Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:36:43 EDT From: Bob Sarnia Subject: The facts, ma'am...! Ric replied to my posting titled "The facts, ma'am, just the facts!" saying, "Perhaps when you have some we can discuss the matter further." Ric, Jet lag or no jet lag, why is it that you feel you have to denigrate postings that are at odds with your hypothesis? Surely, even you can learn something! I pointed out that many if not most of TIGHAR's recent postings on fuel left over, airspeed and wind were mere items of speculation, and their authors admit this. Thankfully, you've brought the subject to an end, because it was going nowhere. But the main thrust of my posting -- AE's 0742 message -- is FACT that no one can deny, not even you, even though you have the last and sometimes final word on your forum. If that message is not fact, would you please explain why you feel it is fiction? Even if you choose to disregard the "only half hour left" part of the message, which has been the subject of much discussion, you are the only person I know who disregards the whole message. I'm darn sure if I was piloting a plane and my fuel gauges showed -- for whatever reason --"near empty," I would want any message I sent to be very clear, unequivocal and unambiguous, rather than convey a message that might be wrongly construed. "Oh, by the way, AE says she's running out of gas. I'm sure she's OK, boys; she's no doubt got another 4 hours left." Ric, that message is FACT -- end of argument. Still willing to discuss the matter further? Regards, Bob Sarnia. **************************************************************************** From Ric Bob, you've been subscribed to the forum long enough to know that I do not denigrate postings that are at odds with TIGHAR's hypothesis. I have repeatedly said that, until conclusive proof is established one way or the other, no hypothesis can be categorically dismissed. I'm always happy to consider real evidence that supports some other hypothesis. What I do denigrate are categorical statements of "fact" by people who are not familiar with the original sources and are merely repeating folklore. You were subscribed to the forum when I addressed the "half hour gas" issue on February 20 of this year. I didn't want to get into it again but you persist in calling me out into the street. To quote another fictional police sergeant, you've "brought a knife to a gunfight." At 1910 GMT (07:40 Itasca time) Radioman 3rd Class Thomas O'Hare recorded in his radio log: "Earhart on now; says she is running out of gas, only 1/2 hour left, can't hear us at all." But O'Hare is not the operator who is supposed to be keeping track of Earhart's transmissions. His job is to handle all of the ship's non-Earhart radio traffic. Communicating with Earhart is the job of Chief Radioman Leo G. Bellarts and his assistant, Radioman 3rd Class William L. Galten. O'Hare overhears the transmissions from Earhart and enters them in his log anyway, sandwiched in between the various administrative messages he is sending and receiving. His loggings of Earhart transmissions are sporadic, fragmentary, and often at odds with the entries in the Bellarts/Galten log. It was standard practice to replace the original work copy of a radio log, with its inevitable strike-overs and erasures, with a freshly typed (the term was "smoothed") version. The only existing copy of O'Hare's log is the "smoothed" version produced some time after the event. At 1912 GMT (07:42 Itasca time) Galten records Earhart as saying: "KHAQQ calling Itasca. We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low. We have been unable to reach you by radio . We are flying at 1000 feet." This is the same message reported by O'Hare as having been received two minutes earlier. The time discrepancy seems odd but is more understandable when you see the blueprint of how the Itasca's tiny radio room was laid out. The two operators sat back to back, one facing aft and one facing forward. They therefore had to have separate clocks and apparently, in this case, the clocks were not synchronized because the two minute discrepancy runs consistently through several messages. Galten's entry comes not from a smoothed log but from the original work sheet preserved by Chief Radioman Bellarts, complete with numerous strike-overs and erasures which speak volumes about the confusion aboard Itasca that morning. Radioman 2nd Class Frank Cipriani, on Howland Island, does not hear the transmission. There is, however, another real-time, or near real-time, account of what Earhart said. The ship's deck log, being kept by Lt. W. J. Swanston, reads: "0742 Plane position reported as near the island and gas running low." Note that he uses Galten's time and Galten's phrasing. Regardless of whose version (if either) was correct, it seems apparent that O'Hare's version was accepted by Commander Thompson because a little over a half hour later, at 1956 GMT (08:26 Itasca time) - by which time the plane should be down if O'Hare was correct - Cipriani on Howland recorded in his log: "Received information that Itasca believe Earhart down. Landing party recalled to vessel." It was 2042 GMT (another 46 minutes) before the deck log recorded the landing party back aboard Itasca but by then, at 2013 GMT (08:43 Itasca time), another message had been heard from Earhart. Clearly she was not out of gas and still aloft. Plans to go looking for her were put on hold hoping that she might yet show up. Thompson waited until 2145 GMT (10:15 Itasca time) and sent the following message to Coast Guard HQ in San Francisco: "EARHART CONTACT 0742 REPORTED ONE HALF HOUR FUEL AND NO LAND FALL POSITION DOUBTFUL. CONTACT 0646 REPORTED APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED MILES FROM ITASCA BUT NO RELATIVE BEARING. 0843 REPORTED LINE OF POSITION 157 DASH 337 BUT NO REFERENCE POINT, PRESUME HOWLAND. ESTIMATE 1200 FOR MAXIMUM TIME ALOFT AND IF NONARRIVAL BY THAT TIME WILL COMMENCE SEARCH NORTH WEST QUADRANT FROM HOWLAND AS MOST PROBABLE AREA. SEA SMOOTH VISIBILITY NINE CEILING UNLIMITED. UNDERSTAND SHE WILL FLOAT FOR LIMITED TIME" This message is interesting because it not only ascribes O'Hare's 07:40 "half hour gas left" message to Galten's 07:42 "gas is running low" time, but it also acknowledges that Itasca had expected the airplane to be able to remain aloft a full 24 hours. Fifteen minutes later at 22:00 GMT (10:30 Itasca time), despite his declared intention to stay at Howland until noon (23:30 GMT), Thompson gave the order to get underway and ten minutes later the ship was steaming on a course of 337 degrees to begin searching along the line of position. O'Hare's "half hour gas left" message was clearly crucial to Thompson's perception of the situation and instrumental in his decision to order the ship to leave Howland Island an hour and a half before Earhart was otherwise expected to run out of fuel. According to Army Air Corps Lt. Daniel Cooper's report of July 27, 1937, "Gasoline supply was estimated to last 24 hours with a possibility of lasting 30 hours." Cooper's report quotes Galten's "but gas is running low" version of the message but attributes the time to 1911 GMT (07:41 Itasca time), halfway between Galten's 19:12 and O'Hare's 19:10. Cooper also states that a 20% fuel reserve is standard for long overwater flights. In other words, Earhart's comment that "gas is running low" comes just as she should be starting to burn her reserve. So which version of the 19:12 (or 19:10) transmission is more accurate? It's interesting to read what Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts had to say on the subject when he was interviewed by Elgen Long on April 11, 1973. Long: (T)here seems to be some confusion about whether she said she had thirty minutes of fuel left or running low --was there any solution to that? Bellarts: Well, the only solution is what's in the log. Long: Well, one log says one thing and O'Hare's log said the other. Bellarts: Well, don't go on O'Hare's log, because I say --I wasn't even aware that O'Hare was putting that stuff down. ... No, I mean that. I mean that. O'Hare shouldn't have been putting that down because it was not his responsibility. It was actually mine and Galten, you know. Later in the interview - Long: What--this thirty minutes routine--then that just came up out of left field somewhere? I have thirty minutes fuel remaining, one half hour... Bellarts: Ah, well, I'll tell you how that happened, I believe. When -- after the flight, I actually think it took place -- I can't recall if it was going into Honolulu on the way north ... or if it was from Honolulu back to 'Frisco. I don't recall. But I recall the old man was down there, Thompson, Baker, and myself ...and they was concocting up a long letter to, you know, sort of a search report, and I think that was put in that report. They should never have put that in. They quoted---they misquoted it. Long: Well, it got into O'Hare's log somehow too. He says 30 minutes of fuel. Bellarts: Well, if O'Hare did, then maybe that's where the stuff came from. Long: Let me read what....(he then reads O'Hare's log entry). Bellarts: (Laughs) That stinkin' O'Hare. ... Possibly O'Hare might have had something in his little punkin' head that he might have, you know, thought he was going to make a bundle of jack on that or something. Of course, anything Leo Bellarts said in 1973 is anecdotal, but taken in context with the contemporaneous material, and in the absence of any supporting real-time corroboration, O'Hare's report that Earhart said anything about a half hour of fuel left seems to be lacking any credibilty. In other transmissions around that time Earhart made several references to "in half hour" or "on half hour" in telling Itasca when she would be listening for messages. Perhaps that is what confused O'Hare. As for the "half-hour left" message being "corroborated by two trained observers listening in -- professional journalists -- one of whom reported that 'she called in slow measured words'.", a look at what really happened tells a rather different story. About four hours after the ship began it's search (02:15 GMT / 13:45 Itasca time), United Press correspondent H.N. Hanzlick aboard Itasca sent his story which included the following description: MEN AT STATIONS TENSELY ALERT LONG WAIT CAPPED BY ANXIETY SEARCH FELT DEEPLY MEN WORKING WITH GRIM EFFICIENCY GREAT CONCERN OVER WHY AMELIA SHORT OF FUEL IN AIR ONLY APPROXIMATELY TWENTY AND HALF HOURS SHOULD HAVE HAD SEVERAL HOURS MORE FUEL WHY AMELIA NEVER GAVE POSITION HER RADIO EVIDENTLY NOT WORKING PROPERLY ITASCA REQUESTED EACH BROADCAST GIVE POSITION NEVER GIVEN STOP AT EIGHT FORTYTWO AMELIA RADIOED QUOTE HALF HOUR FUEL LEFT NO LANDFALL POSITION DOUBTFUL UNQUOTE LAST MESSAGE NINE FORTYTHREE QUOTE LINE OF POSITION ONE FIVE SEVEN DASH THREE THREE SEVEN AM CIRCLING PLEASE GIVE RADIO BEARING UNQUOTE HER VOICE SOUNDED VERY TIRED ANXOUS ALMOST BREAKING Hanzlick's representation of what Earhart said is obviously based upon Thompson's 21:45 message to San Francisco and his own somewhat scrambled recollection of what was said and when. The other reporter aboard Itasca, James Carey of the Associated Press, was no more accurate when he filed his story 45 minutes later at 03:00 GMT: RADIO REPORTED SEVEN FORTY TWO AM EARHART RUNNING OUT GAS STOP LATER MESSAGE PICKED UP QUOTE CIRCLING IN AIR UNQUOTE The next day Hanzlick filed another story which included: NOW LIKE SEARCHING FOR CLOSE FRIEND THOUGH MOST HAVE NEVER SEEN HER SOME HEARD HER VOICE THOSE WHO DID HAVE GREAT ADMIRATION FOR COURAGE WHEN SHE CALLED IN SLOW MEASURED WORDS HALF HOUR FUEL LEFT NO LANDFALL STOP NOT UNTIL LAST MESSAGE DID VOICE SHOW EMOTION STOP If either reporter actually heard what was received from Earhart they did a very poor job of reporting it. Virtually none of the quotes reported by either correspondent agrees with either of the logs. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:07:35 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: How about this speculation. >From Dick Pingrey > > To all those that like to speculate, > > Why don't we assume that it would be good naviagtion practice for Fred > to off set his course so as to reach the Line of Position 25 miles (or even > 50 miles) to the north of Howland once he realized they were unable to > establish radio contact to get DF assistance. By doing this they would > insure that all they had to do was turn right when they reached the LOP and > follow it through Howland and on toward Gardner. If he did this there would > be no reason to turn north for a while upon reaching the LOP and they would > save all the gas needed to back track. Obviously there is no basis for this > speculation except it would be good practice that could save valuable fuel. > Seems to me it is just as valid an assumption as any of the others. Like all > the other speculation several things could be considered good practice but we > have no firm way of knowing what they did and when they did it > > Dick Pingrey 980C There is a basis for the technique you just described Dick. You just outlined the "landfall approach" of navigating to one side or theother of a target and intercepting a celestial LOP and then flying it to the target. Generally, one navigates to the target direct until they DR within 100 miles(give or take). They then plot and fly an offset course to one side or the other of the target and then intercept the LOP for a landfall. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:13:12 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - General Subject: Tarawa Report - General Thanks indeed for posting this. I found it extremely interesting! It also had me wondering, if without the interventions of the outside world, if the populations of these islands were stable or very slow-growing.. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric Prior to what is still referred to as "the coming of the flag" in 1892, the population of the Gilbert Islands had been relatively stable for hundreds of years due to inter-island wars and the widespread practice of abortion. Within a few generations after the British brought civilization and Christianity to the region, overpopulation was at crisis levels - thus prompting the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:17:12 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Tarawa trip Ric wrote, "The archives have John T. Arundel's diaries on microfilm. They are voluminous and span many years. They're also written in a scrawly, informal hand that is very difficult to read and the copy function on the archive's microfilm reader is broken." Well I finally found something I could do on the next expedition. Microfilm equipment is my line of work. I fix them all day! How about taking me on the next trip. I'll have that sucker up and running in no time. Hell I'll even waive my hourly fee, and bring my own tools. What a deal! I'm ready to go. Don J. Oh I forgot. The service call travel fee of $6,000.00 will still apply. *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll keep that in mind. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:22:06 EDT From: Ric Subject: Tarawa Report chopped off? The Tarawa archival report is so long that apparently some email systems cut it off before the end. For those of you who may have had that problem, here are the last few paragraphs: ******************* Nearly as valuable as the individually significant documents is the overall impression of the island's development, administration, and flavor as reflected in the routine communiques throughout the 1940s,'50s and early '60s. One gets the impression that Koata was a competent and very independent administrator. During his tenure as Native Magistrate there is very little communication between himself and anyone with regard to administrative matters or anything else. One of the few exchanges between Koata on Gardner and Gallagher on Sydney involves Irish squashing Koata's proposal to have only fellow Catholics settle on Gardner. By contrast, communications between various later British administrators and a progression of later Native Magistrates are characterized by innumerable whining queries about increasingly petty matters and annoyed paternalistic responses from the Brits. The impression I get is that Koata ran Nikumaroro as his own little kingdom and had little use for the new British kid who was in charge of the whole Phoenix settlement scheme. I think he was perfectly capable of doing all kinds of things that Gallagher never knew about. Once Irish arrived to live on the island Koata I suspect that Koata had no desire and saw little need to stay on. We copied many documents and reviewed many more that describe the postwar progress and eventual decline of the Phoenix settlement. In brief, the settlement on Sydney was abandoned as early as 1956 because of internal turmoil and mismanagement. By the late '50s Hull was becoming overcrowded and there was increasing pressure to settle more people on Gardner than the island was ready to accept. A new village on Nutiran was contemplated and begun but apparently never finished. Beginning in about 1960, drought conditions began to impact the settlements on Hull and Gardner and by early 1963 conditions were truly desperate. Water was being shipped in and people were rationed to one pint per day (!). There was no alternative to evacuation of both islands and the residents were removed to the Solomons on November 17, 1963. The above is, of course, just an overview of the mass of new information we retrieved from the archives. In the next installment I'll review what we learned from interviews with various local authorities and the few people who are still alive and remember the prewar years. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:59:56 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: headwinds With all the fuss on the forum about where Long got his evidence for headwinds, has anyone thought to look at the Chater report again? There are citaions of headwinds in that report. Given Earhart's own report (yes, I know she just mentions winds, not the direction of them), the Itasca's report plus the evidence in the Chater report, I don't think that it's much of a stretch to assume that she faced AVERAGE (as opposed to constant) headwinds of 20+ mph. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric Of course we've looked at the evidence of headwinds in the Chater report. Although Elgen doesn't like to mention it, TIGHAR is responsible for the re-discovery of the report and we had examined every word of it about two years before Elgen realized that we had made it publicly available. As any pilot can tell you, meaningful evidence of headwinds has to come from contemporaneous observations - not forecasts or prognostications - of actual winds at the surface and, more significantly, winds at altitude (known as "winds aloft"). The only way to get accurate winds aloft information in 1937 was either by pilot reports from aircraft or from weather balloons that were released from the ground and tracked visually. There are no winds aloft reports of any kind in the Chater report except Earhart's own cryptic "wind 23 knots" transmitted a little over seven hours after her departure from Lae. It could have just as easily been a tailwind as a headwind. Earhart doesn't say. We have surface winds at Howland for the morning of July 2nd reported both in the Itasca deck log and by Dick Black on Howland. Black also tried to get winds aloft information but lost sight of the balloon when it passed the scattered cloud base at 2,650 feet above the surface. In short, there is no, nada, zippo reliable winds aloft information for any portion of the Lae/Howland route during the period of the Earhart flight. Any attempt to establish average winds encountered by the flight is speculative but the most valid method would seem to be to take the aircraft's known intended cruise speed - 130 knots - and the known intended distance - 2,223 nautical miles - and compare the time it should have taken in zero wind - 17.1 hours - to the time it apparently took for the flight to reach the advanced LOP - roughly 19 hours. That suggests an average groundspeed of 117 knots which (ignoring the reduced speed during the long climb to altitude) gives an average headwind of 13 knots. Elgen Long invented the higher headwinds and higher power settings to combat them in order to get the airplane to run out of fuel when he needed it to. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:01:05 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: To Oscar on Assumptions Okay Oscar I will clarify my #3 fact. If flown, by what would be considerd standard operating procedures and under what was thought to be the weather consitions during the actual flight, the range the the 10E was such that it could be flown over a distance equal to the flight to Howland and then on to Gardner and still have some fuel remaining upon reaching Gardner. I did not mean to imply that on that particular flight I knew the conditions nor how the airplane was flown to make it posible to cover that distance. All I am saying is that under average conditions the performance of the airplane was such as to make the flight to Gardner possible. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:05:28 EDT From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - Archival Glad you made it back ok.Your report on Tarawa is excellant,enjoying it very much. When I first joined TIGHAR I did'nt like you very much,but since then Ive had a change heart. I have learn to have great respect for you. The knowlage you have is truely amazing. You have forgot more than I wil ever know. A couple of times today on forum you apolagize for being rude, I don't think you are rude, I think you tell it like it is, you don't BS. You take a lot of flack man, you deserve to have a bad day, this forum wasn't the same without you. You are to TIGHAR What Dale Earnhardt was to Nascar. Thanks a lot Ric for all your hard work. Terry Lee Simpson LTM #2396 (Still waiten for #2397) **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Terry. I'll try not to hit the wall. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:08:48 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Rongorongo Rongorongo is on the island of Beru. For maps of Kiribati online, see http://www.multimap.com/index/KR3.htm If the querying of "rendering" is down to it not being American usage, yes it does mean sealing in English English, specifically finishing off a wall with a thin coating of plaster or cement. LTM, Phil 2276 *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes! Beautiful. Makes perfect sense. Gallagher wants the wood sent to where he is (Beru) so that he can have it sawed into usable lumber which he'll take with him when he goes to set up his new headquarters on Gardner. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:15:57 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Title to Niku land parcels... Welcome back. Always fascinating to rummage through archives. A question came to my mind: did you find anything concerning the final status of the titles to the land parcels on Niku, when the place was abandonned? Were the settlers leasing? Or were they buying? It would be interesting to know if the titles had all reverted to the "Crown" -or, for example, could Emily's family still have a claim to a plot somewhere??? I suppose Irish died before he would have been able to get title to anything which could still be in his estate!?!?!? Interesting question! Christian D **************************************************************************** From Ric When the island was evacuated everyone had to relinquish any land holdings on Gardner as a condition of resettlement. Everything reverted to the Crown. Today, all land on Nikuaroro is owned by the Republic of Kiribati. There is nothing in the file to indicate that Gallagher ever requested a personal land holding on Nikumaroro nor is there any indication that any British officials ever owned land in the colonies (with the possible exception of personal homes in Fiji). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:17:07 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Long and Nauticos I contacted Nauticos after their claim to have found the KAGA, and was told that a detailed report on all this is going to appear soon in "The U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings". So, be on the watch for it. As to the "find", itself, I was pretty disappointed---Nauticos can connect you to a Japanese warship website with a picture of what they found, and it appears to be a small piece of a "tub" with an anti-aircraft gun. Surely they must have more to show, yet that's all for now, I guess. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:26:57 EDT From: Jim Pearson Subject: Questions I have two questions: 1. According to Amelia (Goldstein and Dillion) "GP chartered two small ships to cruise south to Gardner and Phoenix Islands...." Are there any reports as to what was found by this expedition? 2. Has Tighar attempted to locate Coast Guardsmen who were stationed on Niku? I realize that due to age few are probably still alive. **************************************************************************** From Ric No such expedition took place. Remember that Goldstein and Dillon did little or no research themselves but were merely trying to put Safford's antiquated and often flawed work into a marketable form. TIGHAR has interviewed about a half dozen veterans of Unit 92 and has gotten much useful information. Indeed, it was Dick Evans' and Herb Moffit's recollections about seeing a "water collection device" along the island's north shore that first led us to the Seven Site. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:34:47 EDT From: David Bush Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - Archival >From Ric > >Anything that was on Tarawa or Ocean Island when the Japanese >invaded in December 1941 was apparently destroyed. Aside from some >documents which apparently, like the bone file, came from Gallagher's office >on Gardner, the earliest files in the KNA begin after the reconquest of >Tarawa in 1943. Ric: Speculative, but that's what hypotheses are: A kanawa wood box is a nice souvenir, so it is possible (to my thinking) that a member of the Japanese occupation forces might well have taken items such as a kanawa wood box, a sextant box and other items, possibly discarding those portions (bones, corks, etc.) that they had no use for. Should we, perhaps, be following up on the occupation forces there and seeing if someone made off with these items? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric That would be fairly easy. Of the 4,500 Japanese occupying Tarawa only 17 survived the reconquest of the atoll by the 2nd Marine Division. Trust me, none of those POWs left the place with souvenirs. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:45:18 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Dale Earnhardt? Wow! You're like Dale Earnhardt??? Does that mean you smoke Winstons, drink Miller Lite and win by intimidation to the wild, cheering throngs of fans who also smoke Winstons, drink Miller Lite and love being intimidated? *************************************************************************** From Ric Yup. Just ask any of thems as know me personal. The main differnce is that Dale he had a lot more money than me. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:55:20 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - Archival >From Ric > >That would be fairly easy. Of the 4,500 Japanese occupying Tarawa only >17survived the reconquest of the atoll by the 2nd Marine Division. Trust >me,none of those POWs left the place with souvenirs. Ric: I understand that in the final conflict, few were left, but what about being rotated home? Also, if someone (especially a high ranking officer) found these items, couldn't he have sent them home to his family? In otherwords, is AE actually being held by the Japanese, thus making both hypotheses valid? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric All things are possible but I think that the space aliens hypothesis would be easier to investigate. I have no idea how you'd go about getting the names and tracking down the families of rikusentai that were rotated out of Tarawa before the battle. If you do then, by all means, go for it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:58:44 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: headwinds Ric: Just to add to all the speculation about AE's fuel usage: knowing that she had to get the most out of the fuel usage, she could have decided to go with the most economical setting, slower speed and leaned out in order to arrive with even more fuel. However, as you pointed out when she said she was "low" on fuel corresponded to the time she would have been reaching her four hour (20%) fuel reserves. I sure hope she "sticked" the tanks! (For non-pilots, pilots consider gauges to be of minimal value and to determine the true amount of fuel we have wooden "sticks" marked in graduations. These are not generic, but specific to the aircraft and the tank.) LTM, who thinks we are getting the stick at the tank! Dave Bush, #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric The whole point of the power management profile worked out by Kelly Johnson was that it represented the most economical use of fuel. She couldn't improve on that without having way more expertise than she did. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:05:59 EDT From: Ric Subject: No forum Tuesday Tomorrow (Tuesday, April 3rd), we'll have an NBC film crew here all day shooting a segment for the Sunday edition of the TODAY Show that will air next month during "sweeps week." I'll be able to tell you more about it after we do it, but there's just not going to be time to do the forum tomorrow. That's show biz. See ya Wednesday. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:11:47 EDT From: Ric Subject: An interesting day I spent an interesting day yesterday with an NBC News crew shooting a piece for the Sunday edition of the TODAY Show. It will air sometime late this month or early in May. I'll let everyone know as soon as I know an exact date. It will probably end up being a 5 or 6 minute piece. They're doing a four-part series about people who have "left the traditional corporate world to live their dream" ( I know, I know - gag me with a spoon - but it's only television). The producer, who happens to be an old friend of mine, came up with an artist, an author, and a guy who runs a restaurant someplace in the Caribbean - but then he ran out of ideas. Just before I left for Tarawa he called me up and said, "Hey, you're living your dream aren't you?" I said, "Uh, sure, I guess, except when it's a nightmare." "Good. When can we schedule a shoot?" So I spent a very strange day doing show and tell about what it's like to be Ric Gillespie. Of course, television is always looking for "good visuals" and my everyday life is not terribly dramatic (thank goodness). We have some tape from earlier expeditions and some pretty interesting video we shot in Tarawa, but he was looking for something "fresh and different" - so we ended up shooting most of the piece out at the farm where Pat and I board our horses. It was a gorgeous, early spring day and we had a great time. NBC got some nice pictures and, I hope, an interesting interview. They also shot some footage back here in the office - artifacts, documents, me and Pat sitting in front of computers - the usual. The piece will, naturally, include quite a bit about the Earhart Project. Should be good press. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:02:59 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: headwinds With all due respect to your analysis of the headwinds, and your decision to disregard the evidence, please note: Page 7 of the Chater Report, in the radio message just below the one reporting the weather forecast from Pearl Harbor says in part: "Naru 8 a.m. upper air observation ... 7500 feet ninety degrees 24 mph." In other words, winds from the EAST at 24 mph at 7,500 feet. While this was not exactly contemporaneous (it was taken at 8 a.m. Nauru time, before Earhart took off), to disregard it altogether is somewhat disingenuous. There is also an entry in the Itasca radio log reporting winds at 7,000 feet at 31 mph ENE. The measurement was taken by weather balloon at noon on July 1 at Howland, which was July 2 in Lae. Since all three of the wind data points that DO include a direction indicate a wind from the EAST, and they come from different points along Earhart's route, it is only reasonable to assume that the wind Earhart herself reports (23 knots) was also from the EAST. It would be odd indeed if the wind were blowing from the east at Nauru, Howland and Pearl and from the west wherever Earhart was five hours into the flight. The evidence is pretty convincing, unless one refuses to see it. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't have any problem with speculation that the winds aloft encountered by the flight were probably more or less out of the East. Most of the winds in that part of the world, at that time of year, are easterly. What little we know about the progress of the flight also suggests headwinds rather than tailwinds. However, to say that wind SPEEDS aloft observed over Nauru at 20:00 GMT (08:00 local) on July 2nd are indicative of conditions a couple hundred miles south of there at roughly 10:30 GMT on July 3rd (22:30 July 2nd local) is more than a bit of a stretch. Any pilot will tell you that a winds aloft report that is 14 and half hours old is ancient history. The same is even more true of the observation taken over Howland at 22:30 GMT (12:00 on Howland - which was using Hawaii time). The flight was not in the Howland neighborhood until fully 21 hours later. As a rule, winds aloft change from hour to hour. It is not disingenuous to disregard these outdated reports as evidence of the wind speeds encountered by Earhart and Noonan. On the contrary, it is ridiculous to do otherwise. If there are any fellow "ancient pelicans" (to borrow Ernie Gann's wonderful phrase) out there who disagree with me on this, please set me straight. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:10:28 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: headwinds Ric wrote: >That suggests an average groundspeed of 117 > knots which (ignoring the reduced speed during the long climb to altitude) > gives an average headwind of 13 knots. Which is valid if we accept that the signal strength reported by Bellarts suggested that they were really close, and not being received by "skip". Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric I have yet to hear a person who is knowledgable about radio propagation suggest that the gradual and progressive increase in signal strength over a period of many hours was an illusion created by "skip." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:28:21 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - Archival The area 25 and its association with Gallagher is something that did not hit me at first, but if later references hint the association with him, what kind of connection do you think existed? Galagher already had an official settlement in the form of his residence, so why is it that there is some link with the possible allocation of another plot of land nowhere near the site of his residence? If the area near the 7 site was originally alocated for the cultivation of coconut trees, I do find the fact there are associations with Gallagher a bit odd. Charles Lim (who is worried about odds and ends) **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that it makes no sense for Area 25 to allocated to Gallagher for any personal purpose, and its demarcation on the maps do not necessarily mean that coconuts are to planted there. All we can conclude from the maps is that that plot of ground was specifically set aside as neither "bush reserve" nor land that could be granted to a resident family. And although it was not designated on the only island map we have that drawn by Gallagher, maps drawn after his death associate it with "official" use - Komitina (Commissioner) in one case, and Karaka (Gallagher) in another. My personal opinion is that this is not a loose end at all, but rather a strong indication that the Seven Site (aka Area 25) is where the bones of the castaway were found and that Gallagher, prior to his departure from the island in June 1941, made it clear to the locals that the area was not to be disturbed. He returned in late September gravely ill and died with a few days. The reservation of that land parcel survived in local knowledge and was subsequently recorded on later maps although the original reason was either forgotten or intentionally misrepresented due to the "secret" nature of the whole bones issue. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:34:03 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Really? You really have to see this: http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/vanished/EmeliaEarhart.htm It has such gems as.. The Flight Thirty-nine year-old Emelia and her expert navigator, forty-four year-old Fredrick Noonan must have been exhausted after already flying 22,000 miles of their fateful (?) journey. The 2,556 mile leg from Lail to Hewlard Island was considered extremely hap hazardous - the 1 1/2 mile long island being difficult to find even with today's modern equipment. Add to that the fact that the distance they would be required to cover would conserve almost all of the fuel in their custom designed Lockheed Electra fuel tanks. And much more like: Hundreds of eyewitness reports abound of two Americans pilots, on a woman, coming down in the Marshalls Guess she was a big woman... Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Wombat, I'm afraid we're going to have to install some Parental Control software on your computer. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:52:53 EDT From: Bob Sarnia Subject: The facts (cont'd) I appreciate the time out you took to explain AE's 0742 message, though apparently you and I will never see eye to eye. Nevertheless, I am glad that we can discuss this important issue like gentlemen. I leave it to your discretion whether you post this reply on the forum or not. Whenever I see what I consider to be an important posting on your forum, I print it out for later perusal and keep it in my file, which has now grown to about 7 or 8 inches thick. I have a copy of your Feb. 20th posting and am familiar with it, though I interpret it in a different manner. I also have copies of the Itasca's radio logs, as well as a copy of Cdr. Thompson's July 19, 1937 report to his superiors (108 pages long), which obviously is in your possession. As I implied in my 2nd recent posting, let's forget the "only half hour left" part of AE's 0742 message, which RM O'Hare entered in his log, and concentrate on her "gas is running low" statement, which was recorded in the radio log kept by CRM Bellarts. Despite the barbs and arrows flung towards AE regarding her capability as a pilot, she was still an experienced flier, and surely must have known what she was saying when she reported "gas is running low." Who would know better than she? I do not believe that she would cavalierly report that "gas is running low" if her fuel gauges indicated otherwise. Looking at the many Purdue University photos taken of AE as she supervised, or at least oversaw, the repairs being done to the Electra, I would say that she was a very dedicated person who was concerned about her plane and made sure that even small details did not escape her. (Cynics, of course, will say that those photos were taken for publicity purposes.) When she arrived in what she thought was the vicinity of Howland at 0742, she had already flown 8/10ths around the world, making up to 20 or more take offs and landings, not to mention the in-between flying, so she was no novice. Many theorize that she should have had plenty of gas remaining at 0742. I agree, but the fact remains that she reported that "gas is running low." We don't know the reason why her fuel was running out, but running out it was, otherwise she wouldn't have said so in that message. Surely she had the experience to know how to read her fuel gauges!!? A study of winds in the Eastern Pacific reveals that it blows constantly (in July) from the SE below the equator and from the NE above the equator, and headwinds were predicted for most of the way from Lae to Howland. Those NE tailwinds were responsible for the record time she made during her Oakland-Honolulu leg of what was to be the start of her round-the-world journey, which ended during takeoff at Luke Field. This time, from Lae to Howland, she would face those same winds in the opposite direction, whether from the NE or SE. She would not have known to the last gallon how much fuel was left, but we do know that her last message was sent at 0844-46 that morning (received at S-5), indicating that she was still aloft and fairly close to the Itasca, but for how long afterwards becomes speculation. May I theorize for a brief moment? 1. Headwinds (or whatever) caused her to use up more of her fuel than anticipated. 2. "Gas is running low" at 0742. 3. Last message at 0844-46 indicates she was still in the area, probably flying on fumes. Why didn't she send any more messages? Because she had her hands full trying to squeeze as much fuel as she could from her "empty" tanks while handling a plane whose engines were coughing and spluttering. She would have ditched between 0846 and 0900. Ric, many facets of her journey may be subject to various interpretations, but that 0742 message about "gas is running low" is unmistakably clear. If you can't see that, then, as gentlemen, let's agree to disagree. Regards, Bob Sarnia. ****************************************************************************Fr om Ric Bob, I completely agree with you that Earhart was an experienced long-distance flier who had successfully completed many very long flights without ever once running out of gas. As any experienced pilot will tell you, when you're in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, unable to locate the only airstrip within thousands of miles, unable to establish radio cmmunication with anyone, and down to your last four hours of fuel after a 19 hour flight - you better believe "gas is running low." It amazes me that those who theorize that she ran out of gas also say that they're trying to "salvage her reputation." For her to have done what you, and Elgen Long, and others suggest would have been monumentally stupid and virtually suicidal. As I've made clear on many occasions, I think that both AE and Fred had flaws that ultimately cost them their lives but I see no evidence that they were as incompetent as you suggest, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:56:31 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: headwinds > As any pilot can tell you, meaningful evidence of headwinds has to come from > contemporaneous observations - not forecasts or prognostications - of actual Ric, I just returned from Sydney, australia. Out of Sydney the morning preflight winds indicated a 13 hour flight. Just before T.O. a couple hours later new estimates showed we would arrive an hour early in Los Angeles. Because customs would be unavailable at that time the pilot elected to delay t.O. 45 minutes. A third of the way there he announced we would STILL arrive too early and we did arrive 30 minutes early. This, with all the modern weather predicting capability. You are correct. Only actual winds are meaningful not predictions. Sometimes preflight winds are reliable but not enough to use such information to reconstruct AE's flight. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Welcome home Alan. We used to have a saying, "The only weather you can count on is what's outside the windshield." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:02:40 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Most Economical Use of Fuel? > The whole point of the power management profile worked out by Kelly Johnson > was that it represented the most economical use of fuel. She couldn't > improve on that without having way more expertise than she did. May I offer a mild disssent? At normal gross weight and below, Johnson specified 38 gph (about 237 hp per engine). The 10E performance data in Lockheed Report 465 (1935 Johnson tests on 10E) shows that cruise at 200 hp per engine (c. 32 gph) is about 93 % as fast as cruise at 250 hp per engine (c. 40 gph) on 80% as much fuel. Interpolating for 38 gph/237 hp, we might estimate that 200 hp would give 94% of the speed of 237 hp, with 84% of the fuel consumption, an increase in range in still air of about 12 % (94 divided by 84 = 1.11904). So Johnson's profile is not absolute best range at normal gross or below, and could have been bettered by anyone with access to the data in Report 465. Since we don't have the 10E POH (Report 466?) we don't know whether or not 200 hp figures were shown as within the normal operating range of the airplane in the POH. Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric Absolutely. No argument. But Kelly Johnson knew that he was preparing recommendations for Amelia Earhart - not Jimmy Doolittle, "Smithy" Kingston-Smith, Slim Lindbergh, or even Jackie Cochrane. It had to be simple and conservative. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:04:18 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: One Man's Assumption is another man's poison >From Dick Pingrey > > All I am > saying is that under average conditions the performance of the airplane was > such as to make the flight to Gardner possible. Yes, I understand that. The point I was trying to make was that you had previously said that we didn't know, and couldn't know, how AE operated the plane, or the wind conditions under which she flew, and that everything anybody said about the subject was speculation, and that you were only interested in "facts" - but your fact #3 is of no relevance to the discussion unless you (tacitly or explicitly) make assumptions about these very things. You partially conceal this from yourself by referring to "standard operating procedures" and "average conditions", but the speculation is there nonetheless - you merely feel that your speculation is better informed and more convincing because it is closer to "standard" and "average" than someone else's. But this is a bit unfair (not on purpose of course) to those whose speculation differs from yours. Perhaps it is a bit unfair of me to mention this, since you are certainly not a major offender in this regard. We all make the mistake from time to time of classifying our assumptions as "facts" and those of other people as "speculation". Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:07:19 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Half hour left? What is most significant (to me anyway) about the _last_ message Itasca received from AE (about an hour _after_ the reporters _alleged_ she claimed to have only a half-hour of fuel remaining) is the fact that in addition to providing information she was...'on the LOP 157-337'...'We are running North & South'..., she also informed Itasca...'Will repeat message on 6210kcs...Wait, listening on 6210kcs'... If, as our intrepid newsmen reported, AE's fuel situation (certainly by then) was as desperate as _their_ account's would suggest, why on earth would she suddenly change frequencies, from the only frequency upon which she'd heard any response from Itasca, in order to _continue_ her efforts to achieve two-way radio communication with Itasca, if as the newshounds contend, she was in imminent danger of 'splashing' due to an exhausted fuel supply ? We also must consider the _fact_ that she did _not_ repeat (either of) the warnings about being low or running out of gas, in her last recorded transmission, a seemingly grossly negligent oversight, if in _fact_ her remaining fuel supply was that critically low, so as to make keeping the Electra in the air, dubious at best! Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric One small correction: The only signals she apparently heard were the "A"s sent on 7500, not 3105. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:12:32 EDT From: Ric Subject: Wash Post story Several forum subsribers advise that there is an article about Nauticos and their Earhart search in today's Washington Post. You can see it at http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34624-2001Apr3.html I particuarly like the quote by Nauticos boss David Jourdan: "Our intention is to be out in the open about this," said Jourdan, whose company has had a string of successes in the past six years. "We're confident enough in our abilities that we could do our search under scrutiny." Uh huh. So why not release the CalTech study? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:15:30 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Being Ric Gillespie Ric wrote: >So I spent a very strange day doing show and tell about what it's like to be >Ric Gillespie. Z-z-z-z-z-z-z. I think I'd rather watch paint dry. :-) LTM, who feels a nap coming on Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric That's why we went to the barn. I'm a very dull guy. My horse, on the other hand.... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:02:19 EDT From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: The facts (cont'd) For Bob Sarnia and others, I'm not a pilot but my take on the "gas is running low" phrase is that is all relative and can't be quantified in any real way. Had she said something like "just switched to reserve tank of 100 gallons" then we would have something difinite. I would think that from her perspective, only a few hrs of fuel remaining out of the 24 or so she had to start with is "running low." Jerry W. Ellis #2113 **************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell Bob Sarnia wrote: > Ric, many facets of her journey may be subject to various interpretations, > but that 0742 message about "gas is running low" is unmistakably clear. Bob, I've been a pilot and instructor pilot since the 50s. Almost all of my flying was long distance and over the Pacific or Atlantic. "gas is running low" is absolutely NOT "unmistakenly clear." Gas running low over San Antonio could mean I have about 10 or 15 minutes left. Gas running low over Wake Island might mean I'm down to my last 6 or 7 hours. You as well as others have frequently pointed out that the winds in the South Pacific that time of year were typically out of the East and some have suggested they were usually as high as 25 whatevers. People keep bouncing back and forth between knots and MPHs. AE just might have known that too don't you think? So why should she have been caught off guard that she wasn't going to have no wind or a tail wind from Lae to Howland? How do you explain everyone "knowing" there would be a head wind of significant magnitude except AE and FN? It amazes me that people would even suggest these folks would plan a flight dry tanks over Howland. They knew before T.O. what the winds might be and went anyway. Doesn't that hint to you and other ditch advocates that they expected to have adequate fuel. Does anyone think AE and FN were so stupid and incompetent that at the half way point they would have pressed on instead of turning back in the face of a suicidal mission? If anyone believes that then logically AE could have called "low fuel" as she taxied out at Lae. To follow your reasoning we have to believe AE and FN took off knowing they had only an hour to find Howland if that and that their only alternative was to kill themselves in a ditching. Then at the half way point they now have even more conclusive evidence they can't make it but stubbornly press on. Sorry, that has to be the most preposterous scenario I've ever heard. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. Disagree all you want but at least use some rationality. If you want something "unmistakenly clear" then it would be that AE and FN most likely did not plan on a suicide trip to the vicinity of Howland. Now you might want to say they did not expect such a head wind but that flies in the face of your own evidence. They KNEW what the winds were supposed to be AND they were actually flying the route and were experiencing the winds first hand. Also we could speculate they were low on fuel because of a significant fuel leak. So now we have our daring duo saying, "Hey, all our fuel is leaking out. What say we continue at least until the fumes do us in." I don't think so. If you want to come up with an alternate theory suggest one that makes some kind of sense. I'll buy anything that has some degree of sanity to it. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric As TIGHAR member and Earhart Team alternate Bill Carter recently pointed out in a private email to me, Earhart's comment about fuel - whatever its intended meaning - is rather pointless. Here she is, unable to establish communication, transmitting blind, and she says, "We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low. We have been unable to reach you by radio. We are flying at 1000 feet." She is apparently transmitting information on the assumption, or in the hope, that they can hear her - and that's fine. But the information she is giving them is totally useless. "We have been unable to reach you by radio" - well, duh. Does she think they don't know that? She tells them that her gas is running low, so - what? - stop kidding around, pretending that you don't hear me, and answer my calls? "We are flying at 1,000 feet". How will that information help Itasca help her? Her problem is a radio problem and the only information that is going to help Itasca get in touch with her is radio information. It doesn't make any sense to say anything unless she is operating on the assumption that it's a receiving problem on her end. She should be suggesting different frequencies and trying different receivers (if she has them) and different receiving antennas. That's exactly what she does when she asks for signals on 7500 and apparently hears them over her loop antenna, but she doesn't follow up on that success. When she fails to "get a minimum" she switches back to the configuration (listening on 3105 on an antenna other than the loop) that doesn't work. This is simply bad problem solving. She is not thinking logically and not acting rationally. Unfortunately, that is not unusual in the annals of aviation accidents. Pilots often fail to do the things that they could do to deal with inflight emergencies because they don't think things through calmly and logically. Granted, it's real hard to be calm and logical when everything is going to hell and your own mortality is becoming more apparent by the minute - but that's the difference between old pilots and dead pilots. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:06:12 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Wash Post story Ric wrote: > I particuarly like the quote by Nauticos boss David Jourdan: > "Our intention is to be out in the open about this," said Jourdan, whose > company has had a string of successes in the past six years. "We're confident > enough in our abilities that we could do our search under scrutiny." > > Uh huh. So why not release the CalTech study? Why don't you contact him about this quote and ask for the study? --Chris **************************************************************************** From Ric That's exactly what I did. Dave Jourdan and I had a very nice chat this morning. He can not release the CalTech study because Nauticos does not own it. NOVA commissioned that study before Nauticos was involved in the project. Dave is sympathetic to the desirability of having the report available for peer review, but it's not his to release. He said that mine was the first request he has had for the release of the study and he'll pass that request on to those who have the authority to release it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:10:07 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Wash Post story What these supposed experts don't know is that the area west of Howland Island is composed of abyssal hills: ridges that rise about 200 meters every 3 or 4 km or so apart...the area is not flat, and is possibly the worst area to do bottom surveys. Elgen Long knows this, as he collected high resolution bathymetric data in the area (which I have a copy of). I've "been there, done that" when I was an oceanographer/geophysicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Oregon State University, and at the Office of Naval Research. What a complete waste of time, effort, and money. *************************************************************************** From Ric That's pretty interesting. I mentioned it to Dave Jourdan at Nauticos this morning and he thought it was pretty interesting too. I'm putting Randy and Dave in touch with each other. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:26:48 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: Re: Tarawa Report - Archival The archival evidence did give me your impression. I certainly think that the 7 site is hiding something. What this may be may not even be relevant to Earhart, but we can hope that it is, and now its off to get the shovels to find out what it is that is hidden there. Charles Lim ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:30:18 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Assumption Limits To Oscar and the Forum, Frankly, I don't buy your argument in the least. If it is an assumption to forecast that an airplane is capable to operate over a given distance then every airline flight across the ocean, Atlantic or Pacific, is operated by assumption rather than facts. Having flown for international airlines and been directly involved in flight planning for 27 years I can tell you and the Forum members that flights are operated on known performance data and not assumptions. We know, not assume, that the Boeing 747 is capable of flying from San Francisco to Tokyo and on to an alternate airport and then to have endurance beyond that alternate airport including the capability of making an approach and go around, etc. It isn't based on assumptions about how we will fly the airplane or the range and endurance of the airplane but rather it is based on known facts. The conditions may vary which alter the flight time and other factors but they don't alter the performance capability of the airplane. Just like the Boeing 747 flying from San Francisco to Tokyo the Lockheed 10E was capable of making the flight to Howland and on to Gardner. How it was actually operated, the actual winds, the visibility, etc. lead to speculation and assumptions. The airplanes performance does not. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:51:39 EDT From: Denise Subject: Personal Land Holdings Ric says: "nor is there any indication that any British officials ever owned land in the colonies (with the possible exception of personal homes in Fiji)." Ric, you can't even make that exception. During the Days of Empire, the British Colonial Service provided our homes and at a stupidly low rental too. This was deliberate. All the savings we made there were meant to be earmarked to buy a nice little house "back home" after retirement. And it would have been considered the height of "non-pukka" to have used our tenure in any colony as an opportunity to acquire land. "Home" was England (even when you were, like us, Irish!) and you weren't allowed to see it any other way. In fact, you didn't even want to. OK! When the Empire disbanded, many of us realised we didn't want to "go home" so decided to stay on where we were, and it was only THEN we started to buy houses and land. Remember, our lives were riddled with shibboleths, questions of Honour and Duty, and a rigid code of conduct called "Pukka" and we wouldn't EVER have questioned how things were done. We didn't want to. Rudyard Kipling provided our voice for us and did it so beautifully (until towards the end, when he started "snarling".) we liked the way we were. Thus, NO!, we didn't have personal homes anywhere in the colonies. LTM (who is still, after all these years, as "pukka" as they come. Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:57:37 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Nauticos/NOVA study Chris Kennedy said: Why don't you contact him about this quote and ask for the study Ric replied: That's exactly what I did. He can not release the CalTech study because Nauticos does not own it. NOVA commissioned that study before Nauticos was involved in the project." Too bad Nauticos is not a government agency, we could pummel, harass, and abuse them with the Freedom of Information Act until they begged for mercy. On second thought, if NOVA gets Federal funds (via the Public Broadcasting System - PBS) they may be subject to FOIA. Maybe our crack legal department could check that out . . . Mr. Katz the ball's in your court. :-) LTM, who's been a FOIA victim Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Heck, Mr. Kennedy is a lawyer too, as are about half of all forum subscribers (or so it seems). I think that PBS being subject to FOIA is a bit of a stretch. Personally, I think that the greatest condemnation of the CalTech study is the very fact that they don't want anyone to see it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:59:22 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued Alan Caldwell has it right on target in his reply to Bob Sarnia's theory. Read it again folks as therein is the fundamental reason that Elgen Long's theory is unbelievable. I think Bill Carter's comments, as outlined by Ric and Ric's additional comments attached to Alan's message, are very significant in understanding the situation. Add all this to the discovery that AE's antenna was lost on take off and a fairly understandable picture of why she did not find Howland and why she had to look for an alternate place to land starts to take shape. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:59:01 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The facts (cont'd) > *** From Ric > ... When she fails to "get a minimum" [on 7500] she switches back > to the configuration (listening on 3105 on an antenna other than the > loop) that doesn't work. And then, with evidence that they've been hearing her on 3105, she switches to 6210 and is never heard from again. > This is simply bad problem solving. She is not thinking logically and not > acting rationally. Agreed. It's so sad ... With her equipment, was it possible to transmit on 3105 and continue listening on 7500? Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, absolutely. She could not listen on two frequencies at once, but she could transmit on one and listen on a different one. Separate systems. Think about Earhart's illogical inflight transmissions. Now think about Betty's notebook. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:00:52 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Nauticos/NOVA study Dennis said: "Maybe our crack legal department could check that out . . . Mr. Katz the ball's in your court. :-)" Ric replied "Heck, Mr. Kennedy is a lawyer too, as are about half of all forum subscribers (or so it seems)." Yeah, but Mr. Katz is the only I remember who has admitted it in public. LTM, a legit lady Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric We got lots. You might be surprised by the list. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:02:00 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Assumption Limits Dick Pingrey wrote: > Frankly, I don't buy your argument in the least. If it is an > assumption to forecast that an airplane is capable to operate over a given > distance then every airline flight across the ocean, Atlantic or Pacific, is Dick, you've lost me. What argument is it that you don't buy? As to assumptions vs facts it sounds like you're just arguing semantics. I assume my car will get 24 miles to the gallon and the fact is that it does. Call that a fact or an assumption makes no difference. Am I missing your point? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:06:55 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued Dick, doesn't it seem we go over this ground a lot? You have a lot of flight experience as I do and some members of the forum so the simple logic makes sense to us. To some it isn't so obvious. Remember all the LOP threads we had some time ago wherein few people had a clue what an LOP even was. I get frustrated when I read statements that with a little more thought would not be made. Yet, look at Elgin Long with all his experience and investigations coming up with the same "run out of gas" story. Baffling. Then I read about the "only 30 minutes left" report again and again and am amazed that the commenters don't seem to notice that the plane was still in the air an hour later and no further radio report about the desperation of having only seconds of fuel left. I think there is really a lot less in the way of speculation involved in our mystery than some would suggest. For, example, as I pointed out before, the forecast winds were to be a strong headwind. It matters not how often preflight winds and actual winds coincide. It tells us that our heroes did not run into unexpected strong headwinds. But we don't even have to guess at that. We know what time they took off and what time they were at a number of positions so a groundspeed and thus a headwind computation is simple math. No speculation. We know AE was provided with a detailed power and fuel management script. I don't know whether she followed it but I can't think of a reason she would make up her own fuel plan. And as you pointed out the aircraft performance is a known fact. We can reconstruct her flight and fuel profile from t.o. to Howland and a little beyond with fairly good accuracy. We don't know what altitudes she flew but it makes no significant difference. She flew from point A to point B and we know roughly her flight path and her times so fuel is pretty easy. We don't know what celestial capability was presented to FN yet we know he navigated the plane to the vicinity of Howland so there is little significance whether there was a lot of cloud cover or none. We know what the radio problems were though not the cause save the lost antenna and the faulty DF. That puts the Electra in the Howland vicinity at a known time with a good handle on remaining fuel. What they did then IS speculation but we want to think we're making educated guesses. Considering there were no airfields then to use as an alternate we're left with ditching or landing on some land somewhere. Of those choices ditching just doesn't sound like a reasonable choice. (Anyone with a good reason to pick ditching?) If they decide to find land why would they not opt for the closest land? (Anyone?) The Phoenix group was the closest AND FN would have an easier and more precise navigation problem as the sun would give him course lines. Going back to the Gilberts was a much longer flight and the sun would only give FN speed lines. I don't think going in the direction of the Marshalls was an option. Too far and Japanese controlled. Even without any evidence, however weak or strong found on Niku, the Phoenix Islands still make the best sense. To run the Electra out of gas prematurely ignores the known performance of the plane. To put them far off course ignores the fact that their radio reports were strength 5 and gradually reaching strength 5 thus eliminating a monentary skip effect or at least reducing that possibility. One would also have to believe FN didn't know where he was when no one can suggest a reason he wouldn't know. Also it must be ignored that AE and FN thought they knew where they were and had the capability of knowing where they were. How does anyone get them far off course? Can anyone RATIONALLY propose an alternate theory than they got to the vicinity of Howland, couldn't pick up the island visually and went on to the nearest land? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:39:56 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Personal Land Holdings > From Denise > > Thus, NO!, we didn't have personal homes anywhere in the colonies. Except in Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies, Africa and some other colonies where they started on palatial mansions almost the moment they arrived... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:42:27 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Retiring My last year on the forum has been great. Lot of fun and more than a little educational. I am often humbled by the august company I am allowed to keep. Thanks for letting me hobnob with all of you. This is not a permanent farewell, I am retiring from the navy and moving back to the States after many years in Asia. The movers should be here in a couple hours and it is time to pull the plug on my trusty "MAC". I'm going back to Tucson, Arizona where I can pursue my first love; historic research, without the language barrier problem. I expect to be settled into a new place there sometime in June and will look you all up again at that time. (And, Ric, I'll get around to renewing my TIGHAR membership as well.) Also, Ric, I'll send the appropriate command to the list server to remove me from the forum. Thanks everybody, see you in a couple months. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:44:32 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued In re Alan Caldwell's comment: <> There is nothing IRRATIONAL about the alternate theory that they ran out of gas and went into the sea while looking for land (whether Howland,Baker, Gardner or Timbuktu). Irrespective of what is known about the Electra's prospective performance under the conditions AE faced, no one can know with any certainty precisely how much fuel remained at the time of her last transmission. We can certainly make informed estimates based upon fuel analysis and what impact external factors (such as headwinds, etc.) may have had, but it is all speculation. That she stated that she was "low on gas" an hour before her last transmission is a fact. Whether she meant that she was just into her reserves or running on fumes is anyone's guess. My point is that it is unfair to paint the alternate theory that AE splashed into the sea as "irrational." David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:46:40 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: lawyers Dennis said: "Maybe our crack legal department could check that out . . . Mr. Katz the ball's in your court. :-)" Ric replied "Heck, Mr. Kennedy is a lawyer too, as are about half of all forum subscribers (or so it seems)." Yeah, but Mr. Katz is the only I remember who has admitted it in public.>> Since I have an enormous amount of respect for the legal profession, I will take Mr. McGee's remarks as a compliment. Please note, however, that not only have I never admitted to being a lawyer in public, I have never admitted any such thing in private. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lawyer. I do, however, often employ attorneys in my profession. I am an investment banker who deals in corporate finance, structured finance and mergers & acquisitions, among other things. Although I once briefly toyed with the idea of becoming an attorney, that was in my younger days when I thought that it was a glamorous profession (probably from having watched Perry Mason on television). Many years of working closely with lawyers is an experience that has taught me otherwise. I have also discovered that investment banking is not all that glamorous either. If I have ever given anyone the impression that I am an attorney, please forgive me. On the other hand, if anyone on the forum has incorrectly inferred that I am a lawyer through no fault of mine, well that is an illustration of assuming things that are not in evidence. David Evans Katz (NOT Esq.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:59:24 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: In Reply to Alan Caldwell My message that started with, "Frankly, I don't buy your argument in the least." was in reply to Oscar Boswell's statement that the performance of the 10E is a matter of speculation or assumption rather than of fact. How the airplane was operated is a matter of speculation but the performance capability of the airplane is fact, at least in my opinion. Thus the airplane was capable of being flown to Howland and then along the LOP to Gardner. We don't know if it was flown in such a way and at such a time, weather wise, in order to complete that flight but that has nothing to do the the factual performance capability of the airplane. You need to go back and read Oscar's message in order for mine to have meaning. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:10:35 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued It strikes me that a perfectly RATIONAL alternative theory would have AE/FN heading toward the nearest land, visually missing it, running out of gas and ditching. It's entirely possible they missed Baker, McKean AND Gardner while traveling down the 157° heading, if that was their choice.. Or, alternately (as I've often said) looking for much larger, and more hospitable, Canton Island (Fred's choice), or backtracking to a KNOWN checkpoint (the Gilberts), which, I suspect, would be Amelia's choice. (And SHE was driving!). Further, she had a good airplane and good engines, but why rule out some catastrophic failure shortly after the 8:42 message? She would have had her hands full trying to get the ELECTRA onto the water in a straight and level line, with no time to explain her predicament via a faulty radio.. Ric would be happy to know this still leaves room for the crash survivors (1 or both) to paddle gaily to beautiful, exotic Nikumaroro while singing the Purdue fight song! Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric It is possible to speculate that all sorts of things might have happened, but a hypothesis is meaningless if it is not testable. The Gardner/Niku hypothesis is testable, and that's what we're doing. The general crashed-at-sea hypothesis is not testable in any practical sense, but Elgen's specific crashed-at-sea-right-here hypothesis is. Whether that hypothesis is rational or not is another question. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:36:01 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued > My point is that it is unfair to paint the alternate > theory that AE splashed into the sea as "irrational." You are certainly correct, David. I was not clear in my note. I was only referring to those who would have her run out of gas before arriving at Howland or only an hour later. I haven't read a rational explanation for either occurring. That she may have eventually run out of gas is indisputable. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:37:14 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: In Reply to Alan Caldwell To Dick Pingrey > You need to go back and > read Oscar's message in order for mine to have meaning. Dick, I realized that right after sending my email when I ran across your second note. Sorry about that. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:30:14 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued Prior to the Lae-Howland leg of the world flight, do we know what was the longest time the plane was in the air? This all goes back to a question I had long ago on information we have which confirms, in the real world/Earhart at the controls, the Kelly performance curve computations of the performance of the Electra. I believe "Wombat" computed that fuel usage per hour was working out fairly close to the Kelly calculations, at least on the trip legs where this could be reliably calculated from surviving data. I think part of the concern, here, is that, even assuming the Kelly calculations are accurate, you are still getting fairly close to the 24 hour in the air estimate even if you assume no problems, and a flight from Lae to Howland and then southeast to Gardner----What do you have remaining even assuming everything went according to the calculations, about an hour or two of fuel after an arrival at Gardner? I understand that the calculations are silent beyond that point. So, this makes the accuracy of the Kelly calculations up to 24 hours aloft, and whether Earhart was able to follow them (either through her own ability or because of external factors beyond her control) all the more critical. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric The world flight had had two roughly 13 hour legs - across the South Atlantic and from Assab up to Karachi. Neither Wombat nor anyone else has sufficient fuel data about those legs to determine anything about performance. Of course, we have extensive information about the Oakland/Hawaii leg of the first attempt and it has been beaten to death. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:53:36 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: How many TIGHARS does it take to calculate the winds aloft? There have been at least three recent postings stating that once groundspeed is known "a headwind computation is simple math." Since I must have missed that day in flight school, I propose a contest, with a $100 prize (which I shall pay) to the forum member who correctly calculates the wind component in the following case: The airplane is the HYPO-2, which is painted red and white, and has the following performance at cruising altitude: 175 mph at 15 gph 170 mph at 12.5 gph 160 mph at 10 gph 150 mph at 8 gph 140 mph at 7 gph The HYPO-2 is at cruising altitude at 0000 hours over Point A, with 70 gallons of usable fuel on board. At 0500 hours (5 hours later) it is at cruising altitude over Point B. There has been no climb, descent or deviation en route. Point A is 750 miles from Point B. What are the winds aloft? Oscar Boswell **************************************************************************** From Ric I think your hundred bucks is pretty safe but I don't see the relevance to the question at hand. In Earhart's case we know that she had power/fuel recommendations that called for a constant airspeed. Given a known airspeed, a known distance, and a known elapsed time - the average wind is, indeed, simple arithmetic. Of course, any such calculation relies upon several assumptions: - that she followed the recommendations - that she stayed pretty much on course - that her apparent close approach to her intended diestination is not an illusion. If any of those assumptions is not valid, all bets are off. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:19:24 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued For Alan Caldwell: Actually, Alan, I don't think it's irrational to pose the prospect that AE may have run out of gas within a short time of her last broadcast. the reason is that we do not know how she managed her fuel or what external factors may have impacted her fuel consumption, irrespective of the plane's capabilities. Ric does point out, however, the inherent difficulty of testing such a hypothesis. While certainly difficult, apparently Elgen Long and Nauticos is, in fact, endeavoring to test the hypothesis. Whther they are succesful remains to be seen. The same is, of course, true for testing TIGHAR's hypothesis. **************************************************************************** From Ric Which was her "last broadcast"? The one heard by Itasca at 20:13 GMT (08:43 Itasca time) on July 2nd -"We are on the line 157 337...." Or the one at 05:30 GMT on July 3rd (17:00 Itasca time on July 2nd) - "We hear her on 3105 Kcs now, very weak and unreadable/fone." Or the one heard by the guys on Baker at 06:50 GMT on July 3rd (21:20 Itasca time on July 2nd) - "Baker heard Earhart plane strength 4 R7 ('good strong signals')..." All of the above are from the Itasca radio log. Which do you want to throw out, and why? Let's be clear that the hypothesis that Nauticos is testing is NOT that she ran out of gas shortly after her 20:13 transmission. They are testing the hypothesis that she ran out of gas at that moment AND that it is possible to know almost precisely where she was at that moment. I'd rather look on Niku. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:27:57 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: To ditch or not to ditch Alan said: ...'What they did then IS speculation but we want to think we're making educated guesses. Considering there were no airfields then to use as an alternate we're left with ditching or landing on some land somewhere. Of those choices ditching just doesn't sound like a reasonable choice. (Anyone with a good reason to pick ditching?) If they decide to find land why would they not opt for the closest land? (Anyone?) The Phoenix group was the closest AND FN would have an easier and more precise navigation problem as the sun would give him course lines. Going back to the Gilberts was a much longer flight and the sun would only give FN speed lines. I don't think going in the direction of the Marshalls was an option. Too far and Japanese controlled. Even without any evidence, however weak or strong found on Niku, the Phoenix Islands still make the best sense.'... ********************************************** While I can't fault Alan's logic in the choice of the Phoenix Islands as AE/FN's alternate landfall, after they finally decided that they aren't going to find Howland or Baker, I would point out that there also had to be several large question marks in their minds about such an alternate choice: 1- While they (FN more than likely) no doubt knew that the Phoenix Chain was at best, sparsely populated, with no readily available fresh water sources, far removed from any shipping lanes, with no way of knowing for sure whether the reefs or beaches surrounding any of these islands would support a wheels-down landing of the Electra, they would also have to face the fact they were very ill prepared for any extended stay (beyond a week or ten days at most) on any island that was _not_ populated & had no fresh water supply. 2- Without having established any reliable two-way radio communication with Itasca, (while still in the vicinity of Howland) their only (known to them at that time) source of rescue would now be over 300 miles to the NW, with no knowledge (since none of the transmissions received from AE/FN by Itasca contained any clue as to their intentions, if they were unable to find their Howland landfall) of the fact that AE/FN had decided to opt for their alternate landfall in the Phoenix Chain, would certainly make their chances for being rescued rather bleak. (Unless of course, they could count upon Capt. Thompson to be as perceptive as we are, in anticipating that the Phoenix Chain was the _only_ logical choice AE/FN would make in establishing alternate landfall.) Ditching would obviously seem to be the least desirable method of terminating the flight, unless (like Rickenbacker's flight) they exhausted all their fuel supply in what was proving to be a futile effort to locate Howland Island. First of all, I don't believe _any_ ocean ditching is without significant risk (we only have records of the ones that succeeded, not the ones that failed) & even if successful & they survived in their rubber raft, Itasca still would have had no idea exactly where they splashed (no SOS transmission ever received) & the possibility of finding them (without some type of radio signal or beacon to locate them) was minimal to nil, given the vastness of the Central Pacific Ocean. (Even in Rickenbacker's case, with that part of the Pacific much more traveled in the 1940's than 1937, it took the Navy almost a month to finally locate & rescue Eddie & his crew, with a great deal of luck.) As has been suggested before, it is almost impossble for us to fully investigate &/or anticipate the mental processes of two people in the positions of AE & FN, given _all_ the circumstances & dire conseqences they were momentarily confronted with. Desperate people, in desperate circumstances, no matter how well trained or informed, do not _always_ have/take the time to mentally evaluate or even consider _all_ the options that may seem to so readily obvious to ourselves (after many years of research, study & contemplation) some 60+ years after the fact. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll say one more time that I don't think there was ever a conscious decision to abandon the search for Howland and proceed to an alternate, and I know of no evidence to suggest that AE and FN had the foggiest notion of whether anyone lived on any of those islands to the southeast. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:43:18 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Message sequence To Alan Caldwell, It appears that our computers have the same problem. The top of the e-mail message list is the most recent and the bottom of the list contains the older (earlier) messages. I often read the reply before I get to the original question. I guess we need to start reading our e-mail from the bottom of the list first. I suspect many members of the Forum have the same problem. Regardless of all this, I still find your April 5th message to be the best response to the wild speculations by some and run out of gas believers. I really hope they will all think about the logic of what you stated. And, yes, we have been over all this time and time again. It is probably time to move on. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:44:56 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Airplane don't make flights, people make flights >From Dick Pingrey > > My message that started with, "Frankly, I don't buy your argument in > the least." was in reply to Oscar Boswell's statement that the performance of > the 10E is a matter of speculation or assumption rather than of fact. How > the airplane was operated is a matter of speculation but the performance > capability of the airplane is fact, at least in my opinion. I suppose (though doubts are creeping in) that Dick's inability to understand the point is my fault. The point is: there is no "performance capability" of the airplane to make a flight IN THE ABSTRACT divorced from winds, cruising speeds and techniques, fuel on board, course, etc. Dick is the one who started this whole discussion (which I have tried to end numerous times) by insisting that we COULD NOT KNOW how the plane was flown (ie, at what speeds, etc.) or what the winds were. Dick called assumptions(with which he didn't agree) about such things "speculation". Dick's assumptions (which I take to be that the KJ settings were used and that headwinds were 15 mph or less) are certainly reasonable, and I share them (most days) - but if we cannot know (as DICK INSISTED) they are nothing other than speculation (albeit informed speculation), and not "facts." Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:52:35 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: LOGICAL FLIGHT PLANNING >Does anyone think AE and FN were so stupid and incompetent that at the half >way point they would have pressed on instead of turning back in the face of a >suicidal mission? *** I submit that the record, well before AE and well after, is full of high risk flights made by those wanting to what no one had done before. Amazingly, some were successful, but many more were not. I doubt very much that there is any amongst us that would even dream of duplicating AE's flight with the same equipment, knowledge of it, and conditions. They were not stupid but there is certainly an argument on compentency with equipment and coordination with those intending to be of help along the way. Most record setters are risk takers and their 'logic' differs a bit from ours. RC 942 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:55:19 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: What is the Relevance of the Headwind Contest? >From Ric > > I think your hundred bucks is pretty safe but I don't see the relevance to > the question at hand. In Earhart's case we know that she had power/fuel > recommendations that called for a constant airspeed. Given a known airspeed, > a known distance, and a known elapsed time - the average wind is, indeed, > simple arithmetic. > > Of course, any such calculation relies upon several assumptions: > - that she followed the recommendations > - that she stayed pretty much on course > - that her apparent close approach to her intended diestination is not an > illusion. > > If any of those assumptions is not valid, all bets are off. Yes of course - but you rather spoiled the fun! And of course, I think (hope) this has a serious side too - there is no harm in encouraging a little more thinking prior to talking. And that is the relevance of the contest to the discussion, because you can't have one rule of logic for "relevant" discussions, and another rule of (il)logic (or partial logic) for those deemed "irrelevant" - not if you expect to think clearly. And perhaps the Socratic method makes the non sequitur a little easier to see. There are a lot of people on the forum who don't realize that all our information has many limitations, that we all speculate (and more power to us!) and that tiresomely repeating that someone else's assumptions are irrational is not the way either to make friends or learn anything from others. Given your assumptions about wind and TAS, you are correct. But other assumptions are possible. If the winds averaged 10 mph more than you estimate and if the 10E POH gave the (bad) headwind advice that E.Long says it did, and if AE (or FN) read the POH and tried the technique of increasing TAS from 150 to 160.5 they would have been in even more trouble than Mr. Long thinks. The 10E cruise chart shows that at 1000 feet and normal gross, the 200 hp cruise of the 10E is 151 and it takes 250 hp to hold 162. That is a 25% increase in fuel consumption (not 8 1/2%) - and a 25% increase in fuel consumption means, of course, that endurance would be reduced by 20% - from an anticipated 24 hours + to perhaps 19+15. Take our estimate with the usual grain of salt, and assume that the increased power/speed technique was not applied in the first few hours, and you might very well get fuel exhaustion around 20+15, without any other factors.(And the groundspeed would be the same as your estimate, since both speed and headwinds were 10-11 mph higher.) That's why I would like to see the POH. Presumably AE had access to it (though it's speculative to think she read it) - what did it say about the subject of headwinds, and could that have affected the outcome? According to some recent postings, a blowup of the relevant page of the POH was exhibited at Long et al's recent conference. I certainly wish we had a copy. This is not (to me) an argument about where they ended up. It doesn't matter to me where they ended up. What does matter to me that we think as clearly as possible and get as close as we can to the truth of the matter with regard to anything involved in the discussion. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:05:54 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: To Ditch or not to Ditch Ric said, "I don't think there was ever a conscious decision to abandon the search for Howland" Since there is no evidence a plan "B" was ever in effect are we to assume they BLUNDERED onto Niku? Forget that Putnam and several other people in the know mentioned Gardner as a likely place for the duo to land. *************************************************************************** From Ric I guess this is just a really, really difficult concept for many people to grasp. Let me try one more time. - they reach the advanced LOP and can not see Howland. Damn! - they believe that Howland is somewhere on the advanced LOP but, without help from DF, they have no way of knowing for sure which way to turn - left to 337 or right to 157. - they DO know, however, that by running southeastward (157) on the line they stand the best chance of reaching land. They hope it will be Howland but, if it turns out that they're already southeast of Howland, at least it will be land of some kind. - at no point, until very late in the game, do they know that the land that they hope will appear ahead will not be Howland and at no point do they stop looking for Howland to look for some other island. - they don't "blunder" into Gardner. They're merely following a course of action that stands the best chance of getting them to an island. They know it could be Gardner but they're hoping for Howland. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:49:21 EDT From: Ric Subject: Shoe Fetish Part 2 now up From Part 2 of the "Shoe Fetish" Research Bulletin is now up at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/31_ShoeFetish2.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:52:45 EDT From: Ric Subject: Bones on the beach You never know what you're going to find among the stuff we already have. As Pat was slogging through Randy Jacobson's voluminous contributions to the 8th Edition, editing and adding photos and maps, etc. she came across the description of a visit Itasca paid to Hull Island in November of 1937. The following passage is from the Cruise Report written by the Dept. of Interior representative aboard Itasca: "Mr. Jones told us of the wreck of the Norwich City on Gardner Island. She struck in 1919, and the Makoa saw her recently and stated there was much good material aboard her such as anchors, winches, etc. The bodies of nine men lost in the wreck, drowned or killed by sharks (he said) were buried ashore, but wild pigs dug them up and their skeletons now lie on the beach. The survivors were taken off the island. "Mr. Jones" is John William Jones, the Burns Philp overseer on Hull. "Makoa" is Jonesy's boat which was wrecked upon his arrival on Hull in May of 1937, so anything she "saw" (note that Jones does not say that he personally saw all this) must have been prior to that date. He has the name of the Norwich City correct, adding further credence to the notion that her name was still visible, but he has the wreck date and the number of casualties wrong. NC went aground in 1929 with the loss of eleven men. Only three washed up and were buried, leaving eight unaccounted for. Whoever saw the bones scattered on the beach apparently did not bury or re-bury them because Jones says that "their skeletons now lie on the beach." Any bones "Makoa" saw at Gardner prior to May 1937 can not have been Noonan's or Earhart's, and are certainly most logically those of Norwich City victims. If there were more than the remains of the three who were buried they must be the bodies of men who drowned and later floated up and were washed ashore - not hard to believe. It is, however, hard to believe that there were wild pigs on the island that somehow escaped the notice of everybody who came later. We now have, from the archive in Tarawa, a list of supplies Arundel brought to the island to support his workers in 1892 and there ain't no pigs. This account in the Itasca Cruise Report provides important corroboration of Emily's recollections about numerous bones being found near the shipwreck. It does not, of course, establish the accuracy of her account of other bones being found that were associated with the airplane wreckage she says was there, but it's nice to see that this part of her story is true. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:01:28 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued Ric, referring to "the last message" you stated: " . . . . the one at 05:30 GMT on July 3rd (17:00 Itasca time on July 2nd) - 'We hear her on 3105 Kcs now, very weak and unreadable/fone.'? Or the one heard by the guys on Baker at 06:50 GMT on July 3rd (21:20 Itasca time on July 2nd) - 'Baker heard Earhart plane strength 4 R7 ('good strong signals')...' All of the above are from the Itasca radio log." Fair enough, if accurate, and rather startling news to surface at this late date! However, I don't find the references in the ITASCA logs (1 or 2) nor in the Howland log, nor in Thompson's report. . Please advise . . . . Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric The discovery of these messages (although they've always been there) was a direct result of my analysis of all alleged post-loss messages which was, in turn, prompted by the discovery of Betty's notebook. Both messages are in the "smoothed" Itasca logs in the National Archives and are from later in the day than Bellart's raw copy, which ends at 10:39 Itasca time, and O'Hare's smoothed copy ends at 10:53. Thompson's report doesn't mention it at all. There is, of course, more to the story and it's not as simple or conclusive as it might at first seem. Here's a plain Engish version of the entire sequence of messages that began at 17:00 Itasca time the evening of July 2nd. "We hear her on 3105 now. Very weak and unreadable phone." "Calling her on 3105 phone. VTY (?) bad. 'If you hear us please give us series of long dashes. Go ahead please.' Sent her long call on 7500 Kcs and said, 'Give us your position. Go ahead please.' " "Gave her long call on key 3105 and asked for same." "Signals on and off. Think it is plane ?? Unreadable." "Word 'Earhart' mentioned." "Calling her on phone and key." "He answers us now." "Still distorted and unreadable. Back at him on key now." "Guess it isn't her now." They go back and forth for a while and the operator eventually decides "Phone signals definitely not Earhart." Was he right or did he end up exchanging signals with someone else who heard the same initial call he did? HMS Achilles, steaming northward several hundred miles east of the Phoenix Group. later reports hearing the following during this same time period: "At 0600 on July 3 GMT a phone transmitter with harsh note was heard to say, ' Please give us a few dashes if you get us. A second transmitter was then heard to make dashes with note musical strength good. First transmitter was then heard to make KHAQQ twice before fading out. The evidence exists that either (one or the other)transmitter was the airplane itself. Wave frequecy was 3105 Kcs. Commanding Officer HMS Achilles." It seems quite apparent that Achilles overheard the exchange between Itasca and the "mystery station" that the Itasca operator at first was sure was Earhart. Did the Achilles operator send the signals that later caused him to change his mind? Who was the third station? The report that the Dept. of Interior hams on Baker "heard Earhart plane strength 4 R7 ('good strong signals')" later that night is much more straightforward. It's in the smoothed Itasca radio log, entry for 22:16 Itasca time on July 4th. Here's the entire exchange: "K6GNW (ham operator on Howland) this is Itasca. ...Do you hear anyone on 3105 now?" "Itasca this is K6GNW. Yes, at 22:46 (which would be 21:46 aboard Itasca. In other words, a half hour ago) heard Earhart call Itasca and Baker heard Earhart plane Strength 4 Readability 7 last night at 8:20 p.m." Yes, these messages are "rather startling." Almost as startling as the fact that it has taken this long for somebody to pay attention them. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:31:08 EDT From: Bill Carter Subject: Navy Ric - This topic may have been covered before so let me know if I'm beating a dead horse. How comfortable are you with the accuracy/completeness of the Itasca logs? I wouldn't think that the Navy would be particularly cooperative with anyone who is attempting to show AE made landfall - especially on an island that the Navy conducted a so called "searched" of. I think it would be more accurate to say the Navy flew over, didn't see anything and left. TIGHAR'S well reasoned hypothesis, if true, would suggest that the Navy dropped the ball. LTM Bill Carter #2313 ************************************************************************** From Ric Remember that the logs are Coast Guard, not Navy. I'm very comfortable with Bellart's original log - less so with O'Hare's smoothed log - and I'm not at all comfortable with Thompson's "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight." After the search failed there was an understandable, but most regretable, effort to build a case that the flight went down at sea and the searchers, therefore, never had a chance of finding it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:39:14 EDT From: Dan Brown Subject: estimating shoe size How does AE's shoe size estimated from her handprint http://www.americaslibrary.gov/pages/aa_earhart_last_2_e.html compare to the estimate based on her height? Dan Brown *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a really interesting handprint, but with no scale it's not very useful. If the original is available, (which I assume it is, somewhere) it might be interesting to see if there are some standard correlation's between hand and foot size and height. I see that it was taken by a "palmist". AE was into a lot of that garbage. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:43:11 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Message sequence > I really hope they will all think about the logic of what you stated. And, > yes, we have been over all this time and time again. It is probably time to > move on. Dick, I think part of the problem is lack of flying experience for some. It's easy to understand what we might think of as logical choices when those kind of situations have either been faced or at least planned for a hundred times. Maybe AE was not as logical as we would like her to be and she elected to do something we might think of as illogical. That's certainly a possibility but there is no evidence that occurred. There IS some evidence for Niku however supportable it might be. Of all the possibilities I think I would go with searching Niku rather than some totally unknown place. The latter would not be feasible. Should there be a determination that AE could not have gone to Niku where would one search next and based on what evidence? It seems to me there is an effort by a few to oppose the Niku theory with no basis to do so. It may prove wrong but what evidence leads somewhere else? I don't know where they went but if someone can present a reason to look elsewhere that would be fine but I know of no such reason. I think most folks believe gas over Howland was not a luxury. AE said it was low. Most of our attempts at refiguring the fuel indicate they weren't fat on gas. I don't know how much gas they had at the time of the last message but I think they had enough to get to Niku but not anywhere else. Most seem to think they didn't even have that much. Yet there are periodic suggestions they might have gone to some island where there were inhabitants, nearby shipping lanes and food and water. I don't know where that would be. Good idea though. Another thought might be to ditch where they thought they might be close to Howland and thus be picked up sooner. As a pilot I have never planned on ditching as opposed to wheels up or down on land or a few back strokes from it. In this case I would not have considered it for any reason I can think of. I would much rather take my chances on finding or collecting water, finding something edible and at least being at a charted position as opposed to some unknown spot in the ocean. AE may not have thought that way. She might have decided close to Howland somewhere in the water might give her a better chance of being found than 349 miles to the SE, if they could survive the crash. The odds on a successful ditching in a 10E have to be far less than wheels up or down on a beach. Searching Niku at least is possible. Searching some unknown place in and depth of the South Pacific is not. Only Elgin thinks so. Nauticos will sell the adventure, successful or not, and make money. They don't even need to care where they search. Now our ditching advocates may say they are just pointing out Niku is not the only possibility. Well, no one has suggested differently but what value is there to suggesting they ditched? If they did we can all turn our thoughts to some other quest unless someone can suggest where to look and provide some basis for their area of choice. At last radio call where were they? What heading were they on? How far did they get? Does that not make a very large ocean? Or do they think Elgin has some secret information allowing him to pinpoint the plane's resting place? If so what do you suppose it possibly could be? AH HA, they fed all the data into a computer and IT figured out a possible area -- all without knowing where the plane ever was after it left Lae, what the actual winds were, where in the vicinity of Howland they were, where they went or how far. Suggesting they might have ditched is a possibility but not a helpful one. It presents no useful information unless someone can tell me where to look and support the basis. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:44:35 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued > From Chris Kennedy > > the performance of the Electra. I believe "Wombat" computed that fuel usage > per hour was working out fairly close to the Kelly calculations, at least on > the trip legs where this could be reliably calculated from surviving data. Wombat was trying to find average figures based on a couple od assumptions, one of them being that pilots always "top off" fuel tanks in use at any refuelling therefore the surviving receipts are for actual amounts put into the airplane. This seems sensible because we know some of the quantities used were not "whole drum" amounts. Unfortunately that only gave me a miles per gallon figure for those trips because, for the life of me I can't find the times in the air. I have met reports, but as any pilot knows, what they say and what the weather does are not always the same thing. So it didn't work - yet. Now if I can somehow get to chat with Lovely Linda (Finch)....... Th' Wombat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:47:29 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued David Katz wrote: > Actually, Alan, I don't think it's irrational to pose the prospect that AE > may have run out of gas within a short time of her last broadcast. the > reason is that we do not know how she managed her fuel or what external > factors may have impacted her fuel consumption, irrespective of the plane's > capabilities. You make an interesting point, David, and we both played straight man for Ric, allowing him the opportunity to remind us there were a number of radio reports AFTER the one we usually refer to as the last one. One of the things I like to see is the whole picture kept before us. Everyone keeps trying to narrow it down and to do that we have to start discarding elements of the mystery. Agreed the reports Ric wrote of have not been proven to be genuine but neither have they been proven otherwise. And until then they must be of consideration. We know, for example, the 30 minutes of gas left was not accurate if said at all because she was still airborne an hour later yet some still hang on those words. THAT is irrational. You repeated a comment I've seen often but I don't know what it means. You said, "the reason is that we do not know how she managed her fuel or what external factors may have impacted her fuel consumption..." I think we should be more demanding of those who make such statements. What external factors might have impacted her fuel consumption? No, not adverse head winds. We already know what the head wind/airspeed combination was and it was similar to preflight prediction. Maybe an aircraft malfunction? It would have to be of long duration to have such an adverse affect that they would have not continued the mission is my guess. She reported no aircraft problems. What else could there be in the way of external factors? What other way could she have managed her fuel other than what was planned? Why would she have done that? And if it had a detrimental affect on fuel consumption why would she have continued to do that for so long as to drain her reserves? When we read statements like these we need to question them. They need some degree of rationality. I don't see that in these two statements. AE had expert advice on fuel management that was designed to produce the most efficient flight. Suggest why she would have abandoned that procedure and chosen a less efficient plan. Suggest why she didn't report a serious aircraft malfunction if indeed she had one? Suggest what "external factors" means. I'm not trying to be dogmatic or discourage opinions but it would be nice if they were thought out a bit more thoroughly. Maybe AE DID change her fuel plan but we need to suggest a reasonable answer and maybe there WERE external factors but they need to be articulated. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:49:10 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Facts vs Speculation, one more time. To Oscar, Okay, lets try another approach. When talking about performance we do make the assumption that to get the performance values stated in the manufacturer's manuals we will need to operate the airplane in accordance with those stated procedures. Whether AE did or did not operate by the manufactrer's (or Kelly Johnson's) procedures or not is unknown, but if the manufacturer's proceures are followed the performance of an airplane is documented accurate data that can be counted on as being factual. Once the airplane is off the ground there is no wind, as far as the airplane is concerned. The airplane is flying in a mass of air that could be stationary of moving in any direction and it make no difference to the performance of the airplane. Winds will determine progress over the surface but the dumb airplane doesn't care about that in the least. The airplane simply performs to specifications burning fuel and developing thrust which equates into airspeed (not groundspeed). The airplane could be flown into a 50 mph headwing or a 50 mph tailwind and the performance, in the air, is exactly the same as long as the power settings are not changed. It will run out of fuel at the same time regardless of the wind direction and it has nothing to do with the distance covered. By the way this is a concept that most non-pilots and many beginning pilots fail to understand. Oscar, I doubt if you really understand what I am saying any more then you feel I fail to understand the basis of your statements. That is probably how it will end. My primary point, in all this was and still is, that we can not use multiple asumptions to form a reasonable conclusion as to what did or did not happen to AE and FN. We can speculate based on these assumptions but that is war it really A variable in any one assumptions nearly always changes all the rest of the asumptions making the conclusions very suspect. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:52:48 EDT From: Greg Rudzinski Subject: $100 problem To Oscar Boswell The best I could do with your winds aloft problem was a minimum of 23mph for a head wind if all 70 gallons of usable fuel are to be combusted. Any change in course will result in increased winds aloft vectoring to point B. Flying into a 346mph tailwind (an oxymoron in this problem) would be the most extreme possibility. ************************************************************************** From Ric How do you fly into a tailwind? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:31:42 EDT From: Greg R. Subject: Ludolph Sextant Box Regarding FN,s Ludolph sextant #1090 that is located at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola. There may be additional markings on the outside surface of this box which were caused by the bruising of the wood through paper when using the box as a makeshift desktop. The inside should be checked for bruising also. This could lead to the place where he procured the sextant. **************************************************************************** From Ric How would it help us to know where Fred procured that sextant? Besides, the box containing the sextant is clearly not the box it came in (as can be seen in the photos on the website). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:36:20 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued For Alan, You, too, make an interesting point: <> If by suggesting that we played "straight man" for Ric, you mean to imply that Ric is a comedian, perhaps so (grin ... sorry, I couldn't resist). But I also agree with the following statement you made: <> That AE may have splashed into the sea has also not been proven genuine, nor has it been proven otherwise either. Hmm... My point is merely that it is not irrational to suggest an alternate plausible theory. Merely because we have no reason to think that AE did not follow Kelley's suggestions (however rational or irrational such a decision may be), we have no way of knowing exactly what she did. Many others have pointed out that we do not know how someone may react in extremis. The TIGHAR theory is plausible, but not proven. The splashed & sank theory is plausible but not proven. As of this moment, neither the Niku theory nor the splashed & sank theory can be disproven. Both, however can be tested, and they are being tested: by TIGHAR on the one hand and by Elgen Long and Nauticos on the other. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Small but perhaps significant correction: TIGHAR is testing the Niku hypothesis. Nauticos is TALKING about testing a very specific version of the crashed-and-sank hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:38:56 EDT From: Greg Rudzinski Subject: Re: $100 problem > To Oscar Boswell > > The best I could do with your winds aloft problem > was a minimum of 23mph for a head wind if all 70 > gallons of usable fuel are to be combusted. Any change > in course will result in increased winds aloft > vectoring to point B. Flying into a 346mph tailwind > (an oxymoron in this problem) would be the most > extreme possibility. > ************************************************************************** > From Ric > > How do you fly into a tailwind? ******************************************************* From Greg R, It would be a tailwind relative to the direction of the speed made good. A head wind relative to just the plane and the wind.( I made an error- It's 323mph not 346mph.) An absurd circumstance for a plane but not for a blimp. ****************************************************************** From Ric Does anyone have any idea what he's talking about? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:40:44 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Shoe Fetish Part 2 now up The analysis of the shoe issue on the TIGHAR web site is very interesting (and well reasoned). Near the end, it was noted: "But here's the problem: if the photogrammetric measurements are correct, how could a 254mm dress shoe that hurt Earhart's feet be over a centimeter larger than a 243mm "working" shoe she wore with socks?" That question is not hard to answer. They were possibly too narrow. It is unlikely that someone would deliberately purchase shoes that are one or two sizes two small. However, as many people can attest, one often purchases a pair of shoes that feel comfortable in the store when trying them on, but, after wearing them for awhile, prove to be uncomfortable. Not only have I had this experience, but my wife and kids have, too. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. That's a possible answer. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:45:51 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued I was aware of this message from Baker a long time ago, and why I interviewed the radio operator on Baker in Honolulu a few years back. Unfortunately, he had no recollection, and thought AE had arrived at Howland at night, but was shot down by Japanese. His memory had obviously been corrupted. ************************************************************************** From Ric I thought you interviewed Yau Fai Lum (K6GNW), the ham on Howland. In a 1988 letter to Tom Gannon he denied ever having heard Earhart, directly contradicting the entry in the Itasca radio log. Do we even know who the ham on Baker was? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:07:48 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued > "At 0600 on July 3 GMT a phone transmitter with harsh note was heard to say, > ' Please give us a few dashes if you get us.>> This is probably a very, very minor point, but it does strike me that it might be a bit unusual that whoever was heard was using the term "us" rather than "me", given that there were of course two in their predicament if they were on land and that Earhart had used "we" in earlier transmissions (eg "we must be on you"). I have an idea that maritime radio officers - a likely source of the transmission if it wasn't AE - with their distinct role, think in terms of "I" and "me". The communications officers at a British mission in Africa to which I was attached in the 80s, all former merchant marine officers, always used "I" and "me" when taking about making contact with London, as it was a one-to-one contact on behalf of bigger groups of people at either end. LTM Phil 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric Achilles heard two stations. The first one (let's call it Station One) said, "Please give us a few dashes if you get us." The other one (let's call it Station Two) then replied with dashes. The Itasca log says that the Itasca radio operator sent "If you hear us please give us series of long dashes. Go ahead please." Apparently in reply, Itasca heard, "Signals on and off." It seems pretty clear (to me anyway) that Station One was Itasca calling Earhart. The question is, who was Station Two if not Earhart? Itasca's request for dashes was sent very specifically to Earhart. Someone else replying with dashes would almost have to be deliberately perpetrating a hoax, but this happens very early in the game - the evening of the same day she disappeared. If it's a hoaxer, where is he? Nobody in Hawaii or California hears dashes at this time. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:24:35 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: HMS Achilles Ric wrote: "H.M.S. Achilles, steaming northward several hundred miles east of the Phoenix Group, later reports hearing the following during this same time period...." I'm not familiar with the type of ship sailing under the name of H.M.S. Achilles at that time. Therefore, I assume she was a British warship. If she was a warship, I also assume she had a max speed of over 15 knots. If H.M.S. Achilles had been requested to assist in the search, one would think she might have been on scene in less than 24 hours. The fact that the H.M.S. Achilles was in the general vicinity of Howland and Gardner, provokes me to ask if other ships or search assets were in the area at the time of Earhart's disappearance? If so, did they participate in the search for Earhart? If other search assets were in the area, why weren't they utilized? If the British provided no assistance in the search, do we know why? LTM, (who always likes to know who or what is lurking over the horizon) Roger Kelley *************************************************************************** From Ric Ah - a very touchy subject. HMS Achilles was a light cruiser. With her sister ship, HMS Ajax, she would win fame early in WWII by bottling up the German "pocket battleship" Graf Spee in the harbor at Montevideo where it was ultimately scuttled. Achilles was plenty fast and she carried a Supermarine Walrus seaplane on her afterdeck. Had she been asked, she could have had eyes over the islands of the Phoenix Group the next day. Why wasn't she asked? Nobody knows, but it's not hard to guess. Just a month before, there had been a diplomatic incident at Canton Island between HMS Wellington (another cruiser) and the American seaplane tender USS Avocet. Both nations claimed ownership of the Phoenix Group and the two warships had unexpectedly met at Canton, each supporting a scientific expedition to view the solar eclipse on June 8, 1937. There had been some ludicrous performances on the island involving flags and some pretty tense diplomatic exchanges between Washington and Whitehall. Perhaps, in the wake of all that, the Americans were not about to ask a British ship to conduct a search in that same island group. In any event, no request was made. Instead, one of the new PBYs was dispatched from Fleet Air Base, Pearl Harbor and the battleship USS Colorado was commandeered to head south and conduct the search. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:30:18 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: DITCHING The current conventional wisdom seems to believe ditching was a selectable option. I, for one, have never believed that. In WW2 I saw more than one plane intentionally ditch next to the carrier - or another ship - when battle damage precluded setting down on the carrier's deck. Maybe "ditching" is the wrong word to apply in the Earhart case, and we should say "forced landing" (due to fuel exhaustion or engine failure). I'm sure we all agree Amelia would want to keep flying as long as she could. Caldwell, and others, seem quite sure the Electra made it to dry land, because it's easier to search there. But the odds are vastly in favor of a "lost at sea" even if I can't tell you where. And don't sell Elgen (nor his associates) short. There have been some incredible deep sea recoveries in recent times. (Read "Blind Man's Bluff" for the details). To paraphrase Sir Edmund Hillary, TIGHAR wants to search Niku (again!) "because it's there". (And I mean the island, not the Electra). Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Let's be clear about this. TIGHAR will search Niku (again!) because somebody died on that island who just may have been Amelia Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:36:20 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: DITCHING, part 2 Why is catastrophic engine failure such an outlandish possibility? None of the pilots on the Forum seem to have considered it - in fact, such a suggestion has been scoffed at. Aircraft engines run like sewing machines and failures are extremely rare. But they do happen. I know an accomplished pilot of a well maintained single- engine plane that suffered a collapsed piston (as I recall) while flying over eastern Nevada. Happily, he was able to set it down on the Interstate without damage to the airframe, but it was a white knuckle experience. I lost another friend in Africa when the single engine plane (with a very experienced pilot) in which he was flying crashed on take off, due to contaminated fuel. True, Earhart had twin engines, but the propellors were not featherable. If an engine blew suddenly, she would have had her hands full getting it down on the water. Certainly no time to send a Mayday. And it could have happened within moments of her "last message" ("switching to 6210"). It can't be proved that this happened, of course, but it certainly is a viable conclusion, not to be ignored.. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't recall anyone dismissing the possibility of catastrophic engine failure. Heck, the Samoa Clipper blew up in mid-air the very next year. Stuff happens. As we've said a hundred times, there are many possible explanations for what might have happened. TIGHAR is merely investigating the one possibility for which there are actual clues suggesting that it DID happen. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:43:35 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Human Factors From Ric ...'I'll say one more time that I don't think there was ever a conscious decision to abandon the search for Howland and proceed to an alternate, and I know of no evidence to suggest that AE and FN had the foggiest notion of whether anyone lived on any of those islands to the southeast'.. ******************************************** Wouldn't they necessarily have to make a 'conscious' decision to fly to an alternate landfall in the Phoenix Chain, at some point in time, if only because it would be critical for them to properly manage their remaining fuel supply, in order to assure that they'd have at least sufficient fuel left to reach that destination, especially _if_ they did spend any appreciable time flying...'North & South'... on the LOP ? You're right, we have no way of knowing for sure whether AE/FN had any prior knowledge about the Phoenix Chain, however I seem to recall reading somewhere that PAA did make flights (eventually) to Samoa, so I don't think it would be unusual to presume that PAA's former navigator-in-chief would not have made some effort during his years with PAA to familiarize himself, to some extent, with the many island groups comprising that sector of the Pacific. My main point in my April 6th post, was the last paragraph, wherein I restated an often discussed factor, perhaps the single most important & largely unknown & unknowable factor, in analyzing the final hours of this flight... that being the human factor. We can never really measure the effect that 24 hours aloft, in a cramped, noisy, fume filled cockpit & cabin, presumably without sleep, (unless AE took a 'snooze' while the auto pilot was engaged) over 2,000+ miles of trackless ocean, may have had upon the crew's mental processes. More & more I'm inclined to believe that the 'fatigue' factor, generated by the above mentioned circumstances, played a much larger part in how this flight terminated than any problems with the radio/DF equipment, fuel, navigational or other aircraft problems they encountered when they reached the vicinity of Howland. In following the prior course of the flight, especially the many postings AE provided for publication, it seems there were many other problems encountered during the flight, some more challenging than others, (failing to make the designated landfall on the African coast, flying & navigating through the severe monsoon storms over the subcontinent...problems with the fuel analyzer...) yet in each of these other instances they always seemed (mostly) to recognize, promptly & properly analyze the problem before them & successfully resolve such problems without any un-necessary confusion or delay. If they were as tired, weary & mentally exhausted by this leg of the flight, as one might expect them to be, now faced with what was momentarily becoming a matter of survival, it would seem to me that we simply can't assume that they were making all these critical decisions on the basis of _our_ assessment as to what exactly should have appeared obvious, reasonable or logical, to _them_ under those circumstances. The very brevity & lack of any really useful information (to Itasca) with no seeming sense of full appreciation for the gravity of their situation (except of course the several, subjective opinions rendered by the hearers of the broadcasts, as to the anxiety/hysteria detected in AE's voice) in all of the transmissions received would, seem to suggest that the crew of the Electra was not functioning at the top-of-their-game . Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric You can't make a concious decision to go someplace if you don't know where you are. It may be that, at some point, they were able to determine that they were too far south of Howland to make it back, but it's pointless to speculate. Neither Earhart nor Noonan was any stranger to very long flights. Fatique undoubtedly played a some role in the accident but I'm not ready to say that it was the single most important factor. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:49:29 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Handprint In reference to Dan Brown's post of a URL for a hand print, A closer look at the top of the handprint shows a handwritten notation of five and a half, presumably inches. It appears to relate to the horizonal dimension of the outstretched fingers. If the original is available at the Library of Congress, that can be checked. It may be that the measurement is only approximate. However, assuming that the digitizing is the same in vertical and horizonal directions, and assuming that the 5.5-inch scale is accurate it may be that some measurements can be extracted from the internet photo. What measurements are employed in the hand/foot comparison data? LTM John Pratt 2373 **************************************************************************** From Ric I have no idea whether hand/foot comparison data even exist. If we're going to pursue this we need to first determine if the data exist and how reliable they are. If it turns out that knowing the size of a person's hand let's you accurately determine the size of their feet, then it would probably be worthwhile tracking down the original handprint and taking some careful measurements. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:58:37 EDT From: Bob Sarnia Subject: Facts vs assumptions Just when I thought the subject had been laid to rest, up comes another spate of postings telling me where I'm going wrong. It's nice to know so many people are concerned about my edification. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people, all conversant in the English language, can present their views on the same subject on the same forum and come up with such diverse notions. However, nothing is more annoying than when people, many of whom are so-called experienced pilots, put words into your mouth, mainly to ridicule you because you're too dumb to follow their hypothesis. As Oscar Boswell said: "There are a lot of people on the forum who don't realize that all our information has many limitations, that we all speculate...and that tiresomely repeating that someone else's assumptions are irrational is not the way to make friends or learn anything from others." Well said!!! Some of these "pilots" try to lord it over those with little or no experience, belittling them and mocking their efforts. They present their opinions in a most arrogant way and in a condescending manner, as though their own view is gospel and doesn't need scrutiny. Now, these so-called experts are trying to drag those who seek more definitive information along paths that inevitably lead to the Gardner hypothesis. Are we all stupid, brainless and without an ounce of common sense, because that's the impression they are trying to portray? Ric says, "It amazes me that those who theorize that she ran out of gas say that they're trying to 'salvage her reputation.' " I don't ever remember saying that, and to set the record straight, let it be known that I have no axe to grind concerning the Earhart mystery. I am just interested in mysteries per se -- JonBenet Ramsey, Jack the Ripper, the Kennedy Assassination, The Beale Codes, etc., etc., etc. Also, "For her to have done what you and Elgen Long and others suggest would have been monumentally stupid and virtually suicidal." When did I suggest or even imply that AE and FN were stupid enough to have left Lae with just enough fuel to reach Howland? Further, "I see no evidence that they were as incompetent as you suggest." Again, I never suggested or even implied that AE and FN were incompetent; just the opposite, so please don't attribute to me words I never wrote or uttered. I wholeheartedly agree that AE should have had plenty of fuel left when she arrived in what she thought was the vicinity of Howland, but obviously she didn't, or else she wouldn't have radioed "gas is running low." As I said in my second recent posting, "if I was piloting a plane and my fuel gauges showed "near empty" -- FOR WHATEVER REASON -- I would want any message I sent to be very clear, unequivocal and unambiguous, rather than convey a message that might be wrongly construed." I don't know the reason why her gas was running out, nobody does, but it appears that those with "superior knowledge" pooh-pooh the idea and sagely opine, without any proof, that she had plenty of fuel left at 0742. Regardless, I am not trying to ram my opinion down anyone's throat; I am only presenting it to the forum for sober and meaningful discussion, without imposing any outlandish conditions. Oscar also said recently: "We all make the mistake from time to time of classifying our assumptions as 'facts' and those of other people as speculation." David Evans Katz said: "I don't think it's irrational to pose the prospect that AE may have run out of gas within a short time of her last broadcast. The reason is that we do not know how she managed her fuel or what external factors may have impacted her fuel consumption, irrespective of the plane's capabilities." The main point is this: we don't know and never will know how AE operated the plane; we don't know how she operated the throttles or at what rate she was using up her fuel; we don't know what headwinds she faced; we don't know what wind velocity prevailed regardless of predictions; or anything else, simply because we weren't there. All the ifs, ands and buts, including the shoulds and woulds, etc., etc., etc., are all speculation. No matter what settings Kelly Johnson gave AE, that doesn't necessarily mean that she followed his instructions. The specifications and capabilities of the Electra also mean nothing because, as David said, in part, "we don't know how she managed her fuel or what external factors may have impacted her fuel consumption." Subscribers have written: "Why did she change her radio frequencies? Why didn't she repeat her warnings about low fuel?" I could write a few thousand 'why' questions and a similar number of 'assumptive' answers, but it would be just a waste of time. Citing flights across the Atlantic or the Pacific are irrelevant. They're just comparisons. The subject here is one plane, one flight -- the Electra on July 2nd, 1937. Only one thing we know for sure -- her 0742 message -- "gas is running low." And, to me, if I understand English correctly, "gas is running low" doesn't mean "we've still got four hours remaining." That is what bugs me! Sorry about the length of this posting. Regards, Bob Sarnia. **************************************************************************** From Ric S'OK, We all need to vent one in a while, but you just don't seem to get it that a pilot in Earhart's situation could have four hours of fuel remaining and say "gas is running low." That's what all those arrogant pilots are trying to tell you. You're absolutely correct about all the things that we can't possibly know. Why, I wonder, can you not accept that what AE meant by "gas is running low" is one of them? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:06:22 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Boundary markers? With all the talk about settler lots and area 25, I got to wondering how the boundary markers were made? Any indications to that effect in the TRW Archives? Ever noticed anything on Niku? Some ways used by surveyors would be cairns, characteristic patterns of small mounds dug in the ground, blazings on tree trunks, iron pins... Hard to find after all these years, but I've come across some which are quite old! This line of inquiry could help pinpoint the bones location: the center of area 25 possibly... Cheers. Christian D **************************************************************************** From Ric The only kind of boundary markers we've been able to identify on Niku are coral slabs set edgewise in the ground. These are by no means universal and there are plenty of places where know land was divided up but where no markers are apparent. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:09:34 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Facts vs Speculation, one more time. >From Dick Pingrey > > I doubt if you really understand what I am saying any more then > you feel I fail to understand the basis of your statements. > My primary point, in all this was and still is, that we can > not use multiple asumptions to form a reasonable conclusion as to what did or > did not happen to AE and FN. We can speculate based on these assumptions but > that is war it really A variable in any one assumptions nearly always > changes all the rest of the asumptions making the conclusions very suspect. Dick, my point has always simply been that you fail to recognize YOUR OWN assumptions as assumptions, however easily you recognize assumptions made by other people. Just as a matter of curiosity, what speeds would Kelly Johnson's procedures have given in hour 15 of the flight from Lae? What about hour 3, hour 11, and hour 19? And who says so? Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:11:24 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Handprint It appears that the handprint should be available at the Library of Congress, reference URLs http://lcweb.loc.gov/cgi-bin/zclient?host=z3950.loc.gov&port=7090&attrset=BI B1&rtype=USMARC&DisplayRecordSyntax=HTML&ESN=F&startrec=1&maxrecords=10&dbna me=Voyager&term_use_1=LC+Control+Number&term_struct_1=Word&term_term_1=mm+81 058693 and gopher://marvel.loc.gov/00/.ftppub/mss/msspub/fa/m/meier.txt Excerpts follow XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Author: Meier, Nellie Simmons, d. 1939. Title: Papers of Nellie Simmons Meier, 1898-1938. Description: 500 items. 3 containers. 1.2 linear feet. Local Call No: MMC-3525 Transfer, (to) Library of Congress Rare Book and Special Collections Division, 1979. Finding aid available in the Manuscript Reading Room and on Internet. MSS58693 Location: Library of Congress Manuscript Division Washington, D.C. Source: DLC DLC DLC appm Control No.: 5808863 AND Readers interested in consulting any of the division's collections are advised to write or telephone the Manuscript Reading Room at (202) 707-5387 before visiting. Many processed and nearly all unprocessed collections are stored off site, and advance notice is needed to retrieve these items for research use. Linear feet of shelf space occupied: 1.2 Approximate number of items: 500 SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE Container Nos. Contents Box 1 Index Hand prints, photographs, and character sketches ... Earhart, Amelia ... XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX This is provided in case a member in the DC area wants to get measurements. Next question: what measurements? Can the Bones Brahmans propose a measurement protocol? LTM John Pratt 2373 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:14:20 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: the age question For Oscar Boswell, Oscar, the figures you provide contain insufficient information to calculate a headwind as there is no reference to the aircraft's performance (cruising speed). In your case only ground speed can be computed. Actually with the figures you provide it is easier to calculate the age of the pilot. This is how to do it. Add the given airspeeds and divide their total by the sum of the corresponding fuel consumptions provided. Divide the number by age factor 21,730764. This will give you the age of the pilot. The proof is that when you multiply age factor 21.730764 by 87.295597 you will get the year in which the pilot was born. Have fun. LTM (who says maths can be fun) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:21:03 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Galten's Log entry/ A tale of uncertainty. Let's revisit the guy who gave life to the theory that AE had sufficient gas to get to Niku or the Gilberts. Its an interesting footnote to the radio log research. The accuracy of what Bill Galten logged at 7:42 am is of importance to the two major theories of her disappearnce. If she said in fact "gas is running low" as Galten recorded she likely had enough gas to reach Niku or possible Mili or the Gilberts. If she said she was "running out of gas ,only half hour left", as recorded by O'hara she likely ditched into the ocean a short time after 8:44am. What did Amelia really say at 7:42 and was it properly recorded. A look at Galten, who was the only one who recorded "running out of gas", may shed new light on this controversy. For twenty-five years, Galten believed in his own mind he had accurately heard and correctly entered her words of "half hour of gas left"! He was mistaken. Not until Fred Goerner confronted Galten with the Itasca primary log did Galten realize he had actually written "gas running low".He was astonished. Realizing the significance of the conflicting log entries between O'hara, and Galten's entry, Goerner had tracked Galten down in California 1962. When first interviewed by telephone, Galten was "positive" that AE transmitted "half hour of gas left" because he copied the message. She went into the drink", Galten said, "close to Howland Island and noone will convince me otherwise". It seemed incredible he disputed his own log entry. Undeterred, Goerner later showed Galten the primary Itasca log showing he had actually entered "gas is running low". Goerner said Galten was puzzled, and finally "sighed and said, 'I guess I didn't hear what I thought I heard' ". He didn't write down when he thought she said. It was an ephiphany for Galten. Not surpisingly, Galten was not sure what he wrote down twenty five years earlier in 1937. In spite of his uncertainty in 1962, the log must stand as written. Right or wrong . The radio room, said Galten, was a confusing situation and it was "hard to know what was said.". Conversely, O'hara's log must stand as written. Despite the confusion and the later discussions aboard the Itasca about what was said, and the operators trying to get the "gist" of her transmissions, both O'hara and Galten did not change their respective entries each maintained in the radio room. Of the eleven in the radio room or doorway, two others made contemporaneous notes, reporters Hanzlick and Carey,and CDR Thompson made an official Coast Guard report. Their full accounts are availabe, but in sum Hanzlick reported "...half hour fuel left=..."; Carey reported "...ship was running out of gasoline"; and CDR Thompson bet the farm on O'hara's entry, and in his official report cited both versions of "gas running low" and "running out of gas, only half hour left" the later confirmed he said by two witnesses (unidentified). All listened to Earhart over the loudspeaker. None of the three heard the word "low" in AE's transmission Long says he has Hanzlicks personal notes.. In my opinion, now including Galten's uncertainty, the evidence stongly supports O'hara's entry that she said "...running out of gas only half hour left...", not "gas running low". Galten l, Witnesses 3. To be sure AE flew at least to 0843 am, an hour past the 0742 message, but that does not negate that she radioed she believed she was running our of gas. It may mean she simply did not have an accurate estimate of remaining fuel, which is not improbable in view of the gauges and methods used to measure her tanks. No more no less.It was also a time to measure her supply as she beleived she was at Howland. Contrary to some opinions, it was logical for her to give an estimate and not unlikely that she missed by about 40 gals out of the 1100 she started with. What happened after her last readable message to Itasca at 0843 is unknown, but her message regarding her dwindling fuel supply give the best clue. We have endlessly speculated on why she didn't mention fuel concerns, her postion, distress signals, or her demeanor. No one knows what was happening to EArhart those final moments. Note: Tighar has posted on 2 April in his reply to Sarnia his rebuttal and criticisms of the controversial log entries by O'hara, Galten, and the dispaches of the two reporters Hanzlick and Carey, of CDR Thompson's role and should be read for balance. LTM, Ron Bright Sources: "The Search for Amelia Earhart", by Fred Goerner, pages 204-208 Itasca original primary log The Sound of Wings, by Mary Lovell *************************************************************************** From Ric I can't for the life of me see where you get this "Galten 1, Witnesses 3" business. There is only one existing real-time transcription of Earhart's words - Galten's. O'Hare's log is a later, edited document. As for Hanzlick and Carey, as I have already shown, the respective accounts, reported hours later, agree with neither Galten's nor O'Hare's log and have no credibility. For what it's worth, the report filed by another witness - Army Air Corps Lt. Daniel Cooper - quotes the same "gas is running low" phrase recorded by Galten and makes no mention at all of "half hour gas left." If Elgen Long has Hanzlick's original notes he should produce them and then try to explain how Hanzlick got the other details of what she said, and when, so screwed up. The sum total of Goerner's encounter with Galten is that Galten remembered it wrong. I've done hundreds of interviews like that and I've seen the same thing happen dozens of times. It's why we don't use anecdotes as evidence. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:24:02 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: DITCHING Cam Warren wrote:- >>To paraphrase Sir Edmund Hillary, TIGHAR wants to search Niku (again!) "because it's there". (And I mean the island, not the Electra).<< George Leigh-Mallory actually. (lost on Everest 1924) LTM (who always credits her quotes correctly) Simon #2120 ************************************************************************ From Ric Don't be too tough on him. He was trained as a journalist. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:31:54 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: DITCHING, part 2 Cam Warren wrote:- >>True, Earhart had twin engines, but the propellors >>were not featherable. If an engine blew suddenly, >>she would have had her hands full getting it down on >>the water. Certainly no time to send a Mayday. >>And it could have happened within moments of >>her "last message" ("switching to 6210"). It can't >>be proved that this happened, of course, but it >>certainly is a viable conclusion, not to be ignored.. Ric and all the other more experienced pilots can put me right on this one, but I'm sure a very lightly loaded (as it was by that time) L10E Electra with the 550HP engines could remain in the air on one engine - even though the blades didn't feather. A catastrophic failure (such as those described by Cam) would almost certainly render the engine siezed and not turning, and thus free of windmilling drag. Granted though, she'd have certainly had her hands full. LTM Simon #2120 **************************************************************************** From Ric If the engine siezed I'd tend to agree with you. It would be no fun but you might be able to maitain altitude on one engine if you were real light. But if the dead engine was windmilling, forget it. You probably can't even maintain control enough to ditch. Grab your 'chute and head for the door. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:33:15 EDT From: Oscar Subject: Re: the age question > From Herman > Oscar, the figures you provide contain insufficient information to > calculate a headwind as there is no reference to the aircraft's > performance (cruising speed). In your case only ground speed can be > computed. Precisely. Oscar P.S. Actually, though you can't calculate the winds (as Ric well knew when he posted the item and made the crack about my hundred dollars being safe), you can say something about them. Assuming the plane was operated at the given performance settings, the winds could have ranged from a tailwind of no more than 10 mph to a headwind of no more than 20 mph, since there was insufficient fuel to fly 5 hours at 175. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:36:12 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: HMS Achilles Your explanation as to why British ships were not involved in the search for Earhart and Noonan is most logical in view of the disagreement over the ownership of the area . I'm disappointed in our government for not making a humble request for assistance to the Brits. After all, human life was at risk. If a request for assistance was made, I'm disappointed that the Brits did not respond in a positive manner. If the British had responded, it's very possible that the Achilles would have had her Walrus over Gardner within the time frame in which the post loss radio signals were received. Which means that the Electra was still intact on the reef and would have been sighted by the Walrus's crew and rescue effected. It won't advance the efforts to prove TIGHAR's hypothesis, but it would be nice to know who is responsible for such a blunder. LTM, Roger Kelley **************************************************************************** From Ric I've never seen any evidence that a request was made for Achilles to aid in the search. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:42:03 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Handprint When John Pratt speculated that the five-and-one-half written on the top of handprint was its length (presumably from thumb tip to pinkie tip), I didn't give it much thought because I though 5.5 inches was way too small for an adult human hand. Wrong. Two ladies in our office offered me their hands in the interest of science. Both are African-American, both are 5-foot 7-inches tall and both had a hand span (in a relaxed position) of 5 to 5.25 inches. What do our forensic experts say about hand/foot/height correlation? LTM, who never offered her hand Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric What are their shoe sizes? Pat's hand measures 5". She's 5'4" and wears a size 8 shoe. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:41:32 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: pivotal forum moment <> Wow! Another pivotal Forum moment. Almost makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. So just within hours of her theoretical fuel exhaustion time, before the media frenzy back in the states, radio signals are picked up by folks who are in relative proximity to Howland and Gardner (say within 400 nm +-), and not heard in San Francisco, Hawaii, Wyoming, or Florida. Kinda lends credence to their authenticity, doesn't it? The odds of such signals being from hoaxers is essentially nil, am I correct? They don't depend upon some weird radio skip propagation phenomenon, or questionable character at the receiving end. What they do depend upon is that AE found land and could transmit. This is going to difficult for the crashed and sank crowd to account for. When can we expect to see the rest of the "post loss" radio analysis? Or at least a summary of your findings? LTM who is fascinated. Andrew McKenna *************************************************************************** From Ric Never underestimate the ability of the crashed-and-sankers to ignore evidence. The Post-Loss Radio analysis got delayed by the whole renewed flap over the shoes, which had to be looked at even though we still don't know anything for certain. I'm now back on the Post-Loss Radio study and hoping to get it finished soon. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:43:38 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: estimating shoe size > From Dan Brown > How does AE's shoe size estimated from her handprint > http://www.americaslibrary.gov/pages/aa_earhart_last_2_e.html > compare to the estimate based on her height? An interesting aside to this new emerging discussion. Here at HistoricWings.com, we "discovered" the handprint at the Library of Congress almost a year ago, but on review concluded that although it was interesting, it didn't really have any value in terms of the search. We learned a valuable lesson from this -- don't ever be so quick to come to a conclusion or disregard something, no matter how small and insignificant it may seem. Nobody here at HistoricWings.com would have possibly postulated that hand size and foot size might be related. Who knows? Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but it is a worthwhile question. That is why this forum works. When you gather a couple of hundred people around something, a lot more information, knowledge and thinking will come together to yield conclusions that nobody on their own would have foreseen from the beginning. Thomas Van Hare HistoricWings.com *************************************************************************** From Ric Forum subscribership is now almost 700. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:51:16 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued Ric wrote: >I thought you interviewed Yau Fai Lum (K6GNW), the ham on Howland. No, I interviewed Paul Yat Lum, the Baker Island radioman. The logs indicated that Baker radio had heard Earhart. The two Lums are related. **************************************************************************** From Ric I find it fascinating that, time and again, we interview people who were "there" at some moment in history and it turns out that their recollections are so heavily influenced by later speculation about what "must have" happened that their anecdotal "testimony" years after the event directly contradicts what they themselves are recorded to have said at the time. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:52:15 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: DITCHING > Caldwell, and others, seem quite sure > the Electra made it to dry land, because it's easier to search > there. But the odds are vastly in favor of a "lost at sea" even Cam, to correct you, I don't believe in the dry land theory because it is easier to search there. That makes no sense. I believe it because there is some evidence to support that theory and none to support a crash into the sea theory. And how have you computed the odds favoring crash at sea? Why would they not be 100% or 0%? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:42:09 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: DITCHING, part 2 > None of the pilots on the Forum seem to > have considered it - in fact, such a suggestion has been > scoffed at. Cam, you can chase possibilities forever. Nothing has been excluded. All that is being done is to pursue a theory wherein there is at least some evidence. There is no evidence of a catastrophic engine failure. But let's suppose there was. How do you propose to proceed with the investigation on the theory there was an engine failure? Don't you see. That goes no where. Why even suggest it? It doesn't tell you where to look. What about a compass failure and the headed some unknown direction? Is that possible? Sure, but what do you do about it? The point is that all these unsupported, no evidence suggestions are a waste of time. They don't lead anywhere nor do they narrow the search or move the ball forward in any manner. Why would you consider something you have no evidence for rather than something you do? If you don't believe in the Niku theory that's fine but offer proof it is wrong or present supportable evidence something else happened. I don't scoff at any possibility. But there is no evidence to support ditching, blowing up, engine failures, wings falling off and so on. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:51:05 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued David Katz wrote: > The splashed & sank theory is plausible but not proven. As of this moment, > neither the Niku theory nor the splashed & sank theory can be disproven. >Both, however can be tested, David, I have no problem with the possibility the AE went into the drink but the ditching folks predicate their theory on AE running out of gas without a plausible theory as to why. But I can tell you why. It's the only way they can put the plane in the water where they want it. Now saying we don't know what AE did is not good enough. If she didn't follow Kelly Johnson's fuel management scheme you have to suggest why and what else she may have done and what the effect of that would be. Just like saying they might not have gone to Niku doesn't cut it. It has to then be suggested what other course of action they could have taken and what the result of that might have been. To simply say they might have done something else doesn't get anyone any where. The possibilities are endless using that philosophy. Explosions, UFOs, suicide dive, or whatever. All nonsense. Secondly, you are correct neither theory has been disproved but they never will. You will only be able to PROVE one is correct by finding the plane or other hard evidence. As far as both being tested Ric is correct. Elgin and company are not testing anything, bringing up the question, "How do you test 600 square miles of ocean down to 18,000'?" Nauticos is an experienced outfit in finding boats that go about 10 knots or so and with a fairly well known position and thus a small search area. The Electra traveled about ten times that fast and they don't know where the starting point is. These folks are selling an adventure to TV. They are not finding an airplane. If their success depended on finding the Electra they would not be in this at all. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll disagree with you on that last point Alan. I've talked to several of the folks at Nauticos and they're good people. They are not just putting on a show for the cameras. They really, really do not want to go out there and fail. It's not good for business. Their strength, in the past, has been in using the technique of "re-navigation" to find sunken ships, but an aviation problem like this one is outside their field of expertise and, unfortunately, they've relied upon the expertise of others without subjecting those opinions to peer review. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:52:41 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Human Factors > it would seem to me that we > simply can't assume that they were making all these critical decisions > on the basis of _our_ assessment as to what exactly should have appeared > obvious, reasonable or logical, to _them_ under those circumstances. You are right, Don but if we don't assume that what DO we assume and what do we do with the new assumptions? What I've been trying to point out is that all this endless speculation is unusable. There is nothing that can be done with it. To me it makes sense to assume they would do what any of us pilots would have done in the same circumstances. We all realize they may have done something else but there would be no way to determine what so why bother with it. There is no evidence they did anything other than what was planned. There IS evidence they did what we assume they did. So why suggest anything else. Let's say they are tired and thus make a wrong decision. What would that have been and what would you do with that information? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:53:51 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Handprint > If it turns out that knowing the size of a person's hand let's you > accurately determine the size of their feet, then it would probably be > worthwhile tracking down the original handprint and taking some careful > measurements. Ric, there are a number of theories about that but I know of no reliable one. In 1976 when my 14 year old was in the Boston cancer center they took wrist measurements to determine how long his left leg would grow. They missed by nearly 4 inches. Methinks this is a rabbit trail. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:56:05 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Facts vs assumptions Bob Sarnia wrote: > Only one thing we know for sure -- her 0742 message -- "gas is running low." > And, to me, if I understand English correctly, "gas is running low" doesn't > mean "we've still got four hours remaining." That is what bugs me! Bob, I don't think anyone, including myself, denies there are a multitude of possibilities to this mystery. My problem is that without suggesting some rational reason for a deviation from what we believe happened it is a waste of time. ANYTHING could have happened. Secondly suppose there was some deviation. Where does that get you? If there is no evidence to support a speculation then why not go with a theory that IS supported by some evidence? Now, you might counter that the evidence on Niku hasn't been proved and you would be correct but at least there is some whereas there is NONE anywhere else. As to the low fuel, I've called low fuel on downwind at Saigon with half my boost pump lights on. I have also called low fuel over Topeka with hours of fuel remaining and low fuel over London with 6 hours left as England and western Europe were fogged in making me go to Madrid. Low fuel to a pilot simply means there is enough to get where you need to go but not a whole lot more. It was a pilot who said it so you need to think of it as a pilot would use the terminology not what a non pilot would like to construe it. As to your other mysteries I have the same interests if you would like to discuss some at acaldwell@aol.com. All but the Ramsey case are fascinating to me. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:57:56 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued Cam Warren wrote: > It strikes me that a perfectly RATIONAL alternative theory > would have AE/FN heading toward the nearest land, visually > missing it, running out of gas and ditching. It's entirely > possible they missed Baker, McKean AND Gardner while > traveling down the 157° heading, if that was their choice.. > > Or, alternately (as I've often said) looking for much larger, > and more hospitable, Canton Island (Fred's choice), or > backtracking to a KNOWN checkpoint (the Gilberts), which, > I suspect, would be Amelia's choice. (And SHE was driving!). Cam, I don't know whether I would call it rational or simply possible but in any case you're correct. That could have happened but there is no evidence and why pursue a theory that has nothing to support it? How would you suggest we proceed to follow any other speculation? Go look at all the Gilbert Islands and all the Phoenix islands? If Niku falls through a crack I suppose that could be done but without evidence to narrow the search I think the task impractical. Then suppose they crashed at sea for whatever reason. How do you suggest that theory be pursued without a clue as to where to start? I would think that putting all our efforts and energy into examining the Niku theory which is the only one with some supportable evidence albeit of unknown quality we would be making more sense that sitting around disputing Niku and suggesting all kinds of theories impossible to pursue. Don't you? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:00:16 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Curious Guys, I don't mean to sound arrogant if I have, or a know it all. I AM frustrated with many of the comments. I know everyone means well and are trying to make everyone aware that there are a myriad of possibilities as to how this flight proceeded and ended. I don't dispute that. I'm not sure anyone has. My frustration is that I'm not getting your points. I read suggestions of what might or might not have happened that have all been thought of before and NOT discarded but relegated to that group of information that has NO supportable evidence, is incapable of being tested and doesn't help in any way. Why do it? I don't dispute Long's ideas because I think they went to Niku. I do so because Long has no evidence to support his theory. I don't dispute they might have crashed into the sea but I don't consider it because there is no evidence to support it. They could have blown up but there is no evidence to support it. Why even think about non testable ideas? If anyone thinks something happened to AE other than going to Niku I'm OK with that but tell me what evidence you have for your idea. Not what your theory is but what evidence supports it. If you believe they ran out of gas prematurely tell me what evidence supports your idea but not what additional speculation could make that possible. That gets nowhere. Low fuel. I don't know what specifically AE meant when she said that. As a pilot I know it could mean a vast different amount of fuel remaining. For example let's suppose she had decided to stay in the Howland area and search until she ran out of gas. Low fuel could have meant any small amount since she wasn't going anywhere. If she contemplated going back to the Gilberts it would have meant "I have enough gas to look around here for another X minutes then I have just barely enough to reach the Gilberts." If she was going to head for the Phoenix group it would have meant the same thing but with less fuel needed. But I don't really care what it meant. I can't use the information. There is some indication she went to Niku in which case we know she had enough gas to get there. If she didn't go to Niku we have no idea what she did and there is no way to pursue the mystery any further until some other evidence pops up. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:01:46 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Shoe Fetish Part 2 now up If you have a close look at all the photos of Amelia's feet in dress shoes (girl's open shoes) you'll see she had very fat feet and in every picture they are swelling out of the shoes like big breasts in tight bra. The relevant photos were on my "Earhart foot fetish" website last year. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric and your point is....? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:03:05 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: DITCHING, part 2 > From Cam Warren > > Why is catastrophic engine failure such an outlandish > possibility? It obviously is a possibility, even though at around 200hrs the engines were probably just run in. There is also the possibility that if Earhart said she gas is running low, and was switching tanks, especially to a tank she hadn't had to use earlier on the flight she switched to the wrong one, the engines cut and she ditched with 2-4hrs fuel in her tanks, which is the only way I can see Elgen Long's ran out of fuel idea fitting. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:11:09 EDT From: Andy Subject: foot to forearm The length from elbow to wrist is the same as heel to toe. It would seem that there are many more photographic opportunities to measure AEs forearm length than her foot. Is this an avenue TIGHAR has looked into to determine AEs exact foot size? If not, would it be worth while to send another batch of photos to Photek for analysis, or is determining her exact foot size a low priority right now? LTM, Andy **************************************************************************** From Ric It would be nice to know her exact foot size, but who says the length from elbow to wrist is the same as heel to toe? The problem in measuring any of the photos is finding an accurate way to establish scale. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:12:54 EDT From: Pete Subject: Re: Handprint I think hand/foot data does exist. I picked up years ago that the human body is proportional, as in height is about 7.5 times the size of the head (art book). I'm not sure whether a forensic scientist (you know two) or an anthropologist would know those proportions. These days a close approximation of a face can be made from a skull, is it not possible a good coroner could help with hands/feet? Any forumites near a medical school, or maybe a university with an anthropology department? An old copy of Gray's Anatomy? The "crashed at sea" favors the size of the Pacific, but that Catspaw heel came from somewhere, and so did the radial engine that ended up on Canton. Might be easier to get data from a coroner and an anthropologist than trying to recover "bruising'" from the Niku sextant box. best to all, Pete (who is still working the brevity) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:13:38 EDT From: Denise Subject: Personal Holdings Wombat says" "Except in Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies, Africa and some other colonies where they started on palatial mansions almost the moment they arrived.." How many of these were personally owned, Wombat? I think you'll find they were attached to a posting rather than to a person. Denise ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:15:13 EDT From: Russell Spreeman Subject: handprint I expect that if it were possible to get an accurate foot measurement based on a person's hand measurement, a lot of career shoe salesmen would be asking why they've had the "pleasure" of measuring people's feet, instead of their hands, for lo these many years. Seriously, I think there are a lot of factors that can influence a person's foot size beyond raw genetics. How much they weigh, how much walking they've done, what sort of shoes they've worn in the past... I don't see this as a likely avenue. Russell Spreeman **************************************************************************** From Ric I 'spect you're right. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:29:30 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: How did it start? I have been a subscriber for sometime now and heard amazing tales and revelations of Amelia and Fred. However, I have not heard of the tale that led you to Niku. Just what was your evidence that made you decide to spend money and time going to this tiny atoll? **************************************************************************** From Ric For years we felt that the most logical answer was that she simply ran out of gas and went down at sea, but in 1988 two TIGHAR members - Tom Willi and Tom Gannon - both of whom were experienced navigators, explained the navigational logic that suggested that there was no reason for her to go down at sea even if she failed to find Howland. They saw McKean and Gardner islands in the Phoenix Group as the most likely places for the flight to have ended up and they told us that, as far as they knew, no one had ever looked for her there. The navigational logic made sense and the suggestion that no one had ever looked for Earhart in "the most likely place" was intriquing. That was a long time ago. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:18:43 EDT From: Peter Thomas Subject: Re: Achilles Roger Kelley wrote: >If the British had responded, it's very possible that the Achilles would >have had her Walrus over Gardner within the time frame in which the post >loss radio signals were received. Which means that the Electra was >still intact on the reef and would have been sighted by the Walrus's >crew and rescue effected. Achilles, predominantly crewed by New Zealanders, including the Walrus pilot, were secretly surveying ( by land and by air)the Phoenix Islands at the time of the AE disappearance, and was stationed in the vicinity of Carondelet reef in early July 1937. When radio traffic apparently emanating from the Phoenix islands was intercepted by the Achilles, and subsequently despatched to the Colorado, the US ship, shocked by being suddenly made aware of her existence and the proximity to the search area, reportedly told her to not intrude in the search. Until proper authentication is produced of the "famous" one-off aerial photograph of Gardner Island used extensively by Tighar to illustrate the weather/tide conditions around the island at the time of the AE search , and allegedly taken by the search aeroplanes from the Colorado, then a strong possibility must remain that it was in fact taken by the Walrus from the Achilles , and not from the US aircraft, as it was found in the NZ archives . Any notations on the photograph can be considered of dubious origin until verified. No accompanying documentation of verification has so far appeared. The 1937 logs of the Achilles remain currently unaccounted for for some intriguing reason, and therefore a substantial source of invaluable information of ship movements and other activitiesin the area remain lost at this point in time. The Achilles was seconded to the RNZN together with other new warships such as the Leith , Leander and Dundee for South Pacific operations , and based in NZ with predominantly NZ crews for the specific purpose of providing the Brits with a back-up force to assist their island hunting activities , establi shment of a trans-Pacific commercial air route and to ensure a smooth colonization of various Pacific islands . The Achilles was also successfully involved in the first Naval engagement of WWII when the Scharnhorst was scuttled in the Battle of the River Plate in Uruguay during the first days of the outbreak of hostilities. **************************************************************************** From Ric As documented in U.S. Navy message traffic, on July 2, 1937 Achilles was enroute from Samoa, where she had departed on June 30, to Honolulu, where she planned to arrive July 13 and stay until the 27th. That Achilles was secretly surveying the Phoenix Group in 1937 is preposterous. If a British ship wanted to survey British islands why make it a secret? The very next year the New Zealand Pacific Aviation Survey Expedition surveyed the islands supported by the ships you mention. There was nothing secret about it and it had nothing whatsoever to do with insuring "a smooth colonization of various Pacific islands". Achilles sent her message about hearing what might be Earhart to the U.S. Navy while USS Colorado was still in Honolulu. Nobody was shocked that a Brtish ship was enroute from Samoa to Hawaii. The only part of your entire posting that resembles fact is that Achilles, at that time, was seconded to the RNZN. You didn't even get the WWII stuff right. The German battle cruise Scharnhorst was sunk by HMS Duke of York on Dec. 26, 1943. Achilles had nothing to do with that action. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, she was instrumental in bottling up the "pocket battleship" Graf Spee in the estuary of the Rio de la Plata near Montevideo, Uruguay in December 1939. Your comments about the veracity of the notations on the back of the photo of Gardner Island speak volumes about the mind of a conspiracy buff. Please don't clutter the forum with this kind of nonsense. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:17:27 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Re: Galten's Log entry/ A tale of uncertainty. Well, let's take a look at the various accounts of What Was Said at 7:42 am: 1. Galten: "Gas is running low," but remembers it 25 years later as "half-hour left." 2. O'Hare: "Half-hour left." (The fact that the log was "smoothed" tells me he had time to think about it.) 3. Hanzlick: "Half-hour left" (in two separate dispatches) 4. Carey: "Out of gas" 5. Cmdr. Thompson: Reports both versions, but at the time is so certain Earhart said "half-hour left" that he weighs anchor 1.5 hours before estimated fuel exhaustion and commits the Itasca to a surface search. 6. Cooper: Wasn't there, but makes sense that his bridge log would be based upon the "official" (Bellarts/Galten) log, which says "gas is running low." So let's throw out Galten, whose memory is at odds with his typing; Carey, whose "out of gas" could be a paraphrase of >either< "gas is running low" or "half-hour left"; and Cooper, who wasn't in the radio room. That makes it 3-0 in favor of "half-hour left". As for corroboration, Thompson calls in the shore party, leaves Howland and sets off looking for the downed aircraft. Actions, in this as in most cases, speak louder than words. All of which is not to say that AE actually had a half hour's worth of gas left. Obviously, if she thought that, she was wrong. But it does suggest to me that Earhart's 7:42 transmission conveyed the general impression that her fuel situation was critical. If this interpretation is "irrational", then the Itasca's subsequent actions are equally irrational. And before we engage in another round of Thompson-bashing, remember that he was aware of the estimates giving AE as much as 24 hours' flying time. Armed with that knowlege, for Thompson to leave his post early must have required some pretty persuasive evidence that the Electra was no longer aloft. Ric posits that Thompson simply believed O'Hare over Bellarts. Why? Why blow off the "official" Earhart radioman in favor of a guy who wasn't even supposed to be logging her? Is it just barely possible that >both< Thompson and O'Hare heard AE say, "Half hour left?" How could Earhart have been so low on fuel at 7:42? I don't know. Nobody does. But as more than one Forum contributor has remarked, neither do we know how the plane was actually flown. All we know is how Kelly Johnson thought it should be flown. What specific external factors might have led to increased fuel consumption? Hey, I'm a non-pilot (and therefore somewhere between orangutans and toasters on the evolutionary scale), but the following thoughts do come to mind: How often did AE have to fly around storms? How often did she have to climb above the overcast so Fred could get his star fixes? Were her Cambridge exhaust analyzers working properly? What if, as Roessler & Gomez speculate, one of her propellers became jammed in something less than high pitch? As I understand it, this would require adjusting the other propeller to the same pitch and the resulting increase in fuel consumption could be enormous. Would a fuel leak necessarily have been discoverable immediately? What if AE starts pumping from tank "B" into tank "C" and -- uh-oh -- nothing to pump? Of course you would have expected AE to report such problems as a propeller jammed in low pitch or a serious fuel leak. But AE seldom reported anything of value, >especially< problems. As I believe Ric once observed, it's as if she viewed the radio as a public-relations tool rather than a communications device. Heck, maybe she did have four hours of fuel left. Maybe they did make it to Niku. TIGHAR deserves respect for trying to prove its theory with pick and shovel rather than endless computer modeling. But I resent the statement that >any< alternative course of action was irrational, or that those of us who choose to hedge our bets are irrational in so doing. (However, being a non-pilot I >am< pretty proud of the fact that I can spell "irrational"!) LTM Pat Gaston **************************************************************************** From Ric And present a real tour de force of irrational reasoning. You throw out Galten's real-time transcription because he remembers it differently decades later. You accept as accurate the one part of Hanzlick's and Carey's later accounts you like and ignore their other inaccuracies. You reason that because Thompson obviously based his actions on the belief that Earhart was about to run out of gas, he must have had a good reason to believe that. However, the record of what Thompson did describes a man who was indecisive and panicky. Sometime between 7:40 amd 08:20 O'Hare says he heard her say she only had a half hour of gas left. Maybe the reporters think they heard that too, or maybe they just pick up on O'Hare's alarm. In any event, when the half hour is up Thompson decides that the plane is down and calls the shore party back to the ship so that he can go look for her. But then she calls again after she's supposed to be out of fuel and she doesn't say anything about running out of gas. Thompson regains his composure and holds tight. At 10:15 he radio his superiors in San Francisco that he's going to stay at Howland until noon - the airplane's expected endurance - but twentyfive minutes later he orders the ship to get underway, leaving his station an hour and a half early and not telling his superiors about it. We could fight about this forever but it would accomplish nothing. My point is, when you're doing this kind of investigation there are rules you follow. One of those rules is that when contemporaneous written documentation and anecdote disagree, anecdote loses. Another rule is that a real-time record beats a later recollection. If you're going to throw out the rules you can make the answer come out any way you like. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:18:10 EDT From: Susie Subject: Re: Handprint Regarding Handspan, if you play a keyboard instrument, you stretch your hand span to be able to reach as far as possible, and I think I remember that Earhart played piano, as did many people in the 30's. Susie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:25:39 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: ...Knowing Where They Were... You said...'You can't make a concious decision to go someplace if you don't know where you are. It may be that, at some point, they were able to determine that they were too far south of Howland to make it back, but it's pointless to speculate'... The most logical & persuasive argument for the flight to Gardner as a alternate landfall (to me anyway) has always been the fact that it just happened to be on the SE end of an extented LOP for Howland Island. Are we now conceding the _possibility_ at least that they could _not_ simply rely upon their previously calculated LOP to hit Gardner with any reasonable degree of accuracy? Considering they admittedly _didn't_ know exactly where they were _on_ the LOP, must we also consider the _possibility_ that perhaps their LOP never actually crosshaired with Howland & the flight just _might_ have been somewhere _west_ of the predetermined juncture with Howland, when Itasca received all the radio broadcasts from AE, thus raising an honest question as to just how accurate a landfall at Gardner FN could have predicted by simply following his LOP to the SE? Would any of his sun sightings along the way toward Gardner have enabled him to correct the location of his original LOP, if in fact his originally calculated LOP for Howland actually did fall short of reaching it's destination? Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric The accuracy of the original LOP depended upon the precision of the sighting Fred took after sunrise and his ability to determine his groundspeed so that he could advance the line through Howland. He can get a new LOP by a lter sun shot but he can't correct his earlier one. There are lots of ways that Fred could have been off on his original LOP and there's no way to tell if he was or wasn't. What is apparent is that he could have gotten to Gardner, so the clues that suggest that he did get to Gardner, merit an effort to find evidence on Gardner that would prove that it happened. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:04:41 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The facts (con'd) continued Actually, Ric, your observation about eyewitness testimony doesn't surprise me at all. Frequently, eyewitnesses are wrong to begin with, and/or re-think what they've seen or heard later for any number of reasons---some principled, some not. For example, many eyewtinesses change their story when they perceive that others disagree with what they saw or heard. It makes no sense, but lots of people don't want to be seen as odd-man-out and will change a story ("go along to get along") for that reason only. I suspect some of this may have occurred with the radiomen and logs aboard the Itasca concerning Earhart's fuel comment (from what's been posted about what went on in that radio room and later interviews, the whole thing looks like a muddle to me involving people who didn't have much opinion of each other, and I discount everyone's statements about what Earhart said on this one). That's a danger in "ranking" or prejudging the value of different types and classes of information. For example, I note that Emily's story is anecdote (the islanders told her what she saw was an airplane), which is a type of information we often discount or reject, as in the account of Noonan using offset navigation into Wake, yet in this case we consider it to be reliable anecdote after speaking with her and we value it as important information for the Niku hypothesis. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric No. We take Emily's story for what it is - anecdote. We consider it to be no more and no less reliable than any other anecdote unless and until we can establish its veracity with hard evidence. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:12:43 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: DITCHING I would like to make some comments about David Jourdan's expedition to find Earhart's Electra. He believes Earhart made a soft landing on the sea, and the entire airplane is sitting there intact @18,000 ft.+ under the sea. Earhart carried a life raft, survival equipment, and a rescue kite on the Howland leg of the trip. If the plane made a soft landing there would have been plenty of time to scramble out on the wings and save herself and Noonan at the same time. The plane was filled with empty fuel tanks. The point that most people overlook is how long that plane would have floated after a ditching at sea. Sailboats in international world racing competition have turned over at sea, and the air tanks on board kept them floating and floating. One incident happened at the southern tip of South America....heavy seas and bitter cold. They didn't sink. Earhart's plane with its huge empty wing tanks and empty fuel tanks in the fuselage would have kept the plane up who knows how long. That is one reason why the Navy went looking for the plane. David Jourdan (www.Nauticos.com) is the one who found the Titanic. But I am afraid this time he is off on a wild goose chase. I know I wouldn't contribute one thin dime to that expedition. You have to take into consideration the size of a 10E Electra....about the same as a Beech Super 18...not exactly the same size target as the Titanic or a Submarine or an Aircraft Carrier. He is basing his search on the book Amelia Earhart, the Mystery Solved, which I haven't read. If anyone has any comments on the book, I would appreciate hearing them. Carol Dow ************************************************************************** From Ric You'll find a review of Long's book on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/longreview.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:14:03 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: foot to forearm Where, in the name of heaven, did Andy get the notion that the length of measurement between elbow and wrist is the same as heel to toe? My elbow to wrist measurement is 11 inches. No way my feet are that big (I wear a size 9). Elbow to wrist does not even correlate to heel to toe as body parts. The correct hand/foot correlation would be heel-to-toe/heel-of-the-palm to fingertips. Moreover, I find it difficult to believe that any meaningful correlation between hand and foot size can be determined for any specific human being. As a species, perhaps, but for particular persons, I doubt it. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric I share your skepticism. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:15:54 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: foot to forearm >From Andy > >Ric, >The length from elbow to wrist is the same as heel to toe. ************************* No it's not -- I just checked. And didn't I get stares! LTM, Amanda ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:17:26 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Handprint >From Pete > >Hello Ric! > >I think hand/foot data does exist. I picked up years ago that the human body >is proportional, as in height is about 7.5 times the size of the head (art >book). Hey, hey, hey -- STOP RIGHT THERE. That 7.5 proportion IS FOR DRAWINGS!!! It's based on what has traditionally been popular/esthetically pleasing in western art. (And, yes, eastern art has a different set of traditions.) That 7.5 rule is taught to drawing students as a rule of thumb to use until they have enough practice rendering on paper what they visualize. The first thing the art student notices is that the model doesn't actually look like that. That is, once they get over the shock of "Oh m'gosh there's a nekkid person in the room!" In fact, the 7.5 heads rule has recently changed to the 8 heads rule. I blame Cindy Crawford, et al. And don't get me started on El Greco. LTM, who never once asked me what kind of job you can get with an art degree... Amanda ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:18:29 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Handprint The raw data undoubtedly exist, probably in the files of a physical anthropologist such as Judith Hall. Common sense tells you that there is some correlation between height and shoe size. Just look at the boats that the professional basketball players wear. Seriously, it would be rare for a 5 foot 4 inch man to wear a size 13 or larger shoe, or for a 6 foot 6 inch man to wear a size 7 1/2! Someone has data, but I would be willing to bet that the range of error of a prediction of foot size from hand size is too large to make it useful. Daniel C. Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Whose feet were too big.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:19:56 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: foot to forearm >From Andy >Ric, > The length from elbow to wrist is the same as heel to toe. Mine is not. Elbow to wrist 31 cm, heel to toe 27 cm. Dan Postellon #2263 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:21:54 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: How did it start? For Rick Seapin -- and others interested in "how it all started:" A book on The Quest from 1988 to the present will be in the bookstores in September. Titled "Amelia Earhart's Shoes," it'll be published by Altamira Press, a division of Rowman and Littlefield, and is authored by Randy Jacobson, Karen Burns, Kenton Spading, and me. Not an official TIGHAR product, but Ric and Pat have given us much aid in its creation, and all royalties will go to TIGHAR to support the project. Many on the Forum know about the book, and many have contributed to it. I turned in the corrected copyedited text yesterday, so I can now be fairly sure that the production schedule is set. Print date is July, but books won't be distributed to sellers till September. Already being marketed at www.altamirapress.com, and I'm meeting next week with the publisher's marketing gurus to talk about Oprah, etc. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:24:15 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: DITCHING Att: A. Caldwell - No evidence to support a splash down? They were flying over a vast ocean and suddenly disappeared. Seems highly likely they went to the bottom. We know all about odds here in Nevada, but I didn't consult any of the casinos about AE's chances, and just made a ballpark guess. . Look at a JNC chart encompassing the area from (say) 30 nm north of Howland to 6°S (including Gardner and Carondolet Reef) and you'll see one heck of a lot more water than land. I'll let you do the math. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Alan, he doesn't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Save your breath. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:25:23 EDT From: Jim Kellen Subject: Nauticos Search If and when Nauticos completes their search of the "ran out of gas, crashed and sank" area, do you think they might make a couple of passes around Niku in one last effort to find something? Jim Kellen #2331 *************************************************************************** From Ric No. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:27:03 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: foot to forearm My elbow to wrist is 10 inches. My heel to toe is 10-1/2 inches. But it depends on where on the "wrist" you mean, as the wrist bones measure more than 1" in length. So do you measure from the near side of the wrist bones or the far side? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric I gotta think of some way to get even with Andy for starting this. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:29:26 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Measuring Fuel With all this talk of how much fuel was left, and at the risk of sounding stupid for asking, I was wondering if we know whether the Electra had a fuel "gauge" of some sort. A pilot friend of mine has told me that these were/are notoriously unreliable, but even if Earhart stuck to the power recommendations would she have some way of confirming that fuel usage was actually in line with what to expect? --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the Electra had fuel gauges and yes, they were probably as unreliable as fuel gauges traditionally are. Although it has probably changed now with the advent of much more sophisticated monitoring devices, pilots were always taught that "your most reliable fuel gauge is the one on your wrist." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:32:08 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: handprint We do have the Niku bone measurements which have been used to estimate stature. I do not know if there are databases that relate stature to foot size and hand length. Our resident forensic anthropologist, Dr. Burns, probably would know. It would be interesting to see if the size of AE's hand print is within the range of stature estimated from the bone measurements. That alone, of course, would not prove anything but it could be intriguing if the bone length/shoe size/hand size all correlate. Tim Smith ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:38:40 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: How did it start? Ric said: "The navigational logic made sense and the suggestion that no one had ever looked for Earhart in "the most likely place" was intriguing." The U. S. Navy looked there in July 1937 also using the "we on the line 157/337" message gathered from the Itasca, right? And weren't there several others (Paul Mantz? PVH Weems. etc.) that also used the 157/337 message as a basis to encourage the government to continue looking? I'm not demeaning the contributions of Tom Willi and Tom Gannon, but it is my understanding that the 157/337 idea (i.e. the bearing to Niku) was not original to them and had in fact been bouncing around since 1937. Their main contribution, as I understand, it is to have resurrected the concept and -- perhaps most important -- convince TIGHAR to reinvestigate the whole matter. LTM, a credit to her gender Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric I didn't mean to imply that Willi and Gannon were the first to understand the significance of "157/337" or even the first to see the islands of the Phoenix Group as "the most likely place." They were merely the ones who brought that information to TIGHAR's attention. As we started looking into the whole thing we soon realized that this was not at all a new Earhart theory, but one of the oldest. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:48:34 EDT From: PK Subject: Re: foot to forearm Very strange, neither one of my wrist bones or foot length measurements is the same, now how exactly does this correspond to fuel usage and time aloft? PK **************************************************************************Fro From Randy Jacobson Anecdote only: measure from the interior side of the elbow to the interior of the wrist. If you fold your elbow and wrist, the interior distance should be the length of your foot. I can easily span that distance with a spread palm, but my foot is much larger than that. Kar Burns: what say you? *************************************************************************** From Michel > The length from elbow to wrist is the same as heel to toe. Nah, that's not it - anyone whose grandmother has ever knitted them socks should know the toe to heel distance comes by wrapping the sock around your fist at the knuckles. It worked when my grandmom did it - But OK, that's still a little rough. I shall now be serious. If the shoe size business is worth pursuing, and you want to scale the handprint, what you need is a pair or Amelia's *gloves* right? Do any exist? If so, measure them, and scale the handprint from them. Actually, if you find a pair of her gloves, you no longer need the handprint. You will have the length of her fingers, thus a known scalable item to use to study any photo in which both her hands and feet appear. Granted there's still the issue of being in the same focal plane, the angle, etc., but with a known measurable quantity associated with many, many pictures of AE it seems like a much easier task, and no screwing around with bodily proportions... Michel **************************************************************************** From Ric Verifying the measurement of the handprint is not a problem - the original print is in the Library of Congress. Using a glove would be far less accurate. But if the measurement we're interested in is the size of her shoe and we can get accurate size information from photographs, why not just measure the damn shoes? That's what we tried to do in the Bandoeng photo and the results are somewhat puzzling but I don't know of any other photo of AE's feet that has as good scaling information as does the Bandoeng photo. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:51:09 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Shoe Fetish Part 2 now up > From Ric > > and your point is....? Directly relevant to the comment re speculation and anecdotes about Amelia's tight shoes that inspired the post. There is no need to speculate on what if or maybe - there is documented evidence showing exactly how tight her shoes were. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric So AE's shoes look tight to you. Therefore, you conclude that the shoe TIGHAR found on Niku is - or is not - hers? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:52:34 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Personal Holdings > From Denise > > How many of these were personally owned, Wombat? I think you'll find they > were attached to a posting rather than to a person. I can only vouch for Australia/New Zealand where from the first days of those colonies private ownership was encouraged generally by way of land grants to administrative personnel, soldiers and later free settlers and pardoned and ticket of leave convicts. Many people knew they were coming out here for many years and quite a lot of the officers embarked on land and business enterprises literally on arrival. I was not being sarcastic, I only commented because when I read your post I was in the middle of studying that very subject, reading extracts of journals dating back to the First Fleet. However "off topic" this is, it is worth remembering that the P.I.S.S. had at least some ties to Australia probably because Sydney was closer for shipping than London. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:54:58 EDT From: Denise Subject: Note from "Us" Phil Tanner says: "it's a bit unusual that whoever was heard was using the term "us" rather than "me" In our part of the world, particularly in Australia, "us" is the usual word for "me". Is it possible this person was Australian? LTM (who never used Oz vernacular) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric It's right in the Itasca radio log that the ship's operator said "If you get us give us a few dashes." End of discussion. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:56:17 EDT From: Denise Subject: British Assistance Roger Kelly asks: "If the British provided no assistance in the search, do we know why?" Ric replies: "Perhaps, in the wake of all that, the Americans were not about to ask a British ship to conduct a search in that same island group." Right on, Ric! From stories I heard as a child, the British - like the entire rest of the Pacific - were waiting to be asked and were very annoyed they weren't. The British greatly admired A.E. and thought she was "a dashed fine lady" and found it beyond belief that despite having all the systems in place to assist with the search, none of these were called on. I even heard that when offers of assistance were made, the British were told to "mind their own business". However I have no proof of any of this, and as I heard these stories in the 60s, time and telling may have "corrupted" them. LTM (a "dashed fine lady" herself) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:57:25 EDT From: Denise Subject: Re: Galten's Memory Regarding Galten's recollection of what he remembered happening and what actually happened, it is well worth looking at Arthur Miller's autobiography "Time Bends". Miller talks at length on this very subject (regarding his recollections of his time as a victim of the MacCarthy Witchhunt and the factual evidence of the same) in a very insightful and useful way ... and in a way that is very relevant here. LTM (who ranks "Time Bends" as one of the truly great autobiographies) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:59:22 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Low Fuel Alan Caldwell is right on in his explanation of the meaning of the term "low Fuel" to an experienced pilot. Low fuel is, in no way, an indication of actual fuel quantity left in the tanks. It is an expression used in relation to the over all mission. In general, once you start into the alternate or reserve fuel you are in a low fuel situation be it for ten minutes or four hours. Those of you that do not fly on a regular basis will find this a difficult concept to understand but it must be looked at from the standpoint of the pilot and not taken out of that context. If you ask nearly any group of professional pilots I feel confident they will agree with the way Alan has explained the term. I have seen a low fuel situation prior to takeoff from Tokyo going to San Francisco due to ground delays after engine start and knowing that projected weather at San Francisco was to be at or below landing minimums. It was knowing that we could go to several alternate airports above minimums that made it possible to continue rather than go back for additional fuel. None the less, we considered ourselves to be in a low fuel situation and that is exactly the way we expressed it. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:02:36 EDT From: Denise Subject: Gotta Love that Peter Thomas! Peter Thomas wrote "When radio traffic apparently emanating from the Phoenix islands was intercepted by the Achilles, and subsequently despatched to the Colorado, the US ship, shocked by being suddenly made aware of her existence and the proximity to the search area, reportedly told her to not intrude in the search." Peter Thomas, you wonderful man! This is pretty much the same story as one I heard as a child. (Now I'm wondering where I heard it!) I just love it when stories I heard as a child suddenly turn out to be true. It's like discovering there really is a Santa Claus. LTM (who never throught much of Santa!) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm going to assume that that's your tongue in your cheek. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:05:03 EDT From: Michael Lowery Subject: Re: HMS Achilles A correction to note in your text on Achilles: HMS Wellington, was a sloop and not a cruiser. OK, so what's a sloop? The term was reintroducted in World War I for a type of jack-of-all-trades ship built in quanity for the Royal Navy. Sloops (the original vessels were labeled "minesweeping sloops") were used for minesweeping, lugging stuff around, and patrol work. Anti-submarine escot work was soon added to the list of tasks. There was no real equivalent in the U.S. Navy at the time. HMS Wellington and HMS Leith were from the second generation of sloops which were built from 1928. The tasks were basically the same, though anti-submarine warfare became more important over time. Sloops would be the natural choice as patrol and general purpose vessels for remote areas and their use in the Pacific is hardly surprising, especiall given that the Royal Navy never had enough cruisers. The production of sloops for the Royal Navy continues through WWII as a type of high quality escort vessel (i.e. built to warship standards) to suppliment the mass produced corvettes and frigates built to lower (merchantile) standards of construction. The basic design features of Wellington and Leith are a displacement of about 1,000 tons, a main armament of a pair of 4.7 inch guns, and a top speed of 16.5 knots. By comparison, the light cruisers Achilles, Leander, and Ajax were ships of roughly 7,000 tons armed with eight 6-inch guns and a top speed of over 30 knots. Michael Lowrey ************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:19:53 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Newsletter about Oceania I got this by e-mail. This edition of Jane's Oceania Home Page Newsletter covers the small islands and atolls in the general area of Nikumaroro. Ther's nothing specific about the search, but it gives a nice overview of who was where and why, for the past 200 years or so. It includes all the usual suspects in the links: John T. Arundle, the Itaska, Pisonia, scaevola, guano diggers, shipwrecks, crabs. It also has some nice maps, etc. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 > Jane's Oceania Home Page Newsletter - http://www.janeresture.com/ > > --------------------------- ListBot Sponsor -------------------------- > Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jane's Oceania Home Page Newsletter > Vol. 1, Edition No. 8, April, 2001 > Special Easter Edition. > http://www.janeresture.com/ > > I N T H I S I S S U E ____________________________________________ > > News and Views. > Unusual Places. > Letters. > It's Time to Chat. > > T H E VIEW ____________________________________________________ > News and Views from Oceania. > > Greetings everybody! > > May you all have a Happy and Blessed Easter! > > I do hope that this Special Easter Edition Newsletter will find you in the > best of health. > > Sprinkled across the Central Pacific Ocean, between Hawaii and Samoa, and > east of the 180th meridian are about 30 low coral islands. During the > 1860's many of these were claimed by American guano interests and a number > of them were the scene of busy enterprise. Many of these islands are > uninhabited and largely unknown but they do have a fascinating history and > geography. > > Some of the islands are atolls, with spacious lagoons while others have > little or no lagoons. These islands are mainly located in the Line Group, > the Phoenix Group and Tokelau Group while the balance are mostly in the > outlying islands of Hawaii. > > One of the most interesting islands is the treasured island of Palmyra. > For decades, this island has lingered in quiet isolation as an > uninhabited, privately-owned United States territory. Passing yachts and > fishing boats aside, Palmyra's main visitors have always been sea birds - > some of the largest and most colourful gatherings of them anywhere in the > world. The atoll has more red-footed boobies than anywhere but the > Galapagos Islands. Palmyra is their only breeding site in 450,000 square > miles of ocean. > > Palmyra has been recognised as being especially important as there is not > anything left in all the Pacific quite like it. It has never been > colonised and a lot of the organisms in the ecosystem of Palmyra simply do > not co-exist with the human population. It is something of a mystery that > this island was never colonised and despite a U.S. Navy presence during > World War 2, the island was eventually reclaimed by the owners who desired > to preserve it in its original state. Subsequently purchased by the Nature > Conservancy for US$30,000,000, the island and its fragile ecosystem will > be preserved for generations to come. > > The Palmyra website below contains both contemporary and historical images > of an island that is in its own way preserving the delicate ecology of the > Pacific Islands. > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/palmyra/index.htm > > The Republic of Kiribati contains interesting groups of islands in the > form of the Line Islands, Phoenix Group and Kiribati islands including > Ocean Island (Banaba). The Kiribati islands, from north to south are: > Makin, Butaritari, Marakei, Abaiang, Tarawa, Maiana, Abemama, Kuria, > Aranuka, Nonouti, Tabiteuea, Beru, Nikunau, Onotoa, Tamana and Arorae. > They are fairly well known and documented. Each has its own Web site which > can be accessed from Jane's Oceania Home Page. > http://www.janeresture.com/ > > This Newsletter however is directed to Web sites concerned with > documenting the early history and geography of the lesser known islands of > the Line Islands, the Phoenix Group, the Tokelau Islands and the Hawaiian > Chain along with a number of other interesting islands. > >The Line Islands comprise primarily Washington, Fanning, Christmas, > Malden, Starbuck, Vostock, Caroline (Millennium) and Flint Islands. Both > collectively and individually, these islands have a most interesting > history and geography. Detailed information on each of the Line Islands as > well as a historical map of each island can be obtained from the Line > Islands Web site below. > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/kiribati_line/index.htm > > The Phoenix Group comprises mainly Birnie, Canton, Enderbury, Gardner, > Hull, McKean, Phoenix and Sydney Islands. Having been born in Hull Island, > I have a tender spot for the remote and beautiful Pacific Islands of the > Phoenix Group. > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/kiribati_phoenix_group/index.htm > > The Tokelau Islands have a most interesting and colourful history and this > Newsletter provides a brief history and geography of each of the Tokelau > Islands. Information on Atafu, Nukunonu, Fakaofo and Swains Island can be > obtained from the Tokelau Islands Web site below. > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/tokelau_islands/index.htm > > The islands of the Hawaiian chain are as interesting as they are diverse. > >From the highrise cities and volcanic origins of the main Hawaii Islands > to the little known outer islands comprising delicate coral outcrops they > are interesting both in terms of their history and cultural diversity. The > Hawaii Picture Gallery below gives some contemporary images of modern > Hawaii. > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/hawaii_pictures/index.htm > > The remaining islands include the little known outlying islands of the > Hawaiian chain and include the islands of Laysan, Necker, and Midway > > In some ways Laysan Island is the most fascinating of all the tiny dots of > land in the Hawaiian Islands. > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/laysan/index.htm > > Necker Island is a rocky outcrop that from a distance appears to have no > vegetation. It has an area of about 41 acres. > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/necker/index.htm > > The Midway Islands have become the most famous locality in the > north-western part of the Hawaiian archipelago. > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/midway/index.htm > > The following islands of Wake > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/wake/index.htm > > Howland > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/howland/index.htm > > and Baker > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/baker/index.htm > are administered by the U.S. and in the past are part of what has often > been referred to as American Polynesia. > > What remains in our tour of out-of-the way islands are the following which > are something of a mixed bag: > > Johnston > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/johnston/index.htm > > Nassau > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/nassau/index.htm > > Manihiki > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/manihiki/index.htm > > Palmerston > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/palmerston/index.htm > > Jarvis > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/jarvis/index.htm > > > LETTERS: > > IT'S TIME TO CHAT > > Jane's Chat Room is always available for on line chatting between parties. > Jane's Chat Room can be accessed via JOHP or the following URL: > > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/gray/jane/chat.htm > > COMMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS > > These are always most welcome and can be e-mailed to me at: > jane@janeresture.com > > Once again, thank you everybody for being part of our Oceania club and > I look forward to seeing you again with our Vol. 1, Edition No. 9, May, > 2001. > Take care and all the very best. Happy Easter! > > Jane (Resture). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:22:32 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: British Assistance Let's remember that the U.S. DID actually ask the British (that is, the WPHC and G&EIC, via the two countries' Secretaries of State) for assistance, and the G&EIC rendered it, among other things sending Capt. Handley out from Tarawa to search the coordinates that Putnam specified as being, he believed, a likely place for AE to have ended up. This was after a bit of confusion when the G&EIC found Itasca and Swan charging around the islands asking questions without a prior by-your-leave, and were a bit taken aback by the whole thing. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:56:07 EDT From: Ric Subject: Pilot elitism From time to time discussions on this forum may give the impression that the opinions of airplane pilots are, in all cases, to be valued over the pathetic mumblings of lesser mortals. Allow me to here dispel any such notion. As a member of that august fraternity for the past 36 years (aaargh!) I can tell you that pilots are NOT inherently, brighter, braver, bolder, more physically adept, more insightful, more logical, or more responsible than everyone else. The truth is, you can teach a monkey to fly. I have met pilots who are retired after long and successful careers as captains on major airlines who, frankly, have the intellect of a bag of hammers. What a career as an aviator DOES require is the acquisition and development of a specific skill-set that is, by nature, quite different from that called for in other lines of work. The same can be said of a plumber. The opinions of experienced pilots are therefore valuable WITHIN THE CONTEXT of discussions pertaining specifically to those skills and the experiences associated with acquiring them. Of course, some pilots are also unusually bright or brave or logical or insightful, etc. but being airplane drivers did not make them that way. Just wanted to clear that up. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:47:47 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: British Assistance Thanks, Tom----somewhere I have forgotten about this. Could you provide a few more details (e.g., time, Putnam's "coordinates", etc.)? It may help put this entire issue into a bit more perspective. --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:49:42 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: heel-to-wrist size Ric said: "From Ric I gotta think of some way to get even with Andy for starting this [heel-to-wrist-length debate] ." The cruelest punishment I can think of would be to make him moderator-for-a-day of the Earhart Forum. LTM, who is never moderate. Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:51:24 EDT From: Ed in PSL Subject: Re: Pilot elitism Off the topic of pilots, I may have missed the update, but I was wondering whether anything deveoped out of the ham radio contact (post loss) whose daughter lived in Fort Perce, Fl) and was going to check her Dad's records for logs of this contact. Any news? LTM Ed of PSL **************************************************************************** From Ric No, not yet. Terry? Any word on that? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:58:24 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: DITCHING I don't understand why some people seem to believe the Electra was ditched and remained afloat for some time. Unless they are seaplanes or flying boats aircraft sink when they land on water. Any landing at sea is like a belly landing and damages hulls when hitting the water even worse than a belly landing on firm ground. Land aircraft are not designed for landings on water. Any ditching will result in a situation in which the aircraft will be damaged by the impact to the extend that it will eventually sink. Anyone who ever flew in a seaplane can confirm that landing a seaplane on water is worse than landing it on a concrete runway (but the aircraft stops more quickly). The Lockheed 10E Electra was not a seaplane. It was not designed for landings at sea. If it was ever ditched it would have been damaged by impact and doubtlessly damaged tothe point where it would sink rapidly. Any talk about the aircraft "remaining afloat" can be discarded. If the Electra ever floated it did so at the very best for for a few minutes. An emergency landing at sea would have ripped the aircraft apart. It would have ripped the wings off with the empty tanks that would keep the aircraft afloat. If the aircraft survived the landing at sea at all, the nose would have been dented by the impact. The aircraft would have become noseheavy. It would have pointed its tail to the sky and dived to the sea bottom in a matter of minutes. If it will ever be found, it will have been be seriously damaged by hitting the seabed nose first. I'd like to remind what happened to the FW-200 in Norway which has been recovered as described on this forum. However, all fuel consumption calculations provided recently on this forum indicate that regardless what educated fuel settings were chosen by AE en route, her Lockheed 10E had sufficient fuel remaining in its tanks to divert when reaching Howland. Even in a worst case scenario, as described here, it would still have left AE/FN with enough fuel to reach Gardner, all be it by the skin of AE's teeth. **************************************************************************** From Ric Anytime we say "would have" it means we don't know but we're guessing. In fact, a Lockheed 10E was ditched off the coast of Massachusetts in 1967. The wings were not ripped off and the airplane - without long range fuel tanks - floated for eight minutes. Whether Earhart's empty tanks "would have" kept the airplane afloat longer can only be a matter of speculation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:47:59 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: DITCHING > From Ric > > Anytime we say "would have" it means we don't know but we're guessing. In > fact, a Lockheed 10E was ditched off the coast of Massachusetts in 1967. > The wings were not ripped off and the airplane - without long range fuel > tanks - floated for eight minutes. Whether Earhart's empty tanks "would > have" kept the airplane afloat longer can only be a matter of speculation. There is also the case of a DC 727 or 737 that inadvertently landed (watered?) in a lake in Africa. It floated all night long and was eventually towed to shore: http://www.avweb.com/articles/707swim/ A more cautious rule would be to say, "On average, the chances of a land plane surviving a ditching and floating for a long period of time are poor." Marty ************************************************************************** From Dick Pingrey Every case of the ditching of a land plane is probably different. In the late 1940s or 1950s Pan Am had to ditch a Boeing 377? half way between H onolulu and San Francisco due to a prop failure and departed the airplane. The prop ruptured fuel tanks as it passed over the wing leaving insufficient fuel to get to either the destination or departure point. The airplane was finally sunk, days later, after it was shelled by the navy or Caost Guard as it was considered to be a hazard to navigation if left floating in the sea lanes. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:47:25 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: The forum and membership << From Ric Forum subscribership is now almost 700. >> Yeah, but how many of the 700 Forumites are MEMBERS? What is the current membership, and where do we stand on our campaign to have 2001 members in year 2001? C'mon folks, computers don't run in a vacuum (tube) anymore, and Ric is tired of eating bread and water. If you don't get your $45 membership dues worth of entertainment from the Forum, you're lurking in the wrong place. Even if you don't agree with the TIGHAR hypothesis, it still takes MONEY to keep the Forum going. Seriously, if you have been lurking for more than a month, you're hooked. It is time to pony up and support the project. LTM (who's paid her membership dues) Andrew McKenna 1045CE **************************************************************************** From Ric Roughly 40% of forum subscribers are members. Some of the biggest time-eaters are not. Membership has grown some since we launched the "2001 TIGHARs" campaign (we're now up to about 800 members) but, at the present rate, we won't have anywhere near 2001 members by the end of the year. On the other hand, if I really lived on bread and water I wouldn't be this tubby. An honest assessment of TIGHAR's financial situation is that, if present levels of support continue and all the pledges actually become donations, we'll be able to conduct the expedition as planned, but just barely. We still need all the help we can get. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:08:22 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Galten's Log entry/ A tale of uncertainty. Pat Gaston wrote: > How often did AE have to fly around storms? > How often did she have to climb above the overcast so Fred could get his > star fixes? > Were her Cambridge exhaust analyzers working properly? > What if, as Roessler & Gomez speculate, one of her propellers became > jammed in something less than high pitch? As I understand it, this would > require adjusting the other propeller to the same pitch and the resulting > increase in fuel consumption could be enormous. > Would a fuel leak necessarily have been discoverable immediately? What > if AE starts pumping from tank "B" into tank "C" and -- uh-oh -- nothing to > pump? Pat, not that I would agree with any of those factors occurring I certainly do not know that they didn't. At any rate you have at least articulated what some of those "external factors" could have been. That's one of the points I have been trying to make. If someone thinks something else might have happened at least suggest what it might have been. Citing vague "external factors" is not enough. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:13:06 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Shoe size I was just looking at the Alan Board photo of Amelia walking on the wing on her Electra (Lae Gallery). I know you talked about rivet spacing as a means of estimating her shoe size, but with all the advances in forensic photo imaging being done today, surly someone somewhere could determine her exact shoe size. **************************************************************************** From Ric I assume you've also read the research bulletins which describe the difficulties encountered in doing that. This kind of "if they can put a man on the moon" comment is meaningless unless you have specific information about who can do it and how. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:17:50 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: The floating Electra << The plane was filled with empty fuel tanks. The point that most people overlook is how long that plane would have floated after a ditching at sea. ...Earhart's plane with its huge emptywing tanks and empty fuel tanks in the fuselage would have kept the plane up who knows how long. >> Good point. How exactly is Nauticos going to re-navigate this portion of the "flight" where the Electra floats for xxx hours in the current/wind/swells. They really have a tougher project on their hands than they seem to think. amck *************************************************************************** From Ric Not a problem. Elgen has that covered. You see, the tanks rapidly flooded through the fuel dump valves. Once you accept speculation as fact you can solve any problem - until you have to actually go look. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:19:08 EDT From: Kar Burns Subject: Re: foot to forearm As a physical anthropologist, I can assure you that proportions are not going to provide the precise information that you want. People are not designed on a drawing board. There are general guidelines, but not precise proportions. Add to that the error introduced by different kinds of shoes (measure the shoes in your own closet) and you have an even greater error. This won't work. Kar (10.5 to 9.5) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:44:43 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Fat Feet > From Ric > > So AE's shoes look tight to you. Therefore, you conclude that the shoe > TIGHAR found on Niku is - or is not - hers? Neither, I am responding to the apparent contradiction between photos in ordinary shoes that show apparently normal feet and anecdotal remarks where people have claimed she had big feet and her "dress" shoes hurt her feet. The photographs I refer to show she has in fact got "fat feet" and thick ankles. The comment on the forum suggests people thought she had LONG feet. I think the photos show her feet as relatively proportional in length, but definitely fat. That would suggest that length wise the shoe sole, correctly assembled in probably still in contention. Without the actual feet and the shoe uppers, whether they were tight is is sort of difficult to tell...... But you probably worked that out already. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:49:36 EDT From: Albert Ackers Subject: Re: Handprint > From Dan Postellon > > The raw data undoubtedly exist, probably in the files of a physical > anthropologist The 7.5 rule, as Amanda Dunham points out was a tool developed for art students and is not based upon data derived from human anatomy. Don Postellon is correct when he says the human proportion data exists. The study of human body proportions was actually begun during WWII and was developed for the industrial engineers who designed military equipment such as airplanes and tanks that required close integration with humans. The research evolved into a "science" know as human factors engineering (ergonomics in Europe). Hundreds of people were measured and the data was evaluated by anthropologists, behavioral psychologists, biologists, medical doctors, and physiologists and were put into a form usable by the industrial engineers. Later, designers at Henry Dreyfuss and Associates published "Humanscale" (MIT Press) and currently is one of the best human factors engineering tools available. It was the tool I used to design assembly lines for the personl computer business. While Humanscale doesn't refer to the type of proportions that have been used on the forum; i.e. foot:hand, foot:forearm, it does give typical anatomical dimininsions for a person of a given height. I will give an example of a typical person who is 5' 3" tall: Height standing = 63" Foot length = 6.9" Forearm length = 9.1" Hand length = 6.8" These dimensions can be derived for any hieght person. Keep in mind that these are typical dimensions for design perposes only. Albert Ackers *************************************************************************** From Ric Just for the fun of it ( as AE used to say) what's the foot length for a person who is 68 inches standing? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:10:56 EDT From: Bob Sarnia Subject: Dues The e-mail just posted by Andrew McKenna -- evidently a canny Scot -- really got to me, and I felt as guilty as hell. You'd better hire him as your financial advisor. I wholeheartedly agree with him. Whether we believe in TIGHAR's hypothesis or not, I believe we all get some kind of enjoyment out of the forum, or else we wouldn't have stuck around for so long. Also, thanks for tolerating my oft-times contentious e-mails, despite the fact that I was just a non-member. Even though we may never see eye-to-eye, I owe it to the forum for all the info. I gleaned, which no doubt was acquired through much effort on your part. Paying $45 p.a. is not going to force me to stand on corners selling pencils or apples, so my check will be in the mail "tout de suite." Regards, Bob Sarnia *************************************************************************** From Ric You're a gentleman and a scholar .... and now a TIGHAR. In spite of appearances, this is not a cult. There are no belief requirements other than a commitment to logical, fact-based inquiry and the merits of open and honest peer review. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:18:13 EDT From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: The forum and membership To Andrew McKenna 1045CE, Your right on Andy,better words were never said.I live on $637.00 a month S.S. and I don't mind paying 45.00 at all.Plus I plan to send TIGHAR a few bucks to help out for Nuki IIII,also Iam gona get me a cool TIGHAR expedition cap.Thanks Andrew for putting this to the forum.TIGHAR is more then just AE and FN. Terry Lee Simpson #2396 (LTM) WHO HATED FREE LOADERS! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:25:04 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: DITCHING > Dick Pingrey wrote : > > Every case of the ditching of a land plane is probably different. In the > late 1940s or 1950s Pan Am had to ditch a Boeing 377? half way between > Honolulu and San Francisco due to a prop failure and departed the airplane. > The prop ruptured fuel tanks as it passed over the wing leaving insufficient > fuel to get to either the destination or departure point. The airplane was > finally sunk, days later, after it was shelled by the navy or Caost Guard as > it was considered to be a hazard to navigation if left floating in the sea > lanes. Dick, I'm afraid we are mixing up two (actually three) incidents. Two of the 12 Boeing 314 flying boats Boeing built ended their flying careers making a forced landing at sea and kept afloat. But these were flying boats, not land aircraft. Therefore they were not ditched but landed at sea as they were designed and built to do. In both cases all on board were saved by ships that came to the rescue. Both these flying boats remained afloat but couldn't be repaired at sea and having become a hazard to shipping and were sunk by gunfire by the US Coast Guard. It was a sad end to two "historic" aircraft. The first one was NC18601, christened "Honolulu Clipper". It had been the very first of nine Boeing 314 Pan American Airways had taken delivery of (in 1939). It was sunk by gunfire after a forced landing in the Pacific on 5 June 1945. The second was NC 18612. This was the one that had been surprised by the events at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and as a result -the Pacific having become too dangerous- was flown back to the US by the West, eventually flying around the World. This was the "Capetown Clipper". In 1946 the War Assets Department sold all remaining Boeing 314 to World Airways. In 1947 two were sold to American International Airways. They were NC18611 and 18612. The latter was named "Bermuda Sky Queen" and was the one that suffered an engine problem on 14 October 1947 over the Atlantic. It also landed safely at sea and was also sunk by gunfire by the US Coast Guard. The ditching you refer to was the Pan American World Airways Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, christened "Sovereign of the Skies", which ditched alongside a ship on 18 October 1956. This was not a flying boat but a landplane. It didn't float for days as you think. It sank within 20 minutes as stewardess Katherine Shiroma describes in "Fasten your settles". The pictures taken from the ship "Pontchartrain" on page 110 and 111 show clearly that the aircraft broke in half. The larger part remained afloat 20 minutes before it sank. All on board could safely leave the aircraft in the life rafts and were taken aboard the "Pontchartrain". Even some floating bagage could be recovered. That's how Katherine Shiroma recovered her own beauty case. The ditching of the "Sovereign of the Skies" is still referred to as an example of a "successful ditching if carried out according to the book". The Boeing 377 Stratocruiser was a fine airliner and developed from the WW II B-29 bomber. The "Sovereign of the Skies" was one of eight Boeing 377 Pan American had acquired when it merged with American Overseas Airways in 1950. The Boeing 377 was a spacious and comfortable aircraft, featuring a bar on the lower deck. Call it the basement if you like. As you rightly recall "Sovereign of the Skies" ran into technical problems on 18 October 1956. The aircraft was on its way from Tokyo to San Francisco, having made a scheduled stop at Honolulu to pick up some more passengers. As "Clipper 943" it was cruising at 21,000 ft from Honolulu to San Francisco as the propeller of number 1 engine went out of control because of a governor failure. The propeller began windmilling and reduced the aircraft's speed, straining the other engines. Captain Ogg was unsuccessful in feathering it. The propeller eventually disengaged from the engine and kept spinning wildly. Then number 4 engine developed trouble and seized. With two engines remaining and one propeller causing serious drag the crew calculated that they had insufficient fuel to reach San Francisco. In fact the calculated there would not be fuel left for the last 200 miles. With no alternate airports within range it was decided to ditch the aircraft. Radio contact was established with the weather ship "Ocean Station November". This was the "Pontchartrain" on station in the Pacific. The ship had the aircraft on its radar and assisted the crew in plotting a diversion to the ship. The ditching was carried out alongside the waiting ship and according to the book. It was so successful that it is still referred to as an example in training for over-water emergencies. However, looking at the pictures again today I have some doubts. The one showing the aircraft coming in the land alongside the "Pontchartrain" clearly shows the flaps are down. I was trained to keep flaps retracted as they are likely to be torn off asymmetrically by the impact, sending the aircraft spinning and causing it to break up. It think that is the reason why the Stratocruiser broke in two. Any experts out there who have an opinion on this ? *************************************************************************** From Ric Ditching procedures are interesting but off-topic. Anyone wishing to correspond further with Herman on the subject can write to him directly at be130764@econophone.be ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:39:27 EDT From: Susie Subject: Shoe size There are a number of photo's made for fashion purposes. Amelia had a line of clothing. I have seen some of the photo's in a colllection for sale by a rare book dealer back in South Carolina in the early 80's. These photo's are full length ones, as she was also pushing for "rational comfortable clothing". There must be a lot of these pictures out there somewhere, probably at Purdue. Susie **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, there are lots and lots of pictures showing AE's feet, but none is as useful for establishing shoe size as the Bandoeng photo. The reason is that, in that photo, the rivet lines on the wing are clearly discernible and the surface she is standing on features uniform striations - so it's just like she is standing on a ruler. Even so, the task of determining the actual length of the shoe is not simple. I'll post Jeff Glickman's reports on the the subjcet as separate postings. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:42:38 EDT From: Ric Subject: Anthropometric Data Interpretation Jeff Glickman at Photek has pointed out an error - or at least an oversimplification - that I made in the Shoe Fetish report. ********************************************************** Ric, The following information may be helpful for your shoe research project. As a consumer of U.S. Army anthropometric data, I believe you may have misinterpreted a data table. Statistically speaking, anthropometric data is normally distributed. Usually this is expressed in U.S. Army tables in the form of X +/- Y, where X is the population mean and Y represents one standard deviation of the normally distributed data. One standard deviation from the mean represents approximately 68% of the population, two standard deviations 95% of the population, and three standard deviations 99.7% of the population. In this case, if the table reports that the average foot size for an American woman 5 feet 8 inches tall is 257mm +/- 9.03mm, then the correct interpretation of this information is that 68% of American woman who are 5 feet 8 inches tall have a foot between 248mm and 266mm. It is also correct to say that 95% of American women have a foot between 239mm and 275mm, and that 99.7% of American women have a foot between 230mm and 284mm. I hope this clarification is helpful. Best of luck to you on your ongoing research endeavors. Jeff Glickman Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners Board Certified Forensic Examiner ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:57:07 EDT From: Ric Subject: Measuring the heel For those who may be interested in the complexities of photogrametric measurement, here's Photek's Preliminary Letter of Opinion on the length of the heel in the Bandoeng photo. **************************************************************************** Dear Mr. Gillespie, I am in receipt of two photographs from TIGHAR of Ms. Amelia Earhart standing on the left wing of her Lockheed Electra 10E. I understand that both photographs are copies of the same photograph shot at different scales. I understand you need to know the size of the heel of Ms. Earhart's right shoe seen in the photograph. I can measure the length of the heel, however, due to the orientation of the shoe with respect to the camera, and the availability of scale data, I cannot measure the width of the heel. It is my understanding that TIGHAR has in its possession a recovered rubber heel from one of its expeditions, and that TIGHAR's objective is to compare the length of the recovered rubber heel to the length of the rubber heel seen in the supplied photographs. To make a proper comparison, the recovered heel must cover the full length of a shoe heel. I have no prior knowledge of the recovered heel, and therefore I hereby certify and affirm that I do not currently know, nor have I ever known, any measurement information with respect to this recovered artifact. The orientation of the heel ("object") seen in the photographs with respect to the camera is complex: there is minimal displacement of the object from the image y-axis, near maximum displacement from the image x-axis, and the object is rotated in all three dimensions. This complicates accurate analysis. Analysis begins by establishing scale in the photograph. TIGHAR initially reported that the mean center-to-center distance between the rivet rows on the wing in the supplied photographs was 3.5 inches, and that this data was obtained by measuring the mean distance between wing rivet rows on a Lockheed 10. Subsequent retrieval of data from TIGHAR archives shows this distance to be 2.5 inches. The assumption is that all Lockheed 10=E2=80=99s were constructed using common engineering drawings and that therefore all Lockheed 10s have a mean wing rivet row spacing of 2.5 inches, including Ms. Earhart's. I have not independently confirmed TIGHAR's measurement, however I shall use this datum in subsequent calculations. The rivet rows are rotated with respect to the camera which restricts the way the above scale data can be used. The rotation means that separate anamorphic compression coefficients must be used, one each for the three orthogonal axes. Without knowing these coefficients, the scale data can be applied in the following restricted manner: The scale data is valid only in the family of parallel lines of corresponding rivets between two or more rivet rows, and further scaled by the vanishing perspective. There is no other valid orientation for use of the scale data. Normally, repeated measurements along the above family of parallel lines would be used to establish the vanishing scale coefficient and measurement error bounds. There are however unique circumstances in this photograph which make this unnecessary. The first is a ridged surface which Ms. Earhart is standing on which is most easily seen in the close-up photograph. The second is that the ridges are in the same family of parallel lines as the rivet rows. The third is that the boundary separating the ridged surface from the rest of the wing is in the same family of parallel lines as the scale. Therefore, the ridges can be used to project the scale onto the side of the object. At the interface of the wing surface and the ridged surface are 3 rivets belonging to the scale family of parallel lines. The first rivet (rivet 1) is near the ball of the foot, the second rivet (rivet 2) is near the arch of the foot, and the third rivet (rivet 3) is near the heel of the foot. Sobel kernels were used to enhance the ridges. Vertical Sobel and horizontal Sobel kernels were applied to the close-up image and added together (Sobel Magnitude image). This image was inverted, and then its levels adjusted to visualize the ridges. This was then added to the original close-up image to enhance the ridges. This image was analyzed to count the number of ridges between rivet 1 and rivet 2, and the number of ridges between rivet 2 and rivet 3. In both cases, there are 20 ridges. As the mean distance is 2.5 inches between each row of rivets, and there are 20 ridges between each row of rivets, the center-to-center ridge spacing is therefore 0.125 inches, or 3.175 millimeters. The ridges extend from the interface of the wing surface and the ridged surface, to the side of the object. This does not however provide sufficient information to measure the heel because of the oblique angle of the shoe with respect to the camera in the plane of the wing surface. The apparent length of the object is different than the actual length due to this oblique angle. It is therefore essential to determine this oblique angle to correct the object's apparent length. The top projection of the object is modeled as a rectangle and a half-circle which share one edge. The shared edge is the longer edge of the rectangle, and the linear edge of the half circle. The rectangle has dimensions l x w, where l in the length in the x-axis, and w is the length in the y-axis. The half-circle has constant radius r, such that the diameter d (d =3D 2r) is the same as w, therefore 2r =3D d =3D w. The length l of the rectangle is set to r, the same as the radius of the half-circle. The inside bottom edge of the heel may have curvature, however, the extreme points of such a symmetric arc form the corners of the model=E2=80=99s rectangle. The error introduced from divergence of the heel model from an actual heel is negligible and can be ignored. The projection of the inside edge of the heel comprise 4 ridges. This measurement was made by following the vertical edges of the inside edge of the heel down to the point of contact with a ridge, and then counting the number of ridges between these two points of contact. To minimize error, the counting was made in the same family of parallel lines as the scale. Therefore, the projection of the inside edge of the heel is 0.5 inches or 12.7 millimeters. The projection of the side of the heel comprise 16.5 ridges. This measurement was made by following the right-hand vertical edge of the inside edge of the heel, and the rear of the heal down to the point of contact with a ridge, and then counting the number of ridges between these two points of contact. To minimize error, the counting was made in the same family of parallel lines as the scale. Therefore, the projection of the side of the heal is 2.0625 inches, or 52.3875 millimeters. These two projection measurements from the heel, when combined with the heel model, are sufficient information to calculate the angle of rotation of the heel away from the camera in the plane of the wing. The height of the camera relative to the plane of the wing is low, and the error introduced by this height is negligible and can be ignored. The total projected length of the inside edge of the heel is (Equation 1): (From Ric; Unfortunately, email will not support the reproduction of the symbols used in the equations. We'll put the actual letter up on the webiste, linked to the the Shoe Fetish Part 2 research bulletin.) http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/31_ShoeFetish2/ShoeOpinion.htm where 2r is the approximate and unknown width of the heel, q is angle of rotation of the heel away from the camera, and 4 is the length (in ridges) of the measured projection. The total projected length of the side edge of the heel is (Equation 2): (From Ric; Unfortunately, email will not support the reproduction of the symbols used in the equations. We'll put the actual letter up on the website, linked to the the Shoe Fetish Part 2 research bulletin.) where the first factor is the projected length of the half-circle plus the projected length of adjoining rectangle, the second factor accommodates the projection, q is angle of rotation of the heel away from the camera in the plane of the wing, and 20.5 is the length (in ridges) of the measured projection (the sum of 4 + 16.5, the two projections measured above). These two equations constitute two equations in two unknowns which can be solved to determine q, the angle of rotation of the heel away from the camera. Equation 1 can be rewritten as: (From Ric; Unfortunately, email will not support the reproduction of the symbols used in the equations. We'll put the actual letter up on the webiste, linked to the the Shoe Fetish Part 2 research bulletin.) and then substituted into Equation 2 yielding: (From Ric; Unfortunately, email will not support the reproduction of the symbols used in the equations. We'll put the actual letter up on the webiste, linked to the the Shoe Fetish Part 2 research bulletin.) This equation was solved for q using Mathcad Professional 2000, resulting in q = 11.3°, the rotation of the heel away from the camera in the plane of the wing. The measured value of 20.5 ridges is the projection of a diagonal measurement taken across the heel. This measurement must be corrected for both the heel rotation and the diagonality. Because the measurement is a diagonal measurement, it must be shortened to correct for the heel rotation. The diagonal measurement corrected for the heel rotation of 11.3° is 20.1 ridges. The geometry of the diagonal measurement is used to determine the length of the heel. In the model, assuming no heel rotation, the diagonal measurement is at 63.43° relative to the inside heel edge. When the heel is rotated 11.3°, the right end point of the visible diagonal moves along the perimeter of the half-circle, obscuring the end of the heel. In the model, the diagonal at 11.3° is 3.5% longer than the diagonal to the rear of the heel. Therefore, the diagonal measurement corrected to the rear of the heel is 19.4 ridges. Now the diagonal at 63.43° is corrected into the family of lines parallel to the heel: 19.4 sin(63.43) = 17.35 ridges. Having previously calculated the center-to-center ridge width as 3.175 millimeters, the length of the heel is 17.35 (3.175) = 55.1 millimeters. I have not yet performed an error analysis to establish a confidence interval. It may be possible to perform a similar computation to determine the length of the shoe. Also, to properly apply the above result, it is important to know if heel length is constant or varying with respect to shoe length. Thank you for your continued interest in, and support, of PHOTEK. Sincerely, Jeff Glickman, PHOTEK Board Certified Forensic Examiner Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:08:36 EDT From: Ric Subject: Meaurment of sole Here's Photek's Preliminary Letter of Opinion on the length of the sole. **************************************************************** Dear Mr. Gillespie, I am in receipt of two photographs from TIGHAR of Ms. Amelia Earhart standing on the left wing of her Lockheed Electra 10E. These are the same two photographs used for the heel length analysis which is described in correspondence to TIGHAR dated January 31, 2001 and February 20, 2001. I understand that both photographs are copies of the same photograph shot at different scales. I understand that you need to know the length of Ms. Earhart'9s right shoe seen in the photograph. It is my understanding that TIGHAR has in its possession parts of a recovered shoe from one of its expeditions, and that TIGHAR's objective is to compare the length of the recovered shoe to the length of the shoe seen in the supplied photographs. I have no prior knowledge of the recovered shoe, and therefore I hereby certify and affirm that I do not currently know, nor have I ever known, any measurement information with respect to this recovered artifact. The orientation of the shoe ("object") seen in the photographs with respect to the camera is complex: like the heel in the previous analysis there is minimal displacement of the object from the image y-axis, near maximum displacement from the image x-axis, and the object is rotated in all three dimensions. This complicates accurate analysis. Analysis begins by establishing scale in the photograph. The methodology for this was previously described in the above referenced heel length correspondence. This analysis reuses results from the heel analysis including the ridge center-to-center spacing of 0.125 inch, or 3.175 millimeters. The projection of the side of the shoe comprise 76.5 ridges. This measurement was made by projecting the front tip and rear heel of the shoe down to a ridge, and then counting the number of ridges between these two projected points. To minimize error, the counting was made in the same family of parallel lines as the scale. This is not, however, sufficient information to establish the shoe length because of the oblique angle of the shoe with respect to the camera in the plane of the wing surface. The apparent length of the object is different than the actual length due to this oblique angle. It is therefore essential to accommodate this oblique angle to correct the object=E2=80=99s apparent length. First, the height of the camera relative to the plane of the wing is low, and the error introduced by this height is negligible and can be ignored. Second, when the heel is rotated by 11.3° as was established in the heel analysis, the right end point of the visible toe-to-heel diagonal moves along the perimeter of the heel half-circle (see previous letter for a description of this model) obscuring the actual end of the heel. Correspondingly, more of the tip of the shoe becomes uncovered and visible. The absolute value of the error introduced at both ends, one in the positive, one in the negative, is nearly the same, as both ends of the shoe have similar radii of curvature. Therefore, the obscuration effect is nearly cancelled out, becomes negligibly small, and can be ignored. Finally, in the previous correspondence, the projected heel length of 17.35 ridges was found to correspond to the physical length of 55.1 millimeters. The projected shoe length measurement belongs to the same family of parallel lines as the projected heel length measurement, therefore ratiometric analysis may be applied. This effectively reuses anamorphic compression coefficients which are embedded in the heel ridge to physical length ratio. Therefore: 17.35 76.5 55.1 x where x is the length of the shoe. Solving for x, the shoe's length is 242.9 millimeters. I have not yet performed an error analysis to establish a confidence interval. Thank you for your continued interest in, and support, of PHOTEK. Sincerely, Jeff Glickman, PHOTEK Board Certified Forensic Examiner Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners www. PhotekImaging.com glickman@PhotekImaging.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:06:19 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Dues Andrew McKenna is right. And so is Bob Sarnia. You can count on me membership as well. ************************************************************************* From Ric Is this a trend I see developing? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:07:53 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: DITCHING When one relies too much on spelling control (as I clearly do) one can be surprised by the things the stupid machine can do to a perfectly good text. What I said was that the book was titled "Fasten your seat belts", not "Fasten your settles" ! Sorry for that. BTW the author was Valerie Lester, who wanted to honor all Pan Am cabin crew that served the great airline well that no longer is. She interviewed Katherine Shiroma who was one of the stewardesses on board when the "Queen of the Skies" was ditched as described in my previous posting. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:29:20 EDT From: Ric Subject: Heel breakthrough? A TIGHAR member by the name of Dave Evans (who is not subscribed to the forum) has sent me an email with an observation that may be a breakthrough in the whole shoes/heels question. He points out that in all the photos in the current research bulletin "Shoe Fetish Part 2" we only see the INSIDE part of the heel appearing light colored. In the one shot that shows the entire heel (the one where AE in kneeling under the plane) the heel appears to be half light-colored and half dark-colored. I had always attributed that appearance to shadow, but upon closer inspection, you can see that AE is entirely in shadow. There is a photo (not included in the bulletin) of AE squatting on the wing of the Electra in Miami, saying goodbye to GP (shaking hands). In that photo, the inside edge of the left heel is visible and is light-colored, but the outside edge of the right heel is also visible and it looks dark. What if the heels of AE's shoes - strange as it sounds - were half light and half dark? Dave says he thinks he remembers one of his relatives having such two-tone heels. If that's what's going on here then neither of the heels found on Nikumaroro are Earhart's. Anybody know anything about two-tone heels? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:56:36 EDT From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Heel breakthrough? > Anybody now anything about two-tone heels? Sounds like it is time to give the shoe company (Catspaw was it?) another call. jerry ellis #2113 *************************************************************************** From Ric Obviously, but the two-tone heels (if such things exist) are not necessarily CatsPaw. ************************************************************************** From David Evans Katz In re: two-tone heels: I used to have them on my penny-loafers when I was a kid. This is something I distinctly remember, because I had begged my mother to buy me penny-loafers for a long time. All the kids had them, but my mother insisted that I wear lace-up oxfords for proper arch support (mothers of 12 year-olds seem to have no sense of how important it is to fit in with your friends). When she finally relented, I got Thom McAn loafers that featured heels that were diagonally sectioned so that the exterior angle segment was black and the interior angle segment was kind of an ecru color. The heel may have been composed of two different materials so that the side that experienced the toughest wear was made of more durable material. Check with the Biltrite people. I bet they would be familiar with this type of heel. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:37:04 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: How did it start? The part about WILLI & GANNON and 157-337 that impressed me was that they reiterated, It was the navigator's lop that AE broadcast, why are we not giving Fred his due and looking at where that line goes. It is the best evidence or speculation [I won't argue] that we have. RC *************************************************************************** From Ric That's what originally got my attention too. Tom Gannon, especially, had thousands of hours as an Air Force navigator, many of them over the Pacific, using the same techniques that Noonan used. He understood the context in which the loss occurred and what he said made sense. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:57:38 EDT From: Andy Subject: Morte de foot to forearm As Tighar's newly completed Podiatric Interpretive Sizing Study would indicate, the length of AEs forearm cannot possibly tell us her foot size to the level of accuracy we require. My original intent was to determine how important it was for us to precicely know AEs foot size. That was why I stated rather matter of factly the foot to forearm bit, instead of the "I heard that..." variety which would inherently be open to attack. Now that I have been on the business end of the forum, I have much greater confidence in the quality of data coming from within. No half-assed "evidence" will slip through this crucible! LTM, who says Bobby DeNiro is on the phone with the traditional "AND YOU BLEW IT!" call. Andy **************************************************************************** From Ric >No half-assed "evidence" will slip through this crucible! You got that right. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:10:42 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Membership Jihad To Bob Sarnia, Terry Lee Simpson, and Herman De Wulf That's great! Thanks for leading the way. Money well spent, you won't regret it. Let's see, who does that leave, some 420 (-3) Lurking Forumites left to go... C'Mon folks, think about it. $45, that's less than 15¢ a day for 6 day a week home delivery of the most interesting news and discussion you can have with your pants on, and monthly delivery of the Tracks, and proud ownership of a TIGHAR membership card, scorching scrutiny by your peers of any posting you dare submit, and much much more. It is cheap by any standard. Heck, the NY Sunday Times costs $5 out here and isn't nearly as interesting. Ric will even put a coveted "F" after your membership number to designate your esteemed position as a Forum subscriber, right Ric??? LTM (who's on a membership Jihad) Andrew 1045CE and "F" **************************************************************************** From Ric Membership Jihad? I love it. Insh' Allah. "Let your swords run with the blood of the Infidel and we will all eat lamb in Paradise!" People sign on and off the forum all the time and it doesn't cost a cent, so it hardly seems worth noting on a membership number. The C (Aviation Archaeology Course) and E (Expedition Qualification) designations represent real accomplishments. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:26:56 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: How did it start? As I recall Willi and Gannon got there initial information from our friend Hardon M. Wade Jr aka Don Wade who does not have kind words for them. Wade advanced the theory wat before Willi and Gannon that Amelia went down in the Phoenix and landed at an atoll, but not Niku. He wont tell which one. Maybe we should give him credit too. He relied a lot on Dick Strippel's book. LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric The question was how TIGHAR got started in the Earhart game. When Willi and Gannon first came to us they said nothing about Wade. Much later, I learned that Willi had advised Wade on navigational issues but they had a falling out when Willi started to get more press than Wade. My understanding is that Wade was focused on Hull Island and based most of his conclusions on the post-loss radio messages, which Willi and Gannon never mentioned at all. Trying to assign "credit" for the hypothesis that the airplane came down in the Phoenix Group is petty and pointless. The logic was laid out in U.S. Navy radio messages the day after the plane vanished. Wilhelm Friedell, captain of the USS Colorado, first articulated the theory in his July 13, 1937 search report. He says it was the product of a discussion among line officers and aviators from Fleet Airbase, Pearl Harbor in Honolulu the evening after Earhart went missing. The theory was later espoused by Paul Mantz and George Putnam, among others. It represents no flash of genius by anyone. It's a no-brainer. I can only claim to have grasped the obvious. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:31:28 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Membership Jihad MY higher being says the rivers will run with single-malt scotch in Paradise. Anyway, please become a member. It is money well spent. Tim Smith 1142 CE(F) **************************************************************************** From Rick Seapin To Terry, Andrew, Bob, and Herman: Ancient philosopher once say, "why buy cow when milk free?" **************************************************************************** From Ric If you don't get it, nobody can explain it to you. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:46:36 EDT From: Bill Moffet Subject: Fumes Over time there have been a number of postings speculating on our heroes' condition after 20-odd hours of flight. One of the factors often mentioned is fumes, presumably gasoline fumes. I don't recall reading any facts on the subject but seriously doubt that the tanks could have been allowed to vent to the cabin or cockpit. All questions of Fred lighting-up a smoke aside, seems to me the radios alone had enough spark generating equipment to blow the plane up if gasoline fumes were present. I well remember flying a modified B-24 across the Pacific in 1945. It had on-board gas tanks with sight gages (!) and the problem was not fumes, but to determine how much fuel remained when the autopilot failed about half way to Hawaii. Have you any facts on fumes in the Electra? LTM, Bill Moffet #2156 **************************************************************************** From Ric The only time Earhart is known to have complained of gasoline funes in the cockpit was during the South Atlantic crossing and that was because the tanks had been overfilled in Natal, Brazil. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 09:53:52 EDT From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: Membership Jihad Rick Seapin said ,why buy cow when milk free Ric said........If you don't get it,nobody can explain it to you. Well Mr. Seapin maybe this will help you. Its called pride, maybe a sence of decency,to be part of something that is good.You no doubt watch TV via cable or sattelite,and pay a bill,there is nothing on TV but crap,except Discovey Channel and shows like that.Look at it this way Mr.Seapin.if TIGHAR finds out what happened to AE and FN, would'nt it be cool to be part of an organization that finally did it.I hope you were just kidding about that cow crap,if not you can kiss my six Terry Lee Simpson(#2396)LTM **************************************************************************** From Rick Seapin I get it Ric, I also work for a living and have a rather large family to take care of. $45.00 is not really that much, but for what? Board for your horses? **************************************************************************** From Ric No. Although it may surprise you, I too work for a living. I work for TIGHAR. TIGHAR pays my salary and meets its other expenses from the voluntary support of the membership. How I choose to spend my salary is my business. As a matter of fact, one of those choices is to make tax deductible contributions to other nonprofit organizations whose work I wish to support. *************************************************************************** From Herman De Wulf To Rick Seapin Are you a Dutchman by any chance ? *************************************************************************** From Ric (For those who may not know, Herman is Belgian. This is probably the most vicious personal attack I have ever permitted to be posted on the forum.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:01:08 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Membership Jihad << From Rick Seapin Ancient philosopher once say, "why buy cow when milk free?" >> Good question. It is a pride of ownership and personal responsibility thing. When we drag home some smoking gun any idiot artifact, (or even if we only manage to expand the knowlege of the history of the Phoenix Islands) I personally will be proud of the fact that I supported the project for over 10 years. I will also feel good that I haven't been milking my neighbor's cow all these years. How about you? LTM (who prefers to pay for her milk) Andrew McKenna 1045CE"F" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:26:07 EDT From: Kar Burns Subject: Re: Membership Jihad To Rick Seapin: > "Ancient philosopher once say, 'why buy cow when milk free?'" Only a well-fed cow produces milk! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:30:59 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: Membership Jihad Rick Seapin wrote: "I get it Ric, I also work for a living and have a rather large family to take care of. $45.00 is not really that much, but for what? Board for your horses?" I find it appropriate to respond not only on Ric's behalf, but as a TIGHAR member since 1998. Mr. Seapin, on several occasions I have poked sticks at Ric in person and on this forum, and all in good fun. My most recent poke was my smart remark posted a few months ago that Ric's moniker is Guthpert E. Throckmortin, III. Which, of course, is not true. However, Ric has a mature and responsible outlook on life and takes it all in stride. He even manages to poke back at times. Ric is at times blunt in his response to various postings but, I have not found him to be sarcastic or degrading. Having had the pleasure of meeting Ric in person, following his leadership and working with him, I have formed the opinion that Ric manages TIGHAR's activities with a high level of professionalism. His personal life reflects absolute integrity. Mr. Seapin, remarks such as yours are malicious, without warrant and provokes me to ask, do you know what the heck you're talking about? I do! LTM, Roger Kelley, #2112CE ************************************************************************* From John Clauss Rick Seapin wrote: >I get it Ric, I also work for a living and have a rather large family to take care of. $45.00 is not really that much, but for what? Board for your horses?< Rick, It may surprise you that Tighar is not just Ric Gillespie, Pat Thrasher and the forum. It is an organization of people and many damned good people at that! Over the past thirteen years I have met many of these individuals on expeditions, at courses and at various gatherings and can say that they are an intelligent, interesting and diverse group. You should be so lucky as to be able to call yourself a member of a group that has the wide range of interests, the intellect and the vast breadth of experience that this one does. This is an organization of people and those of us that have had the opportunity to interact with other members are damned proud of it! John Clauss ************************************************************************* From Ric Mr. Seapin has submitted a further posting that does not meet basic forum standards for civility and has communicated his desire to no longer subscribe to the forum. I have respected his request and removed him. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:34:32 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: FBI I know the FBI papers on earhart have been available for some time but I've never been able to access them. The relatively new FBI-FOI page has them in PDF format for download. TIGHAR also rates a mention in the introduction. http://foia.fbi.gov/earhart.htm Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:29:14 EDT From: Bob Sarnia Subject: Evidence This is my first posting since becoming a paid-up member of TIGHAR (although I don't have my card yet). Let me just say that I neither expect nor seek any special consideration with regard to my postings. I'm just one of the guys, albeit a "ditched" theorist. Alan Caldwell said: "If anyone thinks something happened to AE other than going to Niku I'm OK with that but tell me what evidence you have for your idea. Not what your theory is but what evidence supports it." Further: "If you believe they ran out of gas prematurely tell me what evidence supports your idea but not what additional speculation could make that possible. That gets nowhere." Alan, respectfully, you're a hard man to deal with. If you take away from the forum all theories, speculation, supposition, ideas and hypotheses, as well as all the coulds, shoulds, and woulds, you're going to end up with a situation drier than Death Valley in high summer. Sometimes a crime is solved without the presence of any hard evidence; in such cases, it's called circumstantial evidence, and that's what we have here. Very little evidence is extant today regarding AE's last flight, other than a few abstract radio messages, and even those are being pulled apart, to wit, the "only half-hour left" controversy, and now, even the "gas is running low" part of that message. Pretty soon we'll have people saying that AE wasn't even aboard the Electra; that FN took off from Lae without her. If AE's 0742 "gas is running low" message is considered speculation, then Niku obviously falls under the same category, and you agreed with that, Alan, when you wrote in your 2nd posting on April 11th: "If there is no evidence to support a speculation then why not go with a theory (I fail to see the difference between a theory and speculation) that IS supported by some evidence? Now you might counter that the evidence on Niku hasn't been proved and YOU WOULD BE CORRECT but at least there is some (?) whereas there is NONE anywhere else." Alan, Niku is pure 100% unadulterated speculation, theorizing that the Electra crashlanded there. There is no hard evidence to support that theory; further, three expeditions have searched the atoll for such evidence, and each time those searching have left empty-handed. Oscar Boswell recently wrote, paraphrasing: "My point has always simply been (people) fail to recognize their own assumptions as assumptions, however easily (they) recognize assumptions made by others." It's like the pot calling the kettle black. Assumptions are assumptions regardless of which side utters them, and we're both uttering them, because there is little hard evidence to discuss. We are being told that the radiomen's entries were wrong, the ship's officers wrongly copied down log entries for the Itasca Report, the newspapermen did a poor job of reporting; everything and everyone is wrong if their entries or reports do not gel with the Niku hypothesis. Yet there is no hard evidence to back this contention. Elgen Long's book is not to be trusted, yet his interview with CRM Bellart regarding RM3C O'Hare is used as "near proof" that O'Hare wrongly made the "only half-hour left" log entry. It's only after having made the point that Ric says it could be regarded as anecdotal. One thing I learned in studying criminology: "Impressions reported soon after an event are generally the most accurate." I believe the same applies in this case, too. What surprised me, however, was Ric's April 11th reply to a posting by Andrew McKenna, in which he wrote: "Never underestimate the ability of the 'crashed-and-sankers' to ignore evidence." What evidence? Okay, so the gloves are off! I say, "Never underestimate the ability of the Niku-ites to ignore common sense." Regards, Bob Sarnia *************************************************************************** From Ric My gloves are still on because you seem like a nice guy and a reasonable man. I'm happy to discuss these points with you. Let's start with the clear understanding that both crashed-and-sank and landed-at-Niku are hypotheses - theories - and, as you point out, speculative by definition. The dispute seems to be whether there is evidence to support either theory. To address that question we must define what we mean when we say "evidence." If evidence is the same as proof, then there is obviously no evidence to support either theory or they wouldn't be theories - one would be historical fact and the other would a disproven hypothesis. So if evidence does not mean proof, what does it mean? I would suggest that "evidence" is something that appears to have a bearing on a particular case and MAY BE INTERPRETED to support a particular hypothesis. In this respect the word "evidence" is synonymous with "clue." It is not until the case is proven that anyone knows for sure which clues or pieces of evidence pointed in the right direction. Okay, so what kinds of evidence might be expected if an airplane crashes at sea? - A radio call saying that the aiplane is about to run out of gas. - A mayday call announcing an imminent ditching. - Flares, liferafts, people in the water (alive or dead). - Floating debris (seat cushions, insulation, luggage, etc.) and an oil slick. Of these, only the first is even alleged to exist in the Earhart case and, as we've seen, its interpretation is highly debatable. Don't get me wrong. Plenty of airplanes have crashed at sea and left not a trace of evidence, but absence of evidence is not evidence. Now, what kinds of evidence might be expected if an airplane lands in a remote location and the crew eventually dies there? - Radio distress calls for a limited time. - Some kind of signal or marking on the ground to alert searchers. - The eventual discovery of airplane wreckage. - The eventual discovery of human remains. All of these clues exist in support of the Niku hypothesis. I hasten to add that none are, as yet, conclusive but they do exist, whereas, for the crashed-and-sank hypothesis the clues aren't even there to be interpreted. Crashed-and-sank is a default explanation for what happened, but defaults are only desirable in the absence of something better. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:09:45 EDT From: Thomas Van Hare Subject: Re: Evidence Bob Sarnia wrote: > Pretty soon we'll have people saying that > AE wasn't even aboard the Electra; that > FN took off from Lae without her. Ah, how perfect. As if we don't have enough conspiracies, stories and novels already out there! This one, however, is just too much!! You could write a whole book on it. Imagine how Amelia didn't want to be in the public limelight anymore; how superior that would be to a plan that actually crash landed on an uninhabited island (at great risk!!) as that one novelist wrote.... Oh, we could go so far with this new line of thinking -- how she could have hired a crew of Philippinos to fly the plane and crash it into the ocean next to a ship that GP had out there; or... hey, we could even have the Japanese involved -- they buy the plane for its technology, giving Amelia the money she needs to escape her terrible controlling husband.... and in the end Amelia retires to an unnamed New Jersey suburb, which she calls "the good life" (thus justifying every suburban dreamer's existence).... This is really compelling stuff!! Well, for me, the one really neat thing at the whole Earhart story is that you either fall into one of two camps -- and you alone decide which: 1. Those who romanticize it all (when basically what we have is a dead pilot and navigator after a plane crash -- not so romantic, huh?) and dream of a thousand stories that avoid the recognition of the full realization of the real tradegy -- we all search for meaning in pointless tragedy, afterall; and 2. Those who ascribe to the intellectual, investigative process, sifting through evidence or potential evidence and trying to surmise a possible answer -- who are fully willing to walk away from any theory once it is disproved by fact. I love to dream, however, what attracts me to TIGHAR has to do with the process. This is a mystery, and a damn good one, to be sure, but in the end, this is an investigative, intellectual process -- and that is the real challenge, not what size shoes she wore, or how much gas she had on board.... Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:56:27 EDT From: Bob Sarnia Subject: Re: Evidence Thomas Van Hare wrote: "What attracts me to TIGHAR has to do with the process. This is a mystery, and a damn good one, to be sure, but in the end, this is an investigative, intellectual process -- and that is the real challenge." I totally agree. I'm in it for the intellectual ride. Though many of our views differ, I have learned much from the Forum, and reading the opinions of others has opened up for me a new vista of ideas that I might otherwise have overlooked, and it has sometimes taught me not to be too dogmatic about my own. It has been, and is, a stimulating experience. I was only kidding about the gloves, Ric, although I'm sure you don't need to be told that. May I return to AE's 0742 radio message, the part that was entered into the log as "gas is running low," because something about it still bugs me. In the recent discussions about "evidence" and "fact", many pilots have stated it was commonly used to indicate they were getting close to their reserves which, if true, would mean that AE had approx. four hours of fuel left at that time. As I am not a pilot, I cannot disagree or argue with them, so I have to accept their explanation. However, when did this particular nuance of otherwise common words first come to be accepted among the flying fraternity? How widespread was its usage -- military, civil, or both? Would AE have known of it in 1937? More importantly -- and I have never seen this question raised on the Forum -- why would AE use flying jargon (known only among fliers) when communicating with sailors (the radiomen aboard the Itasca)? Each different branch of the military has its own peculiar jargon, which I'm sure is not fully understood by other branches. Was she actually running low on gas, or is this a question of semantics? I am well aware that one doesn't fly from A to B with just enough fuel to reach B; you always carry more than you need to cover all or most exigencies. Personally, and I have said this before, if I was really running low on gas, I would make sure that any message I sent explaining my situation was abundantly clear. Forget the jargon! Are there different reads on this? Regards, Bob Sarnia. *************************************************************************** From Ric I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here. The phrase "gas is running low" is not now, and never was, aviation jargon. It means just what it says. The trouble is, it may mean different things to different people, depending on the context. The point the pilots on the forum were making is that, in an aviation context such as Earhart's, you are definitely "low" on fuel when you have four hours left. Your question about when this concept first arose is a good one. It's always a mistake to assume that because we think of something one way now, people have always thought about it the same way. In this case, we have Air Corps Lt. Dan Cooper's comment in his report on the Earhart flight (July 27, 1937) in which he opines "...Judging that her estimated time of arrival at Howland (was expected) to be 0735 and the end of her gas supply at 0900 gives a safety factor of only 1 hour 25 minutes or approximatley 7 %. Note that 20% gas reserve is usually required." Cooper, like everyone else aboard itasca, just accepted as fact that Earhart ran out of gas and then used that as evidence of her incompetence. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:10:43 EDT From: Russel Spreeman Subject: Imagine I'm a fairly new subscriber to the list, and I've seen plenty of topics discussed here and in the digest archives, but one thing crossed my mind this evening that kind of gave me the willies. Aside from all the technical topics from shoe soles to headwinds and radio logs, I was thinking... what would have been going through Amelia's mind as she stood on the beach at Niku that first night, her broken plane out on the reef visible in the moonlight, the silhouette of the Norwich City towering above it, perhaps with a wounded navigator to tend .. It's a scene that I tend to believe could have happened, and the thought of it gives me a chill. I don't mean to start a dramatic thread on this topic, but retreating from the technical and thinking of the human aspect of this for a moment helps make me more aware of why we care so much about seeing this solved. Russell Spreeman *************************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps we don't talk much about the human aspects of such a fate because it is so unpleasant to think about. I've watched Betty lose her composure just remembering the desperation in the voice she heard on the radio. What it would be like, after a week of anxious waiting, to hear search planes overhead and not be able to get out to the beach in time to attract their attention? To see them fly away and know that they probably would not return. To trade a life of pampered celebrity for a one of utter solitude among the crabs and rats. This is a woman who reputedly would not eat the cone of an ice cream cone because her fingers had touched it. She wouldn't have that problem on Gardner Island. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:15:11 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > Alan, respectfully, you're a hard man to deal with. Fortunately, Bob warned me he was going to bombard me and I take in the good spirit it was intended. Ric is right in that Bob is a good guy and a welcome addition to our group -- even if he is all wrong. Just kidding Bob. As usual we get tangled up in properly conveying our ideas with words that are not all that easy to define. "Evidence" is one that confuses us. Bob, I well know the value of circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial. I'm not only a retired USAF pilot but I'm a criminal defense attorney. I deal with little details and fuzzy facts all the time. In court I will get killed if I miss some tiny issue so to that extent I am a bit hard. I like things black and white but know most things are gray. I approach this mystery the same way I would a criminal case. I have to build it brick by brick and the only use for speculation is to game out possibilities so I can make an argument where little or no evidence exists. As to the definition of words in the legal community a word must be given its number one meaning in the dictionary OR there must be an explanation if a secondary meaning is used. "Evidence" is not proof. It is a sign or indication. I see the word used as if it meant hard fact or proof of something. That's not the correct use of the word. We can qualify the word by saying "I have hard confirmed evidence," for example, which has a rather obvious meaning. We don't have much of that. In some cases I think we imply the evidence is pretty much in concrete when actually it hasn't been confirmed but that may be because there is so little doubt that it can virtually be accepted. An example would be that our daring flyers took off at 10:00am local Lae time. That was reported from Lae and I think we take that to be a fact when actually it would be difficult to actually prove. We take it as fact they leveled off at 7,000' after take off because that's what AE reported -- and so on. As to the "evidence" on Niku each individual piece has not been absolutely confirmed to be what it is thought to be but there are so many clues that put together make a stronger case for Niku than an alternative theory. I fuss about theories that have NO clues to support them and even if true cannot be tested and so leave us at a dead end. For example, the theory they ran out of gas sometime after their "last" message. Let's suppose they did. Now what? What would be the next step in the investigation? Search for a plane on the bottom of the Pacific? Where would you search? No, Elgin Long does not possess any magic information as to where the plane was at any time after it left Lae. But do I want people to quit speculating? Not at all. It would be nice if they thought out their theory a bit before popping out with it. I don't ask for proof of their theory. I ask for a well reasoned theory as opposed to a flat conclusion. As I posted before when someone says there might have been external factors affecting their gas consumption I don't deny that could be true but I ask "what external factors" might there be. Suggesting one factor might be unexpected head winds shows me the theorist has not carefully followed the forum or they would know that the head wind component has been computed based on known flight time and assumed flight airspeed. We also know those head winds were predicted before the flight. We also know the flyers actually experienced whatever headwinds there were and would not have continued if they were too adverse. Do we even really know that? Actually no but to believe otherwise makes little sense. If they don't report an engine failure we have to assume one didn't fail. If they say they are at 7,000' we have to assume they were. If they didn't turn back at the go no go point we have to assume they believed they had adequate fuel. Fact? No, but the closest we will get to one. Another reason I wouldn't suggest the speculators quit speculating is that it would make this forum pretty dull. What would I have left to whine about and what would you have to knick at me about? Finally, out of a significant portion of our bantering about comes excellent ideas and rabbit trails that need to be chased down if only to narrow our problem. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:39:15 EDT From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: Imagine Russell Spreeman said: "but retreating from the technical and thinking of the human aspect of this for a moment helps make me more aware of why we care so much about seeing this solved." I quite agree. The despair Amelia (and Fred) may have experienced would have been profound. The human aspect of their plight is a valuable piece of this puzzle. You only have to put yourself in Amelia's place for a minute to begin to understand the depth of her situation. Ric reminds us of Amelia's pampered lifestyle and her fastidious nature. I can only imagine how she felt. Quite a humbling thought, isn't it? LTM, Barb Norris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:44:22 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Evidence Something that has always bothered me regarding "facts" is the fact that Earhart took off from Lae at 10:00 local time or 00:00 GMT. I wonder exactly how precise that take-off time was...was it approximately 10 AM, or 10:03, or 10:08? We basically have only one contemporaneous radiomessage, and the Chater Report, neither one of which states "exactly 10 AM", but rather they state 10 AM local time, without minutes associated with take-off time. I know its a nit to pick, but the take-off time is not exactly a well established "fact. *************************************************************************** From Ric It's really very simple. Elgen Long knows that she ran out of fuel just seconds after the 20:13 transmission and he knows exactly how much fuel she burned and what flight conditions she encountered at every moment, so you just do the re-navigation and - bingo - she took off at exactly 00:00. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:32:41 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Membership Jihad << Mr. Seapin has submitted a further posting that does not meet basic forum standards for civility and has communicated his desire to no longer subscribe to the forum. I have respected his request and removed him. >> Guess he had a hard time withstanding the peer review. Personally I am glad he has gone off to milk someone else's cow, but that was not the intention when I started my Membership Jihad. It is not the intention of TIGHAR or the Members on the Forum to drive folks away, unless they misbehave beyond the pale, which as far as I can remember has only happened twice, and I am not counting Mr. Seapin who removed himself. What is important is not Mr. Seapin's poor attitude, but the fact that TIGHAR is a MEMBERSHIP organization, and cannot survive without MEMBERS. Let's re-focus on that. Seapin and his ilk will never sign up, but how about the rest of you? Reviewing the testimonials by Roger Kelly and John Clauss, you remaining lurkies can see that you could be joining a group of very interesting, serious, and dedicated folks. We are trying to be inclusive, not exclusive. We invite you to join us in the rigorous process of examining the evidence, and each other's ideas on how to solve the mystery. We still have 420 lurkers who should consider becoming TIGHAR members, er, rather 416 lurkers (420 minus 3 who signed up, and minus one who lost control and crashed at sea trying to milk a cow). In my opinion, TIGHAR has an excellent chance of solving the mystery. We will be the ones who either prove or disprove the NIku theory, and either way we will be closer to the answer. It is a fascinating intellectual problem, and the process of working on solving it is extremely educational, engaging, eye opening, and gratifying. I get more than my money's worth every day. Once again, I invite all of you Lurkies to join us and enjoy "owning" a piece of the project. It costs less than 15¢ a day. Who will be the next to step up to the plate? LTM (Whose cow feels better already) Andrew "Jihad" McKenna ************************************************************************** From Ric There's not much I can add to Jihad's appeal except to remind everyone that there is an alternate way to approach the ugly fact that it takes money to search for answers. The "other guys" are not soliciting charitable contributions and are not conducting an open investigation in the interest of history. They are looking for investors to help finance their business plan. Our search is an intellectual exercise. Theirs is a commercial enterprise. Commercial enterprise is great and we're all capitalists at heart, but some subjects are better addressed for the common good rather than for individual profit. I'd rather see important historical artifacts in a public museum than in a theme park. I think truth is better served by free and open discussion than by proprietary studies. I think there is nothing more powerful than people who band together and willingly contribute their resources - intellectual, physical and financial - to seek out answers, not to make a buck, but because the very process of searching for answers is enriching. Sorry. I'll get down from the pulpit now. If you think that what we're doing here has value, please join TIGHAR. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:36:48 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Evidence Ric said: <> This is a cheap shot. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric True. Sorry. Couldn't resist. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:40:21 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Imagine For Russell Spreeman: I'm rehashing something posted here a few months ago which a recent subscriber wouldn't have seen. There was a case late last year of a fisherman shipwrecked off southern Australia who made his way ashore in bad shape after 24 hours, found his way to an abandoned property and then saw search planes flying nearby which even lighting a pyre failed to attract. I recall he was eventually rescued when he walked out to find civilisation and happened to be picked up by a motorist on a rarely travelled road. His description in the press made the horror of thinking you have been found and then finding you haven't and have been given up as lost quite clear - and that's in the high-tech 21st century. LTM Phil 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric I wonder if there have been any studies of human behavior in circumstances of prolonged enforced isolation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:11:56 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Evidence Bob Sarnia wrote:- >>May I return to AE's 0742 radio message, the part that was entered into the >>log as "gas is running low," because something about it still bugs me. >>In the recent discussions about "evidence" and "fact", many pilots have >>stated it was commonly used to indicate they were getting close to their >>reserves which, if true, would mean that AE had approx. four hours of fuel >>left at that time. As I am not a pilot, I cannot disagree or argue wit them, >>so I have to accept their explanation. What really convinces me that she wasn't critically low on gas (i.e. half an hour there abouts) at 0742 is the fact that she mentioned "low on gas" ONLY ONCE. I guess it's another "woulda / shoulda / coulda" scenario, but I'd be yelling "low gas" down the mic with every transmission if I was down to one half hour - and I obviously wouldn't be sticking to the transmission schedule either. Although we'll never know the tone of voice she used with this call, TIGHAR's theory that she was just starting to eat into her reserves at this point, and was reporting this fact hits the money for me. Simon #2120 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:17:04 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence Ric wrote: > It's really very simple. Elgen Long knows that she ran out of fuel just > seconds after the 20:13 transmission and he knows exactly how much fuel she > burned and what flight conditions she encountered at every moment, so you > just do the re-navigation and - bingo - she took off at exactly 00:00. Ric, you can not imagine how that sets my mind at ease. We've been going about this all wrong or at least starting from the wrong end. We should simply decide on a conclusion and work backwards. Presto it's solved. Now we may have to sort of ignore stuff in between that doesn't fit but if it works for Elgin why not. Alan *************************************************************************** From Ric Dave Katz has correctly characterized my remarks as a "cheap shot". It's like laughing at the kid who gives a stupid answer in class. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:32:20 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Watching and waiting Ric said: ...'Now, what kinds of evidence might be expected if an airplane lands in a remote location and the crew eventually dies there? - Radio distress calls for a limited time. - Some kind of signal or marking on the ground to alert searchers'... ********************************************** Maybe I'm just not paying close enough attention to Forum postings, however I can't recall any of the post-termination radio messages ever providing any clue as to the location of the specific site of the landfall from which they may have originated, (only one sequence of such messages was roughly triangulated in the Phoenix Chain) in fact it is my recollection that subsequently, none of these transmissions were ever authenticated by anyone, as to whether or not they actually came from the Electra. Though Lt. Lambrecht (in his own report) stated he had seen...'signs of recent habitation'...after making several circuits & zooming passes over Gardner Island, I don't recall there being any sign of the Electra (observed by the Lambrecht flight) or what might have been interpreted as aircraft wreckage, let alone any signals or markings for the observation of searchers. The most compelling 'evidence' that Gardner/Nikumaroro Island was the final landfall for the flight, was the fact that FN's LOP, where it would have intersected with Howland, would on it's SE extention, also intersect very close to Gardner Island, thus making Gardner a much more desirable navigational target & also within the estimated, remaining fuel supply of the flight (as opposed to any other landfall in the Gilbert or Marshall Islands). Though as I have observed in previous posts there were equally valid reasons for _not_ flying to Gardner (Lack of any two-way radio communication with Itasca/no notice of such intentions to Itasca/lack of any basic survival equipment/food/water for any extended stay on any uninhabited island.) Actually, none of the available options was all that appealing, however, flying to Gardner would have involved the more positive action (at least they would have been going somewhere on their only navigational plotplan, within their remaining, estimated fuel supply ) & could have provided a desperately needed landfall, whereas the other options almost guaranteed a ditching at sea. The anecdotal recollections of Kilts & Niku Island residents of aircraft & human remains being seen/found on the island, were subsequently, at least partially, confirmed by the Tarawa records containing Gallagher's reports of finding human remains (which he 'speculated', may have belonged to AE) & the bones recovered were sent to his superiors, who never affirmed Gallagher's 'speculations' as to whose remains the bones belonged. (Two seperate reports at that time, of examination of the bones, were inconclusive, though TIGHAR did have these reports reviewed by forensic pathologists who, though somewhat in disagreement with the conclusions of the original examiners, were still unable to identify such remains (without actually examining the bones) as being either AE or FN, within any reasonable certainty.) Though many of the other artifacts found, during the several expeditions to the island, have been reasonably identified with the 1930s era, none have been identified as belonging to either AE or FN, nor has any piece of aircraft material ever matched up with the Electra, even though there is no known instance of any other aircraft having landed/crashed on or around the island. The search has thus, seemingly narrowed down to the deep blue sea (with no really reliable clues as to just where to begin searching the vast ocean bottom of the Pacific) or continue the search on or around Nikumaroro Island for whatever other artifacts can be gleaned from it's surface or the lagoon bottom or the cold, dark depths of the void at the edge of it's coral reef flats. All of these options involve lots of time, human effort & cash to finance all the transportation & equipment needed to do the job & unfortunately, unless someone actually finds the Electra, it's identifiable remains &/or the remains of the crew, there will be no 'cigar' at the termination of such efforts & the mystery will remain. To all who have decided to continue the quest, my greatest admiration & I truly wish you well in your respective endeavors, however, I will continue to watch & wait.... Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Taikung Jen, in a conversation with Confucius: "I'll teach you how to escape death. There is a raven in the eastern sea which is called Yitai (dull-head). This dull-head cannot fly very high and seems very stupid. It hops only a short distance and nestles close with others of its kind. In going forward it dare not lead, and in going back it dare not lag behind. At the time of feeding, it takes what is left over by the other birds. Therefore, the ranks of this bird are never depleted and nobody can do them any harm. A tree with a straight trunk is the first to be cut down. A well with sweet water is the first to be drawn dry." This quotation was used by Ernest Gann as the prologue to his novel Fate Is The Hunter. It has sat in a small frame on my desk for the past thirty years. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:43:38 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Why I send money to TIGHAR As long as we're on the "membership jihad" thread, I thought I'd share a few thoughts. I too have a "large," by current standards, family (wife and three kids) and not a lot of money, (about 40K annually) but I still manage to give money to my church, sponsor a child in Central America, and send TIGHAR $20.00 per month. I find a way to support these organizations because I think that the work that they do is valuable. In TIGHAR's case, I'm pleased to offer support for many reasons: 1. How many other Earhart researchers apply rigorous evidentiary and scientific standards to their work? How many offer ALL their research for review by all comers? How many allow strangers who DON'T send money to participate in the process electronically? 2. The Voyage of Discovery educational project: The kids in Barb Norris's elementary school class are being taught critical thinking skills. That alone is worth the price of membership. I just hope that the NEA doesn't get wind of it. 3. Furthering the cause of historical aircraft preservation. Since I'm writing this on April 17, it's worth noting an article I read recently in a back issue of Soldier Of Fortune magazine. They did an "expedition" to the Nicaraguan crash site of a B-26 that had been involved in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Were they recovering remains for families? No, that had been done on a previous trip. Were they looking to create an historical site? No. Their main purpose seems to have been an opportunity to walk around the jungle with AK-47s, get their pictures taken with a wing section that they removed from the crash site, and editorialize about how much fun war would be if only the CIA would stop meddling in it. 4. The Forum: Again, this alone is worth the cost of membership. In the two years I've been hanging around, in addition to all the On Topic stuff, I've picked up countless bits of cool knowledge that you folks just put in as asides. And I'm quite sure that this place we've all come to know and love doesn't pay for itself. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. You should also know that I'm not just blowing sunshine up Ric's kilt. Ric and I have had some fairly substantial, though civil, disagreements on off topic stuff, and I'm still happy to send my money because what TIGHAR is doing is worth supporting. To all my fellow members, I salute you. (and being a Drill Sergeant in the Army Reserve, rest assured that it is a quite proper and correct salute) To the rest of you, what are you waiting for? LTM, who was always quite proper and correct, Dave Porter, 2288 **************************************************************************** From Ric Salute returned. To give credit where credit is due (and as noted on the TIGHAR website) - the quarterly costs for the forum Listserve subscription are covered by a grant from Select GIS Services, Inc. (GIS stands for Global Information Systems) thanks to the good offices of its owner Jim Thompson, TIGHAR #2185. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:51:50 EDT From: Pete Subject: Jihad and Java Five times now the Javascript in this machine decided I was not going to join TIGHAR. INSUL ALLAH, by snail mail I shall vanquish the infidel so my turban may bear the Blessed Number of TIGHAR to soothe my furrowed forumite brow. Might not be the greatest application ever, but here it comes... Humble One beseeches that a "J" be added to the Blessed TIGHAR Number of He who has launched this Jihad. Pete (who shalt not dare post with a last name until a Blessed Number follow) *************************************************************************** From Ric Much more of this and we'll qualify as a Faith Based Initiative. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:09:40 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: pamperd celebrity or survivor? Ric said: ...'To trade a life of pampered celebrity for a one of utter solitude among the crabs and rats. This is a woman who reputedly would not eat the cone of an ice cream cone because her fingers had touched it. She wouldn't have that problem on Gardner Island.'... While I must agree that AE was certainly a full fledged member of what today might be referred to as the...'Jet-set"... , she also experienced more than her share of knowing what deprivation, pain & suffering was like as a WWI nurse & employment in a Boston settlement house, before she began her aviation career. She also knew what despair was all about, growing-up in a somewhat dysfunctional household with an alcoholic father, who was a chronic failure in business & as head of his own household. Though she no doubt fully enjoyed the benefits of a finishing school education & all the advantages of eventually traveling in the rarified atmosphere of the 'upper-crust', in the society of her era, if you can believe the stories told by many who knew her well, she was a tough cookie under that 'high society' mantle, stubborn, willful & unrelenting in pursuit of her objectives. Even FN had to grudgingly admit she was as capable as any man in shouldering her responsibilities for the flight & had no aversion to getting her hands dirty & participating in the maintenance of her aircraft. She was also shrewed enough to more than hold her own in handling GPP, as none of the other women in his life had ever been able to do, & continued be the 'managing' influence in the lives of her own mother & sister, in spite of maintaining her whirlwind career. Simply put, she was a 'survivor' & _if_ we can ultimately prove her demise occurred on Gardner/Nikumaroro Island, I'd suggest it resulted from the lack of water in equitorial heat & scarcity of food, not despair over her much lowered estate or inability to endure the hardship of her environment or lack of companionship. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric Issues of AE's "toughness" aside, it's intersting to speculate (as we often have done) about the most probable cause of the castaway's demise. Water can certainly be a probelm on Gardner but legend (Kilts) says that the Benedictine bottle found with the skull contained "fresh water for drinking." Gallagher, who apparently never saw the bottle, said there was "no indications of contents." If there was fresh water in the bottle it seems unlikely that the castaway died of thirst. Food should not have been a problem. For example, you can walk right up to a Redtailed Tropic Birds and grab it by the neck (if you're so inclined). Aside from lack of water, the most likely cause of death on Gardner would seem to be blood poisoning from an infected coral cut or other wound. We have to be especially vigilant when we're working on the island. Any scratch can become a problem literally overnight if not promptly swapped with alcohol or, if caused by coral, disinfected with hydrogen peroxide. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:15:12 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Imagine >From Ric > > I wonder if there have been any studies of human behavior in circumstances of > prolonged enforced isolation. Yes there was. In the mid-1960's there was a study done and broadcast on the CBS network for 2 years before the project was canceled. It was code-named "Gilligan's Island". Some dude by the name of Neilson gave it the death blow. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:21:07 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Imagine In re Ric's query: <> I am unaware of any scientific studies, but I thoroughly enjoyed tom Hanks's performance in the movie Castaway. I recommend it for any forum subscribers who want to get an idea of what it might be like to be marooned on an island with hopes of rescue slowly fading. One may wish to criticize the realism (or lack therof) of the circumstances that brought Hanks's character to the island, but the depictioon of his life on the island is quite believable. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe, His Life and Strange Surprising Adventures" is the classic fictional work. Crusoe really kept his cool but the book was based upon the experiences of Alexander Selkirk who, it turns out, was not cast away but voluntarily marooned himself. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:28:40 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Membership Jihad In re Ric's comment: <> It is fair to point out that both Elgen Long and David Jourdan (president of Nauticos) have repeatedly stated in their press releases that they wish to see the Electra in a museum such as the Smithsonian so that it will be properly preserved for the public. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Sounds noble, but their primary responsibility will be to their investors. If the Smithsonian deigned to accept the Electra as a gift and Disney offered $10 million for it as the centerpiece of their new Amelia Earhart Deep Sea Adventure ride, which way do you think they'd go? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:38:26 EDT From: P. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: Evidence Since when did "cannot" become two words??? I can't fathom this from such a sophisticated forum. Sound arguments go right into the drink when people cannot even spell. ************************************************************************** From Ric Every dictionary I can find defines "cannot" as "can not". Both are correct. Purely a style thing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:41:49 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Evidence Don't beat yourself up - satire is an acceptable learning tool, and in my opinion it's less like the kid that gives a stupid answer, but more like the professor that publishes a stupid book, then gives anybody that disagrees an "F".... There. That and $3.30 will get you a Big Joe mocha (no whipped cream please) at Peaberry's....Hey, it's the new millinium. ltm jon ************************************************************************* From Ric S'OK. Self-flagellation seems to be part of my job. Pain purifies. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:30:16 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Membership has its Privileges Has the Tighar group thought of allowing only members to post; of course, the non-Tigar members could and would continue to monitor the forum. Or would the loss of some of these excellent posts by non-members adversely affect the forum? And would it be a logistic nightmare to verify membership. Other Earhart forums require a membership validation and acceptance before you can post! Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric We've talked about it but quickly rejected the idea. Talk is cheap and we want to hear what everyone has to say. Good work is easy to recognize and the right people always end up joining anyway. The principal benefit of being a member of TIGHAR has always been being a member of TIGHAR. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:33:05 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Imagine > I wonder if there have been any studies of human behavior in circumstances of > prolonged enforced isolation. I've been divorced for 15 years. Would that count? Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. The psychological impact is clearly devastating. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:43:53 EDT From: Ric Subject: Calling all Pan Am researchers I've been contacted by a film producer who has read a book claiming that the Japanese hijacked the Hawaii Clipper in 1938 and that the U.S. Army located it in Japan after WWII. I've offered to put him in touch with researchers who can help him evaluate the credibility of these claims. He's eager to hear from you. Contact John Schwally of JFS Films, LLC at JFSFilms@AOL.com Thanks, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:02:39 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Membership has its Privileges Do we TIGHARS have a fight song! I know we have caps, and shirts, in Tighar colors. Go Niku Go! **************************************************************************** From Ric Of course! It's called "The Earhart Song" (sung to the tune of The Air Force Song). ahem ******************************* Off we go, seeking Amelia Earhart Come along, it'll be fun. Waste your days, list'ning to lies from old farts Sail away, die in the sun. Down we dive, searching the reef for plane parts Up with none. Hell of a bore. We'll blame Japan, She's on Saipan, Or maybe that's her now at the front door. **************************************** Songs are easy. What I've always felt we really need is a secert decoder ring but I've never been able to find a vendor. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:11:12 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Calling all Pan Am researchers I'll bet he is referring to the "Fix on the Rising Sun", The Clipper Hi-Jacking of 1938 and the ultimate MIA's", by Charles N. Hill, Charian Press,Cincinnati, 1996. Hill is also an Earhart researcher . The book is dedicated to Joe Gervais and Japanese aviator Minoru Genda. I have a copy. Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric That's the one. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:46:59 EDT From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: Membership has its Privileges As a courtesy, could you describe how those who are non-members can join? I know that it's been described before undoubtedly but a new post would guide those wanting to sign up now. Thanks, Best regards, Ed of PSL ************************************************************************** From Ric I thought you'd never ask. There are many ways to join TIGHAR - On Line ******* Go to http://www.tighar.org/member.html and click on the prop and shovel icon where it says "Join On Line by clicking here:" then just follow the steps. Please note: Due to software limitations, the secure on line system only works for addresses in the United States. For the moment, our other friends can join the old fashioned ways. By Snail Mail *********** You'll find a printable membership form at http://www.tighar.org/member.html#form or just write your name, address and phone number on a scrap of paper and send it to TIGHAR Membership Jihad 2812 Fawkes Drive Wilmington, DE 19808 Oh yeah, and you might also enclose a check in U.S. dollars, payable to TIGHAR, for: $30 if you're a senior or a full-time student $45 for an "Associate" membership (beyond student and not yet to senior) $100 if you like the title "Sponsor" $500 if you prefer "Donor" $1,000 if you're a "Patron" (We considered titles like "Comandante" and "Grand Vizier" but decided to be more conventional lest people think we're not serious about money.) By Fax ******* You can send the same information plus your credit card number and expiration date by fax. The number is (302) 994-7945. By Phone ********* Call (302) 994-4410 during normal business hours and ask for Ric. You'll get a man claiming to be me who will chat pleasantly and ask for your name address and credit card info. You can even leave the information on voicemail if no one is there. It's secure. By Mental Telepathy ******************* We're working on it. The vibes are definitely there but we haven't yet figured out a way to handle the financial transaction that's not vulnerable to abuse. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:51:07 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Membership has its Privileges As long as we're talking songs, can anybody give me the name of the writer -- and the full title -- of the 1937(?) song that ended: "Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart, Farewell, first lady of the air."????? Thanks, and LTM (whose voice is cracking) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:13:08 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: AE song > From Tom King > > As long as we're talking songs, can anybody give me the name of the > writer -- and the full title -- of the 1937(?) song that ended: http://www.numachi.com/cgi-bin/rickheit/dtrad/lookup?ti=3DAMEARHRT AMELIA EARHART'S LAST FLIGHT (Red River Dave McEnery) A ship out on the ocean, just a speck against the sky, Amelia Earhart flying that sad day; With her partner, Captain Noonan, on the second of July Her plane fell in the ocean, far away. cho: There's a beautiful, beautiful field Far away in a land that is fair. Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart Farewell, first lady of the air. She radioed position and she said that all was well, Although the fuel within the tanks was low. But they'd land on Howland Island to refuel her monoplane, Then on their trip around the world they'd go. Well, a half an hour later an SOS was heard, The signal weak, but still her voice was brave. Oh, in shark-infested waters her plane went down that night In the blue Pacific to a watery grave. Well, now you have heard my story of that awful tragedy, We pray that she might fly home safe again. Oh, in years to come though others blaze a trail across the sea, We'll ne'er forget Amelia and her plane. Chorus Note: This, oddly enough, was the first song ever performed on commercial TV (1939 World's Fair, I believe) RG Copyright Stasny Music, 1939. All rights administered by Bug Music, Inc. RG ************************************************************************* From Ric Good goin' Marty. Once again the forum comes through. I've always found it interesting that the lyric says "her plane went down that night." Most Americans got the news about Earhart's failure to arrive at Howland in the evening newspaper or on the evening radio news. **************************************************************************** For Tom King From Tim Smith I happen to have a recording of "Happy Landings to You...." It is on an old LP called "Early Bluegrass". I'll get the author's name, etc., tonight. I used to know all the words but forgot them about 20 years ago. Unfortunately, I don't have a turntable anymore (but still have about 200 LPs) so I can't listen to it. Beware: it is a "crashed and sunk" theory song. LTM (who played a pretty mean banjo in her ill-spent youth) Tim Smith 1142 CE *************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell > As long as we're talking songs, can anybody give me the name of the writer >-- and the full title -- of the 1937(?) song that ended: Tom, have I ever failed you? Alan #2329 Amelia Earhart's Last Flight (Red River Dave McEnery) Just a ship out on the ocean, a speck against the sky, Amelia Earhart flying that sad day; With her partner, Captain Noonan, on the second of July Her plane fell in the ocean, far away. There's a beautiful, beautiful field Far away-ay-ay in a land that is fair. Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart, Farewell, first lady of the air. Half an hour later her SOS was heard, Her signal's weak, but still her voice was brave. In shark-infested waters her aeroplane went down that night In the blue Pacific to a watery grave. There's a beautiful, beautiful field Far away-ay-ay in a land that is fair. Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart, Farewell, first lady of the air. **************************************************************************** From Dan Postellon Of course. I fondly remember hearing this for the first time in the summer of 1969, in a folk music club over a pub in Winchester, England. I was a digger on a medieval archeology expedition at the time. This song is one of the reasons I joined Tighar. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Who remembers to SING LOUD) Digital Tradition Mirror Amelia Earhart's Last Flight AMELIA EARHART'S LAST FLIGHT (Red River Dave McEnery) A ship out on the ocean, just a speck against the sky, Amelia Earhart flying that sad day; With her partner, Captain Noonan, on the second of July Her plane fell in the ocean, far away. cho: There's a beautiful, beautiful field Far away in a land that is fair. Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart Farewell, first lady of the air. She radioed position and she said that all was well, Although the fuel within the tanks was low. But they'd land on Howland Island to refuel her monoplane, Then on their trip around the world they'd go. Well, a half an hour later an SOS was heard, The signal weak, but still her voice was brave. Oh, in shark-infested waters her plane went down that night In the blue Pacific to a watery grave. Well, now you have heard my story of that awful tragedy, We pray that she might fly home safe again. Oh, in years to come though others blaze a trail across the sea, We'll ne'er forget Amelia and her plane. Chorus Note: This, oddly enough, was the first song ever performed on commercial TV (1939 World's Fair, I believe) RG Copyright Stasny Music, 1939. All rights administered by Bug Music, Inc. RG **************************************************************************** Tom; I was able to locate the song itself on "Napster" and it has the lyrics you cite. The full title is: "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" Authorship is attributed to: David D. McEnery The song was recorded on an album entitled: "In Search Of Amelia Earhart" from Elektra Records in 1972. The recording artist is Ian Matthews. For the album index and additional information go to url: http://leden.tref.nl/~tenho003/matthews/insearchof.htm I also located additional recordings that were accomplished by: Kinky Friedman album: Texas Songwriters Kathy Kallick album: Use a Napkin Red River Dave McHe album: Kerrville Folk Festival: Early Years 1972-1981 The Country Gentlemen album: Early Rebel Recordings 1962-1971 Hope this is somewhat helpful to you. LTM, Bill Conover(#2377) **************************************************************************** From Tom King Anyone who's digging around trying to help me with my request for the original of the song lines I quoted yesterday can stop. Tim Smith wins the prize, with a double: TK; Rejoice!-- In 15 seconds, I found two versions of the song: AMELIA EARHART'S LAST FLIGHT (Red River Dave McEnery) A ship out on the ocean, just a speck against the sky, Amelia Earhart flying that sad day; With her partner, Captain Noonan, on the second of July Her plane fell in the ocean, far away. cho: There's a beautiful, beautiful field Far away in a land that is fair. Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart Farewell, first lady of the air. She radioed position and she said that all was well, Although the fuel within the tanks was low. But they'd land on Howland Island to refuel her monoplane, Then on their trip around the world they'd go. Well, a half an hour later an SOS was heard, The signal weak, but still her voice was brave. Oh, in shark-infested waters her plane went down that night In the blue Pacific to a watery grave. Well, now you have heard my story of that awful tragedy, We pray that she might fly home safe again. Oh, in years to come though others blaze a trail across the sea, We'll ne'er forget Amelia and her plane. Chorus Note: This, oddly enough, was the first song ever performed on commercial TV (1939 World's Fair, I believe) RG Copyright Stasny Music, 1939. All rights administered by Bug Music, Inc. RG #2 Amelia Earhart's Last Flight (Red River Dave McEnery) Just a ship out on the ocean, a speck against the sky, Amelia Earhart flying that sad day; With her partner, Captain Noonan, on the second of July Her plane fell in the ocean, far away. Chorus: There's a beautiful, beautiful field Far away-ay-ay in a land that is fair. Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart, Farewell, first lady of the air. Half an hour later her SOS was heard, Her signal's weak, but still her voice was brave. In shark-infested waters her aeroplane went down that night In the blue Pacific to a watery grave. There's a beautiful, beautiful field Far away-ay-ay in a land that is fair. Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart, Farewell, first lady of the air. Congratulations, Tim. This one stumped even Randy Jacobson. LTM (who's confused about which version to sing, but...) Tom King ****************************************************************************= From Ric First version. In the second version "her aeroplane went down that night " doesn't scan. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:18:23 EDT From: Richard Subject: Flying Electras Does anyone know where I can get a list (url) of the planes similar to the model of Lockheed Electra flown by Amelia Earhart that are still in service ? Richard *********************************************************************** From Ric I don't know of a url but both Dr. Alman's 10A and Linda Finch's quasi-10E are on the same airport in Denton, Texas. Air Canada has an operational 10A that they use for passenger rides and I believe there is now also an airworthy 10A in New Zealand. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:29:14 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Membership has its Privileges Ok, the medical bills are finally down to where I can manage them, plus my little credit union has entered the 21st century and has online bill payment. So I've scheduled biweekly payments of $30 to TIGHAR until the end of the year. This will hit the "Donor" level by December 25. In January, I'll re-schedule. Actually, the amount comes in slightly over $500, so after my TIGHAR number I'll put "Donor, Order of Nei Manganibuka." Or if that's too much of a mouthful, how about "#---- Donor, Island Princess." Nah, sounds like a cruise ship. Maybe "#---- Donor, Niku Pirate Princess"... I'll think about it. Amanda, # pending, proud Donor Raider of the Lost Compass Box -- nope, that's not it either *************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you, Amanda. Maybe we should just let everyone pick his or her own appellation. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:38:03 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: Re: Membership has its Privileges I have been following the forum for almost ayear now, and every post in it is resourceful in every respect. Since I am a non-member, and don't do any research in any formal sense that pertains to Tighar's investigation, I can only say that the forum is a form of enlightenment to me because it isn't just agood read, but is in fact to the layman(me)a living and breathing example of research into history. My enthusiasm of Tighar's work isn't something that I turn off. I am curious and I do want to know what happened, which is why the forum exists. In my case I don't have the time to do any work in that direction, because I am on the outside looking in, knowing only that I am not qualified to give anyone on the forum an opinion, even though I have. Have I considered joining? Yes definately, and not once but umpteen times. There is a purity in the work that Tighar does, and it all about finding out the facts even when we know that this is hard (impossible??)and may pitch everbody against everybody else. This is not why I joined the forum though, I joined to get an insight into Earhart and to have the ability to put my words forth, member or not. My views may not be qualified or correct, but I am a contributor, and that is my story. Charles Lim (who is giving his un-qualified qualified opinion) **************************************************************************** From Ric I appreciate your comments but I must admit that I'm a bit confused about why you won't join. (No pressure, just trying to understand.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:59:45 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Heroes and common folk Ric quoted: ...'Therefore, the ranks of this bird are never depleted and nobody can do them any harm' ... *********************************************** To paraphrase Mr. Lincoln, who once said...'The Lord must have loved the common folk, because he made so many of us'... ...As a society, we generally hold in highest esteem & seem to venerate those relatively few among us who seem willing to assume the greatest risks & who often seem (rightly so) to reap the greatest rewards... unfortunately, such attitudes could lead one to conclude that the world is simply divided into two seperate classes...those who are willing to seek out & accept great risks, presumably for the greater rewards or sense of fulfillment such actions usually generate & those who do not or will not accept such risks... except in self-defense. Should everyone in our world adapt the former attitude, our world would no doubt resemble most of the 'action' films & TV programs we view, where the heros & heroines are in a constant state of animation, aggitation & anxiety, always searching out new & exciting/dangerous challenges. In order to obtain any sense of balance in our confusing world, we certainly need _both_, those who are willing to...'do & dare'... & those whose lot in life seems to be one governed by a more cautious & temperate contemplation of the world's problems & challenges, unwilling to attempt to climb every mountain just because...'it's there'... or jump upon every bandwagon because...it seemed like a good thing to do at the time. Perhaps this difference in human behavior might be likened to Esop's tale of the Tortoise & the Hare...or the flaming camp- fire that provides heat & light for a few moments & the smoldering coals that provide warmth for the entire night. Perhaps there is much to be learned from us ground-level 'Dull-Heads', if only that we provide some sense of equilibrium for the 'high-wire' activities of the more ambitious & adventuresome among us... which certainly doesn't mean we can't still admire & cheer them on for their courage & fortitude, in the pursuit of their respective endeavors. Perhaps the 'Dull-Head' moto might best reflect an old aviator's dictum that Ric has quoted on occasion...'There are old pilots & bold pilots...but there are no old, bold pilots'... Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric An interesting subject, and not entirely off-topic (Earhart was certainly a risk-taker). Like you, I would not want to live in a world full of Rambos, nor do I consider myself to be any kind of "hero" or "adventurer". Pointless displays of bravado are stupid - whatever the context. The kind of courage I'm interested in is intellectual courage - the courage to take a position and defend it, and also the courage to admit error and benefit from correction. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:21:49 EDT From: Gary Fajack Subject: Re: Flying Electras I stumbled upon an url that listed all known Electras and their state of condition. Unfortunately I did not keep track of it. The site did mention that the Electra owned by Linda Finch was for sale. Anyone have an idea of it's selling price? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:25:47 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Earhart song Those aren't the lamest lyrics I've ever read, but they're pretty lame. Sheeze!!! LTM, who enjoys a hardy chorus of "Red River Valley" Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric You should hear the tune. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:40:37 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Old bold pilots About that dictum that there are no "old bold pilots"... It seems to me that Elgen Long qualifies as an old bold pilot. He circumnavigated the globe around the poles (I believe that he was the first to accomplish this feat solo) and he is well into his 80's. David Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric Like many aphorisms, the "old bold pilot" thing is self-verifying. If you're an old pilot you were obviously not excessively bold. If you are a dead pilot you are just as obviously guilty of excessive boldness. What pilot could have been bolder than Jimmy Doolittle? And he died in bed. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:41:29 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Flying Electras A couple of years ago, Finch was trying to sell her ship for a million or so. Is she still looking for a sucker? Doug Brutlag ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:43:43 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Earhart song McGee, go open your closet door. The lyrics may seem lame by today's low standards, but they fit right in with the country music of the times. Ric, the tune isn't SO bad, maybe its the singer. To top it off, now I've got the tune stuck in my head all day... LTM (who thinks rap lyrics are well below lame) Tim Smith 1142 CE ************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe Dennis could provide us with a rap version. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:48:07 EDT From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: Membership has its Privileges Ric,I just read Charles Lim's posting,you answered,Iam a bit confused,no pressure,just trying to understsnd.Maybe Ric its because sometimes the forum makes people who want to join feel not wanted,we are not all radio experts,doctors,bone experts,747 pilots and so on.A lot of us are average people,with average skills,but have an interest in AE and FN.And care,care what happen to them.It is awsome to think that maybe TIGHAR can find them and bring them home for a proper burial,would'nt it be awsome.TIGHAR needs everyone who is interested,no matter who they are your what they are.I have seen ego's come through on the forum,we are all equal no matter what we do for a living.Maybe TIGHAR should work on its people skills,the people that have given me the most in my life,have been the people that have the least. Terry Lee Simpson #2396 (LTM) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:02:30 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: Re: Membership has its Privileges I really should join, but I am tied up just now with my studies. Being in my final year of uni does take up a large portion of my time. Still however I do find time to read the forum postings and to look at the research bulletins that are ocassionally updated. Also being an undergrad makes me feel less qualified and hence I usually doubt my own postings before they are posted. Joining Tighar is not a question of why but to me it is a quaestion of why not. Yet I have come very close to doing it. I can't remember why I chickened out the last time I tried. Charles Lim *************************************************************************** From Ric Are we really that intimidating? You make it sound like deciding to become a monk. It's not quite the same thing. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:07:06 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Amelia's song Ric said: "Maybe Dennis could provide us with a rap version." Oh, hell, that's easy . . . Shee, shee, shee, ugh, ugh . . . Amelia, Amelia, Amelia Lady went flying' Get herself lost Fly in circles Now she dead . . . Shee, shee, shee, ugh, ugh . . . Amelia, Amelia, Amelia Squee, squee, squee, thumppa, thumppa, thumppa, uh, uh Fred be looking Outside the plane Where's that land Damn, man, fly straight! Shee, shee, shee, ugh, ugh . . . Pull up, pull up Fubba, fubba, sqree, sqree, uh, uh, Navy, Navy Swabbies go look for Amelia E Broad ocean, Big Briney Find some land, look for crew No one shows, what to do? Uh, uh, uh, fubba-ah, fubba-ah, thumppa-do, thumppa-do Fubba-do fubba, sqree, sqree, uh, uh, Look, look Fred Be dead Amelia too All they find Is one old shoe Uh, uh, Amelia. Amelia, Fred be dead too Fubba, fubba, sqree, sqree, uh, uh, Long, tall tale Story too long To tell right here Visit TIGHAR web site and lend an ear Uh, uh, uh, r-r-r-r-r, r-r-r-r, Amelia, Amelia, Fred be dead too LTM, who is appalled Dennis would act this way Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric When will I learn...... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:07:44 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: AE song Wow! Thanks, all. TK (and Mother) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:19:18 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Re: Jihad It would be worth the price of membership to hear Ric sing the TIGHAR Anthem. I suggest a downloadable .wav file (password protected). Can we get the Coral Reefer Band? LTM (who's out of quips) Pat Gaston, TIGHAR # something or other ************************************************************************ From Ric I'm not proud. Heck, most of the funding for previous expeditions was raised by playng my concertina on streetcorners. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:25:11 EDT From: Gene Dangelo Subject: No Subject Direct me to this song! Don't forget, I'm a music teacher/professional musician! I'd like to check it out! Muchas Gracias, Gene Dangelo #2211 *************************************************************************** From Ric Can someone direct Professor Dangelo to someplace where he can hear the music? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:27:10 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: "Global" GIS.... Just a quick one about "semantics". I think I remember that GIS stands for Geographic Information System. The "Global", belongs to Global Positioning System, ie GPS. And GPS is now very much a major component of GIS... Christian D ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. Absolutely. My error. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:17:45 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: pamperd celebrity or survivor? >Any scratch can become a problem literally overnight if not promptly swabbed >with alcohol or, if caused by coral, disinfected with hydrogen peroxide. Forgive my elementary ignorance, but why is this the case? I would think sunlight + fresh air would enhance healing process but it seems something else is working here. ( I am someone who always has cuts/ scratches from being thinskinned and frequently working with tools and heavy metal things. Guess i wouldn't last very long at all.) Hue Miller **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not a health care professional but I expect that it has to do with the constant hot, moist conditions and the abundance of microbial activity. The coral, of course, is a separate issue. Coral is an animal and the reef is literally made up dead animals. Coral cuts are nasty. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:22:04 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: AE song >Tom; > > I was able to locate the song itself on "Napster" and it has the lyrics >you cite. The full title is: "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" >Authorship is attributed to: David D. McEnery........ >RG Along with Amelia Earhart, Amelia Earhart vs The Dancing Bear, The Amelia Earhart Waltz, Ballad of Amelia Earhart... Seems like she was a popular girl... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Indeed. Over the years we've received several tapes and CDs with songs inspired by AE. We could probably put out a CD, ....but first let's find her. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:23:25 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Flying Electras Lockheed L.10B Electra, registration VH-UZO (shown on register as a 10A). Still on register and airworthy in 1999, this aircraft, const. no. 1107, is based in New South Wales and operated by Vintage Electra Pty. Ltd. Formerly VH-ASM, acquired by Ansett Airlines in 1937, it has had several registrations, and has served as a passenger, charter and ambulance aircraft. Sitting derelict at Bankstown, it was bought in 1981 for restoration by Barrie Spencer. He sold his interest in 1984 to Laurie Ogle of Sydney. After years of work, and re-registered as VH-UZO and named 'Ansertes', it made its first public appearance (shown here) since restoration at the Richmond air show, 1991. http://www.chariot.net.au/~theburfs/electrapage1.html http://www.chariot.net.au/~theburfs/electraMAIN.html Has another one which had been removed from the 1999 register. One of these may be the one in NZ though. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:37:48 EDT From: Dan Brown Subject: Project theme song Since the forum mood seems light recently: a strong contender for an Earhart Project theme song has to be, "Merry Go Round Broke Down". It fits the topic in many ways, plus the tune sure sticks in your mind. Challenge to the forum: what proposed Earhart Project official poem begins with the line, "Fred, where is north?" Dan Brown ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:44:38 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Old bold pilots 'What pilot could have been bolder than Jimmy Doolittle? And he died in bed'... General Doolittle was an aeronautical engineer who also carefully calculated his risk taking (as much as humanly possible) before embarking on such undertakings. His only 'lapse' of judgement (which almost got him 'sacked' while he was commanding in the North African campaign)... was his personally continuing to fly combat missions over enemy territory after becoming privy to the Allies Ultra codebreaking secrets. He'd calculated the raid on Japan down to the last gallon of gas & the ultimate turn over of his flight's surviving planes to the Chinese. Unfortunately, like the...'best laid plans'..., a premature launching (after they were sighted by a Japanese fishing boat) & unexpectedly severe weather along the China coast, wrecked such plans & he & his surviving crews were indeed fortunate to even reach the mainland of China. His 'boldness', much like that of Elgen Long & others, was the result of considerable planning & full assessment of all the risks involved, not rashly or carelessly undertaken actions. Maybe Col. Greg (Pappy) Boyington was more the proper prototype of the...'old AND bold'...pilot, as there are some people who just seem to be able to violate all the known rules for survival & still wind-up coming out alive, though here again, Mrs. Boyington didn't raise any 'dummy', as Col. Boyington was also a prime example of one who clearly learned & profited from his experiences & was not adverse to 'non-engagement' when the odds were clearly not in his favor. Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric As I can attest from more personal experience than I like to admit, it also helps to be inexplicably lucky. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:46:21 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Jihad I'd rather hear Ric sing "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" Maybe a CD is in order? Dan Postellon Tighar #2263 *************************************************************************** From Ric Or a video. Then I could also do the dance. You guys....... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:47:34 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Amelia Earhart's Last Flight For Gene Dangelo I'm still looking for a MP3. Guitar cords and lyrics are available in "Rise UP Singing", which is a folk song standard (book). Also, see if you can find "As We Were" or "Faith's Favorites" (CD or album?)by Faith Petric, also mentioned in "Rise Up Singing" Dan Postellon #2263 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:48:50 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: AE song Thanks, Wombat. Incidentally, our forthcoming book ("Amelia Earhart's Shoes"), scheduled for publication this summer in bookstores by October, includes a number of excerpts from "TIGHAR Tunes," the collected music of the Earhart expeditions. I can see Ric cringing. LTM (a music lover) Tom King **************************************************************************** From Ric (cringe, cringe) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:04:05 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Jihad The saying comes to mind, "Be careful what you wish for--you might get it." For those who have not heard Ric in concert, he is gifted with a marvelous baritone singing voice, a remarkable memory for lyrics and a talent for dialect. Experience has shown that these remarkable qualities are further enhanced when adult beverages are consumed in moderation--by the listener, not the performer. Perhaps Ric could optimize revenue from his on-line musical debut by charging both those who would pay to hear him, and those who would pay NOT to hear him. LTM, whose tone-deafness was passed along to her offspring. **************************************************************************** From Ric How did this thread get started? Niku IIII as a Nelson Eddy/Jeannette MacDonald operetta? My image is going to hell. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:58:39 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: Re: Membership has its Privileges Ric wrote, >Are we really that intimidating? You make it sound like deciding to become >a monk. It's not quite the same thing. Well you all are experts and I'm NOT one. It isn't the same as being a 'monk' at all, I know that. There is no reason why I shouldn't join at all cos I know that what I'm paying for is worth every cent. When I first went to the site years ago I remeber feeling intimidated by the wealth of knowledge that Tighar had built up, it is like WOW you GUYS KNOW THAT MUCH?? It is not the people Tighar that is intimidating it is their expertise, because I know that I could never match it or contribute anything towards (apart from $$) that would make a real difference to the work you guys do. Perhaps I should contribute my $$ and make that difference cos it all I can do. Charles Lim (Don't u have to be a "monk" if you wanted to start a Jihad anyways??) **************************************************************************** From Ric One of our most intimidating traits is our ability to mix metaphors. All the expertise in the world is just so much hot air without the money to put it to use. I'm always a bit flabbergasted by folks who apologize that all they have to contribute is dollars. It's dollars that make it possible for the airplanes to fly and the boats to sail and the bush knives to swing. What really sets TIGHAR apart is that we GO and DO which, in turn, produces new information to which all that expertise can be applied. Without the financial contributions of the TIGHAR membership we'd just be endlessly chewing over the same over-masticated material that Earhart researchers have been jawing for 60 plus years. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:02:46 EDT From: Troy Carmichael Subject: 1/2 hour gas? I feel the "half-hour" debate has been muddied enough, but here is my little contribution anyway. I don't believe strongly one way or the other which was the accurate recording of AE's broadcast. If "half-hour" was NOT said by AE, fine, both Niku and crashed-at-sea theories are plausible. If "half-hour" WAS said, fine, both Niku and crashed-at-sea theories are still plausible. There are many explanations of just what an half-hour of gas left could mean.... For example, AE/FN might have given themselves a certain amount of reserve fuel when they got to where Howland was supposed to be. For example, maybe they chose 4 hours of reserve fuel to be their requirement to get to their alternate landing spot (guys, this is an EXAMPLE, so don't yell at me for saying that I said they had 4 hours left. I think the forum has ran out of fuel and exhausted the debate on how much gas was left in those tanks (pun intended)). A possible scenario is that they arrived near to where Howland was supposed to be ("must be on you" and indications of relative 5x5 signal strength) and hung out, trying to locate it from 1000 ft. AGL. When they have 4.5 hours of fuel left, AE broadcasts a message ("low on fuel"/"half hour"/whatever) that is recorded by the radio operators. Maybe she said "half hour" left b/c she knew that within 30 minutes, darn it, she would have to make a left/right decisioin to follow the LOP. In her mind, 30 minutes was all the time she had left to find Howland before taking a gamble on the LOP (that she ultimately appears to have taken and lost). In that scenario, I know darn well I would be considering 30 minutes of fuel dangerously low, if my alternate was up to 4 hours away. Geesh, I'm practically coming out of my skin when I land my 172 in land-locked country with only 45 minutes left. In the end, it does not matter whether or not AE actually said "half-hour": it neither helps nor hinders the Niku or crashed-at-sea theories. However, like this whole investigation, it is a good practice on the scientific method. In my layman's option, nobody should base ANYTHING on what the radio operators recorded. Even if they were known to be accurate recordings, they are still too vague. LTM Troy TIGHAR#something ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:04:53 EDT From: Gary Subject: Re: Membership has its Privileges Put in your money and I'll do the same. You don't have to be a participant to be a member. One should not be intimidated by knowledge as it's an opportunity to learn. I happened on this site because I'm interested in the Electra and planes in general. I don't know jack about EA and FN other than info that has come across the tube over the years. This is a very interesting group with lots of fascinating information. Gary ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:07:22 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: Re: Membership has its Privileges Well done. I agree in earnest so now I shall join. It is hard for those at the cutting edge. Those that do the work are not always rewarded by fame and fortune, even if that isn't what we were looking for in the first place. The discovery of the Earhart and the electra is in itself its own reward. As for $$, it can never buy the satisfaction of finding AE or FN it is only a resource that is used to get the job done. I apologise if I offended you just there. I know the road ahead is a tough one because 60 years has shown up nothing and it looks like the next 60 might just as well do the same thing, that is why Tighar spends all that $$ to make sure its on the right track. Charles Lim ************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you Charles. One of the benefits of membership is you get to offend me all you want. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:42:05 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Old bold pilots Chuck Yeager was another "Old Bold Pilot". He broke many rules as well as barriers!. Flying a major test in the X-1 with a crippled arm and in pain because of it potentially jeopordized a major project and millions of dollars. He was lucky and won!. Ron Reuther ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:22:45 EDT From: Ric Subject: No Forum Saturday I'll be out of town this weekend. See ya Monday. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:19:39 EDT From: Ric Subject: Whose mother? The following is a report by Ron Bright on the apparent origin of the famous Love to Mother message sent to George Putnam in 1945. Ron has been pursuing this line of research for some time now and, although he is a TIGHAR member- as are several of the researchers who are working with him - this excellent piece of historical detective work is not a "TIGHAR project" per se. If you're not familiar with the Love to Mother message you might want to first read the FAQ on the TIGHAR website at http:// www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaq.html Without further adieu, here is Ron Bright's report. ***************************************************************** THE PUTNAM MESSAGE - WHO WROTE IT? Synopsis An examination of the 135 messages sent from Weihsien 21 Aug 45 to the State Dept revealed two messages with identical phrasing: "...camp liberated..." One was an unsigned message sent to George Putnam and the other was a message signed by a man named Ahmad Kamal. Investigation of Kamal's background disclosed a close relationship with Putnam during the 1938-40 period in Los Angeles. Kamal's son was located and confirmed that his father sent the messages - one to to his publisher, Scribner and Sons, and the other to George Putnam. He added the "..love to mother" because Putnam was "looking after Kamal's mother in LA when Kamal left for China". Background After Amelia Earhart disappeared on 2 July 37 enroute to Howland Island, an immediate Navy search disclosed not a single trace of Earhart or the Electra. As the years went by various archeological diggings at Saipan and Gardner revealed suspected Earhart related artifacts but only a few "hard" pieces of physical evidence remain today that might be linked to Amelia: one is the Radiogram message dated 21 Aug 45 from Weihsien Internment Camp, China, via the US State Dept to George Putnam at N. Hollywood, Ca., with the enigimatic closing of "Love to Mother". It was transmitted as "unsigned" and the search for the author began. Putnam had replied to the State Dept on 9 Sep 1937 with a terse letter that if any additonal telegrams are received foreward them to his home at Lone Pine,Ca. The government, Putnam nor anyone else initiated a investigaiton of Earharts presence at Weihsien. Putnam apparently did not tell Amy or Muriel Morrisey. The message was never made public. Then in 1971, long time Earhart researcher Fred Goerner learned about the Putnam message and in 1975 received a copy from the National Archives. Goerner didn't publicize this discovery, although he exchanged letters with other researches. Goerner dismissed the letter as an unsigned message to Putnam from someone at Weihsien who knew him pre-war; he didn't believe it was from Earhart. Time passed and then on 28 June 1987, the LA Times published an article that a State Dept employee found an "unpublished" government telegram in the "Earhart" file at the National Archives. It was the Putnam message delivered to him in Aug 1945. The clear implication was Amelia was held as a prisoner at Weihsien Civilian Assembly Camp. Some researchers believed this was compelling evidence that the Japanese had indeed captured Amelia after ditching or crashing and was held since 1937 by the Japanese government. The message was unsigned and made no mention of Amelia. After the Camp's liberation in 1945, Amelia reportedly was returned to the US, and evaded all publicity. Adding support to the "authenticity" that the message was from Earhart, Lt James Hannon, one of the OSS paratroopers who liberated the Camp on 15 Aug 45, told AES researchers that the message confirmed in his mind some of the strange events at Weihsien. He described a comatose, incoherent female "Yank" who he beleived must have been Earhart because of the special treatment she was accorded; and in Sept 1945 she was spirited away by a Japanese Betty bomber. It was plausible, but not likely. It was not definitive. Suffice it for the purposes of this article that an extensive investigation, including interviews with other OSS troops, Camp Administrators, internees, and Camp documents, did not confirm the supposition that Earhart was at Weihsien. Yet it was not an absolute conclusion. Most researchers agreed with Goerner and believed it was an associate or friend of Putnams that wrote the message pointing out that Putnam apparently did not ask for additional investigation. But then who did write the LTM message (as it is called). If we could find out the author and it wasn't Earhart that would close the speculation on Earharts presence at Weihsien. The Investigation We believed that the author had to know a) the 1935-41 address of Putnam at 10042 Valley Spring Lane, N. Hollywood, CA .2)knew Putnam well enough to send the message with some kind of reason and 3) that the author was conveying a code or initimate purpose with the "love to mother" closing. 1. I examined a list of all 1400 plus internees on a June 1944 roster for any clues regarding , age, business, occupations, and nationalities (American) but none seemed to suggest a link a professional or business link with Putnam. 2. I examined the Radiogram from the State Dept,transmitted from Chungking to the US State Dept via Navy radio, with the 135 messages. They were mostly addressed to relatives, business partners, schools, and all limited to about 10 words. 3. Only two messages were designated with a ( * ) meaning signature omitted, and it was Putnam's and the very next message. This suggested a possible transmission problem. 4. Examining the text of each disclosed that only two messages out of the 135 were strikingly similar in the phrasing of "camp liberated" Those messages belonged to a "A. Kamal" and to GP Putnam. Putnams: "Camp liberated; all well. Volumes to tell. Love to Mother. (sig.omitted) Kamals: "advise mother all safe concentration camp liberated books ready, Kamal. 5. Kamal's message was addressed to Maxwell Perkins at Scribner and Sons, a publishing house. 6. None of the other messages used the "camp liberated" phrase , and the "advise mother phrase. I felt that Kamal could be a possibility as he was a self proclaimed author and writing a competitive publishing house of Putnams. Maybe he too was writing to Putnam about a forthcoming book, just a guess. 7. The Camp roster listed A. Kamal as a 30 yr old "student" and a Mrs A.T. Kamal, housewife. We then contacted numerous former Internees and learned that Kamal was "Ahmad Kamal" a self proclaimed expert in Central asia matters, authority on Mongolian and Chinese Turkestan, a guide on the Roy Chapman Andrews expedition in the Gobi desert, and an "author". Former internee Pamela Masters, who wrote the Mushroom Years,a story of the Weihsien experience, recalled that Kamal from Weihsien looked up her sister in LA in 1947 trying to sell a story something about "Six Fathoms Deep"; he was attempting to break into the Hollywood scene. She described him as a "flaming red headed" Turk. We reviewed publishing companies and found that a "Ahmad Kamal" had written about 7 books, including the "The Seven Questions of Timur" published in 1938 and "Land without Laughter", published in 1940. These books described his adventures in Central asia, getting charged as a spy by the Russians, escaping with a Chinese general to Peking. These descriptions of the book lead us to believe that the Ahmad Kamal at Weihsien was the same Kamal as the author. And if he was an author it was possible that he had some connection with George Putnam pre-war. But we couldn't find any direct link. A fellow Tighar researcher found that AE and George Putnam had a social relationship with Andrews( the Gobi expedtion) in the mid- to late 30's. Thus, we speculated, if Kamal at Weihsien was the author Kamal, it could bea common link between Kamal and Putnam. Then a major breakthough came in April 2001. A review of FBI records of Putnam, obtained thru FOIA, and just declassified in 1998, disclosed an amazing connection betweeen a "young man" who spoke Turkish and Chinese, who was writing about his adventures in China c. 1935-38. According to the FBI files, Putnam was recruiting a "young man", never identified by name, to be a double agent against the Japanese at Los Angeles. The young man ,said Putman, was working for the LA Japanese Consulate and was furnishing them with aircraft data, contruction, ship movements, etc.,(overtly) and Putnam wanted the FBI to recruit him as a double agent. After an exchange of letters with J. Edgar Hoover, and meetings with the LA FBI agents, it was clear the FBI didn't want anything to do with this scene, and suggested Putnam contact the Navy Intelligence. Putnam declined as he had "bad experiences" with two Navy Admirals earlier. But who was this "young man", who Putnam declined to identify to the FBI? Was he the same Kamal from Weihsien ? A social security death index check disclosed that a Ahmad Kamal was born in 1914 and died 13 Oct 1989 at Santa Barbara, Ca. The FBI in LA estimated the young man's age at 24 in 1938 and as we know the Kamal at Weihsien was age 30 in 1945. Kamal was looking better to us. But we could not find any exisiting autobiographies or biographies in major libraries about this "Ahmad Kamal". Our conjecture then was that the author Kamal was the same Kamal as Putnam's young man based on age and on the Central asia background, and Kamal's published book in 1938 at Santa Ana, near Santa Barbara.But nothing conclusive. Why would Weihsien Kamal send a message to Putnam. A new book? Kamal seemed to be the LTM author but why use this intimate phrase, and since he was now dead could we ever find a specific link between Kamal as the "young man" and the Kamal that Putnam was recruiting. The final link On 18 April 01, I located Ahmad Kamal's son in Southern California and his revelations about his father were extraordinary. Yes the Kamal as the prolific author of "The Seven Questions of Timur" and the "Land Without Laugher" , and the Kamal at Weihsien Civilian prison camp were one and the same! Yes there was a close link between Putman and Kamal at Los Angeles, pre war. The following is based on his son's recollection. After extensive traveling in Turkestan, China, and Central asia, Kamal returned to the US circa early 20.s . In 1924 Kamal obrtained a pilots license and kept an airplane at the Burbank airport. There in the mid-thirties he met Howard Hughes (flew with Hughes), George Putnam and Amelia Earhart, at the Burbank airport., Kamal was close to Hughes' personal secretary Nadine Henly. (Earhart was at Burbank airport prior to her world flight first starting in March 1937) During this time in 1937-38, Kamal became closely acquainted with Putnam who was helping him find a publisher. About this time, 1938, Kamal published his "Seven Questions" book about his adventures in Central asia, fighting against the Russians, imprisonment, and escape out to Peking. Sometime after circa 1939- 1940 , Kamal returned to China where he met and married his wife at Tientsin,China. The war broke out in Dec 41 and soon afterwards, the Japanese Temekai(sp) (Secret Police) captured him and his wife, and refusing to cooperate, they were transferred to Weihsien Camp c. mid 1942. There he remained until liberated until Aug 1945. According to his son,shorty after the camp was liberated, Kamal, sent out two radiomessages: one to Scribner and Sons about publishing a book, and one to GP Putnam. His son said he has seen either notes or a journal of that message and could repeat it almost by heart- something like "camp liberated, all was well, volumes to follow and love to mother". The "love to mother" was added,said his son, as Putnam agreed to look after Kamal's aging mother when Kamal left for China. Putnam was to look in on Mrs Kamal, also in LA, but she didn't live with Putnam. It was an infomal caregiver arrangement. Kamal spoke Turkish, Chinese and was an "international figure",later becoming involved in assisting rebels in other countries. Kamal's son said that his father never discussed with him any of Putnam's efforts to recruit him for the FBI.( The son was born in 1950) After liberation, Kamal returned to the US and continued to publish and lived in the LA area from 1945-5l.(By this time, Putnam had moved in 1941 to his Lone Pine address). He does not know if Kamal ever got in touch with Putnam after the war. In summary, Kamal said his father often discussed Amelia Earhart and various disappearnce theories. His father, who knew Amelia, said she was not at Weihsien while he was there from 42-Aug 45. The story of Earhart in the son's words was "apocryphal" and that's why he recalled his father's stories while he was growing up in the 60s,70s and 80s, His father thought she went down in the sea. The son said he would search through his material, his father's journals and provide any relevant document or record. Conclusion Thus the author of the LTM message is Ahmad Kamal . Kamal was at Weishein and knew Putnam and AE. His message to Putnam was a generic hopefull notificatgion. Because Putnam was taking care of his mother, hence the "love to mother". The message has a simple mundane explanation. Nothing more than an endearing message for Putnam to convey to his mom after his three years at the Camp. For those that wish to know more about Kamal I suggest reading his first two books. ( A further indicator of his mother's role in Kamal's life is seen in the dedication in his first book, "The Seven Secrets" In which he writes, "TO MY MOTHER". Investigation continuing We intend to continue correspondence with Kamal son,obtain confirming documents,to supplement this preliminary report. Acknowledgements Dusty and I wish to thank Rollin Reineck, who intially researched, located State Dept radiograms to Putnam and generously provided them. Also to Pat Gaston, Don Neuman, Don Jordan, and Andrew McKenna for advice and direction in this investigation. Early researchers did not have the advantage of the 1998 declassified Putnam FBI file that disclosed the relationship between a Weihsien internee and Putnam. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:21:14 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Amelia's song There is also a lovely song called "Amelia" on Joni Mitchell's "Hejira", c 1976. Beautiful, oblique lyrics, including "a ghost of aviation, she was swallowed by the sky". So no ditched and sank theory there! LTM **************************************************************************** From Ric Hmmm. I wonder how we test THAT hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:29:41 EDT From: Malcolm Andrews Subject: Re: Membership I don't have the technical expertise to argue on the forum - but I enjoy the ripostes. And in the couple of months since I discovered TIGHAR I have become quite enthralled by the whole AE saga. I've just joined. I only wished I'd done so earlier before the Australian dollar dropped to around 48 cents US. It would have been cheaper. But whatever the price - it's worth it. Malcolm Andrews, Woolloomooloo (Land of Oz) *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Malcolm. <> That's true of most of us but it doesn't seem to slow us down. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:31:13 EDT From: Richard Lund Subject: For a few dollars more....... With all this talk of membership and contributions I did a little long term budget and can spare $50.00 dollars to the cause. I'll just buy some Kraft diner for a couple months is all.Wish it could be more but it's all I can afford right now.my donation is in the mail.maybe by summer I can send a few more dollars your way but as I said before school is expensive these days. LTM Richard L #2376 ************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you Richard. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:35:28 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Old bold pilots > From Ron Reuther > > Chuck Yeager was another "Old Bold Pilot". He broke many rules as well as > barriers!. Flying a major test in the X-1 with a crippled arm and in pain > because of it potentially jeopordized a major project and millions of > dollars. He was lucky and won!. He's also lucky that his flight helmet managed to fit....his book made me puke. Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************************** From Ric I love it when I don't have to say stuff that would only get me in trouble anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:24:27 EDT From: Jonathan Greenberg Subject: Amelia Earhart Song For those who really want to hear the song, go to MP3.COM and search for Amelia Earhart. The song by Limestone Cowboy is the one we all(?) want to hear. This is a legal download, by the way. Jonathan Greenberg ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:29:27 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Old bold pilots > From David Evans Katz > >... It seems to me that Elgen Long qualifies as an old bold > pilot. ...and he is well into his 80's. ***David: Elgin may be old and bold .. but he is not into his 80's. He was born on 8/17/1927 ... RC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:31:42 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Update on Tom King's (et al) book "Amelia Earhart's Shoes" is now listed in Altamira Press's on-line catalogue (www.altamirapress.com [then search for Amelia Earhart], or more specifically http://www.altamirapress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search& db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0759101302). It's scheduled to go to print in July, and be in bookstores in late September-early October, times to coincide with the return of the 2001 expedition. Full-scale marketing begins next week. All authors' royalties go to TIGHAR to support The Quest, so here's a chance to contribute something, or to encourage others to, and get something for it. The publishers have specifically asked us (the authors -- Burns, Jacobson, Spading, and King) for recommendations about media they should talk with about reviews or advertisements. They'll hit all the obvious ones, of course -- the U.S. TV networks, Time, Newsweek, the NY Times, etc. etc. -- but they're interested in more specialized markets, media in other countries, etc. We'll be giving them our own lists, of course, and I'm sure Ric will as well, but suggestions from all are solicited. They can be sent directly to me at tfking106@aol.com. Thanks. LTM (who loves a good book) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:35:22 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Experts Charles Lim wrote: <> Wow, Charles, you flatter us. We are not all experts, not by any stretch of the imagination. We are interested and focused, and those of us who have been members for a while have absorbed much information through osmosis or some such. If being knowlegeable about the subject makes me an expert, then guess what, you're an expert now yourself. Think about it, would you feel comfortable trying to explain the big picture of the Earhart mystery to someone new to the Forum? If you have been with the Forum for a year or so, I would think you could do it. You already know more about it than 99% or the folks out there. And another thing, if you polled the Forum (or even the NIKU expedition members) for professions, I think that you would find that the vast majority are not Airline pilots, archaeolgists, anthropologists, and the like. Most of us have employment that is totally non aviation related, yet we are members because we are interested in the work TIGHAR does, and the AE project. I work on commercial and industrial energy conservation projects. Doesn't qualify me for any special TIGHAR category unless Ric wants me to recommend how to maximize the efficiency of his refrigeration. I am hoping some of the past and future NIKU team members will pipe in here just to show you we are not all "experts". Cue for the team members. That is one of the beauties of the Forum. We can draw on the expertise of the entire group rather than depend upon a small select group. You don't know what you might be able to contribute until it comes up, and there have been many offshoot threads from the forum quilt, like shoes, fire extinguishers, thunder boxes, buttons, radio stuff, etc, etc, etc. Something just might come up in your field, and indeed you would be the expert. This is why the Forum is so powerful as a research tool. So the bottom line is that nobody should be intimidated by the Forum. We don't know it all, if we did, there wouldn't be a Forum. And, yes the Jihad continues, so thanks for signning up. The $$ are greatly appreciated, but increasing the membership is primary in my mind. The money will follow the membership, and I like the current trend. Who's Next?? LTM(who is no expert, and thankfully not a Monk either) Andrew McKenna 1045CE"J" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:49:12 EDT From: Dennis O. McGee Subject: Re: Whose mother? Ron Bright said: "A social security death index check disclosed that an Ahmad Kamal was born in 1914 and died 13 Oct 1989 at Santa Barbara, Ca. . . . In 1924 Kamal obtained a pilots license and kept an airplane at the Burbank airport." A 10-year-old pilot and aircraft owner? A typo? LTM, who understands Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:50:03 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Old bold pilots Doug Brutlag said RE: Chuck Yeager: "....his book made me puke." I thought it was just a good ol' boy's rollickin' fighter jock's "I love me" bio. Nothing too serious, just a fast, easy read with lots of excitement. What were your objections? LTM, who reads slower these days Dennis McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:52:14 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: LTM Congratulations to Ron Bright on a wonderful piece of research and reporting! He has, apparently, finally solved the mystery of the Weihshin telegram. All Earhart researchers are indebted to Ron and to Rollin Reineck, whose assistance Ron graciously acknowledged. Ron has demonstrated that even the most sinister appearing things may have reasonable, even mundane, explanations. David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:53:20 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: AE's Last Flight song For Dr. Dangelo One of the more recent recordings of "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" is on a 1995 album by Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys called "From One Good American to Another". Sheet music for the song exists but appears to be relatively rare. An internet search reveals that someone has a copy from the 1960s available for sale at $35. Sorry, I didn't save the address since anyone else could find it as easily as I. Tim Smith 1142 CE ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:00:32 EDT From: P. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: LTM Once again, the forum delivers. It is a pattern of sorts; a fine piece of investigative research or conclusions are posted, a flurry of responses fly back and then the forum denigrates into off topic threads that can drive one batty. It is like playing the slots at Las Vegas - every once in awhile, a blind squirrel finds a hole. Kudos to Ron Bright but fasten your seat belt old pal, your work is about to be turned into mincemeat by the professional second-guessers who lurk in the deeps of the forum. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:49:07 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Whose mother? To Dennis McGee Kamals son said the father Ahmad was actually born in 1910 and guesstimated (as in many other dates no dairies in front of him) when his father got the pilots license. Probably early, say when he was 18 or 1928. Arrangements are being made to review his material and records. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:51:33 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: Re: Experts To Andrew McKenna, Thanx for the reassurance. I always thought that you had to be a Proffesor of some sort to be able to get your hand into something like this. But enough about me already. I read the computer simulation that Tighar did on the Betty's notebook and its attempt to work out the probabilities of there being such an event. I guess now that it is most likely true that it did happen. I was curious though, if it could happen to Betty why not anyone else?? Why is it that there is only one recorded incident of this? I'm not throwing doubt here, just saying someone else may have been in the the probability bracket that could have heard AE'S transmissions. Charles Lim (whose curiosity can never be knowingly reassured) **************************************************************************** From Ric There was not only one recorded incident. There were many. Bettys is merely the only one we know of where a real-time transcription survives. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:54:52 EDT From: Stijn de Jong Subject: Re: Amelia Earhart Song MP3.COM also has an instrumental jazz track called 'Nikumaroro', by an outfit called Racket Ship. It's not bad, really. *************************************************************************** From Ric Good Lord. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:59:51 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Old bold pilots > >From Dennis McGee > > Doug Brutlag said RE: Chuck Yeager: "....his book made me puke." > > I thought it was just a good ol' boy's rollickin' fighter jock's "I > love me" bio. Nothing too serious, just a fast, easy read with lots of > excitement. What were your objections? You have to ask? Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric There seem to be two cultures in aviation. A professional pilot cluture in which humility and self-effacment are valued as indications of quiet competence - and a fighter-jock culture in which braggadocio and posturing are accepted as the norm. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:37:48 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Whose mother? Ron, that was great research. congrats to you and all who contributed. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Bill Leary ---quote--- Kudos to Ron Bright but fasten your seat belt old pal, your work is about to be turned into mincemeat by the professional second-guessers who lurk in the deeps of the forum. ---end quote--- Ah, but imagine the swag you get when they chew it up and it comes out intact (if it does). - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:42:04 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Hearing AE Of course, this is mere speculation, but there were probably hundreds who would have heard AE's messages. But as with anything, many people do not act on the information. And of those who did, such as Betty, we have found that the officials who they tried to report to just dismissed the reports as either unfounded or "unnecessary". The "unnecessary" designation means that they thought that the "Gubmint" was already monitoring all the frequencies and would be receiving any radio transmissions, so it was "unnecessary" to report what they already "SURELY" had in their possession. LTM, Dave Bush **************************************************************************** From Ric In at least one case - the Rock Springs, Wyoming intercept - the report was checked out and judged to be genuine. It was only later, after the search had failed, that all the reports were categorically dismissed. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:50:50 EDT From: Charles Lim Subject: Re: Hearing AE It is a shame, that there were so many reported incidents and that there is only one case that is still documented. The lack of evidence is in no way any proof that it did not happen, and I think the simulation proves that because there is now some proof that shows that it was entirely possible. We could also argue the reverse that Betty was lying, but with the result out, this is unlikely in my opinion. The loss of evidence here stemmed directly from lack of understnding and the belief as you say of the 'Gobmint' assuming to have known all about it. I can understand this much as it has happened before. Which Sheriff would know anything about Radio wave propagation theory in the 30's?? Charles Lim **************************************************************************** From Ric I did not say that Betty's was the only case that was documented. I said it was the only case where a real-time transcription has survived. A number or other intercepts were reported and documented at the time. Others exist only as anecdotes told in later years. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:54:56 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Racket Ship Re: Nikumaroro, performance by Racket Ship, 28k streaming audio for real player is available at: http://www.hearingvoices.com/racket/ It seems to come from the "Songs of the Islands" CD. Check out the vintage PanAM advertising print on the website. LTM, John Pratt 2373 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:18:56 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Re: A man and a woman The water is still rising here but I am going to take a moment to jump in on the recent bones and shoe discussion. Ric wrote: "If you're researching English shoe sizes you're reinventing the wheel. Kenton and I have done that in spades. the Brits do not differentiate between men's and women's sizes" **** KS replies: Indeed, Ric and I have kicked this around quite a bit. However, my research indicates that the Brits DO differentiate between men's and women's sizes. In other words, in the UK system, a women's size ten is not the same length as a man's size ten. ********************* Tom K wrote: "Well, at least it's unlikely it was Gallagher, since we haven't found any evidence that anybody in the WPHC even knew about Noonan" ********** KS replies: We DO have proof that the WPHC knew about Noonan. For a reference on this check the Niku Source book, Volume No. 2, Tab/Section 6, Document A. This is the "Yankee, American Yacht:- Movements of" file. In this file the letters/telegrams contain at least a couple of references to Noonan. In fact they list his whole name...."Captain Frederick J. Noonan". All the Noonan references are early 1940 which of course pre-dates Gallagher's bones discovery. From the file it is clear that Sir Harry Luke certainly knew about Noonan as did many others who have signed the minutes indicating that the file passed through their hands. Noonan and Earhart were topics of discussion in the WPHC headquarters a few short months prior to Gallagher's discovery. ********** Tom K wrote: " One can posit a shipwrecked Guamanian-African mariner (or sea lawyer, for that matter), but I have no earthly idea how you'd test that hypothesis, so we're rally back to good old Ockham -- the "Bones are Amelia's" hypothesis is testable with some degree of efficiency, so that's what we need to do. *********** KS replies: The......"bones are from the Norwich City"...... hypothesis is also testable and, in my opinion, a much more likely source for Gallagher's bones than the Earhart flight. Some statistical information such as height and ethnic background are available on the lost Norwich City sailors thus assisting in the testing of the Norwich hypothesis. Earhart/Noonan, of course, cannot be excluded as sources and certainly deserve inclusion in the parent population. *********** LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric My investigation of British shoe sizes was pretty empirical (no pun intended). I walked into a British shoe store (the one in the little strip mall near the PRO ar Kew) and measured a bunch of shoes by tracing the soles on a sheet of paper and noting down what size they were labeled. I found, for example, that a shoe in the "Men's" section that was labeled "Size 8, Euro size 42, Canadian size 9" measured 277mm. A shoe in the "Women's" section was labled "Size 8, Euro size 42" (no mention of Canadian size) and measured 277mm. None of the several international shoe size conversion charts I have pulled off the internet have indicated anything but single United Kingdom, Japanese, Spanish, French, and "Other European" sizes. The U.S. is the only one that seems to makes a distinction between men's and women's sizes. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:39:50 EDT From: Ric Subject: Imagery acquired On Monday, April 16, 2001 at 21:59 Zulu the Lockheed/Martin IKONOS 2 satellite looked down from space and captured two images of Nikumaroro specifically for TIGHAR - a black and white panchromatic image with one meter resolution and a four-band multispectral color image with four meter resolution. We have not yet seen the imagery but the quality is reported to be excellent and basically cloud-free. The acquisition of this imagery was contracted through Space Imaging, Inc. of Thornton, Colorado but the actual arrangements turned out to be far more unusual and fortuitous than we had originally anticipated. Ordering custom satellite photos is a bit different from hiring a photographer to take pictures. The customer does not own the images outright but rather purchases the rights to use the images in specific ways via a licensing agreement. We originally thought that the project would cost $6,000 but, as it turned out, our intended use of the imagery - analysis for research purposes and reproduction for the TIGHAR membership - carried a far higher price tag. Further complicating the issue was the fact that we do not have the expertise internally to analyze the data. Making the high resolution data available to another entity to do the analysis would further increase the cost. A creative solution to the problem was made possible with the cooperation of Space Imaging and NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). It seems that NOAA is conducting a study of the world's coral reefs to assess their health and the environmental factors threatening them. The reef at Nikumaroro is one of the few pristine examples left but, because it's not U.S. territory, NOAA is not able to spend money to take pictures of it. The deal we worked out is that TIGHAR will pay for the acquisition of the imagery. We'll share it with NOAA who will both analyze it for our research purposes and use it in their own coral reef study, and we'll be able to make pretty pictures of Niku available to our members with proper credit to Space Imaging - and the cost of all this to TIGHAR is $3,000, half of what we originally anticipated. It's still $3,000 that was not in the budget but contributions in response to February's appeal in TIGHAR Tracks have already covered two-thirds of that amount. Jim Thompson (TIGHAR #2185) of Select GIS Services, Inc. has been a major contributor to this project and has generously offered to match dollar-for-dollar all contributions toward covering that last thousand bucks. TIGHAR members who send at least $100 will receive an 8x10 color copy of the satellite photo of Nikumaroro - and Jim will double your money for us. Analysis of the imagery is scheduled for early May. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:44:21 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Imagery acquired Ric said: "TIGHAR members who send at least $100 will receive an 8x10 color copy of the satellite photo of Nikumaroro - and Jim will double your money for us." I'll take a $100 of that. LTM, who's eaten too much already this week Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Den. ********************************************************************** From Tim Smith I hereby pledge $100 for the imagery. You have my credit card number, I believe. LTM (who still prefers her Brownie for pictures) Tim Smith **************************************************************************** From Ric Oh yeah, and a copy of your 1040 and that video of you and what's-her-name. Thanks Tim. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:01:46 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Imagery acquired >and that video of you and what's-her-name. Do you mean that cute little filly I met at Loon Lake? Tim Smith *************************************************************************** From Ric That's right. Is a young female moose a filly or a heifer? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:22:54 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Imagery acquired Yes - I'm in for $100, debit my card accordingly. LTM Simon #2120 ***************************************************************** From Ric Thank you Simon. ****************************************************************** From Dick Pingrey Ric, My check for $100 for one of the space immage photos will follow by mail shortly. Could you outline briefly for the Forum what TIGHAR is hoping to find in the analysis of the photos? Dick Pingrey 908C ****************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Dick. Certainly. In terms of searching for direct evidence, we'll be looking closely at the blue/green bands of the multispectral imagery which (we're hoping) will give us up to about 90 feet of water penetration with four meter resolution. If a chunk of the airplane that big is on the reef-slope anywhere around the island down to that depth we might be able to see it or at least identify an anomally that could be investigated "in person." The same is true for the lagoon which is only about 25 feet deep. Even if we can't tell what kind of wreckage it is, we might be able to see if and where there is a debris field on the lagoon bottom. Our ground operations later this summer will benefit greatly from having a current picture of the vegetation distribution and, for the first time, we should be able to accurately georeference the island with GPS. Combined with the 1985 aerial photography we found in Tarawa and the earlier aerial photos we have dating from the 1930s,'40s and '50s, we should be able to track any changes in the island's morphology right up to the present. When you're investigating something that happened a long time ago it's real important to know how the lay of the land has changed over the years. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:35:40 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: imagery acquired << Ric said: "TIGHAR members who send at least $100 will receive an 8x10 color copy of the satellite photo of Nikumaroro - and Jim will double your money for us." >> Sign me up for $100. Let me know if you need my cc # Andrew McKenna *************************************************************************** From Ric Will do. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:47:23 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Imagery acquired A female moose is called a "cow", but that is kind of rude. Alaskans call a young female moose a "hottie". LTM (who is hoping this thread dies real soon) Tim Smith 1142 C (and not THAT kind of)E ************************************************************************** From Ric I feel your pain. The thread is dead. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:10:22 EDT From: David Chase Subject: Question for Ric! Any spots open for the aviation archeology class in late June? I live in Sacramento, so its a hop, skip and a jump for me. Trying to talk a friend into coming as well. thanks, Dave Chase *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, there's still room. Come on along. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:12:37 EDT From: David Chase Subject: Re: imagery acquired My daughter, Vanessa, who's doing a National History Day Project on Amelia Earhart, signed up as a member late in March/maybe early April. I'd like to contribute $100 on her behalf to your Niku photos. You have my card number from her sign up, if you need it again, please let me know. BTW, she won the Sacramento County competition and is competing in the California State competition in early May! thanks, David F Chase **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Dave. Way to go Vanessa! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:29:44 EDT From: Ric Subject: Ric on TV As part of TIGHAR's continuing effort to provide amusement for forum members, I'll be appearing on NBC's Sunday TODAY Show this Sunday (April 29) as the lead-off subject in a series about "People Who Are Living Their Dreams" or something like that. The show airs at 8 a.m. in most places but check your local listings. I'm told that I'll be in the last 15 minutes of the show (I guess they like to leave 'em laughing). Fortunately for our non-U.S. forum subscribers, it will only air in the United States. We had a lot of fun shooting the piece and it's sure to be terribly embarrassing, so you won't want to miss it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:31:05 EDT From: John Clauss Subject: Re: Imagery acquired Excellent job. These images will likely turn out to invaluable tools for us. I'm in for $100. Checks' in the mail. John Clauss *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks John. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:20:41 EDT From: Roy Underwood Subject: Re imagery acquired The recent email traffic/offer of copies of the imagery reminded me that I had kicked in on a similar effort some time ago. Whatever became of these photos? If the deal fell through or you didn't get enough money - that's okay you can keep the $100, but if you had some photos done up, I'd like mine. Roy A. Underwood *************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry for any confusion. It's all the same project. We've been raising money for the past couple months to pay for the satellite imagery that we just acquired last week. At this time, we have the data but have not been able to actually see it yet because we don't have the software. After we meet with the experts at NOAA the first week in May we should be able to start sending out prints. You'll get one. ************************************************************************** From Bruce Ric, I would like to receive a copy of the photo for $100. I believe you have my credit card information. If not please let me know. Bruce (a new member). ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Bruce, and welcome aboard. *************************************************************************** From Bruce Yoho Hi Ric, You all can't have one unless I got one. Put me in for the $100 you should have the info.for the card, if not let me know. LTM (watches everything) Bruce Yoho ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Bruce. ************************************************************************ From Shirley Ric I think you may have my cc# from a merchandise order or other contribution. Not sure. But, put me in for $100 and if you don't have the number, please let me know and I will send it. Thanks,Shirley W. 2299 *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Shirley. *************************************************************************** From Dan Postellon Thank you very much, and thanks to NOAA and Space Imaging. I will eagerly await my photo, when available. I would love to see NOAA's analysis as well. I hope that the photo will resolve some issues. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR #2263 LTM (who never forgot to remove her lens cap) ************************************************************************** From Ric We'll certainly be sharing the results of the NOAA analysis with everyone. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:35:09 EDT From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Topics of discussion in the WPHC Kenton Spading wrote : <> Excuse my ignorance about that part of the story, but why were Noonan and AE topics of discussion in the WPHC in early 1940 (before the bone discovery) ? This would maybe help to understand why Gallagher thought the bones could be those of AE. After all they disappeared 3 years before the discovery (already old story in the news) and WWII was declared, and Howland is quite a few miles from Gardner. *************************************************************************** From Ric The "Yankee" file has to do with the American yacht Yankee that was calling on various islands in the Gilberts ostensibly searching for Amelia Earhart. The Brits suspected, perhaps correctly, that the trip was more about selling an adventure cruise to some wealthy Americans than a serious search for Earhart. Eric Bevington has said that all of the cadet officers in the WPHC were well aware of Putnam's $2,000 reward for information leading to the discovery of his wife's fate. That kind of money was more than they made in a year. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:42:43 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Ric on TV It figures that the TV folks would schedule your appearance for a weekend when I have military duty. Now I guess I'll have to figure out how to program the VCR. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 *********************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, they really screwed up. They're using my piece to lead-off Sweeps Month. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:46:59 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Topics of discussion in the WPHC Ric wrote : > Eric Bevington has said that all of the cadet officers in the WPHC were well > aware of Putnam's $2,000 reward for information leading to the discovery of > his wife's fate. That kind of money was more than they made in a year. How long did this promise remain valid ? In other words : if TIGHAR had the "information (found proof) that leads to the discovery of the fate of Putnam's wife" (like finding the Electra wreck on Niku or proff that the artifacts and the bones were hers), would TIGHAR still get the $ 2,000 from Putnam's heirs ? LTM (who is curious about little details) *************************************************************************** From Ric We will assume that GP's offer is no longer binding. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:43:17 EDT From: Ric Subject: Need info on Apia I'd like to recruit the forum's help in some logistical planning for Niku IIII. Here's the plan: As we have on the past two trips ('97 and '99), we're chartering the Fiji-based motor/sailer Nai'a as our expedition ship. This time, however, rather than staging the expedition out of Fiji we'll be flying to Samoa where Nai'a will join us after completing a previously scheduled charter in the Kingdom of Tonga. Because Samoa is quite a bit closer to Niku than is Fiji, it means we'll only have three days at sea (insted of five) enroute to the island. That's good. But meeting Nai'a in Samoa raises some logistical questions. It is essential that the team be there and ready to go when Nai'a arrives. Any time Nai'a spends waiting for us in Samoa is money and work time on Niku down the toilet. Also, Nai'a will need to refuel and reprovision in Samoa and that needs to happen efficiently and economically. There are two distinct national entities with the Samoan island group. American Samoa is a territory of the United States just like Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. It has an excellent harbor at Pago Pago (pronounced Pahngo Pahngo) on the island of Tutuila with good fueling and reprovisioning facilities. Were familar with Pago Pago because we refueled and reprovisioned there on the first Earhart Project expedition in 1989 because the ship we were using did not have the capability to go Fiji/Niku/Fiji without replenishing enroute. The airport at Pago Pago is served twice weekly by Hawaiian Air out of Honolulu. Western Samoa is part of the British commonwealth. Its main port is Apia on the island of Upolu (about 150 miles west of Tutuila). The airport at Apia is served by Air New Zealand which has a once-a-week nonstop flight to/from Los Angeles. So - the question is, do we stage the expedition out of Pago Pago or Apia? Pago Pago has some advantages: - It's an excellent port with adequate facilities. - Air service is twice per week (Mondays and Fridays). - Air fare from LAX is a little cheaper than Air New Zealand's fares to Apia. There are also some disadvantages: - It's 150 miles farther out of the way. That's half a day to Nai'a on the way out and on the way back. Using Pago rather than Apia would cost the expedition a full day of on-site time. - Flying nonstop from LAX is a whole lot more attractive than doglegging through Honolulu. - Hawaiian Air has a terrible reputation for late and cancelled flights, while Air New Zealand's record is excellent. Any savings in airfare would quickly be negated if our sailing was delayed. At the moment, Apia seems to be the more attractive alternative but we don't know anything about the port facilites there. Can Nai'a refuel and reprovision efficiently and economically at Apia? I've told the folks at Nai'a that I would let slip the dogs of war and put the question out to the forum. Let's see what we can find out. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:31:52 EDT From: Ric Subject: New shoe thoughts Continuing debate about the whole issue of shoes has produced some new thoughts that are worth throwing out to the forum for consideration and comment. It has also become apparent that some specific research is needed if we are to replace speculation with fact. Let's review what we know, what we want to know, and some suggested answers. What We Know One of Gallagher's initial discoveries with the bones in September 1940 was "part of a sole" of what he took to be a woman's "stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal." He judged the size to be "probably size 10." Later, after an "organized search" ordered in October, the artifacts found and shipped to Fiji included, according to Dr. Steenson's note to the file in July 1941, "parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person." What We Want To Know What was it about the "part of a sole" that prompted Gallagher to say that it was from a woman's "stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal"? Given that he only had part of a sole, how reliable is his size estimate? What was Steenson looking at that prompted him to agree with Gallagher's assessment that there was part of a woman's shoe but add that there was also part of a man's shoe? How are these people making these gender distinctions? Suggested Answers One theory holds that the gender identification of the part of a sole initially found by Gallagher was based upon the speculative presence of a higher heel than would be considered normal for a man's shoe. This is supported by an anecdotal account reportedly heard by author Fred Goerner on Tarawa in 1968 that a "woman's high heeled shoe" had been found on Gardner. Another suggestion is that the part of a sole found by Gallagher was too narrow to be a man's shoe. A shoe sole, it is argued, is more likely to break along its lateral rather than its longitudinal axis so Gallagher probably had better information about the shoe's width than about it's length. The idea that the part of a sole thought to be feminine was narrow is supported by the Floyd Kilts' anecdote in which he described the shoe as "size nine narrow." Here's another idea. What if Gallagher found the rear half or two-thirds (whatever) of the sole of Earhart's Pair #3 (as shown in the Shoe Fetish Part 2 research bulletin at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/04_05_01%20Bulletin/04_05_01b ull.html)? Unlike the blucher oxfords she wore when flying, photos show here wearing these shoes in casual settings and when sight-seeing during the World Flight. Perhaps their most distinctive feature is a relatively thick white or cream-colored sole which appears to be a single molded piece including the heel. If all you had was the rear portion of such a sole the light color might be seen as a strong indication that it was feminine, the thickness of the sole might account for the "stoutish" characterization, and the one piece sole/heel is typical of " heavy" sandals. And the continuing question, are the shoe parts found by TIGHAR on Aukeraime in 1991 related to the Earhart disappearance? Recent forum discussions have considered the possibility that the various photos of Earhart's blucher oxfords seem to indicate that, rather than featuring replacement heels, the bottom part of the heels appear to be "two-tone", with the inside portion being a lighter color than the outside portion. Some forum subscribers have offered recollections of such heels but what we really need is something like a catalog picture or advertisement from an old magazine documenting that such heels were in use in 1937. With such documentation in hand we could pretty well discount the Aukeraime shoe parts as being Earhart's. Whatever the results of that research, it occurs to me that it's not very likely that the shoe parts Gallagher found included a Cat's Paw heel. It's fairly easy to read "Cat's Paw Rubber Co. U.S.A." right on the heel and given his initial suspicion that the castaway might be AE, its hard to believe that such an obvious U.S. connection would not be mentioned in the file. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:35:36 EDT From: Blake Subject: Shoe Fetish pt 2 Ric: I was just reading the 2nd part of the "shoe fetish" bulletin & a thought came to mind concerning the pair of shoes given to Tighar by Helen Weber. Did Helen specifically say that Amelia told her the shoes hurt her feet, because they were too small, or just that they hurt her feet? I have a few pair of shoes that fit perfectly, but I hate to wear them for that exact reason....They hurt my feet! Or are at best very unconfortable. i/e Ever had to rent a tux & shoes for a wedding, or some other occasion? I personally believe that Tighar does indeed posses parts to Amelia's shoe(s), found on Gardner, but I just want to make sure that what was said is actually "what was said." Also was the Army data used for predicting Fred's shoe size? 11 to 13 just seems big for someone 6' tall. Just curious. Lastly just wanted to let those involved with "Love to Mother" know it was great to see how they brought that whole issue to light. Great Job! LTM (who's feet run in the family...even if it is someone elses' family). Blake- **************************************************************************** From Ric The note accompanying the shoes says "because they hurt her". No other explanation. The estimate of Fred's shoe size was my own - off the top of my head. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:53:39 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Shoe size I don't know how the Army makes its estimates, (I know, the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way) but I am 6' 1" and, depending upon the type of shoe, wear either a 9 or 10 D and I am not dainty. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:18:34 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: New shoe thoughts What if "part of a sole" meant a sandal missing part of its sole AND most of its straps? What if the straps had all broken off or deteriorated much faster than the sole, because of being of a different material? What if there was only a couple really short stubs left of the sandal straps? Could the style etc of the stubs indicate a woman's sandal? Would this fit the scenario better? With a rather thick sole, it could well be described as part of the sole of stoutish sandals? Christian D **************************************************************************** From Ric The presence of even the stubs of straps would seem to preclude Gallagher's speculation that the part of a sole came from a stoutish walking shoe. Sounds to me like no trace of the uppers was present. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:23:51 EDT From: Les Kinney Subject: Re: Need info on Apia Ric, though not a zealous contributor to your forum having posted only a few times - I do have some opinion on your dilemma. In the past, on occasion, I have been to both American Samoa and Western Samoa on business while assigned to duties in Honolulu. Choose American Samoa. It is fairly modern (as far as Pacific standards go - and will definitely have all of the supplies and provisions you need. Their port facilities are good and they are experienced. Pago Pago has several modern lodging facilities including a decent western style motel and restaurant right on the harbor. Western Samoa and Apia is much more primitive - I seriously doubt that if some sort of supply/loading problem arose they might not be in a position to able to handle it nearly as efficiently as American Samoa. Lodging, food, and communication, though adequate for Pacific standards, is not as good as American Samoa. Though you have a longer haul by flying to Honolulu first then to American Samoa, you might have less logistic problems. As a compromise there is a commuter airline that flies between Western Samoa and American Samoa a few times a week. The flight is less than two hours. Please note that my information is dated not having traveled to this area in 10 years. Les Kinney *************************************************************************** From Dick Pingrey I spent three days in Western Somoa about 20 or so years ago. At the time I was with Pan Am and we had a crew layover in Pago Pago for 4 days as the flight came through only twice a week. I flew to Apia in a DC-3, I don't recall the carrier but that was long enough ago to have changed in any case. At that time Apia's airport was not suitable for jet aircraft. It took nearly an hour to get from the airport to Apia. I stayed at Aggie Gray's hotel (She was the inspriation for Mitchner's Bloody Mary I was told). Conditions were primitive at best, the only paved road was the one from the airport to town and that was built by the Germans prior to WW-1. It is difficult to recall for certain but I think they had fairly good port facilities. Don't take my word for it however. Western Somoa is made up of two major islands. The smaller is where most of the people live and it is the eastern of the two. At the time I was there a major consideration was to start logging on the big island. The people were greatly divided on the issue If you could find an e-mail address for the Aggie Gray Hotel (if it still exists) the staff could certainly answer all your questions. New Zealand took care of most of their technical matters and there should be good information on Western Somoa in New Zealand. Dick Pingrey 908C *************************************************************************** From Pete I work for a marine electronics company these days, let me ask around with the office folks and some of the shipping companies we take care of. Somebody has to have a Port Directory or two hanging around. Then we'll know exactly what kinds of facilities each place presently has. Until more info is available, I'd vote for Apia based on 1) reliability of Air New Zealand and 2) proximity to Niku (isn't Sept storm season?) I'll let you know what I can find out. Pete (whose Jihad MO hits the mail tomorrow - 30 April) **************************************************************************** From Ric Sept. is storm season in the northern hemisphere. The months to avoid in the south central Pacific are November through April (been there, done that). John Pratt, Chuck Boyle and Ross Devitt have provided some good urls and contacts. Thanks guys. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:07:47 EDT From: Ann Westbrook Subject: "The Show" Just thought I would put my two cents in and commend you and the Today show. The segment was interesting and I must say that you looked rather "dapper". Good job for you, your beautiful horses, and TIGHAR. Congratulations!!! Kind Regards, Ann Westbrook **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. I was pleased with the piece. It's hard to overstate the advantage of it being in the producer's interest to make you look good. There were a couple of minor inaccuracies - one stated and one implied. We've been to the island five times, not twice as was stated. My other quibble is that the segment may have given the impression that Pat and I own the farm where the horses are. (Don't I wish.) We just board them there. There's no way we could afford a place like that, but part of NBC's agenda in their "Living Your Dream" series is to portray success. But yes, the boys are beautiful. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:25:12 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Shoe size AS TO SHOE SIZE VS HEIGHT: My son is 6'2" and wears a size 13 wide! **************************************************************************** From Ric For what it's worth, in '91 we recovered a molded-rubber shoe sole/heel with heavy treads (like a work boot) from the ruins of the island Rest House. The thing is enormous, measuring a good 12 inches (350mm) long by 4 1/8 inches (105mm) wide at the widest point. That's a British (and an American man's) size 14. Gallagher was very tall but we don't know exactly how tall. Have to wonder if it was his. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:59:37 EDT From: Carol Linn Dow Subject: Don Wilson's book Richard Gillespie, Saw you on the TV show Sunday. Congratulations. Wanted to tell you am really impressed with the Don Wilson book. I know you didn't think anything of it, but the stories he told sounded very "real." The book is out of print, but I found one at the Atchison, Ks. library, but they won't let it out. It's out of print. Am wondering how much "snooping" around has been done in the Mili Atoll area. There's a chance that if Earhart turned back towards those islands they just flew over, that storm front that was coming in could have forced them to fly further north towards the Marshall Islands. That's very much possible. Airplane pilots don't like big bad thunderstorms. I believe the Navy searched the Phoenix Island group and the Gilbert Island group, but I don't recall they got as far north as the Marshall Islands. Wilson's book claims Earhart crashed on a coral reef and came ashore on a life raft right into the hands of the Japanese. They also buried what may have been their "cash" in a box before they were caught. That sounds very possible....no Visa Cards in those days. If you don't have anything better to do why don't you search Mili Atoll on your trip (joke)... particularly the area around Barre Island? Wilson's book sounds very real to me, very plausible. I'm sure you have your own opinions on what happened. I sent copies of pages of Wilson's book to Dave Jourdan at the Nauticos Expedition. Am wishing everyone best wishes on their trips. If it's not too late, it would be nice to have the answers. By the way I am the author of a stage play entitled ...."The Lost Flight of Amelia Earhart" ....that may be produced here in the Kansas City area next year. So, that explains my interest in the proceedings. I am convinced Earhart was captured by the Japanese and taken to Saipan, even if she crashed at Nikii. The question is how do you end the play? Nobody Richard, but nobody flies over open water without a life raft and survival equipment unless they are half crazy...Earhart was anything buy crazy. The only ones who were crazy enough to do it were the Kamikaze pilots of WW II. So... think about it. Well, I am sure you must have more information on this than I do. What do I know except what I read in someone's book or in the newspapers. Best wishes to you in your search. I don't think Nauticos is going to find anything. If the plane is all in one piece in 17,000 feet of water, AE and FN would have had plenty of time to climb out on their life raft and float around. Or, if not, where are the dead bodies with life preservers? Why didn't something wash up on shore? The belly of that Electra was filled with empty fuel tanks, it would have floated for a long time. It was no ordinary airplane. You know somewhere along the line, this thing has to start making sense. Again, I would like to encourage a few people to search Barre Island and the coral reefs out there. Carol Linn Dow