DF
brought to HOW, or ?]   RC
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:47:36 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Off Forum Commentary - ooops!

My apologies to Alan Caldwell, Mark Prange, Tom MM and Bob Sherman.  I just
mistakenly posted to the forum privately sent comments which I had intended
to forward only to Alan.  There are no deep dark secrets that I've now
braodcast to the world, but it's something I didn't intend to do and there is
no way I can recall a forum posting once it has been sent.  Sorry guys.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:50:18 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Screw ups

<< Personally I believe the sun of a gun was on course >>

Ric, you can see how much the sun lines have been on my mind. I should have
wrote ".... son of a gun...." Freudian slip.<G>  OR a clever pun? No, I just
screwed up.

Alan
#2329
**************************************************************************
From Ric

You think THAT's a screw up?  I'll show you a screw up.  See my "Off Forum
Commentary" posting that was supposed to be sent only to you.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:39:40 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100?

Let me try again, because you didn't seem to understand what I was trying
to say, Alan.  FJN doesn't measure the 67 degree azimuth: he doesn't even
try or want to.  The way this works is this: he guestimates his position,
and calculates from that position the time of sunrise (or height of a star,
for example).  Part of the tables he looks at gives him the direction to
look at, to one degree accuracy.  He then looks at the sun or star, and
measures the height above the horizion (in the case of the sun, the time
the upper limb clears the horizon).  By comparing the time of measurement
and the height of his measurement to his calculations for his assumed
position, he can then calculate an offset along the line of look direction
(for the sun in this case, 67 degrees).  The offset then determines where
the line of position should be which crosses the look direction at a
perfect 90 degree angle.  That's all there is, and there ain't no more!
 FJN never, ever, measures azimuth or look direction to any celestial body:
it is in the tables!  Now, you can, however, determine the area on the
earth that would have that look direction to determine where his assumed
position may be, but it will only provide a constraint to the north or
south, but it will be the same the entire day along that band of latitude.

Hope this helps.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Just a note for the rest of us who are tryng to follow this.  The "offset"
Randy is talking about has nothing to do with the "offset method" of finding
a destination along an LOP that was debated to death a while back.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:44:07 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Radio tests?

Is there a member of TIGHAR with an amateur radio licence, and some other
amateurs and equipment that will broadcast and receive on BOTH AE's
frequencies that could do a bit of real life propagation checking over a
period of time - in addition to the modelling that is being done.

RossD
*************************************************************************
From Ric

We've got more HAMs than a butcher shop, but I'm not sure what it would
accomplish to have people just send messages on 3105 and 6210 at various
times of the day over various distances.  I'm not sure it would even be legal.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:56:54 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Usable Fuel Considerations

Some authors put the fuel capacity of AE Electra at l250 gallons. Some at 1150
and most at 1100 at takeoff. Unless Electa endurance is necessary to get the
plane to NIKU what difference is it because of all the other variables. With
some luck, if the artifacts found by TIGHAR are linked to AE the whole
question is mute.
   Regards,
     Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Excuse me for jumping in here, but the variety of claims about the Electra's
fuel capacity or takeoff load out of Lae in various books has more to do with
the limitations of the authors than with any paucity of reliable information.
 The airplane's total fuel capacity was 1151 gallons and the takeoff load was
1100 gallons (for all practical purposes).

You're correct in that, if TIGHAR finds conclusive evidence that the flight
ended at Nikumaroro, it might be said that it doesn't matter how it got
there.  Our objective here, however, is more ambitious than that.  We're
trying to understand what happened and toward that end we're trying to
establish the facts of a case that has been fraught with rumor, legend and
folklore for 62 years.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:13:31 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Scattered bones

Good point re. the deer; I've seen 'em too. But there are a couple of things
to consider.  One is the point to which the cartilage and musculature have
decayed by the time you see the skeletons; once they decay, my own
observation is that the skeletons get scattered around pretty quickly (As a
wierd teenager, I used to collect these things).  Another is that deer
vertebrae and ribs are a good deal heavier than our own.

LTM (who'd rather not acknowledge her parenthood here)
Tom King
**************************************************************************
From Ric

You mean more massive and robust, or physically larger and therefore heavier?
 At least around these parts, a 200 pound deer is a big deer and I'll betcha
that if you dressed me out and fed me to the dogs, my spine would be almost
indistinguishable from that of a large deer.  But I agree that the dragging
off of an intact backbone needs to be done when the carcass is still pretty
fresh. (Note: I will resist suggestions of that these hypotheses be tested by
experimentation, popular as those suggestions may be.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:28:42 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

>From Ric
>
>I'm curious as to how radio factors alone would make you think she was
>that far away.  Itasca was hearing here at S-5 which is as loud as it gets.
> She may well have been as much as 200 miles away and still be heard that
>loudly, but how would it be different if she was closer?

With the signals that strong, there wouldn't have been any difference in
the 'sound' of the signals, between ground wave and skip propagation.
But, if the signals were received via ground wave, then she would have
been very close to the Itasca (as she said, 'on them'), which doesn't
seem likely, since she didn't find Howland or the Itasca.  It would
appear that she was indeed further away from the Itasca than what she
thought.  This would seem to indicate that the signals were received via
skip propagation.

Here's my thinking:

The signals either had to be arriving at the Itasca via ground wave or
via skip - that's a 'given' fact.

If the Itasca was hearing Earhart via ground wave, then with that strong
of a signal, she would have had to have been pretty close - just as she
thought when she said that she must be 'on them'.  If she were as close
as she thought, then she should have been able to find the island.

On the other hand, if the signals were arriving at the Itasca via skip,
then she couldn't have been too close to the Itasca - otherwise, they
wouldn't have heard her, or the signals would have at least been weaker,
since the signal would have been 'skipping over' the Itasca.  With skip
propagation, there will be a certain 'range' of distances, over which a
signal will be heard well.  Anything less than, or greater than, that
'range' of distances, and the signal levels are weaker (or even 'gone',
as far as hearing them).

So, considering the strong signals received by the Itasca, this means
that she would have had to have been very close to the Itasca (if the
signal propagation was via ground wave), or she was much further from the
Itasca than she thought and was within a certain 'range' of distances
from the Itasca (if the signal propagation was via skip).

   John Rayfield, Jr. - KR0Y
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Consider this.
The strength of the signals recieved by Itasca increased steadily and evenly
from the time they first heard an unintelligible transmission at 02:45 local
time until the Strength 5 "We must be on you.." at 07:42.  The strength
remained at maximum for the next hour until the last signal at 08:43.  This
steady progression followed by a constant strength would seem to suggest a
steady approach up to a certain point where the signal was maximum, and then
the aircraft staying within that (unknown) range for the next hour.  Sounds
like ground wave, not "skip."

Everything we're learning about the navigational situation faced by Noonan
argues for a very close apparoach to Howland, and all the comparable
experiences we're hearing about from others who have tried to find small
islands on seas dotted with cloud shadows indicate that you can be VERY close
and not find what you're looking for.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:32:34 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Off Forum Commentary - ooops!

<<...but it's something I didn't intend to do and there is
 no way I can recall a forum posting once it has been sent.  Sorry guys. >>

It's OK, Ric. I, for one. am going to pretend I didn't see it.<G> I'll be up
all night answering all that. Thanks.<G> OK, so not tonight but I'll work on
it tomorrow.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:33:55 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Usable Fuel Considerations

<< With respect to Forum members who have questioned or commented on my
"useable fuel" estimate >>

Birch, I hope I haven't questioned your estimate as I enjoy detailed and
specific analysis. We certainly need a good starting point on fuel and good
analysis of fuel consumption enroute.

Not to cut entirely to the chase but don't we first need to determine if the
1100 gallons included or excluded the unusable fuel? If the former we know to
deduct it. If the latter it is just an aircraft weight and balance issue.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:11:54 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Easy to see Howland?

<< I keep looking at that photograph of Linda Finch"s Electra with the green
 2/1/2 mile island with breakers splashing on the shore from several miles out
 and it hard to believe that AE/FN couldn't have seen that Island in the
 sun...unless the photo has been enhanced or something. >>

Ron, that's a good point. Was that photo taken from the Electra cockpit at
1,000'? I haven't seen the photo but my guess it was taken by a professional
photographer or if not then you can rest assured it was still enhanced for
publication.

Unless it was taken from the cockpit at 1,000' during the same weather
conditions as existed on the fateful morning and at the approximate time AE
was over or near Howland it would not be a relevant piece of evidence.

I would love to fly around that area at 1,000' on a morning similar to July
2, 1937 and see with my own eyes what they faced. Unfortunately we don't even
know what those weather conditions were with enough accuracy to duplicate.

Actually seeing Howland from the air would be one of the benefits of Ric's
idea to pick a time and fly a bunch of folks through the Howland and Niku
areas.

This forum is like old time radio. We write things and then each of our
imaginations conjure up a picture -- all different. The good example is this
very issue. Think of the Electra at 1,000', scattered cumulus clouds, good
visibility or whatever ITASCA said it was. What picture pops into your mind?
YOUR picture, Ron, is probably the NG photo. My picture might be trying to
find Wake Island in a C-130E on a slightly hazy morning with a bright sun and
scattered clouds during the summer of 1963. You can imagine the image non
fliers might visualize.

Alan
#2329
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I dug out that issue of Nat'l Geo (Jan. '98) and took another look at that
photo.  Here's what I see.
1.  The photo looks southwestward from a point I guesstimate to be about two
to three miles to the northeast of the island and an altitude of perhaps
2,000 feet.
2.  The sun seems to be a bit to the right of the photographer's back
(roughly north) so I would guess that the time of day is late morning or
early afternoon.
3.  Sky condition over the island are clear.  No shadows are visible on the
surface of the sea and the island is brightly lit in the unobstructed
sunlight.  There is some scattered cumulus maybe ten miles to the west and
northwest.  Bases of such clouds out there typically are at about 2,000 feet
and these look very typical.  Buildups are not significant.  Maybe a thousand
feet.  There is also some high stratocumulus way off in the distance.  There
is also a telltale wisp of budding cloud between the camera plane and the
island which tells me that the camera plane is slightly above the level of
the cloud bases (ballpark 2,000 feet).  Smart.  That way the camera is not
looking through the layer of haze below the cloud bases.
4.  Finch's plane is in the right hand foreground heading NNW.
5.  I can't tell whether any enhancement was done later, but It's quite
apparent that this photo was the result of a carefully devised plan to
position the island and the airplane in the most advantageous lighting.

Look at that photo, drop your point of view by about half, move about three
times farther away from the island, sprinkle the sea with cloud shadows, and
look into the sun instead of away from it - and tell me how easy it is to see
Howland.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:04:09 EST
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Expedition participation

Hey Ric,

I would love to visit Niku island with TIGHAR.

I here by submit my application for the position of "First Gofer" for the up
coming Niku expatiation.  Will successfully complete any task assigned.

I'm serious if TIGHAR is seriously considering allowing my presence.

Roger Kelley, #2112
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Here's how we approach expedition participation.

Our typical Niku team is only 14 people so we have to be VERY selective about
who we put on the team.  Expertise in various needed skills is, of course, a
factor in the selection of any given individual but is not nearly as
important as a general ability to handle the physical and psychological
stresses of the expedition.  What we need out there are are bright, tough,
pleasant people who are committed to the organization and its goals.  How do
we find people like that?

First we invite applicants to complete a two-day course in Aviation
Archaeology and Historic Preservation which we give periodically.  That not
only gives them some background in how we go about our work but also gives
them an opportuity to meet us and us to meet them face to face.

Once they've completed the course, they can participate in a non-Earhart
TIGHAR expedition.  This gives them some field experience and lets us see how
they do under field conditions.

From the TIGHAR members who have met the above qualifications we then
assemble a team which seems most likley to be able to carry out the mission
of a particular Earhart Project expedition.  These people donate only their
time and expertise.  TIGHAR  pays their expenses out of the general funding
for the project.

We're very fortunate that, over the twelve years of the project, we have
built a cadre of men and women who have shown themselves to be well suited to
the work.  That doesn't mean that the door is closed for additions to the
team, but any new applicant should understand that we already have a core
group of experienced people who know the project, know the island, and know
each other.

On occasion we have accepted Sponsor Team Members who have made a significant
financial contribution toward the expedition rather than go through the full
selection process, but even Sponsor Team Members must be judged physically
and emotionally suitable.  Bluntly put, no donation is large enough to
compensate for having a jerk along.  None of our Sponsor Team Members have
been a problem and most have proven to be genuine assets to the team.

At this time we're contemplating holding a combined Aviation Archaeolgy
Course and Expedition in the northwestern United States this summer.   I
should have more details soon.  we have not made any decision yet about
whether we'll be accepting Sponsor Team Members for Niku IIII, which we now
anticipate will happen in the summer of 2001.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:22:13 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Fuel Lines and Repairs

I checked my correspondence file on the Earhart Electra and found reference
to insulating the fuel lines; however, no mention of increasing the line
size. It's obvious my memory failed me this time. (First time this year!)

Of possible interest, though, is a listing of repairs made by Lockheed after
the infamous accident in Hawaii. Although you may already have this
information, I am forwarding it as it may be of interest. Six engineering
orders were issued covering:
    Wing Assembly
    Fuselage (Repair drwg 40084)
    Empennage Assembly
    Center Section Assembly (wing)
    Landing Gear Installation
    Landing Gear Assembly

At the component level,15 drawing numbers are listed together with the
quantity of each item:
    1 - Center antenna mast, fuselage station 147-5/8
    1 - Rear antenna mast, fuselage station 254
    1L - Antenna mast, fuselage ("L" indicating left)
    1L - and 1R - Pitot tube assembly & installation
    2 - Stop, for landing gear axle, station 94
    1 - Pulley bracket, left engine control
    1 - Pulley bracket, right engine control
    2 - Flare cover, fuselage
    17 - Ventilator, fuselage
    1L - and 1R - Plate, center section brace attachment
    1L - and 1R - Gusset plate, center section, station 81 1/2
    4 - Brace tube, nacelle landing gear support
    1R - Tee section, center section nacelle attachment, station 69
    1 Outlet, fuselage heating system
    1L - and 1R - Engine mount support

This information is listed on Lockheed drawing number 49164 dated April 13,
1937.

I don't totally understand the first three items. My interpretation is that
items one and two refer to the lower fuselage antenna installation. If so, it
tells us something about the length of the antenna wire. Stations are given
in inches. Thus the distance between station 147-5/8 and station 254 is
106.375 inches or 8.65 feet. The third item indicates one left-hand antenna
mast, fuselage (no station number given). I seem to recall photographs
suggesting two lower parallel antenna installations. Perhaps it was one
installation. If so this suggests an antenna length of 17+ feet. Can someone
clarify this?

The other interesting repair mentioned is the replacement of two fuselage
flare covers. Obviously the aircraft (at the time repairs were made) was
equipped with two flare chutes or holders for use in launching flares and
making night drift measurements.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, it was all one belly antenna installation.  The wire ran from the
starboard "chin" pitot mast to a central mast at Station 147-5/8 and thence
to an aft mast under the cabin at Station 254.  Prior to the Luke Field wreck
the airplane had a second parallel antenna system on the port side.  Both
arrays were wiped out in the crash.  Only the starboard antenna was replaced.
 What is puzzling is the third item "1L - Antenna mast, fuselage ("L"
indicating left)".  There was no antenna on the left (port) side of the
airplane following the repairs.

Flare tubes were standard on the Model 10.

Photos and records show that the airplane's fuel system underwent several
changes between the time of it's delivery in July 1936 and March 10, 1937
when the wobble pump and stripping valve were added.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:32:56 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      40-mile smoke plume?

I'm not sure where the claim came from that Itasca's smoke was
suppose to be visible from 40 miles away, but it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to guess that such a claim is suspect.
    A couple of obvious limitations would seem to doom that claim.
    First, the wind.  In order for any smoke (short of a mushroom cloud)
to be visible from 40 miles out it would be helpful if there was no wind,
allowing the smoke to rise straight up.  Any measurable wind would bend and
diffuse the smoke plume, decreasing the range of its visibility.  The
stronger the winds, the greater the bending and diffusion and the shorter
the visible range.
    How high would that plume have to rise to be visible from 40 miles
at sea level, 1,000 feet, 5,000 feet, and 10,000 feet?  I don't know the
answer (I'm a writer - I do words not numbers.) but surely one of the TIGHAR
experts can do the math and pass it on to the rest of us.
    Second, thermodynamics.  I would speculate that the Itasca's boilers
did not generate enough heat or particulate matter to make ANY smoke plume
rise high enough to be seen from 40 miles out, regardless of wind
conditions.  Factor into that the constantly decreasing air temperature as
the plume rises which would slow and inhibits its progress.     The Itasca
was a small ship with small boilers.  It would seem to me that to force any
particulate matter to rise and continue to rise so as to be visible at 40
miles takes an enormous amount of heat energy usually seen only in major
conflagrations, such as atomic bombs, major oil/pipeline fires, ammo dumps
going up etc.  You need a lot of heat and particulate matter to make the
plume visible at 40 miles and I would suggest that the Itasca simply was not
capable of doing that, even on her best day.
    Most of the above is speculation from someone who knows squat about
thermodynamics and only a little about wind effects (check out my crosswind
landings -- woooo-eeeee!!).  But that claim of a smoke plume from Itasca
visible from 40 miles out collapses under even cursory inspection.

LTM, who tries not to land sideways
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:39:55 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      fuel lines

Birch Matthews said: " . . . my memory says the size was increased
from 3/8 inch to 1/2 inch diameter tubing  . . .  Someone realized that the
trapped fuel fraction was excessive and probably the pressure drop in the
system with smaller lines contributed to the problem."

    If 3/8-inch lines created "excessive" trapped fuel, how would
1/2-inch lines improve that problem?  Half-inch is bigger than 3/8-inch,
thus trapping more fuel.  Also, I thought that if they increased the
diameter of the fuel lines the pressure would drop, not increase, as implied
by Birch's post.
    Am I'm missing something here (Yes, probably you are)?

LTM, who's confused
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE

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

In any event, as Birch has since said, it does not appear that the lines were
changed.  What WAS changed was the system of filler necks.  At the time of
delivery they had several fuselage tanks filling from just two fueling ports
on the side of the fuselage.  Later they decided to give each tank it's own
filler neck and fueling port.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:42:07 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100?

Is there a way that Randy's solution (and others for that matter)
could be reproduced visually with step-by-step explanations, and then
distributed in the next TIGHAR Tracks?  This whole issue is VERY confusing
to most of us and I think a "show-and-tell" approach would better educate
all of us.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The best place for that is probably the 8th Edition of the Project Book.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:45:25 EST
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: Radio tests?

Ric
I wouldnt fire up on either of those 2 frequencies, even if you paid me!
Joe W3HNK

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

I take it that there is, uh, something of a legal problem?

***************************************************************************
From John Rayfield

The nearest amateur frequency to 3105 khz. is 3500 khz.  and the nearest
amateur frequency to 6210 khz. is 7000 khz.  I wouldn't expect to see
much difference in propagation characteristics between those commercial
and amateur frequencies.

You are correct - it would not be legal for a ham to use 3105 or 6210
khz.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:50:56 EST
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      celestial measurement

Ric:

I'm very interested in the Alan/Mark/et al discussions re. celestial
navigation. I did a bit of that myself in another life, and might at one
time have been near as good as Alan. Now with regard to celestial body
azimuths/DG corrections - what kind of compass(es) were aboard the 10E? Did
it have a reasonably accurate flux valve system that could be used over the
long term to correct the DG? Early on in my time we used an astrocompass
that when mounted in a dome or blister was considered boresighted to the
aircraft C/L, and of course later the periscopic sextants were mounted in a
boresighted mount. But Fred can't measure a celestial body azimuth by
looking at it through a window with a sextant. Not that he needs to to find
his position, but how was the 10E "aimed", C/L to the earth, and kept on
course? PMB #0856C.

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

Good question.  As far as I know, the aircraft had just the DG in the Sperry G
yroPilot which, I presume, was corrected for precession by checking it
against the "whiskey" (alcohol) magnetic compass.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:53:22 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      DC-3 unusable fuel

Ric,

I don't know what USAF manuals say. This is the e-mail exchanged between me
and DC-3 operator Jim Carreon. Does it shed any light ?

**************
Herman De Wulf wrote:

> Hi gang,
>
> Can anyone tell me how much fuel in a WASP-powered DC-3/C-47 was/is
unuseable, or a % of total fuel amount ?
> Thanks
>                                         Herman
>
***************
    For what it's worth, the operating manual I have for both the pax and
cargo DC3s list unusable fuel and oil together at 110 pounds, it doesn't
break them down.  If I remember correctly, unusable fuel was around 10 or 15
gallons, it's been a long time.  Hope it helps.

    Sincerely,

    Jaime Carreon "Jetmex"
    Houston, TX
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I think I'll go with Skeet's figures from the manual.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:59:16 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: decomposition

Ric says:

However, the only reason we're interested in how the bones got scattered is
to be able to make some judgement about when the castaway died.

I don't think that's true.  We want to know how the bones got scattered in
order to enhance our chances of finding some -- or perhaps more
realistically, finding more preservable stuff that might have been WITH the
bones (buttons, watches, etc.).  If we find that Birgus DOES scatter bones,
but within a fairly definable range, then IF we can pinpoint the 1940
skeleton-under-ren-tree site, THEN we'd have a perimeter of sorts within
which to look for preserved bones and artifacts.  A long shot, but without
some way of reducing the areas we've got to search, we're faced with an
almost impossible task in trying to make anything of the bones discovery site.

LTM
Tom King
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Kar Burns, after getting a look at the environment first hand, felt very
strongly that any thought of finding unburied bones on Niku now was in the
"dream on" department.  Buttons 'n bows and other more durable artifacts
(wrist watches, coins, etc.) are, of course, another matter - and I see your
point.  But I've also seen Kanawa Point, and the thought of doing a detailed
metal detector search there makes me break out in a cold sweat.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:04:20 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Easy to see Howland?

Ric says:

Look at that photo, drop your point of view by about half, move about three
times farther away from the island, sprinkle the sea with cloud shadows, and
look into the sun instead of away from it - and tell me how easy it is to see
Howland.

Is there, perhaps, a way to make those (and other) alterations digitally?

TK
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Hmmmmmm---fascinating concept.   Sounds like a question for Jeff Glickman.
How say you Professor Photek?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:05:48 EST
From:         Paul Chattey
Subject:      Re: Easy to see Howland?

One more thread in the Howland-finding theme.  I recollect making the flight
between Honolulu and Lihue on Kauai about 10 times aboard a small commercial
jet traveling somewhat higher and definitely faster than the Electra.  Even
so, on days with broken clouds, the dark shadows on the surface of the ocean
some distance away looked suspiciously (to me) like islands.  After seeing
30 or 40 "islands", there was a tendency to discount everything as illusion.
While I wasn't in the pointed end of the airplane-or looking real hard for a
place to land-distinguishing "islands" from the real thing was frustratingly
hard work.  Had we been at 1,000 feet maybe the effect would have been
different and cloud shadows would have been just that. I can't imagine that
AE and FN had an easy time of it.

Paul
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:08:58 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

>From Ric
>
>Consider this.
>
>The strength of the signals recieved by Itasca increased steadily and
>evenly from the time they first heard an unintelligible transmission at 02:45
>local time until the Strength 5 "We must be on you.." at 07:42.  The
>strength remained at maximum for the next hour until the last signal at 08:43.
>This steady progression followed by a constant strength would seem to
>suggest a steady approach up to a certain point where the signal was maximum,
>and then the aircraft staying within that (unknown) range for the next hour.
>Sounds like ground wave, not "skip."

Yes, you're right - that does sound like ground wave propagation.
However, skip propagation on those frequencies changes as the sun comes
up and continues to climb towards overhead.  Also, Earhart was moving
towards the sun, at somewhere around 130 mph (give or take - is that
correct?) which would also have had an effect on what would be
experienced with skip propagation, since the distance between her and the
Itasca would be getting shorter as she moved further to the east, and
then would get longer as she moved to the south (assuming that she ended
up in the Pheonix Islands).

I need to see if I can come up with numbers on what the range would have
been with ground wave propagation, assuming (at this point in time) that
she was at an altitude of about 1000 feet.  That shouldn't be too hard to
come up with.

   John Rayfield, Jr. - KR0Y
**************************************************************************
From Ric

And wouldn't you need to take into consideration the actual output of her
transmitter with her particular antenna system?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:12:26 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Usable Fuel Considerations

Absent data for the L-10E, the DC-3/C-47 seems to be a reasonable model on 
which to base our assumptions about usable fuel. It was designed during the 
same period and is powered by similar engines. The C-47 could accommodate up 
to eight 100 gallon fuel tanks, installed on cradles in pairs inside the 
fuselage. This increased the total fuel capacity from 802 to 1,602 gallons. 
Unfortunately, the manual does not delineate total vs. usable capacity for 
the ferry tanks as it does for the four wing tanks.

For a frame of reference, I consulted the manual for the C-119G, an airplane 
that also had the capability of installing long-range ferry tanks in the 
fuselage. Two or four tanks could be installed. Each tank had a total 
capacity of 509 gallons and a usable capacity of 506 gallons.

With regard to the size of fuel lines in the L-10E, it is plausible that 
larger fuel lines were installed. However, using current standards, I'm not 
sure the point is germane. When weighing an airplane, the fuel tanks are 
drained but the fuel lines still contain fuel. Therefore, the fuel in the 
lines is included in the Operating Empty Weight. The fuel in the lines is not 
considered part of the usable capacity, since the engine will loose power 
long before the fuel line itself is dry.

Skeet Gifford
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:17:00 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: HOWLANDS visibility from the air

Alan,
I agree with you but it is a magnificent photo of the Electra with Howland in
the background. Ric says the Itasca probably ran out of smoke by 08:00 or so,
weather conditions have not been precisely described. And as Ric would put it
what difference does it make-she obviously didn't see it.
Thanks for the comment but find that picture and hang it on your wall!!
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:19:17 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Radio tests?

According to my trusty Reference Data for Radio Engineers 8th Edition
the frequency allocations are as follows.

3025-3155 Aeronauntical Mobile (Off Route)

6200-6225 Maritime Mobile

So the suggestion would be to look for an existing licensed service
in these bands and see if there is a way to coordinate the tests
with the day to day usages of the channels.

Greg
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, but I still don't see what tests would prove.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:35:10 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication Part lll

Ric,
Thanks for your explanation. I guess that what we're in this for is to explain
with the best probabilities what happened. I will be forwarding what I think
is the "best evidence" TIGHAR has to offer,in my opinion.
Last clarification. Do you believe AE's radio signals were heard after her
08:43 signal between 2 and 6 July l937 with a resonable degree of
certainty?Some researchers are positive she was heard (one said she radioed
she was 28l miles North of Howland !!!) or have those signals been pretty put
to rest as hoaxes and or confusion with all types of radio transmission going
on about AE and location, and the questionable condition of her radio.

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

TIGHAR member Bob Brandenburg has recently completed a technical study of the
inflight messages and several of the alleged post-loss messages.  His full
report will be included in the 8th Edition of the Project Book, but the
bottom line is that, while some of the most famous messages (including the
"281" message and the transmissions heard by HMS Achilles) almost certainly
did NOT originate at Gardner Island, at least two others (the transmission
heard on Nauru on the evening of July 2nd and a transmission heard at
Tutuila, American Samoa on the night of July 5th) may very well have come
from Gardner.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:53:14 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Usable Fuel Considerations/Part ll

Ric,
This question of fuel aboard is driving me crazy. It seems every researcher
or author cites absolute,reliable and credible sources. Now for instance see
Goldstein and Dillion"s book "Amelia,A life of the aviation legend." They
seem to have all the proper credentials. See page229 where some guy named
Safford questioned the ll00 gallons at take off and calculated that the plane
carried "no more than l,0l6 gals". He explains his reasoning.
Then the authors add that that makes sense since Pellegreno's navigator
estimated that the Electra could not have become airbornee ... if carrying
more than 980 gals.
Who knows she may have been carrying a spare 5 gal tank.
If the amount of gas she had aboard is a major variable,what source seems to
be the most reliable?
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Safford and Polhemus (Pellegreno's navigator) were speculating based upon
their very incomplete and presumptive calculations of what the aircraft
"should" have been able to do.  At the time they did their work, the most
important contemporaneous source for what happened in Lae - the Chater letter
- had not yet come to light.  Now, with two   authoratitive aviation sources,
Superintendent of Civil Aviation James Collopy and Guinea Airways General
Manager Eric Chater independently reporting that the aircraft was fueled with
1,100 U.S. gallons and providing the same explanation for why the aircraft
was not topped off to its full capacity of 1,151 U.S. gallons, every
reputable researcher I know of now accepts that the fuel at takeoff was 1,100
U.S. gallons.  There's still some ongoing debate about whether fuel lost due
to expansion and venting was replaced before departure, but we're haggling
over a few gallons.
(Note: "reputable researcher" is defined as anyone who agrees with us.)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:55:38 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: Expedition participation

So?  Does this mean the position of "Crab Bait" was a joke?????

Clyde (Just shoot me) Miller

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

No, but we hold that position open for disciplinary use.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:56:48 EST
From:         John Clauss
Subject:      Easy to see Howland?

Alan,

The National Geographic photo was most likely taken from the Albatross,
flown by Reid Dennis, which accompanied Finch around the world.   Reid's
plane carried a writer, professional photographer, support mechanic and
spares.  It was equipped with large opening hatches from which professional
 photos like this could be taken.  It is interesting to note that the
Albatross was kept well away from the Electra when any media was around.

My guess is the photo was taken from less than five miles.  Remember that
Niku is over four time larger.

LTM
John Clauss 142
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:09:42 EST
From:         David Robinson
Subject:      8th Edition

Ric,

I'm in for the 8th edition.  When does payment have to be made to get the $49.95
price?  Also, can you tell me a little about the edition, i.e., is it a complete
recap of the AE search up to now?  How many pages, photos, etc.  I know based on
the other items that you are involved in, the production will be 1st class. Can I
pay with a credit card?

LTM,

David #2333
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The price goes up March 1st.  The 8th Edition will include a review of
Earhart's flying career, Noonan's career, the Lockhedd 10E Special, both
world flight attempts, the disappearance, the 1937 search, the  post-loss
radio signals, a recap of various theories, the history of Gardner Island,
the history of TIGHAR's investigation,  all of the evidence, and Lord knows
what all.  Lots of photos, lots of tables and charts, lots of maps.  I have
no idea yet how many pages. The thing is a monster and even at $69.95 we'll
be doing good to break even.

Yes, we take Visa and MasterCard.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:16:54 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Radio tests?

>From Ric
>
>Okay, but I still don't see what tests would prove.

Ric, I don't know that one test would prove anything so I see your
point. And to answer a comment in this thread but not this message,

>Subject:      Re: Radio Communication
>From Ric
>And wouldn't you need to take into consideration the actual output of
>her transmitter with her particular antenna system?

The complete analysis of the communication path includes:

 The type and depth of modulation at the frequency of the audio source.
 The noise level added to the modulation.
 The transmitter power.
 The transmitter cable loss.
 The transmit antenna gain IN THE DIRECTION OF THE PATH TO THE RECEIVER.

 The path loss, through the ether, ground or skip.

 The receive antenna gain IN THE DIRECTION OF THE PATH TO THE TRANSMITTER.
 The receiver antenna cable loss.
 The receiver gain.
    Receiver gain is adjustable either manually or automatically for AM.
 The receiver noise figure. (Including shipboard noise sources.)
 The ability of the radio operator ear brain system to recover signals
    out of the noise.

I do not think that one can prove anything here. The idea is to understand
the most likely situation. If the probability of skip is 75 percent then it
is a different situation than if the probability of skip is 10 percent. Your
note which argues that the arrival signals were not skip seems completely
reasonable to me. I think that the more interesting transmissions  are those
which could have been from the aircraft on the ground. The path loss concepts
are the same.

By the way, what has become of the search for the lost engine on Canton?

Greg

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

The exercise you describe has already been done by Bob Brandenburg using
computer modelling.  His full report will be included in the 8th edition.

The Kanton engine search has been stymied by economics.  It's just too darned
expensive to get heavy equipment to that island.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:19:20 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

>From Ric
>
>And wouldn't you need to take into consideration the actual output of
>her transmitter with her particular antenna system?

Yes.  The antenna system might make more of a difference in signal levels
than the transmitter power output, although transmitter power output
would obviously have to be taken into consideration, especially when
considering ground wave propagation.  I'm not sure what the radiation
pattern of the antenna on her plane would have been, but that could
possibly be determined.  If it was somewhat 'directional' or
'bi-directional', then the signal levels, especially if received via
ground wave, could have varied with the direction of the plane relative
to the Itasca.

There are a lot of variables in looking at Earhart's radio
communications, especially in trying to analyze the signals propagated.
However, radio propagation is somewhat 'predictable'.  For example, some
years back, we installed an HF radio and antenna for the owner of Bass
Pro Shops (& Bass Tracker boats).  He wanted to have good, reliable
communications with his 'ship' out on the Atlantic seaboard, to get
fishing reports.  We suggested specific frequencies to be used at
specific times of the day.  A few weeks after getting the system
operational, we asked them how it was working and they said that it was
working great - their communications between here and the Atlantic
seaboard was almost exactly as we had 'predicted'.

    John Rayfield, Jr. - KR0Y
    Springfield, Missouri
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:23:29 EST
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      10E Fuel line fuel
From Dick Pingrey

Ric,

        While Birch Matthews may be right about the length and size
(diameter) of the 10E fuel lines I would be surprised if the amount of fuel
in these lines was calculated into the fuel capacity of the tanks.  It would
be just extra fuel in the system but certainly not calculated as unusable
fuel in the tanks.

        I still think the quoted percentage of unusable fuel seems extremely
high.  I can't believe it was any where near 40 gallons or 4% of the total
capacity.

Dick Pingrey 908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:30:22 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Fuel Lines and Repairs

Birch Matthews reports:-

>At the component level,15 drawing numbers are listed together with the
>quantity of each item:
>    1 - Center antenna mast, fuselage station 147-5/8
>    1 - Rear antenna mast, fuselage station 254
>    1L - Antenna mast, fuselage ("L" indicating left)
>    1L - and 1R - Pitot tube assembly & installation
>    2 - Stop, for landing gear axle, station 94
>    1 - Pulley bracket, left engine control
>    1 - Pulley bracket, right engine control
>    2 - Flare cover, fuselage
>    17 - Ventilator, fuselage
>    1L - and 1R - Plate, center section brace attachment
>    1L - and 1R - Gusset plate, center section, station 81 1/2
>    4 - Brace tube, nacelle landing gear support
>    1R - Tee section, center section nacelle attachment, station 69
>    1 Outlet, fuselage heating system
>    1L - and 1R - Engine mount support

I take it that the drawings mentioned, corresponding to the above items no
longer exist ? I was just thinking of Artifact 2-2V-1 in relation to the
center section repairs mentioned above.

LTM
Simon #2120

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

If those 15 drawings exist, I haven't seen them.  I'd sure like to.  There
were also four new engineering drawings for structural changes which
basically beefed up the gear attach points.  Those are on file in a special
collection at the Smithsonian.  We have copies.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:32:46 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Radio tests?

The point of my suggestion was to investigate skip.

At the risk of opening my mouth again before putting my brain in gear.  I am
not familiar with propagatioin in the 3Mhz and 6-7Mhz ranges.  However I am
in other frequencies and unless those other frequencies are vastly different
I can't see how skip comes into this at anywhere close to the distances the
forum has been discussing.

Any comment from "Experienced Amateurs" out ther in Forum Land?

My experience sugests that skip is going to go a long way aroung the globe
before hitting the ground, at least a lot further than a navigational error
of 500 miles or so.

I am interested in the usual distance for skip signals around 6am to noon,.
I also realise that sunspot activity makes a difference, but if there are
amateur frequencies around 3500khz and 7000khz, then they are plenty close
for this kind of experiment.

Obviously it would require co-operation by amateurs at distances like 50,
100, 200, 300, 500 miles and I know - we're not going to get 100ft altitude.
But that should not affect skip very much.  I've tried this before on
different frequencies but not for many years.  It might eliminate or confirm
skip from the list of possibilities.

As I said, I'm not familiar with propagation in those frequencies, but there
are amateurs out there who are.  I can't see true skip over such a small
distance however, especially at that time of day.  Early morning is usually
"long distance" skip.

I hope these questions are useful to the forum, but in any case, as an ex-
Air Force trained Radio Tech, (who hasn't been in the trade since
1970something) I'm interested in confirming or eliminating skip.

Regards,
RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:33:39 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

This one IS from experience for a change.  In regard to skip, the antenna
system and TX output should not affect the skip distance, but should affect
the signal strength (TX Output) and signal readability (Antenna system).

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:30:13 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

I must stop writing these things in a hurry.

Sorry everyone - but when TIGHAR postings come through it's the middle of
the work day here...

I haven't seen a reply to this yet - but I can imagine....

In regard to skip, the antenna system and TX output should not affect the
skip distance (which depends on the signal bouncing off the ionosphereas at
a certain angle - dependent on the height of the ionosphere at that
particular time of day/night) so much as it would affect the signal
strength. A weak signal will still hit the Ionosphere at the same angle.

A really good Antenna system  on the other hand will make even a weak signal
clear, whilst a bad, damaged or mis-matched Antenna will affect signal
readability making a strong signal messy.

(To:  John Rayfield, Jr. - KR0Y - Does that make sense to you as a simple
non-technical explanation to non - radio types?  And at its simplest - is it
basically correct?)

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:34:57 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Radio tests?

>The Kanton engine search has been stymied by economics.  It's just too darned
>expensive to get heavy equipment to that island.

Does that mean that the chances of locating it are diminishing to zip?

Greg
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Not zip, but when forced to choose between spending a lot of money we don't
have at Niku and spending a lot of money we don't have at Kanton, we have to
opt for Niku.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:49:17 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Kanton engine

Ric wrote,

>The Kanton engine search has been stymied by economics.  It's just
>too darned expensive to get heavy equipment to that island.

 The Kanton engine search has not been stymied by economics . . . It
has been stymied by lack of enthusiasm!  In my opinion, it is not
necessary to dig up that engine.  We only need to know where it came
from.  The engine itself will most likely not yield any clues as to what
airplane it was on.  Serial numbers and data plates have most likely
been removed by corrosion and time.   Even if a serial numbered part is
found on the engine, to my knowledge there is no list of serial numbers
from the Earhart engines.  If one exists, we should be looking for it. I
still find it hard to believe the engines were not changed after the
Luke Field crash, but apparently they were not.

    My personal opinion of the Kanton engine is that it is most likely
World War II military.  Research has shown  there are some 22 military
aircraft missing, or known to have crashed within 400 miles of
Nikumaroro Island during the war.  It appears most of the "known"  went
into the water.  There could be several down there for the Timmer team
to find.

    My personal research so far has suggested that the engine was not
found on Niku Island.  I did this research over a year ago. It also
suggests that what ever island it was on, it didn't arrive until after
the Colorado pilots completed their search.  There was a lot of aluminum
attached to that engine at one time, and the Colorado pilots saw none of
it on any of the islands in the Phoenix Group during the Earhart search.

    I would think it would be better to talk with Islanders who lived on
the other islands to see if they may have seen any aircraft wreckage.
That can be done a lot cheaper that trying to dig up the engine.

Don J.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The serial number of the starboard engine on NR16020 was 6149.  The port
engine was 6150.  The numbers were on data plates affixed to the back side
(not the boss as in later models) of the S3H1 engines.  The crankshafts and
cams also had serial numbers and, even though we don't know if P&W records
have that information for Earhart's engines, it should at least be possible
to establish that the engine is a prewar civilian S3H1, which would be almost
as conclusive.  That's not the problem.

In 1998 we spent $50,000 checking out the possibility that the Kanton engine
was sitting right where Bruce Yoho says he left it in 1971.  It was a
reasonable expenditure of resources to investigate what sounded like an
easily accessible diagnostic artifact.  The engine wasn't there.  The dump
where he put it had since been bulldozed and buried.  To excavate the dump
would require heavy equipment which is prohibitivley expensive to transport
to Kanton.  Subsequent research has failed to uncover corroborating evidence
that sheds any light on the operation that brought the engine to Kanton, so
all we're left with is an anecdote that would be very expensive to
investigate further.  You are correct.  I'm not enthusiastic about that.

Neither am I enthusiastic about your suggestion that we worry much about
where the  engine came from.  If it's not from NR16020 I don't much care
where it came from.  If it did come from NR16020 it almost certainly came
from Niku. (The scenario which has evolved from available evidence completely
independent of Bruce Yoho's story describes a sequence of events which could
very possibly have left an engine such as he describes right where he says he
found it.)

TIGHAR member Tom Thevenin has compiled a list of 22 aircraft that crashed or
went missing within 400 miles of Howland between 1940 and 1962, but none of
the aircraft on that list is a reasonable candidate for the source of the
Kanton engine.  The only one of those aircraft that crashed on one of the
Phoenix Islands other than Kanton was the C-47 that went down on Sydney and
we have a photo of its engines in situ in 1971.  Also, none of those 22
aircraft used either the R985 or the R1340 engine and all used engines that
were much larger than the one Yoho says he found.  So IF he found the kind of
engine he says he found it either came from a wartime loss we don't know
about or it came from NR16020.

To say that it came from a wartime loss we don't know about you pretty much
have to say that a Curtiss SOC Seagull (which used the R1340) or a Vought
OS2U Kingfisher (which used the R985) crashed on one of the Phoenix Group
other than Kanton or Niku and was never reported in any source we have come
across.  Those types were used primarily as observation floatplanes aboard
cruisers and battleships, and because the Phoenix Group was outside the
active war zone there was no fleet activity in the area.  In other words,
that possibility seems extremely remote.

The other possibility is that Yoho's engine was much larger than he remembers
it, but that too creates a problem.  It didn't come from Kanton and he only
visited other islands of the Phoenix Group and, as we've said, the only known
loss is the C-47 at Sydney whose engines remained right where they were.  We
have talked to every former resident of the Phoenix Islands that we have been
able to find and read all of the literature we can find.  The Sydney crash
(like the bones found on Niku) turned up as rumor and folklore long before we
found the paperwork that documented it.  We have come across no accounts
(documented or rumored) of any other airplane wrecks in the Phoenix Group
(Kanton excluded) other than the anecdotal accounts of prewar aircraft
wreckage seen on the reef at Niku.

As in the past, I'm afraid your logic escapes me.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:53:30 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: Radio tests?

>From Ross Devitt
>
>At the risk of opening my mouth again before putting my brain in gear.
> I am not familiar with propagatioin in the 3Mhz and 6-7Mhz ranges. However
>I am in other frequencies and unless those other frequencies are vastly
>different

The characteristics of skip propagation vary greatly with frequency.  For
example, skip conditions during daylight hours (such as noon to 6 pm,
local time) are often almost  non-existant, especially during (or even
near) the peak of the 11 year (average) sunspot cycle, in the 3500 khz to
4000 khz amateur band.  On the other hand, back in late 1974 to early
1975, I used to have a regular schedule with a friend of mine, near 7100
khz., at noon on Saturdays.  He was about 300 miles from me, and we would
visit for about an hour each time (I had just learned Morse code - CW -
and was not very fast <G>).  His signals to me (and in this case, mine to
him) were extremely strong (as if he were only 4 or 5 miles from me, if
we'd been working ground wave).

>I can't see how skip comes into this at anywhere close to the
>distances the forum has been discussing.
>
>My experience sugests that skip is going to go a long way aroung the
>globe before hitting the ground, at least a lot further than a navigational
>error of 500 miles or so.

Skip conditions can be used to work, with very strong signals, distances
as short as 40 miles to as long as thousands of miles, depending upon the
time of day, the time of year, where we are in the sunspot cycle, the
frequency, the height above ground of the antenna (and the type of
antenna), as well as some other factors.

>I hope these questions are useful to the forum, but in any case, as an
>ex-Air Force trained Radio Tech, (who hasn't been in the trade since
>1970something) I'm interested in confirming or eliminating skip.

I, too, am interested in this.  I think it might have some benefit in
confirming (or disproving) some of the theories that have been presented
over the years.  I think that if Earhart's transmissions were being heard
via skip, then this tends to help support Ric's (and TIGHAR's) thinking
that she and Noonan ended up on Gardner Island.

   John Rayfield, Jr. - KR0Y
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I just don't see how any kind of test could prove anything but a possibility,
and we don't need that possibility for the Niku hypothesis to be entirely
valid.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:56:25 EST
From:         Doc Holloway
Subject:      Skip

I can remember? days back in the early 1960's when the radio operator, on a
Navy R5D-5(Read C-54) over the middle of the Mediterranean, couldn't raise
anybody on HF except some guy on Guam!!!  We had to relay our out and off
reports via Guam in order to get them to Naples, Italy and Port Lyautey,
Morocco.  HF skip(or whatever it is correctly called) can do some strange
things.

LTM (Who was a driver and not a talker)
R.L."Doc" Holloway

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

Good thing you could raise Guam or everyone would have instantly assumed that
you had plunged into the sea. <G>
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:13:16 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      cockpit visibility

Thanks, John. Having not seen the photo but knowing it was a NG photo led me
to believe what you guys have confirmed.

I would certainly like to know what the visibility was from the Electra
cockpit. I'm guessing someone here can answer that with first hand experience
but just looking at the plane the view doesn't look all that expansive. But
then look at the "Spirit of St. Louis." I don't believe there was a forward
view at all.

Alan
#2329
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I've sat in the cockpits of several 10As (never an E and never in flight) and
those nacelles pretty much block any view down to the right and left.  The
windshield is tiny but you're up fairly close to it and if you have your seat
boosted up fairly high you can see over the nose with no more difficulty than
in a DC-3 (which ain't sayin' much).
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:17:44 EST
From:         Tom MM
Subject:      Back to Noonan's octant/sextant

Well, I want to get back to my earlier question about Noonan's nav tools.
Ric confirms the bubble octant, marine sextant, and corrects the number of
chronometers (1x), although a single chronometer seems a bit risky.  Doug B
had some good info on the Pioneer A5/7/10 sextants, and I was hoping that
he or someone might be able to answer the question regarding the maximum
altitude that these could reasonably measure.

The reason I'm interested in this is relates to the presence of the moon in
the sky that morning.  I'm still trying to come to grips with why it did
not come into play (apparently) in the nav picture.  It has a good "cut"
across the 157/337 sun line, and is about 35% illuminated.  The moon's
phase was just past last quarter.  Early in the approach to Howland, it
would be quite a high angled sight - well above optimum altitude, but not
necessarily completely unusable.  By a few hours later, it was in a very
reasonable range of altitude.  I know there are reasons that the moon might
have been rendered unusable while still leaving the sun as a good shot -
thin cloud comes to mind.  But most of what we have seen refers to
scattered cloud, which would have afforded the opportunity for a shot at
one point or another in the hour(s) of searching for Howland or diverting
to alternates.  It has also been suggested that the preferred heading of
the aircraft and/or the possible need to burn precious fuel in a climb to
get above cloud might have precluded a moon shot, but at some point, if you
are lost over the Pacific, it seems like you would get very, very
determined to use every option to fully fix your position.

So, to the aerial navigators - is it possible that the Pioneer A5 would not
measure an altitude as high as 76 degrees?  Or would some other feature of
the sextant or the aerial nav process make this a pointless excercise?
What's going on here? This would not be ideal for marine nav purposes, but
it would work within reason.  As time goes by, the altitudes get more
reasonable, but the cut diverges. Still, it does not appear to be useless.
The moon and sun were positioned as follows (USNO website).  AP was Howland
at 000-48 N  176-38 W.

July 2, 1937 - Moon

Time (GMT)     Altitude         Az
    1800            74.0          034.1
    1900            75.6          338.0 (meridian at approx 1837)
    2000            65.8          305.0
    2100            52.9          293.3
    2200            39.1          288.3

July 2, 1937 -  Sun:

Time (GMT)     Altitude        Az
    1800              2.8           67.0
    1900            16.4           66.2
    2000            29.9           63.7
    2100            43.1           58.5
    2200            55.2           48.3

Regards,
Tom MM
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:23:49 EST
From:         Suzanne
Subject:      Aviation Archaeology course/expedition

Dear Ric,

Is the Aviation Archeology and Historic Preservation two day class open to
anyone who is interested or does one have to be able to stand the rigors of
field work? I would be very interested in attending, but due to health
reasons I am unable to do actual field work.

LTM
Suzanne  2184
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, at a lower cost of course than for the complete course plus expedition
package.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:31:32 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: Expedition participation

Excellent.....so maybe the term "Crab Bait" or "CB" will catch on with such
phrases as LTM, Blue Skies, Etc.?

Clyde Miller
(Who believes abbreviation will be the downfall of civilization)
*************************************************************************
From Ric

LOL
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:32:54 EST
From:         Jaume Balaguer
Subject:      Easy to see Howland...?

    I don't know much about photography techniques and I haven't seen the
photo from National Geographic, but as I understood with your comments,
perhaps it was a kind of illusion. I'm not an expert photographer but when
you take a photo with "zoom" the dimensions of the objects seems to change.
If the that photo was taken with zoom, (very probable if they wanted to
distinguish the electra, in case the photo have been taken from a "big"
distance...) the bakground would appear also bigger and different than
without using zoom.

    A good example is the amazing views and pictures where the moon seems to
be giant. I'm not sure of it, and if there is a photographer in the forum he
maybe will clarify my explanation (perhaps wrong).


LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:38:09 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      usable fuel

All of this talk over the past few days regarding the usable fuel in
the 10E has piqued my curiosity.  The major point everyone seems to be
discussing is how much fuel was not available for use, specifically the fuel
in the fuel lines.
    Well, as my non-scientific contribution (other than a few bucks) to
TIGHAR, I am going to perform the following experiment over the weekend:
fill my 100-foot garden hose with water, which is three-quarters inch in
diameter, empty the contents into a bucket and then use a measuring cup to
determine how much water was in the hose.
    Crude and simplistic?  Yes, but also fairly accurate I would think.
Perhaps it is not too scientific, but it will give us a number to start
with.  From that number we can extrapolate the volume of fuel in the 10E's
lines, whether the line is half-, three-eighths or even 7/16ths inch.
    (I'm hoping some one will also volunteer the relative density of
water vs. fuel and offer opinions regarding the location of the test (in
Annapolis, Maryland: elev. 50 feet +/-) and the outside temperature.)
    With a known volume of water from a known sized container at a known
temperature and elevation (altitude) adjusted for the correct water/fuel
density ratio I believe we could figure out with a fairly accurate degree of
certainty the amount of fuel trapped in the 10E lines.
    There are probably some very complicated formulas that could do the
same thing in 5-10 minutes, but no one so far has volunteered them.  Hence,
my offer.
    I'll report the finding on Monday.

LTM, who reveres scientists
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I can just see this.  Your neighbor comes over and says "Dennis, what on
earth are you doing?

Dennis looks up with a straight face, "Trying to figure out what happened to
Amelia Earhart."
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:09:31 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Easy to see Howland...?

If my memory serves me correctly (which it does not always do) I seem to
recall that The National Geographic was the first organization to be legally
engaged over the computerized editing of a photograph. It was about 13 years
ago and the photo was of a pyramid. I believe that the photographer was up
in lawyers about the idea that his image (intellectual property) had been
scanned and then edited to the point that it did not appear at all like
the original. The question was, Did the publisher have the right to modify
the photograph? I do not remember the outcome of the case, perhaps it was
settled out of court. I think that the key item of the dispute was that the
perspective was seriously altered.

Greg
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:12:20 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Easy to see Howland...?

For anyone who is interested in the specifics of the National Geographic photo
of Howland I would suggest simply calling/e-mailing the National Geogrpahic and
speaking with the author of the article.  I did this recently concerning a photo
which appeared in connection with another project, and the author of that
article and his assistant were very helpful in giving me the details behind the
photo.

--Chris Kennedy

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

Good idea.  Might be interesting to know more about just how they got that
shot.  Anybody want the mission?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:22:04 EST
From:         Fred Madio
Subject:      Archaeology course

Ric:

I must have been asleep at the switch.   Have you announced plans for an
Aviation Archeology and Historic Preservation class reciently that I may
have overlooked?  If so -- I would be interested in attending, etc.  Do
you have any details on dates places, etc?

Regards

Fred Madio
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm getting ahead of myself (as usual). It's still in the planning stages.  I
should have an offical announcement pretty soon.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:43:34 EST
From:         John Bayer
Subject:      40 mile smoke

Hi Dennis and Forum:

"...From Dennis McGee

I'm not sure where the claim came from that Itasca's smoke was
suppose to be visible from 40 miles away, but it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to guess that such a claim is suspect."

Dennis, maybe not so crazy.  In the Navy, I have seen lights from much
further off than they should even theoretically be visible.

I realize we are talking about smoke here, but when you have a height of eye
( the person looking, i.e. Amelia and Fred) of even a few hundred feet, your
visible range goes up dramatically.

Food for thought.

John Bayer
(still a lurker, who wishes he had more than $.02 to contribute)
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The difficulty with Earhart seeing Itasca's smoke is not so much a question
of how far away smoke may have been visible, but the liklihood that by the
time Earhart was anywhere in the neighborhood there was no smoke for her to
see.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:49:55 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Radio tests?

Basically what i was looking for has come out in John's message.  My
somewhat limited exposure to skip tells me that it was unlikely to be
present over a short distance.  John's experience with a similar frequency
confirms that on at least one occasion with a strong signal, AE just might
have been running towards 157 and somewhere close to Gardner with enough
fuel to make it.

That's what I wanted to know.  As she was flying away from Howland, and as
skip tends to "localise" then she may have flown through an area that gave a
S5 reading even though she was close to Gardner.

It's still speculation, but it's one more possibility.

I don't intend going on with this, it's been answered to my satisfaction - I
was a radio technician - not an operator.  My radio "prac" is limited to
specific types and ops.  I've found that amateurs know a heck of a lot more
in practical terms as they use their radios every day.

Thanks, John for answering this.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:55:59 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Back to Noonan's octant/sextant

The question of how FN could check his drift and DR position during the
night has bothered me for a while.  I raised a few questions about that
early in the Celestial Choi--  oops Celestial Nav debate.

However one thing has been left out of the discussions.  I am looking at a
picture (I guess everyone has seen it) of Harry Manning in the back of AE's
Electra using a Pelorus.

Now nay yachties on the forum will be immediately familiar with taking
bearings using a Hand Bearing Compass.  Even bushwalking we use a Prismatic
Compass to achieve the same thing.

The main use for the pelorus was to assess "drift" and speed".  Two very
important factors for any navigator.  Driftcould be checked easily enough I
imagine, but speed would rely on knowing the distance from the object, and
it's beyond me.  The other option has eluded me until now.

A pelorus is pretty much like a hand Bearing Compass, but it is mounted on a
stand and has a sight which rotates a dial over a compass card.  This
enables the navigator to take a relative bearing on an object.  One bearing
doesn't tell yoou much, but taking a bearing on two stars will give two
lines.  He should be somewhere near where the lines cross.  Three bearings
will give him a closer position.

Unfortunately, the third bearing should be from the other side of the boat
(aircraft).  In the Electra, the pelorus base was nailed to the starboard
side of the fuselage, looking out through the window opposite the fuselage
door.  That would pretty much preclude taking sights from that side of the
fuselage if it were not for one thing.

The Luke Field Inventory lists the pelorus as:

107 *1 Ea. Speed & drift indicator, type D-270, with handbook
122 *1 " Pelorus drift sight, MK II B with extra base

This suggests to me that FN could attach the pelorus to the other side of
the aircraft, as in marine or surveying use these things usually only had
ONE base.

The "sight" unlike the commonly used surveying or marine pelorus, was a
tube, on a base that swivelled around AND up and down, allowing focus on a
small object like a star.  There was however no vertical scale for altitude.

Obviously FN would not be able to get the relative bearing of everything,
but the moon now becomes a distinct possibility as it would be off the port
side.

The visible arc seems to be about 45-50 degrees (perhaps a little more)
forward and the same aft from the navigator's station.

In the photo I refer to Manning is sighting up at an angle of about 25-30
degrees and out at 90 degrees to the centreline of the Electra.  AE is
looking on with an amused grin (at the obviously posed for publicity shot).

RossD
(Who's learned almost everything there is to know on Celestial Nav from the
forum.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:57:56 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Back to Noonan's octant/sextant

While navigational shots of the moon are possible, most navigators avoid
doing so, as the corrections applied to the various tables are very large,
introducing lots of error possibilities.  Even Venus and Mercury, and the
other planets, are not especially favorite targets.  A lot depends upon the
tables available to Noonan (which we do not know anything about), and whether
they had moon info in them.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:00:09 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Back to Noonan's octant/sextant

Tom, I can't answer your question about the maximum altitude capability of 
Noonan's equipment but I'm sure someone on the forum can. I CAN tell you that 
one sun shot technique was to shoot noon shots, however infrequently used. 
That would require a 90 degree altitude or nearly so.

Your point about the moon is a good one. I questioned before why we have 
limited Noonan to just the sun but as you pointed out weather certainly could 
have been a factor. In addition to the sun and moon there were two bright 
planets available -- Venus and Jupiter.

The data for 1800Z for a position of 0° 17'N, 178° 00'W is as follows. (This 
is a position west of Howland inbound about 77° T)

Object       GHA           Dec                  Hc              Zn

SUN          89° 02.4'     N23° 02.3'      +  1° 04.1'       67.0°
MOON     167° 36.9'     N13° 46.0'      +73° 02.6'       36.9°
VENUS    137° 04.8'     N15° 57.0'      +46° 42.6'       66.7°
JUPITER  254° 24.1'     S21° 38.0'      +12° 31.0'      247.7° 

As you can see the sun is doggone low in the sky and very unreliable for 
altitude and the moon just a smidgen higher than the ideal 20° to 70° 
shooting angle.  Both Venus and Jupiter might well have been usable for 
shooting although Jupiter's Zn could have been a shooting problem. If he 
needed it badly enough he could certainly have used it.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:01:39 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Back to Noonan's Octant/Sextant

Just got back from another overwater voyage.  Nothing exciting to
report.  Y2K came & went without a hitch.  Computers & software
performed flawlessly-no failures, no glitches, no hicups, no mayhem, no
panic, no panty raids, no nothing!

Back on a serious note.  To Tom MM's question...the Pioneer A-5 is
capable of measuring about a minus 4 or 5 degrees to 94-95 degrees of
altitude.  Back in 1996 I sold an A-10A sextant to Linda Finch's group
to use on the trip and went to the Oshkosh airshow that year at her
request to demonstrate celestial to the public next to the Electra.
While I was there I had plenty of time to take a look inside the
airplane.  To make a long story short, it is my opinion that FN
opportunities to take shots was limited by the number of windows &
arrangement of the panes.  If Fred sat in the tail to do his
observations he would be limited to shooting straight left and right
from the small windows on both sides of the fuselage.  Whe compared to
shooting from the cockpit window area with its greater glass area this
seems the least desirable place to take a shot.  One could also have a
problem of getting decent "cuts" as it might have been tough to take
shots at the proper angle for 2 LOP's to cross each other.  I wish I'd
taken my A-10 inside the Electra and a tried a shot from the ground
just  to see what one could get.  I hate to sound too negative.  It
would be possible to get some shots with good cuts if one holds the
sextant right up to the glass so as to nail the right objects in the
skyfor a good angle (ZN).  I have done it from the front seat of
cockpits and can get a good 2 line fix using this technique.  I have to
wonder why when they did all the modifications to the airplane why an
astrodome was not installed to give Fred the proper visibility to do 3+
LOP fixes. It would have been a piece of cake compared to what he had to
work with.   My money is on Fred taking shots from forward & back to get
LOP's with the proper cuts.

Another point about the A-5.  It was not made originally with an
averaging device.  It came later on the A-7 and some A-5's were
modified.  One can still shoot without the averager.  It just makes it
easier when you don't have to aim-shoot-look-record over & over.  Other
than that A-5's & A-7's are identical.  I'll have more info later as it
looks like I may be getting an A-7 after it comes out of overhaul.

To Alan Caldwell.  Assuming your calculations are correct(and I do trust
that they are)  it looks to me like Mr. Sun, Moon, & Venus would provide
some good objects for LOP's.  Jupiter looks to be impossible for FN to
use.  With a ZN of 248 degrees true and the Electra flying around 078
degrees, it would be at the Electra's six o'clock position and be
impossible to see (except with an astrodome or porthole in the tail).
Still the three should be good candidates as they are the 3 easiest to
see, ID, & shoot.

I am trying to run some calculations using position N0.05 W180.00 to
Howland.  I use this as it would be good technique to calculate a
position from a line of longitude-the date line being especially good.
My problem is what time to use for the fix?  With the lack of position
info it make this part of recreation very difficult if not impossible
for accuracy purposes without knowing DR, positions, times of passage,
ect.  Anything in the reports that could give a decent clue?

Doug B.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:03:26 EST
From:         Tom MM
Subject:      Back to Noonan's Octant, Part Deux

Thanks to the responders for the various comments.  This is an interesting
issue that I think is worth a little effort.  I admit that it is a
difficult question, since the ranks of the practitioners of that era of air
navigation are thinning.  The tools, techniques, and even the actual data
such as the 1937 Alamanac and contemporary sight reduction tables are
harder and harder to find.

I'm willing to admit that they probably did not get that sun-moon fix - had
they done so it is very hard to imagine their not finding Howland,
especially if they are thought to have had enough fuel to get to Niku.
But why not?  Today's Nautical Almanac makes a moon shot only a few
additions/subtractions more difficult than a sun shot.  I don't hesitate
for a moment to take a practice shot of the moon, and reduce it using
tables.  We're not talking about a quantum leap in effort, and Noonan was a
professional.  The biggest "problem" is finding the moon corrections hidden
away in the back of the Almanac!  I'm familiar with HO229, the "S" Tables
(Pepperday), and the "Concise" tables included in the Almanac, and any of
those would, of course, work just fine for the sight reduction.  I don't
know what was in use at the time, but I would not have been surprised to
find FJN lugging a nautical almanac and reduction tables rather than an Air
Almanac and HO249, which surely must have had its genesis later in the WW2
years?

I will admit to little knowledge of the history of either the Alamancs or
sight reduction tables, but the moon has always been a major celestial
body.  Not too awfully long before FJN, marine navigators were still
checking their chronometers by the lunar distance method, and the Nautical
Alamanc had tables of pre-computed lunar distances.  I'd bet that moon data
and sextant corrections were always included in the almanacs.

What I'm looking for is some darned good reason that the moon would not
have been available for a fix.  Limits to his Octant, his vertical view,
his tables, fully obscured by cloud, problems with his chronometer or some
other aspect of the air nav process?  Any good navigator would have used
every means possible to fix or confirm his position - especially when your
life hangs in the balance.

One thing we do know is that the flight did not end as intended.  If we
attribute that to problems with navigation, then something seems not quite
right with the picture.  I'd be much happier if someone who was an air
navigator familiar with the equipment and techniques of that era would step
out of the woodwork and say, "no, it won't work because...."

Tom MM
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:06:35 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Radio tests?

3105 and 6210 KHz both lie outside the amateur radio bands.  Such a test
using ham radio would be definitely illegal.  I don't think it would prove
much either.

For one thing, HF propagation is dependent upon a number of factors... not
the least of which are the time of day, the season of the year, and the
sunspot cycle.  If these factors, at the time of the test,  don't agree very
closely with  conditions on July 2, 1937, the test will not mean much.

As for frequencies, the closest to AE's which are Amateur Radio-legal are
2000 KHz, 3500 KHz, and 7000 KHz.  Propagation at 2000 KHz is quite
different from 3105; but 3500 is very similar.  Propagation at 7000 KHz is
somewhat similar to 6210.

Remember too, that propagation is also very dependent upon antenna type, and
antenna height.  Signals originating from an airborne transmitter, at
altitude, will have different characteristics from those coming from a
station on the ground.  This also has to do with the height of the antenna
above ground (and on an aircraft, the effective height is not great because
the metal skin is "ground") and the shape of the ground beneath the antenna
(a very complex subject... especially when dealing with antennas mounted on
automobiles or aircraft, because the metal structures greatly affect the
shape of the radiation pattern; and even on terra firma, the pattern is
affected by antenna height, buildings in the near field of the antenna etc
etc etc).

It's not as simple as it might seem at first glance.

73

Mike E. the Radio Historian
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Exactly.  That why Bob Brandenburg performed his analysis via computer
modelling.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Jan 2000 19:17:03 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      ITASCA,Smoke gets in to your eyes

Ric,John Bayer,Dennis McGee,and Forum

Author Mary Lovell disagrees with you Ric about the smoke at the critical time.
In Lovell's Book,The Sound of Wings, she says that at about 07:42, the time
of the "we must be on you..."signal, the Itasca was making "heavy black
smoke,which, in the light breeze of under l0 mph,drifted very little"  Capt
Thompson,she says,estimated the smoke should have been visible for 20 miles or so."
Lovell describes the weather at Howland as clear, with larger cumulus clouds
forming 30-40 miles north,north west.

She goes on to say that AE more than likely at one point was within visual
distance of Howland but because of clouds or sun, missed seeing the island.
Lovell adds that that the Itasca was making "heavy black smoke, which at one
point stretched for ten miles." (Which direction is not indicated)
As I would expect you will challenge her data and McGee provided a pretty
convincing explanation why a coast guard cutter couldn't continue to lay out
heavy black smoke. But Lovell apparently is citing official coast guard
investigative inquiry's
re Capt Thompson's actions. And Ric thinks that Capt Thompson was covering
his rear (or stern) re his black plum smoking action. Well who knows. Maybe
crew members provided statements or were interviewed about the Itasca smoke.
Based on what the weather conditions have been described and allowing Capt
Thompson his smoke visible for 20 or so miles at 0742, in all probablity AE
was more likely much further away, and quite possibly south of Howland some
considerable distance-which continues to reinforce TIGHARS theory she was
flying towards NIKU.
So many people were present during this evolution (smoking) its hard not to
accept Thompson's claim.

Respectfully,
Ron Bright
PS I'm new to these messages, and what does the LTM stand for??
**************************************************************************
From Ric

LTM is explained in the first of the FAQs at
http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaq.html

Your question about the smoke gets right to the heart of the question of
investigative methodology.

Lovell is a secondary source (as am I).  Her pronouncements are meaningless
(as are mine) unless backed up by a credible primary source. An understanding
of the smoke-making limitations of a ship like the Itasca, combined with the
ship's deck log, argues strongly against the credibilty of the primary source
she cites (Thompson).

Lovell's allegation that the weather was clear is not supported by the Itasca
deck log which clearly describes scattered cloud conditions throughout the
morning.

LTM,
Ric
*************************************************************************
From Ron Bright

Ric and Dennis McGee,

l. The Commander Lexington Group summary report of 20 July 37 reflects that
during the early morning (?) visibility southward was excellent and the
Itasca's "smoke plume could have been seen 40 miles or more..."[ p.260 of AE,
My Courageous Sister] A simple statement but source of the Commander's is not
clear.

2. But author Elgin Long produces a black and white photograph of the 250
long Itasca purportedly making smoke a few miles off of Howland at the time a
shore party of several boats arrived on shore; several  people are wading in
the surf. Long points out that the smoke lies on the surface and dissipates
as it drifts away-which is depicted in the photo. He attributes the photo to
Lt Frank Stewart,USCG,RET.[See p.7 of Amelia Earhart,Mystery solved]

Note: It is not clear who actually took the photo or if Stewart had it in his
possession and turned it over to Long. The photo is undated with no time
given except it was taken when a shore party came ashore. Well the photo
could have been taken on 1 July local Howland time, but I don't know when
various shore partys went ashore while the Itasca was on station. It is of
course a snap of an instant in time-who knows maybe thats when the smoke
began to rise. Anyway without further authentication by the photographer the
photo isn't worth much.Whatever thealleged smoke plume visibility was and the
Itasca at 250 ft painted white, AE didn't see it. It just suggest that she
didn't get within 20 miles or so either west or east as she searched for the
Island in the sun.

I guess in regard to the visibility of smoke you agree with Long's
explanation.

Regards,
Ron Bright
PS Who knows how high an object (or in this case smoke) must be to see it a
40 miles. I know there are formulas for this type of thing for a globe????
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Interesting how smoke that probably wasn't visible at all at the right time
was judged by Thompson (who was there) to be visible for 10 miles but by the
time the commander of the Lexington Group (who wasn't there) wrote his report
its visibility had grown to 40 miles.

We had Frank Stewart's photo long before Elgen Long had a copy.  We still
have Frank's original print.  It does NOT show Itasca laying down a smoke
screen.  It shows Itasca "blowing her tubes", a standard periodic cleaning
procedure.  There is no assurance that it was taken on July 2nd or was even
taken during that cruise.  Itasca visited Howland Island several times during
those years.  As a piece of Earhart evidence, the photo is menaingless.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Jan 2000 19:19:48 EST
From:         Ray Howard
Subject:      Re: Skip

Apparently this phenomenon is not confined to HF only.  At about the same
time Doc Holloway encountered his strange "skip", I was working at ORD
for one of the majors, estimating and posting arrival information. We
routinely monitored Approach Control frequency to factor in holding delay
information.  One night, 10 or 12 aircraft in a row complained vigorously
about receiving two signals in the vicinity of the Outer Marker.  The
strange signal was broadcasting it's I.D. in morse so loud that it was
almost drowning out the Marker!  I no longer remember the I.D. but I did
look it up that night.  It was a 75 watt NDB down it the Bahamas!  I
guess the early '60s were a "quiet" sun time.  Which brings up a question
that, I'm sure, has little or no bearing on the investigation.  But..
just out of curiosity, how about mid 1937?  At what point in the solar
cycle did it fall?
LTM
Ray Howard

**************************************************************************From
 ric

As I reacll, 1937 was a peak time in the sunspot cycle.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Jan 2000 19:23:07 EST
From:         Tom MM
Subject:      Back to Noonan's Octant/Sextant

Wow, I guess I jumped the gun - Doug B's response with some great info came
in just after my "give me a darned good reason" post.  I'll have to learn
to wait a day or two before responding to keep things from crossing in the
mail!

Thanks - this is great stuff,

Tom MM

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

The Forum knows all, tells all.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Jan 2000 19:25:59 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Kanton engine

Just a question, has anybody thought of using the ground penetrating
radar at the dumpsite? Maybe an experiment here first with a buried
engine to see what the echo looks like.

Greg

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

We've thought about it but it's not very practical.  We don't know how broken
down the engine might be now and there are just tons of stuff buried in that
dump that might look a lot like a broken down engine.  And you'd STILL have
to excavate it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Jan 2000 19:28:17 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: Radio Communication

>From Ross devitt
>
>In regard to skip, the antenna system and TX output should not affect
>the skip distance (which depends on the signal bouncing off the
>ionosphereas at a certain angle - dependent on the height of the ionosphere at that
>particular time of day/night) so much as it would affect the signal
>strength. A weak >signal will still hit the Ionosphere at the same angle.
>
>(To:  John Rayfield, Jr. - KR0Y - Does that make sense to you as a
>simple non-technical explanation to non - radio types?  And at its simplest -
>is it basically correct?)

Yes, basically, that is correct.  The type of antenna, and the 'position'
of the antenna relative to other metal objects (such as, maybe, the body
of a plane) and the height above ground (or water) can effect the
'radiation angle' of an antenna, and thus can effect the 'skip distance',
to some extent.  But, basically, you're correct in that the tuning of the
antenna, etc. and the transmitter power output would not effect the 'skip
distance', but would effect the signal level at a given distance.

   John Rayfield, Jr. - KR0Y
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Jan 2000 19:34:45 EST
From:         Lou Lapham
Subject:      Hold your water,Mcgee

Ric-Dennis McGee's grand experiment,stated in his Jan 7 email, if he's
serious ,is more complicated than just calculating the volumes for the
different size lines.I'am no scientist but between the expansion of the
hose,air trapped in hose and whatever water doesn't completely drain out into
the bucket this is a Mister Wizard experiment at best.If all anybody wants to
know is possible volume in a particular cylinder,3/4" or 1" or whatever,which
just happens to be 100 ft long theres a formula availible.If somebody doesn't
do it before Monday i'll take a shot at it then and send the results.If
Dennis was kidding,nevermind.

 Lou Lapham,not a scientist, just a  machinist
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Jan 2000 19:42:34 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Never On Sunday

Taking the holiday weekends off from doing the forum introduced me to a new
concept --- the DAY OFF.  Marvelous.  I'm hooked.  As of today I'm
instituting a regular policy that there were will be no forum on Sundays.  As a
bonafide cult leader I have decided to bring TIGHAR into compliance with the
world's other leading religions.  One day out of seven we rest.  Cool!
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:34:06 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Re: Back to Noonan's Octant/Sextant

<<The forum knows all, tells all.>>

I thought thats why we were referred to as the celestial choir.  Did I miss
something?

MStill 2332

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

Permit me to clarify that point.  The Forum, in its full and magnificent
wisdom, knows all and tells all.  Within the Forum there are vaguely-defined
informal sub-catagories of individuals with expertise in specific subjects.
The Celestial Choir is one of these.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:35:09 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Re: ITASCA,Smoke gets in to your eyes

Ron-
Maybe you should get with Dennis on your theory question.  Perhaps he could
figure it out with his garden hose.  (Sorry Dennis.  I couldn't let that one
go.  Actually I have tremendous respect for your sense of humor, ingenuity
and persistance, in that order.)

From your favorite GRIT,
MStill 2332
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:50:18 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Day off

AMEN RIC.

Doug B.
*************************************************************************
From Suzanne

Dear Ric,

You could go all the way and actually give yourself two days off in a row --
it is called a weekend. Most working folks get it once a week. I think all of
us avid forum readers would understand and encourage you to do so.


Suzanne

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

I've heard that most people get it once a week but I thought they were
talking about something else.
I dunno.  I'll have to consult the runes on that one and see what my
ancestors have to say.  We may be flirting with sloth.

LTM,
Ric
( I had an uncle who flirted with a sloth once.  He was arrested by the
animal rights people.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:03:40 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Finding downed aircraft

Just for comparrison sake, here is a web site with a photo taken from about
1000' agl, of a Cessna 421 wreck.  This time we have a twin nestled up to the
woods in snow instead of in sand at the edge of the beach.

Not a very good comparison, but for the sake of showing people how hard it is
to recognise something they are looking for, even if you know where it is.
Wouldn't know it was there even if you looked right at it, I know, we flew
over this guy for a day and half without finding him until they brought the
helos in to look low and slow.

http://www.geocities.com/cortez139/CortezMissions.html

amck

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

Great photo!  This is an excellent illustration of the point we've been
trying to make.  I would urge anyone who is interested in how easy or
difficult it is to see a downed aircraft from the air to look at this photo.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:30:18 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: ITASCA,Smoke gets in to your eyes

I met Frank Stewart eight years ago after his family contacted TIGHAR.  At
the time he was in his 90s and living in the San Diego area.  I was in LA
doing research for the NBC News documentary on Earhart, so I was doubly
pleased for the opportunity to go and talk with him.

"Pops" Stewart began his Coast Guard career as a raw recruit chasing
prohibition-era rum runners out of Woods Hole, Mass and finished as the
navigating officer of an assault transport in WWII.  In the mid-30s he served
as the Quartermaster of the cutter Itasca and sailed with her from Alaska to
South America and all points in between -- including, of course, Hawaii and
the Line Islands.

It turns out that he was also a very gifted photographer and took scores of
pictures during his travels.  He supplemented his pay by selling copies to
his shipmates and the originals he kept in his scrapbook.  I was shown the
photos while a guest in Lt. Stewart's home and they kindly let me borrow the
albums and use whichever pictures I wanted for the show.

The much debated photo of Itasca "making smoke" is from a series of photos
taken during Itasca's visit to Howland in 1936.  Lt. Stewart looked, but
could not find any pictures that were taken during the Earhart search.  I
felt justified in suggesting the photos as illustration for the NBC show as
they were as close as anyone could come to the real event (same ship, same
island, different year).

However, the major source of confusion probably stems from a special file at
the US National Archives.  The folder contains pages from the original Itasca
radio log that were saved by Leo Bellarts and later donated to the Archives.
It also includes a couple of Frank Stewart's pictures -- one of which is the
"smoking" photo, only labeled July 2, 1937.

The composition of the two prints are identical.  There is no doubt in my
mind that Bellarts got his copy of the picture from Frank Stewart.  As for
the date discrepancy, I chose to believe the one written down at the time by
the photographer himself (i.e. 1936).  IMHO, the photo of Itasca "making
smoke" may be evocative, but it's not evidence.

LTM,
Russ
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Russ.  Sounds like Bellarts may have bought a copy of the smoke photo
from Stewart and later included it with his original radio log when he
dontated his stuff to the National Archives.  It also sounds like, if the
National Archives photo has "July 2, 1937" written on the back, the date is
incorrect and was added much later.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:49:04 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Back to Noonan's octant/sextant

A War Department technical manual from 1941 contains this interesting
caution about the A-5:

"The main weakness of this instrument is that it employs the make-and-break
type of bubble.  This kind of bubble works well except that it requires
extra time for adjusting before each series of observations and unless
carelfully handled often gives trouble.  The size of the bubble varies with
temperature, and the vibration within the plane frequently causes the bubble
to leave the level chamber.  Until an observer acquires the knack of forming
and adjusting the bubble, there exists an ever present chance of damaging
the bubble assembly."

As to the precision of the A-5, the manual says a degree on its angle scale
was "subdivided into twelve parts each reading 5' of arc."

The manual describes the A-5, the modified A-5, and the A-5A.  The first two
have no averager.  But "Type A-5A has been further modified to incorporate a
device designed to average automatically any eight altitude settings."

>I don't
>know what was in use at the time, but I would not have been surprised to
>find FJN lugging a nautical almanac and reduction tables.

Two Nautical Almanacs were listed in the Luke Field inventory.  The 1937
American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac tabulated the Moon's semi-diameter
and horizontal parallax for 12-hour intervals, and measured the angles to
the tenth of a second.  The Moon's Right Ascension was given at one-hour
intervals.  Sidereal Time--the time equivalent of the Greenwich Hour Angle
of Aries--was given daily.

The American Air Almanac was first put out in 1931, but was discontinued for
lack of interest.  The British came out with one in 1937, and the American
almanac resumed shortly.

Two copies of Dreisonstok's "Navigation Tables for Mariners and Aviators"
were also in the inventory.  With them the navigator can compute height and
azimuth.  More convenient tables tabulating height and azimuth had been
available for some time--"Altitudes and Azimuths" came out in 1919--and
Noonan might well have had them along, too.

>.....the moon has always been a major celestial
>body.  Not too awfully long before FJN, marine navigators were still
>checking their chronometers by the lunar distance method, and the Nautical
>Alamanc had tables of pre-computed lunar distances.

The "American Ephemeris and nautical Almanac" last tabulated Lunar Distances
in 1911.  The technique was still possible though without the
tabulation--just more computation was necessary.

> I'd bet that moon data
>and sextant corrections were always included in the almanacs.

The moon data were; tables of sextant corrections for dip and refraction
were in the Dreisonstok book.

>.....problems with.......some other aspect of the air nav process?  Any good
>navigator would have used every means possible to fix or confirm his
>position

>.....the flight did not end as intended.  If we attribute that to problems
>with navigation, then something seems not quite right with the picture.

There was a technique of pre-computing the expected heights of the body as
seen along the LOP running through the destination.  The heights would be
graphed; a gradual curve would result.  A rule was developed which would
tell which side--in his case, the 157 course or the 337 course--the plane
was on.  Here is how it is described in, "Celestal Air Navigation," put out
in 1941.  The rule was similarly stated in Weems, "Air Navigation."

"Celestial landfalls need not necessarily be made by directing airplane
defnitely to one side or the other of the objective.  If the navigator us ub
diybt he should take up a course of azimuth +90 degrees or azimuth -90
degrees, whichever he believes to be correct, as soon as his observations
intersect the curve.  Then at intervals of about 5 minutes he takes at least
three sets of observatons which will indicate whether objective lies ahead
or behind by the rules that--
When course is azimuth +90 degrees, if altitudes plotted are--
  Less than curve, destination is ahead.
  Greater than curve, destination is behind.
When course is azimuth -90 degrees, if altitudes plotted are--
  Less than curve, destination is behind.
  Greater than curve, destination is ahead."

But this published rule is in error.  It is not generally true; it is true
only when the body's azimuth value is increasing (as when a body is passing
south of the objective).  Both the Moon and Sun were to pass north of
Howland on July 2, and their azimuth values were decreasing.  Application of
the rule would give a wrong idea of direction from Howland along the LOP.
But I don't know if Noonan was aware of the rule; if he was I suspect that
he would have seen the danger of its being applied erroneously.

Mark Prange

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

Holy Moley, the deeper we dig into this the more layers we find.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:08:03 EST
From:         Mark White
Subject:      Re: ITASCA,Smoke gets in to your eyes

So originally, without other information, the photo from the US National
Archives would have been considered a (primary source?/secondary source).
Now that the original photographer and photograph show discrepancies, this
trumps the one in the Archives.  This looks like an excellent example to
write up and use for explaining sources.

LTM (who always had explanations for not smoking)
Mark 2129
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes.  It's an excellent example of a lot things.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:29:25 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Back to Noonan's octant/sextant

In the earlier posting, what I typed as, "If the navigator us ub
diybt......"

--Should have been typed, "If the navigator is in doubt......"

Mark Prange
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Must have been skip.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:54:46 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Finding downed aircraft

That is a great illustration of trying to look for something from the air.
Anybody who has ever flown and had the tower ask "do you have the other
aircraft in sight?" will know how hard it is looking towards the ground, for
an aircraft you really do know the shape of .  To make it easier - it is
also moving.  But it can be so hard to pick against the back ground.

Sometimes coming in on an approach, the tower will let another Cessna or
Warrior out ahead of us if there is a headwind.  Often one has to look twice
to see exactly where they are - and we know exactly where to look.

In this case the helicopter found the wreck, but imagine trying to see that
from an aeroplane (moving considerably faster).

Also looking at the picture, if the helicopter was a little closer to the
trees, or had the tail facing away, would it look like a helicopter?  Would
a silver aircraft with surf breaking around it look like an aircraft?

Great picture.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:57:48 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: ITASCA,Smoke gets in to your eyes @l000 ft

Dear Margot STill 2332,
Maybe Dennis put the Itasca's smoking (alleged) out by placing the garden
hose in the stack!

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

Awright you two.  This is getting a little racy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:19:36 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Finding downed aircraft

Wow!  That's impressive.  And the tree-line next to the snow doesn't look all
that different from the Scaevola line next to the beach at Nutiran.

LTM
Tom King
***************************************************************************
From Ric

In case anyone missed it first time 'round, check out:
http://www.geocities.com/cortez139/CortezMissions.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:24:35 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100?

<< Is there a way that Randy's solution (and others for that matter)
 could be reproduced visually with step-by-step explanations, and then
 distributed in the next TIGHAR Tracks?  This whole issue is VERY confusing
 to most of us and I think a "show-and-tell" approach would better educate
 all of us. >>

Dennis, you have hit on the very problem that caused me to post my first few 
notes.

It quickly became obvious from the postings that only a very few people on 
the forum understood, even vaguely, what an LOP was. Postings showed they 
didn't understand how Noonan could get on the LOP or know he was on it. 
Consequently I tried to craft an explanation of that one issue without 
confusing everyone more with a lengthy course on celestial navigation. An 
attendant problem was how to do that knowing there were a couple of people 
who DID know something about celestial procedures. I decided to totally 
ignore the dead reckoning (DR) portion (which I announced) and to do that I 
had to sort of fudge. I stated in one of my first notes that I was only 
dealing with the LOP issue and that what I was writing was technically NOT 
accurate and that this was not the way it was really done. I did that solely 
to eliminate all the work going into shooting and plotting the fix to show 
ONLY what an LOP was and why Noonan could know when he was on it whether he 
was ON course, or north or south of it.

While working on this it dawned on me that the 67 ° azimuth might be 
significant information so I contacted a number of professionals in this 
regard. After giving the background I posited that the 67 ° sun azimuth might 
tell us something as to where in general Noonan might have been during a very 
small time and position envelope. I contacted the US Naval observatory, the 
British outfit that publishes their air almanac, the aerospace mechanics and 
engineering department at the University of Texas, a Canadian government 
observatory and several other professional astronomers. All believed it was a 
reasonable and possible experiment and mathematically workable -- my 
detractors to the contrary.

One forum member who is quite knowledgeable of celestial procedures instead 
of seeing the possibility got side tracked by his accurate knowledge that a 
sun azimuth is not actually shot but rather only the altitude. This is true 
to a certain extent. The azimuth is instead plotted using the sun shot and 
the almanac tables. It also is shot using an azimuth circle which was a 
standard technique long before this particular flight. It is also true that 
when shooting the particular body the azimuth will tell the navigator 
valuable information.

The azimuth of the sun, contrary to what has been suggested, does NOT remain 
the same all day.  It changes with the observer's time and position. If you 
will look at the sun data for Howland's position for the morning of July 2, 
1937 you will see that the azimuth varies throughout the day. If you pick a 
position dead on the island and look in the table for a particular time, say 
07:00a you will find a certain azimuth. If instead you pick a place 60nm dead 
north and check the table you will NOT find the same azimuth. It varies from 
north to south.

If you will picture yourself that morning 180nm west of Howland on a true 
course of 77 ° and you look at the sun and note it's direction then picture 
yourself three or four hundred miles either north or south of that course and 
it should be obvious that the sun MUST be at a slightly different angle. 

The bottom line is that there may be enough information to GENERALLY place 
Noonan between sunrise and 8:45 local. 

While going through this exercise it also dawned on me that everyone has 
pretty much made the loss a navigation issue. Noonan has been restricted to 
only a sun line. He has not been allowed to shoot the moon or planets all of 
which was available to him that morning. I have also checked and found the 
data WAS available in the charts of the day. There were even SOME air 
almanacs but what they contained for the relevant period I haven't 
determined. I have found that the British air almanac was available but only 
for the last quarter. 

We have not allowed Noonan to use an azimuth circle that was standard for the 
day nor have we even given him the reasonable possibility of checking his 
drift and ground speed. ALL normal navigation techniques that ANY navigator 
would have used let alone a MASTER navigator with years of nautical and Pan 
Am experience. In our rush to explain why they missed Howland we have 
stripped Noonan of all his great experience and expertise and the tools of 
his trade. We have created an impossible task for Noonan in addition by 
exploiting all the known celestial errors and variables and somehow implying
 
Noonan would either not have known of them or could not take them into 
consideration. Some have even made him incapacitated from drink. 

And yet the possibility that our duo simply could not visually spot a tiny 
island among all the cloud shadows seems too far out to accept. Interesting.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:27:48 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Back to Noonan's octant/sextant

<< Application of
 the rule would give a wrong idea of direction from Howland along the LOP.
 But I don't know if Noonan was aware of the rule; if he was I suspect that
 he would have seen the danger of its being applied erroneously. >>

Mark, does that mean the answer would simply be the opposite from what the
rule states or that the information is totally unreliable?

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:32:14 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Back to Noonan's Octant/Sextant

<< Within the Forum there are vaguely-defined
 informal sub-catagories of individuals with expertise in specific subjects.
 The Celestial Choir is one of these.>>

Were you overly benevolent? <G>

Alan
#2329

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

Perhaps.  (One of my many faults.)  But keeping the exact membership of the
expert sub-categories vaguely-defined gives me plausible deniability.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:41:31 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Back to Noonan's octant/sextant

Re Mark Prange's email in brackets below:

[Two copies of Dreisonstok's "Navigation Tables for Mariners and Aviators"
were also in the inventory.  With them the navigator can compute height and
azimuth.  More convenient tables tabulating height and azimuth had been
available for some time--"Altitudes and Azimuths" came out in 1919--and
Noonan might well have had them along, too.]

Most of this navigation stuff is over my head, but for what it's worth,
Noonan said, "I suppose you wonder which method I use for computation of
observations. I use Dreisonstok exclusively. Probably another prejudice,
but I have used it since it first became available in 1927 or 1928, and
still prefer it." This was in his letter to Weems (May 11, 1935) written
shortly after the first Clipper survey flight to Hawaii to test the first
leg of the eventual route to Manila.

blue skies, Dreisonstok or otherwise,  -jerry
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:56:06 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Wreckage?

Ric wrote,

<<"Great photo!  This is an excellent illustration of the point we've been
trying to make.  I would urge anyone who is interested in how easy or
difficult it is to see a downed aircraft from the air to look at this
photo".>>
    Yes, they can be hard to see from the air!  But, the more amazing
thing is how people like the New Zealand survey team could walk all over
airplane wreckage and not see it.  Now that is amazing.  How they can
live within a few feet of wreckage and not recognize it as such.  I
don't understand that at all.

    I can understand how the search aircraft from the Colorado could
have some trouble seeing wreckage under three feet of crystal clear
water, but the NZ team missing it is a mystery to me.

Don J.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

What mystifies me is how anyone can read explanation after explanation and
see photo after photo and still not have the foggiest idea of what we're
taking about.

I'll try one more time using words of one syllable:

The plane was on the reef.  The waves were on the plane.  Waves made the
plane hard to see.  The reef where the plane was is far from the land. The
guys did not walk on or near the plane.  They were on the land.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:21:58 EST
From:         Tom MM
Subject:      Spinoff of Noonan's Octant Question

Ric:

Doug B asked about flight path, and I started looking at the 0718 GMT
position report (I have never made sense of the 0519 report). I have always
thought that this resulted from a full fix, since it includes the statement
about windspeed (23 KT) which would seem to have been computed by comparing
a DR position with a fix.

However, it turns out that at 0718 (if the time was correctly reported) at
the position reported (4-20 S 159-42 E) the sun had not quite yet set
(sunset at 0721). The moon had long since set at 0132 GMT.  Bright stars or
planets would not normally be visible at this time, and probably not for up
to 30 more minutes. This leads me to believe that whatever this was, it was
not a full (2 or more LOP) fix.

It could have been a running fix by crossing an earlier sun line with one a
little before 0718, or it could have been a crossing of the DR track with a
sun line before 0718, or just a plain DR position.  But I don't see that it
could have been a full fix.  It is hard to say how accurate a position
report it was.

The above data is for sea level elevation. Sunset at altitude will be
later. USNO website:  http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/data/

Regards,
Tom MM
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The position reported at 0718 GMT is roughly equivalent to the position of
the Nukumanu Islands and it has been so frequently assumed that a sighting of
those islands was the source of the fix that it is now taken as a "given" in
Earhart lore.

Whether or not that assumption is correct, it is also true that Randy
jacobson has been able to determine from the records of the Oakland/Hawaii
flight in March that Earhart's position reports never reflect her present
position but are merely the most recent position information she has at the
time of her scheduled transmission.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:24:33 EST
From:         Tom MM
Subject:      Noonan Nav Summary

Ric:

Well, this is great information thanks to Doug B and Mark P.  I'll try to
summarize/paraphrase what has surfaced so far.

1. Noonan probably used a Pioneer A5 bubble octant.  Only later versions of
the A5's had an averager - these were not chronometric (for say, 2
minutes), but instead averaged any eight discrete sights automatically. If
it was an early model, Noonan would have had to sight, read, record, and
sight for a series of measurements and then manually average them or select
the "best" from the series.

2. The A5's angular range was about -5 to +95 degrees, and read to 5
minutes of arc.

3. The main weakness of the instrument was its bubble type which was
temperature and vibration sensitive.  It required adjustment before a
series of sights, and if misshandled, could give trouble.  Until the
observer acquired skill with the bubble adjustment, there was a risk of
damaging the bubble assembly.

4. Two versions of the Nautical Almanac were on board on the first attempt.
 Moon data were tabulated.  Note: An Air Almanac was published in Britian
in 1937, and shortly afterward, in the US (again).

5. Applicable sight reduction tables were on board on the first attempt.

6. The AE/FN Electra did not have easy all around sight capability for the
navigator.  If the aircraft heading could not be briefly changed (for
several minutes) to take sights, FN might have had to move from back to
front or visa versa to get good cuts for a full fix.  Sights might have had
to be taken with the instrument pressed close to the glass and held at an
angle.

Corrections - additions?

Regards,
Tom MM
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:41:14 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Wreckage from the air

While Andrew's photo certainly confirms how difficult it is to see
aircraft remains at 1000ft, while flying over  very large stretches of
snowcovered, broken woodland areas, he's also correct in noting that it
doesn't compare to a relatively undamaged Electra, sitting on a reef
flat, in reasonably close proximity to a very large focal point (Norwich
City), on a very small island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
However, should the normal wave wash & tidal activity have reduced the
Electra to a configuration not resembling an aircraft, within the period
of time between touchdown & Lambrecht's overflight (with at least one
circuit of the island at a much lower altitude), then Lambrecht's photo
& Andrew's photo are probably quite comparable in illustrating the
difficulty in conducting downed aircraft searches from the air.

Don Neumann
**************************************************************************
From Ric

What the photo on the CAP website demonstrates is that, had the Electra been
crumpled up against the beachfront scaevola line (as the 421 was crumpled
against the treeline) it may have been as easy to miss as the Cessna proved
to be.  But that's not where we think it was.  Had it been onshore it seems
inconceivable that the new Zealanders would not have found it in 1938/39.

There is, in fact, no anecdotal or photographic evidence to suggest that
there was ever  an airplane wreck on the shore at Nikumaoro.  Some scattered
pieces in the bush, yes, but not a body of wreckage.  The wreck - both
anecdotally and photogrpahically - seems to have been out near the reef edge
where the waves break.  That's a very different evironment from the shoreline.

At this time we have no way of knowing how badly damaged the aircraft may
have been by the time the Colorado overflight took place, but we do know that
the tide was high and the surf action on the reef edge was considerable.
Whether that much surf activity was sufficient to mask an intact airplane is
something we just don't know.  We do know, however, that three months later
there was something on the reef edge that was in the place where later
anecdotal accounts put the aircraft wreckage and that, even in the relatively
good photos we have of it, we're struggling with the limits of modern
forensic imaging techniques to figure out what the heck it is.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:45:46 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      letter on ebay

Somebody pointed out that there's an interesting Earhart search-related
letter for sale on ebay at
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=232476993

Anybody ever hear of Dr. Townsly?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:48:23 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      The Grand Experiment

As promised here are the results -- 24 hours late -- of my
experiment to determine the amount of liquid (AKA, "water") in a container
of a given length and diameter (AKA, "hose").

1.  EQUIPMENT AND VARIABLES:
    71 feet of garden hose having a five-eighths inch inside diameter
    Outside air temperature:  46 degrees F
    Water temperature:  53 degrees F
    Location: Annapolis, Maryland, 50 feet +/- above sea level
    Liquid: Well water drawn from the Magothy Aquifer

2. METHODOLOGY
    I turned on the hose and let it run for about 2 minutes to insure
all of the air had been forced out.  Simultaneously, I then released the
handle on the nozzle and stuck it into a 5-gallon bucket and turned off the
spigot (AKA "thingamajig") to ensure capturing all of the water.
    I then asked my assistant (AKA "Fran") to hold the end of the hose
in the bucket while I removed the other end of the hose from the spigot.
Once the hose was free of the spigot I then held the hose end above my head
for 10-15 second allowing the water to drain into the bucket.  Once the
water started flowing I slowly walked the entire length of the hose lifting
it to eye level to allow it to drain into the bucket.  I also kept the open
end in my hand, also at eye/neck level, to ensure no water fell out the back
end of the hose.  When I reached the end of the hose held by Fran, I went
back and "walked the hose" a second time to ensure all of the water had been
poured out.
    I then measured the amount of water in the bucket using a standard
glass, 8-ounce measuring cup calibrated in 2-ounce markings.

3.  RESULTS:
    The hose contained 130 ounces of water, which equates 1 U.S. gallon
and two ounces.

4.  CONCLUSION:
    Using the results of this experiment, one should be able to estimate
the amount of fuel actually in the 10E's fuel lines once the data is
extrapolated for fuel/water density, fuel line diameter, temperature, and
altitude.
    The exact amount of unusable fuel aboard AE's 10E is unknown.
However, this experiment supports the theory that regardless of the amount
of fuel in the fuel lines it was insignificant in relation to the total fuel
on board at take off, and probably insignificant in extending the range of
her aircraft even following fuel exhaustion.

5.  COMMENTS:
    Lou Lapham characterized this as a Mr. Wizard experiment, and he is
correct.  I learned a lot from Mr. Wizard in the 50's sitting around in my
pj's on Saturday mornings munching on Cheerios.  I learned why things float,
what makes airplanes fly, how electricity worked, and countless other pieces
of scientific knowledge.  I learned also that all complex scientific
principles can be explained and demonstrated, and that all of the formulas
and principles are useless to most of us until someone shows us how things
work.  But most of all I learned that science can be fun.
    And that was the point of this experiment.  To have fun and support
the theory that the fuel lines in AE's 10E, regardless of the variables,
held an insignificant portion of the aircraft's total usable and unusable
fuel.

LTM, a long-time Mr. Wizard fan
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:45:26 EST
From:         Ken Knapp
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

I just took a look at the letter on ebay and noted the author has a ham
radio callsign. A quick search of the net for this callsign gives this
info:

W6RCR
ROBERT W. TOWNSLEY
5939 ALMADEN LN
OAKLAND CA 94611
USA

I thought I'd pass it along in case you felt the need to contact him.

Ken Knapp

*************************************************************************
From Jim Tweedle

I suspect Dr. Townsley may have passed away, since he didn't renew his
license in 1998.
Jim Tweedle N3KOR
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:08:50 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Calendars being shipped

The calendars are (finally) in and look great.  We're shipping to the
following people today:
Terry Linley
David Eberle
Natko Katicik
Simon Ellwood
Van Hunn
Shirley Walter
Veryl Fenlason
Andrew McKenna
Dana Sibilsky
Herman de Wulf

A number of other folks expressed interest but have not yet arranged payment.
 we await your instructions.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:23:49 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Capt Thompson and the Smoke Plume

We may have been too hard on Capt Thompson afterall. Maybe various authors
took excess liberty with his smoke plume and created a plume  so that AE
could have or should have seen it.

Capt Thompson sent an official report to the Commandant 14th Naval District
that on 2 July he began laying "heavy smoke screen at daylight." Period.
 In this report he makes no further comments about the smoke's
height,density,direction,or potential visibility,particularily later on that
morning around 0843.  Odd he uses "smoke screen" not "smoke plum".
And in all fairness, he added that (under assumptions) that the plane..."may
have missed the smoke screen,ship or island visually due to their lying in
the glare of the rising sun."
I can't figure out who wrote the report refered to in Lovell's book that the
Itasca's smoke "plume" could have been seen 40 miles or more.
Thus I think your're right that little smoke was visible around the critical
time AE is circling and that the "visible smoke plume" should not be
associated with Capt Thompson.
Is the ship's log (not the radio log) forthcoming in your book or has it been
posted.

Radio Communications stuff. Did Goerner correctly quote Paul Mantz  when
Mantz opined to Goerner that a primary reason that AE was heard on 6210 was
'" It could have been they were too damn far away to be heard...6210 is
usually good for just a couple of hundred miles' ". That would surely support
TIGHAR'S theory she was enroute south towards NIKU.
Respectfully,
Ron Bright
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Last things first:
I don't know any way of checking Goerner's allegation about what Mantz told
him.  They're both dead and we've been unable to document other claims that
Goerner made.

Commander Thompson's report (he was captain of the Itasca but his rank was
Commander) to the commandant of the 14th Naval Distict is dated 29 July 1937
and he does say that he "Commenced laying heavy smoke at daylight."  However,
in his much more detailed report to the Commader of the Coast Guard's San
Francisco Division (his own boss) he clearly gives the impression that, at
the time of Earhart's presumed closest approach to Howland (between 8 and 9
a.m.) "Itasca was laying down smoke screen stretching for ten miles.  Smoke
remained concentrated and did not thin out greatly." (page 43 of Radio
Transcripts Earhart Flight) That impression is almost certainly false and
misleading.

This press release was sent by a reporter on Howland Island:

RDO USCG ITASCA CK 385 PRESS COLLECT 0300 HST 3RD BT; UNIPRESS HONOLULU PRESS
COLLECT JULY 2; COPYWRIGHT [SIC] STORY UNDER
SIGNATURE JAMES CHRISTIAN KAMAKAIWI; WE WERE UP BEFORE DAYBREAK THIS MORNING
THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT AMELIA WAS CLIPPING OFF THE
MILES TO HOWLAND AND REPORTS SHOWED SHE WAS NEARING HOWLAND RAPIDLY WE WERE
EXCITED AND I WAS PARTICULARLY EAGER BLACK HAD GIVEN
ME THE HONOR OF WELCOMING MISS EARHART AS CHIEF RESIDENT OF THE ISLAND BOATS
PUT OFF FROM ITASCA AT DAYLIGHT MEN WERE HURRYING
TO POSITIONS AND AT SEVEN THIRTY HST WE WERE READY EVERYONE SEEMED TENSE AND
SORT OF BREATHLESS WE WATCHED THE SKY HOPING TO
PICK THE PLANE OUT AGAINST WHITE CUMULUS CLOUDS WHICH WERE ALL AROUND THE
HORIZON THE SUN WAS HOT ON THE WHITE CORAL ITASCA WAS
LETTING A BIG STREAM OF BLACK SMOKE OUT STREAMING LOW OVER THE WATER WITH THE
TRADE WORD FROM THE SHIP AT SEVEN FORTYFIVE HST
AMELIA ONE HUNDRED MILES AWAY WE WAITED NOT TALKING VERY MUCH BIG BOOBY BIRDS
AND FRIGATES SOARING HIGH UP AND FAR AWAY LOOKED
LIKE PLANES HOPES WERE RAISED SEVERAL TIMES BUT NO AMELIA WE WERE WAITNG NEAR
THE WEST END OF THE EAST WEST RUNWAY ABOUT HALF
MILE FROM THE GOVERNMENT HOUSE EIGHT THIRTY AND THE MINUTES DRAGGED THEN WORD
WIGWAGGED FROM ITASCA AMELIAS SIGNALS ON DIRECTION
FINDER SHOWED SHE WAS NORTHWEST OF THE ISLAND HAD SHE OVERSHOT TO THE
NORTHWEST WAS A BIG BANK OF CLOUDS WHAT A GRAND BACKGROUND
THAT WOULD MAKE WHY DOESNT SHE COME THE WIGWAG MAN WAS FLASHING TO US FROM
THE GOVERNMENT HOUSE THE RECEIVER SHOUTED TO US
AMELIA BELIEVED DOWN ALL SHORE PARTIES RETURN TO SHIP MY HEART STOPPED
BEATING IT DIDNT SEEM REAL MEN WERE RUNNING TO THE HOUSE
BOATS PUT OFF FROM ITASCA NO ONE WAS LAUGHING ORDERS WERE PASSED SHARPLY AND
BEFORE WE REALIZED IT THE LOADED BOATS WERE BACK AT
THE ITASCA EIGHT OF US COLONISTS WERE LEFT BEHIND WE WERE ALONE AGAIN ON THE
ISLAND THE NOISE OF THE BIRDS SEEMED LOUDER WE
WAITED NO VERIFICATION FROM THE ITASCA WHICH WAS LYING ABOUT HALF MILE OFF
SHORE I COULDNT MAKE MYSELF BELIEVE AMELIA HAD MISSED
US WE KEPT WATCHING THE SKY AT ELEVEN THIRTY SEVEN HST THE ITASCA STARTED OUT
TO SEA TOWARDS THE NORTHWEST SOON SHE WAS
DISAPPEARING OVER THE HORIZON WERE WAITING I HOPE WILL ALL MY HEART THEY FIND
HER

Note that the reporter is referencing HST (Hawaiian Standard Time) which was
an hour later than the time zone itasca was using.  This agrees with the
ship's deck log that has the Itasca begin laying smoke at 06:14 local time.
The reference to a DF bearing that put the plane northwest of Howland is
interesting.  The radio log makes it clear that no such bearing was taken.
The ship's deck log also specifies that Itasca left its assigned station at
Howland Island at 10:40 local time to begin searching to the northwest where
Thompson had apparently convinced himself that the plane was down.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:56:11 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100?

Alan: You make some very good points, and all are essentially correct.  I've
no issues with what you said.  But, if FJN had all of these tools at his
disposal (and there is no evidence of same from other charts used by FJN for
the AE flight), then why didn't he get to the island?  You simply state that
they just didn't see it within about 10 miles.  I think that AE and FJN would
have seen the high silhouette of the Itasca from at least that distance, as
evidenced by the Colorado pilots seeing their ship from 35 nm distance.  I
think FJN did not have all of the tools he could have at his disposal, did
the best job he could, but he also knew that he needed radio bearings for the
last little piece of navigation and they simply didn't get it.

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

As I think we've discussed before, what makes a ship visible from the air is
not the high silhouette.  You're looking down and there is no silhouette
against the horizon.  What you see is the white wake streaming out behind.
Colorado was underway (or more correctly "underweigh").  Itasca was not.  On
the other hand, Itasca was painted white which should help some, while
Colorado was presumably "battleship gray."

Anyway (anyweigh?), I think we're all arriving at the same conclusion.
Noonan should have been able to get very close and there's no reason to think
that he did not get very close, but it's also clear that he didn't get close
enough.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:07:38 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Spinoff of Noonan's Octant Question

The 0718 position is also almost exactly on the great circle path from Lae to
Howland: what a coincidence.  It makes me very suspicious that this was a
dead reckon position based upon speed over ground and/or elapsed time (some
time in the past).  I've checked all US and British maps from that era, and
none show the Nukumanu Islands in sufficient detail to make a visual position
report with the accuracy cited.

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

Good point.  In order to distinguish one island group from another you'd need
to either be high enough to see the pattern of the entire archipelago with an
unrestricted view (and Earhart specifically said she was at "8000 feet over
cumulus clouds") or you'd have to have detailed planform maps of the
individual islands (extremely unlikely).
Another Earhart myth bites the dust.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:27:43 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Noonan Nav Summary

Fred Noonan also had a "pelorus" drift sight in the Nav station, looking out
through the window.

The Pelorus was also set up with a telescope tube instead of the usual open
sight with a vertical wire found on a nautical pelorus, allowing Fred to
focus on a particular celestial body.  There is a scale at the bottom of a
pelorus (and usually a compass) which enabled him to quickly find the
bearing of the object relative to the compass direction (in the case of a
normal pelorus) or the aircraft's centreline (if the pelorus was not fitted
with a compass - which would seem to be an odd omission).

The "tube" would not be necessary for taking bearings of flares of drift
stains - in fact it would probably be more of a hindrance.  However it would
be essential for celestial bearings.  It seems strange at first that there
is no altitude scale on the pelorus until one realises that it is a heap
easier to heep an aircraft pointing in the right direction for a few minutes
than it is to keep it "level".

The one photo I've seen of the pelorus in the Electra shows Harry Manning
looking out and UP!  Supposedly pretending to take a celestial bearing.  It
is quite different from any of the nautical or land pelori (how's that for a
new word) that I've seen.  They are flat, and have a pointer across the
compass card with a wire sight sticking up.

RossD

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

Sounds like a question for the Celestial Choir.  Would a pelorus be of any
practical use in celestial navigation?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:31:19 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: The Grand Experiment

And a gallon more fuel would mean another minute and a bit of flight
for an Electra and that would mean anothe mile and a bit of range, and that
might mean the difference between reaching an island and falling into the
sea.  Because you mightn't be able to run the tanks dry, but you might be
able to suck the lines dry.

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

But we can't possibly hope to define the aircraft's performance to such tight
parameters.  I think that it's clear that fuel in the lines is not a factor
in any realistic calculation of the aircraft's endurance.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:35:31 EST
From:         Albert Ackers
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

As I recall, the neighborhood that Mr. Townsley lived in was involved in the
Oakland Hills Fire of 1991.  A search of addresses in the area does not list
a dwelling at 5939 ALMADEN LN.  It is very possible that Mr. Townsley's home
was one of the 2,800 homes destroyed in the fire.

Regards,
Albert Ackers
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Sheesh, talk about a dead end.  The guy is probably deceased and his house
has burned down.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:36:50 EST
From:         Lou Lapham
Subject:      Gas line capacity 1/2'"vs 3/4"

Ric-I finally got around to looking up the tables for gallons per foot of
various diameter pipe.100 ft of 3/4" pipe could hold 2.3 gallons or .023
gallons per foot.100 ft of 1/2" pipe contains 1.02 gallons or .0102 gallons
per foot. If there are any other diameters needed the chart lists 1/4" thru 6
1/2" so it's no big deal to find them.Here in Michigan it's in the thirties
so McGees idea was out of the question if i hadn't found the tables.

Lou Lapham
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:44:29 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Weather enroute

Some time ago I suggested that AE & FN may have been dodging clouds all
night.  You asked me if CUmulous clouds really got up to 10,000ft on the
equator, and I suggested I may have been wrong.

Some more snooping, combined with an observation when I was doing a flight
plan last week led me to think again when I looked at the cloud.
Doing a flt plan this morning the weather for our local area...  (my notes
in brackets) although I guess you use the same abbreviations was:

AMD CLOUD:
       ISOL CB (CumulonimBus) 3000/35000, MAINLY INLAND AFTER 04Z .
       BKN ST (STratus) 800/2000 IN PRECIPITATION.
*        SCT CU (CUmulous) 1800/10000 SEA, COAST 3000/12000 INLAND.
*      ISOL CU (CUmulous) TOPS 18000.
         SCT SC 3500/7000.
       SCT AC,AS ABV 10000 BECOMING BKN WITH CB.

This doesn't prove anything but the checking I've done so far suggests New
Guinea clouds are just as high or higher and the same applies closer to the
equator sea region with the equatorial lows pulling the air up.

With tops to 18,000ft it is still just possible that AE & FN were flying
between clouds that made navigation difficult.  I STILL don't think Fred
Noonan was lost.  Of course the middle of the year is not as cloudy as this
time, of year, but we do know they took off under a heavy cloud base (the
last take off movie) and reported flying over cumulous (and CU usually have
isolated "tops" around twice the height of the clouds).

Also interesting is the cumulo nimbus at up to 35,000ft.  We are over mostly
flat land and water, not mountains (we don't really have mountains in
Australia - and especially not this far North.  At this point (35,000ft) we
haven't got into the high clouds (Alto & Stratocumulous).  So I was wrong
when I corrected myself and suggested clouds higher than 8,000ft here were
not cumulous - I was using a text book.  Practical experience shows my
original assumptions to be correct.

At least it's a nice cool day today - 78degrees and raining.  The sea water
temp was reported as 26degC (79degF).

RossD    (I've forgotten what snow feels like)

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

If the nightime portion of the flight was flown in an environment that
featured occasional buildups that towered high above the aircraft's cruising
altitude (8 to 10 thousand feet) that seems like it could have been something
of a hindrance to celestial navigation, not to mention causng a bumpy ride if
they stumbled into one.  However, they also seem to have arrived in the
neighborhood of where they wanted to be at the time they expected to be
there, so I guess it wasn't much of a factor.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:07:23 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Capt Thompson and the Smoke Plume

An interesting item.  I wonder how much journalistic licence was used in the
description of the morning weather?

At 6.30am local time the reference to "pick the plane out against white
cumulous clouds that were all around the horizon" is interesting too.  Back
to our reasons why they may have missed seeing Howland visually.  This
passage suggests high cloud as a back drop - consistent with the way
cumulous form in the tropics.

Away from the equator the average height seems to be around 5-8,000ft tops.
The closer to the equator you get the closer to 45,000ft tops of the
cumulous.  I investigated this earlier today.  The results are correct
(documented) however NOT specifically for Howland.  I got today's aviation
weather for 45degSouth to 9degSouth for each area (Australia is divided into
a large number of areas)  I also checked the west & east and as close to the
equator as possible).

This indicates what has been theorised before.  Amelia and fred were
possibly flying between cumulous tops  or cumulonimbus much of the night,
and the clouds were still there in the morning.  Unfortunately the only "big
bank of clouds" reported by various people seems to be to the north west.
This reporter however gives up another perspective.  There were cumulous all
around the horizon.  That's exactly what we get here too.  Blue skies above,
but cumulous all around the horizon - day after day after....

It also suggests that just maybe Fred didn't get that dawn shot of the sun
just peeking over the horizon.  Perhaps he didn't get it until it cleared
the cumulous clouds.  ????

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:11:36 EST
From:         Tom MM
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100?

Alan C wrote:

[While going through this exercise it also dawned on me that everyone has
pretty much made the loss a navigation issue.]   and

[In our rush to explain why they missed Howland we have
stripped Noonan of all his great experience and expertise and the tools of
his trade.]

Alan, well said - I'm 100% with you on this one. The more I see, the harder
it is to understand the loss from a navigation standpoint.  Quite the
opposite - the departure time from Lae, the post dawn arrival time in the
vicinity of Howland, and the daylight fix option could hardly have been
more advantageous.  Masterful timing (yes, and lucky) as far as it went.
We've learned something about the equipment and challenges, but have not
found any flaw that seems more likely than any other type of problem that
could have done them in.

Looking at this is like trying to put together the plot of a full length
movie by looking at a few individual frames.  Earhart certainly could not
be accused of burning up the airwaves with excess chatter!  What little we
have has long been pounced on and torn to shreds, and anyone looking at
things today will probably start with a lot of inherited biases and
assumptions.

Well, all that aside, it is time for me to return to being a "list lurker."
 My dear neglected wife and my poor dog were about to sign me up at the
nearest support group for People who Post Too Much (maybe they even have an
Earhartforum subgroup?).  My teenagers were all too pleased at how easy it
was to end any discussion of their whereabouts and activities by merely
asking whether I had checked the forum email recently.

Take care,
Tom MM
 **************************************************************************
From Ric

I do hope that you won't lurk too deeply.  Your postings are most welcome and
valued.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:33:59 EST
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: downed aircraft from the air

Don Neumann wrote:

> While Andrew's photo certainly confirms how difficult it is to see
> aircraft remains at 1000ft, while flying over  very large stretches of
> snowcovered, broken woodland areas, he's also correct in noting that it
> doesn't compare to a relatively undamaged Electra, sitting on a reef
> flat, in reasonably close proximity to a very large focal point (Norwich
> City), on a very small island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Just as a point of personal experience in flying search and rescue
operations, including over a series of islands in the Cay Sal Bank
(hundreds of times), I can recall many episodes during which three of
the crew missed something totally obvious as they scanned along, but the
fourth spotted it and called for a turn-around. And keep in mind that
these are very experienced crews who done this hundreds of times, same
islands, over and over.

In one case, two crews (two airplanes were overhead for a period of over
an hour each in relay) worked with a group stranded on the island of
Elbow Key in the Cay Sal Bank. This group had congregated around the
base of an old, abandoned lighthouse. The policy was always to
immediately develop all film shot during the mission. When the prints
came in, both crews were astounded to see FOR THE FIRST TIME a phone
number outlined in rocks on the ground -- plainly obvious and spelled
out with something like 10 foot size numbers.

So, I am pointing out that you can easily miss things when you fly by,
particularly when the Lambrecht crew was probably focused on scanning
the beach as they went around the island. Undoubtedly, the boat
attracted a lot of attention, but, having been there and done that, I
can also state that crews tend to get focused, often completely fixated,
on larger objects.

Aircraft wreckage, half submerged at the edge of the reef flat and
visually masked in the breaking wave action, would have probably escaped
notice if it was a hundred yards or so from the boat -- that is my
opinion. Keep that in mind, it is just that, an opinion -- but one based
on over three years of search and rescue flying.

Hey, by the way, still looking forward to my airplane model.

Thomas Van Hare
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Apologies to Tom and to others who are still waiting for models.  To date
we've delivered 13 and have another 11 paid orders to fill.  The manufacturer
has fallen far short of his assurances about the production schedule.  We had
a "discussion" about that yesterday and reached an "understanding."  I've
been promised a firm production schedule by Friday and I'll advise everyone
then.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:58:58 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      New Zealand Survey photos

    Some time ago  I received a picture from New Zealand of the Phoenix
Islands in about 1937.  Randy put the picture up on his web site so the
other forum members could view it.  I have since received many more
pictures which may be of some interest to the forum.  From time to time
I will put others on my site for anyone to view who might be interested.

    At the moment I am displaying several photos from the 1937-8 New
Zealand Survey Expedition.  The Web site address is as follow,

http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/AmeliaEarhart.html

    Some of the other pictures show how they took soundings in the
lagoon and others show the grid system used in the survey work on
Gardner.  There is one which shows where the survey towers were
located.  All fascinating stuff.

    Feel free to go and have a look.  I will also send individual
pictures not on the site to anyone who wants to see them.

Don J.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Don, for cryng out loud, if you're going to post information publicly at
least try to get the facts halfway straight.  The New Zealand survey party
was NOT on the island in 1937.  They arrived on December 1, 1938 and left on
February 5, 1939.  Some of your captions are very misleading and draw
unwarranted conclusions.

I have photcopies of all 78 photos and none show "the grid system used in the
survey work" or "how they took soundings in the lagoon."  There are two shots
of transect lines cut through the scaevola and one shot of a guy dumping a
barrel into the lagoon captioned "Buoying the lagoon."  There is no
photograph that shows "where the survey towers were located."  The New
Zealand survey did not use towers.

We have copynegs of most of the photos on order from New Zealand and when
they come in we'll get prints made and make accurately captioned scans of
them available.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:10:54 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      forum/celestial choir/etc

As regards the various sub-groupings of the all knowing Forum, (celestial
choir, etc.) will the eighth edition have an organizational flow chart
showing how it all works? <G>

Regarding the calendars, I remember you saying something about the NR16020
version, but not the Niku version.  Is a calendar of Niku expedition photos
available?

LTM,  who fully supports the idea that Ric ought to get weekends off

Dave Porter, 2288
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Oh yes.  We have two beautiful calendars.  The one featuring NR16020 is
called "The Electra's Year" and has captioned photos of the airplane in its
various incarnations thoughout the year (July 1936 to July 1937) that it was
around.  The other calendar, called simply "Nikumaroro", features captioned
photos from various TIGHAR expeditions which show the team working in the
many different types of terrain and vegetation on the island.

The price is $50 for one or $95 for the set.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:15:59 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re Noonan Nav Summary

I just ran some figures using the sun and an azimuth of 67deg.
Unfortunately the computer won't calculate before 1980 but does run to 2050.

Now, this doesn't prove a lot other than the fact that Fred Noonan, who
probably knew more about navigation than my computer does, should have been
able to estimate the time he should arrive close to Howland.

The figures below all work on the assumption that the LOP 157/337 was taken
at a right angle to the Azimuth of 67degrees as discussed in detail in this
forum.

Taking as a starting point the Lat and Long of Howland, and an Azimuth of 67
degrees, all the answers from 1980 to 2050 put Fred and Amelia's arrival at
Howland at about 17 hours and 45 minutes.  There is a variation of only 7
minutes over 70 years!

The intercept calculations are not going to be accurate, as my yacht mast is
only 1000 metres high, and I didn't have a bubble octant  :-)

But it does show that in a 70 year period, we could still be fairly sure of
being our 157/337 LOP being somewhere between 10 miles before and 52 miles
past Howland in all those years.

The last lists are the 1980 computations showing what would happen to the
distance from Howland in the actual time that the sun remained at 67degrees
Zenith.

This is in answer to someone who asked a couple of weeks ago, if there was a
way of knowing where the LOP may have fallen during that time.

Year = 1980:
SUN
July 2
Ht above sea level 3000ft
assumed DR position 0.48N  176.38S

To get first Azimuth of 67deg we have to have UTC (ZULU or GMT) of 17hrs
46minutes 34seconds.

Declination = 22.59.2N
GHA=85.38.0
Computed Alt= 0.36.5
Intercept = 52.1miles AWAY

Year = 2000:
SUN
July 2
Ht above sea level 3000ft
assumed DR position 0.48N  176.38S

To get first azimuth of 67deg we have to have UTC (ZULU or GMT) of 17hrs
43minutes 45 seconds.

Declination = 22.58.3N
GHA=84.54.3
Computed Alt=1.16.7
Intercept = 11.9miles AWAY

Year = 2037:
SUN
July 2
Ht above sea level 3000ft
assumed DR position 0.48N  176.38S

To get the first azimuth of 67deg we have to have UTC (ZULU or GMT) of 17hrs
42minutes 15 seconds.

Declination = 22.57.8N
GHA=84.30.7
Computed Alt=1.38.5
Intercept = 9.9miles TOWARDS

Year = 2050:
SUN
July 2
Ht above sea level 3000ft
assumed DR position 0.48N  176.38S

To get the first azimuth of 67deg we have to have UTC (ZULU or GMT) of 17hrs
43minutes37 seconds.

Declination = 22.58.2N
GHA=84.50.9
Computed Alt= 1.19.9
Intercept = 8.7miles AWAY

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

Year = 1980:
SUN
July 2
Ht above sea level 3000ft
assumed DR position 0.48N  176.38S

To get first Azimuth of 67deg we have to have UTC (ZULU or GMT) of 17hrs
46minutes 34seconds.

Declination = 22.59.2N
GHA=85.38.0
Computed Alt= 0.36.5
Intercept = 52.1miles AWAY


Year = 1980:
SUN
July 2
Ht above sea level 3000ft
assumed DR position 0.48N  176.38S
About the middle Azimuth of 67deg we have UTC (ZULU or GMT) of 18hrs 00
minutes 00seconds.

Declination = 22.59.2N
GHA=88.59.5
Computed Alt= 2.29.0
Intercept = 237.6miles AWAY

Year = 1980:
SUN
July 2
Ht above sea level 3000ft
assumed DR position 0.48N  176.38S

To get last Azimuth of 67deg we have to have UTC (ZULU or GMT) of 18hrs
09minutes 55seconds.

Declination = 22.59.1N
GHA=91.28.2
Computed Alt= 4.45.9
Intercept = 374.5miles AWAY

So the sun will be at 67degrees Asimuth for about 23 minutes.  During this
time our 157/337 LOP appears to be able to fall anywhere within about 320
Nautical Miles from Howland.

Unfortunately I can't get these figures before 1980.  However what bothers
me, (and I'd like to hear something from our celestial friends on this) is:

The figures vary so little over a 70 year period, and...
The first Azimuth figures ALL seem to place the LOP around 50 miles PAST
Howland ! at around 17:45 GMT. at first sun sight.

On the other hand, that is still pretty close to Howland.

I have worked and re-worked this calculation on the computer using Astrocalc
with a height above sea level of 1000 metres (as high as it will go - it is
a yacht navigation program)

For anybody who wants to check this, the program can be downloaded from
http://www.pangolin.co.nz  it expires after 30 days, and is Windoze Only.

RossD

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

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:40:01 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: New Zealand Survey photos

Ric wrote:
<<...if you're going to post information publicly at least try to get the
facts halfway straight.>>

Hey. . . nobodies perfect.  I'm always willing to correct my mistakes when new
information comes in.  But, let's be clear on one point.  The photos were taken
after July 2, 1937 and before the colonists arrived.

Don J.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

You can't be serious.  This is some kind of put-on, right?  You're sitting
there looking at photographs that show:

"Arrival of Nimanoa with Colonists"  - photo G41
"The Colonists (Gilbertese)"  - photo G42

Don, the first colonists arrived while the survey party was there.  That's
how they got the pictures of their arrival.  The survey party got there on
December 1, 1938.  The colonists arrived on December 20, 1938.  The survey
party didn't leave until February 5, 1939.  Some of the photos they took were
taken before the colonists arrived and some were taken after the colonists
arrived.  It's diificult to be sure which were taken when.

You are correct that all of the photos were taken after July 2, 1937.

LTM,
Ric
(Notice to the Board of Directors: I want a raise.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:46:07 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Back to Noonan's octant/sextant

<< Application of the rule would give a wrong idea of direction from Howland
along the LOP.  But I don't know if Noonan was aware of the rule; if he was I suspect
that he would have seen the danger of its being applied erroneously. >>

>Mark, does that mean the answer would simply be the opposite from what the
>rule states or that the information is totally unreliable?

It would be opposite for the case of the azimuth (and LOP) turning
counterclockwise; as the rule was stated, it would apply only to the
case of the azimuth increasing.  To be applicable generally it would only be
necessary to preface it with the phrase: "When azimuth is increasing:"

Mark
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:50:17 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Trigonometry problems and smoke screens

TRIGONOMETRY:  Can somebody out there dredge up their high school
trigonometry and figure out how tall an object would have to be to be seen
at sea from a distance of 20 miles and at 40 miles at sea level and at
altitudes of 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 feet?  I know you have to figure in
the curvature on the earth on this one, or else our geometry experts could
weigh in on the problem.

    SMOKE:  Also, as Ric has pointed out there are some PYA statements
in Commander Thompson's report on the Earhart flight.  There are also a
couple inconsistencies that even a novice can pick out.
    "[L]aying down smoke screen  . . .":   How can the Itasca lay down a
smoke screen if she is not moving?
    The general idea of a smoke screen, or in this case a beacon, is to
use the ship's forward movement to disperse a sufficient volume of smoke to
be seen from afar by other ships and aircraft.  The effectiveness of a smoke
screen depends on the wind conditions, the ship's heading and the amount of
smoke it can make.  But most importantly it depends upon the ship to be
moving.
    In a no-wind situation, you can make smoke sitting still but I
suspect all you'd do is foul the deck with soot, as the smoke settles on the
stationary ship.
    And even if you had a wind it would foolish to rely on the wind
alone to make it an effective "smoke screen."  The idea of a moving ship is
to put the smoke screen where you want it.

    " . . . stretching for 10 miles": Hm-m-m, this too sound
self-serving.  Here the commander has quantified his actions.  He is asking
us to believe that the Itasca was creating a smoke plume thick enough
(sufficient particulate matter in suspension) and with enough heat energy
(BTUs) to stay aloft and stretch out 10 miles -- all while remaining
stationary.  That would be quite a breeze to accomplish that.
    Standing on the bridge and looking downwind, I can see how the
commander may  believe he was creating a smoke plume visible from 10 miles.
But how could he tell it was "stretching for 10 miles."  Even if the plume
did drift for 10 miles I am not convinced that it was still compact enough
to create a visible beacon.  At 10 miles, I suspect it to have diffused
considerably to the point it blended in with the ambient haze, clouds, etc.
    Just some random thoughts.

LTM, who never got pass algebra
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:54:57 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Noonan Nav Summary

>4. Two versions of the Nautical Almanac were on board on the first attempt.

Two copies.  Probably the same edition, but not necessarily.  (There is the
"Nautical Almanac" and there is the "American Ephemeris and Nautical
Almanac."  I would suspect that he had two copies of the Nautical Almanac").

>Sights might have had to be taken with the instrument pressed close to
>the glass and held at an angle.

The A-5 didn't have to be held exactly level to give a valid reading, but it
did have to be within a few degrees of level.
**************************************************************************
From Ric
 Question:  For our reenactment flight, how important would it be to use the
same type of instrument (presumably a Pioneer A-5) that Noonan used?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:07:06 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Capt Thompson and the Smoke Plume

Looking at the language in the quotes from a military perspective (once upon
a long time ago), the thing that now seems evident is the terminology "smoke
screen".

    Ron Bright wrote:
    Capt Thompson sent an official report to the Commandant 14th Naval
District
    that on 2 July he began laying "heavy smoke screen at daylight."
Period.
    Odd he uses "smoke screen" not "smoke plum".

Now I don't know about Cutters, but naval ships (ie: Destroyers) were
equipped with smoke generators, which had nothing to do with the boilers or
smokestacks - these were for laying "defensive" smoke on the surface of the
water.  The smoke, which I seem to recall was oil-based, was intended to lie
on the surface of the water to create a place for ships to hide.  If in fact
this is what did occur, there would be no thermal rise to the smoke, and
until it settled it would just float along on the water.  It also seems to
me that there would be little likelihood that they would have fired up a lot
of smoke from the boilers, if the Cutter was equipped with smoke generators.

    "Itasca was laying down smoke screen stretching for ten miles. Smoke
    remained concentrated and did not thin out greatly."

This would be consistent with a smoke "screen", and is likewise consistent
with the  reporter's story.

    ITASCA WAS LETTING A BIG STREAM OF BLACK SMOKE OUT
    STREAMING LOW OVER THE WATER WITH THE TRADE

I presume the word "trade" is a reference to "trade wind".  It would be
helpful if he had included punctuation in his story.  It seems to me that
dark smoke lying close to the water on a bright morning, flying into the
sun, would be really easy to miss.

The other thing that you may be able to clarify (since I'm a novice at the
DF stuff they had) is the reference to the message from the ship to the
island

    WORD WIGWAGGED FROM ITASCA AMELIAS SIGNALS ON DIRECTION
    FINDER SHOWED SHE WAS NORTHWEST OF THE ISLAND

Would the DF only show NW, or do you think they are "interpreting" the DF
reading to be NW, when she might actually have been SE of Howland?

LTM,
jon  2266
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Interesting point on the DF.  It may be that Itasca was able to get some
rough bearing that was too shaky to include in later reports. If so, there
may well have been a 180 degree ambiguity problem.  Comments from the DF
Delegation?

Not being a warship, I would be very surprised if Itasca was equipped with a
"smoke generator."  Here is a posting from last March by retired
Destroyer-Escort captain Bob Bradenburg on the subject of smoke:

Black smoke makes sense in terms of trying to make the ship most visible to an
observer.  But I would be surprised if ITASCA could make black smoke for an hour
and a half.  In a steam powered ship, black smoke is produced by reducing the
amount of air in the fuel-air mix being pumped into the boiler fire box.  This
makes a lovely dense black smoke, but also deposits a coating of thick soot on the
boiler tubes inside the fire box and hastens the time when the boiler must be shut
down, opened up, and sailors have to climb in an scrape the soot of the tubes by
hand, with wire brushes, etc.  From your description of ITASCA's size, I surmise
she was  medium endurance cutter, which means she had a single crew driven by two
boilers.  Although she would certainly steam on a single boiler while on station,
to conserve fuel, the Captain would NEVER take a boiler off line for tube
maintenance while at sea, because if the steaming boiler were to sustain a major
casualty requiring it to be taken off line, the ship would be dead in the water.
So, cleaning fire box tubes (known as cleaning firesides) was done in port, not at
sea.

Fireside cleaning usually was done was done at intervals of 600 steaming hours.
For a CG ship on extended station duty, that would interval would come up every 25
days.  The on-station time could be stretched to 50 days by rotating boilers.  But
making heavy black smoke for a protracted period - - - more than 15 minutes or so
- - - is inviting trouble in the form of a thin-lipped tube rupture (caused by
uneven heating of the tube surface due to the soot accumulation)  which results in
water and steam spewing into the fire box, dousing the fire and, worse, causing
the firebrick lining of the fire box the crack from chill shock and crumble into a
pile of rubble in the middle of the firebox.  Not a pleasant event, one which
requires major and expensive shipyard repairs, and one which skippers of steam
ships avoided like the plague.

> I begin to wonder if ITASCA was making any smoke when it might have done some
> good.

Bottom line, I agree that  ITASCA probably was not making smoke when AE needed
it.  That can be verified from the deck log.

But even it ITASCA was making smoke, the wind-driven downsweep of the smoke, which
I suspected and your photo confirms,  would have caused the smoke plume to widen
rapidly, and become quite thin in the vertical plane.  That would drastically
reduce its visible contrast with respect to the sea surface, thus rendering it
virtually invisible except at close range.  Smoke is really only useful as a
visual detection aid when the wind speed is less than about 5 knots, so there will
be a significant vertical plume.  Then it is readily visible in contrast to the
sky luminence.


The fact that ITASCA was painted white and was relatively small would make her
blend in with the whitecaps, and maker nearly invisible beyond a few miles. The
problem was compounded by the fact that the wind blows almost continually, albeit
at varying speeds, in that neihborhood, creating a substatial fetch that produces
well-developed swells.  So, when the swells whitecap, the result is what looks
like many parlallel lines of white on the surface.  It's really tough for a pilot
to see a small white ship in that background.  If ITASCA had been steaming at 10
knots or so, her Kelvin wake would have been easy to spot.  But a drifting target
is nearly invisible.

So, there you are.  Unless FN's navigation was perfect and they overflew the
island, they had virtually no chance of seeing either it or the ITASCA.

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:10:24 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Clouds, Pelorus, etc.

Greetings to all AE & FJN detectives on this superb forum.

On the subject of clouds, I've never personaly flown any further south
than about 10 degrees N, but I have seen tall CB's-the NASTY  kind
produce weather hazrds and visibility restrictions one can definetly
write home to mother about(" love to mother"-sorry bad joke) in that
belt of the globe.  It is technically known as the "intertropical
convergence zone".  The ICZ , where the trade winds come together,
converge, show up on satellite photos as a band of white clouds near the
equator...Sailors out there know this area as the "doldrums".  It is
here the winds blow lightly or not at all.  As the trade winds approach
this area, they die out as air warmed by the tropical oceans begins
rising-key word here rising.  In other words-lifting force to make those
CB's and they do get some big'uns down there.  I picture AE having to
dodge weather(when & if she could see it-no radar folks) causing off
course headings and Fred being limited getting fixes from celestial
observations due to obscurations to visibility.  Celestial nav is not
particularily difficult but can be become exponentially so if not
impossible if the navigator cannot see the sky.  If its turbulent-forget
getting a shot.  Bumpy air will make it impossible to use the bubble
artificail horizon in your sextant  It must be smooth. I've tried many
times in even occaisonal light chop.  It will throw your lop off 20-40
miles or more.  Can't be done.

On the question of how they could navigate so close supposedly and
missing seeing the ship or island, picture this:  you've been flying for
19-20 hours all night.  You are fatigued BIG time.  Your concentration
has been flying precise headings, dodging weather, taking shots(when
available) continously calculating your dead reckoning(no computers here
folks) non-stop!  They did not get a break.  I fly an all-nighter to
Europe with multiple & augmented crew for 8 to 9 hours in a very
automated airplane and my brains are scrambled eggs on arrival.  Your
body clock & circadian rythems are had massive assault.   Another
point:  I have made many an island landfall in the day and night and if
you mix an exhausted flight crew with the sunrise shining in their faces
at almost a direct angle you could miss seeing tiny ships, tiny islands,
alot of stuff.  I've come to the conclusion that loss of the DF steer
made the landfall extremely difficult to impossible with all the factors
I've just mentioned.  When they couldn't find it, going for broke would
not be illogical at all.

On the subject of pelorus, I know what they are and how they work but I
am clueless on how one operated it.  Must consult the great navigation
library.

Great "stuff" on the forum for the past several days.  I have to go do
my duty again for employer & family for the next 6.  I look forward to
the 100+ emails when I get back.

Doug B.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:13:37 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      10 miles or 100?

>My teenagers were all too pleased at how easy it
>was to end any discussion of their whereabouts and activities by merely
>asking whether I had checked the forum email recently.
>
>Take care,
>Tom MM

--Anyone else get a good laugh out of this?

Mark
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We got a notice the other day from the FDA saying that they're considering
making the Earhart Forum a controlled substance.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:19:05 EST
From:         Ignacio
Subject:      Colorado photo and df bearing

Hello Ric, a couple of comments:

On the matter of the downed plane in Colorado by the tree line, how about
having the image processing folks see if they can make
it to be a plane cabin, sort of a sanity check on these folks being able to
deduce that the photo by beach-line can be made out to
be a plane, if it in fact is a plane.  (we know the one in Colorado is a
plane, right ?)

On the matter of the report filed by the reporter, in reference to AE being
north-west of the island, could this be the report from the
weather service folks from Hawaii, that were there with DF gear installed
on the runway at Howland ?

Regards,
Ignacio.

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

Forensic imaging is a well-established technology.  There's no need to spend
money verifying that.

The reference to a Northwest DF bearing did not come from the high-frequency
direction finder on Howland because we have the log of all of the
communications from ship to shore and there is no mention of a bearing.  If a
bearing was taken it had to come from the ship's own DF.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:23:18 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Confusing captions

To Don Jordan:
    I looked at your pix but I'm confused:  Is the Norwich City "pretty
much intact" (photo no. 1) or was it "well broken up" (photo no. 3) when the
New Zealand guys got there?

    1st photo caption:   "This photo shows the wreckage of the Norwich
City taken  from the beach near the New Zealand Survey camp in 1937.  Note
that the ship is still pretty much intact with the mast and smoke stack
still in place.  Also note the large piece of cigar shaped wreckage which
appears to be forward and to the Port side of the ship."

    3rd photo caption: "The caption under the photo is self explanatory.
Apparently the Norwich City was well broken up by 1937."

LTM, who is easily confused in her dotage
Dennis O. McGee #1049CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:27:16 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: The Grand Experiment

Great stuff, Dennis !
May I also add my own $ 0.02 ? I've known a couple of aircraft crashing
shortly after take-off because in each case the pilot fogot to open the fuel
valve while going through his check-list. Each time there was enough fuel in
the fuel lines to start the engine(s), taxi to the holding position, do the
engine checks and take-off. Once airborn in upwind, the engine(s) quit. In
each case the scenario was the same. So, if one knows how long it takes in a
Lockheed 10E to start engines, taxi out to the runway, do engine and prop
checks and make its take-off run, then one should have a rough idea of how
much fuel is in the fuel lines.

LTM from Herman (who is always amazed at how forgetful people can be)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Herman, just because some aircraft have been known to have enough fuel in
their lines (etc., etc.) does not mean that the same applies to NR16020.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:38:46 EST
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Fire extinguisher

Anything new on the fire extinguisher?  Have inquiries been made to NFPA?

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

I'm not sure where we stand on the extinguisher.  I think Tom King was
waiting on something from Pyrene. (Is that right?)   I do know that after we
determined that the artifact found on the island is NOT like the object in
the photo of gear being loaded aboard the Electra, the urgency of identifying
the artifact lessened considerably.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:38:47 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Capt Thompson and the wig wag message

You have sent the most amazing document I've yet to see on this mystery. The 
James C. KAMAKAIVVI message to the Honolulu Press. (I doubt if he was a 
professional reporter as he identifies himself as a Howland colonist, 
probably a human interest story from a local)

Nevertheless here is a reporter at Howland on real time at the time of 
Earhart's disappearance receiving "wigwagged" messages from the Itasca saying 
she overshot the Island to the Northwest based on AE's signals on the 
direction finder.

Then he receives a radio message at the government house on Howland  that 
they believed AE down.

Where in the world did they find a colonist who could read flag wigwagging? 
Obviously, who ever was wigwagging from the Itasca's bridge was receiving 
some kind of official or "unoffical" information from the radio room on the 
Itasca.

As you point out where did this information come from if the DF signal was 
not reported anywhere in the logs or attested to by the officers and men in 
the radio room? Maybe that supports the theory by most researchers AE  was 
Northwest at the time of her disappearance. 

If KAMAKAIVVI is a relaible reporter (the Chief resident of the Island) he 
comments that the Itasca "was letting a big stream of black smoke out 
streaming low over the water.." Obviously this would add to the visibility 
condition, but obviously not enough for two aviators, desparately searching 
the Pacific in that general area, to see.  Were sunglasses and binoculalrs 
available.

In sum, the immediate report of a northwest directional bearing signal must 
have been received aboard. It could not have been invented by KAMAKAIVVI.
Perhaps that is what "convinced" Capt Thompson to sail north-west was the 
pretty hard contemparaneous  information conveyed to him while on the bridge.

I would think that KAMAKAIVVI is a independent, reliable source.

With a wig wag farwell,

Ron Bright
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I wouldn't get too excited about this report. Mr. Kamakaiwi was one of the 
"Hawaiian boys" employed as colonists by the Interior Department.  He is not 
mentioned as part of the Itasca's compliment of crew or passengers so he was 
apparently already in residence on Howland.  There is no reason to think that 
he was a trained journalist but rather that he had a deal with "Unipress 
Hawaiian Press" to send a story collect.  In the Cruise Report filed by 
Richard Black for the Interior Department the incident is recorded this way:

"After eight o'clock uneasiness was felt by the shore party, but all stood 
by searching the sky in all directions untill shortly after the 8:55 AM 
transmission from the plane as recorded in transcript above (Note: Thompson's 
transcript is reproduced in Black's report. There is no 8:55 - or 7:55 - 
message in the transcript), when a blinker message was received from the ship 
stating that the plane was probably down at sea and recalling all hands to 
the ship as quickly as possible. The parties were summoned from their 
stations and all ran top speed for the beach while ferrying to the ship 
started at once.  The following men were left ashore with strict orders to 
keep constant daylight watch for wreckage  and gasoline fed watch fire 
burning at night and constant night watch for flares: James Kamakaiwi, Yau 
Fai Lum (Radio K6GNW), Ah Kin Leong (Radio K60DC), Albert Akanah Jr.,  
William Tavares, Joseph Anakalea, Carl Kahalewai, Jacob Baili, Henry Lau 
(Radio K6GAS, paying guest for expedition), and USCG Radioman Cipriani, to 
operate the direction finder equipment."

This is the only place Kamakaiwi's name appears in Black's report.

So the communication from ship to shore party was not by "wig wag" (semiphore 
flags) but by blinker light (what the British call an Aldis Lamp).  Kamakaiwi 
is not one of the three stay-behinds who have a HAM license and it seems 
unlikely that he could read the morse message of the blinker light himself, 
so his information as to its content is probably second hand.  Nobody else 
who was present and later wrote a report said anything about a DF bearing 
(except to say that they couldn't get one).  In short, Kamakaiwi is probably 
a reliable witness as to those events that he witnessed first hand.  I don't 
see any important new information here except perhaps some corroboration that 
everyone was very flustered and there was a good deal of confusion about what 
was happening.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:42:01 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 10 miles or 100?

<< then why didn't he get to the island?   >>

Randy,

$64,000 question or does that date me?<G> I don't know, Randy.  Having
actually spent time island hunting in similar circumstances I know you can be
very close and not see one or differentiate an island from a cloud shadow. My
personal experience has shown me that.

At the same time, as you point out, we don't know for a fact exactly what
capability Noonan had or exactly what weather conditions he encountered. Just
the plotting error of Howland could have been enough to do the trick and if
his own CEA was in addition to that we could have an error too large to
handle.

I think the bottom line here is the same as for the fuel exercise. If we go
with all the positive aspects, discounting all the possible variables we'll
arrive at an ideal, albeit general answer. THEN we can expand the
possibilities using the known or suspected variables to see what the outside
parameters of our issue are. For example assuming an ideal situation wherein
Noonan had skies clear enough to shoot stars, sun, moon and planets, good
working equipment, and drift capability then he should have been on course
and over where he thought Howland was.

Other than the fact that they did not land at Howland we have no evidence
those conditions were not met. That leaves us with the speculation that one
or more of those conditions was absent or they flat could not visually see
the island or there was an aircraft problem or...........whatever. Again I
know of NO evidence to support any one of those ideas. NONE. It is almost
pure speculation. Then we can play what if and start cranking in errors to
see how messed up we can make things and THEN see what could have happened.
If we lose Fred considerably in any direction what could he do from there? If
he is 120 nm north where could he have gone? If they were south 120 nm where
could he go? Could he have turned back to the Gilberts reasonably? Weighing
all the data I would have opted for the closest land even if I had to swim
for it. I would head for where I thought I had the best chance of finding dry
ground -- runway or not, populated or not. I would not have headed into
Japanese held territory for any reason other than not having ANY other choice.

Personally, I lean toward accurate navigation within reason, a misplotted
Howland, an inability to visually spot the island. At that point the phoenix
group is the closest viable alternate in my mind.

Each of us can only rest on our own experience. Reading this stuff doesn't
quite sell it. You and I know what an LOP is but most did not. They had never
plotted one. I'm a pilot but most are not. Not but a couple of us have looked
for islands in similar conditions so when I say they look the same as cloud
shadows most find that hard to accept.

I'm hoping we can actually put together Ric's flight to Howland idea so all
can experience what only one or two of us have. I wish everyone could take a
turn celestially navigating a leg to see what it is about. None of that would
faithfully reproduce what happened but I suppose we wouldn't want that.<G>

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:42:53 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan Nav Summary

This discussion of equipment coincides with an email I received yesterday
from an astronomer at the Naval Observatory suggesting if we had questions in
re old navigation equipment that we should contact the Adler Observatory in
Chicago as they had a most extensive collection and body of knowledge.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:48:19 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Confusing captions

Dennis,

    Originally I was not going to put any caption under the photos, but just
display them as they were.  They are hard to interpret because of the quality.
Some arrived with out caption or explanation at all, so I'm  not sure what I've
got.  I had hoped to state just what I saw in each and let the view do the
same.

    In the bow shot of the NC it does appear to be fairly intact.  But in the
rear shot, the stern is clearly broken off.  Go figure!  I don't understand it
and I can't explain it, so please don't ask me to try.  No matter what you do on
this forum, you are going to P.I.S.S. someone off.  Somebody is always going to
point out the smallest mistake.  I am not referring to you (Dennis) here. . .
just in general.

    My Grandma would say, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen".
It does get hot in here sometimes!  I know my posts are controversial.  I just
try hard not to offend anyone or make personal attacks.

Don J.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Among the adjectives which might describe your postings "controversial" and
"offensive" do not come to mind and I don't think anyone would accuse you of
making personal attacks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:50:34 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Trigonometry

Dennis asked:

>TRIGONOMETRY:  ......how tall [would] an object......have to be to be seen
>at sea from a distance of 20 miles and at 40 miles at sea level and at
>altitudes of 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 feet?  I know you have to figure in
>the curvature on the earth on this one, or else our geometry experts could
>weigh in on the problem.

Not only curvature, but refraction must be figured in.

Geometrically, the nautical mile distance to the sea horizon is about 1.06
times the square root of the altitude.  (1.07 times the root if at or above
10,000 MSL).  That accounts for curvature.  But because of refraction, the
prefactor is increased to about 1.14 or 1.15.

At Sea Level, to see an object 20 miles away the formula indicates that the
object must be at least 302 feet high.  To see an object 40 miles away it
must be 1209 feet high.

Flying at 1000 feet, a surface object 20 miles away might be visible since
the visible horizon is 36 miles away.  To be visible 40 miles away it would
need to be at least 100 feet high.

Flying at 5000 MSL the visible horizon is about 81 miles away; at 10,000 MSL
it is 115 miles away.  From those altitudes, objects at 20 and 40 miles
don't need to be elevated to be brought into view.

Mark
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:51:43 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Pelorus

Ric asked:

>Would a pelorus be of any practical use in celestial navigation?

--Good for giving an indication of True Heading, and sometimes as a star
finder.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:57:57 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Scientific method

>From Ric
>
>Sheesh, talk about a dead end.  The guy is probably deceased and his house
>has burned down.

If the house burned down, then how were there any paper artifacts left to
sell?

Let's use the scientific method here.
Hypotheses to test:
1)  House burned down, but there was time to remove important documents,
owner lived or died - doesn't matter to scenario.
2)  House burned down, important documents were in a safety deposit vault or
fireproof safe, owner lived or died - doesn't matter to scenario.
3)  House didn't burn down, but owner died of smoke inhalation, heart attack
or other causation from the fire and family is selling off estate.
4)  House didn't burn down, owner didn't die, but moved to retirement home
and is selling off valuables to help defray costs.
5)  Niece and nephew killed homeowner using the fire as cover and are selling
everything to get as much money as possible (just kidding)!
6) House didn't burn down, homeowner didn't die, but mudslides after fire
caused house to slide down and crumble.
7)  House didn't burn down, homeowner didn't die, but mudslides after fire
cause house to slide down BUT it ended up safely on another street with a new
address!
8)  Other possibilities?

Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
*************************************************************************
From Ric

8)  Other possibilities? - Maybe the letter was in the possesion of the
person he sent it to.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:01:41 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Sun coordinates

Here is some of the information for doing Sun height computations.  This is
from the 1937 nautical almanac.

July 2
Day 183
Friday
Greenwich Civil Time of Sidereal 0h:  5h 20m 39.93s
For 0h Greenwich Civil Time:
Sun's Apparent Right Ascension: 6h 42m 9.01s (a change of 248.21s from
previous day)
Sun's Apparent Declination:  +23 deg 5 min 34.8 sec  (a change of
-237.7 sec from previous day)
Semidiameter:  15 min 45.68 sec
Horizontal Parallax:  8.65 sec
Equation of Time (apparent - Mean):  -3m  41.62s  (a change of
   -11.66s from previous day)
Sidereal Time:  18h 38m 27.377s

July 3
Day 184
Saturday
Greenwich Civil Time of Sidereal 0h:  5h 16m 44.02s
For 0h Greenwich Civil Time:
Sun's Apparent Right Ascension:  6h 46m 16.98s  (a change of 247.97s   from
previous day)
Sun's Apparent Declination:  +23 deg 1 min 12.9 sec  (a change of   -261.9
sec from previous day)
Semidiameter:  15 min 45.66 sec
Horizontal Parallax:  8.65 sec
Equation of Time (Apparent - Mean):  -3m 53.04s  (a change of -11.42s   from
previous day)
Sidereal Time:  18h 42m 23.931s

Here is an example to show the determination of the Sun's coordinates at
1800 GCT:

First, the ratio for interpolation:  1800/2400 = 3/4 = .75
.75 of the amount that the declination changed is:
.75 times -261.9s = -196.4s
-196.4s equals about -(3m 16.4s)
That is the amount by which declination changed in 18 hours from the 0000
GCT amount.
(+23 deg  5 min  34.8 sec) - (3 min 16.4 sec) = (+23 deg 2 min 18.4 sec)
That is the declination of the Sun at 1800 GCT.  It is the latitude of the
Sun's subpoint.

For the Sun's longitudinal coordinate it is possible to calculate (as in the
Dreisonstok book) in time units, then convert to degrees, minutes, and
seconds.

First determine the Equation of Time at 1800 GCT:
.75 of the daily change is:
.75 times -11.42s = -8.57s
Add that to the July 2 Eqn. of Time:
-(3m 41.62s) + (-8.57s) = -(3m 50.19s)
That is the Equation of Time at 1800 GCT.

Applying that to 1800 GCT gives Greenwich Apparent Time:
1800 GCT - (3m 50.19s) =
(18h 00m 00s) - (3m 50.19s) =
(17h 59m 60s) - (3m 50.19s) =
(17h 56m 9.81s)

Subtracting exactly 12 hours from that gives the time equivalent of the
Sun's Greenwich Hour Angle:

(17h 56m 9.81s) - 12h =
(05h 56m 9.81s)

Converting that from time to arc gives:
75 deg + 14 deg + about 2 min =
89 deg 02 min
That is the GHA of the Sun at 1800 GCT.  It is the Sun's subpoint's
longitude west of Greenwich.

Direct tabulation of GHA at frequent intervals, as in Air Almanacs,
shortcuts this procedure, and was one of their most important conveniences.

Mark
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Now --- try that without a pocket calculator.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:08:56 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re Noonan Nav Summary

The point of the "azimuth post"

Let's see if a layman has understood some of this navigation stuff:  I'm
going for a quick flight from Lae to Howland Island...

I've been flying all night and I have a DR position that puts me somewhere
near Howland, on a line drawn from Lae to Howland - but I don't know exactly
where I am on the line because of variations on aircraft speed and track due
to winds aloft.  I know the distance I had to cover, and I know the speed I
should be flying and I have the direction drawn as a line on my chart (map),
so I know how long the flight should be.

I think the first thing I should be able to get a good fix on is the bottom
of the sun just clearing the horizon in the morning, and I can measure an
angle called the azimuth with my trusty Pioneer Bubble Octant (Model A5).
(Details of how this is done and what the azimuth is have been covered in
the forum).

During the night I picked a time that should put me somewhere short of
Howland.  Looking at my tables I saw that at that time, the sun's azimuth
(that angle again) would be 67 degrees.  I drew a line at right angles to
the 67 degrees and that line cut across the line that shows our track on the
chart.

I will wait until the bottom of the sun just clears the horizon and note the
exact time.

Now this "exact time" is very important as it tells me pretty much where
along the line on the chart my Line Of Position Falls.

Once I get the sight I can then move the LOP I drew on the chart to Howland
(along the line I drew that shows my direction) and see that there as X
miles separating the two lines.  That is how far I should be from Howland.
I will do a simple time and distance calculation and I will know I have X
minutes to fly to reach the line that I have moved ahead and now lies
through Howland.

So Far - So Good...

It is just light in the east, there are clouds on the Horizon.  I check the
time, yes, according to the tables it is time to "shoot the sun", but I
can't get the exact moment that the sun clears the horizon because the
clouds are in the way.

I can wait a while, because the sun will be at an azimuth of 67 degrees for
a little over 20 minutes and in that time the bottom of the sun's disk will
move to about 4deg above the horizon.  However in that 20 minutes, the line
on the map across my path will move something more than 300 miles whilst at
the same time my aeroplane will move around 30 miles.

Which kind of screws up my calculations.  Now I know by Ded Reckoning that I
am close to Howland, but I have no way of knowing if I am almost there, just
past it, or slightly North(ish) or South(ish) and if I do get another shot
at the sun, I can't get any more proper fixes on it for about an hour.

So we fly around for a while and look for the Island and a ship.  While this
is going on, I work out how much fuel we have left, and how long we can keep
flying.  Looking at where we should be on the chart, I measure a line from
there to the end of the distance we can fly on the fuel we have left and see
if any "easy to see" land falls within that distance.

Which is the point of my other post.  Until I ran the figures I thought the
sun was at 67deg azimuth to a given (stationary) position only when it
touched the horizon.  The calculations show that it was there for a long
time (until it reached a bit over 4deg declination. then it returned to
66deg azimuth and so on.

The moment clouds are on the horizon there is a major problem for FN, and
the reporter on Howland reported in his report that there were clouds "all
around the horizon".  If the reporter's report was accurate (I wonder how
many are) then Fred Noonan possibly didn't get that azimuth shot as the sun
just cleared the horizon.

Which kind of means falling back on our trusty Direction Finder......
And finding some land to bug out to fast as soon as our fuel gets down to
reserves....

RossD

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

Okay, that's pretty much what we've been saying except that i would think
that Noonan would have his "Plan B" worked out in advance and running
southeastward on the LOP is not so much an admission of defeat but a
sure-fire way to find land of some kind, and you still hope it will be
Howland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:13:48 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re Noonan Nav Summary

Try the position at the equator and International Date Line, and find out the
time that the azimuth to the sun is 67 degrees.  You make an assumption about
the place that biases your results.  Sorry about that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:18:41 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      reading wig wag

'Correspondant' on HOW :
"...THEN WORD WIGWAGGED FROM ITASCA ..."

The msg. did not say who read the wigwag, nor was it implied that the
'resident' aka correspondent, read it.   But at the time of the signal from
the Itasca, the landing party incl. the C.G. radio man was ashore.    RC
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:29:21 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Long/Nauticos search

Keep an eye out for any announcement of Nauticos having secured funding for
its planned search of Elgen Long's target area.  I did an interview today
with a reporter for the Washington Times rwho is working on an Earhart story
for their Sunday magazine section.  He was under the impression that Nauticos
was definitely going to be doing their search this spring.  He had talked to
Elgen but he had not yet talked directly to Nauticos.  Last I heard (about a
week ago), funding was still a pie in the NOVA sky and there is nothing now
on the Nauticos website on the subject.  It also seems odd that they'd make
their announcement via a Sunday supplement article rather than a hard news
press release.  The reporter also knew nothing about the Timmer search and
Timmer's claim of ownership of the Electra.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:04:09 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re Noonan Nav Summary

OOPS! sorry, I used the published Lat & Long of Howland - not the
equator/IDL. I thought that Fred Noonan would have been working on those for DR.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:05:49 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: reading wig wag

When we were kids (no - not quite 1937) we had flashing lights at railway
crossings that were commonly referred to as "wig wag signals".  The point
being, they flashed - they didn't move.

RossD

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

Apparently "wig wag" is a generic term.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:14:19 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re Noonan Nav Summary

<< I've been flying all night and I have a DR position that puts me somewhere 
 near Howland, on a line drawn from Lae to Howland - >>

Ross, that was a pretty fair understanding of all the gobbledy gook we have 
presented to you.

A couple of comments, however:

We are still slighting Noonan a bit if we think he flew all night and has 
only a DR position to work with. That may well be true but we have no 
concrete evidence he didn't have good solid fixes along the way. I sort of 
think if I had been flying from Lae to Howland and couldn't get ANY star 
shots because of weather that would have been the time to put down somewhere 
until I HAD good weather. That might have even meant turning back but better 
than blindly flying into oblivion.

Second point is the sun shot on sunrise. Right as the sun peeps over the 
horizon you can check the azimuth but timing it to get a position is not 
accurate enough to bother with. The Naval Observatory says that time could be 
off a couple of minutes and that's not good enough. Until the sun reaches 20° 
altitude the shot could be unreliable. I suspect because of the timing 
between sunrise and 8:44 local Noonan DID shoot the sun at a very low 
altitude. I say that with fair confidence because the sun WAS at very low 
altitude.

Having said that I think you're on the money as to basically what transpired. 
Noonan did his job, got the plane somewhere close (whatever that means) and 
for whatever reason could not see the island and went elsewhere.

In the past notes we have pretty much agreed they would not have gone back to 
the Gilberts.  I think the reason we have said that is that (1) the islands 
are widely scattered increasing the chance of missing them and (2) Noonan 
would have again been constrained by sun LOPs with little north/south 
information. But actually we need to consider that as he might of had as much 
info going back to the Gilberts as he did coming into Howland in the way of 
other planetary bodies from which to obtain a fix. Soon he would lose the 
moon, however, and I have not checked to see how long a planet hung around 
but a bright sunny day would have made planets less than easy. 

Another reason not to head for the Gilberts might have been the distance 
being greater than down to the Phoenix group. That brings us back to the fuel 
question. I might have thought hard about finding a usable runway as a first 
choice alternate if I had the luxury of fuel and I would suppose their 
planned alternate or alternates would have included a runway someplace but 
any ground is better than none.

Alan
#2329
***************************************************************************
From Ric

In 1937 runways were in rather short supply around the Pacific.  There was 
Lae and there was Howland.  That's it.  Nothing in the Solomons, nothing at 
Nauru, nothing in the Gilberts, nothin' nowhere.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:33:04 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Capt Thompson and the Wig Wag/Revisited

Ric and Bob Sherman,

Maybe the guy on the bridge wagged instead of wigged (northwest  vice
southwest!)

The report by KAMAKAIWI certainly implies he was reading the signal flags or
blinker system from the Itasca bridge; he was the resident colonist and maybe
he knew morse code etc ,but I agree its doubtful.
But someone repeat someone conveyed to him their interpretation of the
signals that AE was northwest and down. I believe he sent the report on 2 Jul
so in a short period of time he must have talked with someone either on the
Island by the radio or from the Itasca about AE's situation. He used words
such as "overshot" and "direction finder". Maybe he was just reporting a
rumor. And I suppose he's dead too.Too bad he didn't identify his source  or
indicated he personally deciphered the messages.
If he was an original source that would be dynamite.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

He's a primary source but that doesn't automatically make his information
true.  It just makes it better than a secondary source.  When primary sources
disagree (as often happens) we have to make judgement calls about which
primary sources are more credible.  Generally speaking, an official report is
more credible than a journalist's story (ever been the subject of a newspaper
story?).  In this case, not only the official reports, but official documents
that are more contemporaneous than his (the radio log), all contradict
Kamakaiwi's allegation about a DF bearing.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:34:25 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      smoke screens

Speaking of smoke screens, my parents knew the Captain of a Navy destroyer,
who upon learning that the City of Sausalito CA had denied his men shore
leave at their dock (and realizing that the wind was just right) laid down a
smoke screen from his ship and obscured the town for a while.  Serves 'em
right.

Don't know how far the "plume" was visible from.

Totally off topic, but fun to think about.

amck
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:35:22 EST
From:         Shirley
Subject:      Letter on ebay

The statement of the seller indicates he is in Houston,TX and that the letter
was found in an old box of small electrical parts.  He didn't want to throw
it away because of the possibility of "historical significance".

Shirley 2299
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:41:28 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

Dr. Townsley's letter suggests that he may have had a theory similar to that
of TIGHAR, 30 years ago.

"... a particular logical area NOT in the ex-japanese territory."

That would seem to place his particular area east of the international
dateline and it can't be terribly far from Howland island.  He's not
preparing to search in the deep ocean.  How about the Phoenix Islands?

The reference to:  "Going by 50' Ketch via Panama," suggests that the ketch
is somewhere to the east -- possibly in the gulf.  Bo McKneely's brother was
in Louisiana and appears to have had some interest in the Earhart mystery
and possibly in Townsley's project.  Maybe he had a 50' ketch.

It's a lot of ocean to cross but if you head just a little south of west
from Panama, you'll get to the Phoenix Islands.  There ain't much else in
between.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

We'd do well to remember that the Phoenix Islands Theory is the Navy's
original theory about where Earhart eneded up.  Mantz and Putnam agreed
wholeheartedly and were not at all satisfied that the Navy search had
eliminated that possibility.  For years they tried to put together a better
search of the Phoenix Group but without success.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:45:14 EST
From:         Mark Brassington
Subject:      Direction Finding

It is very easy to believe that the interpretation of
the direction finder by the operator could result in
an error of 180 degrees.

I am assuming (and we all know about assumptions) that
the Itasca was equipped with a null-void loop antenna
for DF.  This antenna would have been rotated to
produce the strongest RF signal.  The direction finder
would have shown two possible directions for the
target emitter, 180 degrees from each other.  At this
point the operator would have had to make an educated
guess based on knowledge of the emitter or the LOB
from another platform (two LOBs make a cut, three a
fix).

The Itasca's operator could have concluded
(mistakenly) that AE was NW, when in actuality she was
SE of Howland.  This is a very common mistake.

My credentials are:  Electronic Warfare Expert- U.S.
Military Intelligence

Hopefully I can afford membership soon...

LTM,

Mark Allen Brassington
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Mark.  I agree that IF a tentative bearing had been taken it would
have been difficult to resolve the 180 degree ambiguity.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:51:09 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Erroneous captions

Don Jordan said:  "Somebody is always going to point out the
smallest mistake."

    Don, the captions on your pictures contradict each other; that is
not a small mistake.
    Contradicting material probably ranks second to outright falsehoods
on a list of ways to ruin a researcher's credibility.  The situation is
compounded when the contradictory material is separated by just a sentence
or two, as was yours.
    Credibility is like fine china, Don, once it is damaged it is hard
to repair.
    And, yes, we do point out the smallest mistakes, because history has
proven that small mistakes grow into large ones that beget myth, conspiracy,
lies, innuendo, and sea monsters and war stories.  The purpose of the
Earhart forum is to sift through this collection of debris and find
verifiable facts, and use those facts to solve the mystery. Our greatest
asset is our credibility.
    Every contributor to the forum has been dinged once or twice for
small mistakes.  Our penance was to review our data and make the necessary
corrections, followed by an Act of Contrition and being forced to learn
celestial navigation.
    Don, for future postings do two things first, verify and proofread.
    OK, everyone back to your milk and cookies, now.

LTM, who feels pretty today
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:52:20 EST
From:         Paul Chattey
Subject:      Re: reading wig wag

And I wonder if "wig wag" referred to signal flags which you wiggled and
waggled into various combinations to spell out "...also sending this message
by Aldis lamp".

LTM, who used to be a scout
Paul
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:54:49 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

It would sure be worthwhile trying to track this guy down -- or his
descendants, or whatever of his possessions didn't burn up.  His period of
interest appears to overlap with the time that the late Floyd Kilts was
preparing his manuscript about Earhart on Niku, based on what he'd been told
by an island resident or residents.  It's just possible there was some
contact, and that Kilts passed something (like a manuscript, or even a map)
on to Townsley.  Long, long shot, but stranger things have happened.

Tom King
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Refresh my memory - when did Kilts die?  He gave his interview to the San
Diego paper in 1960 and Townsley's letter is dated 1971.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:57:28 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Fire extinguisher

I sent the photo of "our" extinguisher to Pyrene and asked for their
comments, but haven't gotten anything back.  Since we now know that the photo
we thought might show such an extinguisher doesn't, and since the spec's that
Pyrene sent me for the types of extinguishers listed in the Luke Field
inventory don't closely resemble what we have, I haven't put any more effort
into the Pyrene angle.  We've got some reported recollections of
extinguishers similar to "ours" from the Loran Station, which obviously makes
sense.

On another subject, I just got an e-mail from N&Z, Inc., successors to
Negretti and Zambra, who say that our brass housing could have been a
chronometer, barometer, or pressure gauge, and is more likely to be nautical
than aeronautical.

LTM
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:00:14 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Re: Erroneous captions

Dennis, you are a prize.  You remind me of a professor I had in college who
had a 'law' for everything.  The one that comes to mind over erroneous
captions is Johnson's Law of Probable Disbursement-That which hits the fan
will not be evenly distributed.

LTM (from her favorite GRITS)
MStill 2332
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:32:43 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Erroneous Captions

Dennis wrote,
"     Every contributor to the forum has been dinged once or twice for
small mistakes.  Our penance was to review our data and make the necessary
corrections, followed by an Act of Contrition and being forced to learn
celestial navigation".

    The mistakes were noted and corrected within minutes.  "Ship" should
have been "Bow" and "37" should have been "38".

    If you "Reload" the page you will  get a current copy.  There will
be additional photos up in the near future.  One shows the NC from a
position of about 100 yards off the Port Bow.  Not too far from where
the "Dot and Dash" are located.  It appears this wreck was photographed
from every possible angle.

    If you don't like the captions, then just look at the photographs. .
. and think about them for a while!

    It is my understanding that this forum is a tool for testing the
theory of a Niku landing.  The only way you can test something is to use
it or question it.  In the discussion, new material may come out to
prove the theory or discredit it.  That's the chance you take.

    Soon, I will be asking some pointed questions about the "Bones".

    Thanks again to the forum (both of you) for pointing out my
mistakes.  I will be more careful.

Don J.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Go ahead and ask your pointed questions, but be advised that I won't repeat
this fiasco and I won't waste my time and the forum's time with questions
that are based upon incorrect information or have already been answered on
the website and forum.

This forum is, as you say, a research tool.  It is not a class in remedial
reading.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:34:00 EST
From:         Albert Ackers
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

Tom,

While searching for more information on the Oakland Hills Fire, I came
across a support group that is focused on rebuilding the area but they may
have some information/direction to help locate people who were displaced by
the fire.  I moved away from the area, so I'm not much help.  Here's the
URL:

http://www.nhphoenix.org/index.html

Regards,
Albert Ackers
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:01:18 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Scientific method

Well, whatever hypothesis we want to pursue, they guy probably has surviving
relatives, and just as we found Kilts' daughter, we ought to be able to
locate Townsley's descendants if not the man himself, via real estate
records, death records, etc.  Certainly worth doing; anybody who may have
come up with an idea, maybe the same as ours/Putnam's, about what happened to
Earhart 30 years ago might have had access to data that we could use if we
could get it.

LTM
TKing
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:04:42 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

Kilts died in '64; I'd recalled it as later.  But in my conversation with his
daughter I got the impression he'd been pretty vigorous up to the end.  She
said that at the time he died he was taking a writing class from Scott
O'Dell, author of "Island of the Blue Dolfin," and had done a manuscript on
his thoughts re. Earhart and Niku.  His daughter, Dorothy Josselyn, didn't
know what had happened to the ms.  Barb Norris has tried to track down any
leftovers of O'Dell's classes, to no avail.  Hmm, I wonder if Townsley's name
might ring any bells with Mrs. Josselyn.  I'll drop her a note and ask.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:10:41 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

Thanks, Albert.  Before I start trying to push on this from the wrong side of
the continent, or recruit my Berkeley-dwelling son to do so, is there anybody
in the Bay Area who wants to take the lead on this?  And has anybody bought
the letter?  Seems like it would be worth doing just for contact with the
seller.

LTM
TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:15:05 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Fire extinguisher, NOT

Mike Meunich wrote:

<<Anything new on the fire extinguisher?  Have inquiries been made to NFPA?>>

Looking at the Luke field inventory there is an item #78 "High pressure hand
pump, Ser. 799".

My guess is that the item that we have been talking about as a fire
extinguisher is in fact a hand pump based upon the single outlet, and the
small hole at the top that would be there to let air escape while pulling the
plunger back.  Is there a serial # on it anywhere?

Maybe we should be chasing down 1930s hand pumps, not fire extinguishers.
Anybody got a 1937 Sears catalog handy?  What's left of mine in in the
outhouse.

LTM( who hates to pump by hand)
Andrew McKenna 1045c
**************************************************************************
From Ric

No serial number, and no provision for any kind of fitting at the nozzle end.
 Just a hole.  A hanp pump aboard the airplane would be useful for - what? -
tires?   The struts required nitrogen.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:18:32 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie, etc.
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

(Note from Ric:  I posted and commented on these in the order received.
Don't nobody go doin' anything until you've read the entire batch.)

From Chris Kennedy

It also might be worth buying the letter as primary evidentiary support in case
it proves to be the key to big things later----as I recall, when I last looked it
was fetching somewhat less than one of Princess Di's dresses.

--Chris Kennedy
***************************************************************************
From Ric

If someone sees it as an opportunity to own a historic document I can promise
that they won't be bidding against TIGHAR.  Over the years I've heard of
numerous planned expeditions to the Phoenix Islands to search for Amelia
Earhart.  There was a guy (probably still is) named Harlan MacDonald "Don"
Wade who had a regular speaking tour about his theory that Earhart had ended
up in the Phoenix (specifically Hull Island as I recall) and was perennially
about to launch an expedition.  In fact, one of the guys who first brought
the Phoenix Island theory to TIGHAR (Tom Willi) got his indoctrination in
Ameliana from Wade.  My point is that Earhart expeditions that never happen
are a dime a dozen.  Maybe some piece of correspondence relating to one of
them holds the key to a great undiscovered primary source - but I sort of
doubt it.

Still, there's no harm in seeing what we can find out about the good Doctor
Townsley.  You never know.
LTM,
Ric
***************************************************************************
From Dennis McGee

What a unique piece of memorabilia.  Do we know what type of radio
an ARC-12 is?  Have we had any luck tracking down the people mentioned in
the letter?
    I found it interesting that he had used AE's aircraft number N16020,
so I just ran a query on it and apparently it is either not being used at
this time or was removed from the FAA registry.
    Ric, would it be possible for you to recap what we know about this
document for all of those who may not have been following the postings too
closely?

LTM, who is often too curious
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't know what an ARC-21 (not 12) is but I think that ARC stands for
Aircraft Radio Corporation, a manufacturer of low-end general aviation radios
based in Boonton, NJ in the 1960s and 70s.

The reference to AE's N number is interesting.  Earhart's registration
number, of course, was not N16020.  In Earhart's day, U.S. aircraft in the
normal category had registration numbers beginning with "NC."  Earhart's was
at first registered X16020 (experimental), then became R16020 (restricted),
and finally was granted NR16020 (restricted but approved for international
flight).  It wasn't until well after WWII that registration numbers beginning
with just "N" came into use.

When Earhart's aircraft was written off the records the 16020 number went
back into circulation.  In June 1957 Paul Mantz requested and was granted the
number for his Lockheed 12A "baby Electra" serial number 1243 (previously
registered as N60775).  He subsequently sold N16020 and in 1961 it crashed in
the Tiefort Mountains near Bicycle Dry Lake, California, killing both pilots.

The letter on ebay is addressed to Mr. Travis Smith III, Port of Houston,
Houston, Texas.  It is signed Robert W. Townsley PhD, W6RCR.

The interesting part of the letter reads,

"While I am still quite interested in boats and boating, about 20 years ago i
sold my cabin cruiser and finally took up flying, an early love, and have had
several planes, the last being N-16020 (Amelia Earhart's number I acquired).
For going onto 5 yeaers I have been actively researching her last flight,
making a scientific and technical nalysis to determine just what might have
happened and where, and i feel I have convincing proof now, and am trying to
arrange funds for a search to a particular logical area NOT in ex-Japanese
territory (these other stories are false - - I have met the American womand
who WAS on Saipan, and could give other details.  We would be going by 50'
Ketch via Panama, need 1-3 more to complete the crew, and up to $15,000 for
equipment and supplies including a very large contingency reserve estimated
by my author-partner, who has 5 books and 6 ocean voyages to his credit."

It's possible that N16020 was reassigned after the crash of the Model 12A.
That should be possible to check via FAA records.  Townsley's claim that he
has met the American woman who was on Saipan is especially interesting.  It
does not, however, sound like he has any new evidence but rather is basing
his "proof" on his own calculations and opinions.  I wonder who his
"author-partner" was.

LTM,
Ric
**************************************************************************

From Albert Ackers

Tom,

I would volunteer to take it, but I moved out of the state.  I checked the
auction, the bidding ends today.  There are seven bidders, only 2 use email
addresses.  Bidding is at $31.

The seller is: "twfer" and can be reached at: eddie@installer.com

Regards,
Albert Ackers
**************************************************************************
From JHam 2128:

I went to Townsley's home today. Difficult to get to, even the computer map
was incorrect. Doesn't look like it was burned in the Oakland fire. No one
home. I left a note and business card in the mailbox. We'll see what happens.

blue skies, -jerry
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Ain't no grass growin' under our Jerry's feet.
**************************************************************************
From Alan Caldwell

<< It would sure be worthwhile trying to track this guy down -- >>

I have the time. I sort of glossed over that thread and then lost it in an
inadvertant computer glitch (read operator error). Update me and I'll start
trying to track him down. Should take a day or so before I exhaust my easy
search possibilities. I DO have access to a professional seach engine for
attorneys, doctors, and other important people or if you have $25.<G>

Alan
**************************************************************************
From Cam Warren

Att: Tom King -

According to Capt. Safford (FLIGHT INTO YESTERDAY, Ch. 13)
"The Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
issued a   Certificate of Aircraft Registration to Robert W. Townsley of
Oakland,   California for another N16020.  The date of issue was alleged
to be April 13, 1954 (when Lockheed N16020 was still in the possession
of Paul  Mantz), and the Manufacturer's Type and Serial No. were listed
as Forney  "G" 3937." (You could check this out).  Joe Klaas, in A.E.
LIVES,  said Townsley ". . . obtained from
[Amelia's] sister Muriel Morrissey a bed jacket that had belonged to
Amelia Earhart. Jacqueline Cochran helped him get the bed jacket, which
Townsley then submitted to various seers and mediums at ESP sessions and
seances in an effort to make the dead reveal in person what had happened
to them."  Townsley did believe Earhart had splashed down somewhere between
Howland and Canton Islands, and tried to organize an expedition to check it
out.

Townsley, who appeared on the scene about the time Goerner's book came
out, apparently did some research on his own, but mainly rode on other's
coattails, including Goerner's , who Townsley claimed as his "partner". He seemed
to become increasingly eccentric in later years;  his claim to be associated with
Stanford Research Institute didn't check out, nor did his Ph.D..  Goerner summed
it up in a letter to Townsley in 1970. "You have repeatedly misrepresented
yourself to me and to others."  'Nuff said.

Cam Warren

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

Thank you Cam.  Mystery solved.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:25:00 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re Noonan Nav Summary

Thanks, Alan,

<We are still slighting Noonan a bit if we think he flew all night and has
only a DR position to work with>

You might have gathered from my comments that I sail, and fly, and I do a
lot of visual navigation, but not celestial nav.  If I'd been SAILING all
night AND getting fixes, I'd still be on a DR in the morning.  Likewise if I
was flying.  Until I could get either a sighting of land, or two or 3 fixes,
my last position in the morning has to be DR.

That's pretty much what the flying all night comment meant.  I'm trying to
show what happened during the night (even the best case scenario) in really
simple terms for people who don't fly and don't navigate and who have been
following this thread.

I mentioned in a very early post the 20deg necessity for a sun shot, and
that has been flogged around.  What did come out of some of my posts was
some great replies from people who know a lot more about celestial nav than
I do.  Same with some of my radio posts.

Navigation is a very serious interest of mine, and I suspect a few people on
the forum have found out more about the problems facing Fred Noonan.  The
things I bring up a lot, (like the uncertainty of the weather) are because I
live, sail and fly (sometimes) in the tropics.  There is very little chance
that on a 2000mile plus flight, Fred and Amelia were not amongst cloud for
some of the trip.  The cloud heights I gave in the posting a couple of days
ago are from our local weather report and the Base of the cloud is what is
reported.  AE reported being at 8000ft over cumulous.  That's puts the base
pretty low for the equator.  And cumulous are never nice and smooth on top,
they reach pretty high.

I firmly believe that for Fred Noonan's navigation to get the aircraft into
the area of Howland over that distance with the tools on hand he did very
well.

I'd like to know about the so-called mis positioning of Howland of the
charts.  Is that a proven fact - or another anecdote?

RossD.

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

It's a proven fact that the position given for Howland on the charts prepared
by Clarence Williams for Earhart's first world flight attempt is slightly
off.  What is not known, but hotly debated, is whether Noonan had the updated
coordinates by the time they made the Lae/Howland flight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:26:44 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: New Zealand Survey photos

I have notified the Web master to make the necessary date changes.  Sorry for the
type-o.  And thanks Ric for pointing that out.

Don J.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Type-O?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:27:49 EST
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      fire extinguisher

Reviewed the post from A. McKenna.  As I noted in my previous posts, the item
looked like a pressure fire extinguisher.  A pressure pump is a possibility.
Could have been used to inflate tires, hand transfer or load fuel, provide
air under pressure for cleaning etc.  If so would probably be some sort of
"emergency" equipment carried.  Was anything similar carried on other long
flights by other pilots, commercial aircraft, recommened by CAB.  Did an;yone
publish a "standard" emergency equipment list to compare with Luke field
inventory?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:28:57 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re Noonan Nav Summary

To Ross Devitt:
The important point regarding the sunrise LOP and azimuth to the sun is
that there is a band going all away around the world that has that
particular azimuth at sunrise and for a good portion of an hour afterwards.
 Choosing any one particular location and stating that the LOP
determination must have occured between a certain amount of GMT time is
only correct for that location.  But other locations on the earth give
different bands of GMT time as well.  It's sorta like a 3-dimensional
puzzle...
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:30:26 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re Noonan Nav Summary

Alan: you state: "Second point is the sun shot on sunrise. Right as the sun
peeps over the horizon you can check the azimuth but timing it to get a 
position is not accurate enough to bother with. The Naval Observatory says
that time could be off a couple of minutes and that's not good enough."

 I hate to say it, but along with noon shots of the sun, this is the most
accurate method of getting an LOP, so long as you can see the true horizon.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:31:18 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Capt Thompson and the Wig Wag/Revisited

Kamakaiwi's report was filed at 1330 GMT on the 3rd, and had to have been
passed by radio via Howland amateur to the Itasca prior to that time.  I
suspect when the shore party left, they probably related that they were
going to search to the NW, and Kamakaiwi interpreted or assumed that to be
due to a D/F bearing.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:34:14 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Fire extinguisher, NOT

To be a hand pump, the thing would not only need a single outlet and a hole
to let the air out, but it would need an "inlet" for whatever it was
pumping.  I have a brass bilge pump for the yacht that does just that.

It is a cylinder with a "Tee" handle at the top, a small hole at the top and
a small smooth brass tube attached also at the top.  You drop the bottom end
into the water, pull the plunger up (air escapes through a small hole) then
push the plunger down, past the water trapped by a ruber flap on the bottom.
When you pull the plunger up again, the water on top of the plunger is
pushed out in a stream a few feet long, whilst the next load of water is
being sucked up.

However, it has a hole in the bottom to let water in.  If your artifact
doesn't have an inlet hole it is not likely to be a fluid pump.  It might
however be an air pump.  One inlet hole to let air in, one outlet with some
sort of attachment to let air out...  Certainly not high pressure if there
is no secure attachment point for a hose though...

RossD

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

Hmmmm.  Actually, there is a hole in the bottom.  I wonder if it might be
pump to bail out boats with, as Ross suggests?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:35:58 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re Noonan Nav Summary

<< In 1937 runways were in rather short supply around the Pacific.  There was
 Lae and there was Howland.  That's it.  Nothing in the Solomons, nothing at
 Nauru, nothing in the Gilberts, nothin' nowhere. >>

Wouldn't you have loved listening to them discuss their alternate?<G>

Alan
#2329
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Uh huh.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:47:16 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: reading wig wag

> Apparently "wig wag" is a generic term.

I've seen something that did move in rather old movies.  Looked like a pair
of metal flags that (as I recall) moved up and down.

I'd assumed the expression "wig wag" was a hold over, like the "dial" on a
telephone.

    - Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:29:28 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Noonan Nav Summary

>The Naval Observatory says that time could be off a couple of minutes

Maybe the Naval Observatory was referring to the times given in the
Almanac's Sunrise tables.  They are good for getting a rough prediction of
sunrise, not for establishing a line of position.  Predicting the time of
sunrise for the purpose of an LOP would require  working from the same Sun
coordinate information--GHA and declination--used in sight reduction.

Mark
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:36:10 EST
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

Ric wrote:

"He subsequently sold N16020 and in 1961 it crashed in the Tiefort Mountains near
Bicycle Dry Lake, California, killing both pilots."

Hey Ric, I chase airplane wrecks.  Any chance you might send me the date of the
crash?  I'd love to order the crash report and search for this "baby electra."

Roger Kelley, #2112
*************************************************************************
From Ric

That information came from an article written for Lockheed Horizons magazine
in 1980something by Roy Blay (since retired).  All he mentioned was the year.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:02:52 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Itasca DF bearing

Ric sez....

>Interesting point on the DF.  It may be that Itasca was able to get some
>rough bearing that was too shaky to include in later reports. If so, there
>may well have been a 180 degree ambiguity problem.  Comments from the DF
>Delegation?

And he sez....

>The reference to a Northwest DF bearing did not come from the high-frequency
>direction finder on Howland because we have the log of all of the
>communications from ship to shore and there is no mention of a bearing.  If a
>bearing was taken it had to come from the ship's own DF.

I can believe that the Itasca did try to get a bearing on the plane but did
not get anything very definite.  For one thing, Amelia was never on long
enough to get a positive bearing.  She kept asking them to take a bearing on
her.  One would think she would have understood it took a while to find a
null and zero in on it.

So, now we wonder exactly what DF equipment was on the Itaska.  Did they
have the 180 degree ambiguity problem?  Did they use a sense antenna to
resolve (eliminate) the ambiguity?  Would this actually work right at a much
higher frequency than the equipment was intended for?  Did the Itasca assume
the northwest bearing to be true because they already figured that was where
the plane was?

Why do all these questions sound so familiar?
**************************************************************************
From Ric

After a closer look at who Kamakaiwa was and the circumstances surrounding
his report it seems unlikely that his allegation that a DF bearing was taken
is accurate.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:08:12 EST
From:         Ty Sundstrom
Subject:      Re: Fire extinguisher, NOT

   Just a note about high pressure hand pumps, I have a vintage "high
pressure" hand operated strut pump!  When I was a youngster, I was charged
with pumping up the landing gear struts on the Vultee "Vibrator"
that lived on our flight line.  It was used long before nitrogen was
available as common practice at the "old airfield".   It looks much like a
tire pump but the diameter of the "center shaft" is quite large, say in the
neighborhood of 1 3/4 inches, where as a bicycle tire pump has a center
shaft of maybe 5/16 of an inch in most cases.  It works quite well if you
have patience as you don't displace a large volume with each stroke.
  Since it would be highly un-likely that nitrogen would be found anywhere
but the most modern of airfields, it is very probable they had a hand pump
with them.

Ty N. Sundstrom
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Sounds reasonable, but it also sounds like a high-pressure hand pump doesn't
look much like the thing we have.

Incidentally, there's a photo of AE and FN standing beside the cabin door of
the Electra in Darwin.  Piled on the ground is a bunch of stuff including the
parachutes, a spare tailwheel, a control wheel (of all things), and what
appears to be a pressure bottle of nitrogen.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:09:12 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re Noonan Nav Summary

Alan is right about the runways. But since they didn't have one I'm sure it
would have been interesting to listen in on their conversation on where to
put down the kite on dry land. I'm sure they would have been happy with any
stretch of perhaps 2,000 feet

LTM from Herman (who agrees there were too few runways available in 1937)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:13:00 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Fire extinguisher, NOT

Mine is used to pump the boat out, it has also been pressed into service for
a lot of other quick fluid transfer tasks.  It pumps out about a quart of
fluid every time the handle is pulled up, and I actually used it to keep
from sinking too deep when the yacht was holed.  (Being a timber boat I had
some flotation).  What amazed me was how much water this little tube shifted
whilst I was underway - weigh - whye - wey.....

Does the handle on this thing still move up and down?  Is there a way to see
inside it?

What interests me about this is that it isn't the sort of thing the
Islanders would have, but it might be equipment from a Norwich City life
boat (or an Aeroplane for transferring fuel or water easily, the way you use
a stripping pump).

Just as a matter of interest, is there something like a half inch outlet
tube on the thing anywhere?

RossD
***************************************************************************
From Ric

As I recall, (check me on this Tom), there are two holes.  One little one on
the top of the cylinder and one biggger one at the bottom of the cylinder.
Not sure of the measurements.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:13:58 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

Oh, well, I guess we should have forseen this....

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:15:37 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Hand pumps

My experience with small hand pumps is that you don't have to have more than
one inlet and one outlet if you are using a "sucker" washer - that is a cup
shaped leather (or newer pumps use neoprene) piece.  With the open end of the
cup in the direction of the movement of the plunger, the sides of the cup
compress against the sides of the cylinder to form a tight fit thus allowing
the liquid (or air) to be forced out.  On the other stroke, the sides of the
cup move away from the cylinder because of the pressure against them,
allowing the cylinder to fill with air/fluid, then on the next stroke, the
air/fluid is again pushed out by the washer.  You may remember the old
western song where they talk about the water in the jar by the pump and warn
not to drink it, but to use it to "prime" the pump.  Acutally the old leather
washer would dry out and not allow it to get a good seal, so the water
actually causes the leather to swell and form a good seal, which in turn
gives the pressure needed to move the water with the pump.

Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:24:12 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

Hey Roger. . . I do the same thing with wrecks in California.  Let's talk!  I
think I have the date and location on one of my locators.

    And for you Ric. . . There is so much information on the TIGHAR web site, that
I can not remember where I saw something from one minute to the next.  Where on
the site can I find what, if anything the Benedictine bottle was stopped with.
Also, wasn't there a cork found around the bones dig site?

    If you would like to just give me the reference, I'll go read it for myself.

Don J.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

There was no mention of a stopper found with the Benedictine bottle.
Gallagher apparently did find "corks with brass chains" thought to have
possibly come from "a small cask" at the same location where he found the
bones and artifacts.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:26:49 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      N16020

    I have located the date, and coordinates for N16020, but I can't put
it on the forum.  I can discuss it off forum only.

Don
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Anyone interested in this should contact Don directly.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:29:16 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      hand pump

Ok, here's a dumb question.  Can we get an Xray of that bad boy?  If
we can see inside of it without destroying it maybe we can figure out what
the innards were suppose to do.

LTM, who cherishes her Kodak moments
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I dunno if that would work or not, or what it would cost.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:41:47 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forum this weekend

I'll be away this weekend.  Pat will post postings tomorrow (Saturday) and
there'll be no Forum on Sunday.  Back to normal on Monday.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:30:56 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher

Isn't that an oxymoron?  Using "normal" to describe the forum?
In any event, have a good weekend!

Thinking about the "fire extinguisher" (?) for a moment - maybe the local
university, or your friendly neighborhood bomb squad, has a fiberoptic that
could be used to look inside the thing.  Always more than one way to skin a
cat...we just need to think of it!

ltm
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:31:41 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Noonan Nav Summary

This is a question for Alan...

I've been running all the figures I can through the nav computer for 5 hours
solid.  I need to confirm something.  Everything I have shows sunrise on the
equator in July 2 of any year to be 6am (local).

To get a sunrise at 17:30UTC if he was close to the equator, Noonan had to
be near 169W

To get a sunrise at 17:00UTC if he was close to the equator, Noonan had to
be near 160W

The earliest I can get a 67deg Azimuth for the sun near enough to Howland is
about 17:50, 20 minutes after sunrise and that seems to hold true for the
entire 50 years the computer covers.

If Noonan thought he was about 200 miles out at 17:30, that puts him near
179W or 180.

The earliest time I can get the sun at 67deg for that posn is 18:10UTC with
an altitude of 1deg25Mins.

Sounds wrong to me..

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:32:57 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Townsley

The nice people who now own the old Townsley home do not know what happened
to him or how to reach him. Maybe he found AE afterall.

blue skies, -jerry
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:34:55 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Alternates

>From Alan Caldwell
>
>> In 1937 runways were in rather short supply around the Pacific.  There was
>> Lae and there was Howland.  That's it.  Nothing in the Solomons, nothing at
>> Nauru, nothing in the Gilberts, nothin' nowhere.
>
> Wouldn't you have loved listening to them discuss their alternate?<G>

Carrington in his book asserts that AE and FN did consider the Phoenix
islands as their alternate for the original East to West leg from Hawaii to
Howland.  The impression he gives is that this information came from Paul
Mantz, who was still involved with planning during the first attemept.

The point is that they may have had the Phoenix islands in mind as an
alternate long before they even started the second attempt, and almost
certainly not some sort of last ditch, spur of the moment decision at the
time they couldn't find Howland.

Didn't we try to figure out what alternates were available for the First
attempt should they not be able to find Howland based upon expected range
etc.  I cannot remember what we decided, are the Phoneix Isles even a
possibility as an alternate for the East to West leg?  Any other
possibilities?

LTM ( who cannot remember everything.)
Andrew McKenna
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:35:41 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher--NOT

The hole on the end with the handle is a tad under 1/2 inch (ca. 7 mm) in
diameter; it's centrally placed, with the handle offset to the side, clear
out on the edge.  The hole on the other (business) end is aligned with the
handle, and is tiny -- maybe 2 mm but it's clogged with calcium carbonate
It's set in a raised button ca. 6 mm in diameter, which sits on a washer
about 1.5 cm across.

It's possible to see inside the larger hole, but I can't see anything with a
flashlight (torch).  If I had a tiny little light that I could drop in
through the hole, I imagine there'd be something to be seen (A little tiny
Amelia?).  The handle does still move up and down.  There's something inside
that doesn't exactly rattle but more like clunks back and forth; sounds like
it's maybe half the diameter of the barrel, down toward its business end and
doesn't move up and down the shaft, bumps back and forth with a sort of
hollow chiming sound when the thing is held upright and tipped.

It might be off the Norwich City, but I'd much more strongly suspect the
Loran Station, despite the Coast Guard's alternative fire extinguishing
instruments.

LTM (who also bumps back and forth when tipped)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:36:09 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Hand pumps

You wouldn't suck water in very fast through the tiny hole on the business
end of this item.

LTM (who's not going to touch this one)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:37:13 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Itasca DF (NW?) Wigwagged to Kamakaiwi (?)

Author Elgen Long interviewed Kamakaiwi's sister for his book,although his
index does not cross reference him or his information. But maybe K. furnished
additonal reports to the Honolulu press or to the Itaska  or was later
interviewed.

Has Tighar run across any additonal documents from K. or whoever told him
about a northwest direction and crash .Personally,as a former Special Agent
with U.S. Naval Intelligence,and probably like you ,I don't put absolute
trust in ship's logs-no matter who authenticated them.

I'm flying to Maui next week and I hope they have improved navigation
techniques since Noonan's days.

Respectfully,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:37:58 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan Nav Summary

>Maybe the Naval Observatory was referring to the times given in the
>Almanac's Sunrise tables.

No, what they said was that the OBSERVED time of sunrise could be off because
of unpredictable refraction and atmospheric conditions. I'm tracking down all
the cites I have for that and will post them to you. That does not mean it
can't be done or would always be unusable as you well know what is said to be
wrong is routinely done by folks experienced enough to do so. I would not
hesitate to use a low sun shot as long as I could sense it's reliability from
other info or subsequent shots.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:40:10 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: Itasca DF bearing

If the Itasca got a bearing on A.E. on LF, she would have needed to
xmit. on LF.   [i.e. her 500kc, if still functional,  would have to have
had sufficient radiation from dorsal ant. [used for HF].

If they got an HF bearing [3105 or 6210] the Itasca would have needed
 HF DF capability, which they said they did not.    Believe the Itaska
did get some info from someone else about A.E. being N.W.  that may
have 'transposed' by the time it got to the HOW resident.      RC
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:53:53 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Bottles and corks

For Don Jordan

Ric said:
>There was no mention of a stopper found with the Benedictine bottle.
>Gallagher apparently did find "corks with brass chains" thought to have
>possibly come from "a small cask" at the same location where he found the
>bones and artifacts.

The corks with chains arrived in Fiji in the sextant box.  Presumably they
were found somewhere near where the bones, Benedictine bottle, and sextant
box were found.  I'm not sure that we know exactly where the bottle was
found.  It was in the possesion of the the Native Magistrate of Niku and
"alleged to have been found near the skull" -- wherever that was, exactly.
It had been found earlier and buried by the natives.

I've searched for a possible connection between the Benedictine bottle and
the "corks with small brass chains" with no luck to date.  Several months ago
I wrote to Benedictine SA, 110 rue le Grand, F-76400 Fecamp, France.  No
response.

I've not been able to find anyone in the liqueur business who has been
around long enough to have any idea what Benedictine bottles may have been
like in the 1930's.

I've contacted a few people who are into bottle collecting, dealers, etc.
Some feel there is a distinct possibility that Benedictine bottles may have
been made with a cork secured to the bottle with a small chain - for
whatever that might be worth.  Pure guess work.

There are lots of books and catalogs on old bottles and bottle collecting.
None that I've seen deal with anything other than american made bottles and
all much older than the 1930's.  Not much interest in bottles as recent as
the 1900's.

I've looked for advertising in a few vintage magazines but found no evidence
of Benedictine ads.  Maybe they didn't advertise that way.  Maybe I've not
looked at the right magazines.  There must be some way to find out what
Benedictine bottles were like in the 1930's but I've not found it to date.

Incidently, I also asked the Thermos bottle people whether they might have
produced a bottle with a small neck and a stopper secured with a small chain.
Some of the early bottles had pretty small necks and a small cap such as we
see on one of the bottles in that photo of the plane being loaded.  I'd sent
the photo to them.  They just plain don't know whether stoppers were ever
attached by a chain.

I don't know that it would prove anything one way or another, but it would
be interesting to establish that those corks probably did go with
Benedictine bottles.

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

From Pat

Vern, it was my understanding, when we looked into it, that the hard-topped
cork now used to seal a Benedictine bottle has been used for quite a long
time---perhaps 100 years? Now all I have to do is find out how we got that
info. Certainly a regular cork (like a wine bottle's) would not be used as it
is the nature of liqueurs to be drunk a very small amount at a time, so it's
needful to be able to close it securely.

The bottle has never been changed, nor has the liqueur, so far as we have
been able to determine. The shape of the bottle is probably what would clue
up an observer that it held Benedictine. I *do* recall carafes and decanters
with chained stoppers, and I think chained stoppers/corks may have been
fairly standard for some liquor applications. Perhaps this is what your
collectors are remembering?

Thermos bottles... I have used (in my childhood) thermoses with the usual
screw-on cup, underneath which was the screw-in stopper, attached to the neck
of the bottle with a short length of steel (anyway, white metal) flat-link
chain, so that one (say, a small child) could not lose the stopper. I
distinctly recall the chain getting so tangled that the stopper could not be
re-screwed.... very frustrating to a seven year old <G>.

LTM
Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:54:35 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Pump vs Fire extinguisher

Bilge pump? fuel transfer pump? fire extinguisher?  It should not be
difficult to resolve that.  For a start...

1. Is the handle off-center as it appears to be in the photo?

2. How small is that "small hole" in the top (handle end)?

3. How large is the hole in the other end?  Is it on center? Is there any
indication of how some sort of fitting might have been attached?  Is there
any indication that it may have been a threaded hole for something to screw
into?

4. Finally, is there any indication that it can be taken apart anywhere?

The large diameter suggests that it can not be a high-pressure pump such as
would be required to pump up a tire.  You'd never be able to push a piston
of that diameter against much pressure.  If the handle is off-center
suggesting a small diameter pump inside a larger housing, that's another
matter.

Struts require nitrogen?  In a pinch, I'm sure air would do.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:23:16 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: alternates
From Ric

Andrew McKenna asks:

<<...are the Phoenix Isles even a possibility as an alternate for the East to
West leg?  Any other possibilities?>>

In its Earhart collection, Purdue has a regular old Nat'l Geographic map of
the Pacific that has some pencil marks on it that indicate that Canton and
Enderbury (the two islands of the Phoenix Group then being claimed by the
U.S.) may have been considered as alternates for the first world flight
attempt.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:35:32 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Alternates

<< The point is that they may have had the Phoenix islands in mind >>

You know, Andrew, this alternate question is really a curious one, but, of
course, I'm applying my more modern logic to a 1937 event. I've tried to
picture myself making that flight and how I would have planned it -
particularly the bail out issue at Howland. I think I have just about come to
the conclusion that Howland was either all or nothing or they had so doggone
much confidence that an alternate was less of an issue than I would have made
it.

To be specific there WAS no alternate, at least if you think of an alternate
as some other place to land. There wasn't any other runways. Somehow I have
trouble believing they knew the geographic details of all the Phoenix and
Gilbert islands to know which had nice beaches to land on. Perhaps the Navy
or Coast Guard had that knowledge and passed it on but I have never heard
such being discussed. At the same time I have trouble believing they planned
on diverting to a little island with no knowledge whatsoever of what they
would find when they got there. It would almost seem they were aware of
Niku's possibility. With no runways I suppose beaches come next and ditching
close in as a final choice.

Alan
#2329
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Alan makes a good point.  Niku, or other islands, were probably not seen so
much as alternates as a way to save your neck if the worst happened.  Long
distance record-setting aviators of those times were accustomed to
all-or-nothing flights.  What was Lindbergh's alternate once he passed the
point of no return?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:36:42 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan Nav Summary

It IS wrong, Ross. Go to the Naval Observatory and use their data and you'll
find accurate information. I have used several nav programs and found serious
bugs in some of them. If you are familiar with the computer term GIGO you
will understand. It applies not only to data input but also to the original
code. GIGO is "Garbage in, Garbage out."

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:52:30 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher--NOT

Having worked in Tennessee's largest family practice residency program, I can
tell you the ideal thing for this object would be an endoscopic examination.
(Don't laugh.)  If you are on excellant terms with your primary care provider
or your internist you might be able to talk them into doing it for you.  If
you are not familiar with this procedure, it involves inserting a tiny tube
with an even tinier camera at the end of the tube.  It is perfect for
diagnostic procedures, be it human or fire extinguisher.

LTM,
MStill 2332
**************************************************************************
From Ric

...and don't forget the KY Jelly.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:53:22 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Townsley

<< Maybe he found AE afterall. >>

And maybe Elvis, too.  Glad you could check this out, anyhow, Jerry.

LTM (who's not feeling any vibes)
Tom KIng
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:14:53 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Kamakaiwi and the DF/NW connection

Ric and Alan Caldwell
Maybe Kamakaiwi got his information re AE down and to the NW from Frank
Cipriani,who wa at the government house trying to get a bearing on the high
frequency. All official logs say that transmission weren't long enough or the
radio malfunctioned so that a bearing wasn't made. For the radio experts are
there some in-between weaker signals received suggesting a bearing but not
considered sufficent for search efforts?
Are any forum members in Honolulu that could check the library for
Kamakaiwi's news releases from Howland from July 3-l0 l937. They may contain
more specific information and/or clarification of his first 3 Jul 37 message
re AE down and to the northwest. Newspaper records are usually pretty easy to
research at a main library.

Also to Alan Caldwell re Phoenix question. Why did George Putnam believe AE
may have gone down in the Phoenix Islands to the extent he demanded the Navy
search the Island? Did he have better information re her location? The
authors I've read don't address Putnams belief???

Respectfully,
Ron Bright
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I think we're making waaaay too much of this Kamakaiwi thing.  He says he got
information from the "wig wag" signal from Itasca.  Not from Cipriani.  The
most logical and simplest explanation for the discrepancy between Kamakaiwi
and all of the other primary sources is that he was wrong.  He knew they were
trying to take bearings.  He knew that the captain had decided Earhart was
down to the NW.  He probably couldn't or didn't read the blinker signal
himself.  Everything was tense and confused (not to say panicky) and he just
got his facts a bit wrong.

Similarly, I see no reason to assume (and lots of reasons not to assume) that
Putnam had information abour AE's possible whereabouts that was not known to
the Navy.  Everybody knew that the Phoenix Group was the only logical
alternate.  Everybody knew that the line she said she was following led to the
 Phoenix Group.  Everybody knew that the post-lost signals, especially the
Pan Am DF bearings that crossed near Gardner Island, were an indication that
she had made it to the Phoenix Group.  Putnam and Mantz were just more
hesitant to give up.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:32:48 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Bottles and Corks

    My line of questioning is to try and determine how likely the bottle
would have been on the Electra, or any airplane for that matter.

    It would not seem likely that any liquid container stopped with a
cork would be carried on any airplane because of the great pressure
changes that occur in flight.  We all know this. . . but just as a
refresher for anyone who might have forgotten, the higher you go the
less pressure there is and if  the pressure equalizes at altitude, it
becomes a vacuum when you come down.  I don't mean to be offensive in
this simple statement, but not everybody on the forum is a pilot and
knows what would happen to a bag of Potato Chips if taken in an
unpressurized airplane to 12,000 feet.

    Most likely, somewhere around 8,000 feet the bag would explode.
Maybe a little more, depending on where it was packaged.  A bottle
stopped with a cork would most likely do the same thing.  Blows it's
cork so to speak.  Depending on how much liquid was in the bottle at the
time.     A thermos could be stopped with a cork, but would also have a
screw on cap to hold the cork in place.

    Also, to say that this bottle has anything to do with the Earhart
mystery, is to say that Amelia drank!

    Why you might ask?  Pure fantasy of course, but here's the
reasoning.

    We know the water supply onboard the Electra was in canteens. We
know that a Benedictine bottle generally held an alcoholic beverage.
From the published Forensic report, we assume that the bones found near
the bottle were female of European origin (i.e. Earhart).

    Therefore we have to say that Earhart would rather save the bottle
of booze, than a canteen of water.  There was plenty of time to find and
retrieve the canteens as she was sending the post loss radio messages,
but she didn't.  Only the bottle of booze was found with the bones.

    Go figure!

Don J.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Don makes an interesting point about the cork and altitude.  Been there, done
that.  It definitely gets your attention when a bag of potato chips lets go at
10,00 feet.

I think that the most logical source for the Benedictine bottle is the cache
of provisions left on the island by the Norwich City rescuers.  "Spirits" for
medicinal purposes were a common feature in emergency kits of that time.  I
also think that the "corks with brass chains" thought to be from a "small
cask" were exactly that.  Drinking water in casks small enough to be carried
in a lifeboat seem to be a logical part part of a supply cache.

To say that the Benedictine bottle and the corks came from the supply cache
requires a minimal amount of assumption.
-We know that a castaway died on the island sometime before 1940.
-We know that a supply cache was left on the island in 1929.

To say that the bottle and corks came from the supply cache we need only
assume:
- the the cache included those items.
- that the castaway found the cache and died sometime after 1929.

That's a whole lot simpler than trying to put a Benedictine bottle aboard
NR16020.

Let me correct one misimpression Don has.  There is no indication that the
bottle contained booze when found.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:34:18 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Pump vs Fire extinguisher

Vern -- I hope my post on the extinguisher covers most of your questions, but
just in case:

1. Is the handle off-center as it appears to be in the photo?

Yes, off on the edge.

2. How small is that "small hole" in the top (handle end)?

About 3/8"

3. How large is the hole in the other end?

Real tiny; maybe a couple mm max.

Is it on center?

No, on the edge in line with the handle.

Is there any
indication of how some sort of fitting might have been attached?  Is there
any indication that it may have been a threaded hole for something to screw
into?

Nothing threaded, but the "button" through which the hole is cut is undercut
so I imagine something like a hose could clip over it.  It would be very
tight; not something you'd take off and put back on.

4. Finally, is there any indication that it can be taken apart anywhere?

Not unscrewed or anything.  It's a solid cylindar, with both ends apparently
soldered on.

The large diameter suggests that it can not be a high-pressure pump such as
would be required to pump up a tire.  You'd never be able to push a piston
of that diameter against much pressure.  If the handle is off-center
suggesting a small diameter pump inside a larger housing, that's another
matter.

I wonder if a small diameter pump is what I'm hearing bumping around in
there.  It feels like it's a rather heavy item, probably cylindrical from the
way it moves around.

LTM
Tom
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:41:01 EST
From:         Van Hunn
Subject:      Calendars

Ric,

The two TIGHAR calendars arrived the other day.  They are Great!  My
compliments to you and Pat for a job well done!

Van
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:37:01 EST
From:         Dustymiss
Subject:      Re: letter on ebay

I am in contact with the seller (Twfer) of the ebay Townsley letter - He's a
nice guy -I am going to forward him the information TIGHAR has received about
it so far -

LTM - Who loves ebay with a passion
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:17:47 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Gun battery?

From the list of personnel left behind when the Itaska headed NW of the
island to search for AE/FN's presumably downed Electra:

..."and USCG Radioman Cipriani, to  operate the direction finder
equipment."...

How could Cipriani operate the DF equipment if it required power from
the Itaska's Gun Battery?

Don Neumann

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

In Thompson's report, "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight" (page 43) he says:
"The direction finder on the island was driven by Itasca gun batteries and
during the night their power ran down."

I've always taken this to be a reference to portable electrical storage
batteries, but I must confess that I don't know why Itasca's gun (if she had
one) needed batteries.  The only thing I can think is that there was a
powered turret that had backup batteries.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:20:59 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Noonan

There have been so many posts over the last few months concerning FN's
navagational options for the Lae/Howland leg of the flight that my
non-pilot, navigationally challenged brain has begun to "tune-out" much
of what I'm reading.

Which is unfortunate, because a lot of (what seem to be) highly
qualified persons have obviously spent a great deal of their valuable
time trying to explain in simple(?) terms what they think FN
could/should have done under the (admittedly limited knowledge thereof)
circumstances he was seeking to overcome in order to find that speck in
mid-Pacific, called Howland Island.

Even though it's doubtful that anyone  will ever know for certain
exactly what he did or did not do, there do seem to be some records (in
many old & musty posts) which fairly well document what he actually
_did_ on some of his previous (13 in all) trans-Pacific flights while
functioning as chief navigator for PanAm, during flights across the
Pacific, both East & West, to & from the Orient by way of California &
Hawaii.   While I know that on most, if not all, legs of such flights he
had some DF assistance, I do recall that reports related to his
'philosophy' of overwater navigation, seemed to imply that he had no
implicit trust in DF, even though he did insist that to engage in such
long range, over water flying without radio directional finding at the
terminus of such flights, was to risk the very sitation that _did_ occur
at Howland.

While I don't pretend to fully understand even the simplest explanations
appearing on the Forum, regarding FN's navigational options for this
flight, my common sense does tell me that any person with such a long &
seemingly distinguished record of performance on somewhat similar, long
distance, over water flights, would not deviate in any significant
measure from his own, previously established methods of navigation which
had served him so well in the past.

Whatever went wrong (presumably between the Gilberts & Howland) had much
to do with the flight's inability to establish two-way radio
communication with Itaska, in order for Itaska to obtain any reliable DF
fix on the incoming Electra & not any failure of FN's navigational
skills or methods, at least that is my own (totally unprofessional)
opinion.

Additionally, given past opinions expressed about FN's lack of total
trust in DF bearing procedures, it is difficult for me to believe that a
long time 'survivor' such as FN, would not have plotted, in advance, a
backup plan to reach some alternate landfall in the event Howland didn't
show up on the horizon where it should be, according to his
chronometers.

Don Neumann
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Can't fault your logic.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:27:44 EST
From:         Suzanne
Subject:      Benedictine bottle

At www.postergroup.com/liquor there is a copy of a 1915 Benedictine
advertisement. This 1915 bottle appears to be the same as the current bottle.

LTM,
Suzanne
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Indeed it does.  Although the poster does not provide sufficient detail to be
sure, if the bottle is unchanged then on the back side the word "Benedictine"
appears in relief in the glass itself, so even if the label is gone the
bottle is still identifiable.
 I also see no brass chain securing the cork.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:30:34 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Pump vs Fire extinguisher

If it was a "fluid" pump it would have a suction hole in the bottom, and a
fairly large (1/2 inch) hole at the top which would at some time have been
connected to an outlet tube a couple of inches long.  If there is not a
decent size outlet hole at the top it is not a fluid transfer (or bilge)
type pump.  The hole in my pump is not much bigger than the outlet hole - I
suppose because it is only going to suck in the same amount of fluid as is
being expelled.  Probably logical because the flap valve at the bottom has
an easier job, and there is less likelihood of objects being sucked inside
the thing.

RossD

(I can't see this thing being a fluid pump from the description - I believe
there was a picture somewhere?)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

You'll find a photo at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin11_28_99.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:32:17 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher

For Tom King

It is sounding a lot more like a fire extinguisher -- Wherever it came from.

Evidently there's a smaller diameter pump cylinder inside the outer cylinder
we see.  It's way off-center so, if held with the pump at the bottom,
practically all of the liquid contents (whatever, maybe carbon tet) can be
squirted out.  The nearly half-inch hole in the top must be the fill hole.
Some sort of plug must have been screwed in after filling.  The small hole
in the other end, in line with the pump, must be the exit nozzle -- or where
the nozzle screwed in.  The "raised button... which sits on a washer" makes
me think it's part of the nozzle but with some of it missing.  There must
have been something that had to be removed to leave the nozzle open when it
was to be used.  Either that or a spring-loaded valve that was forced open
by pump pressure.  Or perhaps even a seal that had to be punctured to use
it.  The thing that clunks back and forth may be the remains of the pump
cylinder partially corroded away, and broken free from its original
attachment.

I could send you a tiny light-bulb on a length of small, flexible wire and
with a battery and switch at the other end of the wire.  This might enable
you to see something of the inside.  If you think this worthwhile, I'll need
your mailing address again.  Naturally, I've misplaced it!

Incidently, I presume the video cassette of the Antiques Roadshow with the
chronometer reached you alright some time back.

Vern
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:35:57 EST
From:         ML Cox
Subject:      Re: Townsley

Maybe you can search real estate records back on the sale of the Townsley
property to find him.

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

Except I don't see any need to find him.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:37:14 EST
From:         Don Postellon
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher--NOT

As another physician, I would prefer a CT scan.  Many radiology departments
have scanned mummies and other archeological finds, and I doubt that it
would be very difficult to find someone to do it free of charge.

Interpreting the results might still be difficult.
Dan Postellon Tighar

2263
LTM (Love to Mummy)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:43:58 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher--NOT

Thanks, Margot.  I'll follow up on the endoscopic examination, if for no
other reason than the fact that my primary care physician has lots of wealthy
patients (not including me), and is interested in the project.  You never
know....

LTM
TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:21:23 EST
From:         Jim Tweedle
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher

I used to inspect scuba tanks by taping a flashlight bulb to the end of a
small diameter dowel.  It's quite effective.

Jim
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:01:18 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Noonan Nav Summary

Yes, Alan.  As a computer tech for 22 years I've seen GIGO a few times...

Going to the Naval Observatory in Australia and accessing anything of theirs
is not as simple as one might think.

But this is still interesting.  So if you'll indulge me a little more - (if
the nav thing interests you) - At 179.35W at 17:30 to 17:40UTC was the sun's
lower limb clear of the horizon, or was uncle Fred still on DR since his
last fix?

Obviously, the reason for the question is that the 18:15 report puts him
about 120nm closer than the 17:44 report and I know that was debated, but I
believe this was the reason.  A DR for a pos around the first report,
probably worked at 17:30 knowing the report was due in 1/4 hour, followed by
an actual observation somewhere between 17:55 and 18:10, depending when the
sun cleared enough for a sight...

Comments?
RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:02:17 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher--NOT

That, Margot, is an excellent idea.  I can't imagine a GP using his endoscope
for examination of an archaeological artifact, under normal circumstances,
but are there not some doctors (of medicine) who are members of TIGHAR.

From what I've observed, normal just doesn't apply any more once you get
into this forum.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:03:17 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Putnam and the Phoenix

Putnam suggested to the CG and Navy that the 281 North message might be 281
South, and if it was, it intersected the Phoenix Islands, where the radio
bearings to date seemed to indicate the origin of the purported AE signals.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:05:01 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Bottles and Corks

Ahhh.  That explains why the stewardesses aboard airplanes manage to spritz
my poor body with soda every time they open a can.  I think I'll take a
pressurized jump suit with me next time I fly.

LTM, who hates to be spritzed with seltzer.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The effect is actually fairly minor in the pressurized cabin of an airliner.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:06:01 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Gun Batteries

The colonists had a generator with which to recharge batteries, and they used
this device to recharge the D/F batteries during the day, and listened at
night.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:07:35 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Gun Batteries/Recharge capability with generator

Why wouldn't the Howland colonists recharge the batteries used on the DF when
they batteries conked out -they surely knew the batteries were going dead?
*************************************************************************

From Ric

Well, off the top of my head, I'd say that the batteries couldn't be used
while they were being recharged and it took time to recharge them.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:44:46 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      A Review of the Longs' Book

Well, I finally got around to reading Amelia Earhart, The Mystery Solved by
Elgen and Marie Long.  I suspect I will be getting a lot of flack for this
message, but here goes.

I found the book to be a good read, particularly regarding the details
about the flight up to AE and FJN's leaving of Lae.  The Long's have
gathered a lot of informaiton, and it pretty much matches up with what I
and TIGHAR have found as well.  They got details right about the crossing
from Oakland to Honolulu and across the Atlantic (well, almost right: about
95% correct).  The rest of the World Flight details are actually quite
interesting to read.  The Long's don't give in to the drunked FJN
hypothesis, but they also don't address AE's cover-ups with the press.
 Their basic hypothesis of why they ran out of gas at the end of the last
message is poorly constructed however.  As for their descriptions of radio
message back and forth from the Itasca to Lae/Darwin, they did a pretty
good job, and describe the mix-ups in the Itasca radio room.

The book is not perfect by any means, even if one disregards the basic
mystery being solved.  They put Warrant Officer Anthony, the chief
communications officer for the Coast Guard in Hawaii, as the Head of the
Coast Guard Unit there, which is false.  They have the Ramapo going from
west to east to refuel the Lexington (it was actually headed west to Hawaii
at the time), and they fail to mention the all-important Nauru receipt of a
purported AE broadcast the night of her downing.  The Long's show a great
wealth of detailed knowledge of what happened prior to and after the loss,
and shouldn't be tossed out on their ear for that.

There are so few factual books out on AE, that I almost want to recommend
this one for the details of the World Flight.  Despite poetic license, the
book reads very well, and was hard to put down, even for one knowledgable
in AE.

Okay, I'll get under my rock cover, and prepare for the onslaught of
stoning...
*************************************************************************
From Ric

No stones from here.  I pretty much agree.  The Longs did gather a great deal
of information and they seem to have a good understanding of the events
surrounding the world flight.  It is only in their description of the final
flight that the book falls apart.  Unfortunately, that's mostly what the book
is about.

Elgen and Marie are not responsible for the stupid title ("The Mystery
Solved") except to the the extent that they were naive in negotiating their
book contract.

What they ARE responsible for is the convoluted and self-deluding argument
they put forth to support their hypothesis.  Probably 90% of their readers
(and 100% of media reviewers) will make little or no attempt to understand
what they're trying to say and simply be impressed by all the numbers.
Readers will, however, recognize some familar devices which lend the book an
aura of credibility; the expert as author (Elgen is a retired airline pilot
and a record-setting long distance flyer in his own right); and the newly
discovered piece of evidence that is the "key to the mystery" (in this case,
the Chater report).  Few are likely to look past the assumptions and
calculations to see the fundamental flaw in the reasoning.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:47:10 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan Nav Summary

Ross writes:

<< Obviously, the reason for the question is that the 18:15 report puts him
 about 120nm closer than the 17:44 report and I know that was debated, but I
 believe this was the reason. >>

I'll check on the sun's altitude, Ross. As to the two position reports you
are correct. They have been debated to death but the basic problems I see
with them is first of all I don't know whether "200 miles" and "100 miles"
were statute or nautical so I don't know what distance the plane supposedly
covered in that "half hour." That brings up the second point that AE seemed
to typically make a report not necessarily coinciding with where she was at
the time so those positions may not have coincided very well with the times.
Throughout her whole trip position reporting obviously was not the most
important thing in her life. That's somewhat understandable in those early
aviation days. Folks just flew around and no one on the ground cared much
where they went or when. I'm sure AE called when she was approaching some
place but after she left there was not that much interest either from the
ground OR the plane. WE are placing much more emphasis on the radios than
they did. The radios were not that important, the DF was but didn't work.
Without the DF what could have been accomplished even if the radios worked
fine? They would not have made any significant difference in getting to
Howland but we might have known where they went after leaving the Howland
area and a rescue could have been successful.

Alan, rambling a little on a day off
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:48:48 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan Nav Summary

Ross writes:

<< A DR for a pos around the first report, 
 probably worked at 17:30 knowing the report was due in 1/4 hour, followed by
  an actual observation somewhere between 17:55 and 18:10, depending when the 
 sun cleared enough for a sight... >>

There is another debate, Ross. Almost everything I read says the sun shot is 
reliable  between 20° and 70°. Below that it is unreliable beause of 
atmospheric conditions that cannot be reliably dealt with and unreliable 
above that because of it being harder to shoot. Yet navigators did noon shots 
which clearly had a higher altitude and there exists a calculation for a 
sunrise shot to determine longitude. The latter I don't buy because of the 
inherent errors but I think Noonan would have started shooting first chance 
he got even using the upper limb of the sun. He had nothing to lose and he 
knew the shortcomings and also knew he could continually refine his results.

Alan
#2329 
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:52:43 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

Thanks for the Benedictine information!  Clearly you guys looked into this
pretty thouroughly at some time.  Just out of curiosity, do you recall when
the monks got out of the Benedictine business and it became a strictly
commercial interprise?
I wonder if it may have happened just after WWII?  Fecamp was not directly
in the path of the D-day invasion but it was very close.  I wonder of the
monastery may have been destroyed?

The Benedictine bottle is not bad as a decanter just as it is.  One of the
liqueur store people a spoke to said that Benedictine was one of a
relatively few liqueurs that was not harmed by exposure to air.  For that
reason, he theorized that the bottles may, at some point, have been equipped
with a stopper secured with a chain.  Pure speculation was the best he could
offer.

The Niku bottle itself...  In view of some of today's posting, I'm inclined
to comment that the original suggestion was that it was used to contain
drinking water.  I believe it was even said to contain some water when
found.  How long before water evaporated from an unstoppered bottle?
Although the shape of the bottle results in it assuming a position with the
neck somewhat upward, the small opening sure wouldn't catch nuch rain-water.

The corks with chains...  The original assessment was that they belonged to
some sort of small casks.  Ric has pointed out that this would be consistant
with provisions as might have been in a lifeboat from the Norwich City.  I
wonder what such a cask would have been made of?  Would it have been metal
or, at least, have had a metal neck for a stopper?  Why did nobody find any
more of the cask?  If it were of steel, there would be nothing left of it in
a few years.  But steel always rusts and seems an unlikely choice for a cask
to contain water, especially in a marine environment.
**************************************************************************
From Pat

I seem to recall that the monks were in the business up until, but not after,
WWII - so your speculation may be correct.  In any event, it's easy to see
how the war might cramp their style.

From Ric
Good question about how long it would take for water to evaporate from an
unstoppered bottle.  According to the story as told by Floyd Kilts (the Coast
Guardsman who got it from the locals in 1946), the bottle had "fresh water
for drinking" when found, but Gallagher's account of the bottle says it was
empty.  Hmmm.

You're correct that an unstoppered Benedictine bottle on its side will retain
a good quantity of liquid but not permit the introduction of rainwater (Kids!
You can try this at home!).  I suppose that we could do an experiment that
would set an outside limit on how long it tales for a maximum amount of water
in an unstoppered Benedictine bottle (largest available size) to evaporate.
The ambient temperature and humidity will be big factors and we can't
duplcate them precisely, but if we err on the conservative side we'll at
least get a not-longer-than figure.

I'm sort of interested in this because, like our growing suspicion that the
bones were scattered by dogs, this could be an indication that the castaway
had not been dead very long when the settlers arrived.

As for why there were corks but apparently nothing to cork, that's another
good question (for which I have no answer - yet).

Geee, this is fun.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:56:53 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Pump vs Fire extinguisher

Regarding this thermos bottle, or wobble pump, or fire extinguisher, or
whatever, there is one possible use for this device that I don't believe
anyone has mentioned yet...

Do the letters P.I.S.S. give anyone an idea?

They were in the air something over 20 hours. No matter how much one limits
one's liquid intake, one is going to have to empty one's bladder at some
point or another in said 20 hour period.

Surely there must have been some sort of receptacle on board for such
exigencies.

Tom #2179
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The way you deal with that exigency in an airplane is via a very simple
device known as a "relief tube."  I think we can safely eliminate the
artifact in question as having been employed for that purpose.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:58:19 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

Back to Niku, bottles, corks with chains and postulated "small casks."  It
all makes me wish we had more definite indication of exactly where on the
island this stuff was found in 1940.  There MUST be more matallic stuff to
be found if one only knew where to search.  It's so difficult to search with
metal detectors that one sure needs to restrict the search area.  I keep
thinking about that photo album of Gallagher's that just MIGHT still exist.
How can we pick up that Clancy trail again??
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:59:45 EST
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Lost aviators

I found an interesting article about a lost aviator who was actually found,
though it took some 29 years to find him and he was in the Sahara.

http://www.thehistorynet.com/AviationHistory/articles/2000/0100_cover.htm

And an article about our favorite aviator.  Even mentions our favorite
searcher:

http://www.thehistorynet.com/AviationHistory/articles/1997/0797_cover.htm

I don't know what it may mean, but I couldn't open the "full text" of either
of these article with MS-IE 5.0, but they opened fine with Netscape 4 and
Opera 3.61.


    - Bill #2229
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:25:46 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Bendix "coupling unit"

In its endless turning, the forum has sort of rolled around to the subject
of DFing again.  And I still have a sort of major question in my own mind.
I claim this to be as long-winded as it is for the benefit of those who may
not have been here when we went through it before.

That Bendix "coupling unit" that was part of their DF rig for use with any
receiver tuning the appropriate frequency range.  If the "coupling unit" was
installed somewhere on Amelia's plane, and we don't know that it was, what
bearing did this have on what she might have expected to be able to do with
her manual loop?  Could she expect to DF at 7500 kc?  May she have been told
that she could? The nature of that "coupling unit" and the possible
utilization of a "sense antenna" have a definite bearing on these questions.
I've been able to deduce almost nothing about the circuitry of that
"coupling unit."

There is, in Frank Lombardo's radio document, a photograph of the Bendix
"coupling unit."  It's BWP4-9 on page 4-29.  The technician is holding it in
his hands with most of the front panel visible.  The picture is not at all
good in the Zerox-type copy of the document I have.

Does TIGHAR have the original of the photo?  If so, is the resolution good
enough to make out any of the lettering on the front panel?  Even a better
picture of what dials, switches and terminal posts that are there might be
of some help.

Aside from this photo, the only other information I've found is a picture
and superficial description in "Aero Digest," March 1937.  The unit contains
two type-77 tubes (RF pentodes) and is powered from the receiver.  There are
the usual resistors, capacitors, etc. in view along with the two tube
sockets.  That's about all that can be made of it.  My impression is that
this is where amplitude and phase of signals from the loop and from a sense
antenna are combined to yield the cardioid signal intensity pattern -- only
one null rather than two 180 deg. apart.

Does anyone know any more about the Bendix "coupling unit" or have any ideas
where one might search for information on the circuitry involved?
**************************************************************************
From Ric

That photo is one of a batch taken by Albert Bresnick in the first week of
March 1937 about two weeks before the first World Flight attempt.  I don't
have negatives or good prints of them and I can't make out what it says on
the face of the instrument.  Bresnick used to sell prints of these from the
original negs and I think his wife still does.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:27:18 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher

For Tom King

The endoscope may be a good way to do a detailed examination of the interior
of the fire extinguisher ('til proven not to be) but don't underestimate the
little lightbulb on a stick, or dangling on a tiny wire, for a gross
examination.  You do need to get your eye right down to the 3/8 inch hole.
Maybe the handle will make that difficult.

I just tried it with a 3 inch diameter tube 24 inches long.  I put a cap on
one end with a 3/8 inch dianeter hole in the center.  I can see the entire
inner surface, dust accumulation, scratches, etc., from about 2 inches below
the end cap to the far end of the tube -- all in good focus.  The eye is an
amazing thing!  Remember that the little bulb is essentially an
omnidirectional light source.  The whole inside of the tube is illuminated.
Of course there's also light scattering.

LTM (who is also a confirmed experimentalist.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:32:33 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Noonan Nav Summary

Having been (mostly) lurking through the posts about the navigation
questions, since I am not a navigator and have no basis for an opinion
either through experience or education, I find that Alan's post makes
perfect sense to me, and dovetails quite nicely with what my gut tells me
about Fred Noonan.

    From Alan Caldwell

    [JWATSON]  ... I think Noonan would have started shooting first chance
    he got even using the upper limb of the sun. He had nothing to lose and he
    knew the shortcomings and also knew he could continually refine his results.

Everything we've discovered (and corraborated) about Fred tells us he was
the consummate professional.  He knew his profession well, and he knew what
they were getting into.
ltm,
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:03:43 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Gallaghers

>From Vern
>
>I keep thinking about that photo album of Gallagher's that just MIGHT still exist.
>How can we pick up that Clancy trail again??

We're a bit stuck on this one, but it was clear while I was briefly in
contact with the adoptive daughter of Gallagher's aunt here in the UK that
she didn't have any knowledge of what became of the effects sent to Malvern.
I sent her a wad of photocopies from TIGHAR Tracks but received no
acknowledgement, and a follow-up email went unanswered. She said the third
Gallagher sister lived in Worcester, very near Malvern, and remembered the
married name of this sister's daughter (i.e. Gallagher's natural cousin and
her own cousin by adoption) but a letter to the only entry under this name
in the local phone book yielded no reply. She said a daughter of this family
had lived some years ago in Fleet, Hampshire, but a letter to the local
paper for that town yielded no replies.

A possible next step would be to try and establish who were the
beneficiaries of Gallagher's parents' wills, or his mother's at least. These
ought to be on public record somewhere, but I'm not up to speed on the
mechanics of searching for wills and I'd bet it would be pretty hard without
a death date/s. Another avenue might be establishing who
were listed as next of kin of Gallagher's only brother, who also died during
the war but on active service. Again, service records are available to
family historians to some extent - World War One certainly and I keep
planning to research my grandfather's service - but I don't know if WWII
records are, or whether if so they are available to non-family members.

On the possibility of the apparent fire extingusher being of British origin, I have
sent copies of the research bulletin to an excellent local museum
specializing in 20th century artefacts and asked for impressions and advice,
and await their reply.

LTM Phil Tanner 2276
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:08:28 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

Ric wrote:

<<I suppose that we could do an experiment that would set an outside limit on
how long it takes for a maximum amount of water in an unstoppered Benedictine
bottle (largest available size) to evaporate.>>

Step 1, swipe the old Benedictine bottle from the liquor cabinet.
Step 2, make room in it for water.
Step 3, providing you can still see, think and act, put water in the
bottle....

Hmmm - maybe this should be a supervised experiment...

<<As for why there were corks but apparently nothing to cork, that's
another good question (for which I have no answer - yet).>>

Regarding the corks, I could see a person in a survival situation using
corks like this as floats for fishing lines.  I don't recall off the top of
my head if they had fishing equipment on board, but makeshift hooks could be
fabricated from pieces of airplane or equipment that was salvaged.

ltm,
jon 2266
**************************************************************************
From Ric

There was some fishing line in the Luke Field inventory, but if you were
going to use corks that way wouldn't you remove the brass chains?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:08:13 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

Ric wrote:

<<There was some fishing line in the Luke Field inventory, but if you were
    going to use corks that way wouldn't you remove the brass chains?>>

    Obviously we don't know the size of the corks, or of the chains, but
if the corks were small enough to use as a bobber, the chains might be just
enough to get them to float right, and act as a "fishing weight" with the
line tied to the chain on one end, and the hook on the other.  Not an ideal
situation, but it might be workable.  Then too, maybe these were extras that
they just hadn't gotten around to removing the chains from yet.  Picking up
on what someone wrote a few messages back, I can recall as a kid (early
'50's) we had thermous bottles with cork stoppers in our lunchpails.  I'm
sure that none of those had chains, though.

    ltm,
    jon 2266

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

Any other ideas?  Here we have a scene which seems to include:

A partial skeleton in the shade of a small tree.
No hair, clothes, jewelry, or coins.
Parts of the sole of a woman's shoe and a man's shoe.
The remains of a fire, dead birds and turtle (no mention of fish bones).
No knife, plate, pot or other utensile.
A Benedictine bottle which may or may not have contained some fresh water.
A sextant box which may have contained an inverting eyepiece and seems to
have been most recently used primarily as a general purpose container.
Corks (apparently two or more but we don't know how many) with brass chains
thought to have come from a small cask.

What is NOT here is probably as important as what IS present if we're trying
to reconstruct the scene.  Lets remember that Gallagher doesn't come upon
this scene until some months after the skull and bottle (and the inverting
eyepeice?) were first found.  Other stuff could have been taken from the site
that he was never told about.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:05:19 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Gallaghers

It would certainly be worth trying to pick up the Gallagher trail again.
I've been going back through the G.B. Gallagher documents, and it's just hard
for me to believe that he didn't do a map of the discovery site.  If so, of
course, it couldn't have been telegraphed so might have been, if anyplace, in
hard copy with the bones in the box, but just maybe he'd send one home, or
keep one in his own effects that would wind up at home.  Worth trying to run
down any possible leads, certainly.

LTM
Tom KIng
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:08:49 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

A couple of other things to think about, while we're on the subject...

1. Gallagher, newly arrived on Niku, first reports the bones discovery on
23rd September 1940.  He reports the skull, other bones, the shoe, and the
sextant box, but not the inverting eyepiece or the corks on chains.

2. On 6th October, when he provides amplified details, he still doesn't
mention them (but he's responding to specific questions).

3. On 17th October he still doesn't mention them, though by now he says "we"
have "searched carefully."  He opines that an "organized search" would take
several weeks.

4. On 26th October Vaskess directs him to make an "organized search."

5. According to Gallagher's quarterly progress report for this period, "(t)he
second half of the quarter was marked by severe and almost continuous
North-Westerly gales, which did considerable damage to houses, coconut trees,
and newly planted lands."  The second half of this quarter would have been
November-December.  Hard to make an organized search.

6. On 27th December, however, he acknowledges the 26th October telegram and
says that the bones and sextant box have been packaged for shipment to Fiji.
The latter, he says, also "contains all the other pieces of evidence which
were found in the proximity of the body."

So one wonders, was there further, organized search during the second half of
the last quarter of 1940, during breaks in the storms, which produced
(perhaps among other things) the corks on chains?  And if so, who did the
searching?  All the colonists?  Some smaller group?  Gallagher by himself?
And does this suggest anything to us about where the search might have taken
place?  It would seem to argue against anyplace very far from the village --
hard to travel very far in the heavy weather -- unless one equipped oneself
to go and stay for awhile.  Which makes one (this one, anyhow) wonder about
the "house built for Gallagher" that Laxton places on the southeast end of
the island, and that is apparently represented by the Evans/Moffit water
catcher re-located by TIGHAR in 1996.

LTM
Tom King
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Innterressting.....   We seem to have at least one item (the bottle) that
sort of goes away.  Koata takes it to Tarawa.  Irish tells Werham to
intercept it, which he does - and that's the last we hear of it.

Conversely, there are items that seem to turn up only AFTER Vaskess tells
Gallagher to do an "organized search."  As you point out, these include the
"inverting eyepiece" (which Gallagher apparently never actually sees), and
the "corks on brass chains."  I wonder also about the pieces from a man's
shoe.  Is this a case of Dr. Steenson and Gallagher having a difference of
opinion about the shoe parts or have more shoe parts been found since
Gallagher's original telegram?

Let's pursue your hypothesis about the "house built for Gallagher" being a
base of operations for ther "organized search" ordered by Vaskess.

I think it is pretty safe to say that the site we identified in 1996 is the
site described by the Coasties and the site described by Laxton.  We know
from photos taken in June 1941 that it was there then.  It clearly includes
objects from the village, so we can say with some certainty that it dates
from sometime between, say, April 1939 (when the first real batch of settlers
arrived) and June 1941.  If it was indeed built "for Gallagher" or at least
at Gallagher's direction, it had to have been built between September 1940
and June 1941.  This puts it smack in the middle of the time period in
question.

Let's look at the null hypothesis - that the site was constructed for some
reason other than as a base of operations for an "organized search."  What
reason could that be?  There is no indication that the area was ever
contemplated for planting to coconuts.  We had wondered about it being a bird
or turtle hunting camp, but Gallagher mentions nothing about the
establishment of such a camp.  During the period in question, the big push
was to get land cleared for coconut planting and yet somebody put a lot of
effort into setting up an operation way down in the bush - a project that was
apparently never completed.

I think you may be on to something.  As you know, I have resisted the notion
that the site at the southeast end had anything to do with Gallagher's bone
discovery but I'm starting to think I've been wrong about that.  We have lots
of notes and photos and video tape from the 1996 trip.  Our initial reaction
was that all we had done was disprove the theory that the site was of
interest to us.  I think we really need to take another look at all of that
data.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:12:38 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

If you like, being in a much more similar climate both temperature wise and
humidity wise to Niku, I'd be happy to check on the evaporation issue as
well.  I can even supply a benedictine bottle.  At one time it was the only
alcohol I consumed.

I can tell you now though, if the bottle was in any sort of shade, even
dappled, in our climate I suspect it will take a while to evaporate.  We
have rain, then a few days of temperatures of 80-90 in the shade, and
puddles at the roadside can still take 2 days or more to dry sometimes.

RossD

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

Puddles on Niku dry almost as you watch.  Sounds like you're in a much more
humid environment.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:21:49 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Gallaghers

Suppose Gallagher took pictures on Gardner.  Where would he have developed
the film?  When he died, if there was any film, it was probably undeveloped
and/or in the camera (Ric: was a camera listed in his effects?).  I doubt
seriously that there would be photos from Gardner in his photo album.  Now it
is possible he could develop film on Gardner, if he had the necessary
chemicals and dark room, but is that likely?

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

Good point Randy.  Among Gallagher's personal effects is listed "1 book
photographs" but no camera, and the inventory of his stuff is exhaustive.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:24:11 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

I know curiosity is not really healthy for cats, but do you have a plan of
exactly where the clearing and planting operations were carried out?  And
from visits to the island, where the coconut palms are growing, at least in
a "plantation" sense?

It would be interesting to see these marked on a map of the island that also
shows the village location etc.

Also, there'a an 800x600 jpeg of an Electra over Howland at:

http://www.ross.devitt.com/amelia/howland.html

for any Windows users looking for some wallpaper.  (IE users just right
click on the pic and "Set as wallpaper).  You may have to use your paint
program to darken the image a little.  My monitor is faulty.

RossD

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

So is your sense of "copyright."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:30:00 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Maps

I have been reading everything i can on the web site, and wonder if during
your stays on the island, you have produced a map showing where the clearing
and the planting was actually carried out?

Obviously the next question is:  Is it on the web site?

Also, I wonder was the Norwich City survivor's camp in the obvious place,
close opposite the Norwich City? I imaging the villagers would have raided
the cache at some time.  Is that one of the areas you were transecting?

Regards,

RossD

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

Yes, we have a good idea where clearing and planting was carried out.  No, we
do not have a map showing those areas on the website.  Yes, it would be an
interesting thing for people to be able to see.  We'll try to get to it.

We don't know exactly where the Norwich City survivor's camp was but the
available descriptions seem to indicate that it was right there where you
would expect it to be.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:34:08 EST
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

> I'm sort of interested in this because, like our growing suspicion that the
> bones were scattered by dogs, this could be an indication that the castaway
> had not been dead very long when the settlers arrived.

The dog theory is interesting.  Living in the sticks for many years I 
can testify to the probability of it.  However, as I recall from another
post on this forum, a body decomposes quickly in this climate.  Also if it
was a pack of wild dogs (like are friendly New York Coyotes becoming a
growing population up here) it would have to be somewhat  recent for the
dogs to take an interest.  However our domesticated dog, your typical family
pet, as well as other domestic dogs, I have seen go for older bones, our
family pet will take anything he finds in the way of bones (old cow bones,
or deer bones).  Can't help to wonder if it would have to be all that
recent.

Regards.

Warren

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

The best indication that the scattering was done while the bones were still
fresh enough to be articulated (still attached to each other) is the fact
that all but one of the vertebrae are missing.  That suggests that the spine
went off as a unit.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:24:54 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      photo

Oops! Good point...  Pity about that - I didn't think.  Just thought it made
a nice wallpaper.  It's gone...
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:28:21 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

Of course, one of the problems with the "House built for Gallagher" (HBFG)
site as the bones discovery site is that, as you say, there's no evidence it
was ever cleared for coconuts, and Gallagher says in one of his late messages
that the bones discovery site will be cleared soon.

TK
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Hmmm, looks like we need to go through Gallagher's Catalog of Clues (GCC)
with an eye toward what does and does not fit the 1996 site.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:31:44 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Gallaghers

Gallagher had the makings for an excellent darkroom in the "Thunderbox
Toilet" in his house, but chemicals are another matter.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Photo developing equipment and chemicals are about the ONLY items that
Gallagher did not have on that island.  The list of his personal effects is
amazing, but does not include a camera or film or developing paraphernalia.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:41:56 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Reenactment Flight

I saw your question on the neccessity of using an A-5 or A-7 sextant for
the reenactment flight.  If you are going for authenticity then it is
might be very important.  I think I mentioned earlier sometime that I am
going to be adding a freshly overhauled A-7 to my collection.  It is the
same instrument used by FN with the addition of an averager.  The A-10
series sextant(my personal favorite) can do the same job & accuracy of
the A-5/7.  It just a different unit, maybe half the weight, but does
the same thing.  Both could be used simultaneously by 2 people while on
the flight and compare results and would be a good idea.  Right now I
have about 7 or 8 A-10's & A-10A's and a Mark 5.  If we did the
reenactment flight here's my scenario of how it could be done.

First and formost, I see no need to fly the entire Lae-Howland leg.  We
all agree that they got very close so there's nothing to be gained
flying a 2550 mile leg to prove something we know was already
accomplished.  Besides that airplanes cost $$$ to run.  Not economically
feasible.    We could take off from Tarawa and fly to a point directly
on the great circle route between Lae & Howland on the international
date line.  I pick the date line because it would put the flight 207
miles west of Howland and would typically be used by a navigator for a
waypoint calculation/check. From there we get the sextants out and start
navigating to Howland.  Bear in mind for authenticity & accuracy this
should be flown on the exact date & times so as to have the same
scenario FN had.  Upon reaching Howland we start the diversion to Niku
on the 337/157 lop and fly it to the southeast, again on celestial &
DR.  We arrive Niku and then look for the best place to land or ditch
the airplane using the arrival scenario used by AE & FN along with
perhaps circling the island a few time for research or pictures.  From
there we could go on to Canton and land/rest/refuel or go back to Tarawa
if time and fuel permit.
LEGS:
Tarawa- waypoint N0.05 W180.00  432 NM, 100 deg.
Waypoint-Howland  207 NM, 078 deg.
Howland-Niku  351 NM, 159 deg.
Niku- Canton  204 NM, 057 deg.
Considering availability, cost, mission requirements, I'd consider using
a Douglas DC-4/C-54.  Mind you this would only be for the reenactment
flight carrying only Pilots, Navigators, TIGHAR staff, & press or movie
crew.  To haul passengers for $$$ you would need a commercial jet.  The
Doug could fly the leg at Electra speed feasibly, carry the load to the
distance and have reserves.  I think I could put something together like
this if everyone wants to get serious.  What say ye Captain Ric?

Doug B.
#2335
***************************************************************************
From Ric

About a week ago we put a charter bid request in to both United and Qantas
for a flight similar to what you propose using a Boeing 767 300 ER.  We'd go
out of Fiji (MUCH easier to get to than Tarawa) and return to Fiji with no
stop at Canton (no reason to stop at Canton).  We're waiting for a response.

I think we need more research into just what kind of bubble octant Fred was
using.  The Pioneer A5 didn't come out until 1941.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:44:39 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Maps

The reason for my question about maps of clearing and planting operations
relates to the wording of some of the reports.  I was interested in the
parts:

"South East corner of the Island about 100 feet above ordinary HWS...  lying
under a "Ren" tree...  remains of fire, turtle and dead birds..."

It suggests accessibility.  And a more or less regularly used camp.
Somewhere the castaway picked as a preferred place to stay.  Access to the
water (a turtle) probably a view (out to sea or across the lagoon).  Shade,
fire, turtle and dead birds suggest permanence - and the means to start a
fire.

Somewhere around 100 feet from the water. Why that far?  Perhaps the only
shady spot with a view.  Some protection from the weather.

Perhaps this was the "day" camp, and this person went somewhere more
sheltered to sleep?

Or the "night" camp.  Security, shelter from the wind and sun.
I'd suspect the former.  Picture yourself stranded on Niku.  You've got
these enormous crabs scuttling about - no idea if they're friendly.  Most
people seem averse to spending the night sleeping in the open. I imagine
you'd pull together some branches and such to make a shelter of some kind
for the night.

During the day though, one would tend towards the open, some shade and
somewhere to eat, whilst keeping a watch for passing ships.

The later statement that the kanawa tree was growing "on the edge of the
lagoon, not very far fro where the body was found " suggests that the body
was on the lagoon side - but I wonder...

Anyway, it looks as though Tom King has the same idea about location as I
was going to ask so I'll sit back and watch...

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Jan 2000 22:12:08 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Gallagher's Catalog of Clues

The following are all of Gallagher's references to the location where the
bones were found and my comments as to how well they do or don't match the
site surveyed by TIGHAR in 1996.

1. On October 6, 1940 in response to question from the Resident Commissioner
as to how far from shore the bones were found, Gallagher says
"100 feet from high water ordinary springs"
Ric comment:  We didn't measure how far inland the 1996 site was from the
lagoon shore due to impossibly thick scaevola, but it seems like it was
perhaps a little farther than 100 feet above the ordinary high tide mark.
Can't be sure though.

2.  On October 17, 1940 in response to question from the Secretary of the
High Commission as to where the bones were found Gallagher syas:
"Bones were found on South East corner of island about 100 feet above
ordinary high water springs..."
Ric comment:  The 1996 site could well be described as being on the South
East corner of the island.

3.  In the same communication Gallagher says:
" Body had obviously been lying under a "ren" tree and remains of fire,
turtle and dead birds appear to indicate life."
Ric comment:  There are "ren" trees in the area.  There were bird bones at
the site.  The ocean beach nearby (the island is very narrow at this point)
is prime turtle country.  I think I also recall charcoal at the site but I'll
have to double check.

4.  In the same communication Gallagher says:
" All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs which have also
damaged larger ones."
Ric comment:  Whether or not the scattering was actually done by coconut
crabs, Gallagher obviously thought that there wwere crabs in the area.
Although the site is now covered with dense scaevola, the crab-infested Buka
forest is less than 100 yards away and the presence of old fallen Buka nearby
indicate that the site was once within the forest.

5.  In the same communication Gallagher says:
"... this part of island is not yet cleared"
Ric comment:   Aerial photos show that some limited clearing had been done
around the 1996 site by June of 1941, but no coconut planting was apparently
ever done there.

6.  In Gallagher's letter dated December 27, 1940 that accompanied the bones
and artifacts to Fiji he says:
" found on the South Eastern shore of Gardner Island"
Ric comment:  The 1996 site might be described this way.

7.  In the same letter Gallagher says:
" ...the skull has been buried in damp ground for nearly a year"
Ric comment:  The soil in the Buka forest is damp.

8.  In the same letter Gallagher says:
"... in view of the presence of crabs and rats in this area"
Ric comment:  There are crabs and rats in the Buka forest.

9.  In the same letter Gallagher says:
"...something may come to hand during the course of the next few months when
the area in question will be again thoroughly examined during the course of
planting operations, which will involve a certain amount of digging in the
vicinity"
Ric comment:  If the 1996 was ever intended for planting, those plans were
never carried out.

10. In the same letter Gallagher says:
"... the coffin in which the remains are contained is made from a local wood
known as "kanawa" and the tree was, until a year ago, growing on the edge of
the lagoon, not very far from the spot where the deceased was found."
Ric comment:  There is certainly no kanawa growing there now but it is not
impossible or even improbable that there was once kanawa growing along that
shorline.

11.  In a note to the file in Fiji on July 3, 1941 Gallagher wrote:
" There was no evidence of any attempt to dig a well and the wretched man
presumably died of thirst.  Less than two miles away there is a small grove
of coconut trees which would have been sufficient to keep him alive if he had
only found it.  He was separated from those trees, however, by an
inpenetrable (sic)belt of bush."
Ric comment:  At the 1996 there was an obvious attempt to dig a well, but
that may have been done later.  From the 1996 site to the closest stand of
cocos that were present in 1940 (as far as we know) is about 2.5 miles.

Bottom line:  I don't see anything in all of this that would conclusively
disqualify the 1996 site as the location described by Gallagher, assumming
that the village-related material we found there was brought later, perhaps
as an abortive preparation for a more ambitious search.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:09:12 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Evaporation from bottle

>>Puddles on Niku dry almost as you watch.

That's what I figured, hot and low humidity.  A little difficult for me this
time of year.  But I got a Benedictine bottle anyway.  You have to start
somewhere, sometime.  For a start, I'll do it indoors -- around 70 degrees
and pretty low humidity with the furnace going and the humidity low outside
anyway.  It's not hard to get static sparks.

I plan to position the bottle in the inclined position it likes to assume
when not upright.  I'll let the water drain out to the level that position
dictates.  I'm guessing that will be about half full. (It's 750 ml -- 3/4
liter as filled)  That will be about the maximum water/air interface --
maximum surface for evaporation to take place.  I'll measure the amount of
water at the start, then I can check how much has been lost at any later
time.  I'm guessing that we'll find that it wouldn't take long for
half-a-Benedictine bottle of water to be lost on Niku.

Then we can speculate about when the native found the bottle, perhaps with
drinking water at that time, and when Gallagher first learned of it,
presumably empty by that time -- or in use to contain something.  At any
rate, Koata had it.

Benedictine bottles have certainly moved into the late 20th century.  It's a
screw-on cap now with the familiar tamper-proof, shrink-on plastic sleeve.
I take the material of the cap to be polyethylene contrived to look like it
might be a cork with a cap such as I feel sure it was in an earlier time.
(Was there a small brass chain?  Who knows...)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Actually, we're quite sure there was no brass chain.  A recent posting gave
the url for a website thaty sells reproductions of old liquor posters.  There
was an add for Benedictine dating from 1915.  The bottle shape and label
looked identical to the present version and there was no brass chain on the
stopper.

Sounds like a reasonable experiment.  It will be interesting to see what
results you get.  I'll do the same here with a 375ML bottle.  ( I have a 750
but it's still half full and if I empty it I wont be able to see well enough
to do the experiment.)

LTM
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:36:14 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Gallagher's photography

Gallagher would have had no trouble developing film and making contact
prints on Niku.  I'm betting he was into photography to the extent that he
could well have done it.  He probably sent photos home too.  I wish we could
confirm whether or not he was into photography to that extent.

It's so easy to do whith B&W film and contact prints.  I've done it in all
sorts of situations.  If it's difficult to find a dark place, you do it
reaching into a duffle-bag or even working under a coat.  Remember the black
cloth bag the professionals used to use in the field?

There would have been nothing specifically photographic to send back.  Any
chemicals that might have been around would have been discarded and not sent
with his other stuff.  Of course, there is the question of a camera.  Sold?
I understand that his sextant was sold... When?  Where?

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

Hold the presses.  I found it.  Gallagher did have a camera.

Item 31 in the inventory is "1 Case marked G.B.G. containing:

"1 rain coat, 1 box playing cards, 1 envelope of magazine (?), 1 bottle
lotion, 2 clothes brushes, 1 box ties and cigarette case, 6 fans, 1 cigarette
box, 1 pair hair clippers, 1 brass ornament, 1 bottle ?, 1 tube shaving
cream, 1 picture, 1 camera, 1 bottle talc powder, 1 stud box, 9 Gilbertese
hats, 1 pair braces, 2 felt hats, 1 pair evening shoes, 1 pair mosquitoe
boots, 1 tennis racket, 1 handkerchief case, 5 Gilbertese curios, 1 hair
brush, 1 Flying helmet, 2 pairs goggles, 1 ash tray, 1 wallet, 1 pair dark
glasses, 1 curtain, 1 pair sox, 1 packet negatives, exercise books, luggage
labels, etc."

Item 30, by the way, is an attache case containing:
"Set of links and studs, 2 gold coat buttons, Pilot licence, Pilots log book,
passport, cheque book, 2 fountain pens, torch, travelling clock, photographs
and personal papers, 2 Ordinance survey maps."

His sextant, as I recall, was given to the master of the Viti.

Still no mention of photo developing supplies and the inventory is so
exhaustive that I would expect them to be listed.  Everything was cataloged,
right down to the contents of the pantry which were left on the island ( 8
dozen Ideal Milk, 5 doz and 10 Condensed Milk, 7 Gross Box of Matches, 9/3
worth of Fish Hooks, 1 box Refined Black Lead, Tilly Vapourisers and Mantles,
3 doz. and 10 assorted Soup, 2 tins Milk, 2 doz tins assorted vegetables,"
etc, etc., etc.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:37:58 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      N16020

    Last week I made a post which said that I had the coordinates and
date for the crash of N16020.

    Apparently, some thought I was referring to the Earhart Electra.  I
received some private E-mail asking how I found it and so on.  I didn't
mean to confuse anybody.  I understand now that there are those who
don't read the entire thread.

    N16020 was the "Baby Electra" owned by Paul Mantz. which crashed near
Bicycle Lake, California in the early 60s.  I talked with Joe Gervias,
the author of the book "Amelia Earhart Lives".  He has been to the site
and says there is nothing left there anymore.  He did have an
interesting story to tell.

    Anyway, I just wanted to make sure nobody else has a
misunderstanding as to what I was referring to.

Don J.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:35:15 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

I just noticed another clue.  In trying to bribe Isaac to spring the bones
from Tarawa, Gallagher offers him his own kanawa box or table, saying "we
have a little seasoned timber left."  Suggesting, and it's doubtless so, that
you've got to season kanawa wood before you make it into something.  Since
the tree from which the coffin was made was from a tree that had until
recently been standing near where the bones were found, they must have
already been doing some clearing in the neighborhood, so that the wood would
(chuck chuck) have had time to become seasoned.

TK
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Gallagher's communication to Isaac was on February 11, 1941.  I his
transmittal letter of December 27, 1940 (which accompanied the bones) he says:

"Should any relatives be traced, it may prove of sentimental interest for
them to know that the coffin in which the remains are contained is made from
a local wood known as "kanawa" and the tree was, until a year ago, growing on
the edge of the lagoon, not very far from the spot where the deceased was
found."

This would indicate that the tree was cut down as early as December 1939,
long before any clearing was started on parts of the island other than the
immediate village area.  Sounds to me like they were harvesting kanawa trees
independent of clearing operations because they recognized the value of the
wood.  In fact, it may have been a kanawa harvesting foray that led to the
initial discovery of the skull.

I also notice that there is a descrepancy about who found the bottle and
when.  In his very first communication to the Resident Commissioner on Ocean
Island on September 23, 1940 Gallagher says:

"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull - this was
buried and I only recently heard about it.  Thorough search has now produced
more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box.
...."

This clearly indicates that the bottle was found by Gallagher along with the
other artifacts.  But in his telegram to Wernham on Tarawa on the same day he
says:

"Please obtain from Koata (Native Magistrate Gardner on way to Central
Hospital) a certain bottle alleged to have been found near skull discovered
on Gardner Island ..."

He is telling rather different stories in the two messages.

Kilts says that the "cognac" bottle was found "beside the body" and that the
skull was found "farther down the beach."  This agrees with the version of
the story Gallagher told the Resident Commissioner.  Sounds to me like Koata
went off with the bottle when he left for Tarawa and Irish didn't find out
about it until after he had left.  He wires ahead to Wernham to get him to
intercept Koata and retrieve the bottle, but he doesn't tell him the whole
story.  When you think about it, it makes more sense for the bottle to be at
the campsite with the other stuff rather than have somehow traveled with the
skull.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:02:35 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Fred Noonan's A-5 Octant

After I got your reply on the 1941 production date of the A-5.   I went
back and consulted my navigation library.  Publication, TECHNICAL MANUAL
- CELESTIAL AIR NAVIGATION, TM-206, by the War Dept., dated March 4,
1941,  page 123  paragraph 62 -subject A-5 octant says " The complete
description, operation, and maintenance instructions pertaining to the
type A-5 octant are given in Air Corps Technical Order 05-35-4 dated
February 15, 1937."  Pictures on pages 124 & 125.

In AIR NAVIGATION published by Weems in 1931 & second edition(my copy)
in 1938, chapter 21 page 308 describes a Pioneer Octant with a picture
matching the A-5.  I suspect the 1941 production date may be for its
successor the A-7 with its addition/improvement of an averaging device.
I'm still looking for a date on the A-7 but 1940-41 was about the time
newer sextants came out with improvements/changes  in averaging, weight,
and (hopefully) accuracy.

It sounds like you are giving serious consideration to a chartered jet
to overfly Howland and I hope that it will work out to bring in the
revenue to further TIGHAR'S activites.  A real reenactment flight though
should be done in another aircraft that can duplicate the Electra's
speed, be suitable for accomplishing celestial navigation & DR, and
carry the personel and journalists.  Could that portion be funded by
selling the coverage rights to Nova, History Channel, National
Geographic, or all combined?  It would also make a great video for
TIGHAR to offer for sale.  Perhaps, hats, jackets, posters, etc.  Just a
thought.  If you think this is doable and wish to enquire or pursue it
further, I spent some time ferrying some repoed DC-3's and a DC-6 and
know some people in the business of running old Dougs like the DC-4
previously suggested.  What say ye Commander Ric?

Doug B.
#2335
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Hmmmm.  Sounds like the A-5 may have been brand new at the time Manning
borrowed a "Pioneer bubble octant" from the Navy in early March 1937.

The questions I have about the reeenactment flight are:

1.  Can we safely get a 767 (at the weight we'll be running) down to 130
knots IAS for the reenactment portion of the flight?

2.  If not, how slow CAN we go?

3.  Can we still do what we need to do at that speed (whatever it is)?

As I've said before, we're not going to prove anything by a reenactment.  The
best we can hope for is to get a better understanding of the problems that
faced Earahrt and Noonan by seeing the world from their perspective.  If
doing that also helps fund the project, so much the better.  I too love old
propeller airliners and it would be a hoot to fly the reenactment in one, but
it still wouldn't prove anything and I very much doubt that any TV market
would pay enough to make it break even.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:05:14 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Gallagher's photography

No mention of whether the negatives were exposed either....

A possibility?

RossD

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

I would think that we can safely assume that a "packet of negatives" refers
to exposed  film that has been developed.  That's what a negative is.
Otherwise it would just be "film."
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:07:42 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Re: Gallagher's photography

Please pardon my ignorance, but what are "mosquitoe boots"?

MStill 2332

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

DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MOSQUITOE BOOTS ARE?  Neither
do I.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:20:28 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Gallagher Inventory

Regarding Gallagher's inventory:  we find his flying helmet, goggles,
pilot's "licence" and Log Book...!

It does seem hard to believe that if he believed the bones could the remains
of AE, that he did not go looking for what brought her there.
Or perhaps he did...!  Of course, if the aircraft was reduced to rubble by
this time and any remnants out near the reef might be assumed to be from the
Norwich City, this may be a reason why he didn't recognize anything.

And how very English... a tennis racket?  Evening shoes, etc?  On a tropical
island?  I can see it now.

LTM (who was a pretty hot tennis player in her day, even while wearing
evening clothes)

Mike E.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

It is indeed hard to think that Gallagher would not have been pretty excited
by his discovery - and there is every indication that he WAS excited (to the
extent that a Britsh serving officer is capable of being excited) - but it is
also quite apparent that he knew nothing of any airplane wreckage on the
island.  It also seems to be the case that at least some of the local
population WERE aware of such wreckage.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 15:01:21 EST
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Norwich City survivor's camp

How far was the Norwich City survivor's camp, with the cache of supplies in
comparison to the site where the bones were found.  Would it make sense in
AE and FN found the Norwich City survivor's camp with the cache of supplies
that they would have stay near it until the supplies began to run out (at
least water), perhaps exploring the island while using the cache?  Would
there be material in the cache of supplies that could perhaps be use to make
a makeshift tent?

Regards.

Warren Lambing

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

Bear in mind that we don't exactly where the survivor's camp was but we
surmise that it was near the wreck, and we don't know where the bones were
found except that it was somewhere on the other end of the island.  Neither
do we know what was included in the supply cache, so it's pretty hard to do
anything but speculate about the issues you raise.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 15:04:27 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Mosquitoe boots

So far, Dave Bush and Clyde Miller have both explained that mosquitoe boots
are very tiny.  Jeeesh, you guys....
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:16:14 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

I wonder, now, if we might even be talking about two seperate bottles.

Also, I wonder if the Kanawa tree/s were felled in anticipation of the
construction of Gallagher's house, some other building.  It is clear, in the
quotation related by Tom King that the wood was specifically harvested for
some particular purpose, hence Gallagher saying "we have a little seasoned
timber left".

ltm,
jon 2266

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

I don't think we're talking about two bottles.  Gallagher never does mention
any bottle to the big bosses down in Fiji.  I think the Benedictine bottle
was the only one and it got away from him and he was too embarrassed to
admit it.  Wernham retrieved it from Koata in Tarawa but that's the last we
hear of it.

Kanawa was widely recognized as valuable hardwood.  It's conceivable that
Gallagher ordered that it be harvested long before he moved his headquarters
to Gardner.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:27:15 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Gallagher Inventory

Well, it's not necessarily the case that some of the colonists were aware of
the aircraft wreckage (if it was there, etc. etc.) when the bones were found.
 It's not impossible that the wreckage was found later, perhaps after
Gallagher went on leave.

LTM
TK

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

Well, let's see....  we think the the skull was found in April of 1940 and we
know that Gallagher found the rest of the bones in September 1940.  Gallagher
went on leave in June 1941.

We know that Emily knew about the wreckage and she seems to have arrived on
Niku in mid-January 1940 and departed on November 30, 1941.  So, yes - it is
possible that the wreckage was discovered after June 1941 (when Gallagher
went on leave) but before November 30, 1941 when Emily left.  It's even
possible that the discovery was made after Gallagher's return and death in
September 1941 but before Emily's departure two months later.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:55:09 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Mosquitoe boots

Maybe really, really small boots?
*************************************************************************

From Margot

I have this strange mental image of tiny mosquitos walking around in even
tinier Doc Martens.

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

Aaaargh!
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:03:34 EST
From:         Mike Meunich
Subject:      Gallagher

The more I read of the body location and the field clearing operations, the
more I think they are connected.  Am I correct that the village was not near
the area where the bones were located?  If so, how were they discovered.  If
Gallager was intent on clearing areas for planting, I doubt that anyone had
time to explore, except in the immediate areas they were assigned to clear.
I note the reference, in several posts, that the bones were "near an area to
be cleared".  Ergo my opinion that the bones were discovered by crews either
proceeding to the work or very near an area already cleared or to be cleared.
 Given the British passion for detail, were there any surveys or maps
prepared of areas to be cleared, status reports of area cleared, or
descriptions of same.  If you could confirm by any of this data were
clearings and plantings were to be made or were made, you might substantially
narrow your searching area or confirm further the 1996 site.

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

The first discovery, the skull, was made about six months before Gallagher
came to live on the island.  At that time clearing and planting operations
were confined to the area immediately surrounding the village and , yes, the
bones were found at some considerable distance from the village.  But
Gallagher specifically says that the skull was found by a "working party."
Working at what?  He later indicates that a kanawa tree that stood near where
the body was found had been cut down as early as December 1939.  Sounds to me
like the skull was found by a kanawa harvesting work party.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:11:38 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Reenactment flight

Ric asked:

>The questions I have about the reeenactment flight are:
>1.  Can we safely get a 767 (at the weight we'll be running) down to 130
>knots IAS for the reenactment portion of the flight?

No.

A likely 767-300 gross weight vicinity Howland would be about 310,000 lbs. At
that weight, clean maneuvering speed is 223 KIAS. Flaps 20 maneuvering speed
is 163. Even with gear and landing flaps, 143 is the minimum speed.

Whether you SHOULD extend flaps that far from an airport is another matter.

Skeet
***************************************************************************
From Doug Brutlag

Dear Ric;

Q.  Can we get a 767 down to 130 knots for the reenactment portion of
the flight?

A.  Yes you can, BUT.....................................using a
B-767-300 ER aircraft you would have to get the weight down to at least
240, 000 lbs.  The aircraft has a gross weight of 408,000 lbs takeoff.
It holds 160,000 lbs fuel, and carries around 200 passengers in a
typical 3 class configuration.  If we takeoff from Fiji fly to the
reenactment point I described earlier(N0.05' W180.00') and then try to
fly 207 miles to Howland- 351 miles to Niku- circle a few times and then
get back to Fiji, it wouldn't make it.  I can't tell the ballpark figure
of fuel you would have remaining to do this portion at 130 knots but I
can tell you(and Skeet knows)  that one would have to fly at the Vref
speed -130 knots with the flaps and gear hanging down.  Consequently,
your fuel flow(burn) goes up exponentially over normal clean
configuration cruise same altitude.  Bottom line in plain english- you
would be taking a swim(or could remake "Airport 1975" --747 goes down in
the Bermuda triangle and they are located and survive-what a BS flick!)

Q. How slow can we go?
A. Realistically, I think you would need to carry a good 100,000 lb or
more fuel load, but then you would be pushing somewhere above lets
guess, 340,000 lbs gross weight.  Vref  at that weight is 152 knot plus
you add 6 knots for approach speed + any wind or gust additives on top
of that.

Q.  Can we still do what we need to do at that speed(or whatever it is)?

A.  I suppose in theory you could.  I think you would be faking it alot
more than what you would imagine at this point.  To me, in a 767 this is
a nostalgic sightseeing flight-not a reenactment.  To do the
reenactment, you need a more realistic & qualified airplane. Not another
10E Electra but one that could fly like one and carry the pilots,
navigators, TIGHAR staff, press & flim crew.  I could show you easy
enough how to shoot celestial in a 767 having done it, but again to me
this is not the way to reeenact it.  My opinion is to do both.  I think
it would not only serve the fact-finding & research job but would also
serve to bring public awareness of the Earhart mystery, bring good PR
for TIGHAR, and bring in $$$ for Niku IV in 2001 and maybe then some.

I honestly think this is doable and you could come out winning more ways
than one.  Lets talk about it Ric.

Doug B.
#2335
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Doug and I have now talked about it and we have differing opinions about the
practicality of TIGHAR buying and certificating a DC-4 airplane for the
purpose of making this flight.  I don't see how the economics could work but
I'm willing to be convinced.  Doug is going to look into it.

Meanwhile, I think we're still looking at the question of how slow can we
safely go with a 767 and can we do anything meaningful at that speed?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:16:37 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Mosquitoe boots

Actually, mosquitoes aren't very common in this particular part of Central
Africa, but those which are here are the nasty malaria-carrying type. And so
every man must sleep under mosquito netting, and there are signs warning the
men not to attend the evening picture show without wearing mosquito boots.

For some reason, these local mosquitoes have a weakness for ankles, and
shin-high boots frustrate them completely.

The term "Mosquito Boots" was fairly common in the mid 30's.  In Hemingway's
"The Snows of Kilamanjaro" there was even a reference to them.  They were
called "jungle boots" when I was in the Air Force.

RossD
**************************************************************************

From Ric

Central Africa?  There are no mosquitoes on Nikmaroro but I can see how
someone coming out from England would not know that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:18:57 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Mosquitoe boots

In Texas, one wears Mosquitoe Boots so that one can step on the bigger ones
to kill them.  *LOL*

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

I still want that raise.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:53:43 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bottles and corks

<< Kanawa was widely recognized as valuable hardwood.  It's conceivable that
Gallagher ordered that it be harvested long before he moved his headquarters
to Gardner. >>

That's a good point.  As I recall, the furniture in Gallagher's house was
made of Kanawa, which means they had to be harvesting it pretty early in the
game.  There's another reference, though, whose origin I can't recall right
now but I think is in one of the progress reports, about Kanawa being "cut to
waste" as clearing goes forward.  Of course, the two kinds of cutting aren't
mutually exclusive.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:12:21 EST
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Mosquitoe boots

Whew!  I'm glad someone cleared up what mosquito boots are.  I was afraid it
could have gotten silly.  Having worked on the North Slope of Alaska, I can
assure you that any body part that is not covered will be attacked.  We used
to wear the really high L.L. Bean "Maine hunting shoes" which came almost to
the knee.

Gallagher probably didn't know if there were mosquitoes on Niku or not, but I
suspect that any well-equipped Englishman going to the tropics had 'em.

Tim Smith 1142C
**************************************************************************
From Fred Madio

This speculation should be regarded as nothing more then a "shot in dim
light," but I think they might be something like the suede dessert boots
that were popular in the mid to late 1960's.  I think

Regards

Fred Madio
**************************************************************************
From herman

Rix said :

<Central Africa?  There are no mosquitoes on Nikmaroro but I can see how
<someone coming out from England would not know that.

Well, the British were/are famous for bringing tennis rackets and evening
dress out to the weird places like jungles or deserts. One British officer is
known to have brought his golf clubs parachting into the ill-fated Operation
Market Garden (September 1944, at Arnhem). And on D-Day (6 June 1944) a
Scotish regiment waded ashore bagpipes playing.
To the Brits it is good form (and still is I suppose) to dress up and have
dinner served by an attendant even in the midst of the jungle, bringing their
way of living with them and showing the flag of civilisation wherever they
come. That's what makes Brits different from the rest of us. It has to do
with manners and upbringing, I suppose.
Since mosquito boots have been mentioned, I find them increasingly confusing.
For there is yet another explanation. One source tells me Mosquito boots were
the boots worn by WW II RAF pilots flying twin engined de Havilland DH-98
Mosquitoes. These were originally unarmed high-speed bombers with a crew of
two that carried the same bomb load as a B-17, only much faster. They proved
to be so fast that they were soon used as radar-carrying night fighters, then
PR recce planes and as "pathfinders" (to pinpoint targets with coloured
flares at night for other bombers). Th secret  of their succes was that they
were built of wood and canvas (even their propellers were made of wood) which
made them invisble on German radar (today they would be called "stealth
bombers").That's why they suffered fewer losses than the four engined
heavies.
Now where do the boots fit in ? As the Mosquito had no heating, the two-man
crew had to wear warm clothing and that included special boots, they liked to
  refer to as their "Mosquito boots". Hemingway may have been right when he
wrote about mosquito boots in Africa but I'm pretty sure that at the altitude
Mosquitoes flew, their crew had no problems with mosquitoes and therefore
their Mosquito boots were not to protect them from mosquitoes but to keep
ther feet warm when keeping them for hours on the rudder pedals of their
Mosquitoes.

LTM from Herman (who wonders about mosquito boots)

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

Given that Gallagher left for the Pacific in July 1937 and the first flight
of the prototype deHaviland Mosquito wasn't until January 1940, I sort of
doubt that his "mosquitoe boots" were RAF issue.
**************************************************************************
From Jon Watson

Quentin Reynolds referenced them in something he wrote circa wwII also, and
described them as being shin-high boots.  Another reference described them
as canvas.  I sort of envision Gallagher going down to his local safari
outfitter, and telling them he's going to the south pacific, and to set it
up for him.  Or maybe such equipment was standard issue for foreign service
officers in the far reaches of the world...
It is interesting about the negatives though - I agree that if undeveloped
the packet would have been referred to as "film".  And of course I wonder if
the book of pictures was one of local stuff, or of loved ones left behind.
No way to know, of course.  I know that during WWII my dad used to develop
his own negatives and make contact prints without any fancy stuff.  Was
there anything listed in the inventory that might have been a film
processing tank?  Maybe even mis-identified as something else?
Have a great weekend.
ltm
jon  2266
***************************************************************************
From Ric

No tanks of any kind mentioned, but I don't think that it's a big issue
whether he could develop his own film or not.  He could certainly send or
take it back to someplace where it could be developed, however infrequently.
It is perhaps worthy of note that there is no unexposed film listed in the
inventory and at the time of his death he had just returned from Fiji.  Seems
like if he was into taking pictures he would have brought some film.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:15:12 EST
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Mosquito boots

Mosquitoes in the South Pacific wear them while operating on the ground during
damp weather.

Don't ask me for evidence.

Roger Kelley, 2112

***************************************************************************
From Kathi

Up here in Minnesota, the 'skeeters are so big they actually set off the civil
defense sirens!

    Enough *LOL*

      Kathi
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:41:18 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Gallagher

<< Gallagher specifically says that the skull was found by a "working party."
Working at what? >>

I think it's a tossup as to whether "working party" means a small,
project-specific party or the whole gang, who were all salaried government
employees at the time, engaged in the work of getting the island cleared and
planted sufficiently to become a real colony.

Of the three current candidate sites for the bones discovery site, one of
them (Kanawa Point) is quite close to the village; Aukaraime is pretty
distant, and the 96 site is real distant.  One thing that impressed me
yesterday going through the logs of the Loran Station, though, was how
quickly folks were moving up and down the island through the lagoon.  It was
common practice for the crew to take Saturday liberty trips to the village,
leaving at 1330 and returning about 1630 but often earlier, and there are
instances of round trips of little more than an hour.  That's in a power
boat, of course, but canoes are pretty fast, too.  We may be overrating the
difficulty of travelling to even the most distant of the candidate sites.

TK
***************************************************************************

From Ric

Reading through Gallagher's quarterly reports I get a strong impression that
no clearing and planting operations were undertaken at any distance from the
village until the spring of 1941.  What aerial photos we have from that
period seem to bear that out.

As for travel times on the lagoon, it takes a good 15 minutes to go from the
lagoon beach near the village to the 1996 site in a good powerboat (about 2.5
nm at 10 knots).  How fast is a sailing canoe?

Anytime we're working at some distance from the landing/village we always set
up a base camp at the remote location.  Just makes sense.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:46:12 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Reenactment flight

Ric, as to the reenactment/sightseeing flight I suppose it is possible to
combine the two but we need first to decide what we can realistically
reenact. It will not be the celestial navigation but in spite of that I think
it is a great idea.

I've read all the notes about different sextants but I'm not sure what the
significance is. Fred's task was to shoot sufficient celestial bodies to
compute fixes and thus his position and course. Whatever piece of equipment
he had was technically capable of doing that. Fred was technically capable of
doing that. What we don't know is what celestial bodies were visible at any
given time because of weather. We will not answer that question no matter
what we do. Something else we don't know exactly is what Fred's visibility
from the airplane was. I am talking about what celestial altitudes he could
shoot.  Celestial azimuth is not a problem. Fortunately the plane was capable
of turning. Can we answer this last question? What could he see from the
cockpit and what could he see from the passenger compartment? I don't think
it is overly critical based on the celestial altitudes during that day but it
might help at some point. In any case a reenactment will not resolve either
question. As to the celestial navigation itself I think the only thing
redoing that would prove is how well one of us or whoever could shoot a
sextant and how quickly and accurately he could do the math and plot. Again I
don't see what purpose that would serve. None of us is Fred Noonan.

The only thing I can think of that would have precluded Noonan from
successfully navigating would have been weather obscuring celestial bodies
and/or small islands. We could fly that route every day and never resolve the
weather issue.

What we can do is fly around the area at 1,000' and at some reasonably slow
speed on a morning (same time frame) with scattered to broken CU and observe
the difficulty or ease in visually spotting the island. I suppose any island
of similar size under the same conditions MIGHT (but not necessarily)
suffice. Kind of take the fun out of it though.

The second thing we could do is head from Howland down the 157-337 degree
course and see what lies ahead on the way to Niku.

And the third thing is to fly low around Niku to see what faced our daring
duo on their arrival.

I think all that could be done in most any practical plane. The slow flight
part of the problem only deals with having time to visually spot Howland so I
would guess any speed around 150k or 160k would work although one could
imagine Earhart had slowed the Electra down close to a minimum airspeed to
make spotting the island that much easier. We're not going to have a plane
that can do that. If she slowed to 100k and the best we can do is 150k we'll
traverse 5nm in 2 minutes and she would have taken 3 minutes. I'm not sure
that would be enough of a difference to invalidate our experiment.

To me this all means we ought to pick a plane that can carry enough folks to
make it profitable and one where there is adequate visibility that people can
be satisfied they got their money's worth of looking out.

As to the navigation I would opt for GPS and all the best nav gear and if
someone thinks they have a way of figuring out what Noonan could or could not
do they can happily do celestial to their heart's content.

Alan
#2329
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree.

As to what could and could not be seen from the Electra, we can certainly
measure those angles of view from existing Model 10s.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:08:12 EST
From:         Shirley
Subject:      Re Norwich City survivors' camp

What are the possibilities of AE/FN perhaps leaving something (buried or
otherwise) important at the survivors camp?  Of course, thats assuming they
found it which seems completely logical.  It also seems logical to me that
they might leave something there - especially if they felt their chances of
being found were slim and none and they wanted to "leave a mark" so to speak.

LTM,

Shirley 2299
***************************************************************************
From Ric

It's certainly a possibility and I think we have lots of reasons to see if we
can locate the site of the Norwich City survivors' camp, but it probably
won't be easy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:11:33 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Reenactment flight

Since discussion is progressing on the Reenactment Flight (R-1 hmm?) I am 
sending this and leave it to your discretion whether to clutter the Forum 
with it. It's way too long....

As reported by AW&ST, Boeing statistics show inflight shutdowns on the 767 
occur only once every 83,000 ETOPS flights since inception. For the year 
ending September, 1998, there were zero inflight shutdowns for 165,000 ETOPS 
flights. The PW4000 achieved a shutdown rate of 0.0026 per 1,000 flight 
hours, significantly better than the 0.02 rate required by the FAA for ETOPS 
qualification. Points to ponder as you board a DC-4 with an engine life 
expectancy of 2,000 hours.

What follows is a summary of one possible scenario. This would be flown in a 
B-767-300ER or equivalent aircraft operated by a major airline as a charter. 
Except for the circuit of Howland and Nikumaroro, and the flight between 
these two islands, the airplane would operate at normal turbine altitudes and 
speeds. To do otherwise would be prohibitively fuel inefficient.

Note that times are given in both Fiji (NAN) and (GMT)

DEPT  NADI, FIJI  0332NAN/1532GMT  LEG DIST 1062NM  ETE 2:30
ARRV  N04E175     0602NAN/1802GMT
(THIS POINT IS ON EARHART'S ASSUMED COURSE TO HOWLAND, 400 NAUTICAL MILES 
WEST)

DEPT  N04E175     0602NAN/1802GMT  LEG DIST 400NM   ETE 1:10
COMMENCE DESCENT FROM CRUISE ALTITUDE TO 5000 FT (CROSS DATE LINE)
ARRV HOWLAND N0048.0W17638.0 02JUL00 0712NAN/1912GMT

(THIS EXACT ARRIVAL TIME IS IMPORTANT)

DELAY VICINITY HOWLAND ALTITUDE 1,500 FT 0:16

DEPT HOWLAND   0728NAN/1928GMT  LEG DIST 348NM   ETE 1:15
ARRV NIKUMARORO, KIRIBATI S0440.3W17432.5  0843NAN/2043GMT

DELAY VICINITY NIKUMARORO ALTITUDE 1,500 0:16

DEPT NIKU   02JUL00  0859NAN/2059GMT  LEG DIST 908NM   ETE 2:10
ARRV NAN    03JUL00  1109NAN/2309GMT

TOTAL FLIGHT TIME: 7:37
TOTAL DISTANCE (NOT INCLUDING CIRCLING): 2,718 NAUTICAL MILES
APPROXIMATE 767-300 FUEL BURN: 91,000 LBS
TOTAL FUEL CAPACITY OF 767-300: 161,800 LBS

Skeet
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Postings about little tiny boots are clutter.  This is not clutter.  
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:14:56 EST
From:         Chris D.
Subject:      Kanawa stumps

All this talk about kanawa tree haversting...  If it is a hardwood, how many
years do the stumps last before oblivion?

Has Tighar noticed any? Just a few? In specific locations?

More possibilities for conjectures, I guess.

Chris D
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Good question.  I've never seen a hardwood stump of any description on Niku.
Lots of old cocos, but no hardwood stumps.  Other team members recall ever
seeing a stump?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:16:22 EST
From:         Suzanne
Subject:      Mosquitoe boots

Oh, you guys and gals,

Mosquitoes' boots are little, little tiny boots that mosquitoes wear to keep
their feet dry.

LTM,
Suzanne

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

There has GOT to be a way to stop this.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:19:39 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: Mosquitoe boots

For the British isn't a "Boot"  the trunk?  Is it possible he in fact had a
mosquito "trunk"  meaning of course a very very very small trunk, where he
kept the secret photography chemicals, the bottle, the cork, and everything
else?

Clyde Miller
(who wandered off years ago and is still wandering)

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

I'm going to write a book, "When Forums Go Bad."
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:21:32 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Gallagher inventory

It is interesting also that item 31 in the inventory listed "1
packet negatives."  That alone should spur our continued search for his
belongings.

LTM
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, and thank you for not mentioning the you-know-whats.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:43:43 EST
From:         Mike Meunch
Subject:      Gallagher

 As usual, I am getting confused.  Mr. Gillespie's most recent post seems to
indicate that no "distant" clearing occurred until after Gallagher arrived.
I a given to understand the the '96 site is quite removed from the village,
yet several references yesterday quoted Gallagher's notes referring to
finding the body near either sites cleared or soon to be cleared.  I doubt
that there were native "survey" parties laying out areas away from the
village unless they had some form of maps or instructions that they could
follow.  Was someone else there instructing them prior to Gallagher's arrival
or were they operating solely on their own?  It seems to me that some form of
detailed map of the island with references to various sites, times, events,
locations etc. and posted at the web site for reference is a necessity for
those of us who try to correlate all this information.  I am still wondering
whether or not Gallagher or the natives had maps or drawings instructing him
where and how to layout all of these platting areas.  If so, who prepared
them and have they been located?

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

A couple of months ago we put a map of Nikumaroro  with references to various
sites, times, events, locations etc. on the TIGHAR website.  To find it go to
the Earhart Project page, look under "Information on the TIGHAR Website" and
click on "Maps."  Or you can go directly to:
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Nikumap.html

If you'll re-read the posting about Gallagher's references to where the bones
were found you'll find that there is just one mention that the place was to
be cleared later.  Whether it was or not is another question.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:48:29 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Benedictine bottle

I see no great discrepancy between Gallagher's two reports on the finding of
the Benedictine bottle.  One can easily assume (i.e., speculate) that a
"thorough search" would have included a thorough grilling of the work party
who actually found the skull back in April.  I can envision one of these
guys sheepishly handing over a Benedictine bottle:  "We found this at the
same time, Mr. Irish."

More problematic to me is why AE would carry her drinking water around in a
Benedictine bottle when more suitable containers (canteens, water bottles,
thermos flasks) were available on the Electra.  If there was time to salvage
Fred's sextant there should have been time to transfer other survival gear
ashore before the plane broke up.  I imagine that potable water would be
Item Number One on the survival list, followed closely by food.  A sextant
would be important if you were capable of radioing your position to
potential rescuers, but even then, why take it very far from the radio?

So it seems to me that the sextant box either was used as a container for
more important items (like provisions) or was simply flotsam from the
Electra or the Norwich City.

I remain perplexed at how Gallagher, with nothing more than a partial
skeleton and part of a shoe sole to go one, was so convinced that the
remains were female and the shoes were women's size 10 stoutish walking
shoes (no indication of any correspondence between Gerald and the Cat's Paw
people).  One is led to conclude that there >>must<< have been other indicia
of the castaway's gender, but if that is so why didn't Gallagher report it?
An enigma wrapped in riddles....

I continue to believe that the complete disappearance of the leather uppers
and the apparent lack of even a shred of clothing on the skeleton strongly
suggest that the remains were more than three years old.  However, this all
was debated some months ago (see:  Scavenging Habits of Coconut Crabs) and
the general consensus was that "in situ" experimentation might be helpful.
As in, "Delaware Man Murders Goat on Remote Pacific Island."

LTM

Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:49:34 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      clutter

Would questions about the in flight movies on the reenactment flight at this
time be considered clutter?

Clyde Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:51:05 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Kanawa stumps

I've never seen a Kanawa stump -- or recognized one, anyhos -- and I'm not
sure Kanawa is technically a hardwood.  In any event, the deterioration rate
on Niku appears to me to be pretty directly related to exposure to the sun.
In the real open areas, there are preserved coconut stumps, but back in the
bush where there's lots of biomass accumulating all the time and therefore
lots of biological activity, things seem to disappear pretty fast.  So I
don't think it would do us much good to look for Kanawa stumps; any we'd find
would be as much a function of contemporary canopy absence as of original
Kanawa distribution.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:52:18 EST
From:         Subject:      Re: Mosquitoe boots
From Tom King

You've gotten stung, Ric.  You've just got to stomp this out before it sucks
you dry.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:00:33 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      search area

Why not assume that Gallagher was accurate in his estimate that the castaway
was only 2 miles from a source of coconuts, then draw a 1.5 to 2.5 mile
perimeter around the known cocos at that time.  Ill bet that you find there
are only limited areas that are 2 miles from known cocos.

Would give you a nice 1 mile red zone to think about looking on your next
trip.

Andrew McKenna  1045C
**************************************************************************
From Ric

What Gallagher said was "...  less than two miles away there is a a small
grove of coconut trees ...".  How much less than two miles?  In 1940 there
were five groves of mature cocos on the island.  Which one do we measure
from?  I'm afraid that a one mile red zone doesn't help us much.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:38:41 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Gallagher

On this same subject of maps, and Re my question on the 19th and 20th.
"I have been reading everything i can on the web site, and wonder if during
your stays on the island, you have produced a map showing where the clearing
and the planting was actually carried out?"

The map doesn't show any of the clearing operations Mike and I asked about.

It's not only the places that the settlers cleared that is interesting now,
but perhaps just as interesting is where they DIDN'T clear.  If I remember
correctly, my coconut trees took over 5 years to bear fruit that would
"sustain life" from the time of planting.  Somewhere on that island was an
established "small grove" of coconut trees already.

Is there any indication of where the early planting (prior to the
settlement) was?  Another interesting point is the reference to "no attempt
to dig a well".  By that time Gallagher knew a bit at least about the
island.  He must have deemed it not to be an impossible task.

I also can't imagine a "polynesian native" lying under a tree, dying of
thirst with coconuts anywhere within miles.  Obviously we don't know his
circumstances (in the unlikely event it was a male polynesian native), he
could have been seriously injured.  But he had a sextant box (an odd article
for a polynesian native) and a benedictine bottle (also odd).  He had either
been fit enough to find the survivor's cache, or was a very sophisticated
native who wore size nine lace up boots.

If he was fit enough to find the survivor's camp, surely he could have
located a few coconut trees.  And being a "polynesian native" I'm sure he
would have known how to collect and open coconuts and drink and eat them -
especially as he was active enough to catch and cook birds and turtles.

I know this doesn't rule out the bones being polynesian - but if you think
about it, the average white man or woman faced with coconuts (with their
thick husks) and no tools hasn't a clue how to get into the things.  Much
less how gather any drinking nuts (green and on the tree).

Anyway, back to my original question.  Do you know where the original
plantings were before Gallagher's time.  Are there any sign of established
trees in early pictures.  They would be quite tall.  (5 years gets the trunk
of a coconut to about 3-4 metres and the tips of the fronds about the same
again.)  This is NOT a guess, but there are different varieties of coconuts
so it is also not completely foolproof either.

Any established or old trees should still stand out from the others.

Another point of interest..  "There was no evidence of any attempt to dig a
well and the wretched man presumably died of thirst. less than two miles
away there is a small grove of coconut trees which would have been
sufficient to keep him alive if he had only found it. He was separated from
those trees, however, by an inpenetrable (sic)belt of bush. GBG"

If the bones had been found near Kanawa Point, that would put Gallagher's
description at "Less than one mile away".  The British have historically
been pretty well known for detail and accuracy in their official reports.
That kind of suggests (if the coconut grove was near the village - and that
seems logical - if you were settling a Tropical Island I imagine if there
was a nice grove of coconuts nearby...) that the bones location was nearer
to the site TIGHAR recovered relics from.

Or on the other side of the lagoon, near where aeroplane wreckage was
thought to be...

I'd opt for the TIGHAR site as being still interesting.  But I still believe
there would be another camp for night time.

RossD

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

In 1892 a work party of approximateey 20 Niue islanders in the employ of John
T. Arundel did some limited clearing and planting on Gardner.  By October of
1937 when Maude and Bevington visited the island there were a total of 111
trees in bearing.  These were in five groves - 2 in what would later be
called Ritiati district and 3 in Nutiran district near the main lagoon
passage (see map on website).  The exact location of these trees can be
confirmed in early aerial photos of the island.

The parts of the island that were cleared and planted are:
1.  Ritiati and Noriti districts, and some parts of Tekebeia (1939-1940)
2.  The western section of Aukeraime (1941)
3.  The southern section of Nutiran (1949)
4.  The central section of Nutiran (sometime after 1953)

Whoever the castaway was, the skull measurements taken by Dr. Hoodless
strongly indicate that the person was not Polynesian.

Anyone who found the Norwich City survivors' camp would have had to have
found the groves of cocos on Nutiran, but as you say, coconuts don't do you
any good if you can't get them down.  By 1937 the surviving trees from
Arundel's planting were mature and very tall.  Again, as you say, only green
nuts have milk and green nuts are still in the tree.

We have three suspect sites for the place where the bones were found:
1.  Kanawa Point - but only because we know that kanawa trees once grew there.
2.  The Aukeraime shoe site - because we found shoes like Earhart's there and
we know that the area was being cleared in the months following the
Gallagher's discovery.
3.  The site that TIGHAR investigated in 1996.  This site is not marked on
the website map but is on the northern shore of the island just west of the
Loran station.  No planting was apparently ever done in this location.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:40:46 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Gallagher

Let me just say something about maps, who was in charge on Niku, etc.  It's a
serious mistake to think that the folks working on Niku needed a European to
tell them where to work, or to draw them a picture of where to do so.  They
had a very skillful and respected Magistrate, Koata of Onotoa, in overall
charge, and he'd doubtless make the daily assignments within general
guidelines laid down by the OIC-PISS -- first Maude, then Gallagher.  It's
hard to say exactly what the priorities were for clearing the island.
Generally it would make sense to start at the village site and work out, and
that's pretty much what seems to have happened.  But there were also
considerations of leaving "bush reserve" in places to provide bird habitat,
and of clearing land that would be appropriate for allocation to families for
their permanent ownership and use.  There was also a politely raging debate
about whether land that supported buka (Pisonia grandis) was any good for
growing coconuts, and some experimentation with different buka areas might
have been a factor in planning.  In other words, in general it's probably
safe to say that clearing moved centrifugally out from the village site and
government station, but there may have been some leapfrogging.  Anyway,
within whatever basic priorities were set, it would be up to Koata to make
sure the work got planned, scheduled, and done on a day today, week to week
basis.

TKing
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:42:18 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Benedictine bottle

For what it's worth, the suicide that we (Kar Burns and the local police and
medical examiner, with me along as interested observer) looked at in Fiji
last summer -- only three or four months dead and completely skeletonized,
somewhat scattered -- was almost certainly wearing shorts and at least
flip-flops if not more substantial footgear, and carrying a back-pack; only a
few fragments of cloth and some buckles were noted by the police in their
initial inspection (we found nothing in the way of clothing remnants).  In
the case of two murder victims recently reported in a coconut crab area on
Saipan, probably at least partly clothed at the time of death and disposal
(estimated at 4-6 months before discovery), there were only small fragments
of clothing found on the undersides of the completely skeletonized bodies.

I have no idea how Gallagher was able to be so sure about the "stoutish
walking shoe" being a woman's.  Anybody got a shoe catalogue from the 1930s?
Maybe there's some obvious distinction that none of us knows about.

LTM (who prefers to be barefoot)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:41:09 EST
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: Gallagher

The lagoon....I take it, it is a salt water lagoon?
Looks like a huge island!
Joe
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Huge is relative but, if you're searching it for the remnants of an ephemeral
event that happened 62 years ago, it's pretty darned big.  Stretched out in a
straight line, you're looking at a strip of land about 10 miles long by
between a few hundred yards to half a mile wide - most of it dense underbrush.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 22 Jan 2000 10:26:28 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Gallagher's stuff

More to the point than speculation about whether Gallagher developed his own
film are the things we now learn were returned England -- To Miss Clancy in
Malvern and, presumably, ultimately to his mother wherever she was sometime
after the war.

Now we have not only the photo album but a packet of negatives, an
unspecified number of additional photographs, and "2 Ordinance survey maps."
Any or all of these things may still exist -- somewhere.  I'm always very
reluctant to dispose of photographic negatives and they don't take up much
space.  Easier to keep them than to sort them.  Perhaps others may feel the
same way.

It seems very likely that those loose photographs and almost certainly the
negatives are scenes from Niku.  What they might show... who knows?  Perhaps
just some old bones and other junk under a "ren" tree.

How about those "Ordinance survey maps?"  I wonder just what those would be
and if they might have been used to show the location of things on the
island?  The place where the bones and stuff were found might even be marked.

No unexposed film among Gallagher's stuff.  Maybe he just forgot.  Maybe he
was already pretty sick.  I don't recall what MacPherson may have said about
their departure from Fiji.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

No need to get too excited about the Ordnance Survey maps.  They're almost
certainly maps of someplace in Britain or Ireland.  In this country we have
topographical maps made by the United States Geological Survey (USGS).  In
Great Britain, topos of the countryside are produced by the Ordnance Survey
(originally, and maybe still, part of the Army).  As I recall, it all started
back in the early 1700s when - as part of the "pacification" of the Scottish
Highlands - a network of roads were built to permit the movement of artillery
("ordnance").  Before the roads could be built thay had to be surveyed and
maps prepared.  The project was completed under the direction of General Wade
and some of the original roads are still intact and virtually unchanged
(there's a wee section up in the hills back of the southern shore of Loch
Ness).  The old saying goes. "Had ye seen these roads before they were made.
ye'd thank the Lord for Generla Wade."

Gallagher's Ordnance Survey maps may have covered the farm in Kilkenny,
Ireland where he worked for a year, or the countryside near Malvern where he
used to fox hunt with Ruby, or maybe he used them as aeronautical charts when
he was taking flying lessons, but an Ordanance Survey map is definitely not a
map of Gardner island.

As to whether any of his photos or negatives show scenes on Gardner, I agree
that it seems likely that he would want to have photos of the people and
places that were so important to him.  They would, of course, be largely
meaningless to his mother except that they had belonged to her son.  Perhaps
they're still somewhere, stuck in the back of an old dresser drawer or in a
forgotten trunk, but finding them is a daunting task.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 22 Jan 2000 10:31:08 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Gallagher's photography

just one last comment on Gallagher's photography.  As the years go by, we
forget what we did when we were kids.  If Gallagher was, in fact, into
developing his own film and making contact prints, there might be little
evidence of this in what was found in his home after his death.  Although
I'm inclined to suspect he would have been better prepared, still...  Maybe
he didn't anticipate the do-it-yourself approach.  I think he would have
been up to improvising.  It seems pretty evident that he was getting film
processing done one way or another.

When I was 10 or 12 years old, not too far removed from Gallagher's time on
Niku, I was developing film and making contact prints.  A darkroom was no
more difficult for me than it would have been for Gallagher.  Just do it at
night.  It was dark at night where I grew up, about like on Niku.

I used a couple of bowls for the developer and the fixer solutions and
something larger for a wash between developer and fixer.  I didn't use a
real "stop bath."

You get things set up so you know where they are and turn off the light.
Then you unroll the film and separate the actual film from the
black-on-one-side paper backing.  It's only attached a one end.  Dunk the
film strip in water.  When wet, it will straighten out enough that you can
seesaw a loop through the developer.  Keep it moving for the 2 or 3 minuters
specified for developing time.  Then into the water for a quick wash off of
developer and into the fixer solution.  Seesaw it a few times then it's
non-critical the rest of the way.  Turn on some light and be sure the clear
parts are as clear as they're going to get.  Wash it thouroughly and hang it
up to dry.

To make prints, you put the negative on a piece of contact type photographic
paper with a piece of glass on top to keep them in good contact while
exposing to strong light for a few seconds.  The prints are developed the
same way except you can use a little red/yellow light to see what you're
doing.  I used a flashlight with red cellophane over the lens and not
pointed directly at the working area.  I was using 120 size film which gives
a contact print 2-1/4 by 3-1/4 inches.  In those days we were pretty content
with a photo that size.

That's how simple (crude) it can be.  I did a similar sort of thing all over
Europe.  It was the only way to have any photos to send home or to take home
if you got back.  That's when I sometimes had to operate "in-the-bag."
Still no fancy developing tanks and that sort of stuff.  Of course, the
dry-packaged chemicals and the film came from the states.

All this is neither here nor there but it supports the idea that it could
have been done.  Whether Gallagher could and perhaps did do it, we'll
probably never know.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Let's keep in mind what we know and what we don't know.
We know he had a camera.
We know he had photos.
We know he had a packet of negatives.

We don't know if he used the camera on Gardner.
We don't know what was in the photos.
We don't know what was on the negatives.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:57:28 EST
From:         Suzanne
Subject:      Identifying a Woman's Size Ten

In general women's' shoes are not as wide as mens'. I would guess that would
be one of the ways of identifying a shoe as a woman's.

LTM,
Suzanne
***************************************************************************

From Ric

In Kilts' version of the bone story he says that:
"What attracted him ("the native") to it ("the skeleton") were the shoes.
Women's shoes.  American kind. .....  The shoes were size nine narrow."

We do know that Earhart's feet were quite narrow.  But what of the
discrepancy between Gallagher's "probably size 10" and Kilts' "size nine
narrow"?  I think we can safely conclude that no actual size label was still
visible on the sole or Gallagher would not have included the qualifier
"probably" in his description.  His judegement of size would seem to be an
estimate and his assignment of size would logically be within his own
context, i.e. British sizes.  British shoe sizes, unlike American and
Canadian, make no distinction between genders.
- A British man's size 10 is the same length as a woman's size 10.  A modern
British size 10 is 31 cm long - equivalent to a modern American man's size 10
and a modern American woman's size 12.
- A British size 9 is 30 cm long - equivalent to a modern American man's size
9 and a modern American woman's size 11.
- An American woman's size 9 is 28 cm long.

Kilts' information about the shoe came from his informant.  The fact that his
informant's version of the shoe size is different from Gallagher's is
interesting and seems to indicate that there was some disagreement even among
the people on the island as to the shoes probable size, but not its gender.

Incidentally, the shoe sole found by TIGHAR, when reconstructed to the best
of our ability, measured 27.7 cm but there is probably a margin of error
there of at least half a centimeter plus or minus.

The photo of Earhart standing on the wing of her airplane shows her shoe to
be approximately 27.8 cm with, again, a margin of error of at least half a
centimeter.

None of these estimates and measurements is precise.  All we can say is that
the shoe Gallagher found was, in his opinion, a largish woman's shoe.  Kilts'
version agrees and adds the opinion that it was "American kind" (whatever
that means) and that it was narrow.  Photos of Earhart and existing shoes
seem to confirm that her feet were in proportion to her height (5'8") and so
were about 25.7 cm long (plus or minus .903 cm) according to U.S. Army
statistics.  In other words, a tight fitting dress shoe (like the one we have
that she purchased in Paris in 1932) might be an American woman's size 7 (26
cm) or 7 1/2 (26.5 cm), while a heavier shoe worn looser and with socks for
flying might be an American woman's size 8 1/2 (27.5 cm) or 9 (28 cm).  The
Paris dress shoe, by the way, is very narrow - at least an AA , maybe even
AAA.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:41:41 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Gallagher

> Anyone who found the Norwich City survivors' camp would have had to have
> found the groves of cocos on Nutiran, but as you say, coconuts don't do you
> any good if you can't get them down.  By 1937 the surviving trees from
> Arundel's planting were mature and very tall.  Again, as you say, only green
> nuts have milk and green nuts are still in the tree.

Actually, it's not only "green" nuts that have milk.  It's just that green
nuts are generally referred to as "drinking" nuts because the milk is
fresher and almost "effervescent" and they are a hell of a lot easier to
open.  It's a whole other taste.  However, if I stroll along the beach in
the morning and check the fallen nuts, it's not uncommon to find them opened
and emptied (apparently by crabs.)

I wonder during your stays on Niku did fallen nuts suffer the same fate?
Perhaps a European castaway would find them empty as often as not.

I'm finding the information you provided on the locations of the original
trees interesting.  If the original groves were all in Nutiran and Ritiati,
then "less than 2 miles from there" is getting pretty specific.  It would
tend to suggest the Tighar campfire/shoe parts location, but if that was the
spot, I wonder why Gallagher never mentioned the Bauareke Passage as well as
the "impenetrable" scrub.  The only obvious answer to that is the other side
of the lagoon, but then how do you explain the shoes?

Anyway, the plot thickens.  This is fascinating stuff.

For anyone who wonders what a "Ren" tree looks like, there's a nice shady
one at :

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/tou_arg_hab.jpg

Looks like it would make a nice "home" for a castaway...

RossD

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

From Ric

That's a nice photo of a "Ren" tree.  Thanks.

Bauareke Passage is not much of an obstacle to travel.  You just walk around
it on the reef at low tide.

If the shoes we found at the Aukeraime site were the real McCoy, but the bone
site is over on the other side of the lagoon, then how did the shoes get
there?  Here's one possible explanation -

It's late May/early June 1941 and clearing operations are well underway on
Aukeraime (as verified in aerial photos taken in June).  It's a big project
and most of the available labor force is employed there and living in
temporary accomodations.  Gallagher is about to leave. He knows he'll be
seeing the brass back in Fiji and he knows he'll be asked about this whole
bone business.  He hasn't yet carried out the "organized search" that Vaskess
ordered and he doesn't want to say that he has done nothing, so he leaves
instructions for the workers to build a base camp at the bone site (which is
over on the other side of the lagoon).  That's why the base camp across the
lagonn is characterized as a "house built for Gallagher", not for his use,
but at his instruction.

After he leaves, the workers who are building the base camp find shoe parts
very much like the ones Gallagher found earlier.  Instead of taking them back
to the village, they take them to where their own base of operations is now -
on Aukeraime - and that's where they stay until we find them many years later.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:37:25 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Gallagher preliminary probe

I've done some brief online research on how feasible it might be to track
Gallagher's family via his brother's service record and legatees in his
mother's will, and it doesn't look too promising at first glance. A brief
scan of pages for the UK Public Records Office turned up the information
that "Copies of all wills probated or grants of representation issued in
England and Wales from 1858" are available, but it then says the indexes run
only up to 1943. The PRO can supply copies, but even if the 1943 reference
is misleading it still seems one has to supply "the full name of the
deceased, their last known address and the date of death".

Individual airmen's World War II service records are said to be still held
by the RAF and "brief details" available via the RAF, but only to
ex-servicemen and their next of kin.

LTM Phil 2276

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

I wonder if we can find out when Edith and Gerald Hugh (Gallagher's parents)
died.  If they survived the war by several years (which there is every reason
to suspect they did) mightn't they have logically retrieved their son's
personal effects from Edith's sister?  Where did they live out their days and
what became of their stuff when they died?  I wonder if we could track Gerald
Hugh through the records of the West African Medical Service.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:40:19 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      airport movies

Sorry for being a few days behind.  The cheesy movie where a 747 was raised
from underwater so that the passengers could be rescued was Airport 77.
Airport 75 was the cheesy movie where Charlton Heston was dangled on a cable
behind a helicopter (CH-53???) through a hole in the cockpit of a pilotless
747 flying behind and below (duh) so he could land it and save the
passengers, one of whom, prophetically referring to Mr. Heston's current
career, was heard to mutter, "If pilots being sucked out of holes in
cockpits was outlawed, only outlaw pilots would get sucked out of cockpit
holes."

LTMB (love to mosquito boots)

Dave Porter, 2288
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Don't even THINK about responding to this post.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:46:55 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      coconut plants

Remarks by Tom King, Ross D. and Ric over the weekend regarding the
location of coconut groves piqued my interest.
    Like many Westerners, I incorrectly assumed coconut trees grew
everywhere in the south pacific.  So, when I began to read that the coconut
groves were planned only for specific areas on Niku I got curious.
    What are the soil, weather, tidal, etc. requirements for a
successful coconut grove?  Would having that data help in locating the areas
Gallagher et. al. was working?  While we have identified (by name) the areas
they planned to work, were there suitable locations they may have know of
but not yet named?

LTM, who is ga-ga over African Violets
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
**************************************************************************
From Ric

As Tom King has mentioned, there was considerable debate about whether soil
that supported Buka (Pisonia grandis) would also support cocos.
Theoretically, any area of Buka forest may have been the subject of such an
experiment, and there is still lots of Buka forest on Niku that was never
cleared.  Our best evidence for what areas were actually cleared and planted
is the aerial photography that was taken by various agencies for various
purposes over the years.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:24:27 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Women's Size 10

"All we can say is that the shoe Gallagher found was, in his opinion, a
largish woman's shoe."

No, the shoe Gallagher found was, in his opinion, not merely "largish" but
was "probably size 10".  Not 9, not 11.  If Gallagher was using British
measurements -- and there's no reason to think he would be using anything
else -- then this would translate into an (American) women's size 12.  I'm
willing to believe AE would purchase roomier shoes for use with heavy socks,
but 4 to 5 sizes bigger?

Like many TIGHARites, I was initially excited when the existence of the Niku
Bones was confirmed.  As the months and years go by, however, I'm
increasingly of the opinion that they're a red herring.  Placing AE's
remains at the "southeastern corner" of the island, however loosely that
term is defined, simply requires her to do too many illogical things. Not
the least of these are leaving the vicinity of the island's only
recognizeable landmark and the cache of stores left there by the Norwich
City survivors; carrying water in a Benedictine bottle (found in the cache)
instead of a canteen or thermos from the Electra; swimming or wading across
two inlet channels, knowing this would only hinder her return to the Norwich
City and what was left of the Electra.  If Gallagher's description of the
campsite is credible, then AE also caught and ate several birds and turtles
(which contain moisture) yet her condition deteriorated within a matter of
days to the point where she was unable to respond to three airplanes
swooping low over the island.

In order to reconcile the current Niku Hypothesis with the remains
discovered by Gallagher, one also must believe that his quite specific
estimate of the shoe's size was only a rough guess;  that he didn't know
where the southeast corner of the island was; and that Drs. Isaac and
Hoodless couldn't tell recently-deposited remains from weathered old bones.
Perhaps all of these things can be explained away in isolation but, taken
together, it's just too much for me to believe.

LTM

Pat Gaston
***************************************************************************

From Ric

(deep breath) Let's look at this and see how many of these things you can't
believe are of your own invention.

You can't believe that Gallagher's "probably a size 10" (equivalent to an
American women's size 12) could be consistent with a shoe that was actually
an American woman's size 8 1/2 or 9.  But it was the opinion of a doctor in
Fiji that the shoe pieces Gallgher recovered were from a woman's shoe AND a
man's shoe.  Gallagher was clearly attributing all of the pieces to one shoe
because he made no mention of a man's shoe.  In other words, unless he found
more shoe pieces later, Gallagher's size estimate was the result of trying to
make one shoe out of the remains of two shoes.  It's pretty hard to do that
without coming with a size that's too big.

You can't believe that AE would leave the vicinity of the island's only
recognizeable landmark and the cache of stores left there by the Norwich
City survivors.  What possible significance could the shipwreck have to
Earhart or anybody else as a "landmark"?  Are you suggesting that someone
searching the island would look only around the shipwreck?  The cache of
supplies was not unlimited and we don't know how long she and/or Noonan may
have survived.  Once those supplies were exhausted, or possibly even before,
it is hard to believe that they didn't explore the island to asess what
resources were available to them. You might want to re-read Robinson Crusoe.
it's fiction, but it's based upon the real life stranding of Alexander
Selkirk, and most of all, it's logical.  Crusoe does not stay by his
shipwreck (the only known landmark on his island) nor does he stay close by
the cache of supplies rescued from the ship.  He explores his island to
assess his resources.

You can't believe that AE would be carrying water in a Benedictine bottle
(found in the cache) instead of a canteen or thermos from the Electra.  You
are apparently privy to specific information which has escaped our notice
concerning survival equipment aboard the aircraft and events surrounding the
abandonment of the aircraft.  I too, would use a canteen or thermos instead
of a Benedictine bottle, if I had a canteen or an unbroken thermos bottle.
But I don't know whether Earhart or Noonan had such a thing.  Do you?

You can't believe that AE would swim or wade across two inlet channels,
knowing this would only hinder her return to the Norwich City and what was
left of the Electra.

But there's no need for you to believe that.  The only one of our three
suspect bone discovery sites that would require wading a channel would be
Kanawa Point.

You can't believe that AE could have caught and ate several birds and turtles
(which contain moisture) yet her condition deteriorated within a matter of
days to the point where she was unable to respond to three airplanes
swooping low over the island.  But, again, there is no need to believe that.
I don't recall suggesting that the failure of the search planes to see
Earhart or Noonan was due to their condition having deteriorated to the point
where they couldn't respond.  I seem to recall several discussions on this
forum about how hard it is to see or hear aircraft when you're back in the
bush and how long it can take to fight your way out to the beach.

You can't believe that Gallagher didn't know where the southeast corner of
the island was.  But no one is asking you to believe that either.

And finally, you can't believe that that Drs. Isaac and Hoodless couldn't
tell recently-deposited remains from weathered old bones.  Well, you've got
me on that one.  That's just a case of how much faith you want to put in a
coupe of guys who seem to have gotten just about everything else wrong about
the bones.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:56:36 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: coconut plants

Soil, weather and tides seem pretty much irrelevant for coconut trees.  I
have one house near the sea, and another some 45 miles inland in a valley.
The palms native to the area are untidy looking and drop masses of small
berries, so I wanted something better looking, cleaner and still a palm.
When I decided to plant coconuts I was told the granite soil, lack of salt
and limited water in the area meant they would all die.  It was also
believed that the few relatively cold mornings we got out there would kill
off the young plants.

I now have a few absolutely beautiful coconut "shade" trees bearing mature
fruit in a place where "you'll never grow those".  I also gave some to my
neighbours who decided that they had to be fed salt regularly, so they
brought back sea water for the trees.  It made no difference that I could
see.  All trees began bearing small fruit after a few years, and all bear
nice nuts now.

I've come to the conclusion that the only thing coconuts need to grow is the
right temperature.  Soil type and water requirements seem to be variable.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:42:07 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Gallagher's stuff

It appears that Gallagher had everything he owned with him on Nikumaroro.  I
guess that's not surprising.  He'd spent most of his life staying only a few
years, or considerably less, at the various schools he attended and
occasionally visiting Malvern.  He probably expected to stay longer in the
Pacific Islands, and on Nikumaroro.  Those charts could well be of the area
where he and Ruby and others of the horsey set pursued foxes.  Or they could
be, as suggested, the area around the college flying club -- wherever it was
he learned to fly.

And this line of thought seems to decrease the probability that the
photographs and packet of negatives would yield pictures of the island and
activities there.
It could all be from England and just being carried around over the world
because there was nowhere else for the stuff to be.

But... Hope springs eternal in the breast of a TIGHAR researcher!  Back to
trying to pick up the Gallagher/Clancy trail -- Again!
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:33:42 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Gardner Island

There's a teensy weensy picture of gardner Island from the Space Shuttle at:

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=STS075&roll=751&frame
=12&UID=SSEOP&PWD=sseop

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:32:09 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Women's Size 10

Let's go into some more speculation.  I know I'm going to get into hot water
here, but I'm going to say it anyway.  For a long time I've been of the
opinion that perhaps the Electra didn't quite make it to Niku.

I have mentioned before that I believe a pilot would try to land close to
the shore, and I've also mentioned that at a little over 100kts you haven't
got a hope of picking whether the reef surface is smooth enough to land on.
The navy pilots almost said as much in their evaluation, suggesting the
lagoon was suitable to "ditch".

Now, I'm probably wrong!  But if I was landing somewhere like that I'd
rather prang the aircraft close to shore and have survival gear and tools on
hand than land on a reef and risk losing the plane to the tide.
That said, it's impossible to say what they did as in any emergency it is up
to the pilot on the spot to decide the best course of action.

Maybe they almost made it, perhaps trying to "go round" in an aborted
landing and running out of fuel or something.  Whatever happened it appears
so far that nothing significant was salvaged from the plane.  That suggests
a hurried evacuation and perhaps a swim to shore.

What about the "airplane on the reef"?  Well, an aircraft that far from the
shore sounds to me more consistent with being washed up on the reef than
landing on it.  How about the radio signals?  Well that sort of blows my
theory apart doesn't it.

Of course there may be a "stash" of stuff dragged ashore from the Electra,
but one would think that the settlers would have noticed it.

In the mean time:

>Placing AE's
> remains at the "southeastern corner" of the island, however loosely that
> term is defined, simply requires her to do too many illogical things. Not
> the least of these are leaving the vicinity of the island's only
> recognizeable landmark and the cache of stores left there by the Norwich
> City survivors; carrying water in a Benedictine bottle (found in the cache)
> instead of a canteen or thermos from the Electra...

The whole island is only a three miles long.  Between Amelia disappearing
and the search of Niku a whole week had gone by.  Are we to believe that any
one of us would sit patiently on one spot on an island for 7 days and not
try to find water at least?  We also have no idea whether there was a
benedictine bottle in the NC cache and certainly don't know if Earhart and
Noonan would have found it.  It is just as possible that someone gave them a
bottle of benedictine as a gift somewhere along the way.

> swimming or wading across
> two inlet channels, knowing this would only hinder her return to the Norwich
> City and what was left of the Electra.

Ric suggests (from experience) that the Bauareke passage is not a formidable
obstacle, and most of the reef can be walked on at low tide on a calm day
(in "stout walking shoes"??).  A couple of miles in loose coral rubble is
about a 3 hour walk, but considerably less on a nice morning on the edge of
the reef.

> If Gallagher's description of the
> campsite is credible, then AE also caught and ate several birds and turtles
> (which contain moisture) yet her condition deteriorated within a matter of
> days to .

This is a bit more sticky.  Why was the campsite in that spot?  Most of Niku
appears to be covered in dense scrub.  The fire suggests the means was
available to start one! One usually out of habit (and respect for one's
safety), starts a fire in a cleared area.  Galagher's description (after you
read it a few times) suggests our castaway was in a fairly clear area, with
damp ground, and a thick belt of scrub close by.  No mention of why he/she
couldn't stroll along the beach though!

The "remains of a turtle and dead birds" suggest the person was expecting to
live for some time.  The moisture in a turtle and some birds is not
sufficient to prevent dehydration for any length of time, and the presence
of coconuts on the island, but not at the camp site once again suggests a
european castaway without the tools to husk a fallen coconut.  (A
"polynesian native" would just break off a small tree and husk the nut on
the sharp stump).

>the point where she was unable to respond to three airplanes
> swooping low over the island

I live one mile from the airport.  There are aircraft taking off and landing
all day.  Unless they fly very close, even the jets and "Islanders" (which
are very noisy) can't be heard from here.  For that matter, I've just come
from the airport and you can't even hear aircraft at the other end of the
runway (this is NOT a big airport byt the way).  One usually doesn't hear
much from a piston engined plane until it is past you and you cop the blast
of sound from the exhausts.  It is entirely feasible that search aircraft
flew right over the top of someone on Niku without them hearing a thing
until the aircraft was too close to signal.  Especially if that someone had
been there a week and was dozing (out of boredom) in the shade of a Ren
tree.

Speculation, Conjecture - yes!  But just as likely as any other scenario.

An elderly Polynesian native with "a few of his precious posessions he
managed to save" including a Benedictine bottle, european shoe parts and a
sextant box dying of thirst on an island with over a hundred coconuts?  I
Don't Think So!

RossD

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

I agree that the available information argues against any significant amount
of salvage from the Electra.  The evidence we have which suggests that the
castaway was Mrs. Putnam is that:
1.  The castaway seems to have been female (Gallagher and Steenson agree that
there was a woman's shoe and modern forensic analysis of the bone
measurements suggests  that the person was female).
2.  The female castaway seems to have been accompanied by a man at some point
(Steenson says there were parts of both a woman's and a man's shoe, and
island folklore consistently tells of the bones of a man and a woman being
found).
3.  The castaway(s) seem to have been a European (the presence of shoes, the
non-reliance upon coconuts, the opinion of Hoodless, and the modern forensic
analysis of the bone measurments).
4. The castaway seems to have had access to the Norwich City cache
(Benedictine bottle and corks with brass chains from a small cask) which
places the person at some time near the spot where anecdote and possibly
photographs place the airplane wreckage.

So we seem to have a European man and woman marooned on the island after
November 1929 (when Norwich City ran aground) but before December 1938 (when
the first settlers arrived).  We have an anecdotal account, possibly verified
by photographs, of the wreck of a vessel that may have brought them there -
an airplane.  We have found no other evidence of any kind to suggest the
presence of any other vessel of any kind wrecked at Gardner island.

After considerable research we know of only one instance of a European man
and woman having gone missing in the region.  That happened between November
1929 and December 1938, specifically, July 2, 1937.  They disappeared in an
airplane.

If this mystery was about anybody but Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan it
wouldn't be considered a mystery at all, but myths and legends die hard and
so the standard of proof we must meet is far beyond what would normally be
required.  But I degress...

The point is, the fact that no salvaged survival gear from the Electra was
apparent at the castaway's campsite may be an indication of the circumstances
surrounding the aircraft's arrival and abandonment.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:38:12 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Women's Size 10

One addition to Ric's rebuttal.  Whichever SE end site you want to consider,
a person going there from the Norwich City wouldn't necessarily have to cross
two channels (or even one).  All they'd have to do is walk around the island
clockwise instead of counterclockwise.

As to shoe size, I just don't think we can place much stock in anybody's
specific opinions; there are just too many variables.

LTM (who's watching the clock)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:30:50 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      The 1996 site

It has occurred to me that, in one possibly important respect, the site that
we surveyed in 1996 is different from either of the other two sites we have
considered as possible sites of Gallagher's bone discovery.  It is located in
the narrowest part of the island, that is, where the ribbon of land
surrounding the lagoon is narrowest and, therefore, where someone would have
easiest and quickest access to both the lagoon and the ocean.

Think about that for a second.  You're marooned on a desert island.  What you
want most is to be rescued, but rescue will most likely come from the sea so
you want to keep a vigil on the horizon for any sign of a ship.  At the same
time, the lagoon is an important resource for catching fish and is also a
place to watch for visitors who may have landed on parts of the island that
you can't see.  You've already had the shattering experience of being caught
too far back in the bush when help unexpectedly arrived overhead.  You
couldn't get out into the open in time to be seen before they left.  You're
never going to let that happen again.  This location has the added benefit of
being at the edge of the open, pleasant Buka forest where birds (stupid birds
you can walk right up to) abound.  The ocean beach on this part of the island
is frequented by turtles who come ashore at night to lay their eggs.  Another
interesting and unique feature of this strip of land is that there is a low
hill that runs lengthwise along it and provides shelter on the lagoon side
from the punishing wind.

In short, the 1996 site would be a smart place for a castaway to hang out.
We recognized that back when we decided to mount an expedition to check it
out.  Coast Guard stories of a "water collection device", confirmed by
forensic imaging of old aerial photos, told us that there was something there
and we hoped we would find a cistern fashioned from an Electra fuel tank.
Instead we found a rusted steel tank and other artifacts that had obviously
come from the village.  We wrote it off as a bust, but now it looks like
there is at least a reasonable possibility that the village-related stuff was
brought there as part of preparations for the "organized search" of the bone
discovery site ordered by Vaskess.  Of course, in 1996 the whole bone story
was still just rumor and anecdote and we knew nothing of Vaskess' order or of
the depth of official concern about whose bones had been found.

The 1996 site is a puzzle piece that needs careful re-examination.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:38:04 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Women's Size 10

The campsite could just have been a temporary site, with the stuff stashed
elsewhere.  Maybe they were exploring, and left the bulkier or heavier items
at their (then undiscovered/now overgrown) base camp.

The other thing to remember is, as you have pointed out (several times)
before, they were not expecting an aerial search.  It wasn't the norm in
those days, and they would have no way of knowing that there would be
aircraft anywhere in the area to look for them; much less three days later.
Therefore, their mindset might very well have been to try to find some kind
of high ground, or someplace to erect a signal for a surface search.  You
wouldn't want to drag everything around with you while you're exploring.

ltm
jon  2266
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The aerial search was on July 9, seven days after the disappearance.  I tend
to agree with Patrick Gaston (believe it or not) that the original
inclination would be to stick close to the Norwich City and the cache of
supplies, but I think that we need to think in terms of months, not days or
weeks, when we're contemplating probable survival time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:25:11 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The 1996 site

Incidentally, are you sure the half-dug well you saw there in '96 was really
a well, and not a hole dug for some other purpose?  Like digging up a skull?

TK

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

Now that you mention it, if it was an attempt to dig a well (based on the
wells we've seen in the village) is was a pretty half-fast (say that quick)
effort.  We got pictures.  My, my, my ...... curiouser and curiouser .... but
I've GOT to get this long-delayed issue of TIGHAR Tracks off my desk before I
dive into a re-analysis of that site.  A couple more days should do it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:21:53 EST
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Women's Size 10

Ric wrote:

<<The aerial search was on July 9, seven days after the disappearance.  I
tend to agree with Patrick Gaston (believe it or not) that the original
inclination would be to stick close to the Norwich City and the cache of
supplies, but I think that we need to think in terms of months, not days
or weeks, when we're contemplating probable survival time.>>

I know this is pure speculation, but you can't help but wonder what the
signs of recent habitations, Lt. Lambrecht, seen.  Could it have been the
Norwich survivor camp?

Regards.

Warren Lambing
**************************************************************************
From Ric

If we had a nickle for every time we've wondered what prompted Lambrecht's
comment our funding problems would be solved.  The only clue we have beyond
what he says in his report is Goerner's allegation (which may or may not
represent an accurate recollection) that Lambrecht, many years later, told
him that he had seen "markers" of some kind.  Some have insisted that he was
referring to the placard on the flagpole left by HMS Leith the previous
February, but in other places in his report Lambrecht  describes seeing
flapoles on other islands and he calls them flagpoles.  Likewise, when he
sees huts he calls them huts or shacks.  What does he mean by "signs of
recent habitation"?  What makes them "recent"?  Is he talking about a
campfire?  Or junk on the beach surrounded by footprints?

One thing that Bevington and Maude did when they visited the island later
that year was to rig up a tarp over their campsite to keep the coconut crabs
from dropping on them during the night ( I kid you not).  If AE and FN had
the same concern i suppose that such a tarp might be perceived as a "marker."
 As you say, speculation, speculation....

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:29:46 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Women's Size 10

I wonder where she buried poor Fred?

Somewhere out there is a fair collection of long bones, a heap of little
ones, and probably another whole skeleton...

At least for Niku IIII you may have narrowed the search area a bit.  I think
a 6 month stay on the island is in order...

RossD
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We've always wanted to stay for a month but have never been able to afford
more than about 10 or 12 days (except for 21 days on the first trip in 1989).
 The logistics and the cost of putting a team on the island for 6 months
would be staggering.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:35:17 EST
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: The 1996 site

In reference to what Tom says, you may also want to consider the proximity of the
"half dug well" to salt water sources.  I know absolutely nothing about digging
wells, but would surmise that if you dig close (however you define "close") to
salt water bodies (lagoon/ocean) you are liable simply to get salt water leaching
in from these bodies.  If other known wells were drilled on the island, perhaps
you can compare the distance these were drilled from the lagoon/ocean and compare
it with the distance of the half-dug well from the lagoon/ocean.  Just a thought,
and forgive my ignorance if it makes absolutely no sense. Also, from the postings
it appears that the water "collection" device was found at the '96 site----if so,
why would you dig a well there, too?  Couldn't you just bring up the water from
the well when needed (unless you were concerned about the well running dry)?

--Chris Kennedy
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The wells in the village are much farther from any body of salt water than is
the putative half-dug well at the 1996 site.  Your point about digging a well
when you have a cistern sitting right there is kind of a forehead slapper.
Doesn't make much sense, does it?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:45:23 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: The 1996 site

I think the mystery of the castaway is getting closer to being solved......

>This location has the added benefit of
>being at the edge of the open, pleasant Buka forest where birds (stupid birds
>you can walk right up to) abound.

And a "cleared area to start a fire, protected by the "low hill that runs
lengthwise along it and provides shelter " from the wind.  It's also falling
into some of the stuff I've been hinting at too.  A campsite with a view,
rather than in the dense damp jungle with creepies and crawlies scuttling
around.

I'd still suspect a "night camp" as well though, somewhere sheltered, but
this is becoming exciting.

RossD

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

Well, let's be clear about where we are on this.  We've formulated a
hypothesis that the 1996 site is the bone discovery site with an overlay of
cultural material from the village which was brought there to support an
"organized search" that may or may not have ever happened.  The best we're
going to be able to do is re-examine the information we have already
collected about the site to see what does or does not fit the hypothesis.  If
a strong case can be built (and so far it's looking pretty good) we'll want
to allocate significant assets to a detailed survey of the area during Niku
IIII.

And yes, it's exciting.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:21:00 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: The 1996 site

Fresh water on coral reef atolls are found in a lens on/below the  land, with
the best chance at the highest point of land (alas, also the deepest place to
dig).  If someone had tried to dig a well at the 1996 site and found it
busted, then they would rig a water collection device as an alternative.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

That's sort of what we assumed when we first saw the site in 1996, but the
hole was only perhaps three feet deep.  If it was intended as a well,
somebody gave up way before they would have had any chance of striking water.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:29:01 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The 1996 site

Ric wrote:

<<The wells in the village are much farther from any body of salt water than is
the putative half-dug well at the 1996 site.  Your point about digging a well
when you have a cistern sitting right there is kind of a forehead slapper.
Doesn't make much sense, does it?>>

Except a cistern's only good if it rains.  If you're really concerned about
water you're going to do both a cistern and a well, I should think.  But the
narrow limb of the atoll IS a kind of wierd place for a well.   In a coral
island what you get is a freshwater "lens" that rides on top of the heavier
salt water; there are a lot of factors involved in how fresh and deep that
lens is going to be, but surely the width of the land mass above it has to be
one of them, and all else being equal, I think Chris has to be right; the
closer you are to the shore, the less likely you are to get good fresh water.

Another wholly speculative speculation -- Gallagher and colleagues do the
first search of the campsite under the Ren tree, and it's kind of a mess,
resulting in the loss of the inverting eyepiece (which it seems like
Gallagher must have seen before it was lost; how else could he know that the
missing sextant was painted with black enamel?).  Upon being directed to make
a more thorough search, Gallagher decides he's going to do it by himself.
Take his time, avoid confusion and distraction and mixups.  But the weather's
making up; he may not be able to commute every day, so he has the guys build
him a little house, with a cistern....

Of course, what we're doing is talking ourselves into believing that the 96
site is THE ONE, and we've been in this kind of situation before.  I think
Aukaraime and Kanawa Point (and perhaps other places) have to be kept as live
possibilities.

TK
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes. We always fall in love with our latest hypothesis. It's like Mama said -
"You gotta shop around."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:32:24 EST
From:         Mike Lowery
Subject:      Re: The 1996 site

>From Ric
>
> The wells in the village are much farther from any body of salt water than is
> the putative half-dug well at the 1996 site.  Your point about digging a well
> when you have a cistern sitting right there is kind of a forehead slapper.
> Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Ric, you are right, it doesn't make much sense. One possibility though
is that the well came first, was a bust, and then they put in the
cistern.

Michael Lowrey
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Except the hole doesn't seem big enough or deep enough to be a failed well.
If it's a well, it's an abortive attempt.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:42:42 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: The 1996 site

> about digging a well
> when you have a cistern sitting right there is kind of a
> forehead slapper.
> Doesn't make much sense, does it?

It makes sense if rainfall is scant. Cisterns and wells operating side by
side were common in the 19th century.

william 2243

*************************************************************************
From Ric
And the village had both cisterns and wells.  What we have at the 1996 site
is a hole dug in the soil and coral rubble along the side of a low embankment
(not on level ground) that was - when we saw it in 1996 - an inverted cone
measuring perhaps a meter and a half in diameter by considerably less than a
meter deep.  We thought of a well because that's about the only reason you
dig a hole on Niku, unless you're burying something, or digging something up.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:14:28 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      "would haves"

>From Ric
>
> We've always wanted to stay for a month but have never been able to afford
> more than about 10 or 12 days (except for 21 days on the first trip in 1989).
>  The logistics and the cost of putting a team on the island for 6 months
> would be staggering.

I know. I wasn't joking, and I realise it's impractical not only for
financial reasons, but because of medical emergency.  The nearest help is so
far away.  But it is still what is needed.  At least a couple of months to
thoroughly search both sites.  like everyone else I've avidly digested
everything from celestial nav, and radio logs to bones and bottles and
crabs.  These two possible sites though have to be close.  They are both
about the "less than 2 miles" from the established coconut trees.  All you
need is some damp ground and some other logic.  The thing that bothers me is
that what now appears to be the most promising site is on the opposite side
of the lagoon from where TIGHAR found shoe parts.  (Do coconut crabs swim
with boots on?)

I still think it is all coming together.  I've just shown my TIGHAR file to
some commercial pilots who were visiting this morning and they all agree
that landing on the edge of the reef would have to be due to malfunction
rather than choice - perhaps just making it and literally running out of
fuel right there.  Not one would attempt landing so far away from shore,
rather they would land on the edge near the coral beach or ditch in the
lagoon.

Niku IIII is going to be a very interesting show...   But you really need
more time ashore some how.

RossD

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

It's all a question of funding.  Always has been.

I'm a commercial pilot too.  And I've seen the reef close to shore and the
reef near the ocean, and I've seen the beach and the lagoon.  If I was me and
concerned only with saving my own butt, I'd probably land wheels-up on the
beach.  If I was Amelia Earhart and I still owed a ton of money for the
repairs to my airplane, and I knew that my career depended upon successfully
completing the world flight, I'd land in the one place where I stood the best
chance of not wrecking the airplane - along the outer edge of the reef.  I
would have no way of knowing how high the water might get on the reef at
hight tide but I'd be hoping that the Itasca would soon find me and bring me
enough gas to ferry the airplane to Howland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:17:18 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: The 1996 site

Ric sez...

>Well, let's be clear about where we are on this.  We've formulated a
>hypothesis that the 1996 site is the bone discovery site with an overlay of
>cultural material from the village which was brought there to support an
>"organized search" that may or may not have ever happened.

What did that "overlay of cultural material" consist of and does it seem
particularly consistant with support of an "organized search?"

I wonder if you could give us a verbal description of locations of some of
the things we're kicking around here?  Then we can draw our own maps of
locations of things such as the well digging site that may actually be where
the skull was dug up, the cistern, etc., etc.

A thought... I would expect the finder of the skull would not have moved it
very far to bury it.  If it belonged with the other bones, it should have
been burried near by.  Of course, we can speculate about how far crabs might
have rolled it.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll put together a full description of the site and what was there by Friday
- promise.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:30:13 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      signals

Jon Watson said:

..."The other thing to remember is, as you have pointed out (several
times) before, they were not expecting an aerial search. It wasn't the
norm in those days, and they would have no way of knowing that there
would be aircraft anywhere in the area to look for them; much less three
days later."...

While it is true that AE/FN had no reason to expect an aerial search
initially, if they were still alive & for some reason unable to respond
in some manner to the Lambrecht led fly-by, they must certainly have
heard the the three (radial engine) aircraft circling & 'zooming' the
island & thus alerted to the _possibility_ of being sighted from the
air, wouldn't they then have sought to create some kind of signal that
would have been visable to any possible, subsequent fly-by?

Naturally, if they were both so injured in the landing or in a week's
time so weakened by the heat, lack of food or water as to greatly limit
any physical activity,  efforts to create such a signal might well have
been beyond their capability. (Perhaps the 'campfire' remnants suggest
at least such a minimal effort was actually attempted?)

Don Neumann
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Your reasoning seems sound but I wonder what they could do beyond making a
brush pile on the beach which could be lighted to attract either aircraft (if
they returned) or a passing ship.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:31:19 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: The 1996 site

Atolls have porous soil, and fresh water is less dense than salt water.  In
theory, you could dig almost anywhere and tap into a "lens" of fresh water
that is floating on top of the salt water. In practice, there is still some
mixing, and the "fresh" water may be slightly salty.  If there was a
prolonged drought, there may not be any fresh water at all. The soil is
porous, and anything else on the surface can also percolate down into the
water table.  You might dig a well for washing, or for an emergency water
supply, but I bet you would prefer to drink water from a cistern.

Dan Postellon Tighar # 2263  LTM (who prefers Perrier)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2000 19:51:18 EST
From:         Jim Kelly
Subject:      CD deal

Ric wrote:

<<So we seem to have a European man and woman marooned on the island after
November 1929 (when Norwich City ran aground) but before December 1938 (when
the first settlers arrived). >>

Why would the 11/29 date be significant as a start? Does the location of the
bones and artifacts make this date the start of the period? Also, there was a
special price for early birds on the CD. I'd appreciate a repeat.
LTM( who is proud that he remembers his number, at least)
Jim Kelly #2085

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

If we assume that the Benedictine bottle and corks with brass chains are from
the Norwich city survivors' camp cache (perhaps a precarious assumption), the
castaway must date from after that event, unless we say that she had been
hanging out on Gardner for years and decided to pass up the chance to leave
with the Norwich City gang.

I've forgotten what price we put on the Research CD as an early bird deal but
it's regular price is $100 for TIGHAR members, $120 for non-members.  Tell
you what I'm gonna do - I'll drop the price to $75 if at least five people
put in an order.  Offer ends February 1st.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2000 19:55:04 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The 1996 site

The one well we've seen on the island that we "know" worked (because Laxton
and, I believe, another source says it did) is quite a large, deep (maybe 6',
but slumped in) hole near the "new" maneaba (meeting house) site in
southeastern Ritiati/northwestern Noriti, which Jack Kimo Pietro reportedly
dug with dynamite.

LTM (who says this is a deep subject)
TKing
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:06:57 EST
From:         Troy Carmichael
Subject:      The well

Exactly how deep is the "well".  We have an old abandoned graveyard in the
woods on a hill of our property and, either side of the skeletal burial
ground, the ground has sunk in, due most likely to the change in density of
the compacted earth and subsequent settling over the years (graveyard is
unmarked and abandoned for over 50 years).  It is interesting that the
settling appears to occur either side of the burial, but what makes me
curious is:

Could the "well" instead be a depression caused by digging/burial for some
other purpose than a well?  I would laugh at the possibility of skeletal
remains being there, but maybe a search party started the dig site thinking
something was there due to the presenct of the bones/artifacts they had
discovered?????  Either way, I would be inclined to excavate the "well" and
the ground 18 inches around it.  Who knows?

And in regards to the satellite photo of Gardner island, it showed me an
excellent view of a pair of shoes--no, wait, they were only mosquitos wearing
boots.....

and, BTW, I get the emails for the forum, but where is the forum actually
located?  I can't find a URL for it anywhere.

LTM
Troy
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We know that the first bone found was a skull and that it was buried by the
workers who found it.  Months later, Gallagher heard about the incident and
had the workers take him to the site where he found other bones and
artifacts.  Later, he dug up the skull.  Our current speculation is that the
feature we had assumed was a half-dug well is, in fact, where the skull was
dug up.

BOING! Just had an idea.  One good way to test that hypothesis would be to
carefully search that hole for teeth.  We know that many were missing from
the skull when Gallagher got his hands on it.  And a tooth can be an
excellent source of mitochondrial DNA.  Talk about a smoking gun....

Or maybe the well is where Gallagher found the shoe parts, hence "The Well of
the Soles", or am I mixing up my mysteries?

The Forum is an email group, not a website.  It has no URL.  The TIGHAR
website is at www.tighar.org but the Earhart Forum just....is.  It's sort of
a Zen thing.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:08:37 EST
From:         David
Subject:      Re: hand pump

> From Dennis McGee
>
> Ok, here's a dumb question.  Can we get an Xray of that bad boy?  If
> we can see inside of it without destroying it maybe we can figure out what
> the innards were suppose to do.

This one goes back a few weeks, but I think your local bomb squad might
prove to be of immense value here.  Last summer, while at an air show, I
saw a display by a police bomb squad, and they showed how by changing the
power setting of their x-ray machine, they could do everything right up to
penetrating quarter-inch-thick steel to see if things inside were nasty or
nice.  I'm sure they could handle the pump/extinguisher and reveal the
secrets it may hold.  If you asked nicely on a quiet day, they'd probably
do it for free.  It's worth a try!

LTM, (Whose insides are all nice!)

David  :-)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Good thought.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:31:18 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      The Well of the Soles

Based on all I've read here, I do think there is a reasonable possibility
that excavating that depression might yield teeth from the skull that
Gallagher recovered (that is, dug up).

william 2243
**************************************************************************
From Tom King

Good idea about the teeth.  But what other possibilities are there for the
origin of the hole?  Planting a coconut tree?  Digging out a stump?  I know,
I can't think of many,either....

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

Okay, what holes have we seen on Niku?  There are huge pits on Nutiran and in
the village used for growing food plants (babai), and there are not-so-huge
but still-pretty-big holes that were probably wells.  We've seen a series of
regularly-spaced small depressions over in Tekibaia where old coco stumps
were apparently removed, and we've seen a number of medium-sized unexplained
pits near the shoe site in Aukeraime.

One thing seems apparent.  If you dig a hole on Niku, it pretty much stays
dug unless somebody intentionally fills it in (assuming, of course, that it's
not out near the beach where it can be filled in by overwash).  If we make
the assumption that Gallagher did not fill in the hole made by the exhumation
of the skull (why would he?), then that hole still exists somewhere on the
island.

The hole at the 1996 site is anomalous - that is, it's the only hole around
there so it's not part of land clearing project where people are grubbing out
old stumps or digging a series of test pits for some reason.  When you think
about it in the context of the rest of the island, as holes go, it's a rather
interesting hole.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:41:41 EST
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      CD Deal

I'll take the research CD for $75, you betcha.

Tim Smith 1142C
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Okey Doke.  That's two.  We need three more.  Step right up folks.  That's 25
percent off the regular member price.  Offer expires February 1st.

My grandfather used to repeat a little pitch for selling hot dogs that he
remembered from his youth around the turn of the century (that's the 19th
century).  It went:

A loaf of bread, a pound of meat,
And all the mustard you can eat!
They're only a nickle - half a dime,
The twentieth part of a dollar!
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:59:15 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      CDs and Coconuts

sign me up for a CD.

One comment on Coconut palms.  From my time living in the Virgin Islands, I
can tell you that not only do they naturally grow near the beach, but it
seems to me they will grow anywhere there is water, salt or fresh.  At the
house I own on St. Thomas, 300' up the hill from the water, there was a coco
that lived quite happily at the end of the driveway among the rocks and very
poor soil.  No salt water to be found, only rain runoff from the driveway.

This particular tree had been planted when the house was built in 1970, but
was snapped in half during Hurricane Hugo in 1989.  :(  Amazingly, two of
its fallen coconuts took root and now I have two mature cocos at the end of
my driveway.  :)

Salt water and soil do not seem to be major requirements for coco palms to
germinate and grow, at least the species found in the VI.

Is the half dug well site located on the map on the web site?

Last night I was dreaming of the scenario and I had an image of poor Fred
with his broken leg (or was it a head injury?) back in the shade at the
Norwich survivors camp and Amelia, having taken 9 days to get her nerve up
(thirst is a powerful motivator), climbing 45 feet up in a coco tree just out
of reach of a big green one as Lambrecht arrives and does his Zooming.  No
chance to do anything to attract attention.

Lots of scenarios why Lambrecht didn't see anything.

LTM ( who hates to climb cocos)
Andrew McKenna  1045C
***************************************************************************
From Ric
Thanks for your CD order.  We now have have four.  Who'll put us over the top
with the fifth order?

The location of the 1996 site is not presently on the website but we'll be
putting up a new Research Bulletin soon that will have a map and photos of
the "well" and other things that were there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:04:46 EST
From:         Mike Meunich
Subject:      Graves

Don't I recall that some part of the skelaton was reburied in some type of
box?  In reference to a recent posting about cemetaries and "sunken" areas,
when the old wooden caskets rotted, they eventually collapsed, causing the
"sinks"  Could not the "well" be a collapsed grave site or a site where a
decompsed body allowed the ground to settle?
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I think that what you're thinking of is that the bones Gallagher found were
shipped to Fiji in a box.  Nothing, as far as we know, was buried in a box.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:21:38 EST
From:         David
Subject:      Generation gaps from he**!

On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Richard E. Gillespie wrote:

> My grandfather used to repeat a little pitch for selling hot dogs that he
> remembered from his youth around the turn of the century (that's the 19th
> century).

Your grandfather was a youth at the turn of the 19th century?!  If I'm not
mistaken, the 19th century was the 1800s, and the turn of that century
would be around the year 1800 itself!  Holy smokes!!  Your family must
have some reeeaaally long generation gaps!  If you were born around 1950
or so, just for example, your father would have to have been about 75 at
the time, having been born in 1875 or so, and your grandfather would have
to have been slightly older than 75 in 1875, since he was already a youth
in 1800!  Furthermore, if you remember your grandad repeating things that
he heard about hot dogs, then for him to have been alive in the latter
half of the 20th century would mean that he was closing in on his 200th
birthday at the time!!  Your family must have nearly had a bonfire on its
hands every time the candles were lit on the old fella's birthday cakes!
Please, let's not get into a debate on what type of antique fire
extinguishers might have been used.

It's all starting to make sense now; with longevity like that in your
genes, no wonder you're prepared to devote such long periods of your life
the the worthy cause of aviation archeology, since you'll probably wait
another 25 years or so before starting your adventures in parenting.

On a forum where pickiness is almost a trademark, you should have known
better than to make a foible like that!

LTM, (Whose longevity pales in comparison to your!)

David  :-)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm happy to accept your correction if you can cite your sources.  Is it the
ending century that "turns" or the one that is beginning?  Just what is it
that "turns"?    As far as I know it's a matter of semantic convention.  I'd
be rather surprised if my use of the term confused anyone but you.

This forum is indeed "picky" but I hope we limit our pickiness to issues that
matter.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:37:27 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Noonan & PAA

One of the little Noonan mysteries is why he left Pan Am at the end of
1936. We know his last recorded flight with PAA was a Manila trip that
arrived back in California on Dec. 7, 1936. At the end of February he was
in El Paso establishing residence for his divorce and by mid-March he had
joined Earhart. Some reports suggest he was fired, possibly due to his
alleged alcohol problem. We now have an account of his departure which I
think carries a lot of validity.

William Grooch was a PAA pilot during Noonan's years there and also a good
friend of Edwin Musick, the head PAA pilot. Musick developed all the
training and operational procedures for PAA and flew the early Manila
survey flights. Obviously, he spent a lot of time with Noonan, his lead
navigator. In 1939, a year after Musick was killed in the crash of the
Samoan Clipper, Grooch wrote a book about him (From Crate To Clipper). He
indicates he used information from Musick's personal files, provided by his
widow, and talked with others at PAA. Unfortunately, he does not reference
his sources specifically.

On pages 212 - 214 he recounts the situation leading to Noonan's departure.
They were flying weekly schedules to Manila and Musick realized it was
taking a toll on the crews. The book says Musick noted that, "On the
outbound voyage the crew had reacted normally; then, as they wearied of the
long grind, tempers became frayed, movements sluggish. It was an effort to
remain awake while on duty." The Manila trip was 12 days of flying without
proper rest intervals and the pilots were averaging many more hours per
month than the limits established by Department of Commerce regulation. The
book further describes the, "...growing unrest among the junior pilots.
They contended that the work was far more difficult than that of other
airlines; compensation was inadequate and the order of promotion vague. Ed
felt that they had a just grievance...He championed their cause with
company officials..." However, PAA did not respond to the problems and
Grooch reports that Musick said, "We'll just have to be patient until they
straighten out a few things in Alaska, China and South America." To which
he says, "Fred Noonan said, 'We've lived on promises for a year. I'm
through.' He resigned immediately." The book is unclear about the specific
dates of Noonan's resignation.

Until we get something more definitive, I'm sticking with this story. As an
aside, there is no mention of FN and alcohol in this book.

blue skies, -jerry
**************************************************************************
From Ric

This is by far the most contemporaneous (1939) account of Noonan's departure
we've ever come across.  Does a resignation letter still exist, buried
somewhere in PAA's files?  Most logically it would be in Noonan's personnel
file but, as far as I know, there are no such files among the papers at the
University of Miami.

This is excellent work Jerry.  How did you come across Grooch's book?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:49:03 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      A "tip-up"?

Could the Well of Soles be the product of a palm tree falling over, pulling
up soil with its roots, and then rotting away?  I realize that as
shallow-rooted as palms tend to be, it would seem hard to create a hole as
deep as the one you describe, but it's something to consider.

LTM
TK
***************************************************************************
From Ric

If it was in the woods of Maine and it was a pine tree instead of a coconut
palm, the effect you're describing would be called a "tip-up."  Very common -
in Maine that is.  If the Well of the Soles is a tip-up it's the only one
I've seen on Niku and if it was a coconut palm it was the only one on that
part of the island.

Realistically - no - I don't think so.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:01:27 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Tip -ups

For what it's worth, I've seen many thousands of palm trees in my life, and
have seen several with trunks that had cleanly broken off in the upper half
(good way to lose any car parked beneath it), but I've never seen a palm
tree that tipped over at its roots. I'm sure it happens, but it's probably
rare and unlikely in absence of other evidence (like an appropriately
positioned fallen trunk nearby <grin>).

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 13:00:18 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      1996 Site Description

As forum readers will recall, we are considering the possibility that a site
surveyed and dismissed by TIGHAR in 1996 may, in fact, be the place where the
bones of a castaway were found in 1940.

The site surveyed by TIGHAR in February 1996 is located on the northern
coastline of the atoll about 1,000 meters from the extreme southeastern tip.
In this area the ribbon of land surrounding the lagoon is at it's narrowest,
spanning only a little over 100 meters from lagoon shore to ocean beach.
Today the region is solid scaevola ("te Mao") with scattered tournefortia
("Ren") but aerial photos show that in June 1941 there was a band of Pisonia
grandis ("Buka") behind the beachfront bulwark of scaevola.  The presence of
many old fallen Buka trunks today confirms that the area was once open forest
such as still predominates just a few hundred meters further along the
coastline to the northwest.

TIGHAR's attention was first drawn to this area in 1990 by anecdotal accounts
from Coast Guard veterans who told of coming upon an abandoned "water
collection device" while out exploring along the shore.  The device was said
to consist of a tank , possibly metal, with a covering of some kind rigged
above it on poles so that rainwater would drain into it.  There was said to
be a pile of bird bones and feathers nearby and a place where there had been
a small fire.  We speculated that this could be a survival camp with a
cistern fabricated from one of the aircraft's fuel tanks and, during our 1991
expedition (Niku II) we made a concerted but unsuccessful effort to find it.

Late in 1995, forensic imaging of aerial photographs of the area taken in
1941 indicated the presence of manmade objects in a particular spot within
the suspect area.  Guided by the enhanced photos, a short ( 4 days on the
island) expedition to Nikumaroro in February 1996 succeeded in locating the
site but we were disappointed to find that the tank and several other
artifacts nearby were clearly associated with the British colonial
settlement, not an aircraft.  Detailed measurements were made and the objects
and features found were photographed and videotaped.  Five artifacts were
collected (see below).  It appeared that the expedition had disproven the
hypothesis that the site had been an Earhart/Noonan survival camp.

This is what was present in 1996:

About 25 meters into the bush from the vegetati  along the lagoon shore
was a steel tank measuring 3 feet square by 4 feet high.  It was painted
white with the words "Police" and "Tarawa" dimly legible in blue.  The
corners and bottom were very rusty and the tank had not been watertight for a
long time.  The top was open, apparently rusted away, and in the bottom lay a
steel ring which had clearly once been the fitting for a heavy round steel
hatch that lay on the ground nearby with the words "Baldwin Ltd. - Tank
Makers - London" molded into it.  In the bottom of the tank were six coconut
shell halves which had apparently been used as drinking cups.  There were no
coconut trees in the area.

On the ground beside the tank were three wooden poles, each roughly two
meters long, a few very rusted scraps of corrugated metal, and the base of an
unusual -looking light bulb (which we collected and have as Artifact
2-3-W-3).  About three meters from the tank was a small "Ren" tree at the
base of which was a scattering of very dry bird bones.  About seven meters
from the tank, on the side away from the bird bones, was a depression in the
ground roughly 3 meters across by less than a meter deep.  The coral rubble
in the bottom of the hole was quite loose, suggesting that the hole had once
been deeper but the sides had slid down.  At the time, we speculated that the
hole represented an abortive attempt to dig a wel.  Lying amid the loose
coral rubble in the bottom of the hole was a spent .30 caliber rifle
cartridge with the number "43" on its base (collected as Artifact 2-3-W-4).
This is consistent with the M-1 carbines carried by the Coast Guard and
reportedly used to shoot at birds.

Beginning about 15 meters from the tank, going toward the ocean beach, and
scattered over the next 24 meters were:
- three small pieces of very fine copper screening. ( Sample collected as
2-3-W-1)
- a dark brown four-hole button 15 mm (a little over a half inch) in
diameter.  Material uncertain. (Collected as 2-3-W-5)
- a broken finished wooden stake approximately 1 inch square in cross section
and perhaps 18 inches long.
- an empty, very rusted can about the size and shape of a can of car wax.
- a flattened roll of tar paper with green roof shingle material on one side.
- an irregularly shaped sheet of asbestos (?) roughly a 18 inches square by
1/4 inch thick. ((fragment collected as 2-3-W-2)
-  the rusted remains of a steel barrel or drum.
-  a broken shard from a white porcelain plate

Within the next week we'll put a Research Bulletin up on the TIGHAR website
which will include a map of the site and photos of the features and artifacts
described above.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 13:46:06 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Noonan & PAA

Re: Ric's question - How did you come across Grooch's book?

I've been collecting some of the Pan Am and Trippe books looking for
references to Noonan. Somewhere among them this Grooch book about Musick
was mentioned. I'd also heard that Elgen Long believed Noonan resigned from
PAA so I asked him what his source was when I saw his presentation in
Oakland. He said he thought it was the Musick biography. I figured there
was only one but the problem was finding the book. I couldn't locate it on
the Web or other places I tried. Then I got lucky and found a copy in a
special historical section of a local library. They will let you visit the
book, but not check it out.

Grooch wrote some other books about PAA as well. I only wish he had
documented his sources.

blue skies, -jerry
***************************************************************************
From Ric

First rate detective work.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:45:08 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Niku Landing Site/Beach or Coral Reef

Re: Devitt's theory of landing on the reef or beach

Let me get this straight.
   I've flown some 22 non-stop hours,without sleep,I'm lost in the South
Pacific,I've missed my destination by 400 miles,noone knows where I'm at or
whether I'm flying north or south, I'm exhausted,I"m out of gas,my radio
doesn't work,I can't receive anything, I'm yelling frantcially almost
incoherently into the mike my LOP,and then I see a small island ahead with a
beach and an outer coral reef of unknown surface and unknown tidal action so
I elect to land on the reef because I owe money on my visa (plane repairs)
and my future career depended on me to continue around the world.
   Amazing. (If you were serious) I'm not a pilot but I think human survival
instinct may prevail in this case and I'd go for the safest landing spot and
to hell with the Electa. George and Purdue will buy me another one.Why
attribute such an altruistic motive to AE whenDevitt's scenario works pretty
well: she simply found the closest easiest spot to land in exigent
circumstances-the reef.

Respectfully,
Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, first let's accept that anytime we try to put ourselves in someone
else's shoes we're hangin' out a mile, but we can at least be careful about
defining what those shoes were probably like.

Several aspects of your characterization of Earhart's circumstances are not
accurate.  If she is coming up on Gardner she has not "missed her destination
by 400 miles", she is following a rational contingency plan.  She is not out
of gas if she is still in the air (unless you wat to play Elgen Long's game
of specifying an exact moment for fuel exhaustion).  And she is not yelling
frantically and almost incoherently into the mic.  (You've been reading those
Earhart books again.)  Even Warner Thompson in his demonstrably biased "Radio
Transcripts Earhart Flight" characterizeds her last transmission as "hurried,
frantic, and apparently not complete." and says that "toward the end Earhart
talked so rapidly as to be almost incoherent."  In Chief Radioman Leo
Bellart's interview with Elgen Long in 1973 he mentioned nothing about the
way Earhart's voice sounded.

The truth is that Earhart was maintaining her radio schedule.  Thompson's
behavior exhibits much more panic than does Amelia's.  It is Itasca that
transmits when it should be listening, perhps blocking Amelia's signals, and
it is Itasca that abandons its station at Howland to go searching to the
northwest an hour and twenty minutes before the airplane is officially
overdue.

As for whether a pilot's priority would be his or her own safety or the
well-being of the airplane, I can only tell you what I've learned in 35 years
as a pilot, but more importantly, in 12 years as an aviation accident
investigator.  As a rule, military pilots and pilots of fully insured
aircraft will happily sacrifice the machine if they think it will increase
their chances of survival.  Pilot/owners who have a big emotional or financial
 investment in their aircraft will reliably take the most Godawful and almost
suicidal chances in an emergency in the hope of not damaging their baby.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:15:26 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Niku Landing Site/Beach or Coral Reef

Just an observation on AE's condition by way of comment regarding Ron
Bright's message.  We don't know that AE had no sleep - two reasons.  First,
the plane was equipped with the Sperry autopilot (not fancy perhaps, but
certainly functional), and Fred had a commercial pilot's license as well
(albiet single engine), so I feel quite certain that he could have spelled
her at the controls between taking fixes.

LTM,
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:24:48 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Niku Landing Site/Beach or Coral Reef

Ric, during my flying career I've been in a couple of terse situations and I
can tell you talking to someone outside of my plane was the least priority I
had. First came flying the machine then navigation. After a whole lot of
figuring and planning came telling someone what I was going to do. That
priority was during modern times when radio communications were good. In AEs
case I don't know if she ever had two way communications with anyone after
leaving Lae. She may have exchanged chats with Lae but if so I missed the
comments. In any case she did not have two way after that nor did she have DF
at any time during the whole flight that I am aware of. Given that I think a
radio transmission would have had near zero priority. She probably broadcast
her intention to head for Gardner in the blind and MAY have similarly
broadcast reaching the island. Clearly we have no evidence anyone heard such
transmissions. Had she been desperately low on fuel she most certainly
transmitted that info on every frequency she had. I would have. Nothing in
the known transmissions indicate to me she was in really emergency
conditions.  And I agree her priority was to save their fannies at whatever
cost to the plane.

Alan
#2329

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

Ever had an inflight emergency in an airplane you owned and on which you had
no hull insurance?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:32:42 EST
From:         Anna Weber
Subject:      Mystery solved on ebay!

I apologize if this has already been addressed in the forum, I haven't been
online much lately, but did anyone see the $500,000 minimum bid on ebay
offering the services of two guys who claim they can show you exactly where
AE and FN are buried? Any thoughts on this... besides the obvious?

Anna Weber
**************************************************************************
 From Ric

Ssshhh...It has not been discussed on the forum but one of our stalwarts is
seeing what can be found out about it.  Sounds like an entrepenurial stroke
of genius.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:26:27 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Niku Landing Site/Beach or Coral Reef

<< Ever had an inflight emergency in an airplane you owned and on which you had
 no hull insurance? >>

Nope. All my airplanes were bought and paid for by you and a few other lucky
taxpayers. But I can assure you "your" plane would have had to be aflame and
falling apart for me to step outside and depend on one parachute. Seriously
most of the guys I knew would do their best to save the plane if possible. My
C-130 caught fire (in the cockpit) on take off with 80 passengers on board at
Pleiku, VN. I had it back on the ground in record time. My passengers were
Army pilots and two chaplains. They were considerably unnerved to be in a 90
degree bank at T.O. airspeed about 100 feet off the ground. So was I. But
your point is well taken. I suppose I would try to save my plane EVEN if it
was insured if at all possible. Folks cash it in every so often trying
unsuccessfully to do just that.

Alan
#2329
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Here's a classic example from a loss I handled back in - oh, maybe 1978.
Airline pilot is picking up some extra cash flying night cancelled-check runs
in a Piper Navajo.  The airline doesn't permit moonlighting so he has to keep
this quiet.

One fine summers night mis-communication with a line-boy and inattention to
detail result in him running out of gas over southeastern Pennsylvania.  What
to do?  What to do?  There's no airport within gliding range but by the light
of the silvery moon he can see a nice big open farm field aligned nicely into
the wind.  Now - a night landing, off-airport, in a heavily loaded twin is a
hairy prospect in anybody's book and most people would elect to go in
wheels-up to minimize the length of time one is careening across the ground,
but not our hero.  He reasons that if he can get her down in one piece he can
find some gas and take off again and maybe not lose his job airline job.  So
down go the wheels and he sets up his approach to what? (The envelope
please..) Plowed Field International.  As the mains settle into the soft dirt
the nose gear comes slamming down, sticks into the ground, and the airplane
does a perfect flip over its nose and onto its back.  The fortunately
uninjured pilot is thoroughly trapped with about a ton of cancelled checks
between him and the cabin door and gets to spend the rest of the night in the
upside down cockpit until Mr. Farmer shows up in the morning.  An incident
which could have ended in bent props and some buckled belly skins instead
resulted in the total loss of the machine (not to mention the pilot's airline
job).

Earhart's situation was not all that different.  She was highly motivated to
preserve the airworthiness of the machine so that she could continue her
journey. It was certainly NOT the case that she could snap her fingers and
Purdue would provide her with another airplane.  Far otherwise.  Losing the
Electra would almost certainly end her flying career and flying was AE's
life.  Landing anywhere with those wheels retracted would be like death
itself.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:29:03 EST
From:         R. Johnson
Subject:      Ebay auction:

Here is the item # at ebay for the bodies of AE & FN. You also get 2-3
weeks on a South Pacific island all expenses paid!! Hot dog!!!! Problem
is, I can't seem to get in touch with the seller through ebay. Hmmmm!!!
Good luck in finding the truth with these two guys. By the way, the
address listed for the seller is in Las Vegas. Wanna gamble??  ITEM#
246028619

LTM (who loves to roll the bones, no pun intended)
R. Johnson

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

Doesn't Joe Gervais live in Las Vegas?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:32:09 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      ebay auction

Gosh, Ric, what are you and Tom K going to do with the money?

A McKenna

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

Tom, I don't think it's gonna work after all.  We'll have to think of
something else.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:21:16 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Amelia's choice: Coral reef or Beach

Based on your expertise particularily as a pilot, I must defer to your
explanation of Amelia's predictament during the last two or three hours of
flight as she ran her LOP towards Niku. I may have described her situation
too subjectively and in hyperbolic terms,i.e., talking incoherently,etc. (I
promise not to read any other books)

But objectiively she clearly missed her orginal destination as she radioed
she was circling and must be on you messages,believing she was close to
Howland and that she was running low on gas (or had 1/2 hour left according
to some logs).

As you suggest,she headed southeast to Niku more than likely a planned
contingency if she missed Howland.

The entire hypothesis of Tighar's theory must rest on Amelia's choice,perhaps
one of exigent circumstances or plan, to land on the outer reef and remain
for three days or so (to account for the radio signals) ;eventually Amelia
and Noonan (if alive) made it to the mainland and died sometime later. If she
had landed on the beach surely the aircraft search or the colonists some
three years later would have found some evidence of the Electra.

Hopefully, if the recovered artifacts ,the bones and catspaw heel, can be
positively linked to Amelia we can throw out the other theories. (For awhile
the theory that the Japanese shot her down and recovered her sounded pretty
good !!!)

Respectfully,
Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Let me put it this way:
We began this investigation 12 years ago based upon the navigational logic
that showed Gardner Island to be the most likley place for Earhart and Noonan
to have ended up and our belief, at that time, that no one had ever really
looked in the most likely place.  Now we know that not only did people look
there but that they found things that seem very difficult to explain if it
was NOT evidence of Earhart, Noonan and the Electra.  We too have found
things that fit that same description.

Along the way we have also discovered that many, if not most, of the accepted
"facts" about the Earhart disappearance are wrong - for example, she almost
certainly did not say she was circling nor did she ever say she had only a
1/2 hour of gas left.

Over the years other theories have gone in and out of fashion, but fashion
has little to do with reason and much more to do with the cultural climate.
The Japanese -capture nonsense never had any basis in fact but In the late
'60s and early '70s it did tap into bitter feelings left over from World War
Two and Cold War paranoia that nothing is as it seems.  The re-emergent
popularity of the crashed-and-sank theory began in the late '70s as a
backlash against the ridiculous excesses of the conspiracy crowd.  Most
recently it has gotten something of a boost from the pseudo-scientific
calculations published by Elgen and Marie Long, the endorsement of the
National Air & Space Museum, and the credibility implied by Timmer And The
Treasure Hunters' willingness to dump a million bucks or so into the Pacific.

What has always been lacking in these other investigations of the
Earhart/Noonan disappearance is an academically sound, peer reviewed,
publicly accessible approach to the problem.  That's what makes the Earhart
Project unique and that's what makes the Earhart Project successful in
uncovering new information.  It's not just that TIGHAR espouses a different
theory than do other researchers.  Our methodolgy is fundamentally different.
 We have said from the beginning that, historically, what happened to Earhart
and Noonan is not particularly important.  What IS important is the
opportunity the popularity of this mystery presents for us to practice and
demonstrate the scientific method of inquiry.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:22:32 EST
From:         Patrick Robinson
Subject:      Water collection

There's another possibility for the
hole you found...I seem to remember
if you dug a small hole and put
a sheet of plastic in it...With the plastic
raised off the bottom of the hole...The plastic
sweats and you can collect water
to drink...

It's been over 20 years since I read
something like that...

LTM
Patrick N. Robinson (2239)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:24:52 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Niku Landing Site/Beach or Coral Reef

My ideas were supposed to be simply a speculation as to why there doesn't
sem to be any sign of survival gear from the Electra being brought ashore.
I wanted to pose another possibility and see what other pilots in particular
had to say.  Unfortunately, unless we are actually in the unfortunate
position of having to make a command decision, it is hard to know what any
of us would do in the circumstances, much less guess what someone else would
do.  It is however documented in several pioeering trips when emergency
landings were made, that pilots landed on the beach rather than on rock, and
I wanted to pose an alternative.  My own personal guess is that it is likely
the Electra came down close enough to the Island for the crew to get ashore
and washed up later on the reef.  I don't want to cause an argument about
that though because there is no way of knowing what happened.  I just think
it is strange that essentials from the Electra were not found on Gardner by
Gallagher.  Earhart & Noonan knew there had to be about 25-30 hours before a
ship could get from Howland to gardner (assuming Itasca worked out that was
where they were going).  One would think they would bring some goodies
ashore.  The killer there however is the radio signals.  I believe it was
PAA that got cross bearings on the signals in the vicinity of Gardner.  That
means Ric's scenario is more likely than mine.

I can't help looking at it from the point of "what I would do".  But then I
am NOT Amelia OR Fred!

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:39:47 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Amelia's choice: Coral reef or Beach

<< she was circling and must be on you messages,believing she was close to
 Howland and that she was running low on gas (or had 1/2 hour left according
 to some logs). >>

I have always been concerned with the circling comment. Much more likely they
would have flown straight lines through the area they thought Howland was in.
To do otherwise would have hopelessly compounded Noonan's navigation
problems. I agree that "circling" probably never happened. As to the fuel it
is obvious they weren't down to 30 minutes worth of fuel and saying low on
fuel certainly meant fuel to hang around for a reasonable search then head
for an alternate.

Alan
#2329
***************************************************************************
From Ric
Anyone wishing to read more about the circling issue might go to
http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/11_4/EarhtRadio.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:01:45 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Tip -ups

Well, of course, it doesn't have to have been a palm tree.  A buka would make
a pretty good hole, I imagine.

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

Yeah but we came across quite a few old fallen, dead buka.  The wood is still
pretty much intact as whitened trunks lying on the ground.  No tip ups.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:03:48 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Noonan's salary

To which he says, "Fred Noonan said, 'We've lived on promises for a
year. I'm through.' He resigned immediately."
...blue skies,-Jerry

Haven't the time to go back through all the previous 'Noonan' posts
right now, does any one recall if anyone ever was able to document what
Noonan was supposed to have been paid for serving as AE's navigator, as
opposed to what his salary was when he left PAA?

Don Neumann
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I've never seen any reference to either figure.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:08:05 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Ebay auction:

>Doesn't Joe Gervais live in Las Vegas?

That's my understanding.  "People Search" turns up a J. I. Gervais and a
Joseph Gervais, both in Las Vegas, Nevada.  They may be the same although
zip-codes are slightly different: 89125 and 89121.  No e-mail address found.
I've not tried to make contact.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I know that there are subscribers to this forum who know Mr. Gervais.
Perhaps one of them would care to inquire as to whether he knows anything
about this.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:09:16 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Research CD

Am I missing something? Examining the various Ship's Logs in The Earhart 
Project Research Library CD, Volume 1, I could not find reference to the 
appropriate hemisphere (E, W or N, S) in the ship's position. I know that we 
can figure it out, but when you're messin' around the Equator and Date Line, 
it seems that you would be extra careful. What was their protocol?

Skeet
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Randy?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:12:29 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Trapped Fuel

For Alan Caldwell who in a Forum message on January 6, asked if the 1,100
gallons of fuel in Amelia Earhart's Electra included or excluded trapped or
unusable fuel. Sorry to be so long in responding to your question. Hope the
following is helpful.

Army Air Corps and Navy aircraft group weight statements (as opposed to
detailed weight statements) are broken down into categories, and then further
divided into subcategories or groups. Empty weight includes, for instance,
the airframe structure consisting of the wing group, tail group, body or
fuselage group, landing gear group and engine section (but not the engine).
Similar breakdowns are given for the powerplant and fixed equipment. The sum
of these groups equals the aircraft empty weight. (See any typical group
weight statement or the book "America's Hundred Thousand," by Francis H.
Dean, Schiffer Publishing Ltd., ISBN 0-7643-0072-5, 1997, pp. 120-123.)

Gross aircraft weight consists of empty weight plus useful load. The latter
is divided into two categories: the fixed or non-disposable useful load; and,
the disposable or expendable useful load. Trapped fluids including fuel and
oil are part of the non-disposable useful load. Thus, trapped fuel becomes,
as you noted, "an aircraft weight and balance issue."

I believe where I went wrong in discussing fuel issues in context with
Amelia's airplane was in using the terms "useable and unusable fuel
fraction." It was an attempt to assess the 1,100 gallon volumetric figure in
relation to possible losses, inaccuracies and uncertainties as a percentage
of the total fuel weight.

To the best of my knowledge, the airplane was fueled from drums of gasoline
without using any type of metering system. (A rough approximation of how much
fuel was loaded could be derived from how many drums were emptied or
partially emptied.) Presumably the tanks were filled to a point where fuel
was visible at the filler tube/tank interface, in the filler tube of each
tank, or perhaps to a point where the fuel actually overflowed.

Regardless of precisely how the tanks were filled, uncertainties exist. How
much 100 octane fuel was really onboard (usually quoted as a half tank)? How
much tank ullage volume was present when the airplane was in a three-point
attitude? What was the bulk fuel temperature and therefore mass density? Was
there some loss due to evaporation? Was there overboard fuel venting as the
temperature increased on the morning of her takeoff? Note that the last
question also relates to any supposed topping off just prior to takeoff. As
the gasoline warmed on the morning of takeoff, it would expand. As it
expanded (after cooling and contracting slightly over night), there would be
little or no tank volume available in which to top off.

Although we do not know precise answers to my questions, it is possible to
take into account some overall estimated diminishment of the fuel weight
available for the engines. One may debate the estimated loss magnitude;
however, I remain certain that some loss was inevitable. The resulting number
then forms the basis for estimating fuel consumption enroute to Howland and
beyond. This becomes a baseline condition against which the impact of flight
operating variables may be evaluated: instrument error, slight mixture ratio
variation, drag due to abnormal trim and so forth.

The value of these analyses is that they will hopefully lead to a reasonable
min-max endurance and range thereby demonstrating what was possible and what
was not.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:15:21 EST
From:         Angelo Campenella
Subject:      Re: WRECK PHOTO

To bring up an old saw, I just read the Devine and Campbell reiteration of
the Saipan incident. In looking at the WRECK PHOTO you distributed a year
or two ago, could this be the Electra after being "burned" on Saipan?

Angelo Campanella
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I suppose, provided there was ever an Electra on Saipan.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:29:10 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      N16020

    There were some questions some time ago about the mystery aircraft
that crashed in California.  The aircraft had the same "N" number as the
Earhart Electra.  I found two pictures of that crash site and have them
up on my Web Page if anyone would like to see them.

     Thanks to Joe Gervais and Joe Klaas for giving me permission to use
them.  I will periodically put up new pictures that might be of interest
to Earhart fans

Don J.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The aircraft was only a mystery to Gervais and Klaas, but then these are the
geniuses who thought Irene Bolam was Amelia Earhart.  It's obvious even from
the photos of the wreck that the plane is a Lockheed 12, not a 10.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:42:55 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Using radar to find metal in vegetation

Ric, just a thought which perhaps you have already considered. If the
radar equipment (GPR) set up on the pull cart can discern metal from
vegetation and dirt then is there a possibility to tilt it up and scan
to seek metal artifacts which may be buried in the vegetation? Crusted
aluminium can look a lot like ground mess to a persons eye but if the
radar sees a strong echo from metal and not from dirt then it may help
find more metal.

Greg
**************************************************************************
From Ric

My understanding of GPR is that it's important to have as good a "seal"
between the cart and the ground as possible.   There are radars that will
"look ahead" as you suggest, but they're way too big and require way too much
power to tote around on the  ground.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:43:53 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Water collection

To complete this "solar still", put a rock in the middle of the plastic
sheet, and a bucket under the sheet (and rock) to collect the drips.  I'm
sure that polyethylene was a World War II material, though, and I don't
think that there was anything available that they could use as a substitute.
LTM Dan Postellon  (2263)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:53:07 EST
From:         Donn Jordan
Subject:      Re: Ebay auction:

    Joe Gervais and I have  had several long conversations on the phone in the
last few weeks.  I am in contact with him, but don't feel free to give out his
location.  He does not have a computer or E-mail address.

Don J.

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

Absolutely.  I agree that Joe's location should remain a closely guarded
secret.  Since he does apparently have a telephone you might ask him if he
knows anything about this ebay business.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:27:02 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Using radar to find metal in vegetation

From what I understand about these radars they do not require a seal between
the ground and the antenna. There should be smaller perhaps even handheld
versions available now. About five years ago several fuselage, engine, and
propeller components (ME109 I think) were found buried at an abandoned
military test center. The radar was imaging through dirt from an aircraft
in flight. It just seems to me that if the wreck was on land and being
dragged around that there has to be more of it hidden in the vegetation.

Greg
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:28:46 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Fred Noonan's Salary

I don't have any info on FN's salary or benefits, but I do have several
quotes that said Fred was not only PAA's senior navigator but also
instructor.  That means he not only had to fly line trips, but he was
also charged with training new hires and maintaining the proficiency  of
the rest.  This was before the flight crews got fed up with being
underpaid and overworked which was a documented and well-known fact
which begat ALPA.  Being a check airman or instructor pilot is alot of
work.  Juan Tripp(President of PAA) was also known for being a tad bit
ruthless so it would not surprise me one bit for Fred to quit and try to
strike out on his own.  I also read somewhere(I'm looking for the quote)
that he had plans to start a navigator school after the AE flight.

Doug B.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:38:04 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Using radar to find metal in vegetation

Radars don't work very well through foliage, and GPR's do require good
coupling to the earth to work well.  Your military has been trying to
develop radars to penetrate foliage since the Vietnam War without great
success.  They have had success spending your/my taxes, though, in the
process.  That's not bad, as a number of people have been employed looking
at this problem, including myself!

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

We've learned a few important lessons about employing hi-tech devices in the
field:
1.  Even if you get to use it for free, it's expensive to transport it
half-way around the world.
2.  It's usually heavy and awkward to carry.
3.  Mostly it doesn't work.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:40:27 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Research CD

Skeet asked:

> Am I missing something? Examining the various Ship's Logs in The Earhart
> Project Research Library CD, Volume 1, I could not find reference to the
> appropriate hemisphere (E, W or N, S) in the ship's position. I know that
>we can figure it out, but when you're messin' around the Equator and Date Line,
> it seems that you would be extra careful. What was their protocol?

Ship's logs had N and S for latitude, and E and W for longitude.  For
weather reports, the globe was divided up into octants, and one had to
specify what octant and latitude/longitude without sign or N/S/E/W.  I was
careful to translate all data to + or - latitude (+ being North, - being
South) and longitude (+ bewing E and - being W).  If no plus sign, it is
assumed.  Occasionally, I had to use only E longitude, so you might see a
183.xxx degree longitude somewhere or another.  This was necessary for
plotting charts, etc., but I don't think any of that crept into the CD.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:43:08 EST
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo/Saipan fire?

I could detect no evidence of fire in the photo.
Roger Kelley, #2112
************************************************************************
From Ric

Me neither.