Date:         Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:41:01 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Kilts

The Basswood log re Kilts' stay at Niku from Feb April 46 is quite
interesting. Sounds like the Coast Guardsmen also fraternized with the
natives at the village. Would any of the artifacts collected by Tighar (that
may be related to AE) been visible in 1946 and simply not regarded as
anything worthwhile.

When Kilts gave his story to the reporter did he by any chance identify or
give any clues to the identity of the native,(male, female, title etc), who
passed on the Earhart/skeletal connection?
(That is probably a stupid question)

Has Kilt's? full story been published on the Forum.
In March of 1946, how many natives were on NIKU? Anyone we know?

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

My understanding is that the information Tom related is from the Unit 92
station log, not the Basswood log.

We, of course, have no way of knowing what various Coasties may have seen in
the village but, perhaps significantly, the souvenirs collected by Coast
Guardsman Dick Evans consisted of fans made of bird feathers, a sharktooth
sword, and a woven hat.  U.S. Navy PBY pilot John Mims, on the other hand,
has kanawa wood boxes and a model canoe with inlaid pieces of aircraft
aluminum.  Evans and Mims had contact with the locals during the same time
period (1944) but the Coasties' visits were, reportedly, fairly structured
affairs while Mims seems to have had more opportunity for individual, casual
interaction.  It may be that the difference in souvenirs is pure chance, but
it may also be that kanawa wood and aluminum were both in limited supply
while feathers and shark teeth were plentiful.  It may be that Mims was a
"special" visitor who may have had better stuff with which to trade and,
therefore, got better stuff.

The significant thing here is, if kanawa wood boxes with aluminum inlays were
valuable this late in the war it would seem to imply that the supply of
kanawa wood and aluminum - and maybe the skill to fashion the boxes - was in
shorter, rather than greater, supply.  That would argue for a pre-war, finite
source of thin-gauge aluminum rather than inceasingly abundant sources of
wartime aluminum.

Kilts did not identify his sources by name but his primary informant
apparently had a very limited command of English and he had to find an
interpreter (maybe the island's radio operator?) to help.  In 1946 there were
roughly 100 settlers on the island. (Notice that we're avoiding the
inaccurate and politically incorrect term "native."  The colonists who lived
on Niku were no more native to the island than were the Americans or the
British.)

We'll put the text of Kilts' 1960 newspaper article up on the website as a
Document of the Week.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:49:52 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Re: Cam Warren's HYPOTHESIS

> From Cameron Warren:
> Follow-up work performed by Cam Warren, who verified
> Goerner's contributions and uncovered certain other
> rare government documents, never before introduced.

I can purchase documentation at the local news stand that will convince
many people that aliens exist and have been seen on Earth. If I tell you
this, that aliens exist and have been seen on Earth, I would hope that
you would read my documentation before you decide if it should be
believed. If you do read my documentation you will probably not come to
the same conclusion that many other's have. You state that you have
documentation supporting your claims but you have not yet, as far as I
know, shown it to us. Do you expect us to believe you on faith?

Frank Westlake
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:27:29 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Warren's hypothesis

A strange thing happened when I printed out Cam Warren's hypothesis
from my PC -- the paper had conspiracy written all over it.  Hm-m-m-m.

Regretfully Cam's hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis; it is more
a collection of random "facts" with no documentation, selected bits of
alleged "related information," and a list of conclusions that are anything
but "reasonable."  Cam's paper reeks of the Amelia-as-government-spy genre.
He advertises this hypothesis as prime rib but it looks, smells, and tastes
more like goulash.

The gaps in his reasoning are appalling.  For example he states that
a photo of the "RDF-1 show[s] a five-band frequency selector switch, the
RDF-2 Coupler had a six-position switch.  This establishes that both systems
provided coverage above 4000 kilocycles, certainly to 7500 kc . . . "  How
he arrived at that conclusion is a mystery.  Another example; his
"reasonable conclusion" that Bendix "(probably)" paid Putnam to use the
Bendix equipment is unsubstantiated by any documentation.

A final example: "And another factor was her apparent refusal to
allow Fred to operate the equipment."  The only people who could vouch for
that statement died in 1937, and Cam offers no proof that AE did not let FN
operate the equipment.

All in all Mr. Warren's attempt to further his AE-as-government-spy
hypothesis is long on speculation and short on documentation, a common
condition for most conspiracy theories.  When he can offer solid
documentation of his "government documented facts," "related information,"
and "reasonable conclusions" maybe he will gain the creditability and wider
audience he so desperately seeks.

LTM, who also didn't believe the Warren Commission
Dennis O. McGee #0149
***************************************************************************
From Ric

<<who also didn't believe the Warren Commission>>
Different guy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:33:46 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      More from Mims

We've just received the following additional (and unsolicited) recollections
from Dr. John Mims who, as Lt. (jg) John Mims in WWII, saw aircraft aluminum
and an aircraft control cable being used as fishing tackle by the colonists
on Gardner Island.  The "Colonel Laxton" he refers to is Paul B. Laxton who
was the Western Pacific High Commission's District Officer for the Phoenix
Group during and after the war.

I was not aware that Laxton ever held any military rank, but in 1949, as
Assistant Lands Commissioner for the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony, he
spent three months on Gardner reorganizing the colony.  We have a long report
he subsequently wrote to his superiors and an article entitled "Nikumaroro"
which he wrote for the Journal of the Polynesian Society in 1950.

At any rate, here are Dr. Mims' recollections:

*******************************
Personal Recollections of Colonel Laxton in WWII, by John P. Mims of
Tuscumbia, Alabama, in March of 2000. Transcribed by Mims's daughter Rosemary
Fisk.

The Colonel and I became good friends in 1944-45 while on the Island of
Canton. He was the officer in charge of the Islands under the British Flag,
and I flew the circuit around the Islands carrying supplies, mail, and men
(mostly Coast Guard). He was rather short of stature (5'7" to 5'8"), and was
almost always alone even though he was very outgoing and clever and loved
parties. He was always dressed very neatly in a jungle hat, khaki shirt and
shorts with matching socks and sandals. He was waited upon by two Micronese
men from the islands.

He depended on me to help protect the natives from exploitation by the
sailors. He often invited Lt. Wahlgren (my navigator) and me to an afternoon
tea or to a fish dinner prepared by the native men.

After seeing the large fish on Gardener with the large aluminum hook (hand
made) and the approximately 25 foot leader that was an obvious airplane
control cable and the native boy saying it came from a plant that was there
when they came, I asked him if the British had lost a plane there. He replied
that no British planes had been there, and neither had the Americans lost any
planes there (PBys were the only ones flown in the area).

I asked him if this could be a part of Amelia Earhart's plane, and he said it
could well be, but he had little interest in a story of a lost pilot, since
the war was in progress. Also, he joked that the woman was American and that
the 4th of July and Thanksgiving with the Americans was about all the
American history he could take.

He did at one time mention that bones were found and that the natives were
more interested in the shoes they found on the two dead European people. He
did not say, or I can't remember what he said happened to the bones.

Also, he planned to spend as much of his life as possible among the natives
and on these islands. He seemed to have no interest in marriage or family,
but got very excited when any British or American woman came through the
island.

He gave me an award in a fruitless search for an island chief lost at sea
during a storm. On parting he saw me off, wished me well, and invited me to
visit him on the islands or in Britain.

I can only remember receiving one letter from him after the war. I was in
London and the letter was post-marked in the Fijis.
*******************************************

It must be said that when I first interviewed Dr. Mims about his wartime
experiences in 1995 he did tell me about making inquiries with the British
official on Canton Island about the possibility of a British aircraft being
lost on Gardner, although I don't think he mentioned Laxton by name.  At that
time he said nothing about suggesting to the official that the parts he saw
on Gardner were from Earhart's airplane or that he later was told that bones
were found, etc.

Dr. Mims has been a TIGHAR member since 1995 and remains very interested in
our investigation.  It is not possible to know whether his current familarity
with the facts we have uncovered has stirred new and genuine memories, or has
caused him to remember more than actually happened.  That John Mims flew
several resupply trips to Gardner Island in late 1944 and early 1945 is
documented in official U.S. Navy flight manifests that detail every person
and every sack of mail, case of beer, and jar of mayonnaise he carried there
- and yet, he has no recollection of the wreck of the Norwich City and when
asked to annotate a map, he placed the Loran station on northwest rather than
the southeast tip of the island.  Such are the vagaries of human memory.
Still,  his quote of Laxton's facetious reason not being interested in
Earhart, the American lady, has the ring of truth.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:01:16 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: Cam Warren's HYPOTHESIS

To Cameron Warren,

I too, would appreciate it if you would promptly state your source of
information.  I would think it a grand adventure if I might go directly to
your source, confirm that it is authentic and repute your critics on your
behalf.

LTM,
Roger Kelley, #2112
**************************************************************************
From Amanda Dunham

>According to contemporary news stories, ...

Why?  Because the press was so much more accurate then than they are now???

Amanda Dunham
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:04:55 EDT
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      A ride in a Lockheed 10A

I went for a ride in the Electra 10A on Sat May 27/00 out of Muskoka
Airport,  100 miles north of Toronto.  Cost me $100 Canadian($66 US),
which will go towards some sick kid's Disney World trip.

Using a 7000 ft. asphalt runway with very little wind, it took
the Electra about 3,500 feet to get off.  There didn't appear to be
any flaps and we had 11 people aboard, some over 200 lbs.
The aircraft is like new, and the Wasp Juniors sounded healthy.
Very noisy on take-off, you couldn't talk to the person beside
you, even if screaming.  Once seated, the Electra is
very comfortable  There are five rows of 2 seats each,
each with a window, each with a fresh air vent, but
no reclining seat-backs(which I didn't miss).  Air Canada deleted the
10th passenger seat at the door and in 1937 had a stewardess
in the 9th seat also, who served meals!  The luggage compartments
are in the wing roots.

I hand-measured the floor to ceiling at the 2nd row of seats and
came up with 58 inches, but it reduces towards the rear door.  Being
74 inches tall, this made it difficult for me to get to my seat, but once
seated there was plenty of leg room.  I had the main wing spar
intrusion of the mid-wing Electra in front of me but it was a useful
table.  There are 2 emergency exits; the hatch over the pilot's head
and a starboard window opposite the port door.  There is a seat-belt light
and P.A. system, but these may have been added to satisfy
current regulations, I don't know.

We flew at 2000 ft. for 40 minutes sightseeing and the engines
were much quieter after throttling back to cruise at only 150MPH
at 1900RPM.  Hey, it was a ball.

Linda told me that the Muskoka L10A flights will occurr in 2001
as well, and they are not booked up yet.  In fact, one of the flights was
not booked up this year.   Apparently, only 5 Air Canada pilots are
allowed to fly CF-TCC, and our co-pilot was a 747 Captain!

BTW, an international air show was being held at the Muskoka
Airport at which the Yankee Air Force (YAF) B-17G "Yankee Lady"
was on show.  I can tell you subjectively that The B-17 was not as
loud on take-off as the L10A!    Also, both iterations of the Lockheed
Electra were side by side on the apron(An RCAF "Aurora" and the
L10A).  The "Aurora" is the same as the USAAF "Orion", which most
of us know is a modified civilian Lockheed "Electra", turboprop iteration.

LTM,  HAG 2201.

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

Thanks Hugh.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:08:56 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      AE, FN and Morse

Hue Miller wrote:

> I wonder how did EA or FN learn morse that quickly?

Ric,  What do we know of Almon A. Gray, U.S. Naval Reserve (Ret.), author of
the article, "Amelia Didn't Know Radio?"  And of "Noonan biographer, Michael
A. Lang" who is cited as saying that, as of about 1931, Noonan held a Second
Class Commercial Radio operator license?  This license required the ability
to send and receive Continental Morse code at a speed of not less than 16
words/minute.

From what we know of Fred Noonan, I can easily believe he might have
obtained such a license.  He may have barely passed the code test, as most
first-time applicants do, and then didn't touch a key or copy a word of code
thereafter.

In any case, I suspect that Fred, perhaps Amelia too, played down whatever
code ability they had because they did not want to do CW.  We should also
keep in mind that, assuming you do know the code but lack expertise, it's a
lot easier to send than to receive.  I think there's little doubt that Fred
could have pounded out any of the reported messages even though he might not
have been able to read the same messages at 5 WPM -- or at any speed.

If Amelia had made any effort to learn the code in the expectation that she
might have to pass the radio test, she might have been able to do it too.
She got out of the test, but would some CW proficiency have been required?

Vern Klein  2124
***************************************************************************
From Ric

You make some interesting points.  I haven't seen confirmation that Fred
held a commercial radio license but I don't have any reason to doubt those
who say that he did.  Should be easy enough to check.  Volunteers?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:15:15 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      No Subject

My curiosity is getting the best of me.

Where in the lagoon was the PBY landing zone or did they land at sea?  Where did
they beach the aircraft to off load their cargo?  Or did they off load in open
water into a long boat or barge?

It's a bit off topic, but maybe Dr. Mims would care to respond.

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

Landings were made out in the middle of the lagoon up toward the village end,
taking great care to avoid coral heads.  (You never land an airplane in the
open ocean if you can help it.)  The airplane was not beached but was met by
a longboat which lightered passengers and cargo ashore.  It was a good mile
from where the airplane could be landed to the Coast Guard dock down at the
southeast end.

There really aren't many places along the lagoon shoreline where you can get
anything but a shallow-draft launch up to the beach.  The bottom shallows so
gradually that in most places you have to wade tha last few yards to shore.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:40:30 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      Kilts article up

The text of the original 1960 Floyd Kilts article is now up on the TIGHAR
website as the latest Document of the Week.  You'll find it at:
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/KiltsStory.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:03:38 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Warren's hypothesis

>From Dennis McGee
>
>   The gaps in his reasoning are appalling.  For example he states that a
>photo of the "RDF-1 show[s] a five-band frequency selector switch, the RDF-2
>Coupler had a six-position switch.  This establishes that both systems
>provided coverage above 4000 kilocycles, certainly to 7500 kc . . . "  How he
>arrived at that conclusion is a mystery.

[quoted from NRL Radio Materiel School manual, 1936 ]

The type RDF-2 direction finding equipment was designed for use on
large flying boats and if found sufficiently successful in meeting service
requirements, will replace the present ......

It differs from the Type RDF-1-A direction finder
in that a special hydraulic mechanical arrangement and autosyn indicator
system permits its installation on the hull of the aircraft near the
tail.......

.....While this pamphlet was in the process of being written,  [1936] the
first actual service installation tests with the Type RDF-2 direction finder
were being conducted and for this reason it was impossible to give more
detailed information on the installation of this equipment in aircraft.

......as the electrical circuits of the direction finder proper are
identical to the Type RDF-1-A, the only other interesting feature is the
autosyn motor indicator system permitting the operator to.....

The desired frequency range is selected by sections S1, S2 of the
frequency band switch.  This switch assembly has seven positions, the
frequency range for each position being given on a frequency bands chart
concealed inside the inner....

These ranges, and the circuit combinations employed to
cover them, are as follows:             [circuit components list omitted]

STEP    FREQUENCY RANGE
1        500 -  590  Kcs
2        590 -  700  Kcs
3        700 - 1050  Kcs
4       1050 - 1570  Kcs
5       1570 - 3000  Kcs
6       3000 - 5400  Kcs
7       5400 - 8000  Kcs

[end quote]

It's pretty hard to count switch positions from a photo
unless the photo is clear enuff that you can read ALL the control
markings.

The original text and drawings have been scanned in by Mike
Hanz:

"No manual, but the DF chapter from the NRL manual may help.
 See http://users.erols.com/aafradio/NRLDFChapter.doc
 for the Word document.
The figures [technical drawings ] are more difficult to include.....
http://users.erols.com/aafradio/Rdf-1-1.gif,
http://users.erols.com/aafradio/Rdf-1-2.gif, and
http://users.erols.com/aafradio/RDF-2-1.GIF)

If you don't have point and click capabilities, be advised
that the URLs are case sensitive.  Also keep in mind that although
they are relatively small (<~100KB), they blow up to a decent [big!]
size because of the .gif compression, so you'd best file them off to your
hard disk for viewing/printing."

--via Hue Miller

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

Thanks Hue.  There is actually some very good and useful information here but
the conclusions Cam Warren has drawn from it are absurd.

As Cam says, publicity photos taken in late February 1937 show a device which
looks just like the RDF-1 Coupler apparently about to be installed in the
Electra. (Cam says that the guy in the photos showing the box to Amelia is
Bendix engineer Cyril Remmlein but he doesn't say how he knows that.)  An
article in the March 1937 issue of Aero Digest shows a picture of the same
device and describes it as a new "local control Bendix direction finder for
use with conventional receivers."

Looks to me like Earhart simply decided to replace the Hooven Radio Compass
(which used a separate receiver) with a Bendix loop and RDF-1 Coupler that
would hook right up to her Western Electric 20B receiver.  She was
sacrificing greatly simplified operation for the sake of saving, according to
Hooven, about thirty pounds of weight.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:58:48 EDT
From:         Charles Lim
Subject:      Fire Extinguisher

I'm new in this forum and is drawn by my own curiousity to join. I have
been visiting the TIGHAR web page for nearly a year and a half and has seen
quite a few documentaries about it. I have really no opinion on the subject,
but as a student of science (actually engineering) I have been surprised by
the discovery of any physical evidence at all.

The article that interests me is the the fire extinguisher that was
recovered (Article 2-4-V-100). It is battered. The shell has corroded by
what is seems to be rust, from the picture that I have seen. My guess is
that the containers material is ferrous.

There are some markings on it that are however not consistant to
rusting, in this I mean the 'whitish' discolouration on the surface. This
may be the result of the contents (Carbon Tetracholoride?) spilling out as
the pressurised container rusted through. This appears to be along a seam
near the top of the container and describes a spiral pattern along the
length of the cylinder.

About six and a half centimeters down from the top of the container,
there appears to be an indentation that looks uniformly circular along the
leftside (or right depending on which angle it is viewed from). The surface
of the container has raised impressions (grooves?) along the circumfrence of
the object, this feature repeats itself along the length of the cylinder.
There is a white marking at the bottom of the container which looks like
some sort of paint.

Finally, there appears to be a pressed indentation or remains of a label
on the container (there was definately something there but from the picture
shown I cannot guess what it is).

The interesting thing about this (I'm speculating here) is that the last
feature I mentioned above is not visible in the photo 'may20dep.jpg'. Since
I am a student, not an archieologist, I could be wrong in assuming that it
is not there. However from the angle of which the photograph was taken
(may20dep.jpg) and the angle of the artifact photo, it seems that the label,
or whatever was in that space should be visible in the May20dep pic, which
it is not.

Im sure this isn't conclusive but would like to know if this is due to
the overexposed photograpgh or if the artifact itself would not be able to
display this feature on film given that it is so strongly reflective (when
it was new I mean).

Thanks a bunch
Charles Lim
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The artifact is corroded rather than rusted and does not appear to be
ferrous.  The indentations you mention do give the impression that they were
meant to have a label pasted there but, if there was ever a label, there was
no trace of it when we found the artifact.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:02:10 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Sending code


It's my understanding that they did not have a code key with which to send
anything, irrespective of whether they knew code.  Am I mistaken about that?

David Katz

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

That is my understanding also.  The only way they would have to send code
would be by depressing and releasing the push-to-talk button on the
microphone.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:13:29 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      Warren's Hypothesis

Cam Warren sent this to me but, because he also refers to you folks, I'm sure
he won't mind if I pass along his opinion of your comments.

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

The response of you and the TIGHAR cubs is rather what the rest
of us have come to expect. To quote from Steven Sondheim:

"Send in the clowns . . . don't bother, they're here!"

As for the "proof";  the article was presented as a quick summary
of our knowledge to date. All the material referenced is in
the public domain. You COULD look it up.

Cam Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:37:19 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Warren's hypothesis

I'm not sure what the fuss is that AE had Bendix equipment aboard the
Electra.Is it controversial or in dispute? Many researchers list the Bendix
direction finder as part of her equipment.CDR H.M.Anthony,USCG, said he saw
the direction finder in AE's cockpit in Hawaii in 1937.The New York Hearld
Tribune of March 7,1937,for instance, reports that a "last minute addition to
the navigation equipment is a Bendix direction finder,installed during the
last week.Its loop, carried on the outside of the ship just above the
cockpit,is adjustable..." The paper also adds that a Western Electric two-way
radio communication system was aboard. The inference is this information came
from CDR Clarence Kelly at Burbank,Ca. As you know other sources report that
Mr.Richard Black furnished a Navy high frequency direction finder that was
set up on Howland.

Another newsclipping relates that Vincent Bendix was one of the sponsors of
AE's project and said the plane was equipped with Bendix parts and
instruements. No source listed as this was a newspaper account.

Goldstein and Dillion in "Amelia" also report that AE carried a "Bendix
(miniaturized) direction-finder receiver,covering frequency ranges of 200 to
1500 kilocycles and 2400 to about 10,000 kc..." So if George Putnam made a
deal with Bendix,so what.

Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't follow that the Bendix directional
finder  supports the spy mission theory. Other than the unproven,undocumented
conspirarcy versions I thought most of the solid evidence negated the  secret
mission diversion theory.

Question to Mr. Warren: why did this Bendix df equipment installation support
a secret Naval Intelligence spy mission? Because the equipment was
"classified"?Was it "Confidential" or "Secret"?

Maybe I'm confusing radio equipment and directional finders and maybe in fact
noone can provide more credible evidence of the Bendix installation.

Clarification please of what AE really had,if possible,in the Electra?

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

You're correct Ron.  All of the available primary sources appear to confirm
what we can see in the photos.  As configured for the first World Flight
attempt, the Electra carried one transmitter ( a Western Electric 13C mounted
to the floor in the aft cabin), one receiver ( a Western Electric 20B mounted
under the copilot's seat), and a coupling device ( a Bendix RDF-1 mounted on
the instrument panel) that permitted the Bendix loop antenna to be used with
the Western Electric receiver for direction finding.   Although the antenna
arrangement was somewhat different for the second attempt, the number and
type of radios seems to have remained the same.

Clearly, the RDF-1 was not "classified" or it wouldn't have been featured in
an Aero Digest article about new products on the market.  Cam's allegation
that the device supplied to Earhart was an experimental, secret RDF-2 with
different frequency capabilites ignores the description of the RDF-2 as
identical to the RDF-1 except that it had a special drive that allowed the
loop antenna to be mounted in the tail of the airplane and be remotely
rotated.  Earhart's loop was, obviously, not like that.

Most of the confusion about Bendix radio equipent aboard the Electra seems to
arise from a semantics problem about what is meant by the term "direction
finder."  Yes, the airplane had a "Bendix direction finder" (loop and
coupler) but Elgen Long, for example, is quite sure that the aircraft carried
a separate Bendix receiver exclusively for direction finding and goes into
great detail about it, but I've never seen any evidence that any such radio
was aboard the airplane.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:44:25 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Warren's hypothesis

Is the Bendix loop and RDF-1 Coupler Tuned?

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

I'm not sure what you mean.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:58:53 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Kilts article up

(From Ric:  I'll reply to the Wombat's questions as we go.)

>"They were about through and the native was walking along one end of the
>island. There in the brush about five feet from the shoreline he saw a
>skeleton.
>
>"The island doctor said the skeleton was that of a woman. And there were no
>native women on the island then.

Island Doctor ??????  Was there such a person?

From Ric:  No.  There may have been a Native Medical Practioner or, more
likely, a Native Dresser.  The former had rather extensive medical training
while the latter just knew some first aid.

>Farther down the beach he found a man's skull, but nothing else.

This is something I don't recall seeing discussed.  The skeleton identified
as a woman's and the skull identified as a man's...  !

From Ric:  Other versions of the story told by the settlers talk about two
skeletons - a man and a woman.

>"The magistrate was a young Irishman who got excited when he saw the bone.

I imagine "bone" singular is a typo..

From Ric:  Yes.  Should be "bones."

>This same account was related by the doctor to New Zealand officials.

Another one I hadn't seen discussed...

From Ric:  Kilts was under the impression that the island was under New
Zealand adminstration so he may be referring to Gallagher's notification of
the authorities in Fiji.

>At low tide the smoothest coral in the world is exposed for 200 yards. From
>the air it looks as if you could dry your nets there, fly your kite, or,
>alas, land your plane.
>
>Actually, this smoothest coral is slashed with canyons six to 10 feet wide
>and 40 to 100 feet deep. At the ends of the 200 yards, the hard beach drops
>deceptively, 100 feet or more at one spot.
>
>A plane attempting a landing there would be dashed to pieces.

I recall bringing up the danger of trying to land on "apparently smooth"
coral in my earliest posts, but Ric assured me that I (and Kilts apparently)
not having seen the incredibly smooth coral on Gardner, was wrong.  I wonder
what Kilts was drinking when he imagined all those canyons etc...

From Ric: The canyons are there.  They're fingers that reach shoreward from
the reef face in many, but not all parts of the island.

Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:36:31 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Warren's Hypothesis

Please advise those interested that I have NEVER supported any
"spy mission" theory, and point out that idea came from a
Forum correspondent.

And, to set another matter straight, you are correct about the
RDF-2 being a "heavy duty" version of the RDF-1. At the time I
wrote the article - over a year and a half ago - detailed info
was lacking. Since then, thanks to Hue Miller, some very
valuable documentation has been unearthed, which helps explain
the situation. As of the moment, it appears AE had some
variation of the RDF-1 system (which included the loop - often
referred to as the "direction finder" - and coupler). The
coupler was most definitely tunable, and simultaneously tuned
the loop itself. In the production RDF-1, the frequency coverage
extended to 8,000 kc. (So there). And it was classified
"Confidential" in 1936-7. Coupling it with the RA-1 receiver
was apparently NOT standard procedure, but was done for Amelia
on an experimental basis.

An indication of how well "covered up" the Earhart/Bendix
setup was, is the apparent ignorance of the real experts, who
should have known all about it. And I'm not referring to the
latter day "Monday-Morning Quarterbacks", but such people as
Fred Hooven, Al Gray, Paul Rafford, Capt. Safford and Comdr.
Anthony. And I think I can add Randy Jacobson to that distin-
guished group. (MORAL: Don't dismiss an idea out-of-hand just
because it doesn't agree with conventional wisdom!!!) You
should know Naval Intelligence (as often happens in intel
operations) had two or more competing groups, who were
intensely jealous of one another. So the left hand didn't
always know what the right hand was doing, and vice versa.
SOMEBODY in the Navy knew what was going on concerning
Earhart. Quite likely a single individual. And if that sounds
conspiratorial, I apologize.

Cam Warren

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

<<And it was classified "Confidential" in 1936-7. >>

I'm assuming that you know this from a stamp or notation on the "NRL Radio
Materiel School manual, 1936" Hue was quoting from.  As I'm sure you know,
"confidential" is the lowest category of classification and is used pretty
casually.  If "NRL" stands for something like Naval Research Laboratory
(possibly the forerunner of the current Office of Naval Research?) then it
would probably be standard procedure for the manual to be "confidential."
That does not at all mean that the equipment it describes was classified.
The fact that Bendix was hawking the RDF-1 to the commercial aviation
industry in March 1937 is a pretty clear indication that it was not
classified at that time.  If you have documentation that proves otherwise
please say so.

<<Coupling it with the RA-1 receiver was apparently NOT standard procedure,
but was done for Amelia on an experimental basis.>>

Cam, that is 99 and 44/100ths percent pure speculation.  Please cite ANY
document or photograph that established the presence of a Bendix RA-1
receiver aboard NR16020.

<<An indication of how well "covered up" the Earhart/Bendix setup was, is
the apparent ignorance of the real experts, who should have known all about
it.>>

And you wonder why people call you a conspiracy theorist.  Absence of
evidence is not proof of a cover up.

Cover ups do exist, but you can't say that one happened (and expect to be
believed) unless you can prove it.  For example: A comparison of Leo
Bellart's original Itasca radio log with the transcript submitted by Warner
Thompson clearly documents his (quite successful) attempt to cover his own
butt at Amelia's expense.  Whether you call it a whitewash or a cover up,
it's a documented case of someone not telling the truth. Similarly, there is
extensive documentation of Sir Harry Luke's refusal to tell the Americans
about the bones found on Gardner.  Cover up? Conspiracy of silence?
Whatever.  There is documented proof that it happened.

If there is ANY evidence that Earhart had access to any classified government
equipment please enlighten us.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:41:22 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Re: Warren's Hypothesis

Cam Warren wrote:

> As for the "proof";  the article was presented as a quick summary
> of our knowledge to date. All the material referenced is in
> the public domain. You COULD look it up.

Thanks for the tip. It would help if you could site your references for
me.

Frank Westlake
Clown #9237
**************************************************************************
From Bill Leary

> As for the "proof";  the article was presented as a quick summary
> of our knowledge to date.

Fair enough.

And now come the opinions and queries for you to provide sources for the
information in the quick summary.

> All the material referenced is in the public domain. You COULD look it up.

If I go into the car dealership looking for a two door sports coupe, and
they try to sell me a four door sedan, they have to do better than just say
"you'll love it, the reasons why are in the trade press, go look it up."
Rather, she better be prepared to walk out, kick the tires with me, and tell
me why this is a better choice for me than what I already believe is.
So, many of us believe the evidence points to one set of conclusions.
You've decided the evidence points somewhere else.  Give us something to go
on.

You COULD provide references.  Otherwise we have little but to believe that
you feel your sources won't stand up to independent examination.

    - Bill

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

From Michael Holt

> As for the "proof";  the article was presented as a quick summary
> of our knowledge to date. All the material referenced is in
> the public domain. You COULD look it up.

Was Mr Warren's essay footnoted?  I didn't keep a copy of it.

Thanks.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

No it was not, but Cam has since explained that the paper he sent me was only
a summary and some of it was wrong anyway.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:03:27 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Secret? Navy?

>From Ron Bright
>
>I'm not sure what the fuss is that AE had Bendix equipment aboard the
>Electra. Is it controversial or in dispute?

The only point is, the equipment was new,
unproven technology, and it appears that
her trying to use it, and her unfamiliarity with
it, seems to have been one of the factors in
the accident. At the very least, it was a waste
of time and effort, when time and effort were
not to be wasted.

>Goldstein and Dillion in "Amelia" also report that AE carried a "Bendix
>(miniaturized) direction-finder receiver,covering frequency ranges of 200
>to 1500 kilocycles and 2400 to about 10,000 kc..."

Not a big deal here, but a typical layman-type error, it was a receiver
accessory unit, not a "d-f receiver".

>Question to Mr. Warren: why did this Bendix df equipment installation
>support a secret Naval Intelligence spy mission? Because the equipment was
>"classified"? Was it "Confidential" or "Secret"?

Right. Thru the fog of time, these adjectives seem to have been
attached because of this equipment's connection to the military. Even
if the news of this product appeared in some magazine, it's extremely
unlikely it ever appeared on the open market, that is, it most likely
was never seen outside of for-Navy production, and in Navy
nomenclature.

>From Ric
>
>Elgen Long, for example, is quite sure that the aircraft carried a separate
>Bendix receiver exclusively for direction finding and goes into great detail
>about it, but I've never seen any evidence that any such radio was aboard the
>airplane.

I am sure you are correct here. The Bendix receiver would have had
to be a type RA-1, which Bendix was trying to sell with the RDF unit
as part of a total package. However, the RA-1 is not channelized,
requires cranking from frequency to frequency, was only carried on
planes with a radio operator crewmember, and would have added
a great deal of learning and trouble to AE's communications and
homing efforts, for no obvious advantage.

Hue Miller

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

The only part of Hue's a comments with which I disagree is his feeling that
the RDF-1 was never really commercially available.  The article in Aero
Digest does not refer to the device as an "RDF-1" and it may be that that was
merely the military nomenclature, but it does show a picture of what is quite
obviously the same device shown in RDF-1 diagram and in the publicity photos
taken with Earhart.  Amelia and the press refer to the device as a "Bendix
direction finder."  Nobody says anything about it being military or naval
equipment.

I see no reason not to think that this thing is nothing more than a new piece
of avionics that came on the market and was also adopted for military use.

As for Goldstein and Dillon, remember that they are not researchers but,
rather, specialize in rehashing and publishing the unpublished work of people
who have died.  "At Dawn We Slept", for example, was Gordon Prange's work.
Their book "Amelia" is basically a treatment of Laurence Safford's work from
the 1960s.  Safford did some excellent research to counter the conspiracy
crowd but it's now old hat and many of his conclusions have been invalidated
by new primary sources that have since come to light.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:08:27 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Tuning the loop

>From Warren Lambing
>Is the Bendix loop and RDF-1 Coupler Tuned?
>**************************
>From Ric
>
>I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm not sure either, but i'll have a stab at it and keep it short.
The Bendix unit, the RDF unit (or coupler, or adaptor)  was
basically just a tuned preamp for the loop. Going to the loop
really cuts down on the signal level, compared to using the
wire antenna, and especially so on shortwaves, where AE
was trying to do homing. So the act of tuning up the RDF,
plus the amplifier stage inside, boosted the signal up. (The
"Select-A-Tenna", a commercial product now sold to boost
AM radio reception, works the same way, tuning the loop
to the frequency gives a big signal rise).

Using the RDF did add some complexity to AE's task.
With the Itasca heard in her headphones, she would
then:

switch in the RDF unit
set RDF bandswitch to frequency range for channel
look up on the tuning chart, or remember, where 7500 kc/s
was on the 0-100 tuning scale of the RDF
tune the RDF up or down til she heard the Itasca again
tune for null, note bearing
switch to direction and tune for max, to point to
correct direction and eliminate 180 degree ambiguity

--Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Warren Lambing

I guess I answer my own question, I was wondering if you could tune the
Bendex Loop via switch before it reach the reciever, (which would explain
why AE could not appear to recieve) but it appears from the diagrams and
word doc. that the tuning of the loop was done by the Bendix direction
finder.  Just in case I get jump on for the idea of the loop being tunable,
I have an 1940 RCA reciever which uses a loop for the domestic AM Band (Wire
for Shortwave), this loop has two Dual conectors connected to the loop, the
conectors are identical, if I switch the order they connect to the loop, I
lose one half of the band (I think it is the bottom half) as I tune down the
dial the frequncies repeat themeselves, when I hook them back in the right
order, I recieve the full band again.  Anyhow the reason I mention it, is
that in this 1940 reciever the loop plays a factor in the tuning of the
radio, I doubt that is the case with the Westinghouse radio AE had, but I
wonder other then weight, what differences the Bendix Loop had?

Regards.

Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:13:55 EDT
From:         unknown
Subject:      Fire extinguisher (again)

I've looked on te web for fire extiguisher manufacturers that may have
been around in the 30's. I have found 2 so far.

  Pyrene Corporation
  130, Esna Park Drive,
  Markham, Ontario,
  Canada,
  L3R 1E3

  Walter Kidde Portable Equipment Co.
  1394, South Third Street,
  Mebane, North Carolina,
  USA 29302

I'm not sure how this info is useful.

I've realised that the material used may have been brass not a ferrous
kind, mainly through discovering this on the internet as well as your
comments. Also rusting, would be a more reddish discoloration which would
probably lead to the cylinder having various holes where the metal would
have rusted through, and fragmentation of the metal around such holes.

Since there is no sign of this in the photograph, this is definately not
rusting as I thought. This some other kind of metal corrosion that I haven't
quite come across yet.

Most descriptions I have read about Carbontet extingushers give the
length of the cylinder to be 12 inches, yet in the photo, this is clearly
not so. Since there may have been a plethora of designs for such items, I
can see why it is so difficult in trying to track this artifact down.

I don't know why a manufacturer of such an article would stamp out the
indentations for a label on the sheet metal itself when it would have been
more convienient and cheaper to stick a paper label on the surface.

I do find this artifact promising in that it could well be AE's. But we
do need to know for sure, which is what TIGHAR'S work is all about.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

What we've been able to establish with some certainty (Tom and others correct
me if I'm wrong) is that the artifact found on the island is not like the
Pyrene extinguishers listed as being aboard the plane after the Luke Field
wreck and is probably of British manufacture (at least it's not like any
we've found of American manufacture).  Our current thinking is that the
artifact is most likely part of the colony, not the airplane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:18:27 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Kilts document

The Kilts Document of the Week is fascinating.  I have a hard time believing
that there was no follow-up or investigation at the time.  For any reader
with more than a casual interest in Earhart, it reads like the sort of thing
that makes your neck hairs stand up.  I imagine you having that sort of
reaction when you first saw it.  That the Kilts story mentioned a "man's
skull further down the beach" was new to me also.  My big question is this:
Did Floyd Kilts ever make the trip to the Phillipines and Gardner that the
story mentions?

To Hugh Graham:  I live only a few miles from Willow Run Airport, the YAF's
home field, and have seen their B-17 several times this year--it is a lovely
sight (and sound).  One of our regular customers at my job owns a pressure
washing business, and he washes the YAF's planes for them.  I'm hoping to
use that as a contact if we ever go museum trolling for TIGHAR supporters.

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Tom King has been in touch with Kilts' daughter and, if I'm not mistaken, she
was able to confirm tha Floyd never got to make his trip to the Phillipines
and Gardner.  I always thought it was a wierd comment anyway.  Like the
Phillipines and Gardner are in the same neighborhood?  Like you can catch a
commercial flight to Manila with a quick stop-over at Niku?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:21:25 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Classified Materials

I've been reading with great interest all the materials from Cam Warren
& others about what AE carried aboard the Electra for communications &
navigation.  Conspiracy or not it is interesting stuff.  I do have hard
time believing that someone in the military who entrust anything of a
remotely "classified" nature to AE and her egotistical publicity-seeking
husband George Putnam.  AE made a lot of speeches & PR appearances about
her exploits and George P was right on her coatails every time trying to
get a piece of the limelight and a book deal wherever the opportunity
arose.  I personally speculate he was jeolous of the press Fred Noonan
was getting as navigator.

If I were the Navy, the AE & GP team with an insatiable desire for
publicity & publishing deals would be a poor risk to trust anything
classified.

Doug B. #2335(Who doesn't own AE luggage-guarenteed to get lost)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:25:44 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Classifications

Ric said:  As I'm sure you know, "confidential" is the lowest
category of classification  . . . "

 That is absolutely correct, the other two being secret and top
secret.  The two latter classification can also be used with "codeword"
material.  The codeword usually identifies the manner in which the
intelligence was collected.  As an example, the CIA might classify as
material collected from foreign agents as SECRET Bluenose, and perhaps
SECRET Hardrock for stuff from wire taps on overseas embassies.  Codeword
material is vastly more restricted in its dissemination than non-codeword
stuff because of its sensitivity, either in who collected it or how it was
collected.

Another thing to remember, a classified document carries the
classification of its highest classified entry.  As an example, an otherwise
unclassified  300-page report on frequency propagation may be classified
SECRET even if only a page or two contains SECRET material.   This policy
leads to vast amounts of otherwise benign materials carrying high
classifications, which makes it all the more difficult for historians to
obtain original documentation on important events.

Even decades later when the material no longer warrants
classification, researchers have difficulties because the government doesn't
want to be embarrassed when people learn that the material was collected in
the first place.  Thankfully, that mentality is disappearing and we are now
gaining access to stuff that fills in the gaps of history.

LTM, who pines for the Cold War
Dennis O. McGee, #0149

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

In my experience, both with materials my Dad has from WWII and from my own
time in the Army, even the most innocuous training manuals were classified
"Confidential."
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:48:29 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Fire extinguisher (again)

We've been in touch with Pyrene and gotten the spec's for what they think
were most likely the extinguishers listed in the Luke Field inventory as
being aboard the Electra.  They're similar in some respects to the
extinguisher we have, but not very.  Beyond this we haven't really pursued
identification.  The body of "our" extinguisher (2-4-V-100), by the way, is
definitely brass.  It was one of two found; the other, seemingly identical,
was left on the island.  Both were in the "new" part of the village -- i.e.
the part occupied mostly post-1949, and my personal feeling is that they're
most likely from the Loran station, though we have no firm data on what kinds
of extinguishers the station had.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:49:34 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Kilts document

Kilts' daughter was quite sure he'd never made it back to Niku.  He WAS in
the process of writing a book, the ms for which we have unfortunately not
been able to locate.  I asked her specifically about a map, thinking he might
have gotten his informant to do a sketch or something, and she said she
recalled no such thing.

As for follow-up at the time, Fred Goerner DID follow up, got as far as the
Isaacs diagnosis of the bones as those of a Polynesian male, and (presumably
with relief) left it at that.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:55:01 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Collective pronouns

Cam Warren said:   "As for the "proof";  the article was presented
as a quick summary of our knowledge to date."

"Our" knowledge?  Do you have mouse in your pocket, Cam?

Surely you are not referring to Tighar, are you?  Even a "quick
summary" of  TIGHAR's knowledge would take a lot more than a couple of
pages, and I'm not sure if Ric, "The Sagacious Scot," would approve of you
speaking on TIGHAR's behalf.  Who is this "our" you talk about?

LTM, who is distressed over this issue
Dennis O. McGee #0149
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I should have mentioned that Cam's paper was originally intended for the
newsletter of the Amelia Earhart Society which counts among its membership
such legendary figures as Joe Gervais and Rollin Reineck and whose president,
Bill Prymak, some forum members may recall for his colorful linguistic skills.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:53:05 EDT
From:         Ron Dawson
Subject:      Re: Kilts document

Regarding Kilts' daughter mentioning that he was working on a book,  I
was always curious about what the rest of it would contain since his Gardner
native bone story it seems would barely make one chapter.

Smooth Sailing
Ron Dawson 2126
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Good point, although others who had only one brief incident to relate have
written books; for example, Thomas Devine ("Eyewitness - The Amelia Earhart
Incident").
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:55:09 EDT
From:         Ron bright
Subject:      Re: Classifications

Technically, the lowest classification (at least Navy) was "FOR OFFICIAL USE
ONLY". That and 'CONFIDENTIAL" would be stamped on a box of cereal if
intended for the military!!!!!!
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:18:38 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Kilts document

Tom King wrote:

>As for follow-up at the time, Fred Goerner DID follow up, got as far as the
>Isaacs diagnosis of the bones as those of a Polynesian male, and (presumably
>with relief) left it at that.

WHOA!  Goerner knew about the bones and Isaac?  This is the first I've heard
of this.  Obviously, Fred Goerner did not relate this info very far
afield...

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

No, no, no - Goerner knew about Kilts' story from the same press accounts we
have.  One of his associates, Bill Dorais, interviewed Kilts.  Goerner did
not specifically know about Isaac.

Fred explained to me in a March 1990 letter that, while in Tarawa in 1968,
doing a documentary on the 25th anniversary of the WWII invasion, he made
some inquiries of "older Gilbertese who had been a part of the colonizing
activities on Gardner shortly after the Earhart disappearance.  After much
conversation and deep-thinking, it was decided that there was a legend about
the remains of a Polynesian man being found on Gardner, what year or specific
circumstances unknown.  They were firm, however, that the skeleton of a woman
had NEVER (empahasis in the original) been found.  There was, too, a srtrange
story of a woman's "high-heel shoes" turning up at some point on Gardner.
This was a matter of some hilarity."

What Tom meant, I'm sure, is that Goerner made an attempt to follow up on the
Kilts story and turned up some anecdotal detritus that almost certainly
originated from Isaac's unauthorized examination of the bones in Tarawa.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:21:03 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Warren's Hypothesis revisited

Two points you should all know. a) I don't make insupportable
statements and claim they're supported. b) I don't suffer fools
gladly, to recoin a phrase.

The opening paragraph clearly stated "Government documented
facts". That's TRUE, like it or not, believe it or not. I didn't have
the time or space to list all the backup material for the
"Hypothesis" and merely presented it for your edification.
("You can lead a horse to water . . . .")

In the title,  "Secret Mission" was intentionally in quotes, for
obvious reasons, as was "covered up", incidentally. When I
went to school (the desks had inkwells) a quoted phrase
meant somebody else used the phrase, not necessarily the
writer.

As for document classification, the Bendix RDF system was
certainly under wraps. Ric says "'confidential' is the lowest
category of classification and is used pretty casually. Not
so, at least pre- and during WW2.  (In at least one case,
I wasn't allowed to SEE my own notebook, because it was
stamped "confidential".)  I happen to have a note on my
cluttered desktop right now,  that says "Navy BuAer
Contract #C652717 (re RDF-2) was CONFIDENTIAL
(Changed to RESTRICTED Nov. 1, 1937)" for example.
(And that  file consists of some 300 pages, if you don't
trust my quotes and want to take you're own look). The
Archives people told me they had nothing on RDF-1,
and thought it might still be classified.

I DO have piles of information - you should thank me for
saving you the trouble of paying for copies, and wading
through it all.  Example, the SECRET document re the
KAMOI using HF/DF is about 50 pages long, and contains
two brief mentions of the intercept incident. I could give you
the file number, but I doubt you can get easily get the
document. Mine "was slid under the door".

And here's a sample, from C652717:  "Navy Requisition
#770, dated Oct. 1, 1936 ordered the following:
150 RDF-1A @ $148.50 ea."

"Some of it was wrong, anyway" is the way Ric
dismisses my document.  I had told him I was
inaccurate re the RDF-2, which I originally
suspected might be an advanced model of the
RDF-1. Later info clarified that it was an
ADAPTATION designed for remote rotation
of a larger model loop. That I admitted to that
minor point, does NOT negate any other
portion of my document.

The use of an RA-1 aboard the Electra is called
"99 44/100ths percent speculation" by Ric,
who apparently hasn't read anything by Capt. Al
Gray, Carol Osborne, Jim Donahue  or Bendix
engineer Vernon Moore, to name a few other
speculators. (But he's right, I don't have a photostat
of a purchase order with Earhart's name on it - sorry,
sure wish I did!).  Don't forget that up until recently
all the experts denied the Navy couldn't possibly be
using HF/DF in the '30s, an idea I have personally
disproved.  I'd say I was on much firmer ground than
Nikumaroro.

Finally, the Hypothesis was NOT presented as a
legal argument, as I've already pointed out, so I
intentionally did not include endless citations but
indicated I deemed my information reliable.
.
My time being as short as it is, I doubt I'll be
getting around to answer all the potshots
directed my way.  So, if you don't want to
believe any of it, that's your prerogative.  Some
folks still think the moon is made of green
cheese, and know positively those NASA
photos were all shot in a secret studio in
Arizona.

Cam Warren
*************************************************************************
From Ric

>> I don't make insupportable statements and claim they're supported.<<

>> Coupling it with the RA-1 receiver was apparently NOT standard procedure,
but was done for Amelia on an experimental basis. <<

>>But he's right, I don't have a photostat of a purchase order with Earhart's
name on it - sorry, sure wish I did! <<
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:52:02 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Coral is a beach...

Just curious...

How wide is the beach (from water's edge to vegetation) on Niku around the
ocean shore, and also around the lagoon shore at HIGH TIDE?

The aerial views show it as a huge expanse of coral rubble/sand or whatever.
It certainly looks well in excess of the 70 feet or so you'd need to land an
Electra with a 55ft wingspan without risking it on coral rock.

(Bearing in mind that many world flights of that era landed on beaches).

Th' WOMBAT

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

Average beachfront from water's edge to vegetation line on Niku is about 150
feet.  At high tide it might be 10 or 12 feet less.  Along the northern shore
the beach is steeply sloped and, because it doesn't get hit directly by
storms, is deep soft sand.  Along the southern shore (Aukeraime) the beach
tends to be broader and less steeply sloped, but still quite soft and sandy.
The western end of the island (Nutiran and the village area) varies a lot
depending on whether there have been any big storm events in the past few
years.  Fewer storms mean deeper sand.  Recent storms mean a surface of coral
rubble.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:53:49 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: AE, FN and Morse

> Hue Miller wrote:
>
> I wonder how did EA or FN learn morse that quickly?

Amelia and Fred didn't have to learn morse.  They both knew it already.

Th' WOMBAT.

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

That's not what they told Eric Chater.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:56:50 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Tuning the loop

Thanks Hue

This brings up a couple of questions if you don't mind?

> From Hue Miller
>
> The Bendix unit, the RDF unit (or coupler, or adaptor) was
> basically just a tuned preamp for the loop.

Would the preamp be tuned to a particular frequency, say 7500?

> Using the RDF did add some complexity to AE's task.
> With the Itasca heard in her headphones, she would then:
>
> switch in the RDF unit
> set RDF bandswitch to frequency range for channel
> look up on the tuning chart, or remember, where 7500 kc/s
> was on the 0-100 tuning scale of the RDF
> tune the RDF up or down til she heard the Itasca again
> tune for null, note bearing
> switch to direction and tune for max, to point to correct direction
  and eliminate 180 degree ambiguity

To simplify this, could they already have had the RDF tune to a frequency,
say 7500 kc/s and wait until they wanted to DF, and then turn on the RDF
then have the Itasca set a signal on 7500 and proceed to take the bearings?
In another words could either the Preamp be tune to 7500 or the RDF already
be pretuned to 7500 to simplified the RDF operations and perhaps explain why
AE went to 7500?  I know this is only speculation since we have no evidence
she had tried to DF the Itasca.

Regards

Warren Lambing

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

On the contrary.  It's very clear from the radio log that Earhart tried to DF
on the Itasca on 7500 but was unable to "get a minimum."
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:10:26 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Sending code

>From Ric  (with refference to "no telegraph key on board)
>
>That is my understanding also.  The only way they would have to send code
>would be by depressing and releasing the push-to-talk button on the
>microphone.

I just don't believe transmitting more than a very few characters, such as
an SOS or some such, with the push-to-talk button.  If any of the longer
messages were transmitted from the Electra using CW, I think there was a key
on board -- and a transmitter that could be keyed.

There was certainly a key installed on the first attempt.  There's at least
one photo,  What transmitter was there then?

It is said that the key was left in Florida.  I believe someone said it was
sent to him in a package sometime after they had left.  That's anecdote, is
it not?

In view of our uncertainty about exactly what radio equipment may have been
in, and out, of the plane while in Florida, can we be sure there was not
more than one key floating around?  Was there a Bendix transmitter involved,
whether or not it was ever installed?

If there was a key at all, this suggests a transmitter that could be keyed.

We believe the transmitter was a Western Electric 13C, or some variation
thereof. We've had a problem with seeing appropriate circuitry to allow
keying this transmitter.  The schematic diagram we have shows a small sketch
of a key, a double-pole, double-throw (DPDT) switch and a plug for J12,
drawn on the left margine.  The switch is marked "CW" and "M" (modulated
cw?).  This switch probably has a "center off" position.  Ir's shown "off"
in the sketch.  This would be the position for voice (phone) operation.

We have not been able to see how the dynamotor would be kept on during CW
transmission rather than being started and stopped as would be the case
using the push-to-talk button on the microphone.  I think the problem is
that we are looking at a sketch of very preliminary thinking about providing
a keying capability in this transmitter.  All of the circuit modifications
necessary are not yet shown on this diagram.  It does indicate an intent to
provide keying capability.

I'm very skeptical of all the post-landing messages reported and claimed to
be from the Electra.  However, the above theorizing does help me to believe
in the possibility that one or more of the CW transmisions could be the real
thing.

LTM (Who never leaves home without her key)

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

As it turns out, none of the alleged post-loss messages that are credible
(from a propagation perspective) involve code being sent.  The transmission
heard by Nauru on the evening of July 2nd was unintelligible voice and the
"dashes" heard in Samoa in response to KGMB's request apparently sounded like
somebody turning the transmitter off and on.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:14:42 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Map of Flight area?

This is kind of a beginner question.
I would like to find a source for a map
of the flight area, perhaps, what, 18-24
inches across or so. Big enuff to do some
looking at, and drawing on. Yes, i can
do the legwork myself, finding such a
map, but i thought i would inject this
question here and get the recommendation
of someone who's already done this.

Thanks, Hue Miller

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

Good commercial maps of the region are surprisingly hard to find.  I found
one years ago in a little map store on Nantucket (of all places) but it's now
beat to death.  There are aeronautical charts that cover area but the problem
is finding one that extends all the way to New Guinea and still has
sufficient detail of the Phoenix Group.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:16:13 EDT
From:         Charles Lim
Subject:      2-4-V-100

It is apparent to me that your comments on the fire extinguisher
(2-4-V-100) seems to indicate that TIGHAR suspects that it isn't AE's. I
thought that maybe it was easier to come up with such a reverse arguement,
on the grounds that we are trying to search for a particular make and model
and not trying to fit an artifact into the search.

The idea is to build up evidence to disqualify the artifact. That way we
have a much better chance of eliminating it from the investigation. However,
given from the location where the artifacts were discoverd and the fact that
they not fit any description of any American made extinguisher lends itself
to the fact that this is probably a dead end.

It could be that the photographs (ext.jpg and may20dep.jpg) show two
distinct types of extinguisher which means that the article isn't AE's, and
could also explain why I did not see those 'impressions' on the body of the
artifact in the other photo.

It still lingers overhead because there isn't enough data to prove that
is or it isn't.

Charles Lim
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:30:21 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Warren's Hypothesis revisited

Cam Warren wrote,

>Some
>folks still think the moon is made of green
>cheese, and know positively those NASA
>photos were all shot in a secret studio in
>Arizona.

I have never run into anyone who believes that the moon is made of green
cheese (although the first episode of the wonderful Wallace and Gromit
trilogy from the UK depicts the surface of the moon as being comprised of
yellow cheese with a mediocre taste). However, I have met a handful of
people over the years who adamantly (and always angrily) believed that the
Apollo mission photos were shot in movie studios. Poor, hapless creatures.

I've also read lots of immature and sloppily composed screed, lately, about
"Amelia Earhart, Federal Spy".

Personally, I think this entire thread easily violates the Forum guidelines
for reasonable documentation of topics admitted for discussion. How about
ending this one, Ric? When legitimate documentation (or at least annotation)
appears, the thread can always be reintroduced.

william 2243

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

While I agree that we've only managed to show (for the umpteenth time) that
allegations of a covert relationship between Earhart and the Gummint are
unsupported, I will say that the new (to me anyway) information about the
Bendix RDF-1 loop coupler is very useful.  I guess the lesson is that we
should never turn down a chance to look at a primary source.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:31:56 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Re: Warren's Hypothesis revisited

> From Cam Warren
> I didn't have the time or space to list all the backup
> material for the "Hypothesis" and merely presented it
> for your edification.

So then, I take it, you did not present your hypothesis to us to be
evaluated. You expect us to behave as school children and accept what
the teacher is telling us.

> From Cam Warren
> I DO have piles of information - you should thank me for
> saving you the trouble of paying for copies, and wading
> through it all.

Thank you, but I think that all we want to do is to look at the
documents that you have evaluated and see if we reach the same
conclusion. You are treating this as a rite of passage -- let's see if
you think what I think, but you have to find it first!

Has anyone other than you evaluated these documents? It can be rather
nerve racking having someone else check your work, but it is often
essential.

> From Cam Warren
> And here's a sample, from C652717:  "Navy Requisition
> #770, dated Oct. 1, 1936 ordered the following:
> 150 RDF-1A @ $148.50 ea."

It doesn't suffice to show us only parts of the evidence that support
your claims.

> From Cam Warren
> Finally, the Hypothesis was NOT presented as a
> legal argument, as I've already pointed out, so I
> intentionally did not include endless citations but
> indicated I deemed my information reliable.

You alone deem it reliable? Surely you must see the folly in that.

Frank Westlake
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:53:13 EDT
From:         Cam WArren
Subject:      Re: AE, FN & Morse

The Morse question again!!!

In response to the statement about AE/FN having Morse ability, Ric
says "That's not what they told Eric Chater."

Perhaps true, but also different from what AE told NY Herald
Tribune correspondent Carl B. Allen.  Mary Lovell, ("The Sound
of Wings", Chapter 19), says "[Earhart] explained to Allen that
neither she nor Noonan could operate a Morse code key fast
enough to justify carrying the extra weight"  [of the requisite
500 kc equipment, including the trailing-wire antenna].  In my
files (somewhere) I have a copy of the original article and can
confirm the gist of the statement.  In it she said (I'm paraphrasing
from memory) she and Fred could do Morse up to about 10
wpm - much slower than the commercial operators, and she
would be embarrassed to attempt it under the circumstances.

Later, in answer to questions, she simplified her answer by
saying they couldn't use Morse.

Cam Warren
***************************************************************************
From Ric

There's really no need to flog this horse.  While there is some discrepancy
between the newspaper account Cam references (10 wpm) and Chater's
description ( "...neither of them could read morse at any speed but could
regognize an individual letter sent several times.") the net effect is the
same.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:08:15 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Map of Flight Area

The best representation available you can get at current would be a
couple of GNC(Global Navigation Charts) from the DMA(Defense Mapping
Agency).  If you want I'll look at my chart collection and see the
numbers to order.  Also, Jeppesen offers plotting charts of the Pacific
in various regions but they don't show all the island groups.  You can
pencil in the islands yourself if you have the Latitude/Longitude.  I
may also have a large map I put together splicing 2 GNC's to cover the
entire route.  I'll make it available for the price of an imported
brew-IOU's accepted.  I'll look for it right now.  You want a copy too
Ric while I'm at it?

Doug B.  #2335
***************************************************************************
From Ric

By all means.  Thank you.  Watch out.  You could find yourself with more
imported beer IOUs than you can handle.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:14:25 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

Ok, there is a reason behind this...

> From Ric
>
> Average beachfront from water's edge to vegetation line on Niku is about 150
> feet.  At high tide it might be 10 or 12 feet less.

Gallagher wrote that the bones were found about 100ft above ordinary high
tide mark.

The "story" of the finding of the bones suggests a native was walking on the
beach and saw them about 5 feet into the vegetation line.

I know that is only a tale, but it seems reasonable from the trouble TIGHAR
has finding stuff on the island that the tale of a native seeing the bones
whilst walking on the beach could be more likely than a native struggling
through the scrub.  I know when we walk around the islands here we use the
beach as a highway rather than fight through the undergrowth, spiders and
other bugs.

That would mean the bones were somewhere close enough to the edge of the
vegetation for the castaway? to have a view while he/she rested under the
shade (and died), with about a 90ft beach to the high tide line.  Close
enough to be seen by someone walking along the beach.

Which, if you have spent a lot of time alone on uninhabited islands (as I
have) is not at all strange.  For some reason the view and sound of the sea
is soothing, relaxing.  I have tried to put myself in the place of this
castaway, and compared his/her situation to what was one of my favourite
passtimes.  The more I think about it, the less time I spent "inland".

So has the TIGHAR crew had a look at high tide for a place where you could
drive say a dozen motor cars side by side along the beach at high tide?
(distance wise of course, I realise they'd get bogged....)  That might
narrow some of the search area around Aukurame, Kanawa Point and the 7 site.

Th'  WOMBAT
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Nice try Wombat but Gallagher makes it pretty clear that the castaway's
campsite was close to the lagoon shore, rather than the ocean shore.  Also,
Kilts says that the skeleton was found "in the brush about five feet from the
shoreline."  Nowhere on the ocean beach is the brush five feet from the
shoreline.  That has to be the lagoon shore he's talking about.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:16:06 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: AE, FN and Morse

> From Ric
>
> That's not what they told Eric Chater.

It would appear.

Some snooping reveals that James Collopy suggested "the weak link in the
combination was the crew's lack of 'expert' knowledge of radio.  Their morse
was very slow and they preferred to use telephony as much as possible."  -
This after discussion with the Lae radio operator (and Chater). I am
suggesting that Balfour would have provided the insight into the radio
expertise (or lack of it) as this was an official enquiry.

Also Amelia herself says "REPORT IN ENGLISH NOT CODE 'ESPECIALLY WHILE
FLYING'  "  - which does not say because I can't read morse.  It the word
especially suggests the possibility that she expected to receive morse at
some time.

And Chater reports "neither of them were able to read morse 'at any speed'
but could recognise an individual letter sent several times."  -  which
suggests at least a basic knowledge of morse.  Enough to put together a call
for assistence.  Obviously Fred (because of his sea duties), and probably
Amelia would have been familiar with SOS.

So none of the reports say they didn't know morse, they all (including
Amelia's own despatch) suggest their morse was pretty pathetic.  However,
I'd bet it was better than mine is!

Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:39:26 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Charts

The charts that cover the AE route are:
Global Navigation Charts-GNC-7 & GNC-20. You need the top part of GNC-20
spliced to the bottom part of GNC-7.  You can order the charts from the
Defense Mapping Agency(DMA) or Sporty's Pilot shop.  Jeppesen offers
plotting charts of the north/south & east/west pacific but they do not
show some of the island groups.  Either is suitable to navigate from if
you wanted but the better chart is the GNC if you're looking for items
of relief images such as the various island groups.  They are both on
the internet as well.

I'll make 2 copies-one for Hue & one for you Ric.  I don't mind the beer
IOU's.  That Finch woman stiffed me for alot more than that.  (Take note
that I didn't use the word "lady").

Doug B. #2335 (who obviously will barter for barley pops)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Doug.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:50:33 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

We've also got to remember that where the edge of the bush is now, vis-a-vis
the high tide mark, may be considerably different from where it was then, at
least locally.  Then the island was substantially covered with buka forest;
now it's mostly scaevola and tournefortia.  And wave action, shoreline
slumping, etc. etc. have all certainly altered the shoreline.  However, Ric,
I'm trying to think why you're so sure Gallagher means the lagoon shore.
Because of the Kanawa tree he says was growing on the lagoon shore not far
from the discovery site?

LTM
Tom King

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

Yes.  That, and his comment that the bones were found about 100 feet above
high spring tides make it pretty hard (for me at least) to place the site on
the ocean side.  I can't think of anyplace on the island where you can be
only 100 feet above the highest high tide line on the ocean side and still be
close to the lagoon shore.   Besides, anything that close to the ocean-side
waterline would be very susceptible to storm activity.  Gallagher has gotta
be talking about the lagoon side.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:10:06 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

> Nice try Wombat but Gallagher makes it pretty clear that the castaway's
> campsite was close to the lagoon shore, rather than the ocean shore

Gallagher doesn't make anything pretty clear, or TIGHAR would not have spent
so much time trying to search out the location!

Ok, please look at this one a little closer, rather than dismissing it out
of hand...

Gallgher says 100ft above the high tide mark.  (Ordinary high water
springs).  That's "pretty clear" ORDINARY high water springs as I understand
it is the high tide mark in the absence of seasonal variations like king
tides etc.

Kilts (handed down) story suggests "in the brush about 5 ft from the
shoreline".  Gallagher was writing a report.  Kilts was repeating a tale,
itself repeated,  that had been around (though not "spread around" for
years.  The same tale told of more than one skeleton, and of another skull
being found further down the beach.  It also definitely identifies the
skeletons and the "beach" skull as to sex!  We choose to dismiss some of
these inferences as unlikely, and have documented evidence that some were
wrong, whilst taking as gospel that the bones were "in the brush 5 ft from
the shoreline".

Gallagher did not write "about 5 feet from the shoreline", he wrote 100ft
above HWS.

To me, the Kilts' "shoreline" suggests where the waves lap against the sand
(or coral).  That would suggest a spot where the vegetation comes very close
to the water's edge, and at first sight is logical enough.  However it could
just as easily mean the place where the vegetation meets the beach!

On the other hand, Gallagher's 100ft above ordinary high water springs is
what I am looking at.  It is possible that Gallagher judged the measurement
from the ocean side, across the island to the edge of the lagoon shore - in
which case we are looking for a piece of land not more than 100ft wide from
the water's edge of the lagoon to the water's edge of the ocean.

Now THAT should narrow the search area down a LOT..!  However I can't find a
30yard wide piece of land in any of the pictures nor does the map suggest
that.

If we are to take Gallagher's written report as definitive, and IF we can
believe the Kilts story, and IF the bones were found on the lagoon shore, we
need a 30 yard beach at high tide!  I can see places along the edge of the
lagoon that look possible.  Then look along the edge of the vegetation.

On the other hand, if, at high tide there is no 30 yard beach on the lagoon
side it might just be possible that the bones were found on the ocean side.
And that 30yard beach should still narrow down the search.

Of course there is always a "flip side".  I believe Kilts story could be
completely erroneous as to the location.

"They were about through and the native was struggling through the "brush"
on one end of the island. There in the brush about 100 feet from the
shoreline he saw a skeleton......."

Were I conducting a search for the site, I'd be torn between looking up to
25-35yds inland from high tide mark, and looking for a spot a few yards from
inland from the "beach", and with a large beach left at high tide, however I
still think that the logic leads to the second option.  Especially when one
considers the sort of place to lie down and relax.  (As I suggested in the
other posting).

Th'  WOMBAT
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Believe me Ross, this is NOT a question that I treat casually or
dismissively.  I 've looked at it from every angle I can imagine and I once
wrote an entire article for TIGHAR Tracks advocating just the point you make
about where a castaway would most likely want to hang out (see "A View To The
Sea", Vol. 11 No. 4, December 31, 1995 and on the website at
http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/11_4/ViewSea.html).

You're focusing on one clue ("100 feet above ordinary high springs") and
missing another ("not very far" from a kanawa tree on the lagoon shore).  All
things considered, I keep coming back to the "Seven" site as, by far, the
most likley candidate for the place where the bones were found.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:14:30 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Tuning the loop

>To simplify this, could they already have had  the RDF tuned to a frequency,
>say 7500 kc/s and wait until they wanted to DF, and then turn on the RDF then
>have the Itasca set a signal on 7500 and proceed to take the bearings?

--Right. Like with an old car radio, the dial
resolution of the RDF is not good enuff to
set it to a channel, without there being
something to listen to. I suppose she could have
had it tuned in, back at Lae, and then just
screwed down the "Dial Lock" knob to keep it
there. If the signal was strong enuff as soon
as you turned on the RDF, there would be no
need for any tweaking of the dial.

As for why on 7500, i do not know. Cam seems
to have some literature that suggests that the
Navy  was interested in d.f. experiments around
that frequency. I cannot understand why,
except maybe just that this time was early
enuff that someone guessed there might be
something more solid or stable about this
frequency range, and there wasn't yet enuff
experience to teach them otherwise.

From what i've read, and what i've tried,
her trying this at 6210 wouldn't have helped,
either. Trying to df on 3105 MIGHT have
worked, assuming she could hear the Itasca on
that channel.  ( I don't have chapter and verse
ready, but i think i read something recently
that would stand to support that last statement.)

Apparently, no one heard her going in, right?
That's interesting too. Just FWIW, in military,
at least for certain 4 years later, if you were
going in, you sent a distress message, and
then turned the transmitter on continuous,
so maybe someone would be able to d-f
as the plane went down. I'm sure in most cases
the going-down struggle to survive didn't
allow enuff time for such well thought out,
deliberate actions.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:25:02 EDT
From:         Tom MM
Subject:      Map of Flight Area

A couple of charts might be worth your consideration - however I must
confess that they were the product of a quick trip to ye olde nautical
chart shoppe where I found them languishing in the dust under some
parchments by Capt. Cook.  I never did a systematic search, so there could
very well be something better out there.  Both of these should be carried
by or easily ordered from any marine navigation supplier.

I think the most useful one is DMA #526, Pacific Ocean, Central Part.
Scale = 1:8,433,180 at the Equator. This chart covers the area from 29N to
28S and 135E to 130W.  That is a lot of area, with New Guinea at the
central left, the Hawaiian Islands on the upper right, French Polynesia on
the lower right, and Howland and the Phoenix group roughly center.  Still,
it is your typical table top sized nautical chart, and Howland and the
Phoenix group appear with some form and shape - considerably larger than
the dots on your typical atlas map.  Reefs and soundings are also noted, of
course.  I like it.

The other chart is of the Phoenix group from approximately Canton at the NE
to Niku and the Corondelet Reef at the SW.  It is DMA #83037, South Pacific
Ocean, Phoenix Islands.  Scale = 1:485,800 at Lat 4S. The annotation states
that it is from a survey by the USS Bushnell in 1939.  This chart has an
overlay for the now defunct OMEGA nav system, which makes it a bit
cluttered considering all the open space out there.  Again, it is your
typical sized nautical chart, and the atolls like Canton and Niku are
roughly on the order of an inch in length at this scale.  Interesting, but
really no help with the big picture.

With both of these, real landforms and very deep water are probably well
plotted.  However, when it comes to shoal areas, reefs, sandbanks, etc,
consider them to be of dubious validity.

Tom MM

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

Thanks Tom.  Sounds like DMA #526 might be just the ticket.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:26:46 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: 2-4-V-100

For Charles Lim

Yes, one approach would be to build up evidence to disqualify the artifact,
but the other approach is to assume that the artifact is disqualified (as an
AE/FN association) until and unless we find evidence that clearly qualifies
it.  In the case of stuff from the village, if not in every case, this is the
safer approach.  There's an awful lot of stuff from the village that in
theory COULD qualify as AE/FN associations -- besides the ubiquitous airplane
parts, there are the cigarette lighters, an eyeglass frame, radio parts, etc.
etc.  We could spend a tremendous amount of time trying to disqualify each
one, and probably never succeed, but given the many non-AE/FN sources for all
such things (including 2-4-V-1), it's a lot more efficient to assume
non-association until we find something that really strongly indicates
otherwise.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:28:57 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Classifications

>From Ron Bright
>
>Technically, the lowest classification (at least Navy) was "FOR OFFICIAL
>USE ONLY". That and 'CONFIDENTIAL" would be stamped on a box of cereal if
>intended for the military!!!!!!

--Actually, the lowest classification for the
Navy was RESTRICTED. I think the "For
Official Use...." was just the byline or second
line of text used in the frontpages explanation
and a few other places. I am thinking of
technical manuals now. The next grade up,
CONFIDENTIAL, didn't that apply to some
genuinely guarded equipment, such as some
radars, and specialized radio equipment?
I seem to remember it that way from some
Navy equipment catalogs i owned.
(The highest i have seen is SECRET, i have
an Army manual dealing with how to penetrate
the Westwall of Fortress Europe, with this
stamp on it.)

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:39:32 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Secret? Navy?

>From Ric
>
>The only part of Hue's a comments with which I disagree is his feeling that
>the RDF-1 was never really commercially available.  The article in Aero
>Digest does not refer to the device as an "RDF-1" and it may be that that was
>merely the military nomenclature, but it does show a picture of what is quite
>obviously the same device shown in RDF-1 diagram and in the publicit photos
>taken with Earhart.  Amelia and the press refer to the device as a "Bendix
>direction finder."  Nobody says anything about it being military or naval
>equipment.
>
>I see no reason not to think that this thing is nothing more than a new piece
>of avionics that came on the market and was also adopted for military use.

--I feel this unit would have had very limited
appeal to commercial flyers and likely
bombed in the commercial market. It was
flakey enuff on its higher (extended coverage)
ranges that the Navy abandoned it in a in the
next 2 or 3 years, maybe sooner, and i doubt
there were many civilian aviators interested
in experimenting on their flights. But what
really persuades me it did not make it on
the civilian market, is note, the high frequency
range was added at the expense of the
very important LF range, 200 - 400 kilocycles,
probably at least important if not more
important than the AM broadcast band. I'm
sure you all have seen some kind of aviation
radio with the LF and BC ranges, or even
aftermarket carry on things to carry on
small boats, with rotatable antenna and LF +
BC coverage. The NDB's (Non Directional
Beacon ) stations are still in business on the
LF band around airports and airfields of all
sizes, from private grass fields on up. ( BTW,
around 1985 a friend of mine in Montana
told me the FAA had just scrapped out an
old NDB LF beacon transmitter - in operation
since 1938.)

Hue Miller

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

I agree.  The thing turned out to be a bad idea and probably did bomb on the
commercial market, but at the time we're talking about - the spring of 1937 -
it was newly available to civil aviation (as documented in the Aero Digest
article) and, for Earhart, may havbe looked like a good alternative to the
heavier Hooven Radio Compass.

The important point in all this is the absence of any indication of a covert
deal with the military.  And that makes sense.  Think about it for a second.
You're the U.S. Navy and you have some new radio technology you want to test
and so you enlist the aid of - who? - Amelia Earhart?  Gimme a break.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:40:42 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Fred Noonan & Morse code

Speculation time:

Fred Noonan learned his navigation trade while sailing square-riggers
across the atlantic before he learned to fly & apply his knowledge to
aviation navigation.  I seems to recall from somewhere the ship
navigators worked directly with the marconi(radio) operators as a
primary duty was keeping the company informed of the their progress
enroute.  Is there any reference to morse or wireless training for  ship
navigators during this time period?  Even if not, I think it safe to
assume that FN learned a few things working with these people as well.
I won't speculate how much.

Doug B. #2335
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:47:48 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: AE, FN, and morse

Knowing morse code & being able to receive Morse code at speeds that
were normally transmitted at much faster rates of speed than the average
novice could copy, are two different aspects of the problem encountered
by AE/FN.

Being able to translate English into it's Morse code characters is
relatively easy, if one has previously memorized the code or has a Morse
code chart to start with.

Sending a message, previously translated into Morse code, by simply
using the 'press-to-talk' switch or button on a voice mic (while it
might be slow & tedious) would certainly be possible, though time
consuming & would probably drive the recipient of such a message to
distraction trying to copy such an unfamiliar & probably, highly
erratic, rhythm!

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

I propose that we all acknowledge that we have a consensus that goes
something like this:

Although both AE and FN had some familiarity with morse code, which they
obtained during their respective careers from any of a variety of possible
sources, it is clear from the available primary sources that, at the time of
the Lae/Howland flight, their proficiency in morse was sufficiently poor that
they preferred not to rely on code for any essential communication.

Can we all live with that?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:16:06 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: AE, FN, and morse

>>Can we all live with that?<<

Me for that - we have flogged more horses into the grave than I care to
recall - let's let this one lie in peace!
ltm
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:30:29 EDT
From:         Brian
Subject:      tides at niku

Does Tighar have tidal information for Niku the couple of days around
the time AE allegedly landed? If the tide was low and the low tide
landing strip was available wouldn't this support you theories more???

On your next trip to Niku...can I carry your bags???

Brian
**************************************************************************

From Ric

This is another one of those dead horses.  Bottom line:  There is
insufficient tidal information available to enable us to hindcast tides at
Niku with enough confidence to say anything about the tidal state at the time
of Earhart's putative arrival.

We all carry our own bags.  Team selection for Earhart expeditions is, as you
can imagine, something that we pay close attention to.  As we finalize plans
for the next trip we'll be talking about that subject on the Forum.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:25:01 EDT
From:         Charles Lim
Subject:      Extinguisher

For Tom King

Thank you very much Tom for the methodology you described. Up to this
point I thought that TIGHAR treated each artifact on the basis that it has
the possibilty of being part of the cache of equipment brought to the island
by AE. I actually have no idea whatsoever how archeological investigations
are carried out by the way and can only guess at what is to be done with
artifacts that are deemed to be worth a closer look.

The method that you proposed to me is consistent with your opinions on
the artifact 2-4-V-100. Until it shows evidence that it is part of AE's
list, it is disqualified.

The business about the indentations on the cylinder is actually just
guesswork, and since the suspect artifact is overexposed in the photo, my
guess is most probably incorrect. I don't have a fixed opinion about those
features I've described. I do apologise if it appeared that I was taking a
swing at anyone.

Charles Lim

P.S. Is the surgeon generals warning on the forum webpage real?
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Naww.  We made it up.

And no need to apologize.  That wasn't a swing.  Stick around.  We'll show
you what a swing looks like.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:32:07 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

> Ric:
> All things considered, I keep coming back to the "Seven"
> site as, by far, the most likley candidate for the place
> where the bones were found.

I'm still toying with the possibility that Earhart may have made more
than one landing after she abandoned Howland. I realize that the
evidence we have thus far doesn't warrant such speculation but I do have
a question for you related to it. Among all the possible emergency
landing sites on Gardner, how would you rate the lagoon beach adjacent
to the seven site, imagining that you were viewing it from above and
considering the prevailing winds? Also, what is the direction of the
prevailing winds?

Frank

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

From Ric

There really is no beach to speak of on the lagoon shore near the "Seven"
site.  No way anyone would think of landing there.

Prevailing wind at Niku is out of the northeast, about 15 to 20 knots on most
days.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:36:01 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Re: Classifications

This text isn't definitive but maybe it will serve as a suitable
reference for people who need to interpret the intent behind a
classification. The definitive text will be the applicable War
Department or DOD instruction of the time.

-----------------------------------------
NAVEDTRA 10135-E1 dated 1982 (Unclassified) pg 10-1, 10-2:

CLASSIFICATION CATEGORIES

Official information that requires protection in the interests of
national security is placed into one of three categories: Top Secret,
Secret, or Confidential. Following are examples and definitions of each
category.

TOP SECRET

Classified Top Secret is information or material which requires the
highest degree of protection. It is of such a nature that its
unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause
exceptionally grave damage to the national security.

Examples of "exceptionally grave damage" are an armed attack against
the United States or its Allies, and the compromise of military or
defense plans, intelligence operations, or scientific or technological
developments vital to the national defense.

SECRET

Secret is the classification of information or material the
unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause
serious damage to the national security, such as:

1. Jeopardizing the international relations of the United States.

2. Endangering the effectiveness of a program or policy of vital
   importance to the national defense.

3. Compromising important military or defense plans, or scientific or
   technological developments important to national security.

4. Revealing important intelligence operations.

CONFIDENTIAL

The use of the Confidential classification is limited to information
or material the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be
expected to cause identifiable damage to the national security, such as:

1. Operational and battle reports that contain information of value to
   the enemy.

2. Intelligence reports.

3. Military radio frequency and call sign allocations that are
   especially important, or are changed frequently for security reasons.

4. Devices and material relating to communication security.

5. Information that reveals strength of our land, air, or naval forces
   in the United States and overseas.

6. Documents and manuals containing technical information used for
   training, maintenance, and inspection of classified munitions of war.

7. Operational and tactical doctrine.

8. Research, development, production, and procurement of munitions of
   war.

SPECIAL MARKINGS

In addition to the security labels mentioned already, other markings
also appear on classified material. Among these markings are such
designations as "Restricted Data" or "Formerly Restricted Data."

All data concerned with (1) design, manufacture, or utilization of
atomic weapons; (2) production of special nuclear material; or (3) use
of special nuclear material in production of energy bear conspicuous
"Restricted Data" markings. Restricted data, when declassified under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, must be marked "Formerly Restricted Data,
Handle as Restricted Data in foreign dissemination, section 144.b,
Atomic Energy Act, 1954."

For Official Use Only

The term "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) is assigned to official
information which requires protection in accordance with statutory
requirements or in the public interest but which is not within the
purview of the rules for safeguarding information in the interests of
national defense. An example of FOUO information is an unclassified
advancement examination.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Frank.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:14:45 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Wind at Niku

>>Prevailing wind at Niku is out of the northeast, about 15 to 20 knots on
most days.<<

climatologically speaking, the prevailing wind on Niku
should come from the SouthEast, not the Northeast.
While I don't doubt for a Chicago second that winds have
come from the NE, they would generally be from the SE.

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

Wellllll..... my information comes from the 1938/39 New Zealand survey which
produced a map with a nifty little "Wind Diagram" that shows the proportion
of days from Dec. 1, 1938 through January 31, 1939.  Although the New Zealand
survey specifically says that strong "westerly" weather was experienced for
the first week of January, the diagram shows that, by far, the wind blew
mostly from the northeast and the east, with just a liitle bit from the north
and a tiny bit form the northwest.  None at all from the southeast, south,
southwest or west.

That matches very well with our own experince on the island.  When we've been
there in July, September and October the wind blows almost exclusively onto
the "windward" side of the island (that long unbroken stretch of beach on the
northeast side).  When we've (stupidly) been there in February and March it
still blows mostly from the northeast unless some "westerly" weather (like a
tropical cyclone) hits and then all hell breaks loose out of the north and
northwest.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:16:05 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Classifications

While what was listed is the current DoD classification
schemes, it was entirely different in 1937: Restricted,
Confidential, and Secret were the norm back then.

Oh yeah, I have run across another one back then: Top
Secret: Earhart Eyes Only...something to do about alien
space ship refuelings <*G*>
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:29:00 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

>I can't think of anyplace on the island where you can be
> only 100 feet above the highest high tide line on the ocean side

Correct me if I'm wrong (you always do...  lol)  but isn't the lagoon tidal.
I mean, there are two whacking great openings for water to flow in and out.
If Gallagher referred to 100ft above OHWS, he'd most likely measure it from
the edge of the closest water to him.

That means it could be either the ocean OR the lagoon.  You shouldn't always
automatically assume we are trying to ridicule your ideas.  I, for one,
beleive the site could just as well have been on the lagoon shore.  But I
still think you should be looking for what would have been 35yds of beach at
high tide!

Th'  WOMBAT

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

I don't worry about ridicule.  I just state my reasons for thinking what I
think and if someone disagrees I expect him or her to do the same.

Yes, the lagoon is tidal but not very much.  Most days it only changes by a
foot or so and lags a couple of hours behind whatever is happening out on the
ocean side.

In deciding where to search, I think it makes a lot more sense to consider
areas where we know there was human activity and which best fit all aspects
of Gallagher's description of the site.  To focus on one clue (100 feet above
OHWS), make assumptions about what he probably meant by it, and then base a
search on that just doesn't make any sense to me.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:31:42 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

>Not only has the clearing grown, but we can now see individual features
>which differ in appearance from the bushes and seem to be more
>characteristic of structures, as if coverings of some kind have been erected
>on poles to provide .....

The above is from your article.  Is the clearing described in the article
anywhere near the "7" site?

Are any of the photos referred to posted onthe web site?

Th'  WOMBAT

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

The clearing described IS the "Seven" site.  No, the photos are not posted on
the website.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:39:58 EDT
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Re: Classifications

Way to go Frank.  I'm glad we got that cleared up.  I wonder if he could help
me translate the latest inspection codes we just got at Maytag.

LTM, (who'll be worrying about her GRITS on the upcoming expedition)
MStill #2332
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:39:06 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

> Prevailing wind at Niku is out of the northeast, about 15 to 20 knots on
> most days.

So the only place to land into the wind with only a marginal crosswind is
the reef flat near the Norwich City?

Th' WOMBAT

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

It would be nice if it was that simple but we've found, from being there,
that the wind does some pretty weird things when it comes around that
northwest corner of the island and burbles over the high trees on Nutiran.
But, micrometeorology aside, yes - someone coming up over the island and
assessing the general wind condition versus the available landing areas might
well be attracted to the reef flat north of Norwich City.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:41:03 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      independent verification of "facts"

For what it's worth, I suppose that Bill Prymak, Joe Gervais, and Rollin
Reineck could "independently verify" Cam's "documented facts" by claiming
that the documents in question were slid under their doors as well.

...and if FOUR people do it, why friends they'll think it's a movement--and
that's what it is, The Amelia's Airplane Anti-Nikumaroro Movement. And all
ya gotta do to join is sing along (with feelin') the next time it comes
around on the guitar... (c'mon now, if y'all want to end logic and reason
and stuff, you gotta sing loud)

LTM, Dave Porter, 2288
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:54:38 EDT
From:         Rom King
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

Well, maybe, but the island's pretty narrow down toward the Seven Site, and
while "100 feet" is pretty specific, "not far" isn't; we don't really know
what he meant about the Kanawa tree being not far from the site.

tk

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

Okay you guys, I'm willing to be convinced.  Yes, one of the most interesting
things about the Seven Site is that (at least in 1937) it was the narrowest
place on the island that was partially forested rather than open scrub.
According to the aerial photos, the depth of oceanfront beach along there
doesn't seem to have changed significantly since that time.  It's hard to be
exact, but it looks like the vegetation line might be just about 100 feet
above the highest high tide line, and I know that there are "ren" trees
(tournafortia) along that vegetation line.

So let's consider this hypothesis:

The bones were found under a ren tree at the Seven Site on the ocean beach.

That would mean:

- That when Gallagher said the kanawa tree on the lagoon shore was "not very
far" from where the bones were found, he meant about 100 yards.

- That the castaway(s) camp was in a position to watch the ocean horizon for
ships ("a view to the sea" as Robinson Crusoe called it)

- That the turtle found at the site did not have to be dragged very far from
where it was most probably caught (on the beach at night).

-  That the clearing along the oceanfront vegetation line that is evident in
the 1941 aerial photo may be specifically the result of the "organized"
search ordered by Vaskess.

-  That the water tank near the lagoon shore was some distance (maybe 75
yards) from where the bones were found and where work was going on and the
bird bones we found near the tank are not the same bird bones described by
Gallagher.

-  That the hole near the tank, if it is where the skull was dug up, means
that the guys who found the skull didn't bury it right where they found it
but carried it back toward the lagoon a ways.

I don't see a problem with any of those "therefores."  However, it's probably
not going to be practical to do a thorough search of both the area around the
tank AND the beachfront vegetaion line within the time constraints we're
likely to have on the next expedition, so we better decide which one we like
best.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:10:15 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Classifications

I just got back from TAD to Korea and missed the Forum for a while. I could
have cleared this navy classification thread up before it became another one
of our equine carcass'. To clarify the official definitions  supplied by
Frank, some Forum members were confused by "caveats" like "For Official Use
Only", "NATO Restricted" and REL JA [Releasable to Japan] etc. Caveats can
appear up to the secret level and are added after the classification [SECRET
NOFORN]. If the document is unclassified, a caveat may stand alone
(RESTRICTED or FOUO for example) which makes it appear to be a
classification, thus causing the confusion. At the TOP SECRET level we can
further restrict access or dissemination with code words as someone on the
Forum mentioned, but I can't talk about those.

LTM (who doesn't have a need to know)

Kerry Tiller
***************************************************************************
From Ric

And as Randy has pointed out, whatever the Dod does these days doesn't mean
squat when we're trying to assess the significance of a classification in
1936.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:20:25 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Warren's Hypothesis revisited

From Hue Miller

>From Cam Warren
>
>As for document classification, the Bendix RDF system was
>certainly under wraps. Ric says "'confidential' is the lowest
>category of classification and is used pretty casually. Not
>so, at least pre- and during WW2 I happen to have a note
>on my cluttered desktop right now,  that says "Navy BuAer
>Contract #C652717 (re RDF-2) was CONFIDENTIAL
>(Changed to RESTRICTED Nov. 1, 1937)" for example.

--I have to support Cam here. Owning hundreds of WW2
and prewar manuals, I have to say this is what i have seen.
RESTRICTED, for average military gear, and that which
had something spooky going on with it, CONFIDENTIAL
or higher.

I may difffer a little bit in that i am thinking the CONFIDENTIAL
part was mostly about the idea and process of operation and
results, rather than the equipment, which could be duplicated
by any skilled home builder. For an example of this idea,
consider a Navy WW2 direction finder in a suitcase type box.
Unfortunately, no one seems to absolutely know the intended
purpose, one rumor sez for use in recovering commando
teams. The technology is in no way new and radical, but
the item photo and description does not appear in the
standard Navy catalog, just the type name & a notation that
this equipment has a higher classification. (I don't have
the catalog handy, but will recover it with a mind to at
least having the citation down exactly.

>And here's a sample, from C652717:  "Navy Requisition
>#770, dated Oct. 1, 1936 ordered the following:
>150 RDF-1A @ $148.50 ea."

--Think i'll try to find some other contemporaneous
equipment pricing to see how relatively expensive
this set was.

>The use of an RA-1 aboard the Electra is called
>"99 44/100ths percent speculation" by Ric,
>who apparently hasn't read anything by Capt. Al
>Gray, Carol Osborne, Jim Donahue  or Bendix
>engineer Vernon Moore, to name a few other
>speculators.

I do NOT know, but i'll tell you, the RA-1 does
not have a channelized feature. This means
cranking from frequency to frequency.
3105 is on one band range and 6210, 7500 are
on another so you may have to change bands
too when going to  a new channel.

Any RA-1 hypothesis, I assume, reckons it as
only a part of the df system with the RDF, not
as a communication receiver. Otherwise you
have to explain how the RA-1 was netted
or whistled-through to set on the exact
transmitter channel.

The RA-1 was a labor-intensive radio and as
far as i know, only carried on cargo and
patrol craft that could afford to carry a fulltime
radio operator.

Hue Miller

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

As Randy Jacobson has corrected my earlier impression, the levels of
classification in 1937 went RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET.  So far, my
understanding is that a Navy training manual describing the RDF-1 was
classified CONFIDENTIAL in 1936.  I've yet to see anything that indicates
that the device installed in Earhart's airplane in late February/early March
1937 which looks like an RDF-1 and also appears in a March 1937 magazine
article as commercially availalble, was classified in any way.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:47:10 EDT
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Warren's Hypothesis revisited

> From Ric
>
>As Randy Jacobson has corrected my earlier impression, the levels of
>classification in 1937 went RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET.  So far, my
>understanding is that a Navy training manual describing the RDF-1 was
>classified CONFIDENTIAL in 1936.  I've yet to see anything that indicates
>that the device installed in Earhart's airplane in late February/early March
>1937 which looks like an RDF-1 and also appears in a March 1937 magazine
>article as commercially availalble, was classified in any way.

Eleven and a half years with the "Gummint" (NASA) makes me suspect
that the *MANUAL* might have been classified even if the *EQUIPMENT*
wasn't.

Just a thought.

LTM, who'll creep back among the filing cabinets now
Amanda Dunham
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:47:48 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

I'm on the road without my copy of Gallagher's quarterly reports (No, I don't
carry them wherever I go), but it's my recollection that in talking about the
heavy weather around the end of 1940 he mentioned high spring tides flooding
out some plantings.  This suggests to me that when he referred to such tides
in the bones messages, he may have been referring to something higher, i.e.
farther up on shore, than the normal highest high tide line.  I'm
uncomfortable with equating the beachfront vegetation line of today with what
was present in 1940, too.  What do Dick Evans and Bill Moffitt remember about
the vegetation in the vicinity of the Seven Site when they visited it?  If it
wasn't as dense as it is now, maybe the beachfront veg line was a lot closer
to the tank, hole, etc. then than it is now.

TK

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

Gallagher's 4th Quarter 1940 Report says, in part:

"The 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. Portions of the low-lying areas of Hull and Gardner
Islands were also flooded by high spring tides, backed by the gales, and, it
is feared that many young trees have been killed."

At that time the only planted areas were near the village and I suspect that
the plantings he's talking about getting flooded are the ones that bordered
the depression that we call "Crab City."  As we saw all too well in 1997,
unusually high spring tides backed by gales caused some big-time flooding
there.

As for the vegetation line in 1940 compared to today, we don't have to rely
on recollections.  We have aerial photography from 1937 (Lambrecht), 1938
(HMS Leander), 1939 (USS Pelican), and 1941 (Patrol Wing Two) that shows that
the Seven Site was a bit more open then than now, but the general distance
from waterline to vegetation was pretty much the same as it is today.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:52:55 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

> within the time constraints we're
> likely to have on the next expedition, so we better decide which one we like
> best.

And I'm almost sorry for bringing it up!  I gather from one of Ric's replies
that he had similar thoughts early on.  My main point was that Gallagher's
report was official at the exact time this was going on.  The Kilts story
was reminiscences after about 30? years.

> - That when Gallagher said the kanawa tree on the lagoon shore was "not
> very far" from where the bones were found, he meant about 100 yards.

I was not trying to "influence" the location of the search so much as
compare the two possible locations, hoping to find a large beach area close
to the seven site to "prove" the site.

"Not very far" is different from "Close to".  However, I'd like to know if
the "7" site just happens to be around 35yds from high tide on the lagoon
side.

Back again.

I just went out and looked at a tape measure.  100 feet is from one corner
of my front yard to half way across my neighbour's.  100 yards is a little
less than the length of my neighbour's (110 yards) block.

> That would mean:
> - That when Gallagher said the kanawa tree on the lagoon shore was "not very
> far" from where the bones were found, he meant about 100 yards.

I don't what you consider a long way, I would not consider the length of my
yard (220 yards) to be a long distance.  In fact I regularly stroll down
half of it, then up the hill at the back to relax and enjoy the view (and
cuss the original owner who built at the lowest point on the block).

A double car garage in Australia is 6 metres x 6 metres.  So 100 yards is
about the same distance as walking past 9 double garages.  I would still
call that "Not very far away".  If there was a Kanawa tree half way down my
block, I'd consider it "not very far from the road".  If it was right behind
my front fence I'd probably think it was "Close to the road".

The biggest problem for people like me is that we have not been to the
island and we have only written clues to go on.  Some of TIGHAR have been
and can see the flaws in our reasoning.

Of course there is still the fact that Gallagher supposedly conducted a
"thorough" search and apparently found little in the way of extra bones, and
"nothing" in the way of personal artifacts/clothing - other than shoe parts.
That means there ARE still bones there somewhere.  A whole rib cage, lots of
leg and arm bones - mst of the fingers and feet...  Somewhere on that island
is an answer.  It either was or was not Amelia or Fred that was found, and
the clues must turn up.  Some of those bones are too big to be hidden for
good.  Gallagher may have missed something obvious.

In the mean time, to me the whole thing comes back to the shoes.  If there
was no chance that a naked Polynesian crew "man" from the Norwich City
floated ashore on a sextant box, wearing a pair of size 9 women's stoutish
walking shoes (obviously a cross dresser) and swigging from a benedictine
bottle; then decided to make camp on the island and enjoy the scenery whilst
his mates were rescued some days later, then there should be every
likelihood that the bones related to Fred and Amelia.

Then there are the shoe parts, both men's and women's?

That's got to mean something.  Somewhere on the island there has to be a
shallow grave....   And another (perhaps full) skeleton.

Th' WOMBAT

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

>>I'm almost sorry for bringing it up!<<

Don't be.  This is a valuable discussion.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:59:01 EDT
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Gardner's coordinates

I just looked at a 1936, "American Practical Navigator," and noticed that
the coordinates given for not only Howland and Baker, but also several of
the Phoenix islands, were different in the 1938 book.  (I think there was no
1937 "American Practical Navigator").

The revised longitudes for Canton, Enderbury, Hull, and Gardner were about
5, 7, 3, and 5 minutes farther east.  Canton and Gardner were given new
latitudes that were about 6 and 2 minutes farther north.  Gardner had been
listed in 1936 as:

S   4deg 37min (42)sec
W 174deg 40min (18)sec

In the 1938 book it was listed as:
S   4deg 40min
W 174deg 35min

Mark Prange
*************************************************************************

From Ric

Yes.  One side benefit of the Earhart search was more accurate hydrographic
information about the Phoneix Group.

The question, however, is:
Would the erroneous location of Gardner on 1937 maps alter Noonan's
perception about the wisdom of flying the 157 line?  From the above, it would
appaear that Noonan might have expected Gardner to be a bit further west and
a bit further south than it really is.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:05:08 EDT
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Warren's Hypothesis revisited

> From Ric
>
> As Randy Jacobson has corrected my earlier impression, the levels of
> classification in 1937 went RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET.  So far, my
> understanding is that a Navy training manual describing the RDF-1 was
> classified CONFIDENTIAL in 1936.  I've yet to see anything that indicates
> that the device installed in Earhart's airplane in late February/early March
> 1937 which looks like an RDF-1 and also appears in a March 1937 magazine
> article as commercially availalble, was classified in any way.

Other then for accuracy, it seems to be a mute point.   As I recall, Cam
Warren was implying in previous posts ( a few months ago) to the list that
the reason AE could Transmitted after ditching in the Ocean is because she
had a second radio a Bendix Radio, recalling that it would have been
consider impossible for the Westinghouse radio to transmit if floating on
the ocean (at least according to the experts at that time).  Anyhow even if
there is a Bendex RDF on the Electra, it appears that the Westinghouse radio
was still the only communications radio, the only thing the Bendix RDF may
explain is why she didn't get a bearing when she DF and why other people
felt responsible for it (if those reports are accurate).  But if she had a
Bendex RDF or if she didn't have it, doesn't change anything.

Regards.

Warren Lambing

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

I think you mean Western Electric, not Westinghouse.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:30:12 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Gardner's coordinates

Looking at the discrepency in the coordinates, if I did my numbers and
figgerin right, it looks like Fred would have been aiming at a point about 3
(statute) miles north, and almost 5 1/2 (statute) miles west of where
Howland really is.  That's a whisker over 6 (statute) miles actual distance
as the crow (gooney bird?) flies...

Certainly enough, given cloud cover, size of Howland, etc, that if he hit
his target bang on (which, with Noonan's skill I am inclined to think he
probably did), they could have easily missed seeing the island - especially
from 1,000 feet.  Also, at that distance they might very well have been
close enough that they were unable to get a null signal.

ltm,
jon 2266
**************************************************************************

From Frank Westlake

> From Mark Prange
> Gardner had been listed in 1936 as:
>
> S   4deg 37min (42)sec
> W 174deg 40min (18)sec
>
> In the 1938 book it was listed as:
> S   4deg 40min
> W 174deg 35min

The distance between those two points is about 5.8 NM
(<http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~cvm/latlongdist.html>).

Frank Westlake
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:32:45 EDT
From:         Charles Lim
Subject:      2-3-W-3a

I'm very curious about the artifact (2-3-W-3a) listed as a ceramic
shard. I don't know what type of application would used a ceramic material
shaped to such proportions, but my guess would be that it could be part of
the insulating layer on a spark plug. Have any ideas??

Charles Lim

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

A spark plug at that location would be pretty wierd.  I figured it was
probably part of the socket the light bulb went into.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:03:29 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Gardner's coordinates

Maybe the reason for the "we are circling" message is to try to solve the
last of the estimated position error at the terminus. How loud is the 10E
compared to the ocean at 5.8 nm?

Greg

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

As I've said many times, I think that it's pretty clear that the "we are
circling but cannot hear you" entry in the Itasca log does not accurately
represent what Earhart said.  The word "circling" in the original log entry
was added later after the original word "drifting" had been partially erased.
 I think that it's far more likely that AE said "we are listening but cannot
hear you."

If I interpret your question correctly, you're asking if people aboard the
Itasca or onshore at Howland should have been able to hear the Electra if it
was 5.8 mles away at 1,000 feet.  I think that the answer (without even
considering adverse wind direction and ambient ocean or shipboard noise) is
"no way."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:12:27 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: 2-3-W-3a

Didn't they have a "weapons carrier" (which later evolved into what we used
to call a three-quarter ton) at the loran site?  That could account for a
piece of spark plug.
ltm
jon 2266

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

Yeah but the presence of a Coast Guard vehicle nearly a mile away with no
road between its location and the Seven Site doesn't help much.  We'd have to
postulate something like the guys deciding to go bashing off through the bush
in the weapons carrier and having some kind of breakdown which involved
breaking a sparkplug (can't say as I've ever had that happen) and having that
just happen to occur at the Seven Site.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:13:37 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      Classification???

I haven't seen the whole thing yet but here's the introductory page of the
Navy instructional manual that includes the description of the RDF-1 that
seems to be like the one installed in Earhart's plane.  From previous
discussions about this document I had somehow gotten the impression that it
was classified "confidential" (hence, all the discussion about classification
categories and what they mean), but the cover of the manual has no indication
that it was classified at all!

NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
ANACOSTIA STATION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
P R E F A C E

It is the aim of this pamphlet to assemble all available
information necessary for the study of Naval aircraft radio material.
Aircraft radio involves many applications of the principles of radio
engineering not generally considered in other branches of the art.
Therefore, such of the approved practices as are considered necessary for
clarity have been included.

This pamphlet was compiled by Chief Radio Electrician Clifton
Evans, Jr., U.S.N., with the assistance of the instructors and students of
the Warrant Officers Class Nine and Enlisted Men's Classes Twenty-Four and
Twenty-Five, and various interested Naval Activities.

The excellent cooperation of the various interested Naval
Activities is very much appreciated as it was this interest that made this
pamphlet possible.

D.C. Beard
Lieutenant, U.S. Navy,
Officer-in-Charge, Radio Material School.

FIRST EDITION
August 20 1936.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:42:40 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      Covering the window

This is really neat.  Tighar member Bill Harney, who unfortunately is not on
line, has come up with a fascinating, and I think totally logical, reason why
the large rear window on the starboard side of Earhart's Electra was skinned
over while the airplane was in Miami.

First, a little background.  Early in 1937, as part of the preparations for
the first World Flight attempt, additional windows were installed in the
cabin of the Earhart aircraft.  On the port (left hand) side of the airplane,
a large window was installed in the cabin door.  On the starboard (right
hand) side of the fuselage, a larger-than-normal window with flat glass was
installed in what would be the lavatory in the airline version.  Presumably
this increased window area was to facilitate celestail observations.  Photos
taken in Burbank on March 20, 1937, the day after the airplane came out of
repairs following the wreck in Hawaii, show the starboard window in place as
before, but photos taken when the airplane left Miami for the public start of
the second World Flight attempt show shiny new aluminum skin where the window
formerly was.  Why would they do that?  If they decided that they didn't need
that window after all, why not remove it when the airplane was in the shop
for repairs?  What could have happened between Burbank on march 20 and Miami
on June 1 to make it necessary, or at least desirable, to skin over that
window?

Bill Harney reasons that it was all about the sun.  When the airplane was
going to fly westward around the world, that big window would always be on
the north and shady side of the airplane.  No problem.  But traveling easward
put the window on the south and sunny side.  Nobody realized it would be a
problem until Earhart and Noonan flew the airplane from Burbank to Miami with
George Putnam and mechanic Bo McKneely riding as passengers in the back.  The
sun streaming in probably made the cabin an oven, so when they got to Miami
they decided to skin over the window before they headed for even warmer
climes.  Makes sense to me.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:44:53 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Re: 2-3-w-3a

Is there a photo of this artifact up on the Website or where can it be seen?

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

Yup.  See photos 5 and 6 at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/help4_19/help4_19.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:58:01 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      circling and circling and....

She might also have said: "We are circling but cannot see you."

David Katz
**************************************************************************
From Ric

This is another one of those dead horses.  Nobody knows what she said and
there's no way to know for sure what she said.  What we CAN say with some
certainty is that there was uncertainty about this particular word.  At first
Bellarts thought she said "driftng" but he changed his mind, erased
"drifting", went back (and didn't get the platen accurately aligned) and
typed in "circling."

I favor the "listening" interpretation because it makes the most sense
linguistically.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:59:32 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

One thing about the "not very far" language is that what seems "far" surely
depends on how hard it is to get from here to there.  It's easy to stroll
past nine garages in Australia (well, in some parts of Australia), but if
they were on Niku covered with Scaevola, whether it was "far" to the end of
the row would depend on whether there was a trail along which to walk.

Supposing that Gallagher & Co. were walking to the Seven Site from a canoe
landing on the lagoon, they'd certainly cut a trail, and along a good clear
trail it wouldn't be "far" by anybody's calculations from the Seven Site to
the lagoon shore.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:33:43 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: 2-3-w-3a

You're sure it's ceramic, Ric?  It looks an awful lot like part of a
traditional shell ornament common throughout the island Pacific.

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

Sure looks ceramic to me.  I can send it to you if you want to look at in
person.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:10:19 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: 2-3-w-3a

Yeah, why don't you send it.  Not sure I'll be able to tell, either, but I
know people who will.  Ground shell can look a lot like ceramic, because it's
very dense and fine-grained.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

You got it.  It'll go out FedEx Monday.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:40:51 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      New light on Morgenthau

I know the Forum loves a mystery and controversy,so here goes.

Cam Warren's hypothesis brought up again another interesting,if not
inexplicable, aspect of the Earhart mystery when he referred to the
Morgenthau diary entry re Earhart's alleged "disregard of orders".
Morgenthau's  remark or opinion is contained in the transcript of his
telephone call to Eleanor Roosevelt's secretary in May 1938 when he was
trying desparately to avoid releasing the Itasca's report and a verbal
briefing of AE's last hours and disappearance. He stated that AE had
"absolutely disregarded all orders" and the release of this report would
"smear AE's reputation" forever.

Researchers have struggled with that language and meaning of that remark in
Morgenthau's dairy. Some examples. Cam Warren interpreted the "disregard for
orders" remark as possibly AE's "breach of security" when she mentioned
"7500" kilocyles over a open commercial radio. Do we know of any
classification was given to any of Amelia's broadcast bands?

Muriel Morrisey and TIGHAR give a pretty vanilla and plausible
explanation.Morrisey didn't beleive that the release of the Itasca report
would be  injurious to AE's reputation. Morrisey blamed the fatal flight on
malfunctions of the radio,failure of AE/FN to learn Morse code,etc and that
the communication failure between Itasca and AE could not be attributed soley
to AE simply disregarding orders. TIGHAR agrees with Morrisey and added that
if you looked a the transcript in the "correct historical context" that the
disregarding orders comment was more indicative of the basic problems AE had
with CDR Thompson who ,said Tighar,was not about to take "instructions from a
girl" and thus largely ignored the schedules Earhart had specified. Sounds
like Capt Thompson characterised AE as  a spoiled pilot and had no problem in
blaming her for the flight's failure.

Randall Brink put a more malovent spin on the "disregard of orders". He
writes that Morganthau refused to provide more details to Roosevelt because
on 5 Jul 38, the day of "her last radio transmission" and in the final
moments a Japanese shore patrol party was advancing toward her plane and AE
said "He must be at least an Admiral".(Brink attributes the quote to Walter
McMenamy,who reportedly intercepted AE's last message on the West Coast,when
Brink interviewed Walter in 1983).

Here's the controversy. I think Tighar and Morrissey are correct for the most
part and Brinks version has been  discredited. But I think there is more to
the story that Morgenthau was trying to suppress.  He clearly referred to two
sources-the Itasca report and a verbal report (unattributed) in the
transcript. Recall the final paragraph:

   "...   And we have the report of all those wireless messages and
everything else, what that women-happened to her the last few minutes. I hope
I've never got to make it public,I mean. -ok-Well, still if she wants it,
I'll tell her-I mean what happened. It isn't a very nice story.-Well,yes..."
(Italics mine)

I submit that Morganthau was not just talking here about Amelia's inadequate
equipment, radio failure, and apparent disregard for radio procedures
mentioned in  the Itasca report. From a linguistic standpoint,the content,
word usage, tone and reference to the "last few minutes" stongly suggest to
me that some one had briefed Morgenthau orally (true or false) and provided
some very ominous information and that was what he did not wish to convey to
Mrs Roosevelt.

Here we speculate.Perhaps it was in regard to a crash landing at sea and what
was happening the last few moments. Did Morgenthau receive information from
other sources that may have heard AE's last transmissions that have variously
been described as "undecipherable" or unreadable; for instance some messages
may have been readable and classified "Top Secret" in 1937. Later after May
of 38 those transmission may have been discredited,but never revealed to the
public. (Here we go with a conspiracy theory).

We are aware of most of the post loss wireless radio messages, some patently
false, that were received   and none of the credible messages contain a
"horrible ending"; as far as I now the last readable message was the line of
position 157-337 comment without any sense of urgency or impending doom.

The main thread of my inquiry here is does anyone know who  was Morgenthau's
primary source in the verbal briefing? Navy? Treasury sources? Or is this
impossible to track down.( It is conceivable that Morgenthau had received
information in 1938 that was erroneous,such as a Japanese wireless message re
Amelia, and elected not to disclose to Mrs.Roosevelt.)

Is there any more archival information of Morgenthau relating to this
transcript or later corrections or additions?

In sum I can't buy that Morgenthau's words re the last minutes referred
basically to the overall "disregard" of orders and Amelia's
piloting,navigating and radio performance.

So there it is for the Forum to speculate further on the transcript.
Sometimes one has to kick a dead horse (Ric's favorite saying) to see if it
is dead!

ltm,
Ron Bright (who does not keep a diary)
***************************************************************************

From Ric

Someone correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to worry about that) but I seem
to recall that it has been established through the ship's logs that
Morgenthau actually met with Thompson aboard Itasca in Hawaii when the cutter
returned from the search.  I also recall that this was not a special trip but
that the Secretary was in Hawaii on vacation anyway.  If I'm remembering this
right, then there's your verbal briefing.

As for what "very ominous" information Thompson or anyone else may have
imparted to him on that occasion (if any) is, of course, pure speculation.
However, a memorandum written 17 May 1938 - four days AFTER the famous
transcribed one-sided telephone conversation - by the then-Commandant of the
Coast Guard, Rear Admiral R.R. Waesche to Assistant Sectretary of the
Treasury Gibbons (who had been present at the May 13 meeting) may provide a
clue.  I copied the memorandum from the collection at the NASM Library in
1989 but never paid much attention to it, until now.  Here's what it says:

Memorandum for - Assistant Secretary Gibbons

With reference to the article in the New York Times, regarding the Earhart
flight, the paper gives correctly, in quotation marks, the last message
received from the Earhart plane.  Following that, the newspaper article
states. "The voice sounded broken and choked."  This is the newspaperman's
own version of what somebody told him, or his interpration of what he read in
the report.  At no place in the official report are such terms used.  Later
on in the news item, he commences to use his imagination, and quotes radio
engineeers regarding chlorine vapors from radio batteries, and the fact that
such vapors could account for the choking voice. None of this is verified by
the official report, nor by commander Thompson's personal letter, and the
statment is in no way justified.

You will remember that, at your request, I wrote Thompson a personal letter,
telling of the rumors that somebody on the Itasca had heard Miss Earhart
scream, and had heard the crash from the radio.  This Thompson categorically
denied, and he knew the facts - for he himself, as well as the radio
operators, were listening over the radio.  The official report states, whihc
was confirmed by commander thompson's personal letter, that - "toward the end
, Earhart talked so rapidly as to be almost incoherent" and, also, that -
"Earhart's last message was hurried, frantic, and apparently not complete."

I am convinced, from the official report, and from commander thompson's
personal letter, that no sound whatsoever was heard from the earhart plane
after it hit the water - nor, for some minutes previous thereto.

I am returning the New York Time's article.

R.R. Waesche
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,
Commandant

It sounds to me as though Gibbons, possibly via Morgenthau via somebody
aboard Itasca, had heard and believed a bunch of unfounded rumors - hence the
comments on the transcript.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:16:20 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Covering the window

I like it.  But wouldn't it be better to skin it over from the inside with
AL foil, and remove it for the night flying to enable better celestial
navigational fixes?  I still like the idea...

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

Actually, AE and FN did almost no night flying on the World Flight.  They
left Brazil at 3 a.m. for the 13 hour South Atlantic crossing but, other than
that, the Lae/Howland flight was the only night flying they did.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:24:47 EDT
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      HOW/GARD COORD

RIC:  Re the differences in the mid '30's published positions of Howland
& Gardiner and the impact on Noonans plotted destination(s).

Lets not forget that Freds course line which could be a mile or more in
width, early on, became broader as the distance from the last fix increased.
Likewise a 'crossing lop' could easily be a mile or more in width,
increasing if it was moved; i.e. advanced to a new position based on an
estimated ground speed.

Fred's computed eta, a pencil dot on the map, was actually a broad [course]
'strip' intersecting a broad [lop] 'strip'.   Combined with the published
inaccuracy of the island(s) it would be quite possible for the best of
navigators to miss by a number of miles, depending on the time from the last
fix.  At the end of a longgg overwater trip, even with a visability of 20
miles, a small, 1 mile island with nothing but miles of water around it,
could easily be missed.

The reasons for the back up of a radio fix or homing steer are obvious.

RC  943
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:26:50 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: 2-3-W-3a

Foot in mouth time again for me....  Because I haven't seen one from 1937!
Airplane spark plugs generally look very little like Automobile ones,
especially where ceramics come in.  If the "shard" is from a spark plug, it
would be very small (or part of a very small diameter whole).  Ric in his
accident investigation days should have come across a few aircraft spark
plugs, and know what I'm getting at.

However, I have no idea what was in those big radial engines.

Th' WOMBAT

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

I've never seen a broken spark plug at an accident scene - even the "smokin'
hole" variety.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:53:34 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Coral is a beach...

> but if
> they were on Niku covered with Scaevola, whether it was "far" to the end
> of the row would depend on whether there was a trail along which to walk.

I was under the impression that the seven site was light open Buka forest.
Also, that the bones according to legend were easily visible by a native who
happened to be walking in the area, hence my earlier joke about our native
struggling along through thick jungle.   From what I have seen of scaevola
in the published picture it's not the sort of thing a native would be
stolling through for a relaxing walk.  As for the Kanawa tree, Gallagher
said it was not far away - not that he was in the habit of walking to it....

What I'm trying to do here is clarify the location of the "7" site in
relation to (a) high tide mark on the lagoon shore,  (b) high tide mark on
the ocean side,  (c)  distance from the sand/vegetation border - so that a
native walking on the sand could see the bones.

There is another point that has been missed in the discussion of the seven
site; at least as far as I can see.  We have a conical depression that may
have held a buried skull.  I have already aired my thoughts on that, bearing
in mind that the ground the hole is dug in must be damp to qualify as "the
hole", not dry and sandy.

The skull was buried separately and the bones were apparently left where
they lay.  Is it not possible that the "7" site was where the skull was
recovered, but the rest of the bones were a little closer to the water's
edge near the sand/vegetation line, either at the lagoon, or the ocean.

We already know not to expect the other bones to be lying there waiting, as
Gallagher said a thorough search had been carried out.  However I can't see
all the missing bones on the list vanishing completely or being spirited to
parts of the island outside walking distance (or crab crawling distance?).
If scavengers got at the bones, you need to know WHAT scavengers
realistically were there.  Many animals are territorial, so they would cart
the bones back to where they felt safe to chew on them.  I have no idea
about the territorial ranges of rats, and we have discussed crabs at length!

Th' WOMBAT

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

From Ric

Due, probably, to Gallagher's clearing operations, the Seven Site is now
dense scaevola where it was once open buka forest.

Your point about the islander having to be able to spot the skull in the
first place is a good one.  Kilts says that the skeleton was found first
because "what attracted (the islander) to it were the shoes" and that the
skull was found "farther down the beach."  But we know from Gallagher that it
was the skull that was found first, and I think it's reasonable to assume
that it was someplace fairly out in the open - whether along the lagoon shore
or the ocean beach.

The issue of what scavengers scattered the bones is an important one.  Some
big bones got moved and if rats did it, I sure don't want to meet those rats.
 Coconut crabs remain the prime suspects but dogs and/or pigs are another
possibility.  The problem is, the dogs and pigs (if they were there at all)
arrived with the colonists and, if the bones were still fresh enough to be
interesting in, say, June of 1939 it implies that the person had not been
dead for all that long. Hence the image of a round-the-bend castaway lurking
in the bushes, being seen briefly by Koata's wife and mistaken for Nei
Manganibuka, and hiding from the "cannibals" that had come to live on the
island. (I'm not suggesting that happened but it's one way the clues might be
interpreted.)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:54:26 EDT
From:         Charles Lim
Subject:      Re: Ceramic?

Thanks lots for your suggestions. Yes I think it would be very weird
to find a piece of a spark plug near the '7' site of all places. If it
really is a spark plug where is there rest of it (The metal body shell,
electrode etc)?

If it is really is a spark plug how did it get there. I think Tom's
suggestion that it is a decorative shell is more plausible. But before I get
carried away, lets see what the forensics have to say first.

Charles Lim
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:00:36 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Lat/Long Coordinates

Howland's lat/long coordinates off 5-6 miles.  Add to that the typical
accuracy of Fred's A-5 sextant(octant) of 10 miles= 15-16 mile (or more)
possible error & AE & Fred are trying to find a 1.5 mile square rock in
the middle of the Pacific.  They are at the DR position where Howland
should be-and no Howland, no DF steer, no communication with the Itaska
or the radio operator on the island.  Fuel is down to their last 2-4
hours, Fred looks at the chart and the nearest island group(emphasis on
GROUP)  is the Phoenix group 2 1/2 hours away on a 157' bearing.  OK all
you aviators out there....should you continue to circle hoping to find
the Island or Itaska with no DF steer or communications available ro do
you go try to find another land mass to set down on that may be easier
to find and take your chances?

For those of us who have island-hopped in the tropics it is no surprise
that they may have missed.

Doug B. #2335
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:24:06 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      The Coconut Grove

Regarding my recent posts, there is madness in my method...
If the "7" site is where I think it is (along the nothern shore of the
island, but close to the loran station end and on the opposite side of the
lagoon from where TIGHAR found the shoe fragments) then there are a few
things that made me ask what I did.

Obviously by now you know I firmly believe the site was 100 feet above high
water.  That is not all that great a distance, only 5 "double garages",
hell, the room I'm sitting in downstairs is 30 feet.  Also the anecdotal
evidence suggests close to the sand/vegetation line.  This could feasibly be
either the lagoon shore OR the ocean shore, and to be honest, because I
haven't been there or seen good photographs I don't care, nor do I care to
speculate which.  You are the guys on the ground.

I do also believe that "not very far away" could easily relate to 100 yards,
for reasons that I have posted.  And also there is the likelihood that the
skull was buried in a slightly different location from the rest of the
bones.  So that ALL points to the possibility, even the likelihood that the
"7" site - if it is wher I think it is - might be the skull site.  It also
leaves open the possibility that the bones were closer to the edge of the
vegetation/sand line.  (I'll call it sand, we know it is probbably broken
coral, hence the reason for my title in the postings).

Now, In Gallagher's report, there was a small grove of coconut trees less
than 2 miles away.  We have all looked at the coconuts up near the wreck
(1949) and round the village (1939-40) and down around Baureke (can't
remember the spelling) Passage (1941).  However, what interests me is on the
North side of the lagoon, a promontory like Kanawa Point, only larger.  On
this you have a coconut grove shown with no date.

From your web page:

Con:

The only aspect of Gallagher's description of the bone discovery site that
does not fit the 1996 Site is that the nearest stand of cocos in 1941 is
more than two miles away (Point 10).

That grove just happens to be "less than 2 miles" from where I think the "7"
site is.  I have marked them on your map.

If this was in fact a grove perhaps of coconuts washed ashore from the old
plantings, then it adds more credence to the "7" site regardless of the
lagoon / ocean question.

The thing that had me thrown was that on the web page:
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/3_10_00bull.html
You have the map marked as Aukeraime, but showing the finds attributed to
the 1996 site on the Northern shore.  If I am correct, and the "7" site is
on the North Shore OF Aukeraime, it throws a whole new rock at the turtle..

So what is the go with the cocos with no date?  If they were there in 1938 -
you have your bone site!

RossD

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

Good thinkin' Wombat.  The cocos with no date are on the promontory known as
Taraia and are shown on a map made by Ass't Lands Commissioner Paul Laxton in
1949.  If the trees are the result of nuts that washed ashore from the
Arundel plantings and were present before the island was settled (certainly a
possibility) then you may be correct that this was the grove Gallagher was
referring to.  No cocos are shown in that location on the map produced by the
1938 New Zealand Survey (and Arundel's original plantings ARE shown) but I'm
not sure that necessesarily means that there were not a few trees there.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:31:01 EDT
From:         Joe
Subject:      Mystery plane

Could you run that story by me again about a "mystery airplane" that you
heard go over the island one night when you were on Niku?
Joe W3HNK

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

It wasn't at night.  It was, as I recall, about mid-morning and several of us
in different locations all heard a piston-powered airplane pass overhead at a
fairly low altitude.  Nobody saw it but we were all back in the trees and
could see very little of the sky.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:39:16 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      Classification correction

As it turns out, the 1936 Aircraft Radio pamphlet that contains (along with
lots and lots of other stuff) the diagram and description of the RDF-1 does
have a "RESTRICTED" stamp on the cover.  There is still no indication that
the RDF-1 itself was  a classified piece of equipment, and plenty of
indication (i.e. commercial availablity) that it was not.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:24:56 EDT
From:         Charles Lime
Subject:      Re: Ceramic?

To Ross Devitt,

I am very surprised at the the amount of responses that have poured in.
Thanks.

The reason why I thought it was a spark plug was because of the
material, the ceramic basically. In reality it could be anything. (I suppose
also that you are like me, trying to look at stuff and "guess" what it is
without actually having it in hand, which I think is no way to go about an
investigation. :))

As for aircraft spark plugs, yes I do think it would be generally
diffrent from auto modile ones because of the diffrent design requirements
and perhaps the way radial pistons are designed. I don't know what kind of
plugs were around in 1930's, or whether their designs have altered much
since then.

However as someone who has never been to a crash site, I also dont know
what kind of crash (let's not assume anything here)would cause the ceramic
bit (if it is a ceramic bit) of the spark plug to break up like that.
Thanks.

Charles Lim

P.s. what do you think the shard bit is?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:35:50 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Amelia Earhart/ Two pairs of shoes?

The shoe size and type of Gallagher's shoe find and Kilts second hand story
seem to vary. In looking at some old newspaper clippings from Mar 1937 in
Morrisey's book, it seems confirmation of Gallaghers description of the shoe
as a "stoutish walking shoe..." may be confirmed. The article says AE planned
to wear her usual "light,low shoe" (oxford) while flying but she took along a
pair of "heavy high walking boots" for sightseeing,etc. This may account for
two different types of shoes found-Tighar's in 1991 as the blucher oxford
with the catspaw and maybe Gallagher's shoe was more like the heavy,high
walking boot .This may account for the various size descriptions also.You
would have to speculate,AE and FN left the Electra with some kind of bag of
survival stuff.

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

What you're really talking about is third pair of shoes.  We know from photos
taken at various stops on the World Flight that AE had, in addition to her
flying shoes, a pair of low, two-tone walking shoes she wore while
sight-seeing.

If we're to assume that the newspaper article describing what AE planned to
take on her first World Flight attempt represents what she actually took
along on the second attempt, we would also have to speculate that her "heavy
high walking boots" were not among the items discarded when the airplane was
purged of any unnecessary weight prior to the Lae/Holwand flight.  Then, as
you say, we have to assume that there was time to bring survival gear ashore.
 That stack of assumptions is starting to get uncomfortably high.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:46:50 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Mystery plane

> It wasn't at night.  It was, as I recall, about mid-morning and several of
> us in different locations all heard a piston-powered airplane pass overhead
> at a fairly low altitude.  Nobody saw it but we were all back in the trees and
> could see very little of the sky.

Was it a twin? They couldn't possibly have had enough fuel to still be
circling or even drifting or listening. <G> There IS a great significance to
the event though. Think of 1937 with Fred and AE searching through the same
area you were and hearing search planes. They couldn't see them nor signal
them nor get to a clear area in time. I have no trouble with that scenario.
So many have argued they must not have been there since the searchers didn't
see them. Even a landing party would not have seen them or vice versa. I've
been lost in the mountains 10 feet from a road and not seen it until a car
roared by. Look how long Lord Greystoke was lost before he was found. <G> We
modern urbanites and suburbanites have a lot of difficulty thinking 1937 and
thinking thick impenetrable jungle and the impossibility of significant
movement.

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

Having spent more time in the bush on Niku than I like to think about,  I can
say with great confidence that if someone posed the following scenario:

You are under the trees on Niku, say, 200 yards back from the beach and you
hear an airplane fairly low overhead.  The person in this airplane is flying
around over the island looking for anyone on the ground but will not
necessarily examine any one part of the island more than once.  What are your
chances of getting out into the open in time to be seen?

My answer would be, "Slim to none."
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:19:52 EDT
From:         Michael Holt
Subject:      Re: 2-3-w-3

> Photos 1 - 4
> http://www.tighar.org/Projects/help4_19/help4_19.html

Is it possible that this is a vacuum tube?


Michael Holt

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

What we've been able to determine is that it is virtually identical to a
pre-war, regular ol', British light bulb.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:28:32 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: revisited

"recalling that it would have been considered impossible for the WeCo. to
transmit if floating on the ocean (at least according to the experts at that
time)."

Can someone bring me up to speed on this. Why not, as long as battery and
antenna were whole?

Also, is there an image of the Itasca somewhere on the net for viewing? If
not, what class vessel was it, was it single masted?

Thanks,  Hue Miller
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The remote was on the instrument panel. The dynamotor was under the pilot's
seat.  The main battery was in the belly under the centersection.  All would
certainly be underwater if the airplane was afloat.  The transmitter and aux
battery in the cabin would only be dry if the airplane was floating almost
standing on its nose with its tail sticking way up in the air.

The Itasca was "Lake" class cutter.  Single mast.  We don't have a photo up
on our webiste but maybe somebody knows of one someplace else.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:37:19 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Russian roulette

Doug Brutlag's post from Saturday explaining AE/FN's navigational
problem/situation is a concise summary of what Ric has postulated since
shortly after the Mets won the World Series.

Doug's question: "OK all you aviators out there....should you
continue to circle hoping to find the Island or Itasca with no DF steer or
communications available or do you go try to find another land mass to set
down on that may be easier to find and take your chances?" puts a real fine
point on the issue of how risky -- and foolish -- this adventure really was.

My perception of AE has changed from the usual widely held myths to
one of an average -- at best -- pilot who needed to prove her independence
at all levels of life.  To my knowledge, she did not set out to be an
international legend and role model for other women.  Things just kind of
happened that way, like many careers.  As she met her personal goals early
on she came to enjoy the fame (and fortune?) that came with it, but also
learned she had to ratchet-up the ante -- and the risks -- to maintain her
notoriety.

The more I learn of this ill-fated flight the more I am convinced
just how stupid AE was to try this.  Yes, I know a turtle doesn't make
progress unless he sticks his neck out, but should the turtle deliberately
lay its head on the chopping block?   AE was engaged in a life-long form of
Russian Roulette and it was only a matter of time before the odds caught up
to her -- and on July 3, 1937, they did.

LTM, who appreciates concise summaries
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
***************************************************************************
From Ric

What bothers me is why Noonan would get himself into a mess like that.  He
had to know that finding Howland within their fuel constraints depended on DF
and, by then, he had to know that AE couldn't DF her way out of a paper bag.
Unlike AE, Noonan was the real thing, and yet he ended up out there with no
way to find the one place that had a runway before the gas ran out.  Makes me
think that he was real sure about a Plan B.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:46:54 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Covering the window

I've been thinking about this window business.  Skinning the starbord window
to keep the sun out makes sense, but it seems illogical to me, because the
two windows in the port side would have had the same effect (in the first
attempt), and there was no effort to cover those.  Maybe Manning was willing
to trade discomfort for view.  But wasn't there some kind of cabin
ventillation built into the Electra?  Things that make you go hmmmm.
ltm
jon 2266
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, the Electra had a ram air cabin ventilation system with a small scoop
and vents on the cabin roof.

The interesting thing is, whatever the problem was that made it desirable or
necessary to skin over the aft starboard window did not become apparent until
Miami.  Another possibility is that it got broken by accident and there just
wasn't time to get another piece of glass.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:47:41 EDT
From:         Mark R.
Subject:      Spark plugs

Aviation spark plugs are large metal items, about the size of a cigar
tube...bit smaller, actually. Ceramic portions is very well encased and
unlikely to be exposed even in a non-routine landing, i.e, crash.

LTM
Mark R.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:11:05 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Mystery plane

Alan Caldwell wrote,

>There IS a great significance to the event though...
>Think of 1937 with Fred and AE searching through the same
>area you were and hearing search planes. They couldn't see
>them nor signal them nor get to a clear area in time.

Exactly. The TIGHAR incident pretty clearly demonstrates that, given the
conditions on Gardner/Niku, a search plane could have produced a definitive
result only by finding them.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:17:45 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Russian roulette

Ric wrote,

>What bothers me is why Noonan would get himself into a mess like that.

What better way to establish and promote one's new navigation school than by
making some money and getting some publicity as the navigator who
successfully landed Earhart on a speck in the Pacific ocean? Noonan had
navigated across the vast Pacific many, many times, and was an acknowledged
leader in his field, a pioneer of Pan Am's early commercial routes. It was a
perfect match for a tragedy.

william 2243

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

Nothing has ever surfaced about how much Noonan was getting paid.  Not much,
I'd bet.  I can easily see Putnam telling him that the publicity value would be
priceless.  And there's some strange deal Fred had going on the side with
Gene Pallette, possibly for news updates that would do an end run around the
Earhart/Putnam exclusive deal with the Herald Trib?  There's still an awful
lot we don't know about this flight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:19:19 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: sparkplugs

>From Mark R.
>
>Aviation spark plugs are large metal items, about the size of a cigar
>tube...bit smaller, actually. Ceramic portions is very well encased and
>unlikely to be exposed even in a non-routine landing, i.e, crash.

There is a historical book of spark plugs compiled by a fellow from
Australia. Last name of the author is Parker. There is a copy in the
archives at the EAA library in Oshkosh.

Greg
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:24:41 EDT
From:         Charles Lim
Subject:      Re: Spark plugs

I have begun to suspect that this is not a bit of a spark plug. The
presence of artifact 2-3-W-3  ( the light bulb ) suggests, as Ric pointed
out to me earlier, that it is a part of the light fixture for that artifact.

So even if the forensics show tht this is a ceramic, this does not mean
it is a spark plug bit.

As for arcraft spark plugs, I think  now, if they were involved in any
sort of crash, they would come out whole due to the protection that you've
just mentioned. Thanks.

Charles Lim
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:31:31 EDT
From:         Charles Lim
Subject:      2-3-W-3a

I was wondering whether you could trace the curvature on artifact
(2-3-W-3a) the shard to see if it described a similarly radiused circle, the
the end of the light bulb (2-3-W-3). Perhaps if it were similar, we would
known definately that it isn't a spark plug bit.

Charles Lim

PS it is a sunny day in England

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

I've just shipped the thing off to Tom King to get his opinion on whether it
is, in fact, a piece of shell and I should be committed.  Assuming for the
moment that neither is true (just yet), an odd thing about the shape is that
it is not of even thickness but tapers toward each broken end.

Sunny days in England are indeed newsworthy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:52:26 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Covering the window

Good point - I wonder if it got bumped when they were pulling out the
trailing wire antenna.  Any ideas about how large that unit was?  Also, I
presume the window was probably plexi, not actually glass.

Another thought.  Was there any supporting structure for that window?  In
the photos I've seen of the skinned over area, it looks like a line of
rivets through the center.  Was this structural piece an addition installed
at the time of the modification, or did window cross a structural member?
The reason I ask is, due to it's size if that window (whether glass or
plexi) was unsupported, it might have been a pretty weak - read maybe a lot
of flexing or vibration in flight.  Blowing a window in the navigation
compartment could spoil your day...even in an unpressurized airplane.
ltm
jon 2266
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I say again, contrary to legend, the trailing wire was not removed in Miami.
It simply was not reinstalled after the repairs in Burbank.

From what I can see, the installation of the "big window" was handled this
way.  The standard airline version of the airplane featured an emergency exit
panel which surrounded the fourth of the five passenger windows on the
starboard side.  That window, and that panel, were not present on NR16020
because the airplane retained only the fifth )and aftmost) passenger window
on each side.  The size and shape of the "big window" added to the starboard
side of NR16020 mimics the size and shape of the entire emergency exit panel
that was installed farther forward on the standard airline version.  It's
like they said, we made a biggish hole in the structure to accomodate the
emergency exit.  Let's do the same thing back here for the special window.

There was no structure behind the window so the patch must be riveted to
added stiffeners.  As to whether the window was glass or plexi, it's hard to
say.  If they wanted to be sure that it was "optically correct" it may have
been glass.  Believe it or not, the standard cabin windows in the Model 10
were "plate glass" until February1935.  seems like a glass window that big in
an airplane that shook as bad as a 10E did at full power would make anybody
nervous.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:54:15 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Noonan

Ric said: "What bothers me is why Noonan would get himself into a
mess like that."

Because he was an alcoholic, Ric.

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

Ah, that explains it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:05:24 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Morgenthau Speculations

Your summary sounds correct to me, though I was surprised by your
reference to Adm. Waesche's memo to Asst. Treasury Secretary Gibbons,
which I doubt has ever been made public before this instance.

A thoughtful reading of the original Morgenthau telephone transcript,
gives one the impression that he was simply resorting to the implication
of...'shocking revelations'... to impress & hopefully disuade Eleanore's
secretary from pursuing the matter further, thus reopening some very
painful memories about the failure of the CG to bring home America's
'heroine', on his watch.

His reference to ...'disregard of orders'... is puzzling to say the
least, when AE/FN were civilians, not subject to 'orders' from anyone,
least of all Captain Thompson of the USCG.

Don Neumann

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

Waesche's memo has been sitting right there in the NASM Earhart file since at
least 1989.  I just never connected it to the Morgenthau memo, I suppose
because it's adressed to Assistant Secretary Gibbons.  It's a classic example
of evidence that can be under everyone's nose (including mine) and never get
plugged in.

It seems clear from the memo that that there were a lot of rumors circulating
among some pretty high level people about how Earhart had been heard to
scream and/or crash.  Those rumors are almost certainly the source of the
memo that Rollin Reineck built his last Air Comics article around.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:10:51 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: Russian roulette

Just how much do we know about the relationship between Fred Noonan and Gene
Pallette?   Any thing past Pallette's receipt of one letter from Noonan during
the world flight attmept?

LTM (who likes to read other people's mail"
Roger Kelley, #2112

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

Nope.  That one letter, which somehow ended up with Fred's widow, is the only
clue we have.  Strange.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:55:37 EDT
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Itasca

There's a photo of a "Lake" class cutter in the Two-Ocean Fleet Edition of "The
Ships and Aircraft of the United States Fleet", by James C. Fahey, originally
published by Ships and Aircraft in New York, 1941, and reprinted in 1976 by
Naval Institute press, Annapolis MD.

The same photo appears in Fahey's War Edition, 1942, same publisher, and
reprinted in 1976 by the Naval Institute Press.

The photo doesn't appear in later versions of Fahey because the entire class
of cutters, including Itasca, was transferred to Britain as part of the
lend-lease program.


Bob Brandenburg #2286
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:56:46 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: 2-3-W-3a

You wouldn't need to be committed even if it IS shell -- or if you should, so
should lots of other people, e.g. those who've dug in historic shell middens
and had trouble distinguishing between ground shell and pieces of porcelain.
They're real similar visually.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:00:20 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Morgenthau Speculations

<<It seems clear from the memo that that there were a lot of rumors
circulating among some pretty high level people about how Earhart had been
heard to scream and/or crash.>>

Amazing that such logic-poor rumors could
gain any credance. People whose car has
gone out of control rarely spend those next
moments fiddling with the radio or the
cigarette lighter or anything else.
Or, that some high ranking officer of the
Japanese navy would personally go out
with a patrol. Wearing a chestful of large
gaudy medals, no doubt.

Hue Miller

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

It surprises you that military and government types would believe sensational
rumors?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:02:29 EDT
From:         Stephanie
Subject:      Re: Morgenthau Speculations

Are the tapes of AE speaking on the radio that Morgantheau told Roosevelt's
secretary about classified or not around anymore or can copies be requested
and listened to?

Stephanie, an AE Fan since the 3rd Grade
***************************************************************************
From Ric

There are no tapes.  Never were any tapes.  All of this was written down.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:29:26 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Morgenthau Speculations

As I recall TIGHAR examined over 137 alleged post loss messages supposedly
received in the Pacific and in the US. Did any of those messages,which now
have been (except for a few) discredited, contain "screams" or other content
that might have been passed on to Morgenthau then. Or perhaps a more
sensible,mundane explanation is if Morgenthau was briefed by CDR Thompson in
Hawaii and Thompson described the voice as "almost incoherent", probably a
hyperbole, it wouldnt take much for Morgenthau to speculate about a "tragic
ending" and thus wanted to keep a the details to himself. His diary doesn't
address the voice issue.

The forum some time ago discussed ad nauseam  Amelia' voice characterization
during the last message.Do we know where Reineck got his infor?

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

None of the alleged post-loss messages contain "screams" or even expressions
of distress except for some "SOSs" reported by a two low-credibility hams in
Los Angeles.

Reineck cites as his source:

"Memorandum for the Ass't Chief of Staff, G2, War Department.  Concerning
Earhart turning north when lost.  From Col. H.H. Richards.  Dated November 1,
1938."

This new information documenting that there was an undercurrent of
sensational rumor circulating among high ranking government and military
personnel for years following the Earhart disappearance makes it much easier
to understand how later Earhart researchers like Goerner could get a feeling,
when interviewing retirees, that secrets were being kept.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:56:40 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      It's all a conspiracy

The following appeared in my forum mailbox as an error message via WEBTV.  I
don't know who it's from or whether it was intended as a forum posting, but
it does provide some interesting insight into how the conspiracy mindset
works.  Opinion becomes fact. Everything has a hidden meaning and everyone
(including me) has a secret agenda.  Sad...and kind of scary.

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

Re-reading the "From Ric"portion of this mish mash, I find nothing at
all that impacts on the significance of the Morgenthau memo of 13 may
1938.

First let me say that the ten day going to Hawaii and the ten day
returning to Washington, 20 days of travel, was not just for a vacation
as Ric would have you believe.  The coincidence is far too great.  Not
only that but Florida and Bermuda were a lot closer and more fashionable
in those days, if Morgnthau wanted to take is family on a vacaton.. Was
Gibbons on vacation also.  I believe strongly that the trip to Hawaii
was for personal contact with Comd. Thompson.  This took place on 29
July 1937.

Gillespie is trying to make you think that Gibbons and Morgenthau had
believed a "bunch of unfounded rumors" spread by crew members of the
Itasca and that was what had influenced his conversation with Malvina
Scheider on 13 May 1938.    BALONEY.

The whole problem with the Gillespie thinking is that Morgenthau
interviewed Comd. Thompson 29 July 1937, almost a year before 13 May
1938., and doubtlessly was told the same in-
formation that Admiral Waesche was told - but a lot sooner - that nobody
heard AE scream, but that her messages were hurried and not complete.

This is pure and simple another attempt on the part of Gillespie to
degrade real documentary evidence, because it runs contrary to the
TIGHAR theory.

HOWEVER,  THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT PARTS TO THE MESSAGE THAT SHOULD
NOT BE OVERLOOKED.

These parts concern the next to last Para of the Admiral's memo to
Gibbons.  Specifically:

1.  "No sound whatever was heard from the Earhart plane after it hit the
water."

Is the Admiral saying for a FACT that Earhart hit the water ( when she
finally stated she was out of gas as quoted by Col H.H.C. Richards)

Does the Admiral mean that there were no post 2 July messages allegedly
from the Earhart plane.

2.  "Nor for some minutes previous there to"

Is the Admiral saying that he knows the TIME that Earhart hit the water.
Otherwise, how could he say there was no sound whatever "FOR SOME
MINUTES PRIOR TO THAT TIME"

This last para tends to re-enforce the  Col.H.H.C. Richards memo to the
Asst. Chief of Staff for Intelligence that says she said she was
"turning north ........finally she stated she was out of gas.  That was
the last heard from her"
Sounds the same.

I would appreciate comments.  I think we may have something here.

The referenced message will follow
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:58:48 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Ceramic?

To Charles Lim,

>     However as someone who has never been to a crash site, I also dont
> know what kind of crash (let's not assume anything here)would cause the ceramic
> bit (if it is a ceramic bit) of the spark plug to break up like that.
>
> P.s. what do you think the shard bit is?

Unfortunately, we are all in the dark, but if you have a look at the photo
of the ceramic object there is a ruler scale next to it.  Imagine from that
the diameter of the complete circle and you will see it would be a "huge"
spark plug.  The ceramic in a spark plug is used to dissipate heat as well
as to insulate, therefore it sits closely against the metal inside it.  That
means a small hole through a larger piece of ceramic.

Now to aircraft spark plugs.  I only have experience of plugs in then
engines that power your average Cessna or Piper, but they are totally
different in appearance from automotive plugs, and seem to be completely
enclosed in metal.  I will look closer on my next inspection before I fly,
however I'd guess someone out there in the forum will be able to clear that
up before I get back.

One of the items on that web page has been positively identified as the
metal base of a common domestic light bulb, but not clarified as to the
year.  I suspect the apparent diameter of the inside edge of the ceramic
item relates it to the light bulb - perhaps - maybe...   There is just not
much to go on!

Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:02:27 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Covering the window

>Another possibility is that it got broken by accident and there just
>wasn't time to get another piece of glass.

Which makes more sense to me.  If I had wanted to cover the window due to
the sun, I would have fitted the covering on the inside, so as to be able to
remove it and use the opening, then replace it to reduce heat/glare in the
nav compartment.

However, I am not Noonan...

Th' WOMBAT

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

For what it's worth, a photo of NR16020 in a hangar in Hawaii before the
ill-fated takeoff seems to show some kind of drape or covering over the
inside of the big window on the starboard side.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:05:43 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Mystery plane

I gather the "mystery plane" was flying at high altitude.  One of the
problems faced by AE/FN is that a plane at low altitude is sometimes harder
to hear.  There is silence, then deafening noise, then almost silence in the
space of moments.  At 1000ft search altitude airplanes are still difficult
to hear a few miles away.  At 3000ft, one has not only to hear them, but
find the direction also.

I live a couple of miles from my local airport, and as an occasional pilot,
I have an interest in whether any of our own aircraft are flying over.  The
airport is active early in the morning, until mid evening.  I seldom even
hear the jets or radial engined piston aircraft unless they fly almost
directly overhead.  Then they are only in hearing range for a short time.

A classic example is when we have RAAF Caribou transports in.  They fly low
and slow on approach, but by the time I get up from the computer, and 20
feet or so to the back door, I have usually missed both the aircraft and the
sound.

We once had a whole team of visiting YAK aerobatic aircraft.  They all
approached and landed passing within 2 miles of my house and the first I
knew of them was on arrival at the airport to go flying.

Note....  I am NOT deaf... or hard of hearing.

Th' WOMBAT

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

The "mystery plane" was not at high altitude but sounded quite low (1,000 -
1,500 feet?).  That's what was so wierd about it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:45:10 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Belly antenna

I put a question about the belly antenna to
an ex-military pilot with extensive multiengine
experience. He replied that both short vertical
and short horizontal antennas were used for
the DF 'sense antenna' role, depending on model of aircraft. For antenna
lengths that are a small fraction of a wavelength, such as this sense
antenna, the antenna essentially just acts as a small lump of metal, and
responds to all directions.

( The sense antenna is used to eliminate
the 180 degree ambiguity problem of simple
loop antennas used alone. With the usual
loop antenna alone, you get a null, but you
can't be immediately sure whether you're
pointed at it, or away from it )

However, even if the DF sense antenna on
the underside of AE's plane was scraped off,
that alone could not have prevented the RDF
from being able to show a DF - null on the
Itasca.

That issue still perplexes me. The reason i asked about whether the Itasca
had 2 or a single mast was to try to understand
whether a typical shipboard 'inverted L
antenna' ( up to high on mast, then horizontal
to other mast ) was used or not. If the
'inverted L' antenna had been in place, it's
possible the simultaneous vertical polarized
wave ( useful for DF ) and horizontal wave
( not useful, in fact spoils sharp null bearings )
would have spoiled her try at nulling the Itasca signal. But that
possibility is seemingly
eliminated - with only the one mast the Itasca antenna would have been near
vertical with minimum horizontal component.

It's been mentioned that maybe AE was just
too close for the loop to work right. I don't
know what to make of that. Was the Itasca
signal so strong that it "swamped" her
receiver, the "automatic volume control"
circuit, which prevented headphone blasting,
cutting in and adjusting headphone level
on its own, contrary to her efforts?
But yet she could not see the Itasca????
Should the Itasca have "made smoke" ?

??????

Stumped.

- Hue Miller

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

For a discussion of the Itasca's smoke-making capability see
http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaq.html

Before we can assess why AE could not get a null on 7500 despite hearing the
signal, we have to know what her equipment's reception and DFing capabilites
were.  There is still a good deal of disagreement about whether she had a
separate receiver aboard specifically for DFing.  Some (Elgen Long and Cam
Warren among them) insist that there was a Bendix RA-1 receiver aboard but I
have yet to see any evidence to support that speculation and Earhart's own
reported comments reinforce my opinion that the only receiver aboard the
airplane was the Western Electric 20B under the copilot's seat.  We know that
the 20B could receive frequencies in the 7500 range but had no DF capability
itself.

We also know that a Bendix Direction Finder coupling device was installed on
the airplane in late February/early March 1937.  This was not a receiver but,
rather, an add-on device that made it possible to DF with the Westwern
Electric 20B.  What we DON'T know (yet) is what the frequency range of the
coupler was.  Cam had earlier speculated that the coupler installed in
NR16020 was a Bendix RDF-1 as described in a 1936 "restricted" Navy training
manual.  The RDF-1 did have 7500 capability.  However, a close examination of
photos of the coupler installed in NR16020 reveals that, while generally
similar to the RDF-1 in size and layout, it is definitely NOT the same device.

One important difference is the number of "tick marks" on the band selector
switch.  Where the Navy instrument has 7 switch positions, Earhart's coupler
has only 5, suggesting a more restricted frequency range.  An August 1937
article in Aero Digest magazine says specifically that the commercially
available Bendix Direction Finders "...may be used as fixed-loop homing
devices or as navigational direction finding instruments within frequency
range of 200-1500 kcs."  If that is a description of the coupler aboard
NR16020 (which it appears to be) then the reason that Earhart could not get a
null on 7500 was because, although her receiver could be tuned to that
frequency and hear the signal, her Direction Finder could not respond to it.

I hope to have a Research Bulletin on this subject, with photos and drawings,
up on the website soon.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:43:05 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Russian Roulette & George Putnam

Side note to Dennis McGee's comments and my own:

I've read some allegations that George Putnam may have help schmooze if
not pressure his wife into the world flight attempt to sell another
batch of books for his publishing company as well as bask in the
limelight for himself.  Any comments or rebutals out there?

Doug B. #2335
***************************************************************************
From Ric

There's a big and very common misconception that George Putnam owned G.P.
Putnam's Sons publishing.  He didn't, nor was he heir to the family fortune.
He was a promoter, sometime publisher, and fulltime wheeler-dealer -but he
didn't need to push Amelia.  She was every bit as ambitious as he was.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:45:57 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: 2-3-W-3a

Received the artifact from FedEx a few minutes ago, and the results of my
preliminary analysis are:  "I dunno."  I THINK it's ceramic, but not at all
sure.  I'm contacting a friend who does a lot of shell analysis, including
discriminating shell from other stuff, and will see if she can take a look at
it.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:49:59 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: It's all a conspiracy

>>Not only that but Florida and Bermuda were a lot closer and more
fashionable in those days, if Morgenthau wanted to take his family on a
vacation..>>

Well, whoever this is from and regardless of all other content, anyone who
has to resort to this kind of logic to back an argument is on pretty thin
ice, credibility-wise. Phil 2276.

*************************************************************************
From Tom King

Wow, Ric, you sure are a nasty SOB, misleading us all like that.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

What makes me a nasty SOB is the willingness to publicly display that kind of
stupidity.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:51:24 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Conspiracies

Ric said:  "The "mystery plane" was not at high altitude but sounded
quite low (1,000 -1,500 feet?).  That's what was so weird about it."

We better be careful about this thread or the next thing you know
the conspiracy crew will say that Ric Gillespie claims he was in a time warp
and heard AE's plane circling the island.  The fact you didn't say this and
that several other people heard a similar noise is irrelevant, but it is an
easy, cheap shot at you and TIGHAR.

I'm not a psychiatrist nor do I play one on television, so my
thoughts on this are at best opinionated guesses.  Years ago the conspiracy
crowd made me angry because of their blatant ignorance and selective and
manipulative mis-use of valid data.  Thankfully that anger has given way to
sympathy for individuals who find it necessary to invent life as they would
like it, serve as martyrs for their cause, and look under their beds every
night fully expecting to find their worst fears.

Our best defense is more evidence examined in an open and free forum
of thought and criticism.  TIGHAR's been doing that for neigh on 10 years
now, and I see no reason why we should change.

LTM, an avowed factualist
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:34:37 EDT
From:         Charles Lim
Subject:      Curvature

I have already looked at several ideas that you have put forward. My
suggestion to Ric was to compare the curvature of the shard with the
curvature of the the end of the light bulb, to see if we have a match.

Alas, Ric had sent the item to Tom King for his analysis. Nevertheless I
did take a very close look at the photos and thought that the curvature
across width (not length as I thought) is not uniform either, something that
I wouldn't expect if the item was manufactured.

No conclusions, just more observations with suggested endings. This is
very time consuming, and a strain on the ol' eyes.

Charles Lim
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:47:51 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Mystery Plane

I'm not familiar with all the facts about the mystery plane, but did you
spot it on the last Niku expedition?  It could have been a ferry flight
delivery to somewhere.  They are always packed to the gills with fuel
and would explain the low altitude pass.  I can't think of any logical
reason other than that for being way out there.  Did it sound like a
single, light twin, turbine,etc-just curious.

Doug B. #2335
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We didn't spot it at all.  Just heard it.  Sounded like maybe a light twin.
I agree that the most likely explanation is a ferry flight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:46:45 EDT
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Re: Morgenthau Speculations

> Don Neumann wrote:
> His reference to ...'disregard of orders'... is puzzling to say the
> least, when AE/FN were civilians, not subject to 'orders' from anyone,
> least of all Captain Thompson of the USCG.

But when the government has gone to the trouble and expense
of providing a Coast Guard ship for AE to home in on, and when AE
was told in Lae via telegram that the Itasca could not high-freq. Radio Dir.
Find, and when her world-class navigator FN had written in PAA reports
that Radio Direction Finding was mandatory to find small destinations
after long over-water flights, then the real puzzle is not that someone
would say "disregard of orders" when they mean "what the h--- was this
stupid b---- thinking of?",  but rather, as Ric pointed out:  1.What was
AE thinking of?  and   2.How did she ever get FN to accompany her?
               LTM(who is a puzzle too),  HAG 2201.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Let me correct some more misconceptions.  The Itasca's presence at Howland
was not a one-sided favor that the government was performing for Amelia.  The
Itasca routinely supported the Dept. of Interior's "colonization" of Howland
and Baker to establish and maintain U.S. sovreignty.  The earlier
construction of the runways on Howland was speeded up and the scheduling of
this particular cruise was set to coincide with Earhart's needs because it
was very much in the national interest for a civilian flight to use the
island.

The Coast Guard never telegramed or otherwise attempted to inform Amelia that
her plan to DF on 7500 kcs was innappropriate.  On the contrary.  On 6/29
Itasca sent a message to Earhart in Lae that said, in part:

ITASCA WILL TRANSMIT LETTER A WITH CALL LETTERS REPEATED TWICE END EVERY
MINUTE ON HALF HOUR AND HOUR ON 7.5 MEGACYCLES
WILL BROADCAST VOICE ON 3105 KCS ON REQUEST OR START WHEN WITHIN RANGE
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:47:30 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Itasca

Re: Itasca Photo

If anyone needs an Itasca photo contact US Coast Guard in the National
Archives,File copy RG 26/  26-G-36-04-23 (6) of the Itasca "at sunset" April
23,1936.Its 8 1/2X11. Nice.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:50:13 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Morgenthau Speculations

In your posting of Rear Admiral Waesche's reply to Asst Sec Gibbons re the
newspaper accounts and the "rumors that somebody on the Itasca heard Miss
Earhart scream and heard the crash on the radio", he cites with confidence a
personal letter from Cdr Thompson that no sound of Earharts plane was heard
after the plane hit the water.

Would CDR Thompson's letter to Waesche,which is in addition to his official
report, be available through Coast Guard archives or do you have it? It may
shed some additional light on those last few messages and the circumstances,
etc. It appears CDR Thompson wrote this letter almost a year after the
incident.

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

Yes, Thompson's letter to Waesche would be nice to have, but it doesn't seem
to have made into the file.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:53:26 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Conspiracies

It's extremely likely that there are several "undocumented" visitors to Niku
every year. We've mentioned this general subject in the past: The visitors
are likely to range from relatively innocent "yachties" to more or less
criminal types engaged in who knows what. Many of them are probably spooked
away from the island when they see other visitors there. I suspect that
there are overflights along these lines as well.

william 2243
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Are you suggesting that someone would fly over Niku just for the heck of it
as a sightseeing flight?  Where would they come from?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:54:13 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Curvature

To Charles Lim:  Good point, but I just projected the curvature of the
artifact and found that -- as far as I can tell with my crude measuring tools
-- it does form a perfect circle, about 18 mm (11/16") in diameter.  What's
odd, though, is that the wall thickness seems to vary from about 3 mm to
about 5 mm.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:58:43 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      AE and DF

Ric says:

>" One important difference is the number of "tick marks" on the band selector
> switch.  Where the Navy instrument has 7 switch positions, Earhart's coupler
> has only 5, suggesting a more restricted frequency range.  An August 1937
> article in Aero Digest magazine says specifically that the commercially
> available Bendix Direction Finders "...may be used as fixed-loop homing
> devices or as navigational direction finding instruments within frequency
> range of 200-1500 kcs."  If that is a description of the coupler aboard
> NR16020 (which it appears to be) then the reason that Earhart could not get a
> null on 7500 was because, although her receiver could be tuned to that
> frequency and hear the signal, her Direction Finder could not respond to it."

So the Bendix DF coupler was upper long wave/medium wave only and could work
with the Western Electric 20B only on the lower medium wave frequencies. I
can buy that, what bothers me is something as significant as a frequency
miss match with two pieces of gear intended to be used in tandem seems to
have escaped both AE and FN. I understand the only part of the flight they
intended to use the DF gear was the Lae to Howland leg. Is there any
evidence to suggest that they fired it up for a familiarization/operational
test any time before Lae?

LTM

Kerry Tiller #235
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, on the flight to Hawaii in March, Manning mostly handled the radio but
AE got in some practice.  These quotes are from "Last Flight."

"6-7 hours out.  The stars are brilliant but with the moon they can't be seen
on the horizon.  Harry comes up to work the radio.  Paul flies while Harry
works over my head."

"At one point, when we were a couple of hundred miles from Hawaii, Fred told
me to drop down through the clouds and steer a certain course.
'Keep the Makapuu beacon ten degrees on the starboard bow,' he ordered.
What he meant was that I should tune my Bendix direction finder to indicate
the location of the beacon, and then head the plane as he directed.  This was
the first time I had used this recently developed Bendix instrument.  On this
Pacific hop it was one of the most interesting and valuable on board
performing perfectly."

Note that she makes no reference to a Bendix "radio" or "receiver", only a
"direction finder."  When Harry Manning works the "radio" he has to "come up"
presumably to the cockpit, because the remote for the Western Electric
receiver is on the instrument panel in front of the copilot (Paul Mantz).
When Manning operates the DF coupler he works over AE's head because that's
where the coupler is mounted.  Again - it does not appear that there is a
separate Bendix receiver aboard the airplane.

These are the first and last references to AE using the Bendix DF until the
test flight in Lae on July 1st (when she couldn't get it to work).
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:21:43 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Visitors to Niku

<<From Ric
Are you suggesting that someone would fly over Niku just for the heck of it
as a sightseeing flight?  Where would they come from?>>

I might agree with several visits a century, particularly if it is the
nineteenth century, when many Pacific islands were first charted.
Otherwise, Niku is tough to get to, tough to land on (by boat or plane), and
not on the way to anything else.  Even for yachties, other islands in the
line or Phoenix groups have more to offer, like a cold beer or some ruins
(guano mining or Polynesian). I'm not sure why anyone would be flying over
today, maybe ferrying something to Kanton from points west?
Dan Postellon
Tighar 2263  LTM (who takes trains)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Kanton is not a practical stop-over for ferry flights unless there was an
emergency.  The runway is fine but the only jet fuel there is old and
contaminated and the only avgas is several drums that were shipped there but
went unused by Finch.  And trust me - there is no cold beer on Kanton.

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

From Dave Osgood

Do you know if any of these "visitors" that arrive at Niku try to capitalize
on TIGHAR's research?  Are there any other people or groups that have looked
for AE/FN artifacts on Niku?  It seems as though someone with more money
than sense could be enticed to visit Niku - an uninhabited and remote island
that may hold the answer to the fate of AE and FN.  Treasure/historical
artifact hunters could really spoil TIGHAR's research and exploration...

Dave Osgood
***************************************************************************
From Ric

We know of no one else who has been to Niku looking for evidence of AE and FN
- but then, we wouldn't, would we?  Honestly, I really don't worry about it.
The place is wretchedly expensive to get to and, once you're there, it's
huge, hostile to novices, and not exactly littered with Earhart artifacts.  I'
m convinced that whatever may remain to be found requires a great deal of
knowledge and familiarity with the island to stand any chance of finding it.
That's why I have no hesitation about putting detailed information on our
website.  Take the "Seven" site for example.  I can show it to you on a map
and show you aerial photos of it on the island, but if you decided to drop at
least $70,000 and charter a boat and go there, you'd have one hell of a time
finding it and, if you did find it, you probably wouldn't be able to find
anything interesting unless you had assembled the same kind of background
knowledge and expertise that we have.

In other words, it would take another TIGHAR to give us any kind of
"competition" on Niku and, as far as I can tell, we're the only TIGHAR in the
forest.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:24:42 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      remoteness

Niku is not along any commercial air routes that I know of.  Small
aircraft need a place that sells avagas and engine oil.  From a previous
statement by Ric,  it sounds like that is in short supply in the pacific
as well.  I only know of a few island airports(in the pacific) that
have avgas frequented by some ferry pilot friends of mine and they
aren't anywhere near the Phoenix group.  Sounds like a joyride for
aviators with suicidal tendancies.

Doug B. #2335

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

Doug is right.  It's often hard to make people understand just how remote the
place is - until you've been there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:33:40 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Visitors to Niku

Re:

> Are you suggesting that someone would fly over Niku just for the heck of it
> as a sightseeing flight?  Where would they come from?

I seem to recall that in '89 (same year we heard the mystery plane) we were
asked by the Kiribati government to look in at Orona (if I'm recalling
correctly) where somebody thought there was a drug smuggling operation going
on.  You wisely decided that we weren't sufficiently well armed to go bust a
bunch of druggies.  The idea of anybody doing a drug op. in the Phoenix
Islands seems pretty far fetched, but SOMEBODY apparently thought it was
possible.

As for visits to Niku every year, the major thing that argues against it is
that there's no good anchorage.  One can always lie off and boat in through
the channel, as we do, but it would probably make for pretty short stays.

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

Farfetched is right, and somebody thinking it was possible doesn't make it less
farfetched.

I certainly agree about the unlikelihood of visits even once a year.  For one
thing, the landing channel can be hard to find if the tide is high and, even
if you find it and go ashore you really only have access to the abandoned
village area without a long and very uncomfortable walk, unless you bring a
launch into the lagoon, but you can only do that at high tide and even then
you have to know what you're doing.  It's just not a place that encourages
exploration.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:40:22 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: mystery plane

>Ric said:  "The "mystery plane" was not at high altitude but sounded
>quite low (1,000 -1,500 feet?).  That's what was so weird about it."

Did you ever make an investigation into what equipment was in the area at the
time (ie. US Navy, Brits, Aussies, etc.) that might have had a search plane
out on a routine patrol?  Since the US and others all have fairly long range
patrol aircraft associated with them, they could have been on a training
exercise which just happened to bring them over the island at that altitude.
Purely conjecture and even if you checked, the info might not be available if
the Navy or whoever was not into releasing info on the whereabouts of their
ships and planes at a specific time.

LTM,
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
#2200
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Twelve Squadron RNZAF does routine fisheries patrols of the Phoenix Group
under contract to the Republic of Kiribati (to make sure nobody is doing
unauthorized commercial fishing) using Lockheed P-3 Orion aircraft out of
Wellington.  We had one swing by to say hi in 1989.  The "mystery airplane"
we heard in '97 was no P-3.  Much smaller and piston powered.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:06:44 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      More from the Conspiracy Camp

This one was definitely submitted as a forum posting, although whether it was
submitted intentionally or not is another question.  It appears to be a
resonse to the previously-posted conspiracy treatise. I don't know who the
author although the email address looks familiar and he says I've
corresponded with him in the past, but at least it clears up the identity of
the author of the first piece - none other than Rollin Reineck.

I pass this stuff along only because there are still a lot of people out
there who assume that the Japanese-capture scenario is a rational
possibility.  I think the proponents of that theory are their own best
spokespersons.

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

Rollin,

Good comments.  Ric's input is another example of how one by one he
perpetually picks off credible evidence reveals that threaten his slant
- like ducks in a shooting gallery.  I am amazed at how he tries to so
completely and so thoroughly explain things that he has no possible
ability to really do.

In reading Morgenthau's diaries, it struck me how he never even referred
to the recent Earhart tragedy when he described his July 37' trip to
Hawaii.  He never referred to his meetings with Commander Thompson while
there either, which you confirmed via historical record, did take place.
(Ric of course does not credit you for being the first to bring this
information to light.)  These things alone significantly reveal the
"powder-keg" subject Earhart already was.  "Leave it alone and it will
settle itself" FDR used to often say.

A couple of years ago Ric Gillespie didn't have any idea about Gibbons.
In a email response to me he referred to Gibbons final comment regarding
"We have evidence that it's over... it would be awful to make it public"
as though the topic had already shifted away from Earhart at the time
that was said and he referred to Gibbons as "whoever he was."

In last year's excellent (1999) biography release of Eleanor Roosevelt
by Barbara Cook, she referred to the Malvina Scheider dictaphone message
in this way:

     On the way home from Delaware ER learned of Amelia Earhart's
disappearance.  ER wrote her daughter that she heard "about         Amelia
over the radio & felt even lower.  I do like her and I'll   miss seeing
her if she's gone but perhaps she'd rather go that      way.  Life might
not have held such a happy future for her."

     The mystery of Amelia Earhart has never been solved. ER's words    are
equally mysterious.  Did she refer to Earhart's marital         situation or
another reality we know as yet nothing about?*

    The day she left ER wrote:

    All day I have been thinking of Amelia Earhart somewhere over       the
Atlantic Ocean, and I hope she will make her flight safely.
    She is so utterly simple, which I suppose is an attribute of all    great
people.  She never seems to think anything she does         requires any
courage...

     ER had been impressed by the woman who said in June 1928 that      it
would have been "too inartistic" to refuse her first        transatlantic
flight.  She inspired ER to fly, and they had       become friends.  She
stayed at the White House, attended         Gridiron Widows parties, and was a
confidante.

    (Notice Cook's asterisk at the end of the second paragraph.  She
explained it at the bottom of the same page:)

    *A most curious exchange between ER and Henry Morgenthau, whose
Teasury Department presided over FDR's Secret Service and       Intelligence
unit, heightens the puzzle.  When ER asked him to       release the Itasca
file to ER's friends, aviators Paul Mantz,      Jacqueline Cochran and
others, Morgenthau's office sent ER an      unsigned memo:  The secretary
said he "cannot give out any more   information that was given to the
papers at the time of the       search for Amelia Earhart.  It seems they
have confidential       information which would completely ruin the
reputation of Amelia    and which he will tell you personally some time if
you wish to         hear it.  He suggests writing [Paul Mantz] and telling him
that    the President is satisfied from his information, and you are
too, that everything possible was done."  ER followed that
suggestion.


   Barbara Cook is among the most respected author/historians concerning
American politics of the 1930s' and 40s'.  Most consider her along the
same line as Doris Kearns Goodwin, or even the late Thomas Morgan.  She
immediately brought something to light about Morgenthau that we often
tend to overlook... which was his incredible reach as Secretary of the
Treasury during FDR's twelve years as President, evidenced by her
knowledge of his office "presiding over FDR's Secret Service and
Intelligence unit."  Morgenthau's relationship to FDR dated back to
preceding FDR's New York governorship, and he served with him then as
well. Their families were among the closest of friends and the two of
them were quite a formidable political team.

 Cook did the historically responsible thing regarding her analysis of
the "confidential information"... she viewed it for its face value.
Still she didn't come close to implying a conspiracy ultimately devoured
the true Earhart story and she didn't dare try to explain Morgenthau's
views without havinging all the factual variables that could have played
into it available to her.  She also, did not assume that Morgenthau (and
Gibbons) was wrong in his interpretations of the information they
"privately" regarded, not knowing,  or guessing at (as Ric does) what
his "confidential" information was.  Remember, the Dictaphone document
has never been afforded any official explanation. Not even close, though
it surely deserves one.  The easy way out of controversy here is to
assume the statements it contains are misleading and to try to provide
an explanation for why they are misleading.  That's all Ric does... with
all of the unexplained controversial Earhart material evidence.  He
explains it, but in his own terms. Obviously.   Tod

PS:  Thank You Gervais.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:07:49 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Itasca

And the Itasca was awarded a war service medal....

Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:10:29 EDT
From:         Name withheld for obvious reasons...
Subject:      Re: 2-3-W-3a

I think he should be committed just for dragging all of us who were once
considered 'comparitively sane" into this mess...
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:52:35 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      WOMBAT's conclusions

I know I've been pushing my own opinion a lot lately, and asking some odd
questions.

Some observations however:

One of Gallagher's statements was that "less than two miles away there is a
small grove of coconut trees".  This is interesting in itself as no-one
usually plants a "small" grove of trees in a commercial venture, and the
location on that isolated part of the lagoon looks suspicious.
This led to my questions of Ric regarding the trees shown on his map on the
lagoon shore opposite the main entrance without a planting date, and
represented by only one tree.

The map does not show the original plantings, but my personal experience
with coconuts is that if they were anywhere near the village, or the
opposite side of the main passage, and the tide washed fallen nuts to the
other side of the lagoon (and that promontory looks about prime to stop
floating nuts) then they will almost invariably germinate.

Right now I have 12 nuts from my own trees that have been lying on ground
that alternates from damp to dry.  They sprouted shoots, then roots.  Now I
have 12 small coconut trees waiting to be planted out.  Bear in mind, these
are lying on an ordinary lawn.

In their own natural environment, cocos sprout very easily - IF the crabs
don't get them!

Back to our castaways..

IF the coconuts on the north lagoon shore grew as a result of the original
plantings, the 1996 TIGHAR "7" site is quite neatly "just under two miles
away" almost to the yard if Ric's map scales are accurate.  There is no
other site than the 1996 site that seems to fit this description!  The
Aukeraime "shoe" site was "just over one mile away and across a passage"
from the village plantings.  Any other early plantings appear to be well
over 2 miles away.  Ric's map does not show the site of the original pre
1900 plantings.

Regarding the "distances" question..   Please before anyone considers
commenting on these, do what I did.  Go out to your front yard with a tape
measure and measure off 100 feet.

In Australia most yards (on older homes) are 22 yards (one chain or 66feet).
That makes 100 feet about the width of my yard plus half my neighbour's.
Don't take my word for it, measure it.  100 yards is 3 times that.

Gallagher said the bones were found about 100feet above high tide.  I
believe a lot of people have been confusing 100 feet with 100 yards.  Stand
inside one side of your yard.  Look to that side and see the bones lying
there at the corner of your yard, then look the other way and see the water
lapping where you worked out the 100 feet finished.

Not all that far, is it?

Now extend the 100 feet by 3 times.  Over here that's about my place plus 4
of my neighbours.  Not very far really is it?

Gallagher said the Kanawa tree was growing on the lagoon shore "not very far
from where the body was found".  If the body was found on the ocean side,
and the Kanawa tree was on the lagoon side, and Ric says the lagoon is about
100 yards from the ocean beach, then in reality, the Kanawa tree could still
be "not very far" from the bones.

This, then is the apparent problem.

Gallagher did not specify that the bones were on the lagoon side, only that
the Kanawa tree was.

If the bones were found on the lagoon side, he might have been expected to
say the Kanawa tree was "quite close" rather than "not very far".  On the
other hand, The tree and the bones may have been both on the lagoon side and
the tree may in fact have been a reasonable distance, but "not very far"
away.

The skull had been found, then buried and the working party apparently did
not search for more bones, just buried the skull.  The bones, when found had
been scattered.  There is nothing to say the bones and skull were found in
close proximity, nor that the burial site for the skull was in the immediate
vicinity of the bones.

The only photos we have of the lagoon shore, and an earlier comment of Ric's
regarding the composition of the sand around the lagoon suggests that the
beach there does not lend itself to use as a highway.  The bones were
supposedly discovered by a native who was walking along one end of the
island.

Was he walking along one end of the lagoon, around all the little bays etc?
Was he walking along one end of the island on the relatively straight ocean
beach, perhaps beach combing as he strolled along (a common enough pastime)?

Would one tend to walk along the ocean beach or the lagoon shore at that end
of the island or the ocean beach?

Of course we have the castaway him/her self.

Being in posession of a sextant box, and a Benedictine bottle, and corks
with brass chains leads one to think "European" castaway.

There is the possibility that one of the missing people from the Norwich
Castle wreck was washed up on the southern end of the island and was too
weak, injured or disoriented to make it back to the other end before the
rescue.  That could explain the posession of such items for sentimental
reasons, "clutching the past".

The spanner in the works here is the statement that "Dental condition
appears to have been good".  We have no way of knowing, but I have read
accounts suggesting that dental condition in these areas is affected by sand
getting in the food, and by certain restrictions in the diet.  It would be
interesting to know the dental condition of the average Polynesian islander.

Even aboard merchant ships at that relatively late period, an ordinary
seaman might be expected to have problems with dental hygiene, being away
from major cities for extended periods, and only in port for short ones.

Good dental condition would seem to suggest access to "civilised" dental
facilities.

As to a Polynesian native being reduced to bones.  Where were his pals?
More to the point, he appeared to have been healthy enough to kill birds and
turtle for food, and to have the means to make fire.  How then did a
"native" not find coconut trees?  Even on the ground, the nuts have food in
them, and recently fallen ones contain milk, though not as invigorating as
the milk from green nuts.

Only a European would not be able to open coconuts, or a native too
seriously injured to walk (and catch turtle or birds) might fail to find
them.

Both femurs (very large bones) and half the pelvis were found, along with an
assortment of other medium sized bones.  But very few small bones.  If there
was no evidence of wild pigs on the island (they would have had to be
domestic pigs left by the original planters, and believe me they leave
massive destruction as evidence) or of dogs (I think we discovered that dogs
will chew on any bones they find - even dry ones - just out of habit), and
if coconut crabs don't actually carry their prey back to their lairs, we are
left with rats.

Providing rats were in evidence, and Gallagher seems to think they were, the
femurs because of their size, the skull, because of its shape, and the
pelvis - size again - would seem to limit the rats' endeavours to move the
body.

Rats in the wild often approach the size of small cats.  I have had a tug of
war with a rat caught in a trap - and lost!  They are very strong, and very
determined.  I would suspect rats as the reason for the scattering of bones.
Pigs and dogs would have no problem at all with a human thigh bone.

If the network of trails is in the same general location, then one might
begin to suspect they were made by islanders searching for more bones,
especially if one of those trails terminates at a Ren tree.

The "T" shaped sandy area appears to be in a well protected, yet clear area,
suitable for protection from the elements, whilst still being open enough to
prevent the claustrophobic feeling dense vegetation can cause.  Could be the
night time "camp" I have speculated on before (and am still doing now).

This, then was the result of my recent questions, and the basis of my
reasoning that:

The bones were found under a "Ren" tree on the ocean side of the island, not
far into the vegetation, at a point that was about 100ft from the normal
highest tide line.

The Kanawa tree was on the lagoon shore but still in the general vicinity of
the bones.

The "7" site was the base for clearing operations which were interrupted by
the death of Gallagher, and perhaps as a mark of respect, were discontinued
at the site of "his house".

The skull had been buried at the "7" site, and for various reasons (probably
so as not to disturb the bones site with great flat feet tramping all over
it all day) that was made the base for the search for more bones near the
Ren tree.

I'd suspect that unless the coasties cut it down, the Ren tree was left
growing exactly where it was, for sentimental or superstitious reasons.
(Wonder how long they live?)

There are more bones there somewhere.

There may even be the inverting eyepiece from a sextant to be picked up by a
metal detector - IF it wasn't carried around as a curiosity before being
discarded (since it had a lens, it was probably carted around).

The reason the inverting eyepiece was found and the sextant wasn't is that
the eyepiece had a lens that could be used to make fire, but the sextant was
too bulky to carry round on the island.

Rats were responsible for the dispersal of the bones.

The network of "trails" in the area possibly consist of original walking
tracks of the "castaway" and/or the tracks made by the islanders searching
for bones and other items.

The sandy "T" area is worth a look on the ground.

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

(Oops, wrong musical, we're supposed to be in South Pacific...)

Of course this does not suggest in any way that the bones were either Amelia
or Fred, or a merchant seaman, or an ageing polynesian native.

Th' WOMBAT  (Who is currently retiring to his burrow in expectation of all
sorts of things being thrown in his direction)

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

Whew!  That's a lot of conclusions, many (but not all) of which I agree with.
 I'll offer my thoughts in a separate posting.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:52:42 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: Wombat's conclusions

Wombat say:

>The bones were found under a "Ren" tree on the ocean side of the island, not
>far into the vegetation, at a point that was about 100ft from the normal
>highest tide line.

Ric say:
I agree, and I think it was at the Seven site.

Wombat say:

>The Kanawa tree was on the lagoon shore but still in the general vicinity of
>the bones.

Ric say:
I agree, and I think I can show you the very tree in the Dec. 1, 1938 aerial
photo.

Wombat say:

>"The "7" site was the base for clearing operations which were interrupted by
>the death of Gallagher, and perhaps as a mark of respect, were discontinued
>at the site of "his house"."

Ric Say:
I think that the clearing operations evident in the June 20,1941 aerial photo
of the Seven site, and the evidence of some kind of structure we found there
in 1996, are nothing more, or less, than the result of the "organized search"
ordered by vaskess and apparently carried out by Gallagher.

Wombat say:

>The skull had been buried at the "7" site, and for various reasons (probably
>so as not to disturb the bones site with great flat feet tramping all over
>it all day) that was made the base for the search for more bones near the
>Ren tree.

Ric say:
I think it's a little more complicated than that.  What I really like about
the kanawa tree on the lagoon shore is that it provides a specific "magnet"
that draws people to that spot.  We know that the settlers were harvesting
kanawa for future use in the months preceding Gallagher's arrival because
Gallagher says, in December of 1940, that the tree from which the box was
made was growing on the edge of the lagoon "until a year ago."  Irish didn't
arrive to live on Gardner until September.  I can easily see a work party
spotting a big ol' kanawa tree growing on the lagoon shore, going ashore and
cutting it down and, in the process, coming upon the skull.  I have a much
harder time with the skull being found by general beachcombing or turtle
hunting along the ocean beach.  It seems more logical to me that the skull
was dragged from the original expiration site (sounds better than death site)
to somewhere near the lagoon shore where the kanawa-kutters found and buried
it.  Otherwise, we have to postulate that it was pure coincidence that the
highly-desirable kanawa tree on the lagoon shore just happened to be not very
far from where the skull was found for totally unrelated reasons.  Most of
the bones and artifacts were found as a result of Gallagher's initial search
which began at the burial site and spread out from there.

Wombat say:
>I'd suspect that unless the coasties cut it down, the Ren tree was left
>growing exactly where it was, for sentimental or superstitious reasons.
>(Wonder how long they live?)

Ric say:
Good question.  I don't know, but I do know that Ren trees are common along
that vegetation line.  I can't imagine why the Coasties would cut down a tree
and it doesn't seem likely that Gallagher would cut it down.

Wombat say:
>There are more bones there somewhere.

Ric say:
Well, there certainly WERE more bones there somewhere.  Whether they've
survived these 60 years is another question.

Wombat say:
>There may even be the inverting eyepiece from a sextant to be picked up by a
>metal detector - IF it wasn't carried around as a curiosity before being
>discarded (since it had a lens, it was probably carted around).
>
>The reason the inverting eyepiece was found and the sextant wasn't is that
>the eyepiece had a lens that could be used to make fire, but the sextant was
>too bulky to carry round on the island.

Ric say:
Possibly.  All we can do is look.

Wombat say:
>Rats were responsible for the dispersal of the bones.

Ric say:
No way Jose.  The rats on Niku are little brown Polynesian rats - more like
large mice.  The bone scattering that happened could, in my opinion, only
have been performed by coconut crabs, pigs or dogs - and I'm leaning toward
dogs.

Wombat say:
>The network of "trails" in the area possibly consist of original walking
>tracks of the "castaway" and/or the tracks made by the islanders searching
>for bones and other items.

Ric say:
The "trails" appear only in the December 1, 1938 aerial photo which was taken
before the arrival of the settlers.  If they are indeed human-made "trails",
the human that made them almost had to be the castaway.

Wombat say:
>The sandy "T" area is worth a look on the ground.

Ric say:
Absolutely.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:01:02 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Morgenthau Speculations

Ric Wrote:

> The Coast Guard never telegramed or otherwise attempted to inform Amelia that
> her plan to DF on 7500 kcs was innappropriate.  On the contrary.  On 6/29
> Itasca sent a message to Earhart in Lae that said, in part:
> ITASCA WILL TRANSMIT LETTER A WITH CALL LETTERS REPEATED TWICE END EVERY
> MINUTE ON HALF HOUR AND HOUR ON 7.5 MEGACYCLES
> WILL BROADCAST VOICE ON 3105 KCS ON REQUEST OR START WHEN WITHIN RANGE

The relevant piece of telegram relating to the Direction Finder would seem
to be on 29th June:
PERIOD ITASCA DIRECTION FINDER FREQUENCY RANGE 550 TO 270 KCS PERIOD

So obviously "The Coast Guard never telegramed or otherwise attempted to
inform Amelia that her plan to DF on 7500 kcs was innappropriate."

Th' WOMBAT

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

I think you may be a bit confused.  When the Coast Guard tells AE "ITASCA
DIRECTION FINDER FREQUENCY RANGE 550 TO 270 KCS" they're, in effect, saying,
"If you want us to take a bearing on you, you'll need to send us a signal in
this frequency range."

That has no bearing on the prospect of AE taking a bearing on THEM with her
direction finder.  If she tells them to send her a signal on 7500, they have
to assume that she knows what she's talking about and can actually DF on such
a high frequency.  They might have responded by saying something like, "You
sure about that?  Sounds like an awfully high frequency for DFing." but they
didn't.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:10:45 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Morgenthau Speculations

Do we know if AE knew the Itasca's time was differenct from actual local
from local time?  Could that have made a difference as well?  Or was it
immaterial since AE was using Greenwich time.

My main question in this, however, has to do with FN.  We all pretty much
agree that Fred was probably the best long-range over water navigator around
at the time.  This is the guy who, on the first clipper flight, got them
there with pinpoint accuracy - and was experienced using RDF technology.  Do
we know what kind of RDF setup Pan Am was using on the clippers?

ltm,
jon 2266
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Itasca asked AE what zone time she would be using.  She told them she would
use Greenwich time and must have assumeed that they would act accordingly.
Instead, they ignored her and used local time, which was a half hour off
(thereby causing needless confusion).

Pan Am used big DF stations (called "Adcock Stations") on the ground at their
destinations.  The approaching flight would transmit a signal.  The Adcock
Station would take a bearing and send a message, in code, to the aircraft
telling it which way to fly.  Earhart tried to do that with the Itasca but
the signal she sent was on 3105, far too high for the Itasca's DF to use, and
she was not able to understand code or receive voice messages and so could
not have gotten bearing information in any event.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:12:47 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Conspiracies

> From Ric
>
> Are you suggesting that someone would fly over Niku just for the heck of
> it as a sightseeing flight?  Where would they come from?

Silly, from Lae, New Guinea by way of the vicinity of Howland Island, of
course!
ltm
jw 2266
***************************************************************************
From Ric
(sigh)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:15:42 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: It's all a conspiracy

Neat!  Just what TIGHAR needs!  No signature, no mention who may have authored
the message.   No mention of the who it was addressed to.

I wonder if this message was intended as misinformation.

LTM,
Roger Kelley

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

Naw.  Just Rollin Reineck having some trouble with his email.

"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:16:56 EDT
From:         Charles Lim
Subject:      Re: Curvature

For Tom King,

The thing that I really need to know is if this is ground shell. The
variation in wall thickness (assuming that the circles you've traced are
perfectly circular), could mean that this is a manufactured product with a
severe defect.

There is unfortunately, no way of knowing this unless, we first know what
the material is. As for ground shell, I've never seen it before, and even
worse I'm possibly seeing it first time via the internet!! (Yes the value of
'hands on' experience, or lack of it in my case.) :)

I was wondering, however, if you could trace the shape on the
perpendicular axis to see what kind of length we would need to get a
diameter of 1 inch. I say 1 inch because the diameter of the bulb (2-3-W-3)
is about that. Thank you for your obsevations.

Charles Lim.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:23:20 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: mystery plane

Ric wrote,

<<Are you suggesting that someone would fly over Niku just for the heck of it
as a sightseeing flight?  Where would they come from?>>

People do lots of nutty things in airplanes. You should know that by now
<grin>. Sure, it's possible: Or someone was doing a private "real world
flying challenge" (say out of Fiji), or scouting the island for who knows
what reason? People with money and time on their hands can do lots of things
that might seem a little weird; perhaps, so is the idea of depending on a
tube operated DF in 1937 to find a tiny speck of rock and grass in the
middle of the Pacific.

william 2243
**************************************************************************
From Ric

If I had to speculate, I'd say it was most likely a light twin being ferried
to Australia or New Zealand, last stop possibly Christmas Island
(Kiritimati).  The guy is bucking some headwind and is down low anyway.
Passes near Niku and sees that there's a boat standing off the reef, takes
just enough of detour to make one pass overhead (because he's bored out of
his gourd) and keeps going.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:24:25 EDT
From:         Sheila
Subject:      Re: Russian roulette

I have been trying to find out about the Noonan/Pallette connection through
the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel but so far with absolutely no success.  Since
I live very near there, however, I shall persevere!

Sheila
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:43:59 EDT
From:         Rick Seapin
Subject:      Re: Russian Roulette & George Putnam

There is no doubt that George was born a "Flimflam" man, a "Huckster", and
died as a "Promoter". The question is, why did Fred join the team?

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

Fair question.  We can only speculate, but the way it looks is that Fred had
recently gotten fed up with Pan Am's abusive work schedule and failure to
keep it's promises and had quit to open his own navigation school.  He had
just concluded a divorce and was planning on re-marrying.  Initially, his
participation in the flight was a last-minute deal when everybody figured out
that Harry Manning wasn't up to the navigational task and Noonan was hired
three days before departure. Fred was to accompany the flight from Oakland to
Hawaii and thence to Howland, where he would leave and come home on the
Itasca.  They figured AE and Manning would be able to find Australia on their
own and Fred couldn't go any farther than Howland anyway because he didn't
have time to get an Australian visa.

After the debacle in Hawaii, Manning quit, Noonan got married, and the flight
got reversed which put the need for preceise over-water navigational skills
at the end, rather than the beginning of the trip.  We really know nothing
about the deal that GP offered Fred to take on the job of navigator for the
whole flight, but it seems likely that Noonan saw the attendant publicity as
a big boost to his navigation school plans.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:49:50 EDT
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      light-bulb base

Ric wrote:

>What we've been able to determine is that it is virtually identical
>to a pre-war, regular ol', British light bulb.

Why pre-war Ric? I know that at least in Greece you can walk into a
store and buy one/many as they are still in use along with the threaded type
which is gradually taking over since the EU. I could testify in court that
this artifact is the base of an ordinary "British type" (for want of a
better classification) light bulb. I've changed dozens of burnt ones.

    Natko.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

It's the copper rather than aluminum(?) base that indicates pre-war
manufacture (although I haven't seen any documentation on this).
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:02:06 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Visitors to Niku

This is certainly not something I think is worth a lot of speculation, but do
we know what kind of avgas was available on Kanton in '89?

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

As far as I know there was no aviation fuel of any kind availble on Kanton in
'89.  Kiribati put a load of Jet A there in, as I recall, about 1995 when
there was serious talk about instituting airline service that would go
Honolulu, Christmas, Kanton, Tarawa and back, but it never happened and the
fuel just got (and is still getting) old.  There hadn't been any avgas
(aviation gasoline as opposed to jet fuel) there since - heck - the 1950s,
until The Flight Of The Finch when those drums of gas where shipped there in
late 1996 or early 1997.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:09:35 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: mystery plane

The Phoenix Islands are not near anyplace where the U.S. Navy plays or
transits. We are not sensitive about where our ships and planes are (except
for the submarines). We are here to keep stability in the region. We need to
be seen for that deterrence to be effective. Sort of like the old time cop
on the beat. At any rate, Ric, what month in 1997 was the expedition? I can
check easily enough. Also, I don't know what kind of aircraft we might have
that would sound like twin radials. I'm pretty sure everything we have now
is turbo prop. Maybe an S-2 or an S-3.

LTM
Kerry Tiller #2350
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Not twin radials.  Just a garden-variety piston twin (opposed engines).  It
was late February.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:11:56 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Itasca

To Wombat:

Can you detail what the war service medal for Itasca was and for what for?
I never bothered tracking the Itasca after it was sent to Britain via
Lend-Lease, nor did I bother to find out whether it was scrapped or was a
war victim.

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

"For distinguished service in covert operations in the Central Pacific, 1937."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:42:13 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Curvature

Charles says:     I was wondering, however, if you could trace the shape on
the perpendicular axis to see what kind of length we would need to get a
diameter of 1 inch. I say 1 inch because the diameter of the bulb (2-3-W-3)
is about that. Thank you for your obsevations.

Tom responds:    I'm afraid I don't understand what you're after here.  The
sides of the fragment are flat as far as I can see; the only curvature is the
one we've been discussing.  You could extend the sides of the fragment out
three miles and not get a 1 inch diameter.  What am I missing?

LTM (whose diameter is greater than that)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:47:08 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: mystery plane

Sheesh, am I losing my mind?  I thought sure it was '89 when we heard the
mystery plane.  Says something about the accuracy of anecdotal evidence,
doesn't it?

TK

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

We can all be committed together.  We saw the RNZAF patrol plane in '89 and,
on the last day on the island in '89 we also had a very high fly-over by a
supersonic something-or-other (looked like an F-111 with the wings tucked)
that flattened the place with the best sonic boom I've ever heard.  The
now-famous mystery plane was heard on the first day ashore in 1997.  It's in
the field notes.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:49:04 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: remoteness

For Doug and Ric,

Maybe AE and FN hid out on another Phoenix Island, refueled, and flew over
Niku on the 60th anniversary for a commorative flight and you guys missed
her. Sounded like a twin engine, and last side letters were 020? Would her
license still be valid?
Ron Bright.

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

More likely a surveillance flight by Col. Reineck.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:51:32 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      conspiracies and mystery planes

Maybe we can have a "best conspiracy" contest, that I'll buy a t-shirt for
the winner of.

There's just gotta be a wild eyed conspiracy lurking in the combination of
Sir Harry's supression of the bones discovery and the lend-lease of Itasca
to the British...

My favorite "Niku mystery plane" conspiracy involves Russian organized crime
smuggling embezzled loot to Nauru (the real part of the story--I think I
faxed you a newspaper clipping a few months ago) via (put on hip waders at
this point) some rickety old Antonov transport (they made a few prop twins)
that overflew Niku enroute.  They flew so far out of the way to, of course,
check up on the secret U.N. organized crime task force base that the whole
PISS colony was just a cover for the construction of, dontcha know.
TIGHAR's visits are to resupply the base with fuel for all the One World
Government black helicopters, and printer paper for all the butt-implanted
bio-chip tracking devices.  We can even involve Morganthou by saying that AE
did land at Niku, inadvertently discovered the secret base, and had to be
"silenced" perhaps by setting her up as a New Jersey tupperware dealer, in
the interest of national security.

LTM, who says "chest waders, not hip waders"

Dave Porter, 2288
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Sorry.  I'm not at liberty to discuss it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:54:17 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: AE and DF

> These are the first and last references to AE using the Bendix DF until the
> test flight in Lae on July 1st (when she couldn't get it to work).

It's probably irrelevant, but I haven't seen the Lae station frequency
anywhere.

Th' WOMBAT
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Earhart's tranmissions to Lae were heard on 6210 kcs.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:57:28 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: AE and DF

> I think you may be a bit confused.  When the Coast Guard tells AE "ITASCA
> DIRECTION FINDER FREQUENCY RANGE 550 TO 270 KCS" they're, in effect,
> saying, "If you want us to take a bearing on you, you'll need to send us a
> signal in this frequency range."

Not at all, it is summed up by:

> That has no bearing on the prospect of AE taking a bearing on THEM with
> her direction finder.

Which was pretty much the point of the post.  To remind people that each
party wanted to DF on a different frequency!

Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:00:04 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: mystery plane

I'll bet you can get a cold beer on Kirimati.

Dan  2263

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

Yeah, I imagine you can, but Kiritimati is a looooong way from Niku.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:01:11 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Itasca

> From Randy Jacobson
>
> To Wombat:
>
> Can you detail what the war service medal for Itasca was and for what for?
> I never bothered tracking the Itasca after it was sent to Britain via
> Lend-Lease, nor did I bother to find out whether it was scrapped or was a
> war victim.
> **************************************************************************
> From Ric
>
> "For distinguished service in covert operations in the Central Pacific,
> 1937."

Or just maybe: it was an earlier war...

http://www.history.navy.mil/medals/victory/victorye.htm

World War I Victory Medal service credits

Crews aboard the following U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships qualified for the
Victory Medal (later renamed the World War I Victory Medal) for service on
the dates listed and for the service clasps noted.

(About half way down this particular page you'll find...)
Itasca (USCG)       02 Jun 18      11 Nov 18      Patrol

Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:33:21 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Russian Roulette & George Putnam

First, in reference to Fred's association with Eugene Pallette - have we
explored the possibility that Eugene was actually associated with George,
and that his affiliation with Fred was only peripheral, or at least not
affiliated with the flight?  When did Fred write to Eugene?  Wasn't it while
they were enroute?  Anyway, since we know that Eugene was pretty well known
as a "survivalist", maybe he just wanted Fred to teach him celestial
navigation...

Second, I think your assessment of why Fred got involved is probably pretty
accurate.  Your explanation of my previous question regarding the Pan Am
DF'ing describes exactly what AE (and probably more precisely Fred) were
attempting to do with Itasca; in addition to their attempt to use their own
Bendix unit.  In any event, in my (somewhat hazy) recollection, on the Pan
Am flights, Fred still had to get them to within a couple hundred miles for
the DF to be of any use, right?

In a picture I saw recently of Amelia holding a loop antenna, it looks like
there's a wheel at the bottom of the unit that's maybe 6 inches in diameter
that would be used to turn the loop.  Am I interpreting this correctly?  In
other words, someone had to reach up to the cockpit ceiling to rotate the
loop?  That seems to be consistent with the quotation from AE's book that
you posted yesterday (or so) describing Harry working over her head.

ltm
jon  2266
***************************************************************************
From Ric

First, the letter from Noonan to Pallette was written from Dakar, Senegal,
French West Africa on June 4th.  It's clearly a personal letter from Fred to
Gene apologizing for "having trouble sending you the messages I promised" and
providing a brief description of the Atlantic crossing.  No indication that
Putnam is involved.

As for DF, yes, Fred's job at Pan Am was to get the flight within a couple
hundred miles.  The Bendix loop AE is holding in the photos appears to be the
MN-5 model which is manually controlled but does not have to be mounted
directly over the coupling unit.  The actual rotation of the loop was
accomplished by turning the small wheel you mention, which was on the cockpit
ceiling directly under the loop.  We're still trying to sort out exactly
where the coupling unit was mounted but it looks like it was on the pilot's
side eyebrow panel in the upper left-hand corner of the cockpit.  For Harry
Manning to "work the radio" for DFing he would indeed be working over
Amelia's head.  Very awkward.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:45:38 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Remoteness

For Ron Bright;

60 years together on another Phoenix island..................maybe AE
liked FN better than George P.  His birth-control glasses do give him a
rather ugly mug.

Doug B. #2335
*************************************************************************
From Ric

??????????
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:43:53 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Morgenthau Controversy/Origin of

I think I have found the genesis of Morgenthau's enigmatic and perplexing
remarks to E. Roosevelts secretary as recorded in his transcript of 13 May
1938. It may also confirm the anonymous writer's contention that Morgenthau
met with CDR Thompson in Hawaii on 29 Jul 37 not as a fortutitious vacationer
but as CDR Thompson's boss in order to explain the Earhart disappearance and
the Coast Guard's role.

On 4 Jul 37, four naval operators and a Oakland ham operator heard the same
message (garbled): "281 North Howland call KHAQQ beyond north don't hold with
us much longer above water shut off."  Based on this message the Itasca, Swan
and the British steamer Moorsby diverted their search patterns and converged
on this position nw of Howland. According to John Burke's book, CDR Thompson
radioed Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau (since the Coast Guard was under
the Treasury Dept)s the following message:(1)

        "For Secretary Morgenthau: Intercepts of ragged transmissions
indicate possibility Earhart plane still afloat 281 miles north Howland.
Bearings radio direction finder on Howland confirm approximate position. We
will arrive indicated position this afternoon about 1700 ..."

This message, if authentic, would certainly suggest to Morgenthau and other
high level officials a tragic ending and possiblity a lack of better response
to Earhart's message. This would also explain, if the message had not yet
been declared a hoax,why Morgenthau would fly to Hawaii in late July to
personally interview CDR Thompson for the facts and thus received a "personal
report"; this suggests also that Morgenthau used the ostensible "vacation"
explanation to cover up his real mission.

What it doesn't explain, is if Morgenthau received this message and followed
up with CDR Thompson, he would have known that noone in the radio room heard
her scream, crash into the sea and thus not describe the "last few minutes"
story to Roosevelts secretary inferring an effort to never make it public,as
it wasn't a "very nice story". If Morgenthau was clear on the Navy's search
and that AE's last message was only "hurried,frantic and apparently not
complete",why his attempt to sugarcoat the truth to Eleanor Roosevelt, in a
non-public report?
    Note: The frantic almost incoherent voice characterization has been
debated before on the forum. Tighar believes that her last transmission was a
routine description of her search effort for Howland and indicated no sense
of imminent danger,etc.

Major Questions:
1. Was the 281 position message really a hoax,if so how do we know?
2.Did Morgenthau in fact meet CDR Thompson in Hawaii;if so source,or
documentation.
3. Did CDR Thompson really send this message to Morgenthau? If so are all
Itasca messages accounted for or is this message in the archives?
4. Why would CDR Thompson skip chain of command and send a radio message to
the Sec. of Treasury Morgenthau directly?
5. Do Morgenthau's diary reflect receipt of this message?
6. If Morgenthau's meeting with CDR Thompson occurred why would he continue
to describe Amelia's last minutes in that fashion.

Aw the mystery continues!
Source (l) Winged Legend,John Burke, p.230-231

LTM,
Ron Bright

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

Ah Ron, you've been reading those books again.  Burke has some of his facts
wrong and presents other information out of context to create impressions
that are not justified.  Here's what happened:

On July 3, 1937 the Coast Guard Commandant sent Itasca a message saying:
SECRETARY OF TREASURY MORGENTHAU DESIRES LATEST INFORMATION CONCERNING SEARCH
OF PLANE AMELIA EARHART.  REQUEST THIS INFORMATION BE SENT COASTGUARD
HEADQUARTERS IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT OF THIS MESSAGE.

On July 4 Thompson sent this report:
FOR SECRETARY MORGENTHAU
HAVE SEARCHED AREA NW TO NE OF HOWLAND RADIUS 120 MILES WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS
THOUGH VIS
WEATHER AND SEA CONDITIONS EXCELLENT.    EXTRA AND VIGILANT LOOKOUTS POSTED
AND CONTINUAL USE BOTH HIGH POWER SEARCHLIGHTS DURING DARKNESS.   AM
REASONABLY CERTAIN PARTY IS NOT AFLOAT IN AREA INDICATED.  COMMENCED
RECTANGULAR SEARCH THIS MORNING AT DAY BREAK 180 MERIDIAN TO HOWLAND ISLAND
BETWEEN LAT 020 NORTH AND 130 NORTH.   ESTIMATE ORIGIN THIS SEARCH WELL
TO WESTWARD AND LEEWARD OF PLANE POSITION IF PLANE DOWN WEST OF ISLAND.
PRESENT CURRENT SETTING WEST ONE HALF KNOTS,  WIND ESTIMATE ONE KNOT WEST.
WEATHER OVERCAST, VIS EXCELLENT, SEA VERY MODERATE AND FAVORABLE.   WILL HAVE
COVERED INDICATED AREA TO HOWLAND BY TUESDAY EVENING 6 JULY.  ESTIMATE
SEARCHING THREE THOUSAND SQUARE MILES DAYLIGHT VIS AND ONE THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED SQUARE MILES DURING NIGHT.

On July 5 Thompson sent his next report:
FOR SECRETARY MORGENTHAU
INTERCEPTS OF RAGGED TRANSMISSION INDICATE POSSIBILITY EARHART PLANE STILL
AFLOAT TWO EIGHTY ONE MILES NORTH HOWLAND.  BEARINGS RADIO DIRECTION FINDER
ON HOWLAND CONFIRMED APPROXIMATE POSITION.  WE WILL ARRIVE INDICATED POSITION
THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT 1700 PLUS ELEVEN AND ONE HALF TIME.

On July 6 Thompson sent:
FOR SECRETARY MORGENTHAU
SEARCHING AREA REPORTED POSITION EARHART PLANE SINCE DUSK YESTERDAY.  RESULTS
NEGATIVE.

This was the last report sent directly to Morgenthau.  As you can see from
the above, the jump in the chain of command was in response to the
Secretary's direect request.  It seems clear that when the news that Earhart
was missing hit the papers, Morgenthau recognized that he had a first-class
public relations crisis on his hands and wanted direct reports of how the
search was going.  Thompson, of course, responded as ordered but there is no
mention of the sensational allegations about screams or crashes which later
spread as rumor.

Burke's description of the famous "281" message is not accurate.  Three
operators at Navy Radio Wailupe in Hawaii heard the fragmented phrases sent
in very poorly keyed code late on the night of July 4 and passed the
information to the Coast Guard Hawaiian Section.  The message was interpreted
as indicating that the airplane was afloat 281 miles north of Howland and the
Itasca and a British freighter were sent to the scene.  Everybody got pretty
excited and the message and the anticipated rescue were widely covered in the
press.

On July 6, as the ships were arriving on the scene, Coast Guard headquarters
in San Francisco reported:
FOLLOWING REPORTED BY AMATEUR OAKLAND AS RECEIVED 0635 TODAY TUESDAY QUOTE
NRUI NRUI KHAQQ TWO EIGHT ONE NORTH HOWLAND CANNOT HOLD MUCH LONGER DRIFTING
NORTHWEST WE ABOVE WATER MOTORS SINKING IN WATER UNQUOTE NO VERIFICATION

Of course, the search found nothing 281 miles north of Howland and, later
that same day, San Francisco reported further on the Oakland amateur:
DEFINITELY DETERMINED REPORT FALSE.  VERIFY (sic) AND REPUTATION OF MAN
MAKING REPORT EXTREMELY DUBIOUS AFTER INVESTIGATION

Our own assessment that the original 281 message heard by Wailupe was also a
hoax is based on Bob Brandenburg's modeling of the propagation possibilites
given Earhart's transmitter, antenna and the atmospherics at the time.  In
short, there's almost no chance that a transmission sent by that airplane
anywhere within the possible range of places it could be, could be heard in
Hawaii.

It's clear that Morgenthau was intensely interested in the search for the
first few days at least, but the reports provided by Thompson hardly account
for the rumors that serviced later.  That Morgenthau did go aboard Itasca in
Hawaii later that year is confirmed in the ship's logs.  Whether some
conversation with someone at that time was the source of the rumors is pure
speculation.  I see no reason to think that Morgenthau's vacation in Hawaii
was anything but a vacation, and his apparent failure to mention anything
about the Earhart disappearance in his diary is, in my opinion, pretty good
evidence that it was not a big deal to him.  A famous flyer went missing, the
Coast Guard searched for her, nothing was found, end of story.

Today there is this impression, especially among Earhart fans, that her
disappearance was somehow one of the pivotal events of the 1930s, if not the
20th century.  It wasn't.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:03:46 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Respect

With respect to the recent disparaging remarks on the forum about Colonel
Reineck, I understand that you and other members of the forum disagree with
many of the views and opinions that Colonel Reineck holds, but, is it too
much to ask that such disagreements be posted with a little more respect?
You are, after all, showing disrespect to a man who has given much to ensure
that we can enjoy the freedom we do today.

David Evans Katz
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Oh give me a break.  Lots of us on this forum have "given much to ensure
that we can enjoy the freedom we do today."  Our former or current service to
our country is utterly irrelevant to this historical investigation.  Respect
here has to be earned by rational thought, sound research, and intelligent
discourse.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:16:30 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: mystery plane

You don't have to go all the way to Christmas, the Viaku Lagi hotel on
Funifuti usually has cold beer. (After 5 O'clock)

Kerry 2350

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

Yup, mostly Fiji Bitter.  Fosters if you're lucky.  You can shoot a game of
pool for 50 cents (Aussie) or you can chat with the General Manager, Risasi
Finakaso.  She was born on Niku and claims to be an officially recognized
grandaughter of Nei Manganibuka.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:17:39 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      remote island visits

I was just surfing the net last night.  People do strange things, including
visiting remote uninhabited Pacific atolls with poor anchorages for no
particular reason <http://www.afreehome.com/barnacle55/>.   As Ric
points out, this is not a good idea, and such visits may end badly.  Still,
there may be unrecorded visits to Niku, and these might confuse the
archeological record.  This might explain the bar code fragment.
Daniel Postellon Tighar 2263  LTM (Who prefers 4 star hotels to atolls)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:19:49 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Noonan/Pallette letter

In case anyone is interested, there is a picture of that letter on my Web
site at:

http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/earhartpictures.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:36:20 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Re: Respect

>> Respect here has to be earned by rational thought, sound research, and
intelligent discourse.<<

And contempt is earned by failing to show respect to those who deserve it.

David Evans Katz

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

Well, not here it's not.  I'm a lot more interested in what you think and why
you think it than I am in who you respect.

***************************************************************************
From Jon Watson

Hi Ric,
Well said, but you forgot to include "sense of humor".
ltm
jon 2266
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Oh yeah, right, and sense of humor.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:08:39 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Cold War warriors

David Evans Katz said:  "You are, after all, showing disrespect to a
man who has given much to ensure that we can enjoy the freedom we do today"
regarding this forum's alleged lack of respect for Col. Rollin "Rollicking
Rollie" Reineck.

You know David you're absolutely right.

Hell, man, I fought The Great Anglo-Greco War of 1963-64 on Crete
and I've never gotten over it and never got the respect I'm due.

It was horrible on that island, man, hand-to-hand combat in the bars
and bedrooms of Iraklion, Crete.  Drug abuse (exclusively Schlitz) was
rampant.  The living conditions were pure hell; temperatures often soared to
the mid-80s and the barracks weren't even air conditioned.  All we had to
cool off were the southerly breezes off the Mediterranean Sea.

As for the work environment, man, don't even ask.  Surrounded by
stacks and stacks of Cold War era electronic gear (we're talking TUBES,
here, dude!) giving off tons and tons of heat, so much so that we had to
work in T-shirts because the antiquated 1950's vintage air conditioning
couldn't get the temperatures below 74 degrees.  It was brutal, dude.

And there was no R&R "in-country" -- we had to go all the way to
Athens, man.  It was like a 60 minute plane ride!  All we had "in-country"
was a thin 150-foot wide sandy beach about a half-mile long.  The sun beat
down like you wouldn't believe, man.  Guys stumbling around, reeling from
the heat and drugs, their skin turning brown from the sun -- I don't ever
want to have see that again, man.

As for time off -- forget it.  They had us humping 8 hours a day
working four on, one off; four on, one off; and four on, three off.  And we
had to be on time.  But the worst was they made us memorize the four-digit
code for the security lock at the compound.  I'll never work that way again
in my life, I swear to God!

The food?  Just one thing -- the friggin' chow hall only served four
meals a day!  And then they closed at midnight.  Pure torture, man, pure
torture.

But, hey dude, I humped my butt though those 15 months.  I survived!
I'm a winner!  Any one who wasn't there won't believe the crap we saw.  But
all of us Cold War Warriors know what really went down, and man, it wasn't
pretty.

Right on, David Evans Katz, right on!

LTM, who is proud of all veterans
Dennis O. McGee #0149
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Dennis, you're a bully.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:46:51 EDT
From:         Ron bright
Subject:      Re: Morgenthau Controversy/Origin of

It is nice that TIGHAR can function as the Oracle for Earhart infor. Wow you
must have an incredible amount of data readily availabe to respond to
somewhat rather complex questions,ie.the Morgenthau stuff, so quickly. I
guess cynicism is indeed a virtue and as you suggest it is hard to read any
books or articles about Amelia without looking for credible documentation,and
not even trusting that. Sounds like CDR Thompson was in a real pickle trying
to search and explain everything the Coast Guard was doing to his boss.

Thanks,
Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm no genius.  The Earhart Project Research Library CD, Vol. 1, is a
terrific resource.
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/CDad.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:52:56 EDT
From:         Charles Lim
Subject:      Re: Curvature

To Tom King,

I'm working from two photos here so I can only guess what I'm seeing with
reasonable certainty.

The cuvature I'm talking about is on the uppermost outer surface of the
artifact visible in photo6b.jpg. I don't know if this is actually there, but
from the photo I can see it. It is a very tiny curved bit at the top. I'm
not getting the whole picture here, and that bit on the photo could be part
of something else, such as the way the objest is oreintated in the photo.

I hope this helps.

Charles Lim

ps you shouldn't worry so much about your diameter.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:21:35 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: AE and DF

> From Ric
>
> Earhart's tranmissions to Lae were heard on 6210 kcs.

I was referring to the transmissions AE was trying to get a NULL on at Lae
(and couldn't due to the closeness or power of the transmitter).  The
transmitter was Lae's broadcast frequency.  Was wondering what the frequency
was - out of curiosity.

Yes, I know - I'm the one in Aus, so I can check it out....  I was being
lazy.

Th' WOMBAT
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Oh, okay.  You're thinking 21st century procedures.  Lae did not have one
particular frequency like a modern control tower.  Chater says:
"At 6.35 a.m., July 1st, Miss Earhart carried out a 30 minute air test of the
machine when two way telephone communication was established between the
ground station at Lae and the plane. The Operator was requested to send a
long dash while Miss Earhart endeavoured to get a minimum on her direction
finder. On landing Miss Earhart informed us that she had been unable to
obtain a minimum and that she considered this was because the Lae station was
too pwerful and too close."

Unfortunately, Chater does not say specifically what frequency Earhart was
receiving on, but we know that it was her usual practice to transmit and
receive on the same frequency.  If "two way telephone communication was
established between the ground station at Lae and the plane" then it had to
have been on one of three frequencies - 3105, 6210, or 500.  Without a
trailing wire, the Electra had effectively no ability to transmit on 500, nor
was the Western Electric 20B able to receive that frequency - so we can for
get about 500 kcs.  Earhart considered 3105 to be her "night time" frequency
because propagation on the frequency is best during hours of darkness.
Chances are, therefore, that the test was carried out on 6210 kcs (no mention
is made of a change in frequency before the "long dash" is sent).  If that is
true, then it's no wonder that she was not able to get a minimum - 6210 is
way too high a frequency for effective DFing with the equipment she had.  AE
really doesn not seem to have understood the necessity for using lower
frequncies when trying to DF.

I love it when you ask these questions.  It forces me to go back and re-read
stuff and all kinds of new details crop up.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:22:14 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Curvature

To Tom,

Charles wants you to extend the "ends" to make a circle I suspect...

Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:37:35 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette letter

Don Jordan wrote:

>In the days before Zip Codes, tracking down this Box could be a challenge.
>(P.O. Box 162, Hollywood).

Unlikely, Don,

Hollywood was a fairly large place even back in 1937.  The Hollywood Post
Office had private boxes for rent where letters could be held until
collected.  I use one myself - but not in Hollywood.  If you wrote a letter
to me at P.O. Box 1693, at my post office, I would get it even without a
post (zip) code...

Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:48:03 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      Noonan/Pallette

An off-forum discussion about any possible Noonan connection with the motion
picture industry (and hence, an introduction to Gene Pallette) set off this
light bulb (copper one-inch base, twin pin type) in my head.  I'm sure there
was a Hollywood entertainment film about the first China Clipper flights.
(Was it called "China Clipper"?)  When was it made?  Any chance Pallette was
in it?  Or that it was made by the same studio to which he was under
contract? Any chance that Noonan acted as technical advisor or something?
Just a wild hunch.  Research needed. (Bugler, sound the charge.)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:10:32 EDT
From:         Rick Seapin
Subject:      Re: Cold War warriors

Wow! sounds like you had it rough during the Anglo-Greco War. What a Hell
hole. I was lucky, I was sent to a vacation village called, Quang Tri. You
guys are warped.

My question, when AE crashed on take-off in Hawaii, I understand the
make over cost 50k. Who put up the money for repairs? Is there a record, and
were more powerful engines installed on the Electra at that time or is that
bunk?

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

According to Carol Osbornes' book (written with AE's sister Muriel),  "Amelia
My Courageous Sister", the repairs cost roughly $14,000.  Osborne provides no
documentation for that figure but she has an extensive collection of original
paperwork she got from Lockheed when she worked for the company.  She also
says that an equal sum had to be raised to provide for the worldwide
logistics of the flight.  Earhart seems to have done "fund-raising" to cover
the expenses.  Bernard Baruch sent $2,500 "Because I like your everlasting
guts."  Richard Byrd sent $1,500.  Jackie Cochran's husband, Floyd Odlum, put
up $10,000 and Vince Bendix, one of the original Purdue contributors, kicked
in another $20,000.

The engines on the airplane when it was inspected following repairs were the
same ones it was delivered with - 550 hp Pratt & Whitney R1340  S3H1 "Wasps"
serial numbers 6149 and 6150.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:14:05 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      "China Clipper"

I recall reading about the film, and I don't recall seeing it listed among
Pallette's credits, but I (and probably dozens of others) will check...
ltm
jon  2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:28:55 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      China Clipper

"China Clipper" was a Warner Bros. movie made and distributed in 1936,
directed by Ray Enright, produced by Samuel Bischoff (and Louis Edelman, Hal
B. Wallis and Jack L. Warner), starring Pat O'Brien as pilot Dave Logan,
Beverly Roberts, Ross Alexander, Humphrey Bogart and Marie Wilson.
Additional familiar names in the cast include Milburn Stone (later "Doc" in
the "Gunsmoke" television series) as a radio operator, William "Wild Bill"
Elliot as a pilot (uncredited), and Frankie Faylen (later Dobie Gillis'
father on TV) as a weatherman (uncredited).  While Fred Noonan is NOT listed
as a technical consultant, Paul Mantz (uncredited) did much of the flying.
William I. Van Dusen was the technical advisor.

Plot:  Pilot Dave Logan (Pat O'Brien) starts a Washington to Philadelphia
airline but suffers financial problems.  With Flying Ace Hap Stuart (played
by Humphrey Bogart), he starts a Caribbean clipper-ship airline and
ultimately launches the trans-Pacific route.  This is based somewhat on the
history of Pan-American Airlines.

Eugene Pallette was born on July 8, 1889 in Winfield, Kansas (near Atchison,
maybe?) and died in Los Angeles on September 3, 1954.  The 5-foot 9 inch
Pallette was a  "...gargantuan-bellied, frog-voiced character actor [who]
was a staple in the movies during the 1940's.  He ended up an isolated,
right-wing bigot and lover of Hitler."

Pallette appeared in 239 motion pictures from 1913 t0 1946, including such
notable films as "My Man Godfrey", "Stowaway", "Topper", "Adventures of
Robin Hood" (as Friar Tuck), "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", "Young Tom
Edison", "Mark of Zorro" (as Fray Felipe, essentially the same role as Friar
Tuck translated to the Zorro format, which is essentially the same story as
Robin Hood), "The Lady Eve", "The Bride Came C.O.D.", "The Big Street" (a
Damon Runyan tale in which Pallette played Nicely Nicely Johnson, a role
later made famous in the Frank Loesser musical "Guys and Dolls"),  and
"Heaven Can Wait".  It does not appear from Mr. Pallette's credits that he
appeared in any aviation-related movies, and "China Clipper" was certainly
not among his credits.

The source for this information is the Internet Movie Data Base
(www.imdb.com).

David Evans Katz
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Thank you Mr. Katz.

**************************************************************************
From John King

The movie "China Clipper" now belongs to Ted Turner's Turner Classic Movies
and I do have a copy.

Best wishes,

John King
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Cool.  How are the flying scenes?  Does it look like they had cooperation
from Pan Am? (For example, were they using a real Sikorsky or Martin flying
boat?)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:30:08 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: China Clipper

Further review shows that Pallette had nothing to do with China Clipper -
interestingly enough, Paul Mantz did work on the film.  I followed that
thread, and find that there were no films where Mantz and Pallette worked
together.  Of course it doesn't mean that they didn't know one another, and
maybe Mantz met Noonan through the film.  I haven't been able to find any
list of Fred in the cast and crew, but the list I saw doesn't show
"technical advisors".  Mantz conceivably could have known Pallette as well,
and this could have been how Fred and Eugene met.  Or maybe they just met
over lunch at the studio commissary... who knows.
ltm
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:41:01 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: remote island visits

For Dan Postellan -- Interesting site, Dan; Flint Island sounds like it
presents a lot of the same challenges Niku does.  Nice that they had an
encounter with Birgus latro.

There's no question people have visited Niku from time to time, other than
us.  We know of several official expeditions since the 1970s, and there's no
telling how many informal visits there've been, like the one described on the
site to Flint.  Because the island DOES present serious challenges, it's
certainly not on anybody's regular tour route, but it doubtless gets visited,
and things like the Flint Island account (to say nothing of our own web site)
may encourage more visitors.  But as Ric's pointed out, a short-term visitor
isn't likely to do much that would give us any heartburn -- unless, of
course, they set out deliberately to "salt" the island.

LTM (who suggests a low-salt diet)
Tom King

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

Of course, salting the island with a smoking gun (there's a mixed metaphor
for ya) would involve finding NR16020 somewhere else and bringing pieces to
Niku.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:46:26 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: AE and DF

Ric says:

>Where the Navy instrument has 7 switch positions, Earhart's coupler has
>only 5.....August 1937 Aero Digest magazine says... the commercially
>available Bendix Direction Finders "...may be used .....within frequency
>range of 200-1500 kcs."

Makapuu, T. H. beacon was undoubtedly a low
frequency beacon, and most probably right
in the 200 - 400 kc/s range. We, someone,
can probably find the actual frequency.  Charts
and lists still exist. If the Lae flight, Bendix
unit was the same unit, then it doesn't look
good for the theory that she had a new,
advanced, or secret DF unit for the high
frequencies, the short waves. 5 switched
ranges would not be an unreasonable
number to cover up thru only 1500 kc/s. And,
it seems unlikely her Bendix unit would have
tuned all the way from 200 kc/s through
7500 kc/s. That would have been desirable,
but Bendix apparently could not deliver such
a wide range even in the one they supplied
the Navy.

>If that is a description of the coupler aboard NR16020 (which it appears to
>be) then the reason that Earhart could not get a null on 7500 was because,
>although her receiver could be tuned to that frequency and hear the signal,
>her Direction Finder could not respond to it.

Okay, so maybe AE didn't pick up on this.
How not FN, he seems to have been
technically minded. He would have to come
forward, right? to turn the loop when things
started going bad. Surely he would have
checked the DF settings, and would have
had to have seen the chart (if it's at all like the Navy type DU ) where you
look up the correct number setting to set the dial at. How could
he miss that? And yet, they failed in the earlier DF test at Lae.

What is going on?

Hue Miller

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

Let's remember that we have no evidence to suggest that Noonan messed with
the radio at all.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:55:01 EDT
From:         Bob Bruce
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

I couldn't find any Noonan/Pallette  connection with any film, even
uncredited, but I did find a movie that had Paul Mantz and Gene
Pallette in it. It was called "The Bride Came COD" (1941). Mantz  was
a stunt pilot in the film. Perhaps  Fred was introduced to Gene
Pallette by Paul Mantz. The two of them were going to be on the World
Flight, if everything went according to plan.

LTM,

Bob Bruce
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The timing - 1941 - is a bit problematical for Fred to meet Gene via mutual
acquaintance with Paul Mantz via "The Bride Came COD."
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:56:28 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Curvature

To Charles Lim -- OK, I think I know what you're after.  Yes, it is curved,
and when I plot out the curvature (VERY inaccurately, from such a tiny
piece), I get a circle with a diameter of about 4.5 cm (one and
three-quarters inches).

I'm sending the piece on to a shell expert.

It's not MY diameter that's such a problem; it's Mother's, who sends her love.

TKing
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:58:16 EDT
From:         Mike Holt
Subject:      Noonan/Pallette

> From Sheila
>
> I have been trying to find out about the Noonan/Pallette connection through
> the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel but so far with absolutely no success.  Since
> I live very near there, however, I shall persevere!

Good luck, Sheila.  I'm interested in the return address.  When
you're asking about the Roosevelt, have a look at city directories
for Hollywood in 1937.  The P. O. box might be listed.  Check the
advertisements first, though: it might have been a business.

I have a list of Pallette's movies.  I'm looking around for a
source on or a link to Pallette.

Michael
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:09:48 EDT
From:         Michael Holt
Subject:      Noonan and his quirks

We know that he drank, but did he have any other twists to his
personality?   He seems to be one of the more obscure members of the
event.

How much of Noonan's "legendary" drinking was pure hype, and how
much of it was real?   As far as I can determine, men of that age
in that era talked a lot about drinking, and were proud of it.  But
from the evidence of my father's generation (Dad likes to talk, and
I like to listen), there wasn't as much as we hear.

Noonan was recorded as having spent all night drinking, and as
having to be poured into the Electra.   I recall that there are
stills (and a movie?) that show clearly that Noonan was quite
unimpaired.   I can't imagine that the professional he was would
have permitted himself to be less than the best.

Did FN write anything that was published?

Has a biography of him been published?

Did he ever use a different name?  That seems to have been not
uncommon.

Michael Holt
**************************************************************************
From Ric

This horse is so dead that we even have a FAQ about it on the website
(http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaq.html)

Yes, Noonan drank.  No, there is no evidence that he had any kind of drinking
problem.

We have a few pieces that he wrote - a Pan Am memo describing his
navigational techniques on the pioneering clipper flights and a letter on the
same subject which he wrote to navigation school owner P.V.H. Weems.  That
letter was subsequently published in an avaition periodical.  Noonan wrote
well.

I'm aware of no published bio of Fred Noonan, although I've heard of at least
two in progress.  Perhaps TIGHAR will write one, but first we need an ending.

 He did not use a different name.  We have tracked his professional life
through official licenses and records back to the time he went to sea as a
youth.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:29:47 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Noonan/Pallette

According to a search done on the Internet Movie Data Base (which is pretty
exhaustive), the name Fred Noonan does not appear as cast, crew, writer,
director, producer or technical advisor on any film ever made in the United
States.  The Internet Movie Data Base includes even those names that were
uncredited on films.

David Evans Katz
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Hmmm, dead end.  So how, I wonder, did Fred and Gene hook up?  Pallete, I
assume, spent most of his time in and around Hollywood.  Fred probably lived
in the Bay area while he was working for Pan Am's Pacific Division.   Perhaps
they met during the two-month interim between the First and Second World
flight attempts.  Fred married Mary Bea on March 27 in Yuma, Arizona, then the
happy couple drove to Burbank (and wrecked the car on the way).

If Fred and Mary Bea are living in Burbank while the airplane is being
repaired, where are they staying? (Mary Bea lives in Oakland.)  Any chance
they're at the Roosevelt Hotel?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:51:55 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Lae Frequency

To Wombat -

Guinea Airways at Lae used 6540 kc for voice, and operator
Balfour (with or without AE's knowledge) retuned her commun-
ications receiver (WE) to that frequency so he could converse
with her after she took off for Howland. (He transmitting on
6540, she transmitting on 6210).

For the test DFing, however, I recall she was attempting to
get a CW signal from nearby Salamua. Or, if not, then Lae's
CW transmitter.

Indications are that GA's transmitters were not licensed.
The call signs do not show up in the Berne list.  The ITASCA
tried "LAE" which, at least according to logs, came out "PAE".

Cam Warren
(whose Aussie pen name is "Trevor 'Boomer' Blinman")

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

Whoa there Cam ol' buddy.  Where does it say that Balfour "retuned" Earhart's
receiver to 6450?

>>For the test DFing, however, I recall she was attempting to get a CW signal
from nearby Salamua. Or, if not, then Lae's CW transmitter. <<

What are you recalling from?  That's not what Chater says she did.  Do you
have a more reliable source?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:53:02 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

For the folks who are researching this, I wonder if the connection could be
maritime, not aviation.  From the list of movies it looks like Pallette did a
number of sea epics in the 20s 30s.  Pretty far-fetched, I know.  Did Pallette
ever do an autobiography?  Any biographies?  Someone may also want to check with
Equity, the actors union, to see if Noonan ever joined in hopes of having a movie
career.  I can't believe I'm suggesting all this stuff.  This one's weird, even
for us.

--Chris
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:21:10 EDT
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Howland DF

"BEARINGS RADIO DIRECTION FINDER ON HOWLAND CONFIRMED APPROXIMATE
POSITION."

Perhaps a dumb question by a non-radio person, however, if the 281 radio
message was a hoax, upon what was the Radio Direction Finder on Howland
taking a bearing?   Also, I seem to recall that the RDF on Howland was
being operated from batteries on the Itaska, which was no longer in the
vicinity of Howland.

Additionally, the website posted by Dan Postellon, describing the hair
raising adventures of the yacht 'Barnacle' & it's crew at Flint Island,
certainly documents the great difficulty experienced in trying to
navigate a course to a very remote island in the central Pacific, even
with avaliable & reliable, modern radio communications!
Don Neumann
**************************************************************************
From Ric

>>upon what was the Radio Direction Finder on Howland taking a bearing?<<

No way to tell.  Were they hearing a weak signal from close by or a strong
signal from far, far away?

>>I seem to recall that the RDF on Howland was being operated from batteries
on the Itaska, which was no longer in the vicinity of Howland.<<

We're not talking extension cords.  The Itasca had batteries that were
normally used to rotate a gun platform.  In this case, the batteries were
brought ashore and used to power the HF/DF on the island.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:28:18 EDT
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

(Ric's question: If Fred and Mary Bea are living in Burbank while the
airplane is being repaired, where are they staying? (Mary Bea lives in
Oakland.)  Any chance they're at the Roosevelt Hotel?)

The 1938 LA City Directory lists, "Noonan, Fredk. 1527 W. 7th". According
to Susan Butler's book, he apparently also had a post office box there
during the world flight. As this address is not listed the previous year,
I'm assuming he established it in 1937, which makes sense. I'm guessing
this is where he stayed when he was in LA during the airplane repair.

blue skies, -jerry

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

Assuming that's not the street address for Roosevelt Hotel, it sounds like
the Noonans may have rented a house.  This is probably more flagellation of
deceased equines but I wonder if 1527 W. 7th still exists.  (Somebody is
going to go knock on the door and a withered old man in a wheelchair wearing
a Noonan Project T-shirt will answer.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:10:34 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Lae Frequency

> Indications are that GA's transmitters were not licensed.
> The call signs do not show up in the Berne list.  The ITASCA
> tried "LAE" which, at least according to logs, came out "PAE".
>
> Cam Warren
> (whose Aussie pen name is "Trevor 'Boomer' Blinman")

If anybody is curious, the reason for the "LAE" vs. "PAE" confusion is the
Morse letter "L" is:  . _ .. / the Morse letter "P" is:  . _ _ .
If a sloppy sender hesitated in his rhythm after the second "dit" in "L",
someone copying the character might hear that "dit" as a "dah".

LTM (who never mixes up dits with dahs)

Kerry Tiller #2350
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:19:05 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

Why is a connection between Eugene Pallette and Fred Noonan of any
importance?  I must have missed something along the way.  Sorry if I missed
it.  Can you explain again (briefly)?

David Evans Katz

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

A minor curiosity.  Noonan wrote Pallete a letter from Dakar which makes it
pretty clear that he had agreed to provide Pallette with frequent telegram
updates on the progress of the World Flight.  This seems a bit odd.  Earhart
and Putnam had an exclusive deal with the Herald Tribune network for news of
the flight.  Why is Fred trying to wire updates to a movie actor? Are they
really good buddies or do they have some kind of deal cooking?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:20:49 EDT
From:         Sheila
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

The Hollywood Roosevelt that exists now is still, unless I am totally
mistaken, the same one that existed in 1937.   I live quite near there but
am having trouble finding anybody associated with the hotel who will help me
find any records they might have regarding Eugene Pallette.

If I continue to be thwarted, I plan to dress in my best old Hollywood
period style and storm the place!  Actually, I might do something like
that!!!

Sheila
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:30:58 EDT
From:         Sheila
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

My husband is going to find out if 1527 W. 7th still exists.  I doesn't
sound like it's too far from us.  As to the withered old man in a
wheelchair... stranger things MUST have happened somewhere, sometime,
somehow.

Will keep your posted.

LTM,
Sheila
P.S.  I am renewing my Tighar membership.  Sorry to be so slow about it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:32:18 EDT
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

Try finding the PR flack for the Roosevelt. I had a similar experience in
Oakland. Noonan first lived at a local hotel, the Claremont, which still
exists. Unfortunately, while they used to keep their old records (like the
desk registration books) because it is somewhat historic, new corporate
owners decided to toss everything when they took over a few years ago. Once
again proving the profit motive destroys much that is valuable in life.
They used to even have a librarian/historian on staff. I learned all this
disappointing info from the PR person who, at least, knew what had
happened. Better luck.

blue skies, -jerry
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:04:12 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

What is the source  (book, news artical...etc) of the info below posted
by David Katz?

"Eugene Pallette was born on July 8, 1889 in Winfield, Kansas (near Atchison,
maybe?) and died in Los Angeles on September 3, 1954.  The 5-foot 9 inch
Pallette was a  "...gargantuan-bellied, frog-voiced character actor [who]
was a staple in the movies during the 1940's.  He ended up an isolated,
right-wing bigot and lover of Hitler."

Thanks, and LTM,
Roger Kelley #2112
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, I can vouch for the gargantuan-bellied, frog-voiced part.  Just go down
to the video store and rent the Errol Flynn "Adventures of Robin Hood."
Pallette is Friar Tuck.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:41:44 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Lae Frequency

>Where does it say that Balfour "retuned" Earhart's receiver to
>6450?"

Gotcha! You should research these things a bit more carefully,
using the "scientific method" of course.

(I'm going to start betting you $100 a pop on points like this,
to pay for all my time re-confirming everything for "ol'
buddy" Ric. So this is the last freebee.)

Balfour himself said he did it, in a letter to Gervais, and
probably elsewhere, although I could understand he might have
felt a bit guilty, considering the consequences of his self-
serving action.

I wrote a piece about it, but decided "The Man Who Murdered
Earhart" was a bit strong, and I couldn't think of a better
title.

Oh, if you'd restudy the Chater Report (Page 4 of the original)
you'll find:

"At noon on June 30th Miss Earhart tested out the long wave
receiver . . . . on 600 meters. During this period the Lockheed
receiver was calibrated for reception of Lae radio telephone,
and this was, on the next day, tested in flight."

Further down the page:

"At 6:35 a.m., July 1st, Miss Earhart carried out a . . . test
. . . . when two way telephone between the ground station at
Lae and the plane. The Operator [Balfour] was requested to send
a long dash while Miss Earhart endeavored to get a minimum on
her direction finder."  She later reported no success "because
the Lae station was too powerful and too close."

Elsewhere it was reported she tried Salamua, with no better
result. (Not confirmed).

Oh, and your good friend Dick Strippel also mentioned "two-
way" 6540/6210 messages between Balfour and Earhart until the
presumed switch to 3105. (This is what is known as "duplexing"
to us radio guys.) He's the only person besides me to pick up on
Balfour's fiddling.

Perhaps I should further point out that 6540 was indeed the
frequency of the Lae station, and it was not a simple matter
to switch it to 6210 (in those days). Much easier for Balfour
to retune AE's receiver to 6540, while he listened to her
on 6210.

Nuff said?

Love to Dad - his day is coming up.

Cam Warren
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Not nearly 'nuff.  Before you gloat yourself to death, let's take a look at
your evidence.

<<Balfour himself said he did it, in a letter to Gervais,...>>

Anecdotal recollections offered decades after the events in question.  Maybe
true, maybe not.  An indicator of what MIGHT be true.  Nothing more.

<<if you'd restudy the Chater Report (Page 4 of the original)
you'll find:

"At noon on June 30th Miss Earhart tested out the long wave
receiver . . . . on 600 meters. During this period the Lockheed
receiver was calibrated for reception of Lae radio telephone,
and this was, on the next day, tested in flight.">>

Let's look at the whole quote:

"At noon on June 30th Miss Earhart, in conjunction with our Operator, tested
out the long wave receiver on the Lockheed machine while work was being
carried out in the hangar. This was tested at noon on a land station working
on 600 metres. During this period the Lockheed receiver was calibrated for
reception of Lae radio telephone, and this was, on the next day, tested in
flight."

600 meters" is 500 kilocycles.  The Western Electric 20B had four bands -
Band #1 covered from 200 to 400 kcs; Band #2 covered from 550 to 1500 kcs;
Band #3 covered from 1500 to 4000 kcs; Band #4 covered from 4000 to 10,000
kcs.  So how, I wonder, did Earhart's "long wave receiver"  receive a signal
on 500 kcs?  Chater's reliability on this detail seems a bit shaky and he
doesn't mention at all what frequency Balfour calibrated the receiver to.  If
you can provide documentation that the Lae radio telelphone transmitting
frequency was 6540 kcs (as you claim) then you'll make your point, but you
haven't done it yet.

<<Elsewhere it was reported she tried Salamua, with no better
result. (Not confirmed). >>

Where is elsewhere?  Without a source this is meaningless.

<< ...your good friend Dick Strippel also mentioned "two-
way" 6540/6210 messages between Balfour and Earhart until the
presumed switch to 3105.>>

My good friend Dick Strippel didn't understand the rules of evidence any
better than you do.  Balfour's anecdotal claim of two way communication is
directly contradicted by Chater - a contemporaneous written primary source.
No contest.

<<Perhaps I should further point out that 6540 was indeed the
frequency of the Lae station, and it was not a simple matter
to switch it to 6210 (in those days). Much easier for Balfour
to retune AE's receiver to 6540, while he listened to her
on 6210.>>

I say again,  6540 may have been Lae's standard transmitting frequency but,
so far, you have not established that.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:50:21 EDT
From:         Sheila
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

Your letter unfortunately gave an unpleasant twist to the run-around I am
getting from the Roosevelt.  Before it was renovated and restored,  it
became a... well a bit of a dump.  Which could very well mean it's
historical records were dumped, too.   I am sure their is no
librarian/historian on staff or they certainly would have directed me there.
These certainly are not good signs.

However, I am going to badger some people I know through the local
historical society I belong to and see if anybody knows where I might find a
past librarian/historian for the Roosevelt.

blue skies,

Sheila

P.S. to Ric:   Imagine if  I knock at the door of the  Hollywood Roosevelt
historian and he turns out to be the same withered old man in a wheelchair
wearing the Noonan Project T-shirt!

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

We'd have to add it to the long list of other bizarre discoveries we've made
on this journey.

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

From D.M.

Speaking as a script writer, it's almost frightening how many people working
in the airline industry appear to want to write for film and every one I've
ever met seems to have at least part of an unproduced script tucked away
somewhere and they long to talk about it with people already in the film
industry. (Imagine all those air-traffic controllers working their flights
while plotting narrative lines and you'll realise why I find it rather
frightening.)

Without a shred of evidence, I'm wondering if Fred Noonan might have been
interested in some sort of film-writing career and this would explain his
connection with Pallette.

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

Interesting hypothesis, but hard to test.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:52:20 EDT
From:         Charles Lim
Subject:      Thanks

To Tom King,

Thanks very much for your help. I have no idea what this means at the
present moment. The assumption was if the circle that you last plotted could
at somewhere along it circumfrence produce a perpendicular circle of an inch
or greater, the fragment could be part of the light fixture for the bulb.

But these are my assumptions. They are only guesswork. What really
matters is the lab results, not my comments.

I will be popping off on holiday soon. Good luck and take care.

Charles Lim

ps I thought LTM meant 'Long Term Member'.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:40:46 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Frequencies to  frequent

July 1st test

"Operator [Balfour] was requested to send a long dash... She later
reported no success "because the Lae station was too powerful and too close."

??? Was this test really viewed so offhandedly that she couldn't
fly out 10 or 15 minutes to reduce the signal?? Amazing, if she
came to that conclusion with such alacrity.

"At noon on June 30th Miss Earhart, in conjunction with our
Operator, tested out the long wave receiver on the Lockheed
machine while work was being carried out in the hangar. This was tested at
noon on a land station working on 600 metres. During this period the Lockheed
receiver was calibrated for reception of Lae radio telephone, and this
was, on the next day, tested in flight. "

Anyone here thinking this sounds possibly like a clue of 2 different
receivers? 600 meters, the international seagoing "calling" (initiating
contact before moving to another channel) and distress frequency,
was a *very* important and busy frequency. That figure, 600 meters,
is in the forefront of consciousness like the number of hours in a
day, or days in the week.

I cannot see how an  expert electronics person could make such
error, even if the notes were written years later. How do you forget
such a thing? The "Land station" was likely a shore marine-traffic
station, which would have been very often busy "working" ships and
thus a good station to use to check the receiver's functioning. (If
someone has a Berne List handy, it could likely even be identified,
as it had to be non-distant, for noon reception of longwave.)
The term "Long wave receiver" is kind of a strange way of saying
"long wave receive" if we're only talking about the one WECo.
receiver.

BTW, i almost hesitate to bring this up, but did she not send ~
"....cannot get a null....", and not "....loop dead, can't hear anything
on it....."    Sounds to me she indeed could copy Itasca both on
loop and wire, but just no null with the loop device.

Semi-conspiracy Theory #633-E: did someone monkey with the
antenna connections from the loop to receiver at Lae? Straight wire
antenna never disconnects when switched to "Loop" only, on
whatever kind of "Navigation / Communication" switch the plane
had? Thus, no null, and louder signal than expected with the loop
functioning normally, alone.

--Hue Miller

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

I have a 1937 Berne's List.  Lae is not in it (nor should it be since it was
neither a "shore" station nor a ship).  The most likely candidate for the 500
kcs signal was Salamaua, (JVQ in the Bernes' List) which was just 20 miles
across the Gulf of Huon from Lae.

Evidence of two receivers?  Maybe, maybe not. First, we have to assume that
Chater has the frequency right (remember that Chater is not an " expert
electronics person"), but let's say that he does.  We then have to assume
that Earhart's WE20B had not been modified to enable it to receive that
frequency, but we know that she went to considerable trouble to be able to
transmit on 500 and it wouldn't make much sense for her not to be able to
also receive on that frequency.  Nowhere is there reference to Earhart's
"receivers".  The reference is always singular.  I still have to come down on
the side of a single receiver.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:42:42 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Pallette info

Roger Kelley asked:
<<What is the source (book, news artical...etc) of the info below posted
by David Katz?>>

Mr. Kelley may wish to re-read my posting, in which I give my source as the
Internet Movie Data Base, a comprehensive source of information (including
complete cast and crew lists, and the names of everyone else involved) of
all motion pictures ever filmed in the United States and many foreign films
as well.

David Evans Katz
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:44:22 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      The Friar Tuck Papers

Based on my conversation this afternoon with Ric, and
information developed by others about Eugene Pallette, I am convinced
that the Fred Noonan letter to Eugene Pallette explains the entire
Earhart mystery.  Here is the reason why (for convenience, the letter
will hereinafter be referred to as "The Friar Tuck Papers"):

The forum has told us that Pallette died in the 1950s as an admirer of
Hitler.  This admiration probably goes back at least to the beginning of
the filming of the movie "Robin Hood" (Pallete as Friar Tuck), since if
he admired Hitler in 1954 it was certainly a long and deep admiration.
The movie came out in 1938, but began production in late 1936 or early
1937. Pallette starred as Friar Tuck, with, coincidentally,  Errol Flynn
as Robin Hood.  Errol Flynn (known Nazi spy) and Pallette found out that
they had lots in common politically.   Flynn was especially interested
in aviation secrets, and his residency in LA and movie star status
provided him with the needed entres. Yet, his notoriety also attracted
attention.  Pallette would be a perfect cover and "go between". For
Pallette, this would be a chance to serve his beloved Fuerher, and also
to serve his career, as he would have the goods on Flynn.

Pallette lived at the Roosevelt Hotel, and, as you surmise Ric, met
Noonan and his wife who were living there pending the world flight.
They were agog at moviedom, and he instantly recognized the value of
converting Noonan to Der Fuerher's cause.  He also knew that Noonan
wanted to open a flying/navigation school---expensive.  He proposed a
social meeting with Flynn, they accepted.  Flynn offered money for the
school in exchange for the Electra and her "flying laboratory"
navigation gear (top secret stuff from the Navy).  Flynn, wary of
security, made Pallette the front man for information and contacts with
Noonan.  All this is proved by The Friar Tuck Papers, and explains
Pallette's keen interest in the progress of the flight and Noonan's
nervousness over not being able to provide more information.

The plan was simple:  Earhart needed, at a minimum, to be silenced and
the Electra needed to disappear altogether (the Pacific was perfect for
disappearing).  Therefore, Noonan would take over the flight near
Howland before Earhart could get a radio bearing (thus, no one could be
sure where she was before contact was lost, thus making her difficult to
find).  Gardner was the intended destination, as it was within the
plane's range yet still far enough from Howland so that searchers
wouldn't be too near too soon.  Noonan would force Earhart to fly to
Gardner, where the Nazis had set up a covert operation and heavy
equipment concealed inside the wrecked Norwich City in order to
"receive", dismantle and transport the Electra to a waiting Nazi
submarine offshore for transport to Germany (Nazis ALWAYS have
submarines waiting offshore, even if the Nazis are in Berlin).  The reef
north of the Norwich City was smoothed just enough to permit a safe
landing, but not too much so as to avoid suspicion if observed overhead
or by visitors.  Earhart would be killed by a head blow after landing
(to fake death by a bad landing) yet her body would remain.  A fake
distress message would be sent when the Nazis were ready to leave, and
Noonan would be rescued.  He would tell rescuers that Earhart received a
head blow on landing, and died soon thereafter (he would have her body
to prove it).  He would say that he just got off a radio message before
the plane was pulled off the reef to the depths below.  He would return
to the U.S., and, with the help of Flynn, start his school.

All worked according to plan--but not all to Noonan's plan.  Noonan
sabotaged the belly antenna so it would be lost during departure from
the rough Lae airstrip.  This left the antenna on the ground (to be
conveniently found) thus explaining the radio failure.  Noonan didn't
need the direction finding gear to get to Gardner, so it was the perfect
thing to do to both sabotage the flight getting to Howland as well as to
throw suspicion off of him (after all, he was aboard the flight).  Also,
the U.S. Navy unintentionally cooperated by, among other things,
pointing the direction finding antennas towards Maine.  Earhart's final
message "We are running on the line north-south"  is incomplete and
evidence of a struggle in the cocpit for control.  Why? because why tell
someone you are simply on a line but not in which direction you are
going?  In reality, the entire message, interrupted by the struggle, was
something like "we are running on the line north-south, no east-west,
wait, now we're going northeast-southeast..oh Jesus, shit, stop it
Fred!"

Fred then forced Earhart to Gardner, where the plane made a successful
landing, although Noonan and Earhart suffered minor injuries.  The Nazis
went quickly to work dismantling the Electra, and shot Fred during a
fight to silence him (this explains the bones found near the ship as
described by Emily).   In the confusion, Earhart grabbed Fred's sextant
box, threw in some survival gear, and ran off towards the beach and
woods.  SInce she was wearing her stoutish walking shoes, she was able
to move faster than he storm troopers in their boots.  The Nazis
considered pursuit, but had a problem:  The Electra was being buffeted
by the tide, and breaking apart and needed to be rounded up quickly.
Noonan's body also been swept somewhere in the confusion.  Earhart would
probably die soon, if the crabs and infection didn't get her first.  The
sharks or sea would dispose of all traces of Noonan.  The Nazis decided
to complete the mission rather than pursue Earhart.  Therefore, they
gathered up everything they could of the Electra (leaving scattered bits
on the reef but trying to hide stuff within ship wreckage----this is why
things were not seen by Maude/Bevington/the New Zealanders), signaled
the sub, and moved off the treacherous zone between ocean and reef.
Earhart, of course, ultimately died of her injuries, leaving her remains
(including the box) to be found by Gallagher.  Noonan's remains didn't
totally vanish, and were found lodged in the wreckage.

This was a perfect crime by the Germans and their Hollywood
sympathisers, Flynn and Pallette, as it occurred in the Pacific, Japan's
hunting ground.  Over time, suspicions were easily levelled at the
Japanese, and these were aided tremendously by all the conspiracy buffs.

There it is, and it all flows logically from The Friar Tuck Papers and
research to date.  Oh, one other thing:

Happy Father's Day!

--Chris
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:17:48 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Lae Frequency

Are we confident that Lae only worked on
one voice channel? I would be moderately
surprised. I would think it likelier that Lae
could work 3105 and 6210 but normally
listened for calls specifically to it, on the
other one, the mentioned 6540.

Hue Miller

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

When you say "worked" do you mean transmit or receive or both?  The only
contemporaneous information we have about frequencies used between Earhart
and Lae come from the Chater report.  The operator at Lae, Harry Balfour,
later spoke to and corresponded with several Earhart researchers including
Elgen Long and, apparently, Joe Gervais.  Some of what he later told people
directly contradicts Chater and some things Chater reported seem to
constradict established fact.

So, to answer your question, no.  And Cam's allegation that Lae transmitted
on 6540 remains undocumented as far as I know.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:19:48 EDT
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: The Friar Tuck Papers

My God!  I've stumbled onto a Clive Cussler website by mistake!!!!!

Clyde Miller
(Who really liked Flynn in Robin Hood)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

(Don't be offended Chris.  I'm sure he meant it as a compliment.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:48:45 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

For Sheila -- If the Roosevelt's renovation was encouraged by Federal income
tax credits (VERY likely), then it should have been done in accordance with
Federal historic rehabilitation standards, which would have involved some
coordination with the Office of Historic Preservation in the CA Dept. of
Parks and Recreation, and with the National Park Service in San Francisco.
It's POSSIBLE that this will have resulted in some care being taken of
historical records, though people working now at the Roosevelt might not know
about it.  I can check on this if you'd like.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:53:59 EDT
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Frequencies to  frequent

There is a plausible basis for assuming a single receiver.

Mike Everette, in his excellent analysis of the radio equipment on board NR16020,
points out that AE's receiver was a Western Electric Model 20B.  The designed
tuning range was divided into four bands: Band 1, 188-420KHz ; Band 2, 550 - 1550
KHz;  band 3,  1500 - 4000 KHz;  and Band 4,  4000 - 10000KHz.  However, as Mike
notes, the Band 2 tuning range of AE's receiver was factory modified to cover 485
- 1200 KHz, to accommodate her original requirement for 500 KHz operation.

Mike cites a 1939 source (Howard K. Morgan, "Aircraft Radio and Electrical
Equipment", Pitman Publishing Corporation, New York and Chicago, 1939) which
lists a Western Electric receiver model 20BA with band 2 covering 485 - 1200
KHz.  Mike suggests that Earhart's equipment may have been the prototype for the
20BA.

LTM,
Bob Brandenburg #2286
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Duh.  I had forgotten that Mike had come up with that.  This stuff is getting
ahead of me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:43:08 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      AE & DF, cont.

"The most likely candidate for the 500 kcs signal was Salamaua,
(JVQ in the Bernes' List) which was just 20 miles across the
Gulf of Huon from Lae."

Lucky guess! That's absolutely right, and confirmed by other
correspondence in my files. Keep up the good work, and you'll
soon find Guinea Airways' (Lae) radio telephone WAS INDEED
working on 6540 (and took 20-30 minutes to retune, according
to Balfour, so he wasn't about to switch it to 6210 just to
chat with Amelia).

Considering that revealing he "recalibrated" (Chater's word)
AE's receiver to the Lae frequency (6540) was tantamount to
admitting to a SERIOUS blunder, it's hard to believe he made
up the story, or suffered from faulty memory (and his first
documented statement was made in 1961). Cutting him some slack,
he probably was going to remind AE later, but she switched her
receiver to {what she THOUGHT} was 3105 before he got the
chance.)

If all this is true, and I'm quite convinced that explains
Earhart's inability to hear the ITASCA, learning this fact
constitutes THE GREATEST SINGLE BREAKTHROUGH in explaining the
loss of the Electra (whether it flew on to Niku as you
believe, or fell in the ocean). It hit me like the proverbial
ton of bricks when I first discovered the information. Think
about it.

Finally, you still seem to feel AE had only a single receiver.
We'll never know for sure, pending the recovery of the plane,
but there's more than a little reason to believe she had BOTH
WE and Bendix RA-1. (Admittedly it seems strange, but if
Bendix put up enough money to say she had one aboard, don't
you think Putnam - and quite possibly Amelia herself - wouldn't
be happy to accomodate?) "Motivation is a powerful clue, Dr.
Watson."

Cam Warren

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

I'm never going to get through to you on this, am I?  Something somebody says
in an interview or writes in a letter many years after the fact is ANECDOTAL
and not reliable as a source of information.  You keep insisting that the
transmitting frequency at Lae was 6540 and it may well be true, but you have
not yet provided a credible source for that information.

Not to rain on your stunning breakthrough but, as for Balfour's "calibration"
of Earhart's receiver:

If he did open up the radio and fiddle with it to make sure that where it
said 6540 on her dial was where she would find Lae, then yes, that was a
serious error and may explain why she was unable to hear Itasca's
transmissions on 3105.  However, I am told by several of our radio gurus on
the forum that "calibration" of a receiver in those days more commonly meant
merely finding out where on the dial the desired frequency really was (as
opposed to where the number might be) and marking that place with a little
tick mark.  That way, you didn't screw up the ability to tune in other
frequencies.

Chater doesn't say what he means when he says that "the Lockheed receiver was
calibrated for reception of Lae radio telephone."  The fact that Earhart was
able to tune in and receive the Itasca on 7500 would seem to be a pretty good
indication that Balfour did NOT go in a muck about with the internal workings
of the receiver.

Regarding your conviction that there was a Bendix RA-1 receiver aboard the
airplane, you ask "...if Bendix put up enough money to say she had one
aboard, don't you think Putnam - and quite possibly Amelia herself - wouldn't
be happy to accommodate?"

Actually, no.  I think it's clear from the removal of the easier-to-use but
heavier Hooven Radio Compass that Earhart's primary consideration was weight.
 Why take out one radio only to replace it with another that was more
difficult to use?  What makes sense is what Hooven himself later alleged
(anecdotal, not proof); that she saved thirty pounds by taking out his device
which incorporated a separate receiver, and replaced it with the new Bendix
coupler which permitted her to use the existing WE20B.

Also, if Bendix had gone to the expense of putting an RA-1 aboard the Electra
don't you think he would want it's presence publicized?  And yet, when
describing the Electra's radio gear during an interview in Karachi during the
World Flight, Earhart says there's a transmitter in the cabin and a Western
Electric receiver under the copilot's seat.  The "Bendix direction finder" is
mentioned only as one of the instruments on the panel in front of her.  That
can't be an entire RA-1 receiver.  She's got to be talking about the the
coupler.

So far, I see lots of indication that there was only one receiver aboard the
airplane and no indication that a second receiver was present.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:53:34 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The Friar Tuck Papers

From Ron Bright

For Chris Kennedy,

Your Friar Tuck Papers, apparently found in a pumpkin, don't fully explain
the lookalike Amelias in Saipan, at Garapan prison, at a Japanese prison
camp, in the US selling tupperware, and at various other atolls in the
Pacific. Could the Nazis been so devilish as to send out these imposters so
that book sales re Amelia would increase?

Ron Bright (who still thinks Lt. Lambrecht actually rescued AE,leaving FN,
and returned to the US with her-an untold love story!)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:22:55 EDT
From:         Jim Hurysz
Subject:      Re: Earhart Data from Long & Long and Lovell

I have carefully read both Elgen & Marie Long's (1999), Mary Lovell's (1989)
and other books and source materials about Amelia Earhart's last flight.

I am writing a book review of the Longs' book. I will publish the review
on-line.

When I read the Longs' book I noted that - during the last few legs of her
flight before Earhart and Noonan reached Lae - the mean time between failure
(MTBF) of the Electra's engine performance measuring instruments was about 7
hours. These included the Eclipse fuel meter and Cambridge analyzer. Also
engine temperature sensors.

Second, when I read the logs of Earhart's voice communications in Lovell
(Appendix A) I noted that there is no indication that Earhart heard anyone on
3105 kilocycles from the time she left Lae until the plane disappeared 21(?)
hours later. Could there have been a problem with the plane's HF receiver,
antenna system, antenna feed line, etc. that would have prevented her from
hearing transmissions directed to her on 3105?

Am I missing something? Please let me know if I am.

Thanks in advance,

Jim Hurysz
**************************************************************************
From Ric

If you've read the available contemporaneous primary sources you know that
many of the Longs' statements of fact are, in reality, conjecture - and
unsupported conjecture at that.  We'll be interested to read your review of
the Longs' book.  You'll find mine at

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/longreview.html

You're correct that the flight seems to have heard nothing on 3105 (or 6210)
at any time after its departure from Lae.  The fact that a transmission from
the Itasca on 7500 kcs WAS heard would seem to indicate that the receiver
itself was not the problem.  The explanation may be related to the loss of
the aircraft's ventral antenna during the takeoff at Lae.  For a discussion
of that occurence see The Lost Antenna

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin12_7_99.html

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:41:13 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Lae Frequency

Now we are getting into the meaty bits of why I wanted to know the LAE
frequency for certain.  It appears that at least one other person is asking
similar questions in his mind to those I have been asking myself.

And in the tradition of this forum, all of what follows is speculation -
because we just weren't there; interspersed with odd bits documented
evidence (sort of salting the claim)......

Ric replied to Cam:

>if you'd restudy the Chater Report (Page 4 of the original)
>you'll find:
>
>"At noon on June 30th Miss Earhart tested out the long wave
>receiver . . . . on 600 meters. During this period the Lockheed
>receiver was calibrated for reception of Lae radio telephone,
>and this was, on the next day, tested in flight."

Now, I'm curious.  Tuning a receiver to a station requires operating the
controls to change the frequency settings the thing is designed for.

I'm going to get too far out of my depth in something I haven't touched in
almost 30 years and I'll throw this bit back to the HAMs out there for
rebuttal, but here goes:

I don't know if the radio in the Lockheed was weird in some way, but usually
in two way radios in general use, the receiver and transmitter are
calibrated separately, but are NOT "tuned" separately, so all the following
relies on this.

If it can be shown conclusively that there were totally separate controls
for a transmitter and receiver for voice communication (very strange as that
would require remembering to change two frequency selectors each time you change
channels - and that doubles the radio work load for the pilot, and as far as
I can see no other aircraft radios of the time required separately tuning
the receiver and the transmitter....) then the whole of what follows can be
disregarded.

If on the other hand, the transmitter and receiver both changed frequency
using the same switch, then it will make sense.

6540 and 6210 would seem close enough that on the same "switch" setting,
provided there was a vernier type rotating tuning dial as well.  HOWEVER,
what if 6540 was just outside the "tuning" scale and the set had to be
"Calibrated" to a frequency a little further out?  If someone forgot to
"calibrate" the set back to 6210 there could be problems later.

More to the point, did earhart's voice radio even have a vernier dial.  I
know none of my aircraft radios do, they are "switch only" and I suspect the
radios in the electra were also.  The only one that may have used a vernier
dial was the DF and then only if it was designed for use homing in to
broadcast stations.

My point there is that "tuning" involves turning a switch for the band and
maybe turning a vernier type dial for the frequency as on an every day radio.
Calibrating could be far more sinister as it may (and I repeat MAY because
of possible differences in the vernacular) indicate something much more to
do with moving the set a little off its designed frequency to one still
close.  Typically it involves fiddling with the relationship between coils
and capacitance in old sets.

In the days of CB radio we used to do this all the time.  Calibrate the set
for a frequency just outside the legal 27MHz Citizen band but still in
27MHz, then install a "slider" to tune two sets to each other.

Where CB worked on presets with crystal control, the adding of a switch or
two and re-routing some wires to capacitors and coils gave us a whole other
idiot free world to play in whilst still being able to switch back to the
legal band.  ( I know, in the USA there were only intelligent people on CB.
In Aus it attracted all kinds...)

In "Log Jam" TIGHAR says:  "She reports that she is on the line
157/337 and will repeat the message on her other frequency, 6210
Kilocycles."

Followed later by "Due to the skip characteristics of 6210 Kilocycles,
Earhart's decision to switch to that frequency effectively shuts off any
further reception by Itasca."

I have always believed, and still do, that this is wrong.   Computerised
propagation models aside, I don't believe Earhart was far enought away from
Itasca at this point for skip to have anything to do with it - and all the
log entries suggest she was very close.  Something, however faint should
have come through on 6210 if the set was "calibrated" to that frequency.

When the aircraft left Lae, AE was transmitting on what should have been
6210 and according to Placer Dome's report, WAS 6210.  From 10am to 5.18pm
Earhart was heard on that frequency.  Until 2.18pm the signals were not
"intelligible" due to local interfereence, but they WERE heard!

We're looking at 800 miles here and she was heard ALL DAY.  It was only at
dusk she decided to change over.  For the first 400 miles or so the signal
was there but interfered with (we don't know if it was by local radio
traffic) but assuming it was.  How did the Lae radio operator receive
Earhart's signals for so long IF his station was set at 6540 and earhart's
was set at 6210  ?????  (This assumes transmitter and receiver worked the
same frequency as normal sets did).

Also obviously - and I've missed this so many times in reading the reports -
Lae could not receive on 6210!  or they would not have calibrated Amelia's
radio, they would have tuned their own!

If the receiver was calibrated to Lae's frequency and NOT re-calibrated to
6210, then that might explain the "SUDDEN" loss of earhart from the airwaves
by Itasca far more convincingly than "skip" over distances we know her
signal was capable of.

The argument will be presented that the Lae receiver was more powerful than
Itasca's.  That does NOT matter.  You can hear radio signals on a non
powered "crystal set" from all over the world.  Reception is a function more
of the receiver and a good antenna system as well as transmitter power.  Wherever
Amelia was, she had been talking all morning on her "night time frequency"  At
8.43am local time she switches to her day frequency which we KNOW provided two
way comms (so it wasn't THAT antenna she lost) between herself and LAE for about
800 miles.  Then Itasca loses her!

My suggestion is that Amelia had a "switch only" set and if her
radiotelephone (as two way radios were called then) had to be "calibrated"
the the Lae radiotelephone frequency, then Lae should NOT have been able to
communicate with her at all for the first 7 hours or so of her trip.  The
fact that her transmissions became clearer at 400 miles suggests to me she
was on their exact frequency.

On the other hand, when she advised Itasca she was switching to 6210, she may have
actually turned back to 6540 (Lae frequency) whilst Itasca switched to 6210
and listened.  The rest is history.  Itasca even if she had the facility to
tune her radios above and below 6210 would not have tried so far as 6540.

Before someone brings up the idea that even if Amelia was on 6540, Itasca
should have heard something, anything, on 6210 - walk over to your radio and
turn the dial just a tiny bit off your favourite station.  What happened?
remember your pet radio station has a much, much more powerful transmitter
than Amelia had.

That's whay I wanted to know the frequency Lae was transmitting on.

And I believe someone out there has the schematics for Earhart's
radiotelephone.  Does it show a separately tuned (not calibrated - we know
that's separate) transmitter and receiver? or when you change one, does the
other change at the same time.

I know the report specifies "receiver" but that word is often used
generically to cover a two way radio, just as "transmitter" is.

More speculation - but "That's what happened to Amelia!  (Just thought I'd
throw that in - "poking sticks at tigers")

p.s.  don't let this get out..  I can just see the headlines...

"CONSPIRACY - AUSSIES KILLED AMELIA"

The story will go on to tell how her remains were found on an island not far
from her destination and the whole thing was covered up by the British to
avoid embarassment to the Australian Government, when some Aissie
remembered not re-calibrating the radio in New Guinea ......

Th' WOMBAT

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

I'm afraid you've gone to a lot of trouble based upon some erroneous
assumptions.

Earhart's transmitter was "crystal controlled" and had only three frequencies
- 3105, 6210 and 500.  She selected the frequency by simply flipping a switch
on the remote in the cockpit.

Earhart's receiver was a completely separate device and may have used a
completely separate antenna.  The receiver was not "crystal controlled" but
was hand-tuned  by selecting the correct "band" and then turning a wee crank
until the desired frequency "came in."

It doesn't much matter what frequency Lae transmitted on as long as it was in
the "normal" range of frequencies (which it apparently was) and how close
that frequency was to Earhart's transmitting frequency is immaterial.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:45:22 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

Re the Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood, it was rennovated as part of one of the
periodic attempts (most of which have basically failed) to rehabilitate
Hollywood Boulevard. I don't recall hearing anything about any coordination
with the CA Dept of Parks and Recreation or any scholarly attempts at
historic preservation. It's worth looking into, but Hollywood is legendary
for throwing away the artifacts of its past just a few years shy of renewed
interest in them.

Do we know absolutely that Noonan and his new bride stayed there just prior
to the world flight?

william 2243
***************************************************************************
From Ric

No.  We know for a fact that they lived at a different address - 1527 W. 7th.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:52:48 EDT
From:         Ron Dawson
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

Ric: We did an FOIA request to the FBI in 1998 for Fred, but don't recall
that we did one on Pallette. If you like, I can do that.

Also, I tend to agree with you that Pallette was possibly not married to his
wife Marjorie in 1937 since the 1942 Life article about his hideout in
Oregon's Imnaha Canyon doesn't mention a wife.

I'm guessing Chris' post is tongue-in-cheek, since that one reference in the
movie history log is the only one referring to any Nazi sympathies. To the
contrary, the 1942 article depicts him as wholeheartedly supporting the war
effort.

Keep in mind, just prior to WW2, there were a lot of isolationists, including
Linbergh, (for which FDR never forgve him).

Gene apparently knew he had cancer in June of '54 when he made out his will.

Smooth Sailing,
Ron Dawson 2126
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, Chris' tongue was firmly in his cheek.  I'm not at all sure that chasing
Gene Pallette will get us any closer to finding AE and FN.  Your FOIA on Fred
confirmed that the FBI was unaware of his covert activities (just kidding
folks, just kidding) and it might be interesting to see if they were
interested in Mr. Pallette.  If nothing else we may be able to discover
whether the pro-Nazi allegation in his on-line bio has any basis in fact.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:59:19 EDT
From:         Hue Miller
Subject:      Rest of the story (some of )

[Here's my theory #632-B, which i claim to be
fully original. This (so far) is fiction. Please
shoot it full of holes. ( I mean it. ) Tnx, H.M. ]

When the Miami radio shop crew unpacked
the new, improved loop apparatus, model
RDF, they recognized that it had additional
capability beyond the type MN they were
replacing. But those capabilities were for
some other time, and for the Navy and
others experiment minded. They may have
flipped thru the manual, but didn't pore over
it. Just connect it up the same way the old
one was: loopset to 'LF ANTENNA'
connection, fixed wire antenna to the
'HF ANTENNA' connections. When tested,
the new loopset proved itself on local LF
and broadcast signals. The job was closed
and billing papers were prepared.

Direction finding with the RDF was a bit of
a chore, with a number of steps to remember,
which Earhart felt was a hassle, and more
complicated than should be. However, it
did seem to be more sensitive than the
one it had replaced, and it did prove itself
when called upon, altho Earhart preferred to
find her way without it, with Noonan's help
and by looking for landmarks.

Later, that June of 1937, Earhart had the
radio tuned up for that long overwater leg.
Here's where that extra capability of the
new RDF machine would be very useful,
Earhart and Noonan agreed. When the
radio was reinstalled after the work at
Lae, the radio was turned on, and
Earhart, with the Lae operator checking
her work, tuned the RDF to Lae's HF
(shortwave ) voice frequency. The Lae
man debarked and Earhart took the
plane up for a test flight. She could
hear Lae fine, in fact too well, she said:
the strong Lae signal swamped her
receiver, and she just could not get any
null at all. She gave up in disgust after
a few minutes and returned to the field.
The Itasca's signal would be weaker,
they reasoned, and then her receiver
wouldn't be overwhelmed, and a useful
nulling action could be gotten.

We know some of the rest: somewhere,
not that far from the Itasca, Earhart
turned to the RDF to try to locate the
Itasca, which was sending to her on
7500 kc/s. Oh, she could hear them well
enough, not pounding in, but solid. But,
no null. And the rest, whatever followed....

Well:

The RDF had certainly performed well on
LF and broadcast signals. However,
seemingly forgotten was the fact that the
WE20 receiver selected its antenna input,
depending on what band it was tuned to.
The installers could maybe be blamed,
but they had simply installed the set the
same way as the model they removed.
They likely didn't have handy, and didn't
feel they needed to study the WE20
receiver manual. 'LF ANTENNA', why
that would refer to what, a loop antenna,
of course, not  a wire antenna for
communication. And vice versa, regarding
the 'HF ANTENNA' connection.

"Somewhere" over the Itasca, with the
Lockheed 10E's receiver set to top band,
and hearing Lae on 7500, and the RDF
tuned to the same frequency, the WE20
receiver was choosing whatever was
connected to the 'HF ANTENNA'
connection. On the two low bands, it
selected the 'LF ANTENNA', while on
the high bands, it selected the 'HF
ANTENNA'. After all, the designers had
reasoned, this eliminates an extra manual
switching task for the pilot. Why would
anyone want it different?

However, in July 1937, at sometime
in the morning, someone did need it
different, and so her relied-upon
security failed: the receiver picked
up the Itasca fine, but the direction
finding apparatus, by mistaken
understanding of how the whole
system functioned, was totally out
of the picture. Earhart was hearing
the Itasca on the wire antenna only,
and the direction finder, on this
frequency, was totally out of the
picture. Useless!

--Hue Miller

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

My only comment is that it seems unecessarily complicated.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:02:07 EDT
From:         Tom Van Hare
Subject:      The Long Wave Receiver

Hue Miller wrote:

> The term "Long wave receiver" is kind of a strange way
> of saying "long wave receive" if we're only talking about
> the one WECo receiver.

Strange, yes. While it doesn't help us understand and solve the Earhart problem,
it does, interestingly enough solve another issue that once dominated talk
here in the forum.

What Earhart actually had on board was an "Elgen Long wave receiver". This
strange and unique piece of radio equipment allowed her to transmit directly into
the future and into the mind of the author. And thus, we have the explanation
for why he knows so much.  ;-)

Ric, best regards and I apologize for the long absence. Looking forward to
rejoining the fray.

Thomas Van Hare
***************************************************************************
From Ric

That one was worth the wait.  Welcome back!
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:09:57 EDT
From:         Cam WArren
Subject:      6540, RA-1, DF etc.

You summed it up very succinctly.

"I'm never going to get through to you on this, am I?" (May I
please borrow that line?)

So, you're welcome. I'm glad you so thoroughly appreciate my
effort to throw a little new light on the Earhart enigma. It's
a pity you dismiss a legitimate attempt to re-steer
"conventional wisdom" as preached by yourself, even if it was
NOT a challenge to your beloved Niku theory.

If I didn't know you are such a stalwart gentleman, willing to
give credit where credit is due, and never one to criticize or
ridicule another researcher, I might believe this was an attempt
to let me turn over all my material supporting the radio/DF
fiasco to you, without further effort on your part.

Cam Warren
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I thought this investigation was about "truth", not "credit."  Credit can not
be demanded or hoarded, but can only be earned.  If you have documentation
that supports your position it's in your own best interest to make it public.
To do otherwise is not only petty and amateurish but denies you the very
credit you seem to crave.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:18:35 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

Of course, since I'm not in LA I can't be sure, but I only got two or three
addresses in that hundred block of W. 7th Street (could FN's address been on
some other W. 7th?), and an aerial photo of the immediate area appears to
show that there aren't any houses there.  (looks like the house was/is about
5 blocks east of the SE corner of McArthur Park.)
ltm
jon  2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:11:52 EDT
From:         Jim Hurysz
Subject:      Re: Earhart's Radios

From what I've seen published here, it appears she was using a Bendix RDF
radio, a Western Electric transmitter, and a Western Electric receiver. The
Western Electric units were for both low and high frequency T/R.

These radios used vacuum tubes and electromechanical components (switches).
Without manuals and schematics, I can't tell anything about the radios'
characteristics.

According to the Longs, a radio tech did replace a blown fuse in the RDF
unit's power supply in Darwin.

The radios were checked out by Pan Am radio techs before Earhart & Noonan
left Miami, according to the Longs.

Any indication that the radios were checked out and received preventive
maintenance in Darwin? Or elsewhere during the flight? For example, were the
contacts on the band switches checked for corrosion? Corrosion on band switch
contacts could cause Earhart to receive on one band and not receive on
another band. Same for other electromechanical devices (relays).

Anyone who has ever restored old multi-band shortwave radios (Hallicrafters)
has had an experience with oxidation and corrosion on switch contacts.

Earhart and Noonan flew through some environments (heat, humidity and dust)
that are typically tough on radios.

Both Bendix and Western Electrric are still around. Western Electric is now
Lucent Technologies.

Jim Hurysz
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The available evidence indicates that Earhart's radios were:

- a Western Electric Type 13C transmitter with three crystal-controlled
frequencies - 500, 3105 and 6210 kiloherz.
- a Western Electric Type 20B receiver capable of receiving a wide range on
frequencies on four bands.
- a Bendix Radio Direction Finder coupler (not a "radio") which permitted the
WE receiver to be used for direction finding.

<<According to the Longs, a radio tech did replace a blown fuse in the RDF
unit's power supply in Darwin.>>

Well, let's not rely on secondary sources.  On August 3, 1937, in response to
a request from the American Consulate General in Sydney, Australia, the
Administrator of the Northern Territory (where Darwin is located) wrote:

"I am in receipt of your letter of the 9th July regarding the wireless
equipment attached to Miss Earhart's plane.
I referred your enquiry to Mr. A.R. Collins, Aircraft Inspector and
Officer-in-Charge of the Aerodrome at Darwin, who has furnished a reply in
the following terms.
'...When Miss Earhart arrived at Darwin it was necessary to ask why there had
been no radio communication with the Government Direction Finding Wireless
Station under my control.  (Miss Earhart had been advised of the facilities
and the station's wave length prior to departure from Koepang.)  Miss Earhart
regretted that the D/F receiver installed in her aircraft was not functioning
therefore an inspection of this receiver was carried out and a ground test
arranged between the aircraft and the D/F wireless station.  It was
discovered that the fuse for the D/F generator had blown and upon renewal in M
iss Earhart's presence the ground test was completed.  Miss Earhart was
advised to inspect fuse in event of further trouble.

During the journey from Darwin to Lae the following morning communication was
established with Darwin for a distance of 200 miles from this station, radio
telephone being used by Miss Earhart.

No inspection of Miss Earhart's transmission gear was carried out, this
apparently being in order, therefore Sergeant Rose (who did the work) cannot
hazard an opinion apart form the faulty fuse which affected only the D/F
receiver.'

It's not hard to see why the Longs did not quote this source in their book
because it pretty well destroys their theory (which they state as fact) that
the aircraft had a separate Bendix RA-1 receiver aboard for DF purposes.
It's very clear from the above that the failure of a fuse in her "D/F
generator" deprived her of the ability to receive any signals at all and the
restoration of that fuse resulted in her ability to establish  radio
telephone communication.  Had there been two receivers in the airplane the
failure of the "D/F generator" fuse would not have affected her ability to
receive voice.

Radio maintenance was also performed in Lae but we don't have detailed
information about what was done.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:15:10 EDT
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Darn Yarn

Don't ever let Chris Kennedy and Thomas Van Hare in the same room together!
Merriam would never be the same.

Skeet Gifford
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:27:09 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: 6540, RA-1, DF etc

Ric says:

"If you have documentation that supports your position it's in
your own best interest to make it public.  To do otherwise is
not only petty and amateurish but denies you the very credit
you seem to crave."

Gee Ric, I didn't realize you could make me a STAR! Can you
get me a date with your good friend Katie Couric?

Cam Warren
***************************************************************************
From Ric

...and so ends another thread.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:54:39 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Lae Frequency

Ric wrote:

>The receiver was not "crystal controlled" but was hand-tuned by selecting the 
>correct "band" and then turning a wee crank until the desired frequency
>"came in."

Can you show me documentation or other proof of that?

Th' WOMBAT
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, fair question.

There's abundant comtemporaneous literature, including schematics, of the 13C
transmitter.  The best is probably a sales bulletin published at the time by
Western Electric called "A Three-Frequency Radio Transmitter for Airplanes"
by W.C. Tinus, Radio Development Department.

The 20B receiver and the 27A remote that goes with it are described in a
similar Western Electric sales bulletin published in September 1936 entitled
"An All-Purpose Radio Receiver for Mobile Applications" by K. O Thorp, Radio
Development Department.

The presence of these radios aboard NR16020 and the frequencies they cover
are documented in a Lockheed memo dated July 30, 1937 addressed to Courtland
Gross and signed by J.W. Cross.

I can send you photocopies of all of the above if you wish (just cover the
copying and postage), or, if there is sufficient interest we can put them up
on the website.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:08:28 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Earhart Data from Long & Long and Lovell

Ric wrote:

> You're correct that the flight seems to have heard nothing on 3105 (or
> 6210) at any time after its departure from Lae.

This is at odds with my interpretation of the documents.  The Chater report
clearly states "and some remark concerning "LAE" then "EVERYTHING OKAY". The
plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get
it."

This suggests a reply to the request for a position report, that was still
indistiinct.  At that time AE was still on 6210 )and until I see proof that
her radio was tuned by cranking a handle rather than switching frequencies,
I still believe she only "thought" she was on 6210).

Th' WOMBAT

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

Okay.  I see your point.  The sentence "The plane was called and asked to
repeat position but we still could not get it." does imply that there was a
response to the request, albeit still unintelligible.  Whether the repeated
postion report was actually in response to the request or merely an
unprompted repeat is hard to know.  The only other time Chater says they
tried to accomplish two-way communication with the airplane (asking AE not to
change frequencies) he says that they got no reply.

The operation of the little crank on the 27A remote for the 20B receiver is
really not in question.  I'm happy to provide whatever proof you need.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:16:49 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Earhart Data from Long & Long and Lovell

More from the same report:

"Miss Earhart had arranged to change to 3104 KC wave length at dusk, but
signals were very strong and the plane was then called and asked not to
change to 3104 KC yet as her signals were getting stronger and we should
have no trouble holding signals for a long time to come."

This one could be read either way, but nowhere in the report does it say
that Earhart never replied to a transmission until:

"We received no reply to this call although the Operator listened for three
hours after that on an 8-valve super-heterodyne Short Wave Receiver and both
wave lengths were searched.

It was presumed the plane had changed the wave to 3104, the reason for that
being that Miss Earhart claimed it to be a better night wave than 6210 and
had used it on her flight from United States to Hawaii previously.

NOTE: We received no reply to "THIS" call.   NOT "We received no reply to
any calls".  It specifically says "THIS CALL".  One would expect the report
to say something if she had been out of touch completely!

(BTW  3104 is TIGHAR's number - not mine.  I thought she was on 3105 at
night!)

I believe there is enough in the Chater report to show Earhart had 2 way
comms on 6210 with Lae, but could could not hear Lae on 3105.  That suggests
her antenna was ok at that point out to about 800 miles.  I also believe
that the same antenna was used for 3105 (3105 just happens to be half of
6210 and I don't think that was an accident).  So the antenna was
functioning ok.

Radio interference is documented to have affected ALL traffic in the New
Guinea/Australia area the day before the flight, and presumably was the same
interference that interfered with Earhart's early signals until mid
afternoon when they got stronger.

Itasca could hear Earhart on 3105, so her transmitter and transmitting
antenna was fine then also.

Itasca lost Earhart completely when she changed to her day time frequency.
This is in itself very odd considering Lae heard her on that one ALL DAY the
day before, and apparently had 2 way comms with her.

Something else that bothers me from Log Jam:

TIGHAR's comments on the 06:14-15am Itasca log are in part "The signal is
now stronger (Strength 3) and consistent with the estimate of "two hundred
miles out" but Earhart's request for a bearing comes as a surprise.  ---
The Itasca's direction finder can not respond to a relatively high frequency
such as 3105."

Now we all know from discussion Itasca could not DF on 3105, but where does
the log notation "ABOUT TWO HUNDRED MILES OUT//APPX//WHISTLING//NW15" come
in?

Is not "NW15" related to the bearing?  If not, what is it?  NW is usually a
direction.  15 is not NW, unless they meant 15deg N of W, which also seems
strange.  I would think they would have written "285".  Curious....

Th' WOMBAT

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

<<I believe there is enough in the Chater report to show Earhart had 2 way
comms on 6210 with Lae, but could could not hear Lae on 3105.>>

I think you make a good case for the POSSIBILITY that Earhart was hearing Lae
on 6210.

<<That suggests her antenna was ok at that point out to about 800 miles.>>

If she was hearing Lae it certainly means that the antenna she was using for
voice reception was ok at that time.  The evidence that the belly antenna was
lost on takeoff is pretty compelling, so that would mean that the dorsal vee
was being used for both transmitting and receiving.  That is entirely
consistent with normal practice at the time and with the capapbility of her
Western Electric radios.

<<I also believe that the same antenna was used for 3105 (3105 just happens
to be half of 6210 and I don't think that was an accident).>>

No argument there.

<<So the antenna was functioning ok.>>

Yes.  IF she was hearing Lae the antenna she was using for voice reception
was okay.

<<3104 is TIGHAR's number - not mine.  I thought she was on 3105 at
night!>>

Actually, 3104 is Chater's number - not ours.  Technically, Earhart could not
transmit on 3105 but that small a difference is probably not of any
consequence to someone trying to tune her in on a hand-tuned receiver.

<<Itasca lost Earhart completely when she changed to her day time frequency
(6210). This is in itself very odd considering Lae heard her on that one ALL DAY the
day before, ....>>

Ah, but they didn't.. she took off at 10 a.m. and it was 2:18 p.m. (over four
hours later) before they heard anything from her.  Chater attributes this to
local interference but the fact is that Lae couldn't hear Earhart on 6210
until she was - what?- at least 400, probably more like 500 nautical miles
away.   When Earhart switched to 6210 the next morning to try to make contact
with Itasca she was almost certainly a whole lot closer and, according to at
least some aerial navigators with lots of experience with that frequency,
within the zone where communication on 6210 is notoriously unreliable.

<<Is not "NW15" related to the bearing?  If not, what is it? >>

"NW" is "now".  The "15" is in the minutes column and merely means that this
was heard at 06:15.  In other words,
"ABOUT TWO HUNDRED MILES OUT//APPX//WHISTLING//NW   15"
means, "About two hundred miles out, approximatley.  Whistling now.   06:15"

We're presently preparing the entire Itasca radio log for that morning, in
orginal and plain English format, as a Document Of The Week.  I'll let
everyone know when it's up.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:17:56 EDT
From:         Jim Hurysz
Subject:      Re: "Aircraft Radio and Electrical Equipment"

I was able to borrow "Aircraft Radio and Electrical Equipment" by H.K. Morgan
(Pitman Publishing Corp., New York and Chicago, 1939) from the local library.

This book should be "must read" for Earhart investigators. Lots of radio
schematics...including the schematic for Earhart's R/T equipment, AND the
infamous Cambridge gas analyzer (on page 71).

Jim Hurysz
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:29:17 EDT
From:         Bill Moffet
Subject:      Aluminum vs. sea water

Been gone a couple of weeks for grandkids' HS graduations.  Caught an AP
story, "Restored Mercury capsule makes dazzling debut" in the Las Vegas
Review-Journal of June 14 which says, "...The restorers...had to refashion
the handle of Grissom's control stick; the original, made of aluminum, was
corroded away by salt."  Interesting, if true.  This seems to fly in the face
of the beliefs of those  planning to recover NR16020 from the depths of the
same ocean.  Wonder what the Forum experts have to say on the subject?  As I
recall the subject of aluminum vs. salt water was discussed in connection
with the Titanic and again when it was announced Dr. Ballard was going after
the Mercury capsule. It probably doesn't make any difference; we Tighars are
reasonably certain where the plane is/was.

LTM

Bill Moffet  #2156

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

Welcome back.  I'm sure Curt Newport would be distressed to hear that Ballard
is getting the credit for finding and recovering the Grissom capsule.  Cam
Warren please note.  We're all screwed. After Titanic, Bismark, Yorktown,
etc.; anything found in water belongs to Broadway Bob.

As for aluminum in salt water, the rule is:  there ain't no rules.  Examples
of preservation and destruction are all over the map.  If I had to guess, I'd
say that the the problem with the control stick had to do with the junction
of dissimilar metals, but I don't have to guess - so I won't.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:35:13 EDT
From:         Christian D.
Subject:      Radio receiver dials.

From Ric

>Not to rain on your stunning breakthrough but, as for Balfour's
>"calibration" of Earhart's receiver:
>
>I am told by several of our radio gurus on the forum that "calibration"
>of a receiver in those days more commonly meant merely finding out where on
>the dial the desired frequency really was (as opposed to where the number
>might be) and marking that place with a little tick mark.  That way, you
>didn't screw up the ability to tune in other frequencies.

Yes, that's also my opinion. One has to understand that at the time, marine
and air radio communications were mostly done using separate transmitters,
which were "rock bound", that is crystal controlled. Again, this is on the
transmitter side of things.  For example, IF the Lae transmitter needed 30
minutes to change from 6210 to 6540, it likely means that it was a single
channel transmitter; so, if they had several crystals, they could  physically
swap in a 6210, for example, (the original the set came with!?!?!)  and then
spend some time retuning all the stages of the transmitter.  IF they weren't
an "official" radio station, I could well see they didn't wan't to occupy
the international frequency 6210, with all the "big boys",  but instead have
something else, for their own local uses.

As for receivers, they were mostly tuned with a dial, and possibly some form
of vernier.  I even wonder if those radios had a dial marked with freqencies;
possibly it was just a "0 to 100.0" scale, and a graph or table had to be
used to convert to a frequency; by the way, this would be called a
"calibration table".. But it was EXTREMELY difficult to get any precision out
of them; very hard to feel confident that, after tuning the dial to what
*should* be a certain freq, one could expect to catch a SHORT transmission,
without lots of "fishing" around for it. I agree it is unlikely that Lae
would have done a "bench calibration", opening the receiver, and adjusting
dozens of coils and caps.

They are quite likely to have meant listening to a specific transmitter with
a given receiver, and doing their best to ACCURATELY read whatever numbers
the dial/vernier had to be set at, so that they could be put back to that
same spot  as accurately as possible later...

Trying, in the field, to get ANY dial to actually display the EXACT theorical
number is against good practice.  Unless the instrument has that capability
on the outside of the panel.  For example: when one checks a ship's
chronometer against a radio time signal, it is NEVER adjusted to read what
the radio time says the accurate time is; instead the difference (error) is
read and recorded in a log; and that error has to be applied each time a
sextant sight is taken.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised that a formal, or informal, calibration log
or chart was kept by AE; just recording what the EXACT dial reading had to
be, for each given actual frequency, for each given transmitter, that she
listened to. Quite possibly that is all that was meant by "calibration"....

Hope this helps.

Christian D.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:57:03 EDT
From:         Christian D.
Subject:      Re: Rest of the story (some of )

> From Hue Miller
>
> [ Here's my theory #632-B, which i claim to be fully original. This (so
> far) is fiction. Please shoot it full of holes. ( I mean it. ) Tnx, H.M. ]
> <snip>
> **************************************************************************
> From Ric
>
> My only comment is that it seems unecessarily complicated.

Not complicated at all!  Great idea!

Some receivers DO indeed change antenna inputs according to what the "Band
switch" is set at.

What was the WE20 bandswitch doing in that respect?   Is the "Radio
historian" still around?  If not, fax me the schematics (are they on the
website?) and I'll look...

Christian D.

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

KHAQQ calling Mike Everette.  Can you help on this?

For Hue Miller - You may want to rethink your scenario based on the following
information:

The Bendix loop coupler was not installed in Miami by people who were not
familiar with it.  It was installed in Burbank prior to the first World
Flight attempt by a Bendix technician whom, we must assume, was intimately
familar with it.  Also, the loop coupler did not replace a similar unit.  It
replaced an entirely different automated system which used a separate
receiver and a different antenna.

There is no indication that the radio was removed from the airplane in Lae
and the test in the hangar was performed not on Lae's HF frequency as you
suggest but upon another stations (probably Salamaua) 500 kcs transmissions.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:44:48 EDT
From:         START HERE
Subject:      The belly antenna question

From Hue Miller

<<From Ric

You're correct that the flight seems to have heard nothing on 3105 (or

6210) at any time after its departure from Lae.  The fact that a transmission

from the Itasca on 7500 kcs WAS heard would seem to indicate that the receiver

|itself was not the problem.>>


And doesn't rule out Cam's theory that one channel was realigned to Lae's

calling frequency.


>>The explanation may be related to the loss of the aircraft's ventral
antenna during the takeoff at Lae.  For a discussion of that occurence see
The Lost Antenna

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin12_7_99.html<<



REAL unlikely, i say. The ventral antenna was the sense antenna, i say,

and the upper antenna the comm antenna. To have the primary comm antenna
below the plane would seem to make Earhart's plane the exception in aviation.
Notwithstanding the fact that it would be shorter and closer to airframe
(undesirable), consider the proven vulnerability. Which antenna would you
rather go without?

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

Okay, let's get into this.  What was the function of the belly antenna?  I
don't pretend to know for sure, but I think that the history of the airplane
might provide some clues.  I'll be very interested to have your opinion on
the following facts and questions.

1.  When the airplane was delivered to AE in July 1936 it had a WE 13C
transmitter and a WE 20B receiver, the same radios (or so it would seem) that
it had when it disappeared.  However, there was no dorsal antenna on the
airplane at all.  There was a belly antenna identical to the one that was
apparently lost at Lae with a lead-in that entered the fuselage right under
the copilot's seat where the 20B receiver was mounted.  The only other
antenna on the airplane was a trailing wire that deployed from the extreme
tail of the airplane, just under the navigation light.  At that time the
airplane appears to have no DF capability at all.
What, in your opinion, was the function of the belly antenna at that time?

2.  Sometime around October 1936 the Hooven Radio Compass was installed.
This involved a separate receiver mounted on a fuel tank in the cabin, a
dome-shaped antenna on the cabin roof, and another belly antenna that ran
parallel to the original belly antenna but on the opposite (port) side of the
airplane. The trailing wire in the tail remined unchanged.
What, in your opinion, was the function of the new belly antenna?
What, in your opinion, was the function of the original (starboard) belly
antenna at this time?

3.  In mid-February 1937 Earhart flies the airplane to New York to announce
her planned World Flight.  While she's on the east coast Western Electric
installs a new dorsal vee antenna.  All the other antennas remain unchanged.
What, in your opinion, was the purpose of this antenna?

4.  Back in California in late February the trailing wire is moved from the
extreme tail to deploy from a mast under the cabin.  Right around March 1st
comes the big change in DF equipment.  Hooven's Radio Compass and it's
domed-shaped antenna go away and are replaced by the Bendix loop over the
cockpit.  The belly antennas - both port and starboard - remain unchanged.
What, in your opinion, is the function of each of these antennas at this time?

5.  The airplane goes to Hawaii, gets wrecked, and comes back to Burbank for
repairs.  When it come out of the shop several changes are apparent in the
antenna set-up.
- the dorsal vee has been lengthened by moving the mast forward.
- the trailing wire is gone.
- the port side belly antenna (that had been added when the Hooven DF was
installed) is also gone.

Unchanged are the Bendix loop over the cockpit and the starboard side belly
antenna.
What, in your opinion, is the function of the belly antenna at this time?

There is no change to the airplane's antenna configuration while it is in
Miami or later (until the belly antenna gets knocked off in Lae.)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:45:59 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

From William Webster-Garman

1527 West 7th-- That neighborhood has changed drastically since the 1930s.

Near Macarther Park, on the fringes of downtown LA, it's what one might call

a somewhat "rough" area, with mixed residential and commercial buildings.

The house probably isn't even there anymore.


william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:46:48 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

From Chris Kennedy

For the people who are researching this, if all else fails you might call the
City of Los Angeles Lands Department (I believe that's what its called) and
ask
to view the "Sanborn Maps".  These are maps of the city and go back to, I
believe, the early 1920s. They're fascinating (I used them once in a legal
case)
and they may help you find the house, if the address has changed, or show you
what became of the residence.

--Chris Kennedy
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:52:01 EDT
From:         
Subject:      DOT-DASH PHOTO:

From R. Johnson

Any recent word on the dot-dash photos? Forgive me if I have missed any
recent updates.

R. Johnson
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Current thinking:
The photo taken through the hole in the side of Norwich City probably does
not show the same objects as the 1937 Bevington photo.  The "dot and dash" in
the Bevington photo seem to be much farther northward on the reef, and
farther from the shipwreck, than the impression created by the photo.
Nothing definite yet.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:01:15 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Electra's Receiver

From Jim Hurysz


The schematic for the WE Model 20 B is on Page 209 of "Aircraft Radio and
Electrical Equipment" by Howard Morgan, published in 1939, appears to have
been written in 1938. A Model 20 BA receiver was manufactured  by WE that was
crystal controlled (2 crystals, 2 frequencies). The Model 20 could be
converted to a Model 20 BA.

The WE Type 20 B is described as having "complete remote control."

The WE 20 B is described as a four band superhet.

Bands for the 20 B (WE factory specs) are:

Range band:      188 - 420 KC
Broadcast:         550 - 1500 KC
Medium high:     1500 - 4000 KC
High Frequency: 4000 - 10,000 KC

The schematics for the Model 27A control unit and the cable schematic are on
pages 210 and 211. The radio was shock-mounted.

Looking at the 27A control unit schematic, it appears that there were two
switches, two pilot lamps, and an RF gain potentiometer.

Looking at the 20 B schematic, the bands are switched using an
electromechanical band switch, similar in function to the kind on
Hallicrafters vacuum tube shortwave receivers of the 40's and 50's. Tuning
across each band is done using a variable capacitor, similar to the way
Hallicrafters SW vacuum tube receivers were tuned across bands.

There is no indication on the 20B schematic of an electric motor or stepper
relay that moved the plates of the variable capacitor and bandswitch. (But I
don't know what was and was not included in radio schematics during the
1930's).

There are two antenna inputs for the 20 B, a high frequency antenna input and
low frequency antenna input. The high or low frequency antenna is selected
when the bandswitch is turned.

Jim Hurysz
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:03:20 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Lae frequency

From Jon Watson

 I can send you photocopies of all of the above if you wish (just cover the
> copying and postage), or, if there is sufficient interest we can put them
> up
> on the website.

Hi Ric,
In asmuch as there's been a lot of radio discourse lately, I'd find it
interesting to see the material
ltm
jon  2266
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, we'll get to it as soon as we can.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:05:02 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: 20 B Receiver

From Jim Hurysz

Referring to the WE 20 B receiver schematic in"Aircraft Radio and Electrical
Equipment" - page 209 - the high frequency and low frequency antenna
selection was done by the band switch. The band switch appeared to be a
5-postion rotary "wafer" switch. One position appears to be "off" (ground).
The other positions are to select one of  the 4 bands.

Rotary wafer band switches were common on vacuum tube shortwave receivers.
It's a bear to figure out what goes where (signal, voltage, etc.) when the
switch is turned...especially with 1930's radio schematics.

Regarding the "calibration" that may have occurred in Lae, there are 4
"receiver alignment" points (trimmer capacitors?) accessible from outside the
receiver just below the antenna and ground connections (page 210, figure 133).

Jim Hurysz
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:55:24 EDT
From:         
Subject:      "7" site now up

From Ric

A new Research Bulletin describing the "7" site is now up on the website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/6_21_00bull.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:47:21 EDT
From:         
Subject:      No Subject

From Troy Carmichael

Ric, why should I stay home and watch soaps when I've got the Earhart Forum!

Much more drama and excitment than TV can provide.....


LTM (whose kids always debated rationally)

Troy Carmichael, TIGHAR #something

****************************************************************
From
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:50:31 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: 6540, RA-1, DF etc

Let's try that again:

From Troy Carmichael

Ric, why should I stay home and watch soaps when I've got the Earhart Forum!

Much more drama and excitment than TV can provide.....


LTM (whose kids always debated rationally)

Troy Carmichael, TIGHAR #something

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

We may not always achieve great erudition, but we do pretty good theater.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:09:41 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Earhart's Radios

From Cam Warren

Ric - ("ol' buddy")

Two things strike me about your recent postings on the subject(s)
of radio communications & DF.

1) Your apparently infinite patience in answering repetitive
questions, and
2) Your grasp of the technical fundamentals is somewhat on a par
with Amelia herself. (And maybe that's good - as a benchline!)

First, for the Wombat, et al -

Back in the olden days of steam-powered radios, we didn't have
single-unit "transceivers" with  all the marvelous "modern
conveniences". Transmitters did have fixed, crystal controlled
channels, receivers (by and large) were hand-tuned, which
required a modicum of skill and common sense. Earhart's gear
was NOT off the shelf stuff by the time she left Miami,
although the WE setup WAS originally (as installed by
Lockheed) airline specs.

Second -
Elgen Long's book tells us that Western Electric was unable to
get their receiver to tune 500 kc, a rather incredible
statement, considering WE (actually, their subsidiary, Bell
Labs) modified BOTH transmitter and receiver for 500 kc use.
To suggest the factory techs didn't have the "know-how" to do
this is mind boggling, especially since close on the heels of
the "stock" 20B receiver came the 20BB, which included 500 kc.

He's quite likely right that a Bendix RA-1 WAS installed, and
I believe, AS A DF RECEIVER, in addition to the WE, which she
was using for COMMUNICATIONS ONLY. This strikes us as sort of
foolish - weight considerations and all - but hey, we weren't
there to give AE our best advice. (Long's book contains a photo
allegedly shot in Miami, of an RA-1 remote in the cockpit of
the Electra. I see no reason to question its authenticity, but
feel free to do so). Incidentally The 20B WAS capable of DF use
- the company built a nice little loop that did NOT require a
coupler, and certainly not a Bendix one.

I know you remain unconvinced AE had TWO multiband receivers
on board, and cite Mr. Collins' letter. Which is a bit
ambiguous. "Miss Earhart regretted that the D/F receiver . . .
was not functioning . . . ." (NOTE her use of "D/F"). And a
later reference; " . . . . Sergeant Rose . . . . cannot hazard
an opinion apart from the faulty fuse which affected ONLY
[my emphasis] the D/F receiver." To most of us, that would
seem to indicate there WAS another [unspecified] receiver.
(Mr. Collins' expertise does come into doubt with his reference
to the "D/F generator" instead of a dynamotor.)

"Conventional opinion" clings to the idea that production
pieces of electronics were used, and views everything with
that in mind, despite such evidence as the publicly
announced revisions by Western Electric (to name one
incidence). Why couldn't/wouldn't Bendix do the same with the
DF setup, especially if Vince B. was going for brownie points?

And, finally, why does everyone keep thinking AE would do
everything "normally" (read "21st century style")? There are
dozens of examples of seemingly strange behavior, even such
apparent "goofs" as failing to have an intercom between
pilot and navigator. Or only "broadcasting" at half-hour
intervals, or not telling anybody (on the radio) what she
was really doing. Etc. Etc. So we get questions as to "why
couldn't she get a null from the ITASCA?" with the sub-
liminal thought "I certainly could have, had I been there!"

Anyway, I'm faxing you a rundown of the Western Electric
equipment, which you are free to crumple up into a ball, for
all I care. (After all, I'd be a "secondary source".)

Cam Warren
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for the fax.  You sent a number of quotations from various primary and
secondary sources regarding the WE radios.  No surprises, although your
allegation that the 20B did have DF capability if supplemented with a WE3A
loop and a WE601A input transformer is based upon notes taken by a D.C. Mead
from an undated factory manual.  However, we have a five-page Western
Electric sales bulletin describing the 20B dated September 1936 and it makes
no mention of such capability.

You also sent a photocopy of an undated advertisement for the Bendix RA-1
receiver (the relevance of which is something of a puzzlement).

You also sent a copy of a photo from the Roessler, Gomez book "Amelia Earhart
- Case Closed?" supposedly showing Earhart and the Electra in Miami.
Handwritten (presumably by you) is "Note: Parallel belly antenna wires!"
Like so many other things in the book, the caption on the photo is just plain
wrong.  Numerous photos document that the port-side belly wire went away
during repairs in Burbank. The photo in the book was taken some time prior to
the first World Flight attempt.

You also sent a copy of a Lockheed memo dated May 6 or 8 (hard to read), 1937
describing how the V antenna is to be rebuilt by installing the mast directly
over the "slanting bulkhead" but not to install a lead-in wire.  This is, of
course, consistent with the change that photos show was made, but i had never
seen this particular piece of documentation.  Thank you.

You also sent a copy of a similar Lockheed memo dated May 10(?), 1937 with
two items:
"1.  Install V antenna on belly, in accordance with Mr. Gurr, Amelia
Earhart's representative.
2.  Revision to V antenna installation on top of fuselage by previous order.

Re-locate transmitter inlet insulator in accordance with Mr. Gurr's
instructions, Amelia Earhart's representative."

This is a curious memo because photos of the airplane taken in Burbank on May
20, the day after the aircraft came out of the shop, show no such V antenna
on the belly -- nor do any subsequent photos of the Electra.

You also sent a hand-drawn diagram labeled "Gurr under belly antenna (not to
scale)".  It's not at all clear who drew this diagram but it does not seem to
be a Lockheed document.

You also sent a copy of a page from TIGHAR's transcription of the Lockheed
repair orders for the airplane.  You've underlined two items:
"3.  Replace #41659 - Pitot masts - 1L- 1R req'd."
and
"9.  Replace three antenna masts aft of main beam - #4??16, 4301V - 1 each
req'd 41?? - 11 req'd."
You've added a handwritten note:  "* Two 'tubes' and 3 masts equals 5
mounting points."

I'm not sure what your point is, but it should be obvious that the orders
describing what repairs were to be accomplished were written before the work
was done.  Photos of the airplane after the repairs were completed make it
equally obvious that the work was not done exactly as specified in the
original orders.

So far I have yet to see any evidence that there was a Bendix RA-1 receiver
aboard the airplane.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:30:07 EDT
From:         
Subject:      The belly antenna question

From Cam Warren

Several comments and explanations could be made here, time
(and inclination) permitting, but I'll pass for now, with one
exception.

#5 says (in part) "- the port side belly antenna (that had been
added when the Hooven DF was installed) is also gone."

Now, I assume you have a photograph to verify this (situation
at Burbank) but upon arrival at Miami, TWO wires run aft one
from each of the pitot tubes. This verifies Joe Gurr's peculiar
"Vee" (an extremely narrow one at that) that he cobbled up to
provide apparently, a little more wire for 500 kc. (Weird as
that seems!)(But note antenna mast installation on Lockheed
work order).  This is the antenna Putnam referred to, when he
said Pan Am reworked the antenna, since the "two wires were
canceling each other out". Pan Am converted it to a SINGLE
port-side sense antenna for the HF/DF which, I'm now quite
sure, was installed at Dinner Key (the Bendix "upgrade").


Cam Warren

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

It didn't happen Cam.  The airplane came out of the shop in Burbank with a
single belly wire antenna on the starboard side.  I will send you three
photos of the airplane taken on May 20, 1937 by Dustin Carter when Earhart
and Noonan were loading the airplane for the run up to Oakland to pick up the
cancelled "Second Takeoff" covers .  We bought the original negatives from
Carter's widow.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:32:57 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: 6540, RA-1, DF etc

From Bill Leary

> From Cam Warren

> "If you have documentation that supports your position it's in

> your own best interest to make it public.

>

> Gee Ric, I didn't realize you could make me a STAR! Can you

> get me a date with your good friend Katie Couric?

>

> From Ric

>

> ...and so ends another thread.


It may well be the end of the thread, but I think more importantly it's a

testimony that he doesn't think his evidence will stand up to close

examination.


    - Bill #2229
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:37:46 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Radio Propagation in 1937

From Jim Hurysz

High frequency radio propagation not only changes from hour-to-hour and
night-to- day but follows the 11 year sunspot cycle. In periods of high solar
activity (many sunspots and solar storms) there is much greater use of higher
HF frequencies (10-30 MHz). Moreover, depending on the level of solar
activity, some frequencies in the high frequency band (3-30 MHz) can be used
both day and night, which is not possible during periods of low solar
activity.

As we are experiencing high solar activity this year, Earhart experienced
high solar activity in 1937. It would be interesting to examine records from
that time to determine what the HF propagation was at 3.105 MHz , 6.210 MHz,
7.500 MHz,  whether solar storms may have disrupted HF communications, and,
if so, for how long.

We should also note that "line of sight" communications were possible between
ground stations and Earhart at a distance over 40 miles when she was flying
at an altitude of 1,000 feet.

Jim Hurysz
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:42:21 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Lae Frequency

From Ross Devitt

Thanks Ric,


The reasoning behind this is in the other post.  I had (and honestly still

do have) trouble with the concept of a pilot having to "tune" a

communication receiver to a station whilst the aircraft was bouncing around

and vibrating in flight; which is why most comms receivers "switch" to

change frequencies.


What it would be worth to be able to discuss this with someone who actually

used this equipment....


Th' WOMBAT
******************************************************************
From Ric

I can remember having to hand-tune an ADF, and I'm just a kid.  I'm sure
there are many Ancient Pelicans (to use Ernie Gann's term) on the forum who
can tell you all about cranking little handles.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:47:24 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Electra's Receiver

From Ross Devitt

So that kills my theories....



Th' WOMBAT

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

My condolences.  I have a stack of dead theories about waist high.  Stinks to
high heaven.  The only thing worse is to have a dead theory and not be able
to smell it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:48:54 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: 20 B Receiver

From Ross Devitt

> Regarding the "calibration" that may have occurred in Lae, there are 4

> "receiver alignment" points (trimmer capacitors?) accessible from outside

the

> receiver just below the antenna and ground connections (page 210, figure

133).

>

> Jim Hurysz


Which gets back to my questions as I'd think they would be used to

"calibrate" the receiver if the frequency Lae wanted to use was a little off

the scale of the vernier.  However..  WHY did Lae choose a different

frequency from the one the receiver was originally calibrated to?  Because

this raises the question...  did they have an oscillator capable of being

used to re-calibrate and check the frequency back to 6210?


Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:50:30 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

From Warren Lambing

> >From Chris Kennedy

>

> For the people who are researching this, if all else fails you might call

the

> City of Los Angeles Lands Department (I believe that's what its called)

and

> ask

here is there web site

http://www.ci.la.ca.us/CLK/landrec/indexlr.htm


> to view the "Sanborn Maps".  These are maps of the city and go back to, I

> believe, the early 1920s.


I am not in LA or anywhere near the west coast, but the Internet does allow

me to search the card catalog at the Los Angeles Public Library, main

branch.  I did a search for the Sanborn maps, which I only found an index

for Sanborn atlases held by the State University of California these where

fire maps.  However I did find a lot of maps of LA in the 20's and 30's, and

I will paste one example of entry that would look encouraging, but who knows

if it list the city blocks.  Also, of course the LA city Directories are

there, some of eastern U.S Cities have maps in the old city directories with

the blocks, not sure about the old Los Angeles directories, but it May have

a map in it.  Here is the entry for one of many old maps of Los Angeles.

____________________________________________________________________________

_______

AUTHOR(s):       Renie, Jack J.  (Jack Joseph)

TITLE(s):        Renie's metropolitan map of Los Angeles & Orange counties,

                   Calif.  Map based upon U. S. G. S. polyconic projection &

                   comp. from city, county, U. S. G. S. and other official

                   record files.

                 Scale:  5,000 ft. to 1 inch


                 Los Angeles,  McKinney blue print corp.

                 map,  51 x 55.

SUBJECT(s):      Los Angeles (Calif.)  Maps  1934.

                 Orange County (Calif.)  Maps  1934.


LOCN:   HISCEN REF       STATUS: Not checked out --

CALL #: 91.7941 L88RE

____________________________________________________________________________

_______


Regards.

Warren lambing
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:53:59 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Kanton Island Article/Black Cat Squadron

From Doug Brutlag

Ric;

I just got the lastest copy of Ocean Navigator magazine and it contains
an excellent article on Kanton island.  It describes the location,
weather patterns, some history, and island life at present, which would
help people to understand what it is like in the Phoenix island group.
The publisher screwed up and sent me 2 copies so I'm sending one to
you.  Perhaps the publisher might let you put the article on the website
for all.

Also, last night I went to a meeting of the Illinois Pilots Association
and it was mentioned that our speaker next month will be a gentleman who
flew in the Black Cat Squadron during WWII.  His assignment was flying
PBY's on search and rescue in the pacific.  Did the Black Cats do any
recon of Niku or the Phoenix group in general during the 40's?  I'll
investigate if you wish.  Perhaps this dude might have a few tales.

Doug B.  #2335
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Doug.
By all means ask, but my recollection is that the Black Cats operated in the
Solomons - a long way form the Phoenix Group.  We have pretty complete
records on the PBYs based at Canton.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:00:28 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

From Sheila

Dear Forum,


1527 W. 7th Street is now a recycling center.  It's on an upslope lot with

no visible structures.  There is, however, a big  blue construction

dumpster and a chain link fence.  The center says it is operation 24 hours

but I don't think this helps us much, do you?


Sheila

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

Okay, I'll say it before somebody else does.  WE GOTTA CHECK OUT THAT
DUMPSTER!
(just kidding, just kidding)  Good work Sheila.

****************************************************************
More from Sheila

For William

You are right, William.  I just left a message to that effect based on my

husband's visit to the site -- now a recycling center.  See my other posting

for details.


Sheila

Hi Jon


I am amazed how many people tried to help with the 7th street house.  I live

in the general neighborhood, however, and my husband visited the address

which is now a recycling site.  (See other postings I sent tonight).  I am

starting to sound like a broken record, actually!


Sheila
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:01:49 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

From Sheila

> >From Tom King

>

> For Sheila -- If the Roosevelt's renovation was encouraged by Federal

income tax credits (VERY likely), then it should have been done in accordance

with Federal historic rehabilitation standards, which would have involved some

> coordination with the Office of Historic Preservation in the CA Dept. of

> Parks and Recreation, and with the National Park Service in San Francisco.

> It's POSSIBLE that this will have resulted in some care being taken of

> historical records, though people working now at the Roosevelt might not

know about it.  I can check on this if you'd like.

>

> Tom King



Tom,


I may have already replied to this -- I am so overworked that my head is

spinning and I am not sure.  But the answer is yes!  I would love to know

anything about this you can find out.


Of course, as a Trustee for the Windsor Square/Hancock Park Historical

Society, I should be able to find out for myself -- but as nobody there is

interested in the AE project, I may be better off waiting to hear from you.


Sheila
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:04:00 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: 20 B Receiver

From Christian D:

First of all: where did  Hue Miller find this idea about the Bandswitch
forcing the selection of the antenna inputs on the Rx (Receiver)?  Hue: do
you know more than you are letting on???    :-)



>  >From Jim Hurysz
>
>  Referring to the WE 20 B receiver schematic in"Aircraft Radio and
Electrical
>  Equipment" - page 209 - the high frequency and low frequency antenna
>  selection was done by the band switch. The band switch appeared to be a
>  5-postion rotary "wafer" switch. One position appears to be "off" (ground).
>  The other positions are to select one of  the 4 bands.
>

I'll have to see if I can get that book as well...  Great find, Jim.

So it seems that the stock 20-B indeed selected the "LF" input for the 2 lo
bands, and ONLY the "HF" input for the 2 HF (shortwave) bands.

And the Bendix D/F loop was installed by a Bendix tech. Who may or may not
have been familiar with the antenna switching arrangement of the WE radio, as
Hue said.

Also, I understand that in the 30's, DFing was never done on HF...  I could
well see that at the time of the installation, the tech might have VERBALLY
told AE that: "of course the D/F loop is switched in only for the 2 lower
bands..."  Or may be this was before FN's time, and only Mantz & Co were
aware of that fine point, and soon afterwards they were out of the picture...

Several months later in Lae, that might very well have been forgotten.


My questions:

---Is there ANY records that at any time before July '37 AE did any D/Fing on
any frequency on the 2 HF bands?

---It is *possible* that the Bendix tech would have instead wanted to retain
complete flexibility in the choice of antenna: is there any indications (in
his paperwork, or at any time later) that he may have added a custom made
*outboard* switching arrangement for the antennaes?  A switch on a bracket,
or just swapping cables?  May be even modifying the switch wafer for the
antennaes, inside the radio (easy)?

---A small point: standard antennas (wires) and D/F loops often have
different impedances...  Any indications on the schematics that the LF input
is for a D/F loop?  Or for a specific impedance?  Also: jacks for wire
antennas are likely to have been a single pole terminal, even for the "LF"
jack.  The cable coming from the D/F coupler could well have been a form of
coax instead...  Adding a D/F loop to that WE-20 may not have been plain
"plug 'n play", and required some "adapting"... Sounds like the WE-20 was NOT
designed to be mated to a D/F loop?

Christian D.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:05:30 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Number of positions on the Bandswitch...

From Christian D:

I don't remember if it mattered, but a while ago there was a discussion about
the number of positions on a radio switch, as seen in some pix...

I would guess that the crystal channels on the BA-model were requiring 2
extra positions on the bandswitch; hence 7pos instead of 5...  Or possibly
only 6 pos total, if the (possibly) useless "zero" (grounded) position could
be brought into use.  Possibly the same remote box could be reused, the
wafers having more than enough positions, and a mechanical stop only needed
to be moved (beside the wiring change).  Of course the labelling on the panel
would have to be (hopefully) altered somehow as well...

It would have been QUITE dandy for AE to have 3105 and 6210 instantly
available on the Receiver;  and apparently a standard WE-20 could be
converted after being installed...

Cheers.

Christian D.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:07:23 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Earhart's Radios

From Hue Miller

 >>Miss Earhart regretted that the D/F receiver installed in her aircraft was
not

functioning therefore an inspection of this receiver was carried out and a
ground test arranged between the aircraft and the D/F wireless station.  It
was

|discovered that the fuse for the D/F generator had blown and upon renewal

in Miss Earhart's presence the ground test was completed<<


And once again we see some technician's

idiosyncratic use of the language. For this

to make sense, he has to be referring to

the WE20 as a "D/F", summarizing both

its D/F and communications use by this

term.  This follows thru in the term "D/F

fuse". The actual unit we might prefer to

call the D/F, the RDF, actually used so

little power that it drew its power from

the main receiver. Possibly, this could

be a hint of why fuses popped, but not

real likely.

Probably everyone is aware of this

already, sorry. Just wanted to make

sure we are all on the same page.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:09:22 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Lae Frequency

From Hue Miller

I for one, Ric, would *love* to have the

schematics to peruse. One schematic

is worth 10E3 words! One thing i am

quite cuious about is how "netting"

or "whistle through" was accomplished -

how the tunable receiver was tuned

to the exactly right frequency. (Purely

visual means not accurate enuff for

vital communications.)

By the (obvious) way, if the receiver is

in fact crankable (tunable, in my own

language), it follows that nothing the

Lae tech could have done by

'calibration' would have rendered it

incapable of receiving some particular

frequency. By 'calibration' i assume

the semi-technical writer meant what

we know as "alignment" (like tweaking

certain screw adjustments to maximize

performance).

Also, i would have to sympathize more

with AE regarding comm difficulty -

instead of just flipping channels to try

for the best, you have crank and

carefully tune into the specific

channel - and be concerned that you

have tuned in right - so that if you don't

hear, it's because the signal isn't there,

and not that you're off by a mm or so

on the dial.

By the way, you described my theory

#632 or whatever it was, as complicated.

Actually, it's the simplest - requires no

act o' god, no crucial interventions by

third parties. Otherwise, consider also

that Miami or whereever the RDF unit

was installed, would have had to

fabricate an antenna throwover

switch to switch the RDF between

the 2 antenna inputs on the WE20.

That would have been one more

step of complexity to operating the

whole thing, tho i can't rule it out.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:12:56 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Rest of the story (some of )

From Hue Miller

Christian D, bless your soul, you get it

entirely !


THAT is exactly what i am saying.

Robert C. Sherman described the

antenna input scheme to me.  Seeing

the actual schematic, i could verify

this in about 3 seconds.

The ONLY weakness i see, is that

i have to assume AE  NEVER tried

out the HF-DF til Lae, but MAY

well have regularly used it on

200-1500 kc/s with success! That

does nag me as being somewhat

unlikely, but maybe mostly because

i wouldn't do it that way, i'm a knob-

twirler.

Also, on my side, consider that it

may have been considered that

there were not really HF beacon

stations, or stations willing to

do the long count business

during working hours. Also, HF

(shortwave) broadcast stations,

a possible source of homing

signals, are notorious for not

being located in their associated

cities. Plus if the pair already

had a hint that it was not totally

reliable or recommended.....

else, why would all the other

civilian fliers be relying strictly

on 200-1500 kc/s?

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:14:11 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Electra's Receiver

From Hue Miller

Everything electrical in the receiver was

included in the schematic. If not quartz

control, the only other option for

channelizing was mechanical detentes,

but this would have been 1) very expensive

and taking up more space, and 2) not

accurate enuff at this point for critical,

narrow, weak signal reception. As i

know it, and possibly incorrect, the

first reliable mechanical retuning systems

date to about 1939, from Collins Radio,

and were for the military. Someone told

me this was displayed at the SF World's

Fair that year, haven't fact checked that.

Jim, my books are all packed away.

Please, how did the system handle

"netting" the receiver to the exact

frequency?

Thanks, Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:15:10 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The belly antenna question

From Hue Miller

Excellent questions all. I don't pretend to know,

just what i have seen, read, and some radio

theory. I will hack away at this issue this

weekend.

Hue
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:30:45 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Alas, poor Ventral

From Hue Miller

But, how can it be that no one at Lae

commented on this ?! Seems like

a tidbit such as this would be sure to

be brought up in the clamor of news

following the event.

Even if we assume it was somehow

part of communications system, as

opposed to nav, it doesn't seem to

have crippled receive, or is there a

clue there?

I was thinking at first that the antenna

struts might have merely collapsed,

leaving the antenna swinging from

its entrance insulator. If so, the

wind driven swinging of the wire

would have eventually snapped it off.

( i think my tires are beginning to spin)


I don't think it's unlikely that at first,

the belly antenna was receive, and the

trail antenna was transmit. I believe

with the addition of the topside V,

the clear advantage would have been

to use the single antenna for R & T.

But no law to say do it this way.


Would the flyers have heard the crunch

when the antenna went?

Hue Miller

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

The only thing louder than a takeoff in a Lockheed 10E was the explosion of
Krakatoa in 1883.  Think of a formation takeoff by two T-6s.
I can't imagine that they would have felt anything either.

The loss of the antenna was clearly not noticed by the observers but that's
probably because it happened up at the far end of the runway, a long way from
where they were standing.  We do have one anecdotal account from Robert
Fullenwider who was inh Lae during WWII.  Before we knew anything about the
antenna loss he told me that some of the "old timers" around Lae had told him
that they weren't surprised when Earhart went missing because "she left her
trailing wire antenna laying out on the runway when she left."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:52:51 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Electrical matters

From Hue Miller

I have to put my theory on indefinite hold while i do some

more hammering and sawing. (May be building coffin.)


More grist for the mill:


RDF manualette says for D/F a good strong signal is

very good. (Presumably this makes the null (minimum)

position stand out that much more clearly. So, note:

nix Earhart's idea of why D/F did not work at Lae.

Something else going on there!!


Only firm footing is that topside V antenna for

transmitter. ( Note: not usable 500 kc/s,

even in lengthened form! As bright red

letters on my type ATD transmitter tuning

units for 500-1500 kc/s say, USE TRAILING

ANTENNA ONLY. Too short and voltages

developed on such a short antenna are

dangerous. )


I'm thinking it was a longish run to run

an antenna wire from the transmitter's

TO RECEIVER post to the receiver

under a seat upfront. Maybe using the

belly antenna for combined sense &

general receive antenna would have

made "sense" from this aspect: its

leadin was much shorter to the

receiver. BUT how could this be,

if it was scraped off, that would

nix all nondirectional receive, they

could only receive when switched

over to the loop. Wouldn't they

have commented, on discovering

that fact? (In this scenario, V

ant to TRANS, belly ant to RDF,

RDF (pass thru wire) ant to REC

HF ANT, RDF loop to REC LF ANT.)


RDF in "Receive" position acts as a 1-tube

preamp between its wire antenna and the

receiver.  (This feature didn't have to be

used, if you arranged to switch receiver

to another source when not D/F'ing.)


If belly was only sense antenna, it could

be dispensed with. Might not even

merit mentioning to Itasca or Lae.


This scenario still fits, as a possibility:


V antenna to TRANS

Trans (switched ant) to REC  HF ANT

*but is this run too long?

Belly ant to RDF

RDF output (3 wire shielded) to rec

loop inputs ( here's where my theory

took off: connected here to LF ANT )

RDF wire antenna pass-thru not connected

to anything


But i'm not convinced. I am still tossing

transmitters, receivers, antennas, and

cables up in the air, hoping they'll

land in a pattern that makes sense.

Ideas, anyone?


RDF manualette sez RDF was at home using either

comm antenna wire or dedicated sense wire antenna

connected to its A post.


What, what was the advantage in having the belly

antenna??????

Being so weight conscious, would AE have kept the

belly antenna on, if it was doing nothing, connected

to nothing??

Maybe sketching some of this layout stuff out,

would help.

Hue Miller

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

Despite the U.S. Army Signal Corps' best efforts, I'm not a radio guy (as Cam
has already noted) but the sceario that makes sense to me is, as you suggest
above, that the belly antenna was a combined general receive and sense
antenna.  It's loss on takeoff would almost certainly not be audible or
"feelable" by the crew.  It's absence would tidily explain why AE heard
nothing transmitted by the Itasca until she tried to DF on 7500 and switched
over to the loop which was, unbenownst to her, the only receiving antenna she
had.

Of course, this scenario only works if she heard none of Balfour's
transmissions on 6210 either and, as Ross has pointed out, Chater's comments
on this can be interpreted either way.

The loss of sense capability for the DF would not be an issue because she
never got a null anyway, but the loss of voice reception was, of course, a
major factor in the disappearance.

Would AE have mentioned not having received anything from Lae?  Would she
have assumed that hearing nothing meant that she had a problem with her
receiver?  I doubt it.  As far as I can tell she rarely received anything
from anybody anyway.



LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:59:19 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Earhart Data from Long & Long and Lovell

From Ross Devitt

> Ah, but they didn't.. she took off at 10 a.m. and it was 2:18 p.m. (over

four

> hours later) before they heard anything from her.  Chater attributes this

to

> local interference but the fact is that Lae couldn't hear Earhart on 6210

> until she was - what?- at least 400,


Chater actually says the signals were "unintelligible" until 2:18pm due to

local interference, NOT unheard, suggesting she may have been heard, but not

understood almost from the start, only becoming clearer once the

interference died down.


The local interference was so bad the day or so before that all shipping had

to be asked to stay off the air just to get time signals through.  That's a

lot of interference.


I'm sticking to this one....


Th' WOMBAT
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I love these linguistic duels.  Actually, Chater does NOT say that
"unintelligible" transmissions were received.  The quote is:
"..local interference prevented signals from the plane being intelligible
until 2:18
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:06:15 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Electra's Belly Antenna

From Jim Hurysz

According to "Aircraft Radio and Electrical Equipment, " (page 176) belly
antennas were commonly used as "range antennas." Range antennas were used to
receive signals tansmitted by "radio range stations," that is, low-frequency
beacons that broadcast the letters "A" and "N" in Morse Code (page 294). Low
frequency radio range stations usually consisted of four vertical towers. One
tower pair was used to broadcast the letter "A. The other tower pair was used
to broadcast the letter "N". The tower pairs were usually (but not always) at
right angles. The tower pairs broadcast sequentially. The antenna patterns
were such that the signals formed four lobes. Depending on where an airplane
was in relation to the beacon,  a pilot flying through the lobes of the
beacon would hear the letter A, the letter N, or the letters A and N. The
volume at which one heard A or N or both determined the plane's poiton
relative to the beacon. Each radio range station had a unique identifier.
Radio range stations would ID every 30 seconds in slow Morse Code (2 or 3
letter ID).

There were lots of radio range stations in the late 30's. LF beacons are
still used today, and are maintained by the FAA in the United States.

Jim Hurysz

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

I think that most of the radio gurus on the forum would agree with me that
Earhart's belly antenna was almost certainly not intended primarily as a
"range antenna."
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:09:17 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: 6540, RA-1, DF etc

From Tom King

Maybe we could sell the next expedition as a follow-on to "Survivor."

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

Why not?  We've all ready done five pilots for the show.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:11:17 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

From Tom King

For Sheila -- OK, I've made an inquiry with the Office of Historic
Preservation in Sacramento; no response yet.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:13:13 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Ah, sweet youth . . .

From Dennis McGee

Ric said: " . . .and I'm just a kid."

    Not recently, buster!
    Rumor is you helped Orville prime the carb for Wilber's flight.
True?

LTM, who is gray but proud
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, okay...but I had to stand on a tool box to do it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:17:09 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

From Kerry Tiller


The Sanborn maps are indeed fire maps. When I was involved in Historic
preservation back in the 70's in Tucson we found Sanborn fire maps to be
very useful. Sanborn, I believe, was a fire insurance company and the maps
(updated periodically) showed individual buildings within the city. Each
building would have symbols on them keyed to a legend that would identify
how many stories the building was and what it was made of (adobe, reinforced
concrete, iron, wood, etc). The Sanborn maps we had for Tucson went back to
the 1880s. As in the case of L.A., the maps were no longer with the
municipal government, but housed in an historic library collection; in
Tucson's case, the Arizona Historical Society Library. They were especially
useful in dating street scene photographs and dating the age of individual
buildings.

LTM (who reminds me I'm off topic again)

Kerry Tiller #2350
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Did the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company later merge with Chase Manhattan Bank
and form a subsidiary that grew coffee?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:18:56 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

From Kerry Tiller

I'm sure Fred and his new bride weren't the only newly weds to move into a
dump for their first house.

Kerry Tiller

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

I try not to post one-liners but sometimes.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:21:26 EDT
From:         
Subject:      13C or 13CB Transmitter Installed in Electra?

From Jim Hurysz

According to "Aircraft Radio and Electrical Equipment," (pages 144-151) the
WE Model 13C transmitter covered 2000 to 6500 KC. The WE Model 13 CB covered
2000 to 6500 KC and also 325 to 500 KC. The 13 CB also allowed for CW (Morse
Code) operation.

The 13 C and the 13 CB could operate on three crystal controlled frequencies.
The crystals were in crystal ovens. Both transmitters were configured to
transmit on any 3 frequencies in the range the transmitter could transmit by
installing the appropriate crystals and the appropriate "interstage
transformers" in the transmitter.  The 13 CB was supplied with a 5 lb loading
coil. The 13 CB also had an adjustable tuning unit between the final amp
tubes (a pair of WE 282As) and the loading coil. The output from the loading
coil could be matched to a trailing wire or other antenna. The 13C used final
stage tuning inductors instead of the loading coil and adjustable tuning unit.

It appears that considerable "trial and error" effort had to be expended to
couple the 13 C or 13 CB transmitter to an aircraft's antenna for optimum
performance. The recommended way of doing this was to add or subtract
capacitance.

Transmit / receive was done at the transmitter, using relays. The relays were
normally open and were closed by the push-to-talk switch on the pilot's
micrpohone.
Remote frequency (crystal and inductor) selection was accomplished
mechanically through a "geared tachometer shaft."

Although "Aircraft Radio and Electrical Equipment" was published in 1939, and
appears to have been written in 1938, there is nothing mentioned about
configuring the 13 C or 13 CB to transmit above 6500 KC.

Jim Hurysz
******************************************************************
From Ric

Has anyone suggested that Earhart could transmit above 6500 KC?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:34:26 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Talk radio?

From Dennis McGee

Ric said:  "Would AE have mentioned not having received anything
from Lae? Would she have assumed that hearing nothing meant that she had a
problem with her receiver?  I doubt it.  As far as I can tell she rarely
received anything from anybody anyway."

    That is a good point because pilots today may want to compare AE's
radio environment with today's radio environment, and there is no
comparison.
    Today's aviation bands are saturated with conversation nearly every
hour of the day.  In the 1930s airplanes were still a novelty and airplanes
with radios were scarce.
    Today's pilots are trained to rely on their radios for crucial
flight information and are in deep doo-doo -- or at least greatly
inconvenienced -- if they loose voice communications with centers, towers,
etc.  I learned my lesson from one too many rent-a-planes with bad radios,
so I always made it a habit to monitor at least one local unicom freq when
ever I flew, if not for safety then just to be assured my radios were still
working.  Call it paranoia, but a silent radio let my mind conjure up too
many "what ifs."   Other pilots talking on the freq provided a certain sense
of security.
    I have a hard time putting myself in AE's seat cruising along for
hours and hours and never hearing another voice over the radio.  But, that
was normal then.  Just one more reason, I guess, to hold these pioneers in
high esteem -- even if their flight planning was faulty.

LTM, who often talks too much
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:37:05 EDT
From:         
Subject:      metalurgical survey?

From Brian

Dear Ric,

I was wondering if there are satellitte pictures of Niku and have there
been any metalurgical surveys that could have been done by satellitte???
It was a thought  or have I been watching too much st:tng???

Brian

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

There are a few satellite pictures of Niku but no metalurgical surveys and
nothing with enough resolution to do us any good.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:28:22 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

From Kerry Tiller

Chase & Sanborn Coffee was a front for a Colombian drug operation that
financed the bank and underwrote the insurance company.

Kerry Tiller

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

Ah, okay.  Thanks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:00:50 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The Belly Antenna Question

From Cam Warren

Ric -

Well, the sparring can get tiresome!

If you'll reread my message, I think you'll realize that I
expected you to have a Burbank post-repair photo showing a
single wire (I have one also, but it's hard to tell). I've
been led to believe the Nat'l Archives photo in the Roessler
book was authentic - and it obviously DOES show the double
wire arrangement. If you ARE sure the photo ID is incorrect,
I'd appreciate the correct info, and will willingly concede.
Further, if you are in possession of a known "Miami arrival"
picture showing the single wire, that would come close to
nailing the coffin shut re the "Gurr Vee".  But -

Two small problems before we write off my theory ("impression"
would be a better word).

1) As I'm sure you know, AE complained her radio didn't work
enroute Miami. Putnam wrote Mantz (as I recall) and said the
Pan Am techs had found the two wires were canceling each other
out (consistent with the goofy Vee) and when they reduced it
to a single wire, reception was much improved (I'm paraphrasing
the letter, which I don't have in front of me).

2) How do you explain the work order - printed in YOUR book,
and I have a copy of the original Lockheed document - that
clearly indicates the THREE antenna masts aft of the pair of
pitot tubes?  You SAY that the work orders weren't followed
exactly, which sounds like a generic cop-out if I've ever
heard one. Do you have "scientific" evidence to support that
conclusion??

And a final comment re Chater's use of the word "calibration",
which I think you - and several others - are attaching
momentous significance to. A reasonable conclusion would be
that he was misusing the word (in a technical sense). I'd
suspect he meant "retuned". Don't forget, Mr. Chater was -
like Amelia - not overly fond of, or well acquainted with -
aviation radio. (Ref: "Wings of Gold" by Sinclair)

Cam Warren
*****************************************************************
From Ric


Cam, with all due respect, I think we're wastng each others' time.

I send you not one but three Burbank post-repair photos showing a single wire
and you say, "I expected you to have a Burbank post-repair photo showing a
single wire (I have one also, but it's hard to tell)."

You say, "I've been led to believe the Nat'l Archives photo in the Roessler
book was authentic - and it obviously DOES show the double
wire arrangement. If you ARE sure the photo ID is incorrect,
I'd appreciate the correct info, and will willingly concede."
Nobody is questioning the photos authenticity.  It obviously shows Amelia and
her airplane.  What is incorrect is the Roessler/Gomez caption saying that it
was taken in Miami.  Antennas aside, the photo shows AE standing on the wing
beside the cockpit wearing her plaid shirt, silk scarf and leather jacket.
Must have been a chilly May in Miami.

I send you three photos showing that the airplane came out of repair with
only two antenna masts aft of the pitot tubes and you ask me if I have
scientific proof that the repairs calling for three masts were not carried
out according to the original orders.

You've convinced me that I can't convince you of anything, so let's not
burden each other and everyone else with these exercises in futility.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:06:28 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Helping the Wrights?

From Birch Matthews, #2349

Ric,
You couldn't possibly have primed the carburetor for the Wright brothers.
Their engine didn't have one . . . "gasoline was fed to the motor by gravity
in a constant stream and was vaporized by running over a large heated surface
of the water jacket of the cylinders." See, you are obviously younger than
you think.

I quote "The Wright Brothers, Heirs of Prometheus," edited by Richard P.
Hallion, National Air and Space Museum, 1978, p. 126.

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

Hey, I was only a kid.  What did I know?  Mr. Wright (I think it was Orv),
said, "You! Kid!  Come over here.  Stand up on this tool box and hold this."
Ninety seven years later I'm in trouble.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:08:25 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Amelia's last message/ "...no regrets."

From Ron Bright

Ric,

I have another entry in what Amelia said in her last message to Itasca.

Author Blance Wiesen Cook,writes in her new biography of "Eleanor
Roosevelt",Vol 2, page 459, that Eleanor Roosevelt " was certain that
Earhart's last words were " 'I have no regrets' ", made on 2 July 37 when her
plane disappeared.

Cook continued that ER said "to her (Amelia) it was worth the cost...hope she
went quickly...not subjected to great pain." I guess you could speculate
forever on what she meant by that choice of words.

The footnotes and sources for "I have no regrets"attributed to ER quoting
Amelia were impossible for me to fiqure out but apparently the quote from ER
came from some kind of diary or memoir in 1938.

Additionally, Cook footnotes the Morgenthau-Roosevelt exhange re the
"reputation" business, but adds that Morgenthau sent ER an unsigned memo
regarding the flight's end with similiar comments that he didn't wish to
release the information to the public,etc. This document apparently is
different than the Morgenthau recorded conversation included in his diary.

Maybe ER knew more than the Itasca knew. In other references to Amelia's
disappeance ER seems satisfied that everything that could have been done by
the Navy searchers was done.

Maybe ER was thinking of Frank Sinatra who did it his way and "had no
regrets"!

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:09:45 EDT
From:         
Subject:      PBYs at Kanton

From J. Dipi

i was stationed on kanton from feb.13th 1942 untilj june 15th 1942 and during
that time there were noPBYs based on kanton but about once a week one would
land in the lagoon at dusk and take off  before sunrise in fact 2different
came in  that had a crew member that came from CONNECTICUT ONE BY THE NAME OF
AL WAY THEOTHER  HIS LAST NAME WAS KUBINO  HE WAS FROM TORRINGTON CT.
 I AM GOING TO TRY TO GET A COPY OF THE OCEAN NAVIGATOR MAGAZINE
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:11:00 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Sanborn maps

From Tim Smith

Should anyone really need to know, the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were first
made in 1867 and gradually came to cover most cities and towns in the US.
They stopped making the large scale ones in the 1960s.  The Library of
Congress has a fairly comprehensive set of them.  Often they are available
locally at the historical society or government historical office.

LTM,
Tim Smith
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:30:40 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Noonan's Address in L.A.

From Jim Hurysz

I once saw a presentation by several employees of the Los Angeles County
Planning  Divison about how they went about updating Census maps, other maps,
and population and housing data they needed for planning decisions. They had
many different sources of data (many historic) about LA and LA County.

Jim Hurysz
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:38:46 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Lae Frequency

From Ross Devitt

> >From Ric

>

> I can remember having to hand-tune an ADF, and I'm just a kid.  I'm sure

> there are many Ancient Pelicans (to use Ernie Gann's term) on the forum

who can tell you all about cranking little handles.


We can still hand tune our ADFs now.  My point is that I'd hate to have to

hand tune the comms radios.  I have enough trouble hearing towers as it is..

remember I've been a "student" pilot for 30 years - NOT a pilot.  I have

what used to be called a restricted licence, which means I can only fly in

the local area with passengers until I do some more navigation.  That means

I have only limited experience of this as I don't get to try all this stuff

as often as some of the others on the forum.


In the mean time, I can see that "calibrating the reciver" must have meant

tuning it to Lae station and then marking the position on the dial.


In that light, part of my original supposition still stands, only corrected

for circumstance.


Here goes:


July 2nd, Amelia has been talking to Itasca on 3105(4)? and not receiving

answers.  At 8am she receives Itasca on the D/F but has the same problem as

at Lae i.e. cannot get a minimum.  I suggest this because she says she "WE

RECD WE UR SIGS BUT UNABLE...."   She doesn't say she cannot "HEAR" Itasca

as she did earlier.


Ok, so that is guesswork, the log could be interpreted either way, and it

almost doesn't matter.  She then asks Itasca to take a bearing on her and

answer with voice on 3105.  Presumably (guesswork) she wants Itasca to take

a bearing and then send that bearing by voice so she can turn in as she

can't get the D/F to work on the signals it is receiving.  This supports my

earlier guess re "SIGS".


About 3/4 hours later she's getting more worried.  Here is where I was

confused, but it makes a little sense now.  At 8:43 she announces she will

"REPT THIS ON 6210KCS" and asks them to wait.


Some time last year discussion pointed at the loss of an antenna being the

cause of Itasca not picking her up after that, or possibly skip.  I think

we've worked out over time that 6210 and 3105 use the same antenna.


I still think that even if there was local sunspot interference some of her

transmissions would have come through locally , though garbled as I am still

convinced that Lae heard her but her signals were "unintelligible" during

the first part of the flight.


So I suspect that she switched the band selector from 3105 to 6210 and began

to transmit her message, forgetting that the venier (dial) was tuned to Lae.

If she had been unable to hear Itasca on 3105 she would not have known,

indeed, she would not even have been able to tune in to Itasca on 6210 if

her receiver had developed a fault and she could not receive Itasca anyway.


HOWEVER this does NOT suggest why she could not transmit on 6210.  Even if

her receiver was still tuned to 6540, Itasca should have heard some noise

from her transmitter on 6210.



Th' WOMBAT

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

I'm not following you on how her receiver could still be tuned to the Lae
frequency after she's been trying to pick up Itasca on 3105 (unsuccessfully)
and 7500 (successfully).  She says "wait" because, although she can switch
transmit frequencies by simply flipping a switch, changing the receiver takes
longer.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:53:39 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Earhart Data from Long & Long and Lovell

From Ross Devitt

> >From Ric

>

> I love these linguistic duels.  Actually, Chater does NOT say that

> "unintelligible" transmissions were received.  The quote is:

> "..local interference prevented signals from the plane being intelligible

> until 2:18


And I still believe he would have said "..local interference prevented

signals from the plane being HEARD until 2:18"  had he meant "heard".

Prevented the signals from the plane being intelligible means they were

heard, but they were "unintelligible", i.e.  We hear you, but can't make out

a thing you are saying....


I'm still sticking to this...   <grin>


Th WOMBAT

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

Unfortunately, ol' Eric Chater walked into a prop not long after this whole
affair so I guess we'll never know what he actually meant.  However, the
unreliability of 6210 over relatively short distances was published in U.S.
Navy "skip diagrams" in 1937 and is well-known to aviators and navigators who
have had occasion to use it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:55:47 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: WE 20B and 20 BA Receivers

From Jim Hurysz

The title of the book I have been referring to is: "Aircraft Radio and
Electrical Equipment" by Howard K. Morgan, Pitman Publishing Company, New
York and Chicago, 1939. The Library of Congress Catalog number is: TL 693
M66. The Library of Congress serial number is: 39-33383. It was a standard
reference book. Appears to have been written in 1938.

Regarding the section about Western Electruic Model 20 receivers:

There is no indication from the text what the phrase "complete remote
control" means when refering to the Model 20 B and Model 20 BA.

The Model 20 BA is a Model 20 B with "crystal control" for band 3 (1500- 4000
KC) and/or Band 4 (4000 - 10000 KC). It appears from the schematic that a
crystal oscillator is substituted for the L/C oscillator.

Concerning the "alignment" for the Model 20 series (page 207), it is done
using a signal generator, a voltmeter, and other test equipment. There are
four antenna trimmers (one for each band) located below the LF / HF / Ground
terminals. These are accessible without removing the cover from the radio.

Quoting from the book: "Alignment is accomplished by supplying signals from a
generator to the receiver near the highest frequency end of each band and
adjusting the trimmers for that band."

But there there are also individual inductance trimmer caps (total of 9)
inside the radio that should also be adjusted. Also, voltages should be
measured at 17 points inside and 2 points outside the receiver.

I have seen one shortwave radio from the 1930's re-aligned because of poor
reception. It was a tedious process. The signal geneator (WW II vintage)
weighed 80 lbs and had it's own calibration book.

It would be interesting to know what radio test, repair, and calibration
services were available to Earhart in Lae.

Jim Hurysz
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:15:10 EDT
From:         
Subject:      No Subject

From Ross Devitt

>     I have a hard time putting myself in AE's seat cruising along for

> hours and hours and never hearing another voice over the radio.  But, that

> was normal then.  Just one more reason, I guess, to hold these pioneers in

> high esteem -- even if their flight planning was faulty.

>

> LTM, who often talks too much

> Dennis O. McGee #0149CE


So we have two people spending 20 hours in a plane isolated from the world

and they know Lae can hear them, but they can't hear Lae.  Obviously we

weren't there, but I'm fairly sure I'd let it slip that I couldn't hear any

replies to my scheduled transmissions.


Wonder what really happened.  Are there transcripts of her conversations on

radio in the earlier parts of the flight?  Did she acknowledge receptin of

messages?  Or did she totally ignore them?


Some documents may have survived saying whether she routinely acknowledged

receipt of transmissions to her.  This might shed more light on "Was Amelia

in two way communication with Lae?", which may have some aggregate effect on

the whole scene eventually...


Th WOMBAT

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

About an hour after her departure from Miami, AE "tuned in on Miami's radio
station WQAM" to get the weather and was treated to a broadcast description
of her own takeoff that "held me in cruel suspense as to whether or not I
actually was going to get off safely!"
Later in that flight to Puerto Rico she "tuned in a Spanish station and heard
my name."
She doesn't mention the radio again until, in describing the flight across
the South Atlantic, she says,
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:44:10 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Talk radio?

From Ross Devitt

>     I have a hard time putting myself in AE's seat cruising along for

> hours and hours and never hearing another voice over the radio.  But, that

> was normal then.  Just one more reason, I guess, to hold these pioneers in

> high esteem -- even if their flight planning was faulty.

>

> LTM, who often talks too much

> Dennis O. McGee #0149CE


So we have two people spending 20 hours in a plane isolated from the world

and they know Lae can hear them, but they can't hear Lae.  Obviously we

weren't there, but I'm fairly sure I'd let it slip that I couldn't hear any

replies to my scheduled transmissions.


Wonder what really happened.  Are there transcripts of her conversations on

radio in the earlier parts of the flight?  Did she acknowledge receptin of

messages?  Or did she totally ignore them?


Some documents may have survived saying whether she routinely acknowledged

receipt of transmissions to her.  This might shed more light on "Was Amelia

in two way communication with Lae?", which may have some aggregate effect on

the whole scene eventually...


Th WOMBAT

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

Earhart's experiences with radio on the World Flight are described in "Last
Flight."

About an hour after her departure from Miami, AE "tuned in on Miami's radio
station WQAM" to get the weather and was treated to a broadcast description
of her own takeoff that "held me in cruel suspense as to whether or not I
actually was going to get off safely!"
Later in that flight to Puerto Rico she "tuned in a Spanish station and heard
my name."
She doesn't mention the radio again until, in describing the flight across
the South Atlantic, she says, " About midway we passed an Air France mail
plane.  Unfortunately I could not 'talk' to it.  the mail plane's radio
equipment, I beleive, is telegraphic code, while mine, at the moment, was
exclusively voice telephone.  As always, I broadcast my position by voice
each half hour.  Whether it was heard at all, or understood if heard, perhaps
i shall never know."  In Fred's letter to Gene Pallete, written from Dakar,
he says of the South Atlantic crossing, "...our radio was out of order."

The next time the radio is mentioned is in her description of her airplane
for an interview in Karachi, India but she doesn't say anything about using
the radio.  One thing to remember is that this is long before the adoption of
English as the international language of aviation.  For most of the World
Flight there was no one she could have talked to who would have understood
her.

The next time we know anything about even an attempt to use the radio is the
blown fuse that prevents her from hearing Darwin during the flight from
Koepang.  What is a bit odd about that, come to think of it, is that upon her
arrival Darwin complained that they heard nothing from her and she explained
that her receiver wasn't working.  What has that got to do with them not
hearing her?

Then, of course, we're all familar with (although we may not all agree about)
radio-related events in Lae and beyond.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:45:23 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Lae Frequency

From Don Jordan

From Don Jordan

    Look guys.  Hand tuning a communications radio is not that far in the
past.  I still have the old tube type radio that came out of my first
airplane.  The transmitter was crystal controlled, but the receiver was hand
cranked.  It still has the little "tick" marks on the dial.  The radio was
introduced when VOR's were new, back in the 50's.

    Yes. . .  it was hard to tune when in turbulence, and was easily knocked
out of tune.  It isn't going to help find Amelia, but I'll put a picture of it
on my Web site if anyone wants to see it.

Don J.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:01:41 EDT
From:         
Subject:      How Many Antennas on the Electra?

From Janet Whitney

How many newspaper photographers and newsreel photographers took photos and
motion pictures of the Electra from the day before Earhart and Noonan Miami
until the morning they off from Lae? How many mechanics and airline employees
and airport employees and and spectators took photos? Hundreds?  Why are you
still conjecturing about how many antennas were on the Electra, and their
configuration?

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

Incredible isn't it?  With such an abundance of evidence you would think that
there could be absolutely no question about the number and configuration of
antennas on the airplane from the time it left the reapir shop - and, in
fact, there isn't.  What you've been witnessing in the postings challenging
the photographic record is the lengths to which some researchers will go to
cling to a pet theory in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are
wrong.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:14:28 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Earhart Data from Long & Long and Lovell

From Alan Caldwell

You'd make a good lawyer, Ric. Seriously, exact wording is often critical but
you know that.

It would have been nice to have actually heard those transmissions. I would
like to have heard whether she said one fifty..........seven East or one
fifty-seven East.  Of course the drifting, circling, listening transmission
would have been interesting to hear though not all that crucial. Several
others might have been clearer recorded than written down as best someone
could.

Alan
#2329

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

>>You'd make a good lawyer<<

No need to get abusive. <G>
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:37:51 EDT
From:         
Subject:      "...no regrets."

From Warren Lambing

> The footnotes and sources for "I have no regrets"attributed to ER quoting

> Amelia were impossible for me to fiqure out but apparently the quote from

ER

> came from some kind of diary or memoir in 1938.


Ron

    I have no doubt this next statement will get me in trouble, simply

because I don't have this book in front of me and it has been years since I

read it, and as this forum points out, we all know how unreliable human

memory is (just look at poor old 97 year old Ric. who can't remember that

Orvil Wright's airplane didn't have a carburetor), anyhow in the book Amelia

Earhart / by Muriel Earhart Morrissey, her sister wrote that AE had written

letters to her father and mother (could be just her mother, can't remember

if her father was still alive), to be read in case she didn't make it.  Now

here is where my memory will get me in trouble, but as I remember in one of

those letters she among other things stated she "had no regrets".  I will

try to find time to check a library that I think has the book, but if my

faulty memory is correct it would appear ER is quoting that letter AE wrote.


Regards.

Warren Lambing

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

Only her mother was alive.  Amelia wrote and reportedly said many things
before various flights expressing her awareness of the dangers and
willingness to accept them.  Most of them get quoted out of context.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:03:53 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel

From Vern

Sheila wrote...

>If I continue to be thwarted, I plan to dress in my best old Hollywood
>period style and storm the place!  Actually, I might do something like
>that!!!

Checking the hotel's web site:  http://www.hollywoodroosevelt.com
I find that the place is haunted!  There's a page of "Ghost Stories."

If Sheila does as she says she might, she'll doubtless be taken for a ghost!

Perhaps she could storm in wearing leather jacket and aviator's helmet
proclaiming that she's Amelia Earhart and that she's looking for that
no-good Fred Noonan!

"Is he registered here?" she asks, and demands to see the hotel register --
the 1937 register, of course.

Whereupon a sharper than your average hotel clerk might say, "I'm sure
you'll find him in the bar, madam."  These people are used to dealing with
ghosts.

LTM (who also frequents the Hollywood Roosevelt in spirit)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:05:38 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: 20 B Receiver

From Christian D.

>  >From Jim Hurysz
>
>  Regarding the "calibration" that may have occurred in Lae, there are 4
>  "receiver alignment" points (trimmer capacitors?) accessible from outside
> the
>  receiver just below the antenna and ground connections (page 210, figure
133)
> .
>


Not having the schematics, my educated guess is that these 4 holes are merely
to adjust the matching of the aircraft antenna for each band; just a trimmer
cap, one per band; they are INDEED located right next to the antenna jacks.
The full alignment of a receiver requires the adjustment of more than half a
dozen controls, and this for EACH band...

Does the book indicate if it is indeed so, or, if by extraordinary, each of
these 4 holes would allow the trimming of the frequency of the oscillator
itself, for each band???

Christian D (wo1v@arrl.net)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:11:50 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: PBYs at Kanton

From Christian D.

To: J. Dipi

Do you know anything about the twin engine seaplane hulk that is still
sitting on the oceanside beach?  Called "Big John" if I remember correctly...
 Looks like it landed short and crashed into the beach...

I read the "Ocean Navigator" article, interesting. They missed a couple of
things, like when they describe the water situation, they forget to mention
the big transformer which has leaked over 400 gal of PCB-laden oil, less than
1000ft from the village water wells...

Christian D.  (wo1v@arrl.net)
****************************************************************
From Ric

Indeed, Kanton is an environmental nightmare.  In addition to the PCB-spewing
transformers there is a broken-down open warehouse full of pesticides with
boxes and barrels leaking god-knows-what onto the floor and out the door. The
airfield and surrounding area looks like the set for "Armageddon - The
Sequel".
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:15:37 EDT
From:         
Subject:      "Netting the WW-20"...

From Christian D.



>
>  >From Hue Miller
>
>  I for one, Ric, would *love* to have the
>
>  schematics to peruse. One schematic
>
>  is worth 10E3 words! One thing i am
>
>  quite cuious about is how "netting"
>
>  or "whistle through" was accomplished -
>
>  how the tunable receiver was tuned
>
>  to the exactly right frequency. (Purely
>
>  visual means not accurate enuff for
>
>  vital communications.)
>


Interesting question!

It would be nice to look at the schematic for the Transmitter: possibly it
had a position on the "mode" switch which enabled the Transmitter on very low
power, while allowing the Receiver to be tuned ("cranked") EXACTLY to each of
the 3 channels of the transmitter.

*IF* that was the case then AE was NEVER in doubt of her exact frequency,
whenever she wanted to listen to 500, 3105 or 6210.

Christian D.
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Photos of AE's cockpit show the 27A remote for the 20B complete with little
crank.  Before we start speculating about a crystal controlled receiver let's
have some shred of evidence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:31:11 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Fred Noonan

From Warren Lambing

Ric.

    I know TIGHAR has been looking at Fred Noonan as a navigator and some of

his personal life, but does TIGHAR know of any relatives to Fred and do you

have any interest in looking for any?  I know the chances of finding a

living relative that knew Fred are slim, but is there an interest on your

part to see if there is a trail?  If there is an interest what do you know

about Fred?  For example his age and place of birth and so forth.


Regards.

Warren Lambing

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

TIGHAR has a great interest in finding a living relative of Fred Noonan,
particularly one in the direct female line.  That's what we'll need if we're
ever fortunate enough to have human remains for DNA matching.  That very need
could conceivably come up next year when we excavate a grave on the Nutiran
shore.

Our interest in finding a living Noonan relative is what prompted the
launching of The Noonan Project more than two years ago.  Since then Jerry
Hamilton, Ron Dawson and several other TIGHAR members have done an
outstanding job researching Fred's life.  A little bit of what has been
learned is posted in a Research Bulletin entitled "Fred Noonan- Sea Captain"
on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin9_4_98.html

(We even have Noonan Project tee-shirts.)

So far, however, no bona fide living relative has been found.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:17:43 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Earhart's Radios

From Hue Miller
(Note from Ric:  I'll answer Hue's question as he asks them)

>>From Cam Warren


1) Your apparently infinite patience in answering repetitive questions,<<


Well, so what? Are we running out of space?

From Ric:  No.  The issue is time.  We need to move the investigation
forward.  If the forum had a fixed and constant body of subscribers we
wouldn't have people endlessly raising questions that have already been
answered.  We do have a section of FAQs on the website, and that helps, but
we can't cover everything there. Repetitive questions are a fact of life.


<<(Long's book contains a photo allegedly shot in Miami, of an RA-1 remote in
the cockpit of the Electra.

.....cite Mr. Collins' letter. "Miss Earhart regretted that the D/F

receiver . . .was not functioning . . .>>


Well, i have to side with the "2-receivers". Such photos plus the

comments seems to make a strong argument. I think if you don't

accept this, you are forcing the quoted descriptions to a poor

fit.

From Ric:  I disagree.


<<From Ric

No surprises, although your allegation that the 20B did have DF capability if
supplemented with a WE3A loop and a WE601A input transformer is based upon
notes taken by a D.C. Mead from an undated factory manual.  However, we have
a five-page Western Electric sales bulletin describing the 20B dated
September 1936 and it makes no mention of such capability.>>


The last sentence does not particularly disprove anything. A star witness is

the different HF and LF antenna connections. Without D/F use intended,

there is *no* need for different inputs. ( I can explain this if need be. I

can also quote schematics for contemporaneous gear.)

From Ric:  I don't have the expertise to comment on that.


<<You also sent a copy of a similar Lockheed memo dated May 10(?), 1937 with
two items:

2.  Revision to V antenna installation on top of fuselage by previous

order.

Re-locate transmitter inlet insulator in accordance with Mr. Gurr's

|instructions, Amelia Earhart's representative.">>


Does this further point to the top V antenna as (at least) serving the

transmitter?

From Ric:  There's little doubt that the dorsal V served the transmitter.
The lead-in enters the fuselage right where the transmitter is mounted.


<<This is a curious memo because photos of the airplane taken in Burbank on

May 20, the day after the aircraft came out of the shop, show no such V
antenna

|on the belly -- nor do any subsequent photos of the Electra.>>


Maybe somebody in the shop said, "Hey, this is a waste of material, time

and money"  (because it won't gain you anything.)


<<I'm not sure what your point is, but it should be obvious that the orders

describing what repairs were to be accomplished were written before the

work was done.  Photos of the airplane after the repairs were completed make
it

equally obvious that the work was not done exactly as specified in the
original orders.


So far I have yet to see any evidence that there was a Bendix RA-1 receiver

aboard the airplane.>>


What about the photo claimed to show the RA-1 control box? So you

would assume she had the RA-1 removed somewhere down the line?

From Ric:  No I would not.  The photo touted by Elgen Long as showing a
Bendix RA-1 remote mounted in Earhart's cockpit in Miami shows a black box
with illegible markings on it mounted in the cockpit of some Lockheed Model
10.  I've seen nothing that identifies the box as a remote for an RA-1 nor
can I see anything in the photo that identifies the airplane as Earhart's or
the location as Miami.


Hue says:
BTW, in 1937 the RA-1 would be considered a very impressive and

expensive piece of equipment. ( Cam: any prices? )   That 'might'

be a factor in keeping it on - the respect with which it was regarded.
Hue Miller

From Ric:  And you don't find it odd that after Bendix went to such great
expense to equip the airplane with such prestigious equipment, no one - not
Bendix, not Putnam, not Earhart, nor anyone in the press ever mentioned that
it was aboard?

Pardon me, but this whole question of a second receiver seems like a classic
example of the kind of wrong-headed methodology that has plagued so-called
Earhart research for over 60 years. Somewhere along the line somebody thought
up the possibilty that there might have been a second receiver - a valid
hypothesis to consider.  Rather than testing the hypothesis by gathering the
available contemporaneous primary source evidence (of which there is none, as
far as I can tell) they interpreted ambiguous references as supportive of
their theory, ignored the contrary evidence (of which there is plenty) and
then flatly stated that a particular make and model of radio was the second
receiver.  This kind of specificity enhances the appearance of credibility,
especially if it comes from a "respected" source.

I'll gladly accept a Bendix RA-1 aboard the Electra if somebody can show me
that one was there, but until then I have to go with what the evidence shows.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:21:18 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Sweet bird of youth . . .

From Dennis McGee

Ric said:  "Hey, I was only a kid.  What did I know?  Mr. Wright (I
think it was Orv), said, "You! Kid!  Come over here.  Stand up on this tool
box and hold this. "Ninety seven years later I'm in trouble."

    I have it on good authority you hold AARP membership card Number 6.
True?

LTM, a nonmember
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Yup.  Signed by Wilbur Wright. (Oops, sorry.  That's something else.  Pretty
tattered.  Looks like a license of some kind.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:23:13 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

From William Webster-Garman

<<'m sure Fred and his new bride weren't the only newly weds to move into a

dump for their first house.>>

Actually, I'm confident that the neighborhood was quite pleasant in 1937.


william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:31:38 EDT
From:         
Subject:      8th Edition?

From Dennis McGee

Sorry to be such a nag about this, but what's the progress of the
8th Edition?  My bedside reading table will remain bare until it arrives.

LTM, who is anxious and fretful at times
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Slogging away.  All of the contributing authors have contributed their
contributions.  I still have to do some writing and Pat is working on the
editing and layout.  It's a tedious process.  For example: Mike Everette has
written a wonderful description of the radio gear and provided schematics for
the transmitter and receiver - but the schematics, photocopied from books and
manuals, would not be legible if simply reproduced in the 8th Edition, so Pat
has had to recreate them in Adobe Illustrator and then , of course, have them
proofed by Mike.  The same is true for countless archaeological sketches and
artifact distribution plots.
We do appreciate your patience.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:37:55 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Survivor III
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From Ted Ostrowski

Dear Ric,=20

I"d like to go a bit off topic.=A0=A0 It seems "Survivor" is THE show on tv=20=
for

some viewers.=A0 It is such a hit that CBS has decided to continue it , but

this time in the outback.=A0 What if TIGHAR negotiates for the third episode=
?=A0

I can think of one particular island to use.=A0 You can head one tribe while

Tom King heads the other.=A0 I know that Forum members who are familiar with

the series could come up with lots of competitive games for these two tribes

while they search for that "smoking gun".=A0 Think of the benefits - a free

expedition to the island, publicity, and one of TIGHAR's members goes home

with a million bucks!=A0 Of course I'd rather be assured that the million

stays within the "family", but we could spice up the show by having

"someone" else head up the other tribe.=A0 I'm sure the Forum members could

come up with some suggestions for that position.


Always wanted a Lord of the Flies II,

=20

Ted=20

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

I can only shake my head in wonder at the public's fascination with=20
"Survivor."  I can also tell you that I have absolutely no interest in seein=
g=20
"The Perfect Storm."  I can't even look at the ads in magazines.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:43:37 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Earhart Data from Long & Long and Lovell

From Alan Caldwell

<< From Ric

 >>You'd make a good lawyer<<

 No need to get abusive. <G> >>

Sorry, Ric

Reading some of the posts today, particularly Janet's, it dawned on me all
the
misinformation that gets bantered about. That's surprising when it is so easy
to skim through the web site and get it right. I know periodically you rehash
a bit to get folks back on track and also daily it would seem. The thought
occurred to me that perhaps a posting of all the popular misinformation with
a caveat we don't ever want to hear these items again, might be in order.
Then I realized someone might use the list as support for their erroneous
theories. "Well, it must be right. I saw it posted on TIGHAR." We don't read
or listen very carefully. <G>

Many of the discussions will not advance the ball yet they are a great help
to filling in the blanks so we can understand those last hours so much
better. For example, radio and antenna threads won't find the Electra but I
think we are all fascinated and curious about almost every detail of that
last leg. I want to know where the plane actually passed Nauru and when even
though it makes no real difference. I want to know why radio communication at
the end was so badly managed. I may never find my answers but with each
posting I think we come a bit closer to understanding what might have
possibly gone wrong.

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

I'd be very hesitant to irrevocably close the door on any aspect of the
investigation, but we do have a considerable cemetery of dead horses that we
should only exhume if genuine new information comes to light.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:49:23 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: PBYs at Kanton

From Tom King

Re:  <<Indeed, Kanton is an environmental nightmare.  In addition to the
PCB-spewing transformers there is a broken-down open warehouse full of
pesticides with boxes and barrels leaking god-knows-what onto the floor and
out the door. The airfield and surrounding area looks like the set for
"Armageddon - The
Sequel".>>

And all this after an "environmental cleanup" conducted by the US Air Force
under an agreement with Kiribati and the U.N.  When we got back from the '98
visit to Kanton, John Clauss (who does remediation as his day job) put
together a report on the whole mess and we found a way to route it through
semi-official channels to the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence,
which is supposed to deal with the left-overs of AF ops.  No response,
despite several attempts to get someone's attention.

LTM (who hates to think of the I Kiribati kids who are wading around in PCBs
and toxic paint on the island.)

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:50:31 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Amelia's alleged last msg of "...no regrets"

From Ron Bright

For Warren Lambing,

Warren,
I think your right. Eleanor Roosevelt who had a long history with Amelia
probably used the last message from Amelia of "no regrets" metaphorically
rather than the actual transmission re line of position. I would still like
to get my hands on Morgenthau's memo (unsigned) to ER. At least it wasn't
found in a bottle. And had she in fact been on a spy mission Amelia would
have used "I regret I have but one life...", so we can dismiss finally the
secret intelligence flight.

Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:51:29 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan/Pallette

From Kerry Tiller

I was just making a joke about the address' current use.

Kerry Tiller 2350
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:26:34 EDT
From:         
Subject:      TIGHAR - The Survivor

From Dennis McGee

Sa-a-a-a-y that does have a pleasant ring (i.e. KA-CHING!) to it . .
. hm-m-m.
    Make it more like Capture the Flag.  Two teams  . . metal detectors
. . .sifting screens . . .GPSes . . .trowels . . . machetes . . . Mark I
eyeballs  . . .yes, yes, yes!
    We got hi-tech-, low-tech, and no-tech.  One group starts at the "7"
site and the other starts at the Norwich City and they work slo-o-o-owly
toward each other digging . . .sifting . . .  cries of "Eureka!" . . .
.medics carrying emaciated and dehydrated team members . . . triage . . .
spider bites . . . infections . . .law suits!
    This is a GRAND idea!
    Ric, you gotta do this.  Really, really, really gotta do this.

    Can I have the bottled water franchise?

LTM, who is atwitter with anticipation
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE

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

It's actually not a bad description of what happened in '89.
We got better at it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:54:37 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Our "Agenda"

From Jim Hurysz

We at Data Quality don't have enough information to begin to say "what
happened" to Fred Noonan and Amelia Earhart on July 2, 1937.

For example, we would like to know what the RF propagation conditions in the
South Pacific were from 0000 GMT on July 2, 1937 to 0000 GMT on July 3, 1937
- for 3105, 6210, and 7500 KHz - hour by hour.

We would like to know what Earhart, the Itasca, Nauru, and other stations
around the South Pacific would be able to hear (hour-by-hour) between 0000
GMT on July 3, 1937 and  via line-of-sight, "ground wave," and "skip" on
3105, 6210, and 7500 KHz, given propagation conditions, their radio T/R
equipment, the performance of the Electra's transmitter at various altitudes,
 the performance of the Itasca's T/R equipment, and so on.

The Longs, TIGHAR, and others have calculated what happened to Earhart and
Noonan based upon observations and reported observatons at visual frequencies
(stars, sun, clouds, daylight, darkness.)

We say it's time to also compute what happened at radio frequencies.

Jim Hurysz
DataQuality@aol.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:02:35 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: T/R & WE Model 13C Transmittter

From Jim Hurysz

T/R switching was done at the WE Model 13C transmitter, not at the WE Model
20B receiver, using electrical relays which were normally "open" (signals
from a common transmit / receive antenna would be heard until the pilot or
co-pilot pressed the PTT switch on the transmitter's microphone to transmit.)

Regarding what Amelia might have heard instead of silence while flying around
the world in 1937, the medium wave broadcast band was active, as was the
"tropical" broadcast band (around 3 Mhz). They still are.

I am at a loss about why an "interphone" wasn't installed in the Electra, so
Fred and Amelia could communicate without passing notes to each other via a
fishing pole.

Jim Hurysz
*****************************************************************
From Ric

You're making the assumption that the transmitter and receiver were using the
same antenna.  That may not be the case.

You're also accepting the folklore that Noonan rode in the cabin and
communicated with Earhart using a bamboo pole.  The Lae takeoff film and a
close reading of Last Flight supports the anecdotal recollection Bo McKneely
told me a few years ago when he said ( I paraphrase), "That Noonan fella
thought that most of that stuff in the back of the airplane that was set up
by Manning and Mantz was unnecessary.  He rode up front and took his
sightings through the windshield."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:25:15 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: TIGHAR---the survivor

From Stephanie Giovanetti

I am a Meeting/Convention Planner and the new President of my association
used to be the Chairman of the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board.)
 He said that when he was with NTSB, an Amelia Earhart historical group
came to him with the belly of an airplane and the NTSB did find it was the
same type of plane as the Electra and around the same year as the Electra
but the NTSB could not prove it was definitely Earhart's plane.  Also, he
said that the NTSB did study the shoe sole which was made around the time
Earhart disappeared.  Was this your group that asked the NTSB to study this
and have you ever read NTSB's findings?  By the way, I am completely out of
the aeronautically industry and just happened to have a boss that used to
be in that industry.

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

From Pat

Yup, that was us. Very interesting folks and quite a place to hang around for
a while.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:29:40 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: PBYs at Kanton

From John Dipipo

My time at Kanton was Feb.13th 1942 to June15 1945; no planes had crashed.
I was stationed on the south side in fact when we left San Francisco I
boarded
the ship the day before we left.

I watched the longshoremen filling 55 gal. drums with water. We did not know
what our destination was going to be.

We were lucky the Japanese did not attack us. They could have brought a
battleship within 20 miles and Kanton could have been leveled.

We were a co. of infantry from  Torrington CT, led by Capt. John Woodilla.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:35:58 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Skimpy Forum today...

From Pat--

Ric is out of town until late Sunday night. All questions will be answered,
all pleas responded to, all angst relieved on Monday.

For those of you who don't know, Ric's mother is very ill and he will be in
and out a lot for a good while. Patience is a virtue.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:23:16 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan in Co-Pilot's seat

From Janet Whitney

If it suits TIGHAR's purposes to maintain that Noonan sat in the Electra's
co-pilot's seat, so be it.

If it suits TIGHAR's purposes to maintain that the Electra was not equipped
with a Bendix LF/HF receiver, in addition to the WE  20 B, so be it.

If it suits TIGHAR's purposes to maintain that Earhart's Electra didn't run
out of fuel until it reached Gardner Island, so be it.

Janet Whitney
*****************************************************************
From Ric

You seem to imply that we ask people to accept our conclusions just because
they suit our purposes.  I suggest that the very existence of this forum and
the open debate that goes on here is proof enough that your implication is as
unfounded as it is mean-spirited.

TIGHAR's purpose is to figure out what happened to Earhart and Noonan.  Based
on what we've been able to learn so far, it looks like they ended up at
Gardner.  Clearly, the validity of that hypothesis is not effected, one way
or the other, whether Noonan rode up front or in back, nor is it effected by
the number of receivers aboard the airplane.  The hypothesis could be
invalidated if it could be shown that the airplane did not have neough fuel
to reach Gardner.

Our conclusions that Noonan mostly rode up front and that there was no second
receiver aboard the airplane are based upon the same methodology by which we
conclude that the aircraft should have had more than enough fuel to reach
Gardner.  If you have data that support other conclusions we would all be
delighted to see them.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:29:36 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: WE R 20 B Receiver and 13 C (and  13 CB) Transmitter

From Jim Hurysz

Everything I've seen (so far) in the contemporaneous literature indicates
that the Western Electric R 20 B receiver and 13 C and 13 CB transmitters
were designed to transmit and receive using the same aircraft antenna. The
T/R switching was done by relays housed in the 13C or 13 CB transmitter. A
PTT switch on the pilot's microphone "keyed" the relays.

Jim Hurysz

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

No argument there.  We're just trying to figure out what the actual set up in
Earhart's aircraft was.  As originally delivered in 1936, the airplane had a
trailing wire and the same belly antenna that we've been puzzling about.
What would YOU say their purposes were at that time?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:49:25 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan

From Warren Lambing

> TIGHAR has a great interest in finding a living relative of Fred Noonan,

> particularly one in the direct female line.


The female line makes it very difficult, easier to track the male line with

public records, but I understand your need for DNA.


> Our interest in finding a living Noonan relative is what prompted the

> launching of The Noonan Project more than two years ago.  Since then Jerry

> Hamilton, Ron Dawson and several other TIGHAR members have done an

> outstanding job researching Fred's life.


I am sure they have done and are doing  a fine job and I really hesitate in

asking questions, many of them that I am going to ask they probably have

touch base on and most likely they are pursuing them.  However when I look

at finding relatives I do it from a genealogist viewpoint (amateur

genealogist at that) and many of my question will be coming with that

viewpoint in mind and as I have said they are  probably  being covered.


>  A little bit of what has been

> learned is posted in a Research Bulletin entitled "Fred Noonan- Sea

Captain"

> on the TIGHAR website at

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin9_4_98.html

>

> (We even have Noonan Project tee-shirts.)


If I prove to be of any help, can I have a tee-shirt :-)


To be of any help, it would be of great help to know the name of his

parent's.  On the web site you mention "Birth Date

Frederick Joseph Noonan, born April 4, 1893 in Cook County, Illinois. "

I like looking in rural communities better, much easier to find families. I

take it by Cook County you mean the city of Chicago?  These next question

are just basic genealogy and if you already know who Fred's brother and

sisters and any other family members are, you can skip reading some of this.

If Fred's family lived in Chicago, has anyone looked for them in that city's

directory?  A street address is worth a lot.  With a street address you can

look them up in the 1900 census, the advantage to the census is it will list

everyone in the household by name and give there ages and relationship to

the head of the household (most states have soundex of there 1900 census and

a huge mistake many people make, is to assume that if they don't find there

family in the soundex then there family must not be in the census, from

personal experience I can tell you there are people in the census record who

don't show up in the soundex).  If they don't show up in the soundex, then

finding them in the census is very time consuming and impossible in a city

like Chicago unless you have a street address and access to old maps of

Chicago, or at least are able to contact there historical society, you see

you need to find out what ward that street was in during 1900, since the

census will be taken and organize by the city wards ( which you need to know

to order the census film).  If you know the address of where they live and

find them in the soundex, then it is easy, if they are not in the soundex

then you have to look at the census through the ward, page by page, very

time consuming. If you have the names of siblings and ages you might get

lucky, you can look for them in the Social Security death index (hoping of

course that one  of them lived long enough to collect Social Security) if

you find one that matches the name and age (at least close to the right age,

census records are not always accurate about age, but they generally are

pretty good) then you can request there Application for Social Security,

under the freedom of information act which will give you the names of there

parent's and place of birth and of course you are limited to males only (but

there are other avenues you can use to trace female members, but less

reliable).  Then you can look for Obituaries and surviving relatives, who of

course may have contact or clues to finding other family members.

    If you have the name of his parent and know of other siblings, then you

have many more options of tracking them, for example probate records (wills

or estate records) which many counties have index and if you find one will

give the name of the heirs and there place of residency.  The down side of

this type of information is the Spanish Flue of 1918, so many people died at

once often whole families, that the records for that time may never have

been taken.

    Ok, I have lot more ideas from a genealogy standpoint (like how to get

the name of his parents if you don't have there names as well as other

ideas, but it looks like you probably have there names from the records you

have looked at and mention on the web site), but I have been too long winded

as it is.


Sorry for the long email.

Regards to everyone.

Warren Lambing

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

Find us a living relative in the female line and you can have a whole box of
T-shirts.

It's becoming more and more apparent that we need to make the information
we've been gathering for the 8th Edition of the Project Book available
on-line and not wait for the lengthy printed publication process.  This will
take a little re-thinking.  Bear with me.

In the meantime,  Fred's parents were:
Joseph T. Noonan, born May 1861 in Maine.  Both of his parents were from
Ireland.
Catherine (possibly "Catheleen") Evans Noonan, born in England (no date).

The 1891 Chicago City Directory has no listing for Joseph T. Noonan.
The 1892  directory has "Joseph T. collr h5401 Laflin"
The 1893 (year Fred was born) directory has "Joseph T. collr h5033 S. Ashland
ave."
In 1900 Joseph is 39 and residing as a boarder at 212 Erie St., North town,
Cook County, Chicago.  He is listed as a widower.  Little Fred is not
mentioned.  The census says that Joe can read and write.  his occupation is
given as "collector."

Jerry Hamilton has more.  You may want to contact him directly at
jham@MINDSPRING.COM

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:51:06 EDT
From:         
Subject:      A PBY site

From Mike Holt

I've not done anything beyond looking around.   I wonder if asking
there might uncover more persons with PBY time in mid-1937.


Mike

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

To what end?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:55:53 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Talk radio?

From Hue Miller

<<From Ric

 What is a bit odd about that, come to think of it, is that upon her arrival
Darwin complained that they heard nothing from her and she explained that her
receiver wasn't working.  What has that got to do with them not hearing her?>>


Unless she simply decided to dispense with

radio use on this flight as was not critical

to success? Also, i suggest maybe there

was some hesitation to transmit when not

knowing if the channel was clear. Yes,

in 1937 this wasn't like CB channel 17, but

probably over land, there where often

signals to be heard.

Hue Miller
*****************************************************************
From Ric

But at least on the South Atlantic flight she said that she broadcast her
position twice each hour with no idea whether anyone heard her or not.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:58:02 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: "Netting the WW-20"...

From Hue Miller

<<From Ric

Photos of AE's cockpit show the 27A remote for the 20B complete with little

crank.  Before we start speculating about a crystal controlled receiver let's

have some shred of evidence.>>


Perhaps i am confused about your comment

above. My original question is how the receiver

was set to frequency. Actually i should have

known the answer. The transmitter is

actuated at very low power and picked up

by the receiver, which is then set 'right on'.

An interesting thought popped into my head

when i thought about that: you could call

this calibrating the receiver.  Christian D's

comment about no dial ambiguity is also

right on. The dials on these things were not

very well marked (calibrated, if you will)

and purely visual setting of the dial would

not do. I'm still puzzled by the "calibrated to

Lae" note, but i think that other poster's

idea about marking the dial with a pencil

"tick" is probably it.

Hue Miller

|
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:22:10 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Earhart's Radios

From Hue Miller

<<A star witness is the different HF and LF antenna connections. Without D/F

use intended, there is *no* need for different inputs. ( I can explain this
if need be.

|can also quote schematics for contemporaneous gear.)>>


>From Ric:  I don't have the expertise to comment on that.<



I will look around here for a manual for a

receiver similar to the WE20 and see how

it explains it.



>>From Ric:  There's little doubt that the dorsal V served the transmitter.<<


This is one of the few things we know for

certain.


<<The lead-in enters the fuselage right where the transmitter is mounted.>>


Can you possibly tell me how many feet to

the dash, where presumably the RDF tuner

was mounted, and to the seat, where the

WE20 was located? This is to help look at

the idea the bottom antenna was dedicated

to receive.

(New from Ric:  Based on the Lockheed fuselage stations diagram, it looks
like 188 inches - 15.66 ft - from the where the transmitter was mounted to
the instrument panel.  From the transmitter to the receiver looks like about
174 inches - 14.5 feet.)


<<This is a curious memo because photos of the airplane taken in Burbank on

May 20, the day after the aircraft came out of the shop, show no such V

|antenna on the belly -- nor do any subsequent photos of the Electra.>>


  Photos of the airplane after the repairs were completed make it equally

obvious that the work was not done exactly as specified in the

original orders.>>


I was just trying to ratioanalize this, thinking

somewhere before the work, some further

consultations were done, and someone

explained that some of the work was

unnecessary, pointless.

I cannot understand what the V belly antenna

would gain you over a straight wire. Nothing,

which is why they ditched it. Also, that "V

antenna legs cancelling" is hooey.  I don't

think i should go more into that here.

(New from Ric:  Our certainty that the original repair orders do not, in all
cases, reflect the actual work that was done is supported by research on a
completely separate subject.  In testing our earlier hypothesis that the
section of airplane skin found on the island - Artifact 2-2-V-1  - conforms
to a patch that was installed during the repairs, we did extensive forensic
work on two photos of the airplane taken in Puerto Rico during the world
flight.  It was very apparent that the work done on the belly did NOT conform
to the repair orders even though we very much WANTED it to.)


<<The photo touted by Elgen Long as showing a Bendix RA-1 remote mounted in
Earhart's cockpit in Miami shows a black box with illegible markings on it
mounted in the cockpit of some Lockheed Model10.  I've seen nothing that
identifies the box as a remote for an RA-1 nor can I see anything in the
photo that identifies the airplane as Earhart or the location as Miami.>>


Oh. I see, there's a lack of provenance. What

about the language used by 2 (?) different

sources, which seem to address 2 different

receivers, the D/F receiver and the Lockheed

receiver?

(New from Ric:  Not sure what you're referring to here.  The guy in Darwin
talks about the "DF receiver" but makes no mention of any other receiver.  I
don;t recall anyone making reference to a "Lockheed receiver.")



>>From Ric:  And you don't find it odd that after Bendix went to such great
expense to equip the airplane with such prestigious equipment, no one - not

Bendix, not Putnam, not Earhart, nor anyone in the press ever mentioned

that it was aboard?>>


Yes, that is a point. I would expect to see

a blurb in the "What's News" sections of

some magazine such as Shortwave Craft, Aero

Digest. How long supposedly had this receiver

(#2) been in the plane already?

--Hue Miller
 (New from Ric:  Beats me.  Depends on who you listen to.  Some claim it went
in prior to the first attempt in March 1937.  Others say that it was
installed during repairs in April/May.  Still others claim it was put aboard
in Miami in late May.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:26:35 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel

From Sheila

Vern suggested:
>Perhaps she could storm in wearing leather jacket and aviator's helmet

> proclaiming that she's Amelia Earhart and that she's looking for that

> no-good Fred Noonan!

From Sheila to Ric, Vern, and of course mother:


Now that's an idea!   I do vaguely resemble AE.  In fact, when I recently

cut my hair, my writing partner called it my Amelia Eahart look  (I hope her

hair was on the reddish side but since all the photos were b&w...)   I also

have a leather jacket that might suffice.  Anybody know where I can get an

aviator's helmet cheap?


Maybe we should have a camera crew handy just in case!


LTM (and her Roosevelt-haunting spirit)


Sheila Amelia  Emanuel  Earhart

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

If you're going for authenticity, lose the helmet and go dark/dirty blonde.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:28:33 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Survivor III

From John Dipi

THIS I don't understand.  A GERMAN SUBMARINEWAS LOCATED at a depth of 3 and a
half miles in the Atlantic Ocean.
I DONT BELIEVE THAT THE UNITED STATES CARES IF AEs PLANE IS EVER RECOVERED.

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

Should they?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:42:11 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Our "Agenda"

From Roger Kelley

Jim Hurysz from Data Quality wrote:  "We say it's time to also compute what
happened at radio frequencies."

Sound to me like a good project and will without doubt shed new light on the
fate
of AE and FN!

Possibly Jim would like to  volunteer his services and those of Data Quality
to
conduct such a study.

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

We would, of course, be delighted to have any input that Jim can provide.
Our own Bob Brendenburg has done a great deal of work on this issue for ther
8th Ediiton.  We'll get it up on the website as soon as possible.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:18:01 EDT
From:         
Subject:      The mess on Kanton

From Christian D.

From Christian D.

Hi Tom!  Glad to know that someone tried something in 1998.  During my visit
in 96 I took quite a few notes, hoping to do something...  But I have no
connections or know the "channels"....  I did send some xerox's of books
about PCBs to a friend on Kanton...  But never heard anything...

It's too bad you couldn't get something going in 98: Uncle Sam was having a
crew (California outfit called International Technologies) spend many months
cleaning up toxic stuff left over from WW-II on Palmyra Is....  It would have
been easy enough to move them to Kanton, after they were done on Palmyra -not
that far away...

Christian D.
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, but very different situation on Palmyra which is U.s. territory, owned
by private U.s. citizens and being sold to the federal government.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:06:44 EDT
From:         
Subject:      New Earhart article

Hang on gang.  Here we go again.

The current issue of Naval History has an article entitled "The Earhart
Tragedy: Old Mystery, New Hypothesis"

You'll find it at:

http://www.usni.org/Naval_History/Articles00/nhriley.htm

I'll be interested to know the forum's opinion of it.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:01:46 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Earhart's Radio Equipment

From Jim Hurysz

There must be still be some retired Western Electric electrical engineers who
are knowledgeable about WE aircraft transmitters and receivers of the late
1930's.

Perhaps someone could ask the appropriate ham radio organizations for help.

I am not an electrical engineer. The WE schematics are hard to read.
Apparently each radio manufacturer used a slightly different schematic system
before WWII.

Jim Hurysz
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:54:04 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan

From Dave Bush

In the meantime,  Fred's parents were:
>Joseph T. Noonan, born May 1861 in Maine.  Both of his parents were from
>Ireland.
>Catherine (possibly "Catheleen") Evans Noonan, born in England (no date).
I am not sure about this, however, EVERYONE, that I ever met named Evans (my
mother's maiden name), came from Wales, with the entire clan coming over in
the early 1600's, fighting for independance, and receiving landgrants for
their part in the fight. Anyone and everyone that I ever talk to that knows
their family history traces it back to that migration. They now have family
spread out from Virginia to Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Texas. My
mother is one of 6 daughters (all living at this time) and 1 brother (poor
soul)- also still living.
I don't know if this will help, but it is all that I know about the Evans
family name.

Blue Skies,
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:55:38 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Noonan's birth

From Bob Sherman

>On the web site you mention "Birth Date


>Frederick Joseph Noonan, born April 4, 1893 in Cook County, Illinois. "


> I take it by Cook County you mean the city of Chicago?


*** 'Cook County' means an area NOT within a city or municipality.

More common designation is, 'Town of .. ' meaning the township, not what

 is thought of as a 'city type' of town.  Townships, usually 6 miles on a

side were used in conversation and writing a lot in the old days.   RC
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:30:29 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Long's Photo of the "Bendix radio control box"

From Ron Bright

Ric,

A photo is as good as the photographer who can testify that it represents
what is purports to represent.

Can anyone locate the original photo or can anyone in the forum locate Pan
American mechanic F. Ralph Sias who reportedly took the photo of AE's cockpit
on or about 26 May 1937 at Miami as published in Long's book,page 4 of photo
insert.

Then again he may have just taken the photo and has no idea of what the
control box is in the upper left corner unless he were involved in the
installation,etc. At least it would be something if he or his notes (backside
of original photo) confirm that the photo was of AE's cockpit at that date
and if a clearer,sharper photo is available. Maybe, if the photo were the
orginal, your enhancement group could further identify the mystery box.

Long identifes  radio techs that inspected AE's radio at Miami,,but Sias is
not listed as a radio installer,tech.etc.

Is it Tighar's position that Gurr and Remmlein, who Long says installed the
Bendix RA-l receiver in the Electra at Burbank, have no independent
contemporaneous statements or documents to support that installation?

For us layman it is difficult to follow who installed what where and how and
the difference between radio receivers,DF receivers,control boxes, remotes,
etc. I'm sure your summary of all of this technical info will be forthcoming
and enlightning.

LTM,Ron Bright

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

<<A photo is as good as the photographer who can testify that it represents
what is purports to represent. >>

Nope.  That won't cut it.  For a photo to be any use as historical evidence
it has to stand independent of the photographer's allegations or memory.
- What if Eric Bevington today "testified" that the objects he photographed
on the reef at Gardner Island in October 1937 were wreckage from an airplane?
 Would that be proof that there was airplane wreckage at Gardner?
- We've already seen that photo widely touted as being a shot of Itasca
"making smoke" off Howland island on the morning of July 2nd is almost
certainly a picture of the ship "blowing tubes" during an earlier visit.
-  We know that the collection of photos claimed by the widow of photographer
Dustin Carter to have been taken at Burbank on May 20, 1937 were indeed taken
on that date because they clearly show Earhart and Noonan with the
post-repairs Electra on an airport that is identifiably Burbank.  There's
only one day such photos could have been taken - May 20, 1937.

<<Can anyone locate the original photo or can anyone in the forum locate Pan
American mechanic F. Ralph Sias who reportedly took the photo of AE's cockpit
on or about 26 May 1937 at Miami as published in Long's book,page 4 of photo
insert.>>

If somebody found F. Ralph Silas and had him swear on a stack of Bibles that
the picture he gave to Long is Earhart's airplane in Miami on May 26, 1937 it
would prove only that F. Ralph is confident that he remembers where and when
the picture was taken.  Are his recollections any more reliable than Tom
Devine's memories of seeing NR16020 burned by the Marines on Saipan?

<<Is it Tighar's position that Gurr and Remmlein, who Long says installed the
Bendix RA-l receiver in the Electra at Burbank, have no independent
contemporaneous statements or documents to support that installation?>>

It's TIGHAR's position that, as far as we know, no such documents have ever
been offered to support that allegation.

<<For us layman it is difficult to follow who installed what where and how
and
the difference between radio receivers,DF receivers,control boxes, remotes,
etc. >>

But historical documentation is not rocket science and the test of any valid
conclusion about an historical event is the presentation of good sources to
back it up.  If you can't present your case in a way that can be easily
understood by a reasonably well-educated layman, it probably need more work.
I hope our conclusions meet that test.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:33:01 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Earhart's Radio Equipment

From Greg

>I am not an electrical engineer. The WE schematics are hard to read.
>Apparently each radio manufacturer used a slightly different schematic system
>before WWII.
>
>Jim Hurysz
>
If you can direct me to the schematics that you are writing about I can
take a look. Is there something specific in the schematic that you are
wondering about?

Greg
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:00:30 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: WE 13 C and CB Transmitters

From Jim Hurysz

According to the schematic, there is a separate signal output available from
each of the 3 crystals on the 13 C and 13 CB transmitters.

The difference between the 13 C and 13 CB is that the 13 CB has 500 KC
capability, the 13 CB final output tuning section is different and on the 13
CB there is a 5 lb. antenna loading coil which can be matched to a trailing
wire or a standard wire aircraft antenna. Presumably the 5 lb. loading coil
was used with a 500 KC trailing wire antenna.

The WE receiver and transmitter schematics don't show how mechanical tuning
is accomplished.

Jim Hurysz
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:00:34 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: New Earhart article

From Kerry Tiller

Finally a conspiracy/cover-up theory regarding AE that I can believe.

LTM

Kerry Tiller #2350
****************************************************************

From Ric

Keep reading.
*****************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

I read it with enthusiasm, until about half way.  He
puts a fair amount of blame on Thompson, somewhat
correctly, but says Itasca failed to transmit on 500kHz
so AE could make a bearing determination.  He failed to
mention that at no time prior to take-off that 500kHz
would be used for bearing, so there was no need for
Itasca to provide signals for AE to D/F on.  The Howland
Island logs being phony was a real hoot.  I find it hard
to believe that all of it was phony, but I could believe
that Cipriani might have made up the Chinese operators
having watches.  I believe I have a copy of the original
with signatures, but it is in transit while I am moving,
so I can determine if it is Yat or Yau Lum.  I never
caught that discrepency before, and I usually do.  The
author wants Cipriani, Leong, and Lum all aboard the
Itasca during the search.  I believe the Howland diaries
specifically state who was left behind and what was
going on, but again, I don't have access to those
diaries readily available.  I plan on writing a responce
to the article once I have access to my original source
material.

Too bad the article deteriorated: I had high hopes for
it while reading the first half, then after reading the
second half, it fell into the conspiracy type of thing,
especially with the Morgenthau transcripts rearing its
ugly head.  Oh well.

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

I found the article to be largely without merit.  Riley is obviously working
with partial information and doesn't really understand the information he
does have.  He castigates Warner Thompson, but for the wrong reasons.  His
acceptance of anecdote over contemporaneous offical records in claiming that
the Howland radio log is a fabrication is, as Randy says, a hoot.
Incidentally, TIGHAR member Tom Gannon corresponded with Yau Fai Lum back
when we began the Earhart Project in 1989.  Lum  accurately described the
situation on Howland and said:
"The Coast Guard radio personnel brought ashore portable radio equipment,
direction finders, etc., and occupied a shack next to the main house.  We did
not bother them so as not to interfere with their duties.  In the afternoon,
as I walked past their shack, I heard one of them say, 'They are low on gas.'
 I assume they were referring to Earhart, but I did not bother to ask."

That's all he said about the Coast Guard radio.  As to whether Lum actually
stood watches or not,  about all you can say is that the evidence is
ambiguous.

LTM,
Ric
*****************************************************************
From Dennis McGee

Is John P. Riley, Jr. an Earhart Forum registrant or a TIGHAR
member?

    His information regarding the Howland radio log is new, isn't it?
How do we substantiate his story?  Do we know about Lum, Leong, and Lau?

LTM, a former Air Force person
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I've never heard of John P. Riley, before.
From Dave Bush

Well, all things considered, at least he took the time to do some research,
tho not enuf. I think you ought to write him and give him the Tighar website
and let him find out for himself that he is on the right track, but didn't
quite reach the correct conclusion of the flight.

LTM,
#2200
Dave Bush

*****************************************************************
From William Webster-Garman

Is there documentation somewhere that Noonan had a second phone?

(radiotelephone license 2nd class)


william 2243
*****************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:40:41 EDT
From:         
Subject:      A ride in Lockheed Electra

> >From Herman De Wulf
>
> Hi Ric !
>
> I flew in the Air Canada Lockheed 10A Electra CF-TCC from Toronto
> Downtown Airport on June 22. It was an experience ! I paid 100 Canadian
> dollars for the 45 minute ride. It was worth every penny !
> The airplane is shining like new and is absolutely spotless. One climbs
> into the cabin using a ladder. Once inside it's a climb to
> your seat as this is a taildragger. The cabin is narrow and I found the
> ceiling too low to stand up. There are two rows of seats with an aisle
> in the between. The seats are comfortable. Each has a vent and a window
> which is much larger than what we are used to in today's jets. There is
> no air conditioning, only ventilation and it works only when the
> airplane moves. The windows provide excellent view over the wings. The
> best view is in the back seats of course. There are five seats on the
> right and four on the left. They are not of the reclining type but very
> comfortable. I had a seat on the left, right behind the wing spar which
> runs through the cabin. This, by the way, is the best seat in the plane
> as it offers more leg room. I took this advice from the pilots, both Air
> Canada Boeing 767 pilots.
> The captain on this flight was Ted Dodds. Co-pilot was Captain Allan
> MacLeod, who is chief pilot of the Dreams Take Flight charity flights.
> This is a charity set up by Air Canada employees on a voluntary base to
> help disabled or sick children.
> When Trans Canada Airways (now Air Canada) first operated the Lockheed
> 10A in 1937 they carried a stewardess, mainly to sooth the passengers.
> Today there is no stewardess on the Dreams Take Flight flights and the
> safety announcements are made by the co-pilot. They are simple : there
> is the door on the left if you want to get out, there is an emergency
> exit opposite it on the right and there is a hatch over the captain's
> seat ("If you see me climb through it, follow me"). That hatch has a
> history. The airplane is also used in a new film on Amelia Earhart that
> is being shot for the History Channel, Captain MacLeod explained. Only
> the day before (on June 21) some airport scenes had been shot at nearby
> Oshawa airport, east of Toronto. All seats but one had been taken out
> for the occasion and a large (plastic) fuel tank installed in the cabin
> to resemble the lay out of AE's airplane. The one seat left was the one
> in the back. It had been reserved for Fred Noonan. The scene of AE
> climbing into the cockpit through the cockpit escape hatch had to be
> shot several times. Therefore the hatch is now "officially" referred to
> as the "Amelia hatch".
> The two Pratt & Whitney Wasp Juniors provide 450 hp each and have a
> healthy sound. When they open up the aircraft is very noisy. This is
> especially the case on take-off, when it is impossible to have
> conversation even when shouting. Remember you are sitting right
> between two North American T-6 taking off in formation ! The take-off
> roll took approximately 20 seconds with 11 people on board (two pilots
> and nine passengers) and the airplane used about half of the 3,000 ft.
> runway. We flew a heading of 240 degrees (which is West) and flew along
> the shores of Lake Ontario at 1,000 ft. The weather was fine but cloudy
> and there were a few showers, which we circumnavigated. As the flight
> progressed I went up to the cockpit to have a look. As it was a hot day
> the right hand side window was left open. The noise in the cockpit was
> absolutely terrible, at least without earphones. Even when shouting
> Captain MacLeod and I couldn't make ourselves understood. Which was the
> point he wanted to prove... It's quite understandable that AE and FN
> wrote notes to each other.
> The cockpit is roomy and airy and the view is better than in the DC-3,
> both forward and to the sides. The windscreen is higher than in a DC-3
> and therefore forward view is better. So is the view through the side
> windows. The cockpit lay out is 1937 standard with all the clocks and
> dials and is a more simple thing than in today's jetliners. The
> instrument panel has been updated to today's standard of course and
> includes VOR, ADF,  transponder and GPS.
> There was a lot of turbulence that day, especially near showers which
> cool the air. At one time we flew through rain. That's where it was
> demonstrated that the "Amelia hatch" leaks. Also there was a 40 knot
> headwind which reduced the airplane's ground speed to 105 knots
> according to GPS.
> We banked to the right and flew back east to Toronto, flying over the
> city and passing the 1,800 ft. CN Tower on the left at about the
> restaurant level, the needle towering above the airplane. The view
> through the cabin windows was excellent.
> As the Lockheed 10A flew a right hand circuit and lined up on final over
> Lake Ontario, I unbuckled my seat belt to stand up for a quick
> look through the cockpit windscreen. Toronto Downtown airport is on an
> island. As the runway came into sight I noticed that forward view is
> good. Still the Lockheed 10A is flown to the runway for a landing on the
> main wheels for better forward view during landing. Also because the two
> vertical fins are in the shadow of the wings when the tail settles.
> Although in the Thirties three point landings were routinely made on the
> grass fields. The airplane is easy to fly, both pilots agree, but this
> being a taildragger, it takes a lot of footwork when landing in a cross
> wind. I noticed also that it takes a lot of work with the yoke to
> operate the ailerons, with 45 degree quick moves frequent.
> I talked to Linda Hutson. She told me about her contact with TIGHAR. She
> advised me that if TIGHAR wants to organize a seminar on the Lockheed
> 10A it should be decided on quickly if this is done in 2001 since most
> flights are already booked (in fact I only got on a flight because
> someone had canceled). It is a small airplane. It carries only nine
> passengers and it is easily fully booked by companies and charity
> organizations who  sponsor the Dreams To Flight charity.
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for the report Herman.  As loud as the 10A's engines are, Amelia's
were even worse.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:43:20 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Western Electric Radio Schematics

From Jim Hurysz

The WE 20 B Receiver and WE 13 C transmitter electrical (but not mechanical)
schematics are published in: "Aircraft Radio and Electrical Equipment" by
Howard K. Morgan, Pitman Publishing Corporation, New York and Chicago, 1939.

The Library of Congress catalog number is:

TL 693
M66

Jim Hurysz
******************************************************************
From Ric

We'll also be putting them up on our website as part of Mike Everette's
chapter on radios for the 8th Edition.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:00:46 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The mess on Kanton(Palmyra)

From Dan Postellon

Palmyra is still privately owned.  The Nature Conservancy is attempting to
raise the money to buy it.
Dan Postellon  TIGHAR 2263  LTM (who would love to buy Palmyra)

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

We refueled there enroute to Kanton in 1998.  Pretty place.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:52:23 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Earhart & Radio - IQ Perspective

From Jim Hurysz

From an information quality (IQ) perspective, here's what TIGHAR might do to
help the world understand what radios Earhart used, how Earhart used her
radios, the Electra's radio and antenna configuration as Earhart left Miami,
maintenance of Earhart's radios, capabilities of the Coast Guard's radios
aboard the Itasca, radio communication procedures in 1937, and so on.

- Archived documents from Western Electric,

- Archived documents from Pan Am Airways,

- Consultations with retired WE engineers,

- Consultantions with retired WE technicians,

- Consultations with retired Pan Am Airways engineers,

- Consultations with retired Pan Am Airways technicians,

- Archived engineering reports,

- Archived maintenance reports,

- Performance evaluation of WE Model 20 B receiver and Model 13 C transmitter
(obtained from radio museums or radio equipment collectors), installed in a
Lockheed Model 10, tested on an antenna test range, for various antenna
configurations,

- Archived documents about the capabilities and performance of radio
equipment aboard the Itasca,

- Performance evaluation of the Itasca's radios and antennas, tested on an
antenna test range,

- Archived radio propagation reports from July 1-3, 1937 for the South
Pacific,

- Propagation prediction software for radio propagation from July 1-3, 1937,
for the South Pacific

- and so on............

IF TIGHAR (or some other organization) does the above, it must be part of a
designed experimental process -  not grabbing some data, doing an "analysis,"
 and then issuing a press release.

Jim Hurysz
*****************************************************************
From Ric

That's an impressive "To Do" list.  What makes you think that half that stuff
is even available?  Do you have any idea what it would cost to do the kind of
recreations and simulations you suggest?

TIGHAR's mission is NOT to "to help the world understand what radios Earhart
used, how Earhart used her radios, the Electra's radio and antenna
configuration as Earhart left Miami, maintenance of Earhart's radios,
capabilities of the Coast Guard's radios aboard the Itasca, radio
communication procedures in 1937, and so on."
TIGHAR's mission is to conclusively solve the mystery of what happened to
Earhart and Noonan.  The radio-related issues are important to the degree
that they help validate or invalidate various hypotheses about what might
have happened, but they are not an end in the themselves.  Anything we do has
to be done within the constraints of the scant funding available to us and so
we have to focus our research very narrowly.  There are lots of ancillary
avenues we'd like to investigate and the volunteer efforts of the TIGHAR
membership and forum subscribers make that possible to a certain degree.  We
must not, however, lose sight of our primary goal - to find conclusive
physical proof.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:34:43 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan in Co-Pilot's seat

From

Janet Whitney wrote:
> If it suits TIGHAR's purposes to maintain that Noonan sat in the Electra's

> co-pilot's seat, so be it.

I have to agree with her.  You seem (on occasion) to be quite resistant to

other opinions that contradict your theory.  I do agree that your theory

seems "reasonable" on the surface.  But even you have to admit it's based on

mostly conjecture about what her plans were and what she "should" have done

based on her past and the working knowledge of the time.  And you might very

well be right, but it's just as possible she did crash at sea.  Whether you

think it's likely or not is another story.  I think all anyone should expect

is a fair hearing of their ideas, no matter how "crackpot" you might think

they are.  In fact the total lack of any evidence to prove your theory

should make you want to keep your mind open to alternate explanations until

you find the "smoking gun", shouldn't it?


Having said that, I'm curious about a couple of things.  I'm not clear about

how you're so certain they were on the line that cuts through the island.

Is it not even possible they missed it and were past or short of the island

and went down at sea?  I have no clue, so I'm seriously asking you.  I know

Fred was regarded as a fine navigator, but he was human.  Is there no

reasonable way he could miscalculate?  Secondly, if she did indeed make it

to the island as you suggest, is there any way to pu yourself in her place?

By that I mean, from her heading and based on her experience, how long

could/would she have circled looking for a suitable landing site?  Based on

the photos available, where would YOU have landed?  Would it have been near

the "7" site or somewhere else?  Would she have known what island she was

over and landed on the first one she came to?  Or would she have gone on

looking for a better site to put down?  What would you (or any good pilot)

have done?

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


I appreciate postings like this because they show me where we're failing to
communicate about what we're doing and why.
You say:
<<But even you have to admit (TIGHAR's theory) is based on mostly conjecture
about what her plans were and what she "should" have done based on her past
and the working knowledge of the time. >>

Not at all.  We began our investigation 12 years ago based upon the very
simple observation that, as far as anyone knew at that time, no on-the-ground
search had ever been conducted on the islands which the U.S. Navy in 1937 had
considered the most likley place for the flight to have ended.  Nobody knew
then, and nobody knows now, what Earhart's and Noonan's plan was after
failing to find Howland, but we saw the logic in the Navy's reasoning that
the most logical thing would be for the airplane to follow the line Earhart
said she was on toward the southeast whihc passes near two islands of the
Phoenix Group - McKean and Gardner.  We visited  McKean in 1989 and found
nothing to support the idea that the flight had landed there.  On Gardner,
however, we found some airplane parts that seemed to merit further
investigation.  We continued our investigation and the more we've learned
about Gardner Island the more it looks like we have the right place.

You say:
<<And you might very well be right, but it's just as possible she did crash
at sea.>>

While I agree with you that it is possible that she crashed at sea, I do not
agree that the liklihood of that is equal to the liklihood that she landed at
Gardner.  Here's why:

What evidence is there that she crashed at sea?
- A distress call that said something like, "Mayday, Mayday.  We're going
down." ?  No.
- Human remains, personal effects, floating wreckage or an oil slick seen by
the searchers or later washed up on some shore?
No.
-  Credible calculations of her fuel consumption that prove she couldn't
reach land?
No.

What evidence is there that she landed at Gardner?
- A credible post-loss distress call that could only have been made if the
airplane was on land?
Yes.
- Human remains, personal effects, and aircraft wreckage found on the island
that are consistent with the Earhart flight?
Yes.

While there is, as yet, no proof either way, there is also no conflicting
evidence. The only evidence there is points to a landing at Gardner. So, when
you say, "You seem (on occasion) to be quite resistant to other opinions that
contradict your theory."  you're correct in that I'm not much interested in
opinions that are not backed up by facts.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:39:14 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: New Earhart article

From Ross Devitt

>Unknown to many researchers, Noonan held a second class Commercial

Radiotelegraph License, which he >obtained two years before his death, and

he often stood by for the Clippers' radio operators when needed. >They

worked in CW (continuous wave, i.e., Morse code) exclusively.


Very Interesting, that in light of previous discussion, wonder if it's

documented?....


Also, nice picture if that's Itasca...


Th' WOMBAT
***************************************************************
From Ric

Almon Gray who wrote an earlier article for Naval History ("Amelia Didn't
Know Radio") made that claim but I've never seen the documentation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:41:52 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan

From JHam 2128 to Dave Bush, et al:

My bad. I should have caught this sooner. Fred's mom was Catherine Helena
Alice Egan - not Evans. She was born in West Ham, London on January 23,
1863. I'll try to pay better attention in the future.

Blue skies, -jerry
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:44:27 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: New Earhart article

From JHam 2128 re Noonan's radio license:

We do not have evidence I'm aware of that Fred held any class R/T license.
I am trying to establish contact with Mr. Riley to find out what he has.
The first enterprising Forum member who gets to me (jham@mindspring.com)
and says they want to track down the license through our government's
bureaucracy can have the job. Don't be shy.

Blue skies, -jerry
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Yes.  This need to be addressed.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:45:48 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan

From Ron Dawson

Hi, Ric. Jerry will probably comment on this as well, but Fred's mother's
maiden name was EGAN not Evans. We believe it to be Helena Catherine Alice
Egan.

Thanks

Ron Dawson 2126
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I know better.  I was just asleep at the switch.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:47:05 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan's birth

From JHam 2128 to R.C. re birth locale:

Ok, Ok, I should have known I would get hassled on the technicalities. But
by someone in my own backyard? Geez, RC. Actually, we don't know the actual
location of FN's birth. We know where he was baptized and where he lived.
You are correct, it was the city of Chicago. More specifically, it was the
Town Of Lake area, which was annexed by Chicago in 1889. This is currently,
I am told, known as "New City". Also called by Canaryville and Back Of The
Yards, an area west of the Union Stockyards. In general, the Southside of
Chicago. At the time, there was a cohesive Irish community there during
FN's childhood.

Blue skies, -jerry
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:54:50 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Earhart & Radio - IQ Perspective

From Ross Schlicting

Jim Hurysz said:

IF TIGHAR (or some other organization) does the above, it must be part of a
designed experimental process -  not grabbing some data, doing an
"analysis," and then issuing a press release.

I nominate Jim to do this "designed experimental process".

LTM,

Ross Schlichting
*****************************************************************
From Jim Tierney

Ric---Amen ,Brother-I support your stand that the PRIMARY focus is physical
proof of landing on Niku....Dont get diverted and dissipate
assets/time/money...
LTM-who lurks out here with me.
Jim Tierney
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:20:33 EDT
From:         
Subject:      The Search:

From R. Johnson

Noting that it is TIGHAR's mission to conclusively solve what happened
to AE and FN, I wonder why so much of the recent postings on the forum
relate to AE's radio equipment. I do realize her radio is  important in
some degree, but what possible difference does it make in actually
locating the Electra or what remains of it. Finding the remains of the
Electra is the ultimate smoking gun. I suppose the forum is an outlet
for people wishing to express their  knowledge of 1937 radio technology,
but is becoming quite pointless. Discussion of underwater search
technology would seem to be much more in line with what is needed to
find the Electra than the properties of AE radio equipment. I believe
you will find conclusive proof of AE demise in the waters surrounding
the island. TIGHAR, being the intellectual lot that they are, must
realize by now that the Electra is not washed up in bushes, so its'
remains must be in the water. I know it sounds over simplified, but is
seems so logical. I would hope TIGHARS next outing to NIKU would include
an extensive underwater search.

R. Johnson
*****************************************************************
From Ric

You're right, of course.  Everybody likes to talk about what they know about
and more poeple know about radio than know about underwater search
technology.  I found it very interesting that I notified everyone last week
that I had just put a detailed Research Bulletin up on the website about the
"7" site - the place that could conceivably yield the ultimate smoking gun in
the form of DNA-matched human remains - and got no forum postings at all in
response.

I agree with you that the airplane wreckage is not on shore.  I think we've
pretty much established that by experimentation (i.e. whacking endless
expanses of scaevola).  If the wreckage is not on land it must be in the
water (duh), but what water?  Assuming that the airplane landed on the reef
flat near the spot where Emily says she saw wreckage and where the Bevington
photo shows something that might be airplane wreckage, the forces of nature
tend to move material toward the lagoon passage, not the reef edge.  Tom King
has recently been corresponding with a Ph.D-type coral reef biologist with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion in Honolulu
(the guy, like, knows from reefs) and we're getting interested in the lagoon
floor just inside the main passage.  At this point, the problem looks to be
more one of looking in the right place than employing hi-tech equipment.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:47:06 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Earhart Project vs. Human Genome Project

From Jim Hurysz

Fifteen years ago scientists did  research the way Earhart research is done
today..in a haphazard uncoordinated way. It didn't work very well.

What is needed in Earhart research is a coordinated,  focused, and
comprehensive research effort. It is obvious that if TIGHAR and other Earhart
research groups have to pay for everything that has to be done to develop a
comprehensive theory of what happened to Earhart and Noonan and where the
Electra crashed it will be very expensive.

So far we've had expeditions, commemorative flights, interviews, speculation,
and hundreds of "hypotheticals" based on one set of data or another.

But if major assistance can be obtained from the corporations that built the
equipment that Earhart used, the non-profits that maintain the vintage
equipment such as Earhart used, and volunteers from various fields who are
knowledgeable and dedicated, the mystery can be solved in a straightforward
way. (Note that I am NOT saying the answer lies in the Electra's radios and
radio antennas. Understanding how the Electra's radios and antennas
functioned would be one part of a comprehensive solution.)

If you can find a copy, I suggest that everyone read the series of articles
about the Human Genome Project in today's NY Times (June 27th.)

Jim Hurysz
******************************************************************
From Ric

Well, it's not often that I'm at a loss for words, but you got me this time.
In moderating several thousand postings to this forum I don't think I've ever
seen such a combination of hubris and naivete.

<<Fifteen years ago scientists did  research the way Earhart research is done
today..in a haphazard uncoordinated way. It didn't work very well.>>

You wouldn't - um - be in your early 30s would you Jim?

 <<What is needed in Earhart research is a coordinated, focused, and
comprehensive research effort.>>

That's exactly what we said way back at the close of the Mesozoic Era in 1988.

<<It is obvious that if TIGHAR and other Earhart research groups have to pay
for everything that has to be done to develop a comprehensive theory of what
happened to Earhart and Noonan and where the Electra crashed it will be very
expensive.>>

Psst. Jim, there ARE NO other Earhart research groups.  There are individuals
who do Earhart research as an avocation and there is a group of
treasure-hunting investors who have done some ocean searching based on Elgen
Long's work, and there is a loose association of conspiracy buffs who call
themselves the Amelia Earhart
Society, but in terms of a professionally-led, federally-recognized,
historical/educational nonprofit organization doing Earhart research, TIGHAR
is the only game in town.  And, yes, it's expensive.  I'm sure that if we
could just find a profit potential in the Earhart Project that compares to
the Human Genome Project we too would be awash in hundreds of millions in
funding.

<<So far we've had expeditions, commemorative flights, interviews,
speculation,
and hundreds of "hypotheticals" based on one set of data or another.>>

You're pretty confused, aren't you.

<<But if major assistance can be obtained from the corporations that built
the
equipment that Earhart used, the non-profits that maintain the vintage
equipment such as Earhart used, and volunteers from various fields who are
knowledgeable and dedicated, the mystery can be solved in a straightforward
way. >>

I have sent proposals for funding to every coroporation we could think of
that had any association with the Earhart flight.  I've met personally with
senior executives at Lockheed, Pratt & Whitney, Honeywell (who bought
Sperry),etc.  Some have helped.  Others have not.  Those who declined did not
turn us down because we lacked a comprehensive research program (which is
exactly what we DO have).  Many corporations are very nervous about getting
involved in anything as controversial as the Earhart mystery.  P&W put up 5.5
million dollars for Finch's commemorative flight, in part, specifically
because she would not even discuss the disappearance.  As far as I know (and
we've looked) there ARE NO nonprofits that maintain vintage radio equipment
such as Earhart used.  On the other hand, volunteers from various fields who
are knowledgeable and dedicated have been a major asset in our investigation.
 We have also had donated expert assistance from the National Transportation
Safety Board, the FBI, and (don't tell anybody) the CIA.

I respectfully suggest that you initiate your own comprehensive research
project into what has already been done before you embarrass yourself
further.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:54:21 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The Search:

From Stephanie

Question?
You said that you had the NTSB look into a plane that you found that could
have been the Electra.  If you think that is the Electra, why would you
look underwater at all?

Stephanie
*****************************************************************
From Ric

We did not find a plane.  The NTSB laboratory helped us identify the
materials and characteristics (degree of corrosion, type of damage, etc.) in
aircraft parts we recovered from Nikumaroro in 1991.  The parts we found were
all in or near the village and had clearly been brought there from somewhere
else.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:15:48 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Radio museums

From Greg

With regard to the nonprofits that maintain radio equipment you might try
the Pavek Museum in Minneapolis Minnesota

Greg

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

We've checked the Pavek Museum of Broadcasting.  No joy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:54:21 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Warning to new guys

From Dennis McGee

Ric:
    I understand your occasional impatience and frustration dealing with
new subscribers like Jim Hurysz when they question TIGHAR's "unwillingness"
to accept or debate some of the more popular alternative AE theories.   But
I'm curious, when TIGHAR accepts a new subscriber to the AE Forum isn't
there some introduction that explains why we're not interested in blowing
smoke about crashed-at-sea, captured-by-Sons-of-Nippon, and other fairy
tales?  Isn't there a disclaimer or something to the effect that TIGHAR's
theory is: landed-at-Niku, here's why we believe that, and here is our
evidence.
    Have we discovered a third topic -- in addition to religion and
politics -- that is best left to personal preference?

LTM, who is mellower these days
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
*****************************************************************
From Ric

We tell 'em but it never does any good.  This forum is just like Dodge City.
We put up signs at the edge of town but there are always gunslingers out to
make a name for themselves who show up and call me out into the street.  Gets
old.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:58:46 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: New Earhart article

From Ross Devitt

 >Unknown to many researchers, Noonan held a second class Commercial

>

> Radiotelegraph License,


> >From Ric

>

> Almon Gray who wrote an earlier article for Naval History ("Amelia Didn't

> Know Radio") made that claim but I've never seen the documentation.


Should be in archives for 1934-35-36 if its correct.  Doesn't the US Gov't

archive "absolutely everything" ????  <grin>


Th' WOMBAT
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Don't we wish.

TIGHAR member and Forum stalwart Jon Watson has taken on the mission of
confirming (or disproving) the Noonan radio license question. ("Do you have
your revolver with you Watson?")
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:01:03 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan in Co-Pilot's seat

From Tom King

The other point you made in your original response to Janet Whitney on the
burning question of where Noonan sat, which bears repeating, is that no
particular seating arrangement particularly suits TIGHAR's purposes.  He
could have sat on the tail, for all the difference it makes to our hypothesis.

LTM (who prefers First Class when she can afford it)
Tom King
*****************************************************************
From Ric

As a matter of fact, we're quite certain that Noonan sat on his tail.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:11:55 EDT
From:         
Subject:      The Search for Amelia..

From Ross Devitt

"In July 1937, a couple of days before Independence day, America's

swashbuckling adventuress Amelia Earhart went missing on a flight around the

world.  This woman, perhaps America's female Errol Flynn, took to the skies

as if they belonged to her.  From the start, she was a natural pilot, and

accumulated many hours in different types of airplanes, winning air races

and holding world records."


She set off from Lae in what was then New Guinea with inadequate fuel,

faulty radio equipment and a drunken navigator searching for Howland Island,

a flyspeck on the great wall of the Pacific ocean, and flew into history.


From "Earhart, the 100% factual guide to the mystery.."



Th' WOMBAT

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

A little welcome comic relief from Down Under.  Thanks Wombat.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:16:03 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The Search:

From Ross Devitt

>>I found it very interesting that I notified everyone last week

> that I had just put a detailed Research Bulletin up on the website about

> the "7" site - the place that could conceivably yield the ultimate smoking
gun

> in the form of DNA-matched human remains - and got no forum postings at all

> in response.


Believe me, we've all looked, and some of us have enlarged the "rectilinear

object" and played with the resolution etc., and viewed it from across the

room.


I suspect because the posting was put up after the extensive discussion on

the "7" a lot of us are examining it before opening our mouths (Hmmm  that

would be a change for certain marsupials..  <grin>)


Th' WOMBAT    (Who found the "7" site supports his theories (almost to a

"T")

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

Uh oh.  Sorry I mentioned it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:17:15 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The Search:

From Alan Caldwell

<< I believe you will find conclusive proof of AE demise in the waters
surrounding
 the island. TIGHAR, being the intellectual lot that they are, must  realize
by now that the Electra is not washed up in bushes, so its' remains must be
in the water. >>

You're ahead of me in your belief. I have no idea where the plane went down
so I don't know if it was ever in a position to be washed in any direction.
With a few heavy duty Pacific storms hitting the island over the last 63
years I wouldn't bet on ANY specific location.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:28:01 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The Search:

From Alan Caldwell

>>You said that you had the NTSB look into a plane that you found that could
 have been the Electra.  If you think that is the Electra, why would you
 look underwater at all?

 Stephanie
 *****************************************************************
 From Ric

 We did not find a plane.  The NTSB laboratory helped us identify the
 materials and characteristics (degree of corrosion, type of damage, etc.) in
 aircraft parts we recovered from Nikumaroro in 1991.  The parts we found were
 all in or near the village and had clearly been brought there from somewhere
 else. >>


Ric, have you been keeping things from us? I didn't know a plane had been
found and I didn't know you have been looking underwater. I must have just
been lightly skimming the postings and missed it all. I can see now that some
folks need to read a bit more carefully before they post something. (that's
the only serious sentence <G>)

I can tell you I've been interested in the AE mystery since the late 60s and
occasionally fool myself into thinking I know everthing that has been
discovered but the truth is I don't. I get things wrong and I miss things BUT
only because I'm not careful enough in my reading. I go back to the web site
frequently and go through all my notes and STILL get something wrong. How
someone can get as far off base as a few lately is beyond me.

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

To prove your point, we've actually done a whole lot of looking underwater.
In 1989 we had a team of divers circumnavigate the island visually searching
the reef face down to about 100 feet.  A cursory inspection at best, but they
spent several hundred man-hours underwater.
In 1991 we dropped a cool $200,000 on a side-scan sonar search by Oceaneering
International of the reef face down to, in some cases, 2,000 feet.  Again,
hardly a comprehensive examination but lots of looking nonetheless.
In 1997 we did electromagnetic and visual searching in the lagoon.  About 8
days of work covered maybe 2 percent of the lagoon.

I do not, however, recall finding a plane.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:38:02 EDT
From:         
Subject:      New Umbrella Organization for Earhart Research?

From Jim Hurysz

Maybe it's time to let TIGHAR go about forming a new expedition to Gardner
Island, etc., and let other interest groups form their own listservs under a
new Earhart research umbrella organization. The Earhart research SIGs under
the umbrella organization could include: Electra airframe and powerplant,
Electra acoustics, Electra radios and antennas, Electra navigation, Electra
radio propagation, Electra deepsea recovery, etc.

Jim Hurysz
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I think that's a wonderful idea.  Have at it.  Let me know how you make out.
I'd like to suggest that any forum subscriber who may be interested in
working with Jim Hurysz and Janet Whitney to form a New Umbrella Organization
for Earhart Research should contact them directly at DataQuality@aol.com
The rest of us will continue to muddle along here.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:45:31 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Gurr

From Andrew McKenna

<<1.  Install V antenna on belly, in accordance with Mr. Gurr, Amelia
Earhart's representative.

2.  Revision to V antenna installation on top of fuselage by previous order.

Re-locate transmitter inlet insulator in accordance with Mr. Gurr's
instructions, Amelia Earhart's representative>>

Have we tried to locate this Mr. Gurr or his descendants to see if there
might be any goodies in his memories, papers, and photo album?

Andrew McKenna  #1045C
****************************************************************
From Ric

Mr. Gurr died a few years ago but not before leaving extensive recollections
(but no documentation I am aware of) in the form of letters and interviews
with various Earhart researchers.  In a nutshell, Gurr was a radio technician
of apparently very limited ability who, nonetheless, enjoyed the complete
trust of Earhart and Putnam.  The changes he made to the aircraft's antenna
system following the Luke Field accident were a major factor in the
communications failures that, in turn, led directly to the disappearance.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:49:12 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The mess on Kanton

From John Dipi

IN FEB 1942 KANTON WAS A US & BRITISH OPERATION BUT OUR COL. GIBSON WAS WAS
IN CHARGE AND HE LET THE ADMISTRATOR KNOW WHO WAS IN COMMAND

IN FACT HE TOLD THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATOR  WHO HAD 2 RADIO OPERATORS NAMED
LEO & OSCAR NEW ZELANDERS THAT HE DID NOT WANT THEM NOT TO TRANSMIT THEY
COULD  ONLY RECEIVE
CHRISTIAN,  IS THERE ANYONE ON KANTON WITH A E-MAIL  ADDRESS. I
STILL REMEMBER MANY THINGS ABOUT KANTON.
*****************************************************************
From Ric

As I'm sure Christian will confirm, nobody on Kanton has email or even a
telephone for that matter.  Communication is all by radio, usually via
Kiritimati (Christmas Island).
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:10:46 EDT
From:         
Subject:      radio serial numbers?

From Dave Bush

>From R. Johnson
>
>Noting that it is TIGHAR's mission to conclusively solve what happened
>to AE and FN, I wonder why so much of the recent postings on the forum
>relate to AE's radio equipment.

While the radio equipment itself is not "critical", it would be invaluable to
know the make, model AND serial number(s) of her equipment, since it may be
that we will only find small bits and parts of a aircraft torn apart by
hydraulic forces.

LTM,
Dave Bush
#2200
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Make and model we got.  Serial numbers are a lot tougher.  So far I have seen
no record of serial numbers for the radios.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:28:30 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Warning to new guys

From Jon Watson

Good morning Ric,
Here's a thought - put together a "form letter", that you could send to new
forum subscribers, or those of us with gaposis of the brain, that hits on
the major stuff (like the FAQ) and has hyperlinks to the relevant areas of
the website.  That way, all they have to do (for the biggies, anyway) is
point and click.  Might save some time and/or hard feelings in the long run.
And if all they want to do is fight, well, I refer back to your other msg
(re: revolver) - and say - locked and loaded!  Don't let it grind you down!
ltm
jon  2266
****************************************************************
From Ric

Well, we already have a Welcome Message that people don't read.  I'm not sure
a second letter would stick any better.
In thinking about this a little more;
It strikes me that the person most likely to sign up for the forum is the
person who already has an interest in the Earhart mystery.  Chances are,
they've read the books and seen the TV shows and have formed some impressions
and have some questions.  We should certainly let them ask those questions
and, if the questions are covered by a FAQ on the website, I can just send
them a link to that FAQ rather than post their question on the forum.  If the
question is not covered by a FAQ I can write the answer and then use that
answer as the basis for a new FAQ.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:56:43 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Book: "Lost Star"  Proported Photo Of Lockheed 10E?

From William Ellis

Hi All,

I am new to the forum,  I have kept up with the AE Project for a number of
years and continue to do so, thank you for leting me be a part of this forum,
I am not trying to drift off course in sticking to the facts of Amelia's
disapperance, but I have read and collected most of all the books on her then
there is the book lost star, there is a photo taken from the air in 1944 over
a Japanese air base an enlargement shows what looks like a Lockheed Electra
with a broken wing, I am not trying to push any capture therory here but am
wondering what airplane is this? I know the Japanese used the Lockheed model
14 and produced it under liscense...but it looks almost like a Lockheed
Electra.

Best Wishes

William Ellis
Apple Valley, MN

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

Welcome aboard William.

I don't know what kind of airplane appears in the photo.  Brink says the
photo shows  a "distinctive twin-tailed monoplane."  I see a monoplane that
looks like it's probably twin-engined, but I see nothing to indicate that it
is necessarily twin-tailed.   As you have noted, Brink's statement that "the
Japanese built no twin-tailed monoplanes" is nonsense.

Could the airplane in Brink's photo be a Lockheed 10 with the left wing
missing?  I doubt it.  The wing on the plane appears to be missing from very
close to the fuselage.  An Electra's wing literally can't come off that way.
The Model 10's "main beam" (a structure that looks like part of the Brooklyn
Bridge) runs from engine to engine right through the cabin.  It's just about
indestructible.  The wings of a Model 10 only "come off" from outboard of the
engines where the main beam stops.

The airplane in the photo could any of a number of common Japanese types, but
it's hard to imagine how it could be a Lockheed Electra.  Even if it was,
that would not make it Amelia's Electra.  The Imperial Japanese Navy
purchased a Model 10 (cn 1017) from Lockheed in March 1935 and shipped it
home to Japan.

LTM,
Ric

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:05:49 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Button, button.  Whose got the button?

From Ric

We need help from the forum but especially from our WWII vets.

Among the handful of artifacts we recovered from the "7" site back in 1996
was a button.  You can see photos of it at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/help4_19/help4_19.html

New TIGHAR member James Matthews is an archaeologist with experience in
cultural artifacts from the 1930s and 1940s (including buttons) and he has
taken on the job of helping us find out what we can about Artifact 2-3-W-5.
He's performing some pretty hi-tech tests on the poor little thing but we
also need your help.

How can a fairly generic-looking little button possibly tell us anything of
interest?  Well, maybe it can't - but maybe it can.  The question we're
trying to answer is, "Whose button was it?"  The site is very remote and only
a few people are known to have visited it over the years (although, of
course, there could have been others).
The people we have reason to think were there and may, therefore, be the
source of the button, are:
- the castaway whose remains (we think) were found nearby.
- the Gilbertese workers who found the skull and later helped Gallagher
search for other remains.
- Gallagher himself.
- the U.S. Coast Guardsmen who visited the site during WWII.
- Ass't Lands Commissioner Paul Laxton who visited the site in 1949.
-  the island settlers who accompanied Laxton.

That's a pretty good sized crowd.  Can we eliminate any of them?  The workers
and settlers on the island make up, by far, the biggest group.  Photos show
that some of them did wear trousers and shorts, presumably with buttons.  The
1940 inventory for the Gardner Co-Op store lists 315 "trouser buttons" in
stock but, lo and behold, it also mentions that they are made of "bone."  Our
button is not bone.  We don't yet know for sure what it's made of (we suspect
bakelite) but it sure ain't bone.  That would seem to greatly reduce the
chance that the button belonged to one of the settlers.

The next biggest group of potential button losers is the Coast Guard.  Photos
show that those guys mostly wore what appear to be standard-issue khaki
shorts (and almost nothing else).  Here's where we need for our WWII vets to
go dig around in that trunk up in the attic.  What kind of buttons were on
Coast Guard fatigue uniforms, especially those khaki shorts?

If our button is not a military button, then our likely button losers are
down to three specific individuals;
- the castaway
- Gallagher
- Laxton

Of these, two are known to be Brits.  If there is some apsect of the button
that makes it identifiable as American rather than British then the
probability moves away from Gallagher and Laxton and toward the notion of an
American castaway.

Again, nothing about the button has the potential for proof but understanding
the probabilities of it's origin may help direct us toward other discoveries
that may be conclusive.

Please look at the button on the website.  Note that it is 1.5 cm (9/16ths of
an inch) in diameter - a bit large for a shirt button - about right for a
trouser button.  The color is dark brown (a bit darker than it appears on the
website).  There's a slightly raised rim around the edge on the obverse
(upward facing) concave side but none on the reverse (against the garment)
convex side. If you have a button of known origin that looks like ours,
please let me know.  If you have an example of a WWII Coast Guard or Navy
button, particulary from khaki shorts, please let me know.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:07:41 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Warning to new guys

From Jon Watson

> if the questions are covered by a FAQ on the website, I can just send
> them a link to that FAQ rather than post their question on the forum.  If
> the question is not covered by a FAQ I can write the answer and then use
that
> answer as the basis for a new FAQ.

This sounds pretty do-able.  The key, I think is to make it as user friendly
(in both directions) as possible, without losing the personal touch -
speaking for myself, that's one of the things that keeps me interested.
Also, looking at the other side of the coin, I can't begin to tell you how
many times I've learned something new by reading a reiteration of something
that has been previously discussed, and has to be revisited for a new
subscriber.
Keep up the good work (along with your chin - if nothing else, it gives them
a better target!)
ltm,
jon 2266
PS nothing yet from FCC.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:20:44 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The Search:

From Tom King

The thing we haven't discussed about the Seven Site, and that I'd love to
hear some thoughts on, is what the mark is on the reef (if it is a mark on
the reef) that seems to extend out from the "top" of the Seven, on the last
photo in the material Ric put up on the website.  I've put the question to my
friendly Fish and Wildlife Service reef man but as yet gotten no answer.
Other ideas?

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:22:23 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Underwater searching

From Tom King

Re:
<<Again, hardly a comprehensive examination but lots of looking nonetheless.
In 1997 we did electromagnetic and visual searching in the lagoon.  About 8
days of work covered maybe 2 percent of the lagoon.>>

And before anybody asks -- they broke their sensor about the time they got to
the mouth of Tatiman Passage, and therefore didn't look at the area from
there to the northwest cape -- i.e. the area where wreckage has since been
reported on the reef in both 1940 and the 1950s.  The divers in '89 also gave
the area between Tatiman and the Norwich City short shrift, because it was so
full of shipwreck debris.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:31:22 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Photo of the Electra/ "Lost Star" book

Ric,

On the subject of photos and credibility as evidence take a look at Randal
Brinks photo #11 of the "Electra" on Taroa Is in the insert of "Lost Star", a
photo dated "1944"he attributes to the Military Branch,National
Archives,taken during the US bombing. (A new forum member just brought this
up) The left wing is missing.

Brink describes it as "twin-tailed monoplane" but definitely concludes it is
the Electra as Dwight and John Heine told Gervais in an interview in 1982
that they helped unload an airplane missing one wing "while its Caucasian
flyers , a women and man, stayed aboard the ship (Kamoi)". Brink says in all
probability it is still there.

Now look closely at Photo #38,p 266, in "Nanyo",by Mark R. Peattie,pubished
in 1988. Peattie is a professor at Univ. Of Mass and an expert on the role of
the Japanese activities in Micronesia 1885-1945.

Photo #38 is identical,in my opinion,to Brink's photo other than the margins
for inclusion in thier page contents. If you use the docks,and other
landmarks, and a high powered magnifiying glass,the photos depict the same
area. Peattie's photo is dated Dec 1943,at most a month before Brink's.(My
guess is they are the same date

The Electra is not there.Nor anything that looks like an aircraft in the area
which is blown up in Brinks photo nor the runways and storage areas.

Brinks photo is printed on glossy paper and has a much higher black and white
contrast which may or may not be due to reproduction techniques. Peatties
photo ,also black and white,is published on ordinary book paper.

So I'm at a loss to explain why Brink's photo shows very clearly the aircraft
and Peatties photo doesn't show it.Both photos came from the Military
Branch,National Archives. If Peatties photo was taken in Dec 43, the plane
should be visible a month later!

What gives and does anyone in the forum have access to the Military Branch
and enough curiosity to check it out. Another example in using photos as
"historical proof"!!

LTM,
Ron Bright
*****************************************************************
From ric

By coincidence, a new forum subscriber just raised a question about the photo
in Brink's book.  See my reply to him.

Mark Peattie is a long-time TIGHAR member, a fine scholar and a good friend.
The photo in Nanyo shows the airfield at Taroa after it was bombed into
oblivion.  No bomb damage is evident in Brink's photo.

The real challenge with Brink's book is to find something resembling fact
anywhere in it.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:36:10 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Gurr

From Ron Bright

Ric,

 Did Gurr testify,report,recall,believe,etc that he installed a Bendix radio
receiver in the Electra at Burbank 1937? I have never seen any direct quotes
from researchers re this aspect. You already said that no documents,i.e, work
orders, exist. I know the radio issue has been beaten to death and is of
secondary importance re where she ended up but it remains an interesting
factoid.

LTM, RON BRIGHT

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

I'm going from memory here but I'm quite sure that Gurr never mentioning a
Bendix receiver.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:37:49 EDT
From:         
Subject:      No Subject

From Cam Warren

For Ron Bright -

Gurr never referred to it by the name "Bendix", but as a brand
new multiband receiver that arrived in a crate marked "US Navy".
There is a publicity photo extant that shows Manning, Bendix
engineer Cyril Remmlein and Amelia at Newark, admiring a
prototype of an RA-1. Production started shortly thereafter, and
(according to Bendix project engineer Vernon Moore) one of the
first four was shipped to Burbank for installation in the
Earhart Electra by .... (drum roll) Joseph Gurr. (This was just
prior to AE's departure for Honolulu).

Cam Warren
******************************************************************
From Ric

What Gurr said in a 1982 letter to Fred Goerner was:
"About this time (Ric: late February/early March 1937 during preparations for
the first World flight attempt) we received a box marked U.S. Navy,
containing a fine multi-frequency receiver, covering frequencies up to 20
megaherz.  I do not know who was responsible for this acquisition, nor where
it came from.  I was pleased, as now the plane was capable of covering larger
segments of frequencies which could be useful in radio communication, and
even in direction finding.  While the direction finding loop was designed for
the lower frequencies, I found i could get a fairly good null on AM Broadcast
Stations up to 1500KH.  I figured it would probably be useful even on 3105KH
if the received signal was strong enough."

Okay.  What hard evidence do we have to support or refute this 45 year-old
recollection?  There are several photos taken in Burbank by Albert Bresnick,
apparently on March 6th, which show someone that Cam Warren says is a Bendix
engineer named Cyril Remmlein posing with Amelia and what is very obviously
the new Bendix loop coupler (previously discussed ad nauseum).  Other photos
taken at the same time show AE posing with the Bendix loop.  It would seem
safe, therefore, to say that on or about March 6, 1937 a Bendix loop antenna
and loop coupler were installed on NR16020. None of the publicity photos
taken at that time (that I have seen) show a receiver of any kind.  None of
the photos show Joe Gurr.

Gurr, in his later recollections, makes no mention of the new loop, the loop
coupler, Cyril Remmlein, or any other "Bendix engineer."  The loop antenna is
obviously already present when Gurr says the new "multi-frequency receiver"
was installed so it must have been sometime after March 6 but obviously
before March 16 when AE intended to leave for Hawaii (weather delayed the
departure until the 17th).  Note, however, that Gurr does not say that he
installed the new receiver himself.  He does, however, remember that it
arrived in a box marked "U.S. Navy."  Do we know of any boxes that may have
arrived in those last days before departure that might have been labeled U.S.
Navy?  Yes, we do.  On March 15, the following message was sent by Naval Air
Station San Diego to the  Secretary of the Navy:

AMELIA EARHART URGENTLY REQUESTS AIR STATION LOAN NAVY OCTANT FOR PROJECTED
TRANSPACIFIC FLIGHT AND SHIPMENT AIR EXPRESS TO OAKLAND IMMEDIATELY.
NAVIGATOR LIEUT COMDR GEORGE MANNING USNR WILL SIGN CUSTODY.
OCTANT AVAILABLE. APPROVAL REQUESTED STATING DEPOSIT REQUIRED.PROPOSE SHIP
CARE COMMANDING OFFICER NRAB OAKLAND SUBJECT DEPARTMENTS INSTRUCTIONS.

The request was approved later that same day with no deposit required and the
next day, March 16, the following message was sent from NAS San Diego to the
Naval Reserve Air Base at Oakland (where Earhart was preparing to depart for
Hawaii):


OCTANT BEING SHIPPED AIR EXPRESS COLLECT ON UAL PLANE DUE OAKLAND AT 1450
TODAY TUESDAY.  CHARGES TO BE PAID BY MISS EARHART OR REPRESENTATIVE. REQUEST
INSTRUMENT BE TURNED OVER IMMEDIATELY ON ARRIVAL AND CUSTODY
RECEIPT OF LIEUT COMDR HARRY MANNING USNR BE RETURNED THIS STATION

Was this the box Joe Gurr remembered?  But what about Cam Warren's claim that
there is a publicity photo extant that shows Manning, Bendix engineer Cyril
Remmlein and Amelia at Newark, admiring a prototype of an RA-1?  I've never
seen such a photo so I can't say whether it shows what Cam says it shows, but
assuming that it does, it had to have been taken in mid-February when
Earhart, Putnam and Manning had the airplane in the New York area to announce
the World Flight.  Obviously, a photo of AE and Manning admiring a radio does
not mean that the radio was later installed in the airplane and it does seem
a bit odd that Remmlein would travel all the way to California to install the
radio rather than do it right there,
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:55:52 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Gurr

(From Ric:
apologies for the earlier incomplete posting that got sent prematurely)

From Cam Warren

For Ron Bright -

Gurr never referred to it by the name "Bendix", but as a brand
new multiband receiver that arrived in a crate marked "US Navy".
There is a publicity photo extant that shows Manning, Bendix
engineer Cyril Remmlein and Amelia at Newark, admiring a
prototype of an RA-1. Production started shortly thereafter, and
(according to Bendix project engineer Vernon Moore) one of the
first four was shipped to Burbank for installation in the
Earhart Electra by .... (drum roll) Joseph Gurr. (This was just
prior to AE's departure for Honolulu).

Cam Warren
******************************************************************
From Ric

What Gurr said in a 1982 letter to Fred Goerner was:
"About this time (Ric: late February/early March 1937 during preparations for
the first World flight attempt) we received a box marked U.S. Navy,
containing a fine multi-frequency receiver, covering frequencies up to 20 mega
herz.  I do not know who was responsible for this acquisition, nor where it
came from.  I was pleased, as now the plane was capable of covering larger
segments of frequencies which could be useful in radio communication, and
even in direction finding.  While the direction finding loop was designed for
the lower frequencies, I found i could get a fairly good null on AM Broadcast
Stations up to 1500KH.  I figured it would probably be useful even on 3105KH
if the received signal was strong enough."

Okay.  What hard evidence do we have to support or refute this 45 year-old
recollection?  There are several photos taken in Burbank by Albert Bresnick,
apparently on March 6th, which show someone that Cam Warren says is a Bendix
engineer named Cyril Remmlein posing with Amelia and what is very obviously
the new Bendix loop coupler (previously discussed ad nauseum).  Other photos
taken at the same time show AE posing with the Bendix loop.  It would seem
safe, therefore, to say that on or about March 6, 1937 a Bendix loop antenna
and loop coupler were installed on NR16020. None of the publicity photos
taken at that time (that I have seen) show a receiver of any kind.  None of
the photos show Joe Gurr.

Gurr, in his later recollections, makes no mention of the new loop, the loop
coupler, Cyril Remmlein, or any other "Bendix engineer."  The loop antenna is
obviously already present when Gurr says the new "multi-frequency receiver"
was installed so it must have been sometime after March 6 but obviously
before March 16 when AE intended to leave for Hawaii (weather delayed the
departure until the 17th).  Note, however, that Gurr does not say that he
installed the new receiver himself.  He does, however, remember that it
arrived in a box marked "U.S. Navy."  Do we know of any boxes that may have
arrived in those last days before departure that might have been labeled U.S.
Navy?  Yes, we do.  On March 15, the following message was sent by Naval Air
Station San Diego to the  Secretary of the Navy:

AMELIA EARHART URGENTLY REQUESTS AIR STATION LOAN NAVY OCTANT FOR PROJECTED
TRANSPACIFIC FLIGHT AND SHIPMENT AIR EXPRESS TO OAKLAND IMMEDIATELY.
NAVIGATOR LIEUT COMDR GEORGE MANNING USNR WILL SIGN CUSTODY.
OCTANT AVAILABLE. APPROVAL REQUESTED STATING DEPOSIT REQUIRED.PROPOSE SHIP
CARE COMMANDING OFFICER NRAB OAKLAND SUBJECT DEPARTMENTS INSTRUCTIONS.

The request was approved later that same day with no deposit required and the
next day, March 16, the following message was sent from NAS San Diego to the
Naval Reserve Air Base at Oakland (where Earhart was preparing to depart for
Hawaii):


OCTANT BEING SHIPPED AIR EXPRESS COLLECT ON UAL PLANE DUE OAKLAND AT 1450
TODAY TUESDAY.  CHARGES TO BE PAID BY MISS EARHART OR REPRESENTATIVE. REQUEST
INSTRUMENT BE TURNED OVER IMMEDIATELY ON ARRIVAL AND CUSTODY
RECEIPT OF LIEUT COMDR HARRY MANNING USNR BE RETURNED THIS STATION

Was this the box Joe Gurr remembered?  But what about Cam Warren's claim that
there is a publicity photo extant that shows Manning, Bendix engineer Cyril
Remmlein and Amelia at Newark, admiring a prototype of an RA-1?  I've never
seen such a photo so I can't say whether it shows what Cam says it shows, but
assuming that it does, it had to have been taken in mid-February when
Earhart, Putnam and Manning had the airplane in the New York area to announce
the World Flight.  Obviously, a photo of AE and Manning admiring a radio does
not mean that the radio was later installed in the airplane and it does seem
a bit odd that Remmlein would travel all the way to California to install the
radio rather than do it right there, and then not have any photos taken of it
(oops, I forgot.  It was supposed to be secret.).

And what of Bendix project engineer Vernon Moore's recollection that one of
the
first four prototype RA-1s was shipped to Burbank for installation in the
Earhart Electra by .... (drum roll) Joseph Gurr?  That seems like an odd
recollection given that Gurr himself says that he met Earhart for the first
time when she RETURNED from New York in late February.  How would Moore know
anything about Joe Gurr?  Earhart, however, did have one of the first four
prototypes of a new Bendix receiver/direction finder installed in her
airplane, but it was the Hooven Radio Compass (Hooven had just been bought
out by Bendix) that was installed in October 1936 and removed when the new
loop and coupler were installed in March.

Once again we've seen anecdote and assumption presented as evidence to
contradict documented events, and once again we've wasted everybody's time.
Sorry.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:02:40 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Button, button.  Whose got the button?

From Chris Kennedy

Ric, in this regard I have several thoughts:

1.  Do you know of any museums which may have some of Earhart's clothes
(shirts,
trousers or anything else which might use buttons).  Many times people will
buy
multiple pairs of the same garment that they find works well in a particular
application (for example, trousers to be used while flying).  You might get a
clue there; if nothing else you may see whether there is anything different
about
a '30s button from a modern one..

2. Remember the heal---it said "Cat's Paw", and this lead you to that company
and
its own historians who were able to date the type of heal to the '30s.
Perhaps
there is a similar mass manufacturer of buttons who might be able to assist
(the
name "Coats" comes to mind for some reason---a good place to start would be
to go
to a store and see the name which usually appears on packages of buttons).
Something I noticed in the picture is what appears to be some sort of inner
circle at the center of the button--I don't recall that being a feature of
modern
buttons.

3.  Even though the Lae takeoff photos probably are no help, perhaps other
pictures you have of Earhart might reveal clues relevant to sourcing this
button.

--Chris
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Good suggestions.  Let's first see if we can eliminate it by matching it to
buttons used by the Coast Guard or Navy during WWII.  If it passes that test
I recall that Purdue has a pair of brown trousers that belonged to AE.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:37:09 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Button, button.  Whose got the button?

From David Evans Katz

I am no veteran of WWII, but my grandfather was a tailor (perhaps more
useful in this situation).  While I don't have the requisite eye or
expertise, this artifact (2-3-W-5) is something that should be examined by a
tailor -- the older, the better.  From my limited youthful experience of
playing with my grandfather's vast button collection (my sister and I played
a game similar to marbles with them; each size button had a different value
in the game), I remember similar buttons.

This one appears to be a little too big for a trouser-fly button, but it is
the perfect size for one of three uses I can think of (again, please verify
with a tailor familiar with clothing of the period):  trouser-waist  buttons
(used for braces/suspenders); jacket cuff-buttons; jacket pocket or
epaulette buttons.  Logic tells me that it is unlikely to be a trouser-waist
button, because one would normally use only solid white or black buttons for
braces, unless the trousers in question were part of a very expensive pair
of pants or suit, and then one would match the braces buttons with all of
the other buttons on the suit or pants.  Even so, a very expensive suit or
pair of pants would likely use a more expensive material than bakelite.

For whatever you think my opinion is worth, the other uses seem (to me) to
be more likely.

David Evans Katz
******************************************************************
From Ron Bright

Ric,

As far as I know the FBI lab Washington has the forensic ability to
identify,classify,etc buttons (often found at crime scenes).Have you tried
them as you have with some other artifacts.
Ron Bright
******************************************************************
From Ric

Let me tell you a little story about the FBI lab and Earhart research.  Back
in 1990 we approached the FBI for help in dating the paint on the Navigator's
Bookcase (Artifact 2-1).  The Bureau was very cooperative and we developed a
great working relationship.  That December they gave us a report that
concluded that they could find nothing that would disqualify the artifact as
being from Earhart's plane.  When we announced those results one of our
critics went ballistic and demanded that the FBI send her a copy fo the
report.  The FBI said they were sorry but the report was written for TIGHAR
and they couldn't release it to anyone else.  They suggested that she contact
us for a copy (which we would have gladly provided) but she said she didn't
trust us to not alter the report.  She then filed a Freedom Of Information
Act request which put the Bureau to a lot of trouble over something they
thought they were doing as a favor in the public interest.  The FBI lab now
knows better than to get involved in anything to do with Amelia Earhart.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:47:45 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Noonan's radio license?

From William Webster-Garman

I have three letters to mention: FCC (they existed in 37 and issued RTLs)


william 2243

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

Jon Watson has a request in to the FCC and is waiting for a reply.  Our
earlier efforts to see if Nooonan had a radio license were met with the reply
that the FCC maintains no records earlier than 1970.  Hard to see how anyone
else got that information.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:50:39 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Howared Hughes

From Rick Seapin

I watched a most interesting bio on the history channel last night. Although
I'm not a fan of Mr. Hughes, I was surprised to learned that he made a world
flight in 1938. Does anyone know if he used the same radio equipment as
Earhart? Did he collaborate with anyone from the Earhart crew, Putnam, Mantz,
the Coast Guard? What made his journey successful? Did he learn from
Earhart's mistakes? Finally, who was his navigator?
****************************************************************
From Ric

Good question.  I don't know much about Hughes' flight except that he flew a
Lockheed 14 "Super Electra" and appears to have used the same type of Hooven
Radio Compass rejected by Earhart.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:56:55 EDT
From:         
Subject:      mark on reef

From Randy Jacobson

I asked a UC Berkeley reef specialist/geologist (the
name escapes me at the moment) the same question, and
got no response regarding the mark/discoloration on the
reef.  It almost appears to my untrained eye to be
caused by something fairly wide dragged from/to the
ocean into the brush.  Hmmm...

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

The fairly wide thing would have to be about 150 feet wide.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:00:53 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Warning to new guys

From Ross Devitt

Don't forget, there have been a few dead horses that have gotten up and run

just far enough to throw a new slant on something that had previously been

flogged to death and still missed.


There was one example recently, and though I can't remember what it was, it

was part of the skeleton of a dead horse, but it was important..


Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:15:15 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: mark on reef

From Ross Devitt

We get that on the reef where rain washes coastal silt from near roads and

cleared areas down to the beach and it leaches out to the reef.  The silt

chokes the coral.  If there is coral there that may be it.  In any case, I

guess TIGHAR IIII will be able to check that out.  I had looked at it and

that was my immediate thought without consciously wondering about it.


Interesting that someone else noticed it.


Th' WOMBAT

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

I suspect you're right.  Notice that the discoloration on the reef (yes, the
reef is coral but it's dead coral) is directly in line with the spot where
the vegetation is gone from the shoreline. The clearing done may have
permitted incursions of surf up into the "7" resulting in a stronger than
normal backflow that dragged beach sand out onto the reef flat during heavy
weather.  If that's what happened, the discoloration on the reef could be
nothing more than sand.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:19:16 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Warning to new guys

From John Marlow

Sorry guys..but it gets pretty darn boring discussing only one theory. I've
always enjoyed the freewheeling forum or better debate, it's good for the
mind, and who knows you might learn something. I've called Ric out on the
street a few times and enjoyed it. He's been a pretty good sport..most of
the time.

                                        John
******************************************************************
From Ric

There's nothing I enjoy more than a good gunfight but shooting more holes in
theories that are already Swiss cheese doesn't get us any closer to solving
the riddle.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:24:14 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Magazine Article

From Mike

The August 2000 issue of Naval History (www.usni.org) has an article titled
"The Earhart Tragedy, Old Mystery, New Hypothesis," by John P. Riley, Jr
(assisted by Paul Rafford and Joseph Huie).

The article is really about the (alleged) mistakes made by the USCGC
ITASCA's Commanding Officer, CDR Warner K. Thompson, including failure to
broadcast on 500 KHz (listening instead) and failure to conduct a proper
search after she failed to make landfall.  And, you guessed it,  the
resulting "coverup."

Of interest are several interviews with principles (shipboard radio
operators and other members of the "expedition," along with Howland Island
RDF residents).

Would make a good movie, well ...

Regards,

Mike
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, we talked about that last week.  Just what the Earhart case needed -  a
new conspiracy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:26:52 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Photo of the Electra/ "Lost Star" book

From Tom King

Incidentally, several years ago the Historic Preservation Office of the
Republic of the Marshall Islands sponsored a fairly detailed archaeological
survey of Taroa, including a specific focus on World War II sites.  If memory
serves (and I think I would have noticed, though I no longer have the
report), no Electra was reported.

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

Of course not.  It was moved to Saipan where Devine saw the Marines burn it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:13:51 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Long's Photo of the "Bendix radio control box"

From Jon Watson

Hi Ric,
When I read what Ron Bright wrote about Sias' photo, I had to get a copy of
Long's book from my local library to look at it.  A couple of observations.


The control box in Sias' photo is definitely not the same as the box
pictured two pages earlier, where AE and Cyril Remmlein are examining "a
radio direction finder loop".  That unit appears to be the same as the loop
Breslin photo'd AE holding up (framing her face).  (As an aside, it also
gives a pretty good look at what bears a striking resemblance to a Blucher
Oxford...)

Sias' photo appears to me to be AE's electra, and it appears to me to be
consistent with the most recent iteration of the instrument layout prior to
the flight.

In what I believe to be an earlier variant, the one with the second
"compass" on the windscreen centerpost, AE is manipulating radio knobs (the
Hooven controls?) on the horizontal panel to the right of the throttle
assembly.  In a photo showing that setup, it is clear that the overhead
gauge farthest to the right in Sias' photo is not present.  In the later
photo, that gauge is present.  The location of the rest of the instruments
visible in Sais' photo appear to be entirely consistent with other photos of
AE's electra, and with the dash template.  The horizontal panel to the right
of the throttles, in Sias' picture, appears clear.

Also, in one of the other pictures I have, while the area behind the map
light is dark, it appears that something is there, which is probably the
control box.  Why it wasn't installed on the right side when the Hooven
controls were removed, I don't know, except that there does appear to be
some kind of a gauge on the front of the box, and maybe she couldn't see it
anywhere else.

Does any of this go toward dating Sias' photo? Probably doesn't help a bit,
but I'm reasonably sure that if it's not the final version of the panel,
it's close.  Interesting that the control box in the photo, and the box in
the photo are not the same though...

Also, a quick question, o learned one, in a couple of the later photos,
there appears to be some kind of linkage, or gizmo with two parallel tubes
or rods, that come up to the rear of the copilot's seat, from back in the
cabin.  They seem to have handles, or a fitting or something.  They don't
seem to show up in earlier photos.  Is this part of the fuel management
system?  It's obviously not a fishing pole...

ltm,
jon  2266
******************************************************************
From Ric

The controls on the shelf below the instrument panel on the copilots side
(that AE is twiddling in the photo you mention) are the knobs on the 27A
Remote for the Westeren Electric receiver.  That part of the shelf is
obscured in the Sias photo.

The tubes and rods you mention may be associated with the fuel system, but
I'm guesing about that.

If the aircraft in the Sias photo is Earhart's and if the photo was taken in
Miami, the following changes have been made since the earlier photos we have
that we know show Earhart's cockpit:
- the "mystery box" that Long says is a remote for the Bendix RA-1 has been
added.
- both of the "compasses" present on the windshield centerpost have been
replaced by a different "compass."
- two guages, one large and one small, have been added to the right side of
the eyebrow panel.

What we really need are more datable photos of Earhart's panel layout.  A
review of newsreel footage used in various Earhart documentaries may help.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:33:50 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Button marks

From David Evans Katz

Chris Kennedy commented:

<Something I noticed in the picture is what appears to be some sort of inner
circle at the center of the button--I don't recall that being a feature of
modern buttons.>

That little circle appears to be a "dimple" caused by the mold in the
manufacturing process.  Mass-produced plastic (or even Bakelite) products
such as buttons can be stamped, molded or extruded, depending upon the
product design.  Buttons like the one pictured are likely to be molded, and,
in that process, a dimple may appear where the mold is held by the tool.  If
it were a manufacturer's mark, it would be part of the mold itself.  It is
possible that it is a manufacturer's mark, the detail of which has worn away
over time.  One might commission a trademark search of button manufacturers,
but such a search would be expensive.  I know of one firm that does
extensive trademark research:  Thompson & Thompson of Boston, Massachusetts.

David Evans Katz
******************************************************************
From Ric

This buttom was definitley molded from two halves (top and bottom) and the
"dimple" does appear to be mold mark, not a trademark.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:37:53 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Vendor needed?

From Dennis McGee

Ric said:  " . . . one of our critics went ballistic and demanded
that the FBI send her a copy  . . ."

    My ex-brother-in-law, Billy ("The Gouge") Lawler, has a Ph.D. in
"customer relations" if you'd like to contact him.

LTM, who seldom criticizes
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Or maybe "cousin Vinny."
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:40:15 EDT
From:         
Subject:      The button

From Janet Whitney

I asked a friend who collects buttons to take a look at the red button on the
TIGHAR Web site. She said the button looks like a button from a woman's dress
made during the 1930's or 40's.

She said there are button collectors' groups whose members are very
knowledgeable. Perhaps someone could do a Web search.

Janet Whitney
*****************************************************************
From Ric

The color is actually dark brown.  Yeah, let's connect with some button
collectors.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:51:02 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Getting the message out

From Jon Watson

Ric,
I thought you might be interested in this site, which I stumbled across.  It
is a list of famous (?) persons' obits.  I was looking for info on FN, and
below is what is displayed.  Looks like somebody out there thinks we're
right.

aircraft navigator Frederick Noonan disappeared along with Amelia Earhart
during around-the-world flight
expired 7-2-1937 in Nikumaroro Atoll, Western Pacific (vicinity) age ??
cause: drowning; starvation???

I have included the url below.

http://www.msu.edu/~daggy/cop/bkofdead/obits-n.htm

LTM,
jon 2266

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

Well, that should exercise a few people.  They also have Earhart expiring "in
Nikumaroro Atoll" (sic).  Then again, they have her name as "Mary Amelia
Earhart."
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:00:00 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The Search:

From Stephanie

How do you know the airplane parts were clearly brought from other places?
 And, do you think the airplane parts that you found were definitely part
of AE's Electra?  Stephanie

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

There are very good records of the island's history since it was first
settled in December of 1938.  Since then, no airplane is recorded as having
been destroyed or even damaged there, and yet, in the village there are quite
a few small pieces of airplane aluminum that are quite obviously scraps left
over from the settlers using aluminum for to make things like combs and
probably fishing lures.  The airplane aluminum had to come from somewhere.
Some of it is clearly WWII debris and must have been imported from other
islands where planes had crashed (Canton and Sydney for example).  A few
peices do not seem to be WWII debris and are more consistent with parts from
a Lockheed Electra.  If they are from an Electra there is realistically only
one Electra it could be - Earhart's.  My opinion is that some of the parts we
found are from Earhart's Electra but that has not yet been proven.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:01:25 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: mark on reef

From Tom King

Coral death resulting from outflow off the head of the Seven was what first
crossed my mind, too, but it seems so directly aligned, and so regular.
Unusual thing to happen, in nature.  But it WOULD require dragging a mighty
large object to make such a mark.  I don't suppose it points at Roswell,
NM.....

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

Now that you mention it......
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:04:37 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Button

From Jerry Anne Jurenka

Hi, Ric!  Just wanted you to know that I have what appears to be the same
button as Artifact 2-3-W-5 except it is not of known origin and is
slightly larger.  It is exactly 3/4" but has all the same markings and
features and is dark brown.  It was in my "button box" which every good
housewife has and could easily have come from the era of 1930-40.

LTM (Who probably doesn't know where all her buttons came from either),
Jerry Anne Jurenka
#0772E
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Any chance I could get you to drop that puppy in an envelope so we can take a
look at it?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:18:39 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Long's Photo of the "Bendix radio control box"

From Jon Watson

> From Ric
>
> If the aircraft in the Sias photo is Earhart's and if the photo was taken
> in Miami, the following changes have been made since the earlier photos we
> have that we know show Earhart's cockpit:
> - the "mystery box" that Long says is a remote for the Bendix RA-1 has
> been added.

    [JWATSON]  The location is consistent with the earlier quote about
Manning working over her head, though.  Also, I thought Long's description
of it being right over her head were pretty dramatic - yeah it's up there,
but the hatch isn't impeded, and we all know that was right over her head.

> - both of the "compasses" present on the windshield centerpost have been
> replaced by a different "compass."

    [JWATSON]  No, I think the compass in Sias' photo is the same as the
original, it just appears to be washed out.  The basic shape, and the
circular bezel remain the same.  The lower "compass" is, I think, part of
the Hooven setup - which is what you thought also.

> - two guages, one large and one small, have been added to the right side
> of the eyebrow panel.

    [JWATSON]  I agree.  I'm not sure what they are, yet, but the lower
/ larger one seems to be the same manufacturer as the two larger gauges
above and to the left of the centerpost - which appear to be cylinder head
temp gauges.  I don't have my photos here right now, but it could be an
outside air temp gauge.  I don't know what the smaller one is.  Yet.

> What we really need are more datable photos of Earhart's panel layout.

    [JWATSON]  So far they seem to be as scarce as Amelia's teeth...

> A review of newsreel footage used in various Earhart documentaries may
> help.

[JWATSON]  Hmm - good idea.  Maybe its time for me to visit
Amazondotcom.

    [JWATSON]  ltm,
    jon 2266
    PS still nothing from FCC.  (There's a surprise).

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

Gotta disagree on the compass issue.  The bezel on the top compass in the
earlier photos I have is flat and studded with 10 screws.  The bezel in the
Sias photo is rounded and smooth, no screws.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:23:29 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: mark on reef

From Stephanie

Could it be the plane dragging back and forth against the reef that made that
mark?  Stephanie
******************************************************************
From Ric

Seems unlikely to me that a plane would go back and forth and back and forth
enough to cause a mark like that, but that's just my opinion.
If that's what happened I would expect to find a lot of airplane debris in
that beach but we've covered that area with metal detectors and have found no
airplane parts.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:32:10 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Lockheed photos

From Dennis McGee

Does any member of the immense and underworked TIGHAR staff have
time to put all of your Lockheed 10E photos in date order so you can
catalogue and document the various changes to the aircraft?  I'd love to try
it but I'm stuck here in D.C. . . .

LTM, whose photo collection is shocking
Dennis O. McGee #0149
******************************************************************
From Ric
We did that in 1995 and published a two part article in TIGHAR Tracks Vol.
11, Nos, 2 and 3 with photos and drawing and everything.  Those issues are
too old to be on the website but we'll include an expanded version in the 8th
Edition (which we'll be putting up on the website piecemeal beginning
shortly).
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:18:57 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The "7" Site

From Bill Moffet

Ric,

Good job on this Bulletin!  I gather the pics, top of p. 3 were those taken
by John Clauss in '96 when he climbed a tree near the "7" Site. I wouldn't
know a kanawa tree if I climbed one and gather John doesn't/didn't either.
Could this be the tree Gallagher described as near where the bones were found?

    Hope your Mom is better.

LTM

Bill Moffet  #2156
*****************************************************************
From Ric

The tree Gallagher talks about was used to make the box the bones were put
in.  He says it was cut down about a year before he shipped the bones to Fiji
in December 1940.
My Mom is not going to get better but we hope we can keep her relatively
comfortable for the time she has left.  My sincere thanks to everyone who has
written to express their concern.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:44:04 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Long's Photo of the "Bendix radio control box"

From Jon Watson

> Gotta disagree on the compass issue.  The bezel on the top compass in the
> earlier photos I have is flat and studded with 10 screws.  The bezel in
> the Sias photo is rounded and smooth, no screws.

Okay, I'll go back and look again.

You know, that might explain the dark line in the upper left corner of the
right windscreen - I just thought it might be something from outside, but it
could be a lead for the DF.  Now you've done it.
ltm
jw 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:54:03 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Lockheed photos

From Jon Watson

Ric,
Whoa, nellie.  Are back issues available?
jon 2266

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

Every issue of TIGHAR Tracks all the way back to Vol. 1 No. 1 is available as
either an original magazine (if still in stock) or a facsimile copy, complete
with color, for $10 per issue.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:58:08 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Long's Photo of the "Bendix radio control box"

From Cam Warren

To Jon Watson -

The "Box" is NOT the device that Remmlein was holding, which was
the DF coupler, however, nor is it the standard RA-1 (receiver)
remote control.  However, it's construction is similar to other
Bendix products, and I think Long's ID of it as a (prototype)
remote fits the hypothesis.

Ric (and others on the Forum) cling to the notion that the Bendix
setup for the Honolulu trip was the SAME as later fitted. Wrong.
Indications are - contemporary news reports, interviews with
Pan Am people - that the system was upgraded" in Miami. Most
likely the RA-1 stayed, but a new HF loop and coupler was
installed, and the belly wire employed as the "sense" antenna
for the RA-1.

[Oh, sorry, I'm not supposed to pass on these "absurd
conclusions"]

Cam Warren
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:12:13 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Lambrecht's Report

From Mike Muenich

I have been following the button story with great interest, but know nothing
about same, so I re-read the Lambrecht Report and the FAQ's about same.  I
noted the similarity of Lambrecht's language about his observations at Sydney
and Gardner Islands and "recent habitation".  You have previously reported
the status of habitation on Gardner, i.e. inhabited only in the late 19th
century.  To compare the two sightings in their historical perspective, what
was the status of inhabitation on Sydney prior to Lambrecht's flyover?  Was
it similar, i.e. not inhabited within the recent past, or is there a record
of "recent" habitation which would account for Lambrect's observation?
******************************************************************
From Ric

At Gardner, Lambrecht said he saw "signs of recent habitiation" but did not
elaborate.  At Sydney he said he saw "huts" but no people.

Gardner had last been officially "inhabited" by about 20 Nuie islanders
planting coconuts for John Arundel in 1892.  Sydney, by contrast, was
currently being planted by Tokelau laborers employed by Burns Philp South
Seas Company under the supervision of John William Jones residing on Hull
Island and who had removed the workers from Sydney just prior to the Earhart
disappearance.  There was alo a report, not mentioned by Lambrecht but
reported in the press by reporters aboard Colorado, that the searchers over
Sydney had seen dozens of Polynesian words in the sand.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:15:37 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Photo of the Electra/ "Lost Star" book
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>From Herman De Wulf


>From time to time someone claims someone saw a Lockheed 10A Electra at a=20
Japanese airfield. I don't know whether this has already been discussed but=20=
I=20
find that Lockheed sold one (in fact the very first one exported) to Okura &=
=20
Co (c/n 1017).

It was delivered to the Japanese proprietor in March 1935. I found this

information in "Lockheed Aircraft since 1913 by Ren=E9 J. Francillon. Is the=
re=20
any

further information as to the history of this Japanese Electra ? Perhaps the

reports about an Electra on a Japanese airfield can be traced back to c/n=20
1017 ?

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

Japanese records confirm that the Okura & Company in NY was a friont for the=
=20
Imperial Japanese Navy.  CN 1017 was shipped home to japan but that's the=20
last we know of it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:19:54 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Lambrecht Report

From Mike Muenich

Maybe nobody responds to Lambrect's circiling of Gardner because the
"inhabitants", AE and FN are either already dead or so weak from lack of
water they are unable to respond.  From what you have said about conditions
on Niku, seven days, in July, without an abundant supply would be extremely
debilitating.

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

True enough, but we now know that there was a cache of supplies on the island
left by the Norwich City rescuers eight years earlier.  Givben that the bones
of a castaway were found on the other end of the island three years after the
Earhart disappearance we speculate that Earhart and/or Noonan found and
availed themselves of those supplies.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:22:26 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: marks on coral reef

From Richard Lund

Hi all,
  My first post to the forum,I only have been invovled for about  a week and
a half,but I must say you guys do wonderful research.keep up the good work.
 I doubt the possibilities of this being possible but thought I'd throw it
out.A few years back I read a book about a coral reef in the pacific.I forgot
the name of the place and the book,but it was about the effect oil from a
ship wreck had on the coral.
Apparently a ship ran aground in the second world war and spilled it's fuel
oil,some thirty to thirty-five years later the oil had still affected the
growth of the coral on the reef.could a study of the coral on site reveal if
an aircraft crashed here to make the marks?also would this help the search?Do
we know what type of oil was in A.E. Electra?What are the likey
chances of traces of oil remaing(if any does)in the coral?
  Hope I haven't travelled the road well taken on this one.
Discover(verb)1 to be the first to find,see,etc.
Richard Lund

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

Not an unreasonable hypothesis.  Comments?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:19:51 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Roosevelt Records

From Tom King

Well, we've drawn a blank in Sacramento re. the Roosevelt Hotel and the
possibility of historical records.  What I'd hoped is that the renovation had
been done as a "tax act" project -- i.e. with Federal Income Tax credits for
making it consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation, which would have required a sign-off from the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), who might have promoted saving any records found
therein, or at least be able to put us in touch with the outfit that did the
work.  Following is the result of my inquiry.  Apparently the developer
didn't apply for tax act certification, so the State wasn't involved, so they
don't have any way to help us.

The current hotel staff, however, may well know who did the renovation
work,and they in turn might have some idea whether any old records were found
in the process, and what happened to them.  So attacking the hotel itself
once again seems like the best plan.

TK

Subj:    RE: Another obscure question
Date:   6/29/00 7:32:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:   hkreu@ohp.parks.ca.gov (Hans Kreutzberg)
Reply-to:   hkreu@ohp.parks.ca.gov
To: TFKing106@aol.com

Tom, SHPO tax act records DO NOT include any reference to the Roosevelt.
You probably already know that the property is listed in the NR as a
contributor to the Hollywood Blvd Commercial and Entertainment District.  I
checked our inventory form for the property. Nothing pertinent therein.
Sorry.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:22:23 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Loran personnel clothing

From Ted Whitmore

Our standard issue of clothing included 'jungle green' shirts, trousers and
baseball style caps; rough outside brogan leather shoes; camouflage ponchos,
a 'jungle green' duffle bag and a sheath knife. This may not be the complete
issue but the primary items.


The buttons on the trousers were rather similar to 2-3-W-5 in size and shape
but were dark green but could  have been black or dark gray - definitely not
a rust color as indicated in the photos.


As best as I can remember - I have no surviving samples.


Ted Whitmore  # 2269

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

From Ric

Thanks Ted.  Refresh my memory.  When were you there?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:41:15 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Effects of Oil on Marine Environment?

From Janet Whitney

Hundreds of marine vesssels were lost in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans
during WWII, including oil tankers. We get excited today when an oil tanker
goes aground and spills 20,000 gallons of petroleum. But tankers and other
ships were sunk almost every day in the Pacific Ocean during WWII. I haven't
seen any published articles about the effects of all that oil on the marine
environment.

Janet Whitney

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

We have an excellent model right there on Nikumaroro.  On November 30, 1929
the S.S. Norwich City went aground on the western end of the reef.  She was
oil fired and at least one of her tanks ruptured and the ship caught fire.
Seems reasonable to assume that a great deal of oil went into the water at
that time and perhaps over the ensuing years (far, far more than the 60 or so
gallons aboard the Electra).  An aerial photo of the shipwreck taken almost
exactly 9 years later (Dec. 1, 1938) shows no discernible effect on the reef
or shoreline.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:43:51 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: The button

From Ross Devitt

>Yeah, let's connect with some button collectors.

Don't forget old tailors.  I think David has a point also


Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:45:59 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Button, button.  Whose got the button?

From Chuck Boyle

Ric,

I sent this morning some twenty plus email to those stationed with the USCG
Canton Loran Chain asking them what they remembered about buttons on the
clothing they were issued.  I suggested any thoughts of interest to be sent
to you.

My memory is not too good.  Seems to me we were not issued shorts as we went
to our Loran Unit.  We cut off the trouser legs and made our own shorts.
Most of us cut the leather off of our ankle high shoes just below the ankle.
I checked photos of the Atafu years and found most of us used shorts and at
times long pants.  I noticed from my three month stay on Sand Island,
Honolulu we all were pictured with long pants.  I remember nothing special
about the buttons.

Lee (Chuck) Boyle  2060
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:49:25 EDT
From:         
Subject:      artifacts

From Brian

Dear Ric,

I love the forum... it is so thorough.

My question is that if you found artifacts of that era, is it possible
parts of AE plane wound up on other islands used as souvenirs, craft
work and roof sheeting ???

Just a thought...

Thanks
Brian
***************************************************************

From Ric

But a good thought.  We know that plane parts from other islands came to
Niku.  I see no reason that the trade couldn't go in the other direction also.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:00:41 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Almon A. Gray

From Vern

Does anyone know anything about Captain Almon A. Gray, U.S. Naval Rserve
(Ret), author of "Amelia Didn't Know Radio" (1993).  Is he still around?

How about Michael A. Lang who Gray refers to as a Noonan biographer?  Anyone
ever hear of him?

Gray would probably be the only possible lead to Lang.
*****************************************************************
From Ric

 I'm quite sure I heard somewhere that Gray has since died.  Like you, I've
never heard of Michael A. Lang.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:08:38 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Photo of the Electra/ "Lost Star" book

From Hue Miller

<<From Ric

Japanese records confirm that the Okura & Company in NY was a friont for

the Imperial Japanese Navy.  CN 1017 was shipped home to japan but that's the

last we know of it.>>


Probably didn't spend a lot of time flying around the So. Pacific. When the

Japanese bought only one or two of a current model, wasn't it with the

intention of reverse engineering it?

Hue Miller
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Probably not at that time.  If they had wanted to build their own they would
have just cut a licensing agreement with Lockheed as they did in 1939 with
the Model 14.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:23:33 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Gurr

From Hue Miller

<<From Ric

It would seem safe, therefore, to say that on or about March 6, 1937 a Bendix
loop

antenna and loop coupler were installed on NR16020. None of the publicity
photos taken at that time (that I have seen) show a receiver of any kind.
None

of the photos show Joe Gurr.


Gurr, in his later recollections, makes no mention of the new loop, the loop

coupler, Cyril Remmlein, or any other "Bendix engineer."  The loop antenna

is obviously already present when Gurr says the new "multi-frequency

receiver" was installed.>>


Did he really come out & say it was installed (RA-1) ?   Quotations in this

post i am responding to, don't indicate he more than admired it.

(Truthfully, since the WE transmitter didn't cover any higher frequencies, I
don't

immediately see the utility of the RA-1 to AE )


<<so it must have been sometime after March 6>>


Sure you can say this? The loop he describes in the quote:

"While the direction finding loop was designed for the lower frequencies, I
found i could get a fairly good null on AM Broadcast Stations up to 1500KH.
I figured it would probably be useful even on 3105KH if the received signal
was strong enough."


What this sez is, the loop he's referring to is the earlier no-tuning hula

hoop you just hooked right up to your receiver. Just some hoops of wire in a

protective shield. Performance (signal output level ) falls of as the

frequency your receiver is listening to, is raised. That's why he ruminates
that it

might work even up to 3105, if there was a strong enuff signal to compensate
for its diminished performance. The RDF incorporated tuning + a small
amplifier stage to deliver higher (really usable) output at higher,
non-standard-for-DFing frequencies.

[ BTW, modern broadband loop antenna depends on a carefully engineered
amplifier to keep the sensitivity constant over a wide range of frequencies. ]


<<Note, however, that Gurr does not say that he installed the new receiver
himself.


--Yes, i think that's interesting myself. Until i see something that better

convinces me, i have to suspect the RA-1 was never installed. There's

50 lbs. extra for no really clear advantage.


<<He does, however, remember that it arrived in a box marked "U.S. Navy."  Do
we know of any boxes that may have arrived in those last days before
departure that might have been labeled U.S. Navy?   ..... Was this the box
Joe Gurr remembered?


--I don't think you can ding Gurr's recollection either by your system

of dating these events, or doubting his abilities, or recall. I think you

maybe have 2 Navy crates, not one.  ( "Single Crate Theory" )

--Hue Miller

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

Couple of comments:

<<What this sez is, the loop he's referring to is the earlier no-tuning hula

hoop you just hooked right up to your receiver. >>

What loop are you referring to here?  The photos show that the airplane had
no loop of any kind from its delivery in July 1936 until October 1936 when
the Hooven Radio Compass was installed and used a faired-over loop in a domed
housing.  On or about March 6, 1937 that sytem was replaced by what appears
to be a Bendix MN-5 loop and loop coupler (nomenclature unknown).  That same
loop remained on the airplane until it disappeared.

<<I don't think you can ding Gurr's recollection either by your system

of dating these events, or doubting his abilities, or recall. I think you

maybe have 2 Navy crates, not one.  ( "Single Crate Theory" )>>

Give me a reason for not doubting his recollections.  I've learned to doubt
ALL recollections if they are not supported by hard evidence and especially
if they seem to contradict the available hard evidence.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:31:41 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: marks on coral reef

From Randy Jacobson

(commenting on the possibility that the mark on the reef is oil damage)

Interesting, very interesting...although the "end" marks on the coral are

quite sharp in the photo.  I would think that the edges would be a little

more gradual.  Very nice hypothesis, and worth continuing the investigation

on.  IIRC, all photos taken after the one in question do not show

discoloration, is that correct?

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

We don't have anything showing that specific site after 1941 until way up
into the 1970s, but I don't think the hypothesis works very well.

If the mark on the reef is caused by oil from Earhart's aircraft that was
lost in 1937, why is there no mark on the reef in the 1937, 1938, or 1939
photos?  If oil spilled on the reef causes long term damage to the coral that
is visible in aerial photos, why do we see no damage to the reef in the
vicinity of the Norwich City in photos taken in 1938, 1939, 1941, 1942, etc?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:38:12 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: marks on coral reef

From Tom King

Richard's idea makes a lot of sense to me, but it seems strange that the
patch of whatever it is on the reef is so regular in shape, and so tighly
bounded.  I'd think the results of a spill would be a more amorphous coral
kill-off.  The seeming alignment of the thing on the reef with the top of the
"Seven" on shore is curious, too.

There ought to be plenty of examples of spill-induced coral kill-offs around
the world that could provide comparative data.

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

There ought to be a spill-induced coral kill-off downstream of Norwich City,
but there isn't.  It has always been my impression that the coral on the reef
flat is pretty much dead coral anyway.  There has been virtually no coral
growth on Norwich City wreckage that has lain on the reef for 70 years now
but the coral there doesn't look any different than it does everywhere else
on the flat.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:45:45 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Fresh water?

From Don Neumann

Was it ever determined if the cache left behind by the Norwich City
rescuers contained any fresh water?

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

Good question.  No, not specifically.  The cache is described only as
containing "all provisions, etc." that were brought ashore by the rescuers
but not consumed by the recuees.  As the single most important "provision" a
person would need on that island it would seem to be a safe bet that fresh
water was included, but that's an assumption.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:58:21 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Photo of the Electra/ "Lost Star" book

From Jon Watson

Hi Ric,
We know that the Japanese bought a Lotus Elan, and that it was used as the
reverse-engineering prototype of the Miyata - right down to clutch pedal
feel, I'm told.  Wouldn't it be funny if c/n 1017 was reverse engineered
into the KI-54?

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

Not too likely.  The internal wing structure of the KI-54 is nothing like a
Lockheed 10.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:05:30 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Fuel Chemicals

From Doug Brutlag

Ric;

If the Electra ended up near the same area as the SS. Norwich and
ruptured its tanks & spilled avgas into the lagoon area, would it be
feasible to test for traces of tetraethyle lead (anti-knock) gas
additives in the search area?  It should show up different than fuel oil
used to fire a ship and if no ground vehicles were ever present on the
island and no other aircraft on record showed a visit(other than the
PBY's) could this be a clue you have long sought?  Also, the fuel oil
used to power ships to my knowledge is much like diesel and would leave
different residues than avgas.  Let's also include the engine oil
possibly leaving some traces behind.   Could be more clues if you have a
means of testing and differentiating on the next expedition.
Got any petro experts out there in forumland?

Doug B.  #2335
******************************************************************
From Ric

I'd like to hear some expert opinions on this but I'd be real surprised if an
airplane (that was almost out of gas anyway) spilled a few gallons of gas and
maybe 60 gallons of oil into the surf which then got disbursed and washed up
along the beach and into the lagoon, left traces that could be detected 60
some years later.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:12:13 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: marks on coral reef

From Chris Kennedy

Tom, do you think the patch may be tied into whatever is causing the 7 shape
to
begin with?  This, of course, begs the question of what is it that is causing
the
7 shape. It is sort of odd that it is just "there" surrounded by foliage at
least
up until the time of the clearing (isn't it covered over with scaevola now?).
  I
wonder if there is some sort of natural, below ground geologic formation that
causes both?

--Chris Kennedy
****************************************************************
From Ric

The 7 is still there (see 1996 photo in "Signs Of Recent Habitation" research
bulletin).  What is odd about the mark on the reef is that it is ONLY there
in 1941 which coincides with the disturbance (clearing) of the protective
line of vegetation.  Hard not to see the two as related.  It seems most
likley to me that the mark on the reef is sand.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:54:12 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: mark on reef

From Tom King

Ric says:

If the mark on the reef is caused by oil from Earhart's aircraft that was
lost in 1937, why is there no mark on the reef in the 1937, 1938, or 1939
photos?

Don't jump to conclusions.  It's not necessarily (or even likely) Earhart's
aircraft that caused the marks -- assuming for the moment that they're caused
by an oil spill.  Therefore they could have been caused by something that
happened shortly before the 1941 photo was taken.  What?  I dunno; Roswell
still seems like a good bet.

As for the analogy of the Norwich City -- OK, but it's dangerous to reason
from a single analogy.  There's got to be some literature, with aerial photo
coverage, dealing with oil spills on reefs.

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

Okay.  Assuming we don't want to throw up our hands and say "We can never be
sure so why try?", let's approach it from another direction.
1.  Assumption - The discoloration on the reef is not a photographic artifact
but represents a real life condition of some kind.
2.  Assumption - The anomalous mark on the reef is somehow related to the
anomalous activity on land in that exact spot.
3.  Assumption - The discoloration was caused by the introduction of some
material in that particular spot that was anomalous to the rest of the reef
flat (abrasion from a dragged object, chemical damage, a flow of beach sand,
whatever).
4.  Assumption - The material was introduced from either the land or the sea
(i.e. didn't fall out of the sky or seep up through the reef).
5.  Observation - The discoloration is most concentrated close to the shore
and becomes wider and more dispersed toward the ocean.
6.  Observation - A dragged object should not cause a widening mark, while a
fluid substance (sand, oil, whatever) might be expected to disperse.
7. Conclusion - The mark was probably caused by a fluid substance originating
from a point at or near the waterline directly in front of the cleared
opening in the vegetation.

If only because we know that there was sand there but we don't have any
evidence that there was ever oil there, I still like the sand theory.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:06:23 EDT
From:         
Subject:      7 site observation

From Ric

Here's something I've just noticed about the 7 site in the 1941 photo.

We've wondered whether the clearing of vegetation that is evident in that
photo is a result of Gallagher's "organized search" for more bones and
artifacts or was the result of normal clearing operations for a coconut
planting that was never completed.

If they're clearing to plant coconuts they're doing it in the wrong place.
Other clearing operations and plantings on the island make it clear that you
don't plant cocos out close to the beach.  If they want to plant this area
they should take out the trees over on the lagoon side and leave the
protective wall of vegetation on the ocean side - but that's just the
opposite of what they're doing.

If, on the other hand, they're searching for bones and artifacts after having
found a partial skeleton under a Ren tree at the top of the beach, the
pattern of clearing evident in the photo makes perfect sense.

Fire away.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:29:38 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: marks on coral reef

From Tom King

Sand does seem like the most likely cause, but the clearing as cause is hard
for me to swallow.  It's hard for me to imagine the dynamics that would
produce such a neatly bounded patch of sand directly (but extending to some
distance) offshore from the cleared area.  And yet, the two phenomena do
coincide in time.  Is it possible that we don't see the marks on the reef in
earlier and later photos just because conditions weren't right for them to
show up in the image?  Some geological cause for both the Seven and the marks
is attractive, though I have no idea what it might be.

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

Here's what I can imagine (but admittedly have never seen).

Normal Situation - Big wave hits beach.  Water surges up beach slope, hits
wall of vegetation and dissipates.  Some water soaks into the beach.  Most
flows back down the slope in a fairly even sheet.  No significant erosion.

Abnormal Situation - Big wave hits beach.  Water surges up beach slope and
through a gap in the vegetation wall flooding an area of coral rubble.  Water
in flooded area flows back out and down the beach slope but is funneled
through the gap (path of least resistance) thus accelerating the flow and
causing erosion of beach sand in front of gap.  The keep coming in and every
time they go back out they carry a stream of beach sand from that one spot.
Tain't long before you have a plume of sand out onto the flat.

That's what I can imagine, but then, my imagination has been known to get me
in trouble.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:31:25 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: marks on coral reef

From Dan Postellon

When the UFO landed to pick up the survivors, it permanently scared the
island, so that no vegetation could grow at the landing site. (Just
kidding.)
*****************************************************************
From Ric

The scary thing is that you (correctly) assumed the need to add "just
kidding."
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:34:32 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Noonan's birth

From Mark Cameron

Hello again, Ric

Does TIGHAR have a copy of Noonan's birth certificate? If not, maybe a search
of the county records could produce one. I just happen to live in the old
Town of Lake (now the Southwest side of Chicago) and the addresses for his
family mentioned in previous postings are just a few miles from my home. If
we need any more info on his birth, I can look into it. We have his b/day as
4-4-1893, is that known to be correct?

LTM (who feels much younger than 107)
Mark Cameron   #2301

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

Nothing like a fortuitivley placed researcher.  Jerry?  Anything you'd like
Mark to do?  I'll send you his email address.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:18:09 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: marks on coral reef

From Tom King

Your imagined scenario makes sense; it's just the very finely demarked edges
of the "plume" that trouble me.  And I'm not suggesting we don't pursue this,
or try to figure it out; I'm just debating it.

TK

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

Debate is good.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:25:54 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Long's Photo of the "Bendix radio control box"

From Bill Leary

Cam Warren

> [Oh, sorry, I'm not supposed to pass on these "absurd

> conclusions"]


OK, here's the thing.  "Absurd" implies that the facts don't warrant the

conclusion.  This may or may not be true.  I won't go into that part here.

It's actually the "conclusion" part that bothers me and, I expect, others a

lot more


For instance, you say:

> Ric (and others on the Forum) cling to the notion that the Bendix

> setup for the Honolulu trip was the SAME as later fitted.


Fine.  They've stated their reasons for believing this and you've just

recapped it in short form, with the inference that clinging to it doesn't

make sense.  This implies that you're about to tell us they're wrong and,

hopefully, you'll tell us why.


You then say:

> Wrong.


This flat out statement means (or should) that you've got hard,

incontrovertable evidence that the popular opinion is, well, WRONG.


But you follow up with:


> Indications are - contemporary news reports, interviews with

> Pan Am people - that the system was upgraded" in Miami.


What I'd like to have seen here is something along the lines of "Repair

Order #1234, filed on such and such a date by such and such a person shows

that the system was upgraded with such-and-such new components."  Not having

seen the material which supports your "indications," I can't judge it's

quality.  If you already posted it, I regret that I missed it.  Based on the

type of information you credit here, though, it sounds like hear say, and

the discussions I've read about this seem to support that.


> Most likely the RA-1 stayed, but a new HF loop and coupler

> was installed, and the belly wire employed as the "sense" antenna

> for the RA-1.


This is speculation, and that's fine.  But it's not fact, and as to the

quality of the speculation, we can't judge that until we know what it's

based on.  For example, are there records that show that other upgrades of

this system in other aircraft around the same time were done by adding a new

HF loop and coupler?


Some of the stuff you say, I certainly do think is "absurd."  On the other

hand, when I first ran across TIGHAR and the idea that she'd made it to

Niku, I thought THAT was pretty absurd too.  What changed my mind, of

course, was the chain of evidence and the way it's presented.  The part of

the presentation that most appeals to me is that I'm invited to observe the

evidence in a certain way, rather than told that it conclusively means

such-and-such.  So, everytime you (or anyone else) pops up with something

new, I remind myself to keep an open mind and examine the messages, looking

for the chain of evidence and trying to see if the authors conclusions are

consistent with not only the evidence presented in their discussion, but

with other evidence previously presented.


    - Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:33:04 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: 7 site observation

From Chris Kennedy

Maybe a first question to consider is why the history of plantings of cocos on
the island seems to/does show that they were planted in protected areas away
from
direct winds and weather.  Is this a coincidence, or something unique to the
history of THIS island, or is it something which is done for purely practical
reasons no matter where you are (such as to avoid the winds/weather disturbing
the trees and coconuts?)  If there's a reason for doing this, one other
thought
along the same lines as Ric's is why would you plant cocos at the 7 site at
all----isn't this just about the narrowest strip of land on the island between
ocean and lagoon?  It doesn't look to me that there was ever much protection
here
even if you planted towards the lagoon, as the site is narrow with low
shubbery
and directly facing into the prevailing winds?  My impressions are, like
Ric's,
that the coco plantings were far more protected (such as the one we mapped on
Nutiran), and all on the leeward side.  Is this correct?

--Chris
****************************************************************
From Ric

That is correct.  It's hard to make any sense of a coconut planting operation
at the 7 site.
When Laxton visited the site in 1949 he described it as a "house built or
Gallagher" where the vegetation had been cleared to let the cool breezes blow
through from the ocean.  That doesn't make any sense either.  Gallagher was a
textbook workaholic.  Not the sort of guy who'd have any use for a vacation
home.  One has to wonder whether or not Laxton knew what had really gone on
at that site.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:34:28 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: Photo of the Electra/ "Lost Star" book

From Simon #2120


Along the same vein (and off topic), there's a strong rumour that the

original Toyota MR2 (the angular wedge shaped Mark1) was in fact a Lotus

design that was never produced.



Ric wrote:-

>Not too likely.  The internal wing structure of the KI-54 is nothing like a

>Lockheed 10.


Yes, the Ki-54 had detachable wings - bolted on at the wing roots, whereas

the L10 has the massive beam running through the center section - as Ric

says. The fuselage is also constructed completely differently - so any

resemblence is superficial.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:36:23 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Re: 7 site observation

From Tom King

Good point.  Robert Lewis Stephenson writes about how typically in Kiribati
and elsewhere in the area the ocean side of the island is a threatening sort
of place that you stay away from except for purposes of ritual and such.  It
certainly doesn't make much sense to start clearing for coconuts on that
side.  And it's not what happens anywhere else in the course of clearing
operations on the island, is it?

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

That's right.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:39:09 EDT
From:         
Subject:      Button

From Marty

Ric;


You may already be aware of this, I found it on

a button collector website:


A foolproof method of testing to determine

if an object is made of Bakelite is to apply

heat. Bakelite gives of a pungent odor of

carbolic acid when heated. Hot tap water

or friction from rubbing with your finger will do.


Marty 0724
*****************************************************************
From Ric

James Matthews (the archaeologist examing the button) is doing something
called a "hot needle test" to that end.  (Doesn't sound like anything I'd
want done to me.)