Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:27:09 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Ghostbusters/Edge of Reef I guess I'm curious---can you tell me what your ethnographers and cultural head told you the reaction of Gilbertese children would actually be, i.e., would they stay away from the site? I read your response to be that Gilbertese view ghosts differently, which is fine, but tells nothing about reactions and leaves the ultimate conclusion hanging. The reason what they told you is relevant and important is that in the interview you mention with Tapania Taiki, below, after she says the adults tried to scare the kids away with ghost stories, she adds "The kids would play with the pieces on the reef and near the European permanent house" (Source--"I Saw Pieces of an Airplane.....TIGHAR"). She also mentions playing with the pieces another time in the interview. Also, to the extent that we think that colonists were using the airplane to make combs, fishing lines (Mims story) etc., the ghosts didn't scare them away either. Now, who you gonna call? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Ghosts played a huge role in traditional Gilbertese religion and a general acceptance of the existence of the spirits of the dead as active agents in the world of the living survived the transition to Christianity. That's the main difference between the Western view and the Gilbertese view. In our culture, there are still plenty of people who believe in ghosts despite the conventional wisdom and popular attitudes that deride such belief. In Gilbertese culture, not everyone believes in ghosts but nobody thinks you're being silly if you do. Grimble describes a general Gilbertese belief that, if the deceased expired without receiving the proper "lifting of the head" ritual (which showed the soul the way to way to the afterlife), the ghost could get lost and wander around in this world causing trouble. They could cause bad dreams, evil thoughts and even strangle the living. Kids, of course, can disregard warnings in any culture, but I think it's safe to say that for a Gilbertese kid to say "I ain't 'fraid of no ghosts." took more guts than it did for us when we were kids. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:32:45 EDT From: Dick Evans Subject: Dozer work The only thing that comes to mind was that the natives were clearing a stretch from the ocean to the lagoon for the purpose of planting -as I recall -coconut trees. They had always helped us unload diesel fuel so they asked if someone could bring out the bulldozer and help them clear the site. This was done. The area was somewhere between the southernmost channel and the SE tip where the Loran station was located. Hope this is some help. Dick Evans *************************************************************************** From Ric Bingo. That's where we're seeing the feature in the satellite imagery. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:38:41 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Priorities For Don Neumann Don, this has been beat to death but here is my take. I have no clue whether AE ever said she had a half hour of fuel left but it makes no difference. Obviously she had far more. I ran a fuel curve on her and she probably had about four hours of fuel left at that time. Her gauges should not have been so close to zero as to have allowed her to be that far off. Possible though. If they had preplanned their fuel they would have known 30 minutes could not have been right. If you think this through it makes no sense. The gauges were not that accurate in the first place and looking at them defies anyone stating an exact amount of fuel left. She might have said "low" or "nearly out" or "almost on empty" but "30 minutes" defies credibility. Returning to Saigon from an emergency crew recovery mission I had half my boost pump lights on on down wind but I couldn't have told you how long I could fly. It is clear to me from the nature of her broadcasts her fuel was still sufficient to go for a considerable time and distance. Thirty minutes of fuel or any amount precluding flying to nearest land in the Phoenix group meant they were going to ditch and nothing in her transmissions indicated any such kind of urgency or even that they had decided or needed to decide on a course of action. In my opinion "30 minutes" was never said. Nor is there any evidence or indication her transmission was cut short. Who ever suggested that is implying she cut herself short by changing frequencies in the middle of her own sentence or transmission. Do you hang up in the middle of a phone call you have initiated? I think that was a senseless suggestion by who ever made it. In trying to reconstruct what may have occurred one needs to suggest the most logical events within known facts. Then recognize not everyone does the most logical thing but few do really stupid things when their life is in the balance. Both AE and FN were pilots. I would have a difficult time believing either one panicked and most certainly not both at the same time. They may have made judgment errors that in hind sight should not have been made but I can't see them coming unglued. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:39:47 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Put downs For Bob Sarnia > Alan, I'm sorry if I'm slow on the uptake and not as smart as Bob, I pointed to the two statements you made that common sense has to tell you are invalid. If you can't see that you may well be correct. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:40:43 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Putnam As Spy Guy It's interesting that although both Amelia Earhart and Eleanor Roosevelt rate a mention in the declassified FBI FOIA files at http://foia.fbi.gov there is no mention of Putnam so far among the people the FBI was keeping an eye on in those days... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:43:51 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Put downs > We can argue facts all day long (and we do) but when it becomes apparent that > somebody doesn't grasp the basic principles of the investigative process, > there's not much I can do. I think it's important to stress that this is THE investigative process, not the "Niku theorists" process. This methodology is used anywhere that one want's to get to the actual facts that lie behind any situation. It's used by crime scene investigators, crash investigators and even in more mundane situations like system failure analysis or even car repair. If you want to get to the facts, this (or a domain specialized variant of it) is how you do it. - Bill #2229 **************************************************************************** From Ric Amen. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:53:26 EDT From: Dick Evans Subject: Re: Recovery and restoration Gentlemen or Ladies as the case may be, For what good it will do anyone, let me comment on the business of the Japanese taking the Lockheed off Gardner and all the speculation about whether or not it would have been possible or practical. As one note comments there was an occasion when a bulldozer fell into a crevasse and had to be pulled out with another bulldozer. This occurred after we were there about 6 months when the CG, for some senseless reason, decided to replace our one DC generator with two more AC generators. A crew was sent down with the equipment on a net tender from Hawaii. They towed a landing barge (LCM- Landing Craft Mechanized) hauling a bulldozer that was two or three times bigger in size than the one we had. There was no trouble bringing the equipment ashore. They used the usual technique of running the barge up onto the shelf and unloading the gear. When the weight was taken off the barge it immediately popped up in the water and they could manuever it under its own power. Getting a loaded barge off the reef was another story. When they were done making the generator switch, which took about a week, they loaded the equipment on the barge and the big bulldozer pushed the barge into deep water and it returned, under its own power, to the net tender. Now came the tough part. How do we get the bulldozer back to the ship? The first attempts tried to push the barge with the bulldozer on board into deep water by using the small dozer that was part of the manning station equipment. This was done by pushing on the front end of the barge while the coxswain revved up his engines to top speed when a wave was rolling under the barge. But every time they tried that the front end of the barge stayed on the shelf and the rear broached to. Now the small dozer had to push the barge back into line with the fingers (what Ric refers to as "spur and groove features") and try again. Same results. It was on one of these attempts to turn the barge that the small dozer tipped into the crevasse. Now what? The net tender signalled that it would shoot in a line and pull the barge off the reef. The problem with that was that the reef prevented them from getting close enough to the barge for the line to carry. We formed our usual line of guys walking out onto the finger about 20 or 30 feet past the barge and they shot a line over our heads. Someone grabbed the line, ran it over and handed it to the crew on the barge. They began to pull it onto the barge and we could see that there was about a 3 inch hawser attached. They looped the hawser over the davit on the end of the barge and with each wave lifting the rear of the barge the net tender was able to pull the barge a couple of feet closer to the deep water. After 4 or 5 waves it popped into deep water and went out under its own power. The barge with the dozer on board must have weighed 10 or 12 tons and pulling it off the shelf took about 10 or 15 minutes after the line was attached. But now what do we do about the small dozer which the manning detail needed? This was taken care of the next morning while I was on watch so I did not see it being done. I was told that the barge brought the dozer back onto the shelf and was pulling a tow rope. The big dozer pulled the small one out of the crevasse, rolled back onto the barge, and the net tender pulled it off the reef. How long did this take? By the time I got off watch at 12 Noon the small dozer was parked beside the generator hut and the big dozer, the barge, and the net tender were over the horizon and out of sight. So it is not a matter of weight; it is a matter of bouyancy. Now, would a sealed aircraft body with empty gas tanks provide enough bouyancy to enable someone to pull the plane off the shelf - even with no wheels? My suspicion is that it would but I was wrong one other time in my life but that is another story. That is why we must send an expedition back down and hope that they can come up with something that will prove the situation one way or the other. If the Lockheed was in fact dragged off the shelf it undoubtedly suffered some damage and perhaps a piece of the plane can be found. I the wing was torn off during this, the Japanese probably pulled it off the shelf and took it along. There is, of course, the possibility that some of the parts dropped between the fingers but I hope nobody is stupid enough to try to go down there and look. On the other hand, if they find aircraft parts it may raise more questions than it answers. Does all of this yacking suggest that a ship coulld have pulled the Lockheed off the shelf? I will leave that to the experts - but in my opinion it could. Does all this yacking with unexpert opinion added prove that this is what was done? Good Lord NO! And although the search party, being human, will undoubtedly go with specific expectations the ones I know will have open enough minds to realistically consider whatever they find. So good luck Ric. I hope you find something definitive and I'll see you on TV - again. And it wont be a dress rehearsal. Dick Evans **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Dick. Unfortunately, it looks like we're going to have to find somebody stupid enough to go down and look in the fingers in the area north of the Norwich City, and I'm the only one that meets that qualification. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:05:54 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Dozer work Bingo indeed. Dick, can you recall about when the 'dozing was done? Thanks much. Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric Ya know, it's really encouraging that we can use the satellite imagery like this. Tom had noted an apparently bulldozed area back in '89 but he couldn't pin it down on a map. The satellite imagery shows a very even area of vegetation, suggesting a thorough clearing and leveling at some time. Dick has now confirmed that such an event took place in the very area the satellite imagery caused us to suspect. In other words, the imagery led us to a hypothesis that we were able to test and confirm (albeit anecdotally). We should be able to test it on the ground later this summer - not that it partucularly helps solve the mystery but it's a good example of using a combination of anecdote, remote sensing, and "ground truth" to establish facts. It's the same process we're using on the western reef to look for airplane wreckage. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:09:04 EDT From: Ric Subject: Off-Topic catastrophes It's totally off-topic but I can't resist. Anybody seen Pearl Harbor? Reviews? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:22:59 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Recovery and restoration > From Ric > > Thanks Dick. Unfortunately, it looks like we're going to have to find > somebody stupid enough to go down and look in the fingers in the area > north of the Norwich City, and I'm the only one that meets that > qualification. Have you got some kind of scuba armor that you can use? :o( Marty **************************************************************************** From Ric The need to do this has only recently become apparent. I'm just getting through the Denial and Anger phases and am beginning to work on Bargaining. Grief and Acceptance will have to wait. Seriously, this will be a major topic of conversation with our team. It's going to take some careful planning. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:35:45 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Recovery and restoration Dick -- Thanks for giving us a full account of the Bulldozer Incident, which we'd heard about but never had the full story on before (as far as I know). It says something about how times have changed that when Ric and I met with NOAA to review the satellite images, they scolded us for even WALKING on the reef flat. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:41:05 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: The lost 'dozer So, the anecdotal story Ric has told about a 'dozer still sitting out beyond the reef edge is bogus? I remember stories about the Oceaneering sonar survey that couldn't find the dozer. It seems we now know the reason why. *************************************************************************** From Ric Just another one of Gillespie's lies. When we first heard the story of the lost dozer there was no mention of it having been recovered. Much later, on the forum, we learned of the recovery ( I guess you were absent that day). Dick Evans has now given us a full account of the episode. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:14:35 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Finger Food I know that you do these things very carefully and safety is a major consideration in these expeditions (notice the accounts in the Nai'a webpages),but the area seems potentially dangerous. Maybe there is some better way to investigate these features. Can you provide a description of the "fingers" and let Forum members suggest alternatives? LTM John Pratt 2373 *************************************************************************** From Ric Our knowledge of them is limited to what we can see in the aerial photos and satellite imagery (which isn't much) and videotape taken by our divers in 1989 when they did a preliminary exploration of one or two of these features, but not in this exact area. In the tape, the diver swims up a crevasse or crack in the reef face that is perhaps ten feet wide at the mouth and gradually narrows and shallows the more shoreward you go. There are surely crevasses that are bigger and smaller. Overhead you can see the breaking surf rolling by and with each wa ve the diver is alternately propelled forward then sucked backward. The further he goes and the narrower and shallower the crevasse becomes, the more pronounced the surging effect. It's not clear from the tape whether the surf was relatively calm or about average, but I don't think it was unusually rough on this particular day (hard to tell when viewing it only from below). The bottom of the crevasse is sand, some of which can be seen surging back and forth with the water. The walls of the crevasse are irregular and jagged. There is no living coral in the crevasse as there is along the reef face outside. The diver turned around before he got to the really shallow area where he would be hit with the breaking surf. It's my impression that, as long as the surf wasn't unusually big, a diver could explore these crevasses from the seaward side without undue risk up until a depth of maybe ten feet. Beyond that he may be able to see up ahead to the end of the crevasse but it would probably be too narrow and violent for him to go there. I wasn't down there myself, so the above is just my impression. I'll check with Tommy Love who was on our Dive Team in '89. If my impression is correct it may be that the best way to check out the grooves is from the seaward side and only approach from the landward side if there is something interesting that needs closer inspection. For one thing, if you're approaching underwater from the seaward side, the predominant force (the seaward surge of water draining off the reef flat) is moving you away from the hard stuff. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:15:51 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Off-Topic catastrophies > Anybody seen Pearl Harbor? Reviews? Yep. Just saw it last weekend. Kinda like Titanic. Great sets, good costuming, spectacular special effects. They could lose the love story is the only flaw. Looked fairly accurate to me right up to Yamamoto's famous quote("I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant") and the B-25's taking off from the carrier on the Doolittle raid. It's worth a few bucks to see. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:16:27 EDT From: Doc Subject: Re: Off-Topic catastrophies I haven't seen it yet; but my father-in law has. He was on an escort carrier during WW II. His only comment about the movie was that it made him P.O'd at the Japs all over again. Doc *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, that has been a concern. Hollywood has great power to stir emotions and they don't do it for any of the right reasons. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:21:18 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Finger Food It would seem to me that with that much current in the narrow ends of the crevices that it is unlikely that anything small or light would stay there for very long, let alone 60+ years. So, if anything is in the narrow ends, it is going to be big and heavy, thus making it fairly obvious, unless very coral or barnacle encrusted. Here is where you need a remote operated camera. LTM - who says body armor may be the only way to go! Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric There's no way a remote camera is going to have enough thrust or enough control to survive in that envirnment. I agree that the only material that could survive wedged into a reef groove would be something like a gear leg, an engine, or possibly even the main beam (even though it's aluminum). Sheet aluminum would likely be gone in a matter of hours, ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:25:13 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Putnam As Spy Guy Having studied the FBI docs re Putnam, it is clear that George spent an extraordinary time and energy attempting to persuade the FBI to latch on to Kamal, then actively gathering information for the Japanese consulate, as an "asset" that is a counter-spy. Why? He even went to the highest levels including J. Edgar Hoover himself. Finally he gave up but persisted in maintaining contact and offering his services through out the years. It could be as simple that some guys are attracted to police work and love to ride around in police cars!!! For those who beleive AE was in Japanese hands, and maybe George still had some doubts in 1938, he may have believed that sending Kamal on to Japan might also uncover AE's "true fate". Patroitism, of course, but his efforts seem to exceed the average citizen. To my knowledge he never wrote about those days. My guess is that when he received the LTM msg from Kamal, he knew that AE was not there at Weihsien and closed that chapter of AE falling into hands of the Japanese . Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the affair is that, while Putnam paid a great deal of attention to the FBI, they apparently paid little or no attention to him. He has all the earmarks of a wannabe. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:14:47 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Putnam As Spy Guy Speaking about Putnam, coincidentally my parents called me a few minutes ago to tell me about a recent article about Putnam and Earhart which appeared in The Washington Post. The article dealt with someone having a dinner conversation with the Putnams shortly before Earhart left on the World Flight, during which the subject of radio direction finding and the Howland leg of the flight came up. Apparently, the person at the dinner recounted how unprepared Earhart seemed for the flight, how interested Putnam was in the p.r. and how good a navigator Noonan was (concerns about his sobriety were expressed). The person also recounted telling Putnam that the plane needed to have a special antenna installed (a long trailing antenna---this all sounds familiar), but Putnam was concerned that the time needed to take to install the antenna would delay the flight, and threaten Putnam's December deadline for publishing the book chronicling the flight. As I said, this all sounds familiar, but perhaps people in the Washington D.C. area might want to try and locate the article. My father said he would look to see if he and my Mom still have it. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Dennis McGee sent me a copy of it. It was an interview with Brad Washburn, who is quite an adventurer in his own right. I interviewed Brad many years ago about his discussion with Earhart and Putnam. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:24:23 EDT From: Woody Subject: Re: Off-Topic catastrophies And not a single plane with the correct paint scheme. Not flashy enough for Hollywood. The planes that attacked Pearl never got below 500 feet, unless they were shot down. They certainly didn't fly between ships"on the deck" as portrayed in the movie. It rates a "ho-hum" in my book. Woody *************************************************************************** From Chris Kennedy Ric, I don't know what you consider the "right reasons" for stirring emotions in this context, but it is sort of difficult to do a story about the attack on Pearl Harbor and not include or mention Japan. I'm seeing the movie this weekend, but have read that in an attempt to avoid upsetting contemporary Japan the script deletes all references to Japan's attack on Manchuria/China, the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", the pact with Hitler, etc., and makes Roosevelt's cut-off of oil used to support all this the cause of the attack. If the movie actually does this, that to me looks like the biggest disservice of all. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric There is only one "reason" to do anything in Hollywood - money. I, too, plan to see the film this weekend. I really don't expect a shoot-em-up special effects show to present a thoughtful analysis of the cascade of mistakes that led to WWII, nor does it pretend to. What films like this purport to show is "what it was like." The question is, how well do they do that? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:25:59 EDT From: Jim Pearson Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor I went to see the movie Pearl Harbor and I thought it was great, but what really made an impression on me was the reaction of the people in the audience who were old enough to really remember WWII. They stood and clapped loudly when the movie was over. It really choked me up. Jim Pearson # 2422 *************************************************************************** From Ric Apparently the film ends on a positive note, unless you saw it in Japan. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:26:51 EDT From: Woody Subject: Re: Recovery and restoration To Dick Evans, I am happy to see someone share my opinion of the possibility that the plane was recovered without concern as to its condition by the Japanese. My question is only in reference to it's location. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:31:07 EDT From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: Staying with the aircraft > From Ric > Tom, any speculation that the Japanese journeyed a thousand miles from their > nearest commercial outpost (there was no military base, as such, in the > Marshalls at that time) into American and British waters ------(snip) -----But I thought two Japanese ships participated in the search for AE, or was the 1937 NY Times report of same in error? HAG 2201. **************************************************************************** From Ric Only one Japanese ship seems to have actually been where it COULD have conducted any sort of search, and that was limited to waters that were already part of the Mandate. No Japanese ship was asked to or was alleged to have come south into British/American waters to search for Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:40:06 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Niku reef edge When you mentioned the "crevasses" present on the Niku reef edge, supposing that stuck fast in one of them was the airplane wreckage reported by Emily Sikuli, something jogged in my memory, and I went to the archived Document of the Week section of the website. Sure enough, Floyd Kilts suspected that Earhart's plane ended up in one of what he called "canyons" which cut across the reef surface at Gardner. If that turns out to be the case, ya think the San Diego Tribune might want to do a follow up story? 41 years ahead of everyone else would be one helluva scoop. Do we know if Floyd has any surviving relatives? BTW, from your description, the area seems rather dangerous just to look in. How in the world could you recover anything you might spot there? LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 *************************************************************************** From Ric Good call! I had forgotten that Kilts specifically mentioned the "canyons". Makes you wonder if he may have heard stories about the same thing Emily saw but didn't have an exact location. Tom King has been in touch with Kilts' daughter. Floyd was going to write a book about Earhart landing at Gardner but never finished it and the manuscript is apparently lost. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:40:56 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Pearl Harbor Movie A friend of mine saw the movie a couple of days ago and said the first half in a love story and the second half has the attack action. He said any one that was actually there in 1941 wouldn't like it. That is the only report I have heard. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:49:55 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Woulda Coulda Shoulda Alan Caldwell writes: "I have no clue whether AE ever said she had a half hour of fuel left but it makes no difference. Obviously she had far more. I ran a fuel curve on her and she probably had about four hours of fuel left at that time." I think it makes a great deal of difference. I agree that AE >shoulda< had about four hours of fuel left at closest approach to Howland, but she >coulda< had a lot less, for reasons previously enunciated. My fundamental problem with the TIGHAR/Caldwell scenario arises from the fact that AE rarely transmitted anything of significance. She almost seems to have regarded it as bad form to complain about her picky little in-flight dilemmas. Stiff upper lip and all that, wot? Yet at 7:42 am this woman, who previously has not even bothered to give position reports, feels it important enough to inform the Itasca that she is "low on fuel" or words to that effect. It is simply inconceivable to me that Earhart would have wasted her breath on this transmission if all she really meant was, "We're down to our four-hour reserve." If "low on fuel" meant anything less than three hours, then IMHO the most logical course of action >woulda< been to keep searching for Howland, just as Bob Sarnia suggests. Let's not forget AE believed she was close -- "We must be on you" -- and where else you gonna go? Alan continues: "Nor is there any evidence or indication her [final] transmission was cut short. Who ever suggested that is implying she cut herself short by changing frequencies in the middle of her own sentence or transmission. Do you hang up in the middle of a phone call you have initiated? I think that was a senseless suggestion by who ever made it." As far as I know the suggestion was first made by Cmdr. Thompson of the Itasca, who believed the final transmission was incomplete. As for the reason, it is well-documented that on the Oakland-Honolulu run (first attempt) Harry Manning blew the Electra's transmitter by holding down the CW key for a full minute so that Makapu Point could get a bearing. Something similar happened off Darwin, although the details are sketchier. It's my belief that the same thing >coulda< happened during Earhart's 8:43 am transmission -- which also explains why nothing further was heard from the Electra, even during the supposed 400-mile run to Niku. The argument that she doomed herself by switching to 6210 has always seemed unpersuasive to me. If you were heading into unknown territory, wouldn't you use every available frequency to advise potential rescuers of your heading, airpseed, etc.? Somehow I can't picture AE saying, "Hell, Fred, we told 'em once we were running on 157/337, and once is enough." LTK, Pat Gaston **************************************************************************** From Ric All gets back to "Woulda" and that, by definition, is pure speculation. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 10:03:57 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Finger Food Diving in canyons, caves, reef crevasses can be a very risky ordeal. As an amateur S.C.U.B.A. diver for over thirty-years, I urge you to reconsider. If you are still "Hell bent for leather" then hope for a mild, mild day Mr. Starbuck. Lawrence *************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you. One of our bumper-sticker axioms for these trips is: "It's never worth hurting live people to search for dead ones." I have a very high regard for my own butt and, if anything, a higher regard for the safety of the expedition team. We have an exemplary safety record on all 36-plus TIGHAR expeditons from New Guinea to Newfoundland and it's not because we never deal with hazardous environments, or because we're unusually lucky (Lord knows), or because we're Crazy-Brave. I suspect that we'll find a way to deal with the reef edge inspection within acceptable parameters of personal risk. If we can't, we won't do it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 10:07:15 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Niku reef edge Wow; I'd forgotten Kilts' "canyon" reference, too. VERY interesting. And an interesting idea about a follow-up by the Tribune, especially since Ric and Van found information on Tarawa about the Tribune's effort to verify Kilts' account. I've been meaning to get back in touch with Kilts' daughter; we found her last year through newspaper and real estate records. She said her father was undoubtedly looking down on her with great displeasure because she couldn't remember what had happened to the ms. of a book he was writing about AE's fate when he died. He was doing it for a writing class supervised by Scott O'Dell; Barb Norris followed up with O'Dell's widow, and that turned out to be a dead end, too -- no known place where student assignments got filed. LTM (who likes canyons) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 10:13:29 EDT From: Mike E Subject: Re: Off-Topic catastrophies I saw it on Memorial Day. For those interested in reviews, go to www.imdb.com and look 'em up. They are by-and-large a good representation. >I, too, plan to see the film this weekend. I really don't expect a >shoot-em-up special effects show to present a thoughtful analysis of the >cascade of mistakes that led to WWII, nor does it pretend to. What films >like this purport to show is "what it was like." The question is, how well >do they do that? Be prepared to shed some tears. The scenes of cutting through the bottom of the capsized USS Oklahoma will get to you. That, I promise. The sequence in the hospital during the attack will too. Excellent. Yes, the film was "sanitized" (some may say, "Disneyfied") for "political correctness." Disney doesn't distinguish between Yankee dollars, and yen. They like 'em all. Personally I think this approach is akin to a Hoover! If you can ever find it, a darn good film is a JAPANESE (!!!) production called, "I Bombed Pearl Harbor." I think it must date from the 60s. In that one the film ends with Midway... and a bunch of Japanese pilots in the water after their carrier gets blown to hell by SBD's (YEAH!) As for the planes/paint schemes... the book "Pearl Harbor: The Movie and the Moment" (a fascinating read, for those with film interest, as I have -- I teach screenwriting) tells us, "The correct planes for this film don't exist anywhere in the world, at any price." There are no extant (that I know of) A6M2-model Zeros anywhere, in flying condx at least... only A6M5s of 1944 vintage. No P-40B/C/D either... the film uses N-models. Certainly no B-17C/D models (one of my favorite a/c next to the P-36 and SBD Dauntless.... wish I could afford this summer's TIGHAR Course) No B-25Bs, the film uses J models. And the Messerschmitts are powered by MERLIN Engines! SACRILEGE! (Yeah I know, they are Spanish CASA models, and were built with Merlins because the supply of Deutsch engines dried up rather suddenly....) And the Kates and Vals are built from BT-13s! But they look good for the camera. Wasn't there one actual Val dive bomber salvaged from a Pacific island in the late 60s/early 70s which was made flyable? I recall reading that it was traced back to one of the Pearl harbor-task force carriers and may well have been a participant. Was it used in "Tora Tora Tora"? I think it flew with a B-25 engine and prop because the original was too far gone. (Info may be from an old Air Tragics mag that i picked up at a flea market.... hmm.) LTM (who goes to the movies to "worry") and 73 Mike E. **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't recall anything about a surviving Val of any description. They cobbled together a bunch of quasi-Vals for Tora Tora Tora. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 10:16:27 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Off topic (or is it?) but interesting Has anyone seen the book, "Hunting Warbirds: The Obsessive Quest for the Lost Aircraft of World War II," by Carl Hoffman? Published 2001 by Ballantine. I got it thru Military Book Club a couple of weeks ago. This concentrates on Darryl Greenamyer's attempt to salvage the B-29 "Kee Bird" in the Artic. It's a really good read. 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Ric Laudatory, critical, balanced? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 11:46:52 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Woulda Coulda Shoulda Interesting... WHERE is this documented? I'd like to see it. >As far as I know the suggestion was first made by >Cmdr. Thompson of the Itasca, who believed the final >transmission was incomplete. As for the reason, it is >well-documented that on the Oakland-Honolulu run >(first attempt) Harry Manning blew the Electra's >transmitter by holding down the CW key for a full >minute so that Makapu Point could get a bearing. >Something similar happened off Darwin, although the >details are sketchier. I'm not so sure I really believe this however. That transmitter was pretty conservatively rated and a minute of key-down would make it get pretty warm, but would not be enough to "blow" it. The rig used 2 tubes in the final amplifier which had a combined "plate dissipation" rating that was about equal to the 110-watt plate power input. Most military a/c transmitters of the era were similarly overbuilt/underrated. Remember, this thing was built for commercial airline use.... Consider this: Most tube-type ham transmitters have a final-amplifier plate dissipation rating of something like half the power input rating. And a minute of key-down doesn't really hurt things unless the rig is severely mistuned. Well... come to think of it, in AE's case, as I have said before, the evidence of mistuning is there, caused by Joe Gurr's monkeying-up the antenna. Such mistuning could (and probably did) result in a plethora of harmonics... But that was after the March attempt.... 73 Mike E. **************************************************************************** From Ric I must be getting lazy, or just war-weary, because I didn't call Patrick on this one. The "blowing the transmitter" thing is mythology. First, nobody ever said that the transmitter malfunctioned. Earhart's inflight notes, reproduced in Last Flight, include the phrase: "The generator just went out. Harry has held the key down so long it grew tired." That's it. That's the complete reference. Earhart is referring to the generator on the engine that recharges the battery that powers the radio. It stopped charging. The U.S. Army report that followed the Luke Field wreck was meticulous in detailing the events that transpired between Earhart's arrival in Hawaii and her abortive departure. "Exhibit A" in that report is a statement by 1st Lt. K.A. Rogers, Army Air Corps, who was the Station Engineering Officer at Wheeler Field where the flight landed upon it's arrival from Oakland. It reads, in part: "(I)t was also determined that the reason the generator failed to show a charge during the latter part of the trip was due entirely to the fact that the fuse was blown out and not to the control box being out of order, as Mr. Mantz had insisted upon landing." The details about what happened in Darwin are not sketchy. Darwin heard nothing from Earhart as she approached the airport. When she landed they asked her why. She said that her "D/F receiver...was not functioning". An inspection by RAF Sgt. Rose revealed that "the fuse for the D/F generator had blown." As Patrick has suggested, this may be the same problem that occurred on the Oakland/Hono flight. Both the transmitter and the receiver run off the batteries (the main battery under the floor amidships and an auxilliary battery in the cabin) which are continuously recharged by a generator on the right engine via the dynamotor under the pilot's seat. If the generator blows a fuse it stops charging and the batteries quickly run down, especially if she's transmitting. Question is - where's the fuse? If you need to get under the cowling to change the fuse, there's nothing you can do about it until after you land. If it's somewhere in the cockpit (which would be odd, given that the generator is out there on the engine) then you could fix the problem in flight. Let's speculate for a moment that, sometime during the attempts to contact Itasca, she blows the fuse. She'd still be able to transmit for a short while, but it seems like her transmissions would get weaker and weaker as the battery ran down. If that supposition is correct, we do not not seem to have that phenomenon indicated in the Itasca radio log. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 11:48:28 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: "Hunting Warbirds" book Carl Hoffman's book "Hunting Warbirds" seems to be pretty well balanced. He is a journalist who writes for Mens Journal (a mag which I think has some pretty good writing therein, especially stuff they have done re Old West Indian-war archaeology/adventures), Air & Space, etc. He does a pretty good job (so I think) of characterizing the various people involved. Greenamyer does not come off as a saint by any means... and the "politics" of warbird recovery, and the insider-look at the Confederate Air Force, are interesting. I have not finished it yet (still teaching) but it is well worth reading. 73 Mike E. **************************************************************************** From Ric Sounds interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:01:23 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Off-Topic catastrophies > From Ric > > I don't recall anything about a surviving Val of any description. They > cobbled together a bunch of quasi-Vals for Tora Tora Tora. Finally, a topic on which I have the data! From Air Classics of July, 1971. I have it before me now; see page 14. Bob Diemert found the D3A2 on Ballale in 1968. He brought it and three Zeroes to his workshop in Manitoba. The airframe was in god shape but the engine was shot, so the B-25 engine and cowling was grafted onto the plane (1300 Hp in the Kinsei vs 1700 in the Cyclone). First flight was November 22, 1969. Diemert was the pilot, and reporting getting her to 260 knots, but felt that it was capable of 325. He said it handled like a big AT-6. Heavy on the controls, but "quite speedy and very manueverable, of course." Incidentally, he was able to get the orignal bluprints for the project. No mention of it being in Tora-Tora-Tora. LTM (who has all her original parts, but a new and accurate paint job) Mike Holt **************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. My sources show a maximum speed of 210 knots with the original 1,300 horse Kinsei. Another 150 knots from 400 more horsepower on a basically dirty airframe sounds like a lot. I wonder what ever became of the airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:07:55 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Woulda Coulda Shoulda > From Patrick Gaston > ... it is > well-documented that on the Oakland-Honolulu run > (first attempt) Harry Manning blew the Electra's > transmitter by holding down the CW key for a full > minute so that Makapu Point could get a bearing. > Something similar happened off Darwin, although the > details are sketchier. I'm not one of the radio gurus, but from reading the Forum's treatment of post-loss reports, this is exactly the kind of transmission that AE failed to make when she wanted the Itasca to get a bearing on her. She whistled for a while, but not long enough. One of the gurus said it might have been sufficient simply to hold the mike key for a minute, even without whistling. I guess in that case the direction would have been determined by watching a gauge showing the strength of the signal as the DF antenna was rotated rather than listening for a "minimum" from the audio signal. The problem ***seems*** to have been the AE did not understand what kind of signal Itasca needed to get a good bearing on her. After that, there would have been the problem of Itasca communicating with her to tell her which way to turn. The only evidence that AE ever heard Itasca is when they transmitted the letter A on 7500--but they couldn't talk to her on that frequency because that radio was set up for CW only. If there was a failure to understand the DF process, it must have been on FN's part as well. AE was the only one who transmitted, but if he had known more than she, perhaps things >woulda< turned out better. Marty **************************************************************************** From Ric Supposin' the reason she couldn't hear the transmissions from Itasca was because her dedicated receiving antenna on the belly was gone and the only reason she heard the "A"s on 7500 was because she had switched to her only operable receiving antenna - the Bendix loop. And supposin' she had been clever enough to figure that out and, after failing to get a minimum on the "A"s, had NOT switched back to the missing belly antenna but had stayed on the loop when she changed her receiver back to 3105. Might she suddeny have started hearing voice? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:11:29 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Off-Topic catastrophies > From Ric > > I don't recall anything about a surviving Val of any description. They > cobbled together a bunch of quasi-Vals for Tora Tora Tora. They also did some body work on AT-6s to create replica Zeroes. Great Planes has R/C kits available of the "Hollywood Zero." Marty **************************************************************************** From Ric Oh yeah, and they combined T-6s and BT-13s to make "Kates" and Paul Mantz used T-6 and BT-13 parts to create the abortion that killed him in filming Flight Of The Phoenix, and on and on. A T-6 can be anything you want it to be. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:13:33 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: "Hunting Warbirds" book Mike's mention of "Men's Journal" reminds me: our publisher is looking for less-than-obvious publications (i.e. besides the NY Times, etc.) that might be interested in reviewing our forthcoming book about The Quest ("Amelia Earhart's Shoe"; for info go to www.altamirapress.com and search for Amelia Earhart). I've passed on "Men's Journal" as a possibility, and Ric is passing various aviation-related magazines on to me, but I'd appreciate hearing from any Forum member (or anybody else) who's associated with, or subscribes to, or just knows of a magazine that might be interested in reviewing the book or in which it might be fruitful to place an ad. The book, by the way, is on track to go to press in July, and will probably be on bookshelves by the time we return from Niku. Thanks in advance for any recommendations. LTM Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric Please send your recommendations directly to Tom. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:31:20 EDT From: Ric Subject: Nai'a opportunity Anyone looking for a real bargain on a diving holiday in Fiji aboard THE VERY SAME ship we use on our expeditions to Nikumaroro should check www.naia.com.fj or email Alexx Edwards at naia@is.com.fj The Sept 29th charter immediately following our Niku IIII expedition unexpectedly cancelled and Alexx is eager to make up a new charter. I don't have details on prices but it's sure to be a great opportunity and it's certainly a wonderful ship, (We promise not to totally trash it like we did in '97). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:14:33 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Staying with the aircraft According to Aoki's book, unoffical translation, the Koshu did venture for a short time a bit south of the Marshalls into American waters, but the Capt became "uncomfortable" and returned to the mandated areas and arrived at Jaluit on 13 July 1937. There is no evidence based on the Koshu logs, says Aoki, that the ship was anywhere near the Phoenix Islands. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:17:47 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Coulda,woulda,shoulda >From Alan Caldwell > >For Don Neumann > >In my opinion "30 minutes" was never said. Nor is there any evidence >or indication her transmission was cut short. Who ever suggested that is >implying she cut herself short by changing frequencies in the middle of >her own sentence or transmission. Do you hang up in the middle of a >phone call you have initiated? I think that was a senseless suggestion >by who ever made it. (...'Methinks thee doth protest too much'...) As I recall, in the last paragraph of my post, my _own_ conclusions were similar to yours, as any pilot (though I'm not one) facing imminent fuel exhaustion, might reasonably have been expected to make that the very _first_ subject of discussion in any of their subsequent radio transmissions, in addition to any immediate plans to deal with that fuel emergency. Unfortunately, there has never been any factual resolution of the question as to _why_ Itasca never received any further radio transmissions after the 8:43 message, so all of our many unsubstantiated speculations & assumptions in that regard (however logical & reasonable they may seem to us), must simply remain... our _own_ speculations & assumptions. As for the alleged...'half-hour' gas remaining... issue, I believe my post clearly implied that if the Electra was _still_ airbourne an _hour_ after that broadcast, whatever those persons actually in or about the Itasca radio room may have _thought_ they _heard_, the simple _fact_ remains, the Electra was still in the air & AE was still able to transmit long past the alleged half-hour fuel exhaustion deadline! Actually, in one of his interviews, given to a conspiracy author years later, the chief radio operator himself insisted _he_ also heard AE say...'half-hour' gas remaining..., that is until he was confronted with his _own_ contemporaneous log entry of...'running low on gas'... Though it has been factually well documented how much fuel was loaded on board the Electra at Lea, the _fact_ remains, no one (not even the Longs) can state with absolute accuracy just how much fuel remained on board the Electra during the course of the radio transmissions actually received by Itasca & unfortunately AE , the only person who _could_ have known, never provided any details regarding her fuel remaining situation, during her last transmissions. You also said: ...'In trying to reconstruct what may have occurred one needs to suggest the most logical events within known facts. Then recognize not everyone does the most logical thing but few do really stupid things when their life is in the balance'... Seems to me that was the train of thought I was trying to express in my post... unfortunately I failed to make myself sufficiently clear, at least to your satisfaction & for that shortcoming I must sincerely apologize. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:30:59 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: Putnam As Spy Guy What conclusions can be drawn from the Washington Post's article describing a dinner conversation between Earhart, Putnan and an unknown person? Ric indicated that he interviewed Brad Washburn, yet I missed the link between Washburn and our two heroes. Was Washburn present during the conversation? The subject of Noonan's drinking was discussed at length on this forum a few years ago. Yet, I find most interesting this reference to concerns about Noonan's sobriety which were apparently expressed prior to the second world flight attempt in 1937. As a result of the alleged dinner conversation, is it possible to authenticate any concerns Earhart or Putnam may have had about Noonan's drinking, or lack of drinking? LTM, Roger Kelley *************************************************************************** From Ric Washburn says he was consulted by Earhart and Putnam about navigation for the upcoming World Flight. They had dinner and talked about it. Washburn says he advised her to have a radio positioned at Howland that could give her bearings and that she should be able to communicate on 500 kcs because all ships guard that frequency. Putnam was reportedly resistant because of the time it would take to make the arrangements, thus delaying the flight and the book that was its whole point. Brad didn't say anything to me about concern over Noonan's drinking and, because the conversation allegedly took place during the early planning phase - long before Noonan was associated with the flight - it's hard to believe the subject actually came up. Washburn's story is just one more Earhart anecdote. No notes, no documentation. Just a recollection. I would suspect that it's largely accurate but we certainly can't draw any conclusions from it. Sometimes it seems like everyone over the age of about 80 knew Amelia Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:32:41 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: From a Canadian site: While trying to find the fate of Diemert's VAl, I found this. Mr.vDiemert, by the way, has been the target of criticism over his engineering practices, on http://www.warbirdsworldwide.com/messages. http://manet.merlin.mb.ca/metks4/instruct/iru/pubs/bibs/flight1.html Amelia Earhart : queen of the air. [United States] : A & E Television Networks, 1996. 1 videocassette (46 min.) + 1 guide. A Cable in the Classroom initiative. Produced by Greystone Communications Inc. for A & E Network. Producers, Sofia Perez, Laura Verklan ; editor, Scott Lazea, Kevin P. Browne ; writer, Sofia Perez ; executive producers, Bill Harris, Craig Haffner, Donna E. Lusitana. SUMMARY: Chronicles the life and career of Amelia Earhart describing her early years, and the development of her interest in flying. Examines the impact of her accomplishments on the public and how society's view of women influenced her and her work in aviation. Describes her solo flight across the Atlantic from Hawaii to the mainland as well as her constant struggle to raise money and remain in the public eye. Concludes with a look at her last flight in 1937 in which she disappeared while attempting to fly around the world. Includes archival footage and interviews with researchers, historians, colleagues and family members. Audience: Grades 7-Senior 4. Booking #1695. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:34:43 EDT From: Hugh Miller Subject: Re: Woulda Coulda Shoulda > From Marty Moleski > >> From Patrick Gaston >> >> ... it is >> well-documented that on the Oakland-Honolulu run >> (first attempt) Harry Manning blew the Electra's >> transmitter by holding down the CW key for a full >> minute so that Makapu Point could get a bearing. >> Something similar happened off Darwin, although the >> details are sketchier. This is one of the elementary facts that i was not aware of. Must have been a power supply related failure, such as the fuse for the high voltage supply, because tubes generally last quite a bit longer than one minute even when severely stressed (the glass envelope and/or the innards have to meltdown). >from Ric > > Supposin' the reason she couldn't hear the transmissions from Itasca was > because her dedicated receiving antenna on the belly was gone and the only > reason she heard the "A"s on 7500 was because she had switched to her only > operable receiving antenna - the Bendix loop. And supposin' she had been > clever enough to figure that out and, after failing to get a minimum on the > "A"s, had NOT switched back to the missing belly antenna but had stayed on > the loop when she changed her receiver back to 3105. Might she suddeny have > started hearing voice? In the idea i advanced, that reception "with the loop" actually was by means of signal from the sense-antenna and NOT the loop, which i suggest could NOT tune to these frequencies, not 7500 kHz anyway- even if AE had known how to operate it correctly, which i think is open to question- the answer to your question would have to be, "Yes". I have a an acquaintance promising me to run a test of such situation. I have a similar loop antenna but unfortunately workload just does not allow any more projects right now. I also have an aircraft transmitter with a similar output circuit to the WE one AE used, and the test equipment to do the harmonic output measurement that i believe would be of high interest, but i have to postpone this also, til at least near the end of the year. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:38:19 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Woulda Coulda Shoulda > Yet at 7:42 am this woman, who previously has not even > bothered to give position reports, feels it important > enough to inform the Itasca that she is "low on fuel" > or words to that effect. Pat, we don't know what position reports she tried to make. All we know are the ones received. > to me that Earhart would have wasted her breath on > this transmission if all she really meant was, "We're down to our > four-hour reserve." Pat, if they needed four hours worth of fuel to get to an alternate then that would mean "We can't look for you any longer. We must depart now." I did the exact same thing in a B-47 over Fairford, England. The weather in England and most of Europe was socked in and I had to go to Madrid (ha, ha, ha) as my nearest alternate. I declared low fuel for my destination and that I had to depart at once for my alternate. Look at a map and you'll see how far that was and at 4,000 lbs per hour the great amount of fuel I had remaining at the time. Yet it was low fuel. > If "low on fuel" meant anything less than three hours, then IMHO the most > logical course of action >woulda< been to keep searching for Howland.... No one could argue with that. If they haven't enough fuel to go any where they have no choice. There's no need to look to logic for that. There was no decision to make. > As far as I know the suggestion was first made by Cmdr. Thompson of the > Itasca, who believed the final transmission was incomplete. I'm sure you are right, Pat but I missed that. Could you point me to his comment. > As Ric pointed out a lot of what we write IS speculation but sometimes it > presents an idea that is actually pursuable and might be of value if for no > other reason than eliminating possibilities. I welcome that but I do have > trouble with statements that are clearly inaccurate and may confuse newer > folks and lead them astray. I am mainly referring to absolute statements > such as they made no position reports or someone's comment that if nothing > was found then they weren't there. Those are statements the fallacy of > which someone outside the forum could see. Then they get repeated as fact > that no position reports were made and AE never went to Niku. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:44:18 EDT From: Ric Subject: Sunday Forum? I'll be out of the office all day Monday so I posted the existing submissions Sunday morning. The forum will resume it's regular schedule on Tuesday but, fair warning, for the next couple of weeks I'll be making minimal comments on postings (applause, applause) as I scramble to prepare for the upcoming Niku IIII Team meeting and the Aviation Archaeology Course and Training Expedition. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:32:48 EDT From: Tom Byers Subject: Pearl Harbor I haven't seen the movie, however, I do remember the movie "Tora, Tora, Tora" which I saw with my father who was a Pearl Harbor Survivor (USS MacDonough DD- 351 tied up alongside the destroyer tender Dobbin) ....His comment was..." 'it' (the actual event) was not as well organized as the movie" Tom Byers ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:26:37 EDT From: Ric Subject: Anachronism Harbor Well, I saw Pearl Harbor over the weekend. My expectations were pretty low and they were certainly fulfilled. The subtitle should be " The Titanic Legacy." Take a famous disaster, use it as the backdrop for a love story, then turn the computer animation people loose with a huge budget and hype the bejesus out of it and - voila! - box office hit. Okay, let's give them the airplanes. Everybody always gets the airplanes wrong in movies like this. The only historical aviation film I can think of that came close to getting the airplanes right was the old Jimmy Stewart "Spirit of St. Louis." The writing? Well, it's a bad sign when you can finish most of the actors' lines before they say them. Portrayal of the historical period? Forget it. All historical films are really set in the present anyway, but this one did a poorer job than most in conveying the feel of the times it purported to portray. These are Gen-Xers playing dress-up in their grandparents' clothes. These are the 1940s without the really wierd hairstyles, the casual sexism and racism, the slang, or even (believe it or not) the cigarettes. Disney, as always, gives us history as it should have been. Anachronisms? Too many to catalog, but some of the best are: - a "cropduster" in 1923, using a Stearman no less. - a reference to a "backhoe" in the 1920s. - the Imperial Navy staff back in Japan ominously tearing off the page of a calendar from December 6 to December 7 and giving the go ahead for the attack that morning (which was December 8th in Japan.) - and (I love this one) a B-25 practicing short takeoffs for the Doolittle raid, pulls into takeoff position, guns its engines, and (swear to God) squeals its tires as it accelerates down the runway. Special effects? Breathtaking, in some cases, but cartoonish in others. The airplanes zinging between ships and buildings were not only absurd but looked like a remake of the scene in Return of the Jedi where Luke and Princess Lea are riding their scooters madly through the forest. On the other hand, I suppose a film where Jimmy Doolittle gets hair and B-25s get rubber can't be all bad. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:32:00 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Coulda,woulda,shoulda Don Neumann wrote: > Seems to me that was the train of thought I was trying to express in my > post... unfortunately I failed to make myself sufficiently clear, at > least to your satisfaction & for that shortcoming I must sincerely > apologize. No, no, no, Don. I understood and was not maligning YOU. My comments were not directed at anyone in particular although it might have seemed that way. Recent posts that I may have taken exception to were merely statements we have heard many times over. You made a good point in support of my complaint that erroneous statements when repeated often enough seem to become "facts" that lead folks astray. The point was that having heard the 30 minutes of fuel so many times even the main radio operator began to believe he himself had said it. Of course it appears not so. The reason I have such a concern about being careful about statements is that I believe each person on the forum has the potential to contribute something valuable. Maybe they will just keep everyone on their toes. Maybe they will notice a fallacy in someone's theory. Maybe they will see something or think of something no one else has seen or thought. If they are put off some trail by a careless statement they may close out that track and thus miss a good possibility. For example if the team doesn't come up with anything really positive this trip and we follow the theory that that proves AE was never there what do we do next? Do we give up on Niku and search another island or just give up? If we decide AE just didn't bother making radio reports why should we pursue the subject any further? Case solved. But maybe they DID try and something prevented them from transmitting and receiving. Maybe it makes no difference but maybe there is something significant to be learned. I'm not trying to be a know it all or arrogantly police each post. I screw up just like anyone else. I DO reread my posts and try not to say things that are clearly in error. If I'm not sure about something I go to the web page and look it up. I catch myself using absolutes too but I try to catch them. They are almost always wrong. I nick at posts in the hope the author will be a bit more careful and actually read what he or she says before hitting "send." Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:33:48 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The drinking Irishman > , is it possible to authenticate any concerns Earhart or > Putnam may have had about Noonan's drinking, or lack of drinking? I spent 20 years in the USAF including 5 in Vietnam. We partied and drank like fish. We DID NOT drink during or close to flying. Noonan was Irish and may well have tipped quite a few but what does that have to do with anything? Our joke was no smoking within 24 hours of flying and no drinking within 15 feet of the aircraft. At one time I had a pilot who was a bad alcoholic but he never drank close to or during a flight. He was one of the top pilots in the wing. I think the drinking Noonan thread goes nowhere unless someone can prove he was hung over on the LAE flight or was drinking on the way. I suspect that proof is non existent nor do I expect to hear of any reliable testimony on that subject. I think it may well be a dead issue. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:35:02 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Fuel Remaining The logic that Alan Caldwell expressed regarding AE's fuel remaining is probably obvious to most pilots if not some of the Forum members. If you have less then the fuel needed to go to your alternate remaining in your tanks then you don't head for that alternate. On the other hand, when you are approaching the minimum fuel need to go to your alternate and you can't find or can't land at your desired destination it is time to go to the alternate. We must also keep in mind that AE didn't know that her prefered destination wasn't along the LOP that would take he to her alternate. She could have been either north or south of Howland. It isn't a specific amount of fuel that determins if you are low on fuel. It is the amount of fuel you need to get to either the destination or the alternate. That could be 30 minutes in one case or 4 hours in another. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:38:38 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Woulda Coulda Shoulda Serves me right for lapsing into colloquialisms on a Forum filled with technical types! Yes, Ric, I'm aware of the both the Army report on the Luke Field crash and Sgt. Rose's report on the Darwin difficulties, both of which ascribe the problem to a blown generator fuse and not the generator or transmitter itself. I also should have said that the details of the Darwin malfunction were "confusing" rather than sketchy. Confusing because AE said the problem was in her "D/F receiver" while Rose found that it was a fuse in the "D/F generator," both comments suggesting that Earhart had a separate generator for the D/F equipment -- something which we don't know for a fact; which, I believe, TIGHAR denies; and which I therefore wanted to stay away from. We also don't know the circumstances under which the failure occurred. Darwin complained they "heard nothing" from her, but did they mean voice or a D/F signal? Why would a problem with the "D/F generator" affect voice communications? Etc., etc. So I will accept 20 lashes with an antenna wire for my sloppy use of the vernacular. Manning didn't "blow the transmitter." He (apparently) pressed the key that blew the fuse that protected the generator that supplied the current that recharged the batteries that powered the electrical system (that included the radio, that was composed of a transmitter and a receiver) that was housed in the plane that Lockheed built. Something similar, which is not to say identical, happened on the approach to Darwin. But the fact remains that Earhart's electrical system was demonstrably susceptible to failure -- perhaps from all that new-fangled equipment on board -- and keying the transmitter for more than a few seconds at a time seems to have provided the straw that broke the camel's back (metaphorically speaking; we are reasonably certain that no camels, bactrian or dromedary, were aboard the Electra). As Mike E. points out, even keying the transmitter for a full minute should not have been enough to produce this result under ordinary circumstances, "unless the rig is severely mistuned." Or, one might add, unless the electrical system already was loaded to the gills. One could also theorize that this known susceptibility explains why Earhart' s transmissions on the Lae/Howland run were both infrequent and brief. She was aware of the problem, and the last thing she wanted was a dead radio when she needed it the most, i.e., on the approach to Howland. You speculate that, even with a blown generator fuse, AE shoulda been able to transmit for a short while on battery power alone. You point out that this phenomenon is not reflected in the Itasca radio logs, implying that no such malfunction occurred. But it could also mean that your premise is wrong. Certainly there is no mention in "Last Flight" of any further transmissions after the generator (fuse) went south. I would like to hear Mike E's take on this question. How long could AE have transmitted on batteries alone? Was her other instrumentation drawing power from these same batteries, and how would that affect the equation? What if the "rig" had indeed been mistuned, either by Gurr or by Balfour's subsequent fiddling at Lae? Would this have compounded the problem? Lost in all of this is the whole point of my original post -- which was was to challenge the assertion that the seeming lack of urgency in AE's final transmission necessarily meant she had lots of fuel left. LTK Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:42:22 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Searching the canyons Ric said: "I suspect that we'll find a way to deal with the reef edge inspection within acceptable parameters of personal risk. If we can't, we won't do it." For what's it worth here is my solution for getting a camera up the crevices on the reef without endangering a diver in the process. Zodiacs. Two to be exact; each with a crew of four, a driver, two haulers and one spotter. Take four lengths of rope and mark them (knots, tape, whatever) at specific intervals, say, 12 inches. Secure the ropes on the underwater camera at the four "corners" (fore port, aft port, fore starboard, aft starboard). Suspend the camera between the Zodiacs at the mouth of the crevice approximately 10 feet above the bottom (A diver can help with that). Have the Zodiacs move slowly toward the shore with the crews hauling in the ropes in a coordinated fashion ("up one mark . . .up one mark . . . .up one mark") as the Zodiacs approach the head of the crevice and the water gets more shallow. The down side of this solution would be a lot of tricky coordination between the drivers and the haulers. First the Zodiacs would have to have matched power/speed settings to enable them to move abreast as they moved up the crevice. Second the haulers and spotters would have to be on their toes to keep hauling in the right amounts of rope as the water got shallower and as the Zodiacs, traveling down the converging sides of a "V," got closer together. This is probably not too practical considering the logistics and coordination (practice, practice, practice) that would be needed. But the idea is free -- and you get what you pay for here. {:-) LTM, who is just back from Carlisle! Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric I 'spect that if the sea was calm enough to do what you propose it would be also be calm enough to just swim up into the canyon. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:44:12 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: Pearl Harbor Comments Did we all see the same movie?????? I have seen it once and will go back to see it again with a pad/pencil/small flashlight to write down all the mistakes/innaccuracies, etc.. Now-Having said that--I feel that ANYBODY who is interested in planes/history/ WWll/Pearl Harbor-should see it... It is a remarkable movie--not a good one just remarkable.. You can see where the $140 million went--on the computer/special effects/explosions/etc...They probably paid the writer $50K to write a bad love story..... The 40 minutes in the middle --of the attack and aftermath are good but hokey in some spots..Yes-- the ..planes did not fly between the ships and buildings... I went expecting a mediocre movie based on reading all the reviews and articles in the papers and my funny magazines... I saw a badly written-turgid-slow-inaccurate movie.. Nobody clapped in my showing-tho the theatre was jammed om Memorial Day..... It was the longest three hours of my life...Even my wife said it was bad.... The mistakes start with the incorrect spelling of Mitchel Field in NY..They spell it Mitchell-then it goes down hill from there........ A movie about 1941 service people-where nobody smokes and nobody swears.. Some of the uniforms may be inaccurate.. The planes as a group-are marvelous-and yes - some of the models flown and paint schemes shown are incorrect for that year....... Navy Nurses of 18 years of age that are portrayed stupidly and shallow.. Alec Baldwin as Jimmy Doolittle-- I could go on but you get my drift....... Thats all I have to say...I will let you know if I get an answer to my letter to Michael Eisner/Disney..... LTM Jim Tierney. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:52:46 EDT From: Mike Z. Subject: Re: Finger Food: Leather n' Chains All kidding about scuba armor aside, I assume you'll be looking into helmets of some kind to protect your divers. There are divers in the Bahamas that wear special chain mail suits to protect them from shark bite (e.g., http://www.nassau-scuba-centre.com/sharks.htm). Perhaps you could rent one of those to provide some abrasion protection. As an alternative to consider, motorcycle road racers swear by heavy leather suits to shield their skin from those 100+ mph asphalt belt sanders they occasionally find themselves sliding on (e.g., http://www.zcustom.com/). Or maybe just a double layer of wetsuit will provide sufficient sacrificial protection. Perhaps armor should be a last-ditch safety measure. It's probably even more important to somehow stabilize the diver in the finger. Maybe you can try running ropes down the length of the crevasse, anchored with rock climbing hardware at each end (e.g., http://www.rei.com/reihtml/gear_shop/climb.html?stat=7712). The diver could move him/herself along with Jumars or other ascending equipment. Ratcheting up in would come naturally. Backing out, well, that's an issue. I haven't dived since my checkout nearly 20 years ago, I haven't rock climb in even longer, and I've certainly never done both at once, so I have no idea if any of this will work. What is really required is for your divers take this other ideas to the relative safety of a local (sandy?) beach and try it out to see what works. At the very least, it will save a lot of precious time on Niku. --Mike Z. *************************************************************************** From Ric The more I get into this the more I suspect that the only real solution is to wait for good sea conditions. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:00:29 EDT From: Ric Subject: debris in canyons Dr. Tommy Love, our physician and member of our Dive Team on the 1989 expedition sent me the following: ************************************* RIC: I have just been reviewing (catching up) the recent forum posts-esp. the 'canyons' on the reef. The ones that I remember exploring were those to the south of the main passage. The ones to the north of the NC were filled with what we felt were NC debris. Also, the day we dove that part of the reef, it was more rough than normal and we stayed out of them to prevent getting hung up on debris, or worse getting cut and having to content with the Tiger sharks that were known to frequent the area. Tommy ************************************* I've asked Tommy to elaborate on some specific points. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:06:20 EDT From: Tim Henderson Subject: Re: Anachronism Harbor Loved your read on it! Did you by chance catch that 727 landing at the distant airport? *************************************************************************** From Ric No, I was looking at the GPS antenna on the C-47. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:02:31 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Anachronism Harbor I haven't seen the film yet, but I have seen a preview. You can add to your list of anachronisms the group of 1990s vintage destroyers in the background of a scene. It speaks volumes that the idiots who make such mistakes think no one will notice. LTM, Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ************************************************************************** From Ric It's worse than that. Those sleek puppies are prominently featured in several scenes. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:03:54 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: debris in canyons Sheesh! Tiger sharks! Chain Mail! Biker leathers! If we can't get media attention with this gig, we'll never get it. LTM (who's on the edge of her seat) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:05:30 EDT From: From Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Woulda Coulda Shoulda > Lost in all of this is the whole point of my original post -- which was was > to challenge the assertion that the seeming lack of urgency in AE's final > transmission necessarily meant she had lots of fuel left. Pat, I agree. The two don't necessarily go together. In flying school I was shooting a forced landing in a T-28. My instructor in the back seat keyed the intercom and in a quiet casual voice said, "Caldwell the reason you would have a forced landing is that you have lost your engine and you wouldn't have it to get you out of trouble. At the moment your airspeed is about 2 knots above stall so what you want to do is......" He was calm as I was about to fall out of the sky. I was the one who expressed great urgency. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:08:56 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Anachronism Harbor > From Ric > > It's worse than that. Those sleek puppies are prominently featured in > several scenes. Tora!Tora!Tora! featured (gasp!) some DEs in a couple of scenes! And the star on a floatplane lacked the central red dot. I was, in general, pleased by the Pearl Harbor. I did wonder, as I watched it with a friend who is also fascinated by the era, what would happen if the production team were given the AE/FN story and the same budget. LTM (who has a modest budget and all the right markings) Mike Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric Lest we appear discriminatory in our ridicule, the very name of the film Tora! Tora! Tora! is based upon a myth. Nobody ever said that. The code for the Japanese character "To" was sent three times by Fuchida's radio operator to confirm that surprise had been achieved. A few minutes later the character "Ra" was sent three times to announce "commencing attack." The two characters, if combined (which they never were), happen to spell "Tora" which means tiger. Somewhere along the line the story got started that the words "Tiger Tiger Tiger" has signaled the attack. Total baloney. **************************************************************************** From Skeet Add to the list: Japanese aircraft in the movie were equipped with previously Top Secret guns that fire at a declination of 20 degrees, enabling the aircraft to fly in level flight while firing at targets located below them on the ground. An advanced optical system was included so that the pilot could acquire his target even though the large radial engine obscured his view below. **************************************************************************** From Joe I didn't see the picture and don't plan to....however another film where I think the scenes were so real, was in the movie about Doolittle with Spencer Tracy...."30 Seconds over Tokyo" with Robert Walker and Van Johnson...the shots looking out the bombadier's window was awesome photography I thought as the B-24 skimmed at low altitude over the trees and water approaching the Japanese mainland. An I saw that movie in 1943 or 44..... Joe W3HNK **************************************************************************** From Hugh Miller > Did we all see the same movie?????? > I have seen it once and will go back to see it again with a pad/pencil/small > flashlight to write down all the mistakes/innaccuracies, etc.. > Now-Having said that--I feel that ANYBODY who is interested in > planes/history/ > WWll/Pearl Harbor-should see it Hmmmm. I wonder if this is an example of non sequitur. I was going to forward some of the commonts from this group to another email list, but after reading about the movie in the May 14, Newsweek, I think I will just drop it. There's a quote from screenwriter Randall Wallace about a scene in the movie: "If it didn't happen, it should have happened". People don't go to entertainment movies for history, they go for love scenes, explosions, car chases, humor. If they wanted history, they would read a book, or find someone to read a book to them. Movies of course are a consumer commodity. They have to keep rolling off the conveyer belt on some kind of regularity. There are rules about the ingredients used, and the length of time and workmanship that can be expended. Hue Miller **************************************************************************** From Ric It would be nice if everyone recognized that movies are just entertainment, but they don't. Historical films have a tremendous impact upon public perceptions of historical events because most people have zero interest in reading about history but are happy to be entertained. **************************************************************************** From Tom Robison There is a growing list of inaccuracies/discontinuities about "Pearl Harbor" at http://www.movie-mistakes.com I've not seen the movie, and probably won't, once I heard that Alec Baldwin was playing Jimmy Doolittle. Talk about mis-casting.... they should have had Industrial Light and Magic do a computer animation of Doolittle. Tom ************************************************************************** From Ric Mis-casting? You wanna talk mis-casting? How about Dan Akroyd as the Naval Intelligence guy who trys to warn Washington of the impending attack? You're sitting there and you're saying, "Wait a minute. Is that....? Naw, it couldn't be.... yes, good Lord, that's Dan Akroyd!" and from then on everything that comes out of his mouth sounds like a line from Ghost Busters. ************************************************************************** From Doug Brutlag It was reported recently that 2 (slightly) different versions were made to be shown to Japanese & German audiences. Political correctness strikes again! GAG! Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Joel I had heard that the subject movie was one hour of fake combat and two hours of soap opera. I was thinking about seeing it anyway but now I don't have to. You did the thinking for me. The Stearman aircraft was certainly a boo-boo. BUT a B-25 getting close to a STOL is a give-away that these people are totally FUBAR. That aircraft, empty, couldn't burn rubber. And, obviously, these war machines were running at maximum load capacity -- and then some. The trade-off is between ordnance and fuel. My wife, who is typing this, thinks it might have worked if only they had done a background soundtrack of Jan and Dean singing "Burn up that quarter mile!" LTM, Joel (and his typing wife Sheila) **************************************************************************** From Ric Actually Doolittle's Tokyo Raiders did get incredible STOL performance from their stripped down B-25s. The point about "getting rubber" is based on the fact that, in an airplane, all thrust is imparted by the propellers or jet exhaust. There is no power to the wheels. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:26:01 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Woulda Coulda Shoulda > What if the "rig" > had indeed been mistuned, either by Gurr or by Balfour's subsequent fiddling > at Lae? Would this have compounded the problem? > > Lost in all of this is the whole point of my original post -- which was was > to challenge the assertion that the seeming lack of urgency in AE's final > transmission necessarily meant she had lots of fuel left. Don't forget, there is at least one documented occasion of Earhart transmitting, then changing frequencies against advice and losing contact. Oddly, if I recall correctly, the frequency change was the other way around. The situation was vaguely similar. She was being read quite clearly on once frequency, announced she intended to change frequencies and was requested not to. She changed anyway, and contact was lost until the approach to Howland when she was heard on the frequency that she had switched to when contact was lost. Careful reading and re-reading of the report suggests that she was in two way communication that night, but does not actually say it, therefore we have usually assumed - with good reason - that she was only being heard. The following quote indicates that on the day before they departed Lae the Electra had 2 way communications: "At 6.35 a.m., July 1st, Miss Earhart carried out a 30 minute air test of the machine when two way telephone communication was established between the ground station at Lae and the plane." And this one suggests that for the first part of the flight at least there were 2 way communications on 6210Kcs: "The Lae Operator heard the following on 6210 KC -"HEIGHT 7000 FEET SPEED 140 KNOTS" and some remark concerning "LAE" then "EVERYTHING OKAY". The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we STILL COULD NOT GET IT." 'Asked To Repeat Position But We Still Could Not Get It' implies that the Earhart replied to their request. No further signal was received once she was on 3105. In the morning however, she was received on 3105, but could not hear Itasca. It is documented that she considered 6210Kc to be her daytime frequency, and it appears it had been working in 2 way communication the day before so I suppose it was logical to at least try that frequency. What interests me is why earhart was heard by Itasca on 3105Kc until well into the morning when she used 6210 during daytime? I would have thought she'd change frequency sooner. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric You and I have debated this before. There's no way to know whether or not Earhart's repetition of the message that Balfour couldn't understand was in response to his request. It does appear that two-way communication was achived during the test flight and it's abundantly clear that Earhart experienced difficulties in that respect the very next day - so it's worth asking, what was different? From a reception standpoint we have the photographic evidence that she lost the belly antenna on takeoff. We don't know for sure what significance that had, but it's certainly something that was different. From a transmission standpoint, the test on July 1st was carried out virtually on top of the station. After departure on July 2nd it was four hours before Lae heard any of the hourly reports Earhart had promised to send. Because she was using 6210 at that time, the implication would seem to be that if the airplane was between one hour and four hours away (call it 100 to 500 miles) it could not be heard on 6210. Sound familiar? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:31:13 EDT From: From Christian D Subject: Re: Niku reef edge I just flew out of Xmas Island: the airstrip is close to the shore, and the plane veers sharply very soon after take off, and indeed I have noticed colors which could indicate lots of roughly parallel canyons... I could not judge depth differences, but the darker greenish fingers are there, obviously coral growth, may be 100ft long or much more, separated by a fraction of that distance. The space between the fingers looks like light colored sand, and hence quite possibly a "canyon"... From the varying shade of the coral "green", it seemed to me the finger top might not be quite level, but sloping down and out. Now Xmas is in another island group, but Palmyra (just next door) seemed very similar to Kanton, as far as I could compare them from hiking on the reef flats. I too could visualize these places as some kind of an "airframe catcher" on the edge of the reef drop off. If needed, Kim, who runs a Dive shop on Xmas should be able to give more details to these structures. Which reminds me: wasn't Nai'a supposed to do some reef exploration on their own a while back, to satisfy their own interest? Christian D. PS: by the way, the locals spend lots of time on Xmas diving for petfish for export, and I would suspect that they also visit these canyons. Also people go snorkelling in there to catch lobster for local consumption.... May be we should hire a couple of experienced local people? And the site of interest on Niku is on the sheltered side of the island, so it might be rather safe, on settled days. **************************************************************************** From Ric The information we're getting tends to support the idea that the canyons are no problem, as long as the sea is relatively calm. I also suspect that if the sea is rough there is no way to make it safe to go near the darn things. So we wait for a calm day. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:33:21 EDT From: Chistian D Subject: Re: metal detectors Ric wrote: > If an airplane engine sat in a paved parking lot for 64 years, how deep > would > it be buried now? That's pretty much the situation on the reef. The > shipwreck debris that arrived there in 1929 is still right on the surface. Well, yes and no: if a compact chunk of steel is stuck in a small fracture on the reef flat, it likely won't be covered with silt. But down in the "canyons", what is the bottom like? How deep is the sand layer? Christian D. **************************************************************************** From Ric Dunno. It's a good application for the underwater metal detectors. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:41:34 EDT From: Chris Subject: Re: Question from someone new to this site Can anyone tell me in detail the of the friendship between Amelia and a woman named Clara Adams. Thank you, Chris **************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry. The name doesn't ring a bell. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:27:47 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Additional off-topic comments Ric said: "It would be nice if everyone recognized that movies are just entertainment, but they don't. Historical films have a tremendous impact upon public perceptions of historical events because most people have zero interest in reading about history but are happy to be entertained." Word up, bro! Then there was that "famous" scene in Oliver Stone's "JFK" where the Kevin Costner character (New Orleans Attorney General, Jim Garrison) meets the Donald Sutherland character in a Washington DC park, at which time the Sutherland character explains the entire assassination plot/conspiracy to Garrison. That event NEVER happened but I've talked with people who saw the movie (Read a book? Fagetabotit!) and believe it did happen. And when I explained to them it DIDN'T happen, they're dumbstruck; jaws drop, eyes widen etc. etc. But burning rubber on take-off? Man, I've got to go this weekend just to see that. Way cool. LTM, who never burns rubber Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:21:22 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Question from someone new to this site Chris---- I dont know if there was a relationship between Clara Adams and AE-but it may be possible they knew each other.... Mrs Clara Adams of Stroudsburg, PA was a well known world traveller in the 1930s. She was a paying passenger on the first Pan Am Clipper flights between SFO/Manila in Oct 1936 and SFO/New Zealand in Sept 1940... She may have met AE in the course of her travels ...... I guess you could call her an aviation groupie--altho an older one -at that time.... Maybe somebody else has more info... Jim Tierney **************************************************************************** From Jon Watson Hi Ric, I don't have a clue what their relationship may have been, but a quick check of the 'net resulted in finding a couple of pictures of a Clara Adams (unknown if it's THE Clara Adams which Chris is seeking). Look in www.airships.net/adams.htm . Clara Adams seems to have been something of an adventuress (is that a politically correct term any more?). She apparently flew in the Graf Zepplin, and on the first passenger flight of the Hawaii Clipper (10-22-36) (if the photo captions could be believed). Say... wasn't there some fella named Noonan on that flight? Hmmmmmmm. Also, back up one level to www.airships.net, and there are some other references to Clara Adams. Doesn't reference AE though. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric By any chance did Clara Adams become Clara Livingston? In Puerto Rico, AE and Fred stayed overnight with Fred's "friend for seven years" Clara Livingston. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:26:08 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: Re: Anachronism Harbor I haven't seen the movie, saw enough wrong in the airplanes in the endless pre release hype to know it was not going to be particularly accurate. But 727s in the background, and tire squealing take offs in B-25's? (wrong version Mitchells any way) Say, ....they didnt try to weave AE/FN into somehow did they? (cue scary music) Think I'll wait the Mad Magaizine version. Wild bill's movie rule number one The louder and longer the prepaid hype for a movie, the worse it will be. A good WW2 movie is the German film "Die Bruke" (the Bridge) from 1959.(B&W with subtitles) They get the airplane wrong in that one too, unless someone was still using (what appears to be) a P-40 in spring of 1945 for ground attack in the European theater. (Maybe the French or British?) Still, it's worth renting, if you can find it. *************************************************************************** From Ric Can anybody come up with a WWII movie where they get the airplanes right? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:28:27 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Movie Non-history No matter how bad "Pearl Harbor" may be in terms of incorrectly representing the true history of the attack in 1941 it can't hold a candle to "The Patriot" for historical fantasy. Dick Pingrey 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric You mean "Lethal Hatchet"? Braveheart with flintlocks. But we digress. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:29:42 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Clara Adams Here is a website address featuring information/photos of Zeppelins, including photos of & copies of letters written to Clara Adams, a female journalist in the 1930s, who specialized in making first aviation flights: Airships: The Zeppelin history and photo website, featuring the Hindenburg, Graf Zeppelin, Akron, Macon, Shenandoah, Los Angeles, and other great dirigibles. Address:http://www.airships.net/index.shtml (Unfortuately, no information about any connection with AE, though both were obviously contemporaries.) Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:27:37 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: The reef edge Have to say this - I move that henceforth divers from the Niku expeditions (past and future) HAVE to be known as Tighar Sharks. By the by, how do these ravines, canyons, fingers, or whatever, end on the seaward side? Do they just keep getting gradually bigger and bigger (that is wider and deeper), or is this where everything just suddenly drops off to the bottomless pit? ltm, jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric The 1989 dive team became known as The Bubble Heads. Don't ask. I dug out the video they shot of the canyons they looked at. Pretty amazing stuff. There's footage of two canyons, both of which were reportedly south of Tatiman (pronounced Tasman) Passage -the main lagoon passage. The day was very calm and the underwater visibility was excellent. The first canyon began at a water depth I estimate to be about 30 feet and went for perhaps 50 yards before ending in a jumble of coral boulders at a depth of what appears to be about 10 feet. Of course, there's no way to tell from the video what the state of the tide was. The seaward-side mouth of the canyon was about twelve feet across and gradually narrowed to about five feet across at the shallow end. The diver had no difficulty negotiating the canyon but the seaward surge of retreating water sucked him a few feet backward with each wave that passed overhead. On this particular day, the waves were not running parallel with the canyon but at about 45 degrees across its long axis. The canyon was not a simple straight crack running toward the beach but had some minor changes in direction, a few branches running out to either side, and several large coral outcroppings in the middle along the way. An object of any appreciable size that fell into the canyon at the shoreward end would stand virtually no chance of being swept out and over the steep lip of the reef without getting hung up. You couldn't design a better wreckage-trap if you tried. The floor of the canyon appeared to be pea-gravel sized chunks of coral rubble of indeterminate depth (but probably not more than a foot or two deep). The second canyon was narrower and shorter than the first, becoming almost cave-like at one point as the walls closed in overhead. Otherwise it was very much like the first one. It's clear from the video taken in 1989 that the underwater reef-edge environment off the west end of the atoll is not a simple drop into oblivion but features several yards of gradually descending terrain that is a very rugged jumble of coral. This is "the ledge" we've talked about. Along the shoreward side the ledge is periodically cut with spurs and grooves (canyons). On the seaward side it really does drop into oblivion. From what I can see, it should be no problem for our divers to check out the reef edge approaching from seaward underwater at high tide on a calm day. Approaching from the landward side, walking on the reef flat, is probably not a good idea even on a calm day at low tide unless the area is already explored and mapped by the divers. In other words, if the divers find something worth investigating and it's in really shallow water, we might be able to get to it from the landward side safely if conditions are right. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:48:32 EDT From: Skeet Subject: Re: Anachronism Harbor >From Ric > >Can anybody come up with a WWII movie where they get the airplanes right? Twelve O'clock High. ************************************************************************** From Ric Good call. The B-17s are "F"s as they should be for that time in the war. ************************************************************************** From Wes Smith Sure, 12 O'clock High. ************************************************************************** From Ric Hmmm...I sense a consensus. ************************************************************************* From Doug Brutlag I vaguely remember a flick called "Battle Of Midway". I was much younger when I saw it. It seemed to rely on alot of historical footage in the battle scenes. Anybody got accuracy reviews on that one? Where were the 727's butting in during the Pearl Harbor flick- I missed that. I thought bloopers like that were edited out. Doug Brutlag ( who has high reguard for the B-727 & B-25) #2335 **************************************************************************** From Dennis McGee Ok, Ok, OK! Right up front -- Hollywood will NEVER make an aviation-related movie that is 100 percent accurate -- especially for the purists. They can't. It's timing, guys and gals. By the time the movie is made several years AFTER the event all of the airplanes have been melted back into pots and pans. All of this crying about the inaccuracy of the aircraft in Pearl Harbor (which I'll see this weekend) is just a bunch of elitist hoo-hah. For crying out loud, maybe one person in 100,000 knows the difference between an F4U-4 and a F4U-5, much less the difference between the many Zero variants. OK, maybe a squadron marking is wider than it really was. It's really no big deal. Let's not try to apply the science of investigation to the art of film making. Films are entertainment, and unless they make a claim of 100 percent accuracy, then we've got to accept some fiction. Yeah, I'd like to see 100 percent accuracy but I'm enough of a realist to accept that it is impossible for Hollywood to do. Most of the jabbering here and in the warbird community about the inaccuracies of the aircraft in Pearl Harbor is just a bunch of jocks bragging and showing off their knowledge of WWII-vintage airplanes. The longer it goes on the more it looks like a mutual masturbation clinic. Everybody feels real good about how much they know and they all slap each other on the back telling each other how smart they are. After about the 58th time it gets thin, you know? Yeah, they're experts. and Holywood is wrong. So? I think we should be glad that Hollywood even went to the trouble of making the movie. OK, so the airplanes aren't 100 percent accurate, but when was the last time you even SAW a P-40 or a B-17 in flight. Not all of us can go to every air show and see every airplane every weekend. I think we need to cut the movie guys some slack here. Now if they used P-51s with Japanese marking, well, that is a whole different issue. But complaining about whether something is a Dash 2 or a Dash 3 variant borders on the obsessive. Give us a break! And the truth is most movie goers don't give a rat's patoot! Now, as for the 727 in the background and the B-25 ("wrong variant" - good Lord, does this mean the world is coming to an end?) squealing its tires -- well, those are really inexcusable blunders. The producers deserve to get hammered for those. LTM, who seeks serenity Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Settle down Dennis. I can't speak for the warbird crowd but at least here we're not wringing our hands about airplane mark and marking inaccuracies. It's all theater (as are airshows) and anybody who expects authenticity is kidding themselves. We're poking fun at sloppy movie-making. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:00:36 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: Anachronism Harbor My only gripe is constantly seeing a group of Dauntless Dive Bombers portrayed as Japanese planes diving on Pearl Harbor. I think the film editors need a history lesson. *************************************************************************** From Ric You can blame John Ford for that one. He made an "official" documentary of the Pearl Harbor attack later in the war with lots of Navy cooperation. The SBDs stood in for Japanese dive bombers and the footage gets recycled about once a week. *************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg > From Ric > > Can anybody come up with a WWII movie where they get the airplanes right? "Twelve O'Clock High" might be one, but then the scenes of aircraft flight operations appeared to be official combat photography. Some of the interior aircraft scenes, like cockpit and waist gunner positions, might be less than accurate, but I'm no judge. Bob #2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric Guess I'm gonna hafta dig out the tape and have a look. **************************************************************************** From Dennis McGee Ric said: "Settle down, Dennis . . . We're poking fun at sloppy movie-making." As well you should. And I'll stand in line to join the mirth-making. But using the wrong variants of aircraft in a movie depicting events 60 years ago, is not sloppy -- it is a necessity. The movie makes no claim to 100 percent accuracy or authenticity, yet its critics are demanding that standard. Would the aviation community been happier if Disney (Gag!) ran a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie; "The Japanese A6M2 "Zero" in Scene 26 is actually a former U.S. Navy SNJ modified to A6M2 appearance. Rather than the correct Sakai-?? engine it is using a Pratt & Whitney R-1830-90C. In fact the aircraft is not really an SNJ, but a bunch of T-6/SNJ parts cobbled together from eight other aircraft and extensively rebuilt and modified in 1986 using modern fabrication techniques and materials. And the pilot is actually an American born in 1946." Squealing tires on take-off and 727s in the background are sloppy film-making. Having a P-51 -- of any variant! -- in WWII Japanese markings would be sloppy film-making. Criticism for having the wrong variant of any aircraft that exists only in a museum is a cheap shot. LTM, who's been on her soap box too often lately Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:27:42 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Reef edge Is the resolution fine enough, and is there enough contrast in the satellite photos to locate the "canyons" between the Norwich City, or area where we believe the Electra might have "landed", and the mouth of the lagoon? ********************************************************************** From Ric In a general sense, yes. There are probably small ones that we can't see. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:29:53 EDT From: Herman Subject: Re: Anachronism Harbor Ric wrote : >Can anybody come up with a WWII movie where they get the airplanes right? I can remember one. The British made "The Battle of Britain" in 1968 in which they had all the Spitfires right. Agreed, they were not all Mk II but they were Spitfires... They also used a real Ju-52 transport and flew (ex-Spanish) Me-109 fighters and (ex-Spanish) He-111 bombers too (all CASA-built post WW II with Rolls Royce Merlin engines because the original Daimler Benz were no longer available). They even had the Ju-87B ("Stuka") dive bombers right although these were radio controlled models. Real ones were not avaiilable, at least not in flying condition). In the opening phases of the film they even used the right Hawker Hurricanes. However, these were non-flying life sized models that could taxi only. Others were anly built to be blown to bits. The flying scenes were absolutely great and not computer generated ! All the flying was real. And the even the bombing of an RAF airbase was as real as one could possibly imagine. This scene was filmed at Duxford, where Royal Engineers blew up some real RAF hangars (that had to be demolished anyway). By the way, most of the Spitfires used in the film are still around and can be seen flying at the annual Flying Legends air shows at Duxford (which is near Cambridge). And the life size Hurricanes models used in the film are also still around : they are kept in a "Battle of Britain Museum" at the (now closed) former RAF airfield Hawkinge (Kent), where most of the filming was done. The museum keeps some He-111 radio guided bomber models used in the film as well. They have a span of some 10 ft.. Not a single computer trick was used in 1968. All the spectacular flying was real. So was all combat flying with real Spitfires, real Me-109 and real He-111 and filmed from the nose of a camaera equipped B-25. BTW the Ju-52 transport used in the film was right and real too. I forget where they got that one from. I believe they rented it from the Swiss air force that was still using them. The film was so good that I have recently bought the video and believe it or not, from time to time I still watch it at home. LTM (who likes the real flying better than the computer generated ones) *************************************************************************** From Ric Just goes to show that "real" is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, the flyng was spectacular. **************************************************************************** From Mike E. 2194: I can't resist this.... >From Dennis McGee > >OK, so the airplanes aren't 100 percent accurate, but >when was the last time you even SAW a P-40 or a B-17 in flight. I was exiting my place of work in West Raleigh NC on an october day in about 1996, when I heard piston engines... RADIAL engines. I looked east, toward downtown Raleigh. There was a large a/c approaching... hm. It had four engines. FOUR engines? I looked closer. Naw. Can't be. CAN'T! No... YES. That silhouette is unmistakable. It's a B-17! Still I was not completely convinced... but it was a B-17G, in full WW2 markings, with all turrets, passing right over me at about 1000 feet. I thought I'd seen a ghost.... I could not quite make out the nose art but I believe it was Nine-Oh-Nine, which I'd toured on the ground a year or so before at RDU. The pilot was following the concrete compass (I-40) westbound. Hm... in so doing he had to cut right across the pattern at RDU. Wish I'd had an airband radio.... And a couple of years before that, I heard one morning the sound of more than one radial engine... ran out the back door and, going right over my workplace, was a formation of five AT'6s in a tight Vee. It does happen.... LTM (who does believe in ghosts!) and 73 Mike E. I jumped up and down and waved, and yelled, like they could really hear me. But the pilot must have seen me because he rocked the wings as he passed. **************************************************************************** From Mike Holt > >From Ric > > Can anybody come up with a WWII movie where they get the airplanes right? I thought "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" had the right model B-25s in it. The movie was made during WW2, was it not, when the airplanes were still readily available. All of which inspires a question: given that AE did know some USAAC folk, did she ever check out in a military aircraft? **************************************************************************** From Ric The Doolittle Tokyo Raiders used stripped down B-25Bs. I think you'll find that the Mitchells used in "30 Seconds..." were later models. It's easy to tell. The "B" had an exhaust collector ring and single exhaust port. All later models had individual exhausts for each cylinder (talk about LOUD). **************************************************************************** From Jim Tierney Ric--Regarding the Jap SBDs----Yeah I know the story and why it was done originally but one would think that the technical advisers on a $140 Million movie with full Navy cooperation would see the error-one of the PH vets involved in the filming would point out the mistake- and SOMEBODY would delete it..... With the computers you could easily make up a new shot...... I still havent written my latter to ME. Jim Tierney *************************************************************************** From Ric Jeez, they didn't use that old shot in PH - did they? *************************************************************************** Ric said: "Can anybody come up with a WWII movie where they get the airplanes right?" How about the movie 1970's movie "1941"? LTM (who likes a good movie and a good joke) Troy *************************************************************************** From Ric I've never seen it but I've seen snips with John Bellushi flying a P-40. The only P-40s in 1941 were B models and earlier. No originals or replicas of that model were flying in the 1970s. *************************************************************************** From Mike E. #2194: >Can anybody come up with a WWII movie where they get the airplanes >right? How about "Air Force" (1943, John Garfield)? They even used B-17C/D versions (there were still a few around, then)... but the Zeros are definitely AT-6s at that time. Also the Phillipine Dept. did not have any P-39s, just P-35s, P-40s (C/D/E models) and even some P-26s. And they use an AT-6 as a standin for an O-47. "Fighter Squadron" used the right mark of P-47 but the Messerschmitts are razorback P-51s! "Battle of Britain" wasn't bad, except for the Spit Mark Vs but there was indeed (supposedly) one Spit used in that film that had flown in the summer of 1940. >"Twelve O'Clock High" might be one, but then the scenes of aircraft flight >operations appeared to be official combat photography. Some of the interior >aircraft scenes, like cockpit and waist gunner positions, might be less than >accurate, but I'm no judge. The combat scenes in "Twelve O'Clock High" were taken from the wartime documentary "Memphis Belle" (not to be confused with the 1990 film which used some of the same footage). "Memphis Belle" (1990) tried REAL hard. Notice, no B-17Gs. But you will see, if you look carefully, a/c on the ground in the b.g. with star-and-bar USAAF markings, which are not correct for 1943. Don't go to Hollywood for history. Go to Hollywood to be entertained. And if being entertained stimulates you to further study, that is great! LTM (who goes to the movies to worry) and 73 Mike E. **************************************************************************** From Ric The challenge was to come up with a WWII movie that got the airplanes right. So far we still have no winners. I looked at "Twelve O'clock High". It's a great film based on a 1948 novel and filmed in the summer of 1949. The Air Force loaned 20th Century Fox a dozen B-17s (with crews) and lots of wartime footage was used, including some scenes from Willian Wyler's exquisite wartime documentary "The Memphis Belle." Unfortunately, "Twelve O'clock High" does not get the airplanes exactly right. If you look closely at many of the air combat shots you'll find that the B-17s are being attacked by an RAF Spitfire. During the war, Spits and Mustangs were often used in gunnery practice for B-17 gunners (no live ammo of course) and somebody got some good pictures of some practice passes. What the film DOES get right (unlike most WWII aviation films including the abysmal "Memphis Belle") is the business-like atmosphere aboard a bomber in combat. The crew correctly communicate with each other using "throat mics" but the audio does not make everyone sound like they have a speech impediment the way the real mics did. The biggest flub in "Twelve O'clock High" is when pilot Gregory Peck tells the bombardier to "center the PDI" at the beginning of the bomb run. PDI stands for "Pilot Direction Indicator" and its in front of the pilot, not the bombardier. The Norden bombsight was originally designed to fly the airplane during the bomb run via the Honeywell autopilot, but it was soon found that a human pilot was much better at making the fine corrections needed, so instead the bombsight was connected to a left/right needle in the cockpit. If the pilot kept the PDI centered, the bombsight would do the rest. (Ain't that right Dad?) *************************************************************************** From J. M. Harsh With all due respect to Mr. McGee, if Hollywood can make dinosaurs walk again, why can't they get the planes right? Even films that didn't have the advantage of our technology have done a much better job. "Thirty Seconds over Tokyo" (models and all) was a much more believable representation of the Doolittle raid and its almost 60 years old. Maybe Disney should've had Ted Turner colorize it instead. LTM (who wishes Ed Harris had played Doolittle) J. M. Harsh #0638C **************************************************************************** From Dick Pingrey How about "Catch 23"? It has been years (many) since I saw it but I don't recall and great errors in the aircraft. B-25s, an L-5 to cut off your head, etc. Perhaps they got the airplanes right in that one. It really isn't a true war story but many had the experience it presents that made it seem real to them. Did they get the helicopters right in "Mash"? Dick Pingrey 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. I don't recall any "enemy" fighters in Catch 23 (the sequel to Catch 22). Just a whole bunch of '25s and one lonely L-5. I'm not up on the nuances of early Bell 47s so I can't say whether MASH got them right. **************************************************************************** From Simon >From Ric > >Can anybody come up with a WWII movie where they get the airplanes right? Catch 22 ? Or are they the wrong version Mitchels as well ? :-) LTM (who knows her WWII planes) Simon #2120 **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, since the film portrayed purely fictional events at some unmentioned point during the war, they're home free on that score. Betcha I could find some postwar radio antennas on them though. Picky, picky.... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:31:03 EDT From: Chuck Jackson Subject: Vidal papers I would appreciate communicating with anyone who has dug thru Vidal's stuff @ U of Wyoming------THANKS ctjj1@home.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:37:17 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Question from someone new to this site > From Ric > > By any chance did Clara Adams become Clara Livingston? In Puerto Rico, AE > and Fred stayed overnight with Fred's "friend for seven years" Clara > Livingston. Interesting possibility.. "Clara E. Livingston Cadet Scholarship This $4,000 scholarship named after an aviation pioneer, a CAP member during World War II, and the former Puerto Rico wing commander, is available to Puerto Rico Wing Cadets only (as stated in Clara Livingston's will). Puerto Rico Wing Cadets are encouraged to apply for this award to advance their preparation and training for any field such as flying, the professions, academic, business or manual art or for travel directed toward an expansion of his or her horizons. Contact Puerto Rico Wing for more information." Can't be sure, but a little more snooping suggests that in July 1339 Clara Adams was still Clara Adams and Clara Livingston (in 1937) was Still Clara Livingston in 1942 flying as a member of the C.A.P. **Playa Dorado: West of San Juan, Playa Dorado consists of six white-sand beaches along the northern coast, reached by a series of winding roads. This whole area is dominated by the Hyatt resorts, Cerromar and Dorado. Because the hotels offer numerous children's programs, the Dorado beaches have become a family favorite. Originally, the beaches opened onto a grapefruit and coconut plantation owned by Clara Livingston, Puerto Rico's first female pilot. As fruit prices declined in the 1950s, she sold off her 1,600 acres to Laurence Rockefeller, who began hotel construction. **For example: On December 2, 1942, two ships, the "Admiral," a tug boat, and the "Clevco", an oil tanker, disappeared within 10 miles of Cleveland upon Lake Erie.......But it gets weirder. When daylight broke, the Civil Air Patrol (remember this is W.W.II) joined in the search. Pilot Clara Livingston spotted the "Clevco" 15 miles from its original location within 10 miles of Cleveland itself. **Welcome to July 1939! The Golden Age of Radio. At 7 PM on WEAF, was Fred Waring's Orchestra. At 10 PM on WMCA was Amateur Hour, and at 11 PM featured the incredible lineup of the Dorsey Orchestra (WEAF), Goodman's Orchestra (WABC), and Classical Music (WHN). The more serious could listen to Senator Pepper on "Revising the Neutrality Act" at WOR. Mrs. Clara Adams, dubbed the Flying Widow, of 53-61 70 Street in Maspeth, flew around the world in 16 days, 19 hours, a new record. She crossed the Atlantic on the maiden flight of the Dixie Clipper, and touched down in Leipzig, Athens, Rangoon, Hong Kong, and Manila. I can't be sure how accurate this is (it's from web pages) but it suggestsd two different people... Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Jon Watson I suppose it's possible that she became Clara Livingston, but if she did, she changed her name back, because on the web site, there is a copy of a letter written to Mrs. Clara Adams by Charles Rosendahl in 1947, with an address in New York City. ltm jon **************************************************************************** From Ric If she's MRS. Clara Adams in 1947 it's not likely that the two Claras are the same person. **************************************************************************** From Dustymiss I have just moved so have not caught up on all my TIGHAR reading, so I do not know the context of why Clara Adams has been mentioned, but I have a photocopy of a photograph from a newspaper in 1929, I got from the International Women's Air and Space Museum, showing Clara and Amelia standing together. The article that the photograph comes from was written in 1950 and says Amelia and Clara were friends. LTM - Dustymiss ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:44:38 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Reef edges Those "canyons" on Niku -- are they typical of reef architecture in general or are they particular to Niku? Does anyone know the origins of the canyons, i.e. erosion, seismic, etc? Just curious. LTM, who's settled down now Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric They're officially called "spur and groove" features and they're very typical of coral atolls. They are created when chunks of wrecked airplanes get hung up on reef edges. (just kidding) I don't know what causes 'em but I'm sure reef biologists do. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:47:08 EDT From: Ed Subject: Re: Reef edge Some time back, I wondered whether a trail of the landing may be visible on the reef, that is, tracks from broken/damaged coral from the touchdown point across the reef to the stopping point. Even with growth and other weather related impacts, their may still be evidence of the landing. Anything discernible from the digital pix? LTM Ed of PSL #2415 **************************************************************************** From Ric Nope. Nor is there any scarring on the reef surface where big (several ton) chunks of Norwich city debris have been pushed around. Apparently that doesn't happen. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:17:15 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Right on, Mike E.! I have to agree with Mike E's feelings in seeing a B-17 up close and personal. Several years ago I was in Genosea (?) New York visiting the museum when their B-17 "Fuddy Duddy" headed out for an air show in Canada. After take-off the pilot looped around and beat up the field under full power at an altitude of about 100 feet. A bunch of us were standing on the runway as she went over and it was awesome -- the roar of the engines, the prop wash, the smell of oil and gas, the immense shadow it cast. All of us just stood there for the next five minutes watching her disappear in the distance. And to think men fought to the death in these machines. LTM, a lapsed air show attendee Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:32:13 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Recovery of suspect airplane parts The thought occured to me about recover of any suspect airplane parts which may be found in the canyons. Have you given this any thought? How about using an inflatable rubber raft that can be attached to the object and then inflated with a compressed air tank? You might get things as large as an engine to the reef flat that way. Dick Pingrey 908C **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, we've thought about that. First of all, chances are that anything that has survived 64 years of storms is really jammed in there. The last thing we'd want to do is disturb it until we're fully prepared to do a responsible recovery. For that, we'd probably hire a professional salvage firm to work under our direct supervision. In other words, no recovery this trip unless we see an emergency situation where something important looks like it's about to let go and be lost. I don't think that's very likely. How would we protect a discovery until we could return with the assets to recover it? Not by trying to keep it secret. That would be virtually impossible despite our best intentions. We'd protect it by shining the brightest possible spotlight of publicity right on it. "We found it. It's right here. Here are the pictures. Kiribati owns it. We're going back to recover it. Here's how we're going to do it. " Etc., etc. By doing that we remove the financial incentive for anyone to try to steal it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:34:25 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Reef edges The origin of coral reef spur and groove topography is relatively easy to understand. When we had ice ages, the sea level was lower, and the coral islands stood above the water. The coral died, and winds and waves crashed onto the beaches, creating cliffs and such. When sea level rose again, now covering the plateaus, the waves would now crash over the top, and would flow back into the ocean. Random topographic features would force water down into the lowest levels on the plateau as the water rushed back out to sea. Over time, continued washing would erode the coral into gullies. Right now, sea level is continuing to rise, and the gullies are now almost completely submerged, except for the lowest of tides. ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Randy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:35:48 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: B-17 and B-24 We have a B-17 and a B-24 visiting Yakima, WA on June 11th and 12th. Ground tour is $7.00 and a ride for $325.00. I almost got to serve as co-pilot on the B-24 a couple of years ago when the real co-pilot was called away for some reason or another. They needed a multi-engine rated pilot to sit in the co-pilot seat when the moved the airplane from Yakima to Walla Walla. At the last minute the real co-pilot showed up. Darn, I was already to put on a flack apron and sing "Off we go..." Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 10:11:16 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: Re: Anachronism Harbor WW2 movies that may have the airplanes right? Possibly two British films, "one of our aircraft is missing" (Wellington?) and the classic "dambusters" (Lancaster) but, its been a long (long) time since I've seen either. Maybe "the dirty Dozen" and "a bridge too far" but then there are a fair number of DC-3, C47, R4D. Dakota et al. still clawing at the skies. (dont know about the accracy of the gliders in AB2F) The "great escape?" or are those Focke Wulf Texans that they pass up on the way to a (think its a...) Me108? admittedly none of the last three were "airplane" movies. There is a fairly recent picture - 1996s "For The Moment" - (that apaprently nobody saw) about the UK's Commonwealth training scheme, filmed in Canada arround Lake Winnipeg that seems to be pretty accurate, except for the substitution of an Invader (A-26) for a Havoc (A-20) It has a youngish Russell Crowe. (of Gladiator fame) A film worth seeing. Especially the "hanging out the wash" sequence. E-ya later Bill **************************************************************************** From Ric One problem they had filming "The Dambusters" was that the particulars of the bomb were still classified. They didn't know, for example, that the device was set spinning before it was released. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 10:12:52 EDT From: Marty Fowler Subject: Niku Pic Received my satellite picture of Niku today. One word - SPLENDIFEROUS!!!!!!!! Monty Fowler TIGHER #2189 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:43:19 EDT From: Blake Herling Subject: Exploring the reef edge/canyons After reading the posts about ideas concerning exploring the reef edge canyons & the dangers it presents, I wanted to throw out an idea. Would it at all be possible in the reef flat environment to search the canyons from ontop of the reef flat using some sort of video camera sealed in a watertight housing & fastened to the end of a boom? I'm not sure what kind of distances the canyons represent, but I thought if you could dip the camera in the water toward the shallow end of the finger & walk it out toward the reef edge (within reason) you might be able to cover the most dangerous portions of the fingers without as much of a risk to life, or limb. And at that point if something shows up that warrents further investigation beyond video images you could then put the diver in the water. I'm thinking very low tech so as to keep the expedition as simple as possible, so along those lines I would think that a low lux video camera sealed in a housing that could be swivled & attached to a telescoping aluminum pole might do the trick. You could even employ more than one unit & that way maximize time on the island by walking a canyon with the camera in the water, reviewing the tape & then moving on to the next canyon & repeating the process. Even if it took 2 or 3 people to handle/stabilize a unit in that situation, by removing the complexity of maintaining a divers gear in the reef edge environment I would think you could maximize your time searching the canyons imeasurably. Not to mention reducing the risk to a diver. The reason I throw this out is I saw a documentary of a guy who filmed great white sharks off the islands of northern California using a simple video camera setup. He secured his inside a plastic sports drink type cooler (like you see on the sidelines at football games) that he had cut the bottom out of & replaced with a piece of acrylic. He then cut a hole in a surf board installed the cooler in the hole & threw the whole thing out in the water keeping ahold of it with a deep sea fishing rod & reel. The pictures he got were amazing. However I was thinking a boom/pole type setup so you could have controll over where the camera was aimed & could lower it closer to the bottm of the fingers as needed. My questions are however...Is there any way to recharge camera batteries while at Niku either on the boat during the night, or maybe with some sort of solar charger? And is the reef flat out toward the fingers always too violant to make this possible? If so, could it be done from a zodiac safely? Just thought I'd throw the idea out. In all its far reachingness theres gotta be some machinists out there on the forum who could engineer a nifty little aluminum housing with a lense & a telescoping pole. Looking foreward to Sept. Blake- **************************************************************************** From Ric After reviewing the videotape shot in 1989 and talking to the divers, exploring the canyons from underwater should not be a problem if the sea is relatively calm. If the sea is rough there is probably no way to do it safely. We'll have three weeks on site at a time of year that is historically quite calm. We should get at least a few good days. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:44:00 EDT From: Tom Ruprecht Subject: Nobody Else Noticed? Perhaps Ric is about to kill the Pearl Harbor thread, but I'll come out of lurk mode if he hasn't yet... Looks like I'm still the only skydiver on the Forum, cuz nobody else has mentioned the skydiving "floater" handles above the door on the DC-3. They didn't have those in the 40's for sure... :-) Rupe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:49:29 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Dakotas I drove through the military garrison town of Aldershot here in the UK today and one establishment, for airborne troops, has a Dakota on display outside. To my non-expert eye it looked a bit like the Electra, except of course in the configuration of the tail. Just out of curiosity, how similar would it be, size-wise and in terms of height of the cockpit off the ground, angle of fuselage to ground with its wheels down etc? LTM **************************************************************************** From Ric The Dakota (C-47/DC-3) is much bigger than the Electra - nearly twice the length and twice the wingspan, and the cockpit is much higher off the ground. The top of the Lockheed's cockpit roof, when parked, is 10 feet off the ground. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:52:23 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Another Lockheed Just as a matter of interest. In 1935 a single engined Lockheed Altair crashed off the coast of Burma on a record attempt between England and Australia. Over a year later, a landing gear leg complete with wheel washed ashore and was retrieved and identified by Lockheed as belonging to the Lady Southern Cross. Shortly afterwards a search team found a tree that appeared to have its top cut off on top of the island, and a line of damaged trees leading down tthe southern slope to the foreshore, where they found pieces of metal from the Lockheed. In 1978 a piece of wing was found by Burmese fishermen, but I can't find the result of the analysis. In 1983 a radial engine was found in the waters off the island, but oddly it does not appear to have belonged to the Lockheed Altair, so perhaps the wing didn't either. The point of this post is to suggest that even though the circumstances (but not the reason) and the location of the crash of the Lockheed Altair are almost certainly known, the aircraft and its two crew have never been found despite a number of search expeditions and the use of underwater sonar. Bear in mind that the search commenced only a year and a half after the aircraft went missing and after a piece of the aircraft was found. Tighar has an even bigger challenge, because there is not yet any physical evidence. I was interested in the fact that the gear leg floated in after almost two years. Things that float tend to turn up on beaches and things that don't tend to wash out to sea (or into lagoons?). Earhart's Electra had huge tyres. If a gear leg broke off the wreckage due to wave action, it could feasibly have washed up onto the reef and later into one of the reef canyons and stuck there, or even washed through into the lagoon. Didn't Emily describe something like a gear leg? Some notes on the other disappearance. 08NOV35 The "Lady Southern Cross" is estimated to have crashed into the Gulf of Martaban in the vicinity of Aye Island at approximately 0216 local time. 01MAY37 A section of an aircraft undercarriage including a wheel and tyre was washed ashore at Aye Island. The wreckage was later identified by Lockheed as having come from the "Lady Southern Cross". The undercarriage leg and wheel is held in the collection of the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, Australia. No trace of Smithy or Tommy Pethybridge has ever been found. Later in May37 Expedition led by Australian engineer Jack Hodder finds tree at very top of Aye Island (100 metres (about 325 feet) with top cut off, and a dozen trees similarly damaged leading down to the foreshore. There they found pieces of metal from the Altair. 1978 Burmese Fishermen find a piece of wing in the vicinity. 04MAY79 Aye Island was visited by an advance party of the Lady Southern Cross Search Expedition (LSCSE) led by Ted Wixted. The island and surrounding waters were surveyed in preparation for a future recovery expedition. 21MAR83 A team from the Lady Southern Cross Search Expedition (LSCSE) led by Ted Wixted arrived at Aye Island to conduct a sonar search of the surrounding waters. After ten days, during which divers worked in appalling conditions, time had run out and the search was suspended. Although nothing from the "Lady Southern Cross" had been found, an unrelated radial engine was located. The team left the island with the feeling that much remained to be discovered. The recovered Lockheed gear leg can be seen at: http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/altair/altair1.htm I expect that the remains of the Altair and maybe even its crew, and the Electra and crew will turn up eventually, as did, recently, the remains of Sir Donald Campbell's Bluebird. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:55:24 EDT From: Tom Cook Subject: B-24? Ric, I've been waiting for a week for someone to to correct the error on "Joe W3HNK" 's posting about "30 seconds over Tokyo" he refers to the A/C as a B24. It was tough enough to carry those twin engine B25 Mitchels on a carrier and launch them, but a 4 engine B24 Lib???, I DON'T THINK SO!! i don't think the B24 was even in service at the time of the Doolitle Raid, was it? Of course It was probably just a typo anyway. Aren't we being a little tough on the movie makers when we complain so much about exact authenticity on A/C that are rare museum pieces today. Where are you going to get all these exact models in flying condition, no less, and who is going to let you risk their priceless antiques,to make a movie. I was in a movie a few years ago and I thought they went to extremes to get authenticity where it didn't even show. Of course they can get sloppy and let a modern A/C show in the background, not good. TC 2127 **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure the B-24/B-25 thing was just a typo. We started off by saying that it's virtually impossible to "get the airplanes right". We were just seeing if anyone came close. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:57:17 EDT From: Tom Cook Subject: Doolittle Raid In the Doolittle Raid sequence as they were ready take off, someone started passing out cans of extra fuel. My question is, did these B25s have the capability of being refueled from inside? or were the crews expected to do some some wing walking? What were these cans? They didn't look like WWII GI Jerricans! Also how far would an extra 5 or 10 gallons take them anyway. TC 2127 **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, they really did that. There are several good books available about the Doolittle Tokyo Raid. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:01:34 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Getting it right I finally thought of a movie where they got the planes right: "Island In the Sky" starring John Wayne. All they needed was good ol' Gooney Birds. Speaking of Gooney Birds... I visited the Battleship USS North Carolina, BB-55, at Wilmington NC this weekend for a "Living History" program, featuring over 100 WW2 "re-enactors" as the ship's company. There was also a big air show at ILM with several warbirds.... a TOUGH choice but I went to the ship. As the ship's company formed up for the evening lowering of the colors, a restored DC-3 in Piedmont Airlines markings passed over the ship at about 500 feet, gear down, on final for ILM. It all looked and sounded so right! Also during the demonstration of 20 and 40mm AA guns, a Japanese YS-11 passed over.... I saw the guys on the Bofors 40mm tracking it.... hmmmmm. 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric "Island In the Sky" and "The High And The Mighty" are reportedly tied up in John Wayne's estate and are not out on videotape. Great films. Surely there's a Black Market out there somewhere. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:02:41 EDT From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Niku satellite photo I give up on resisting the temptation for the photo. $100 is in the ail. Also congrats to all involved in solving the LTM message mystery. Jerry W. Ellis #2113 ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jerry. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:43:32 EDT From: Joe Subject: Re: B-24? Tnx for explaining to Tom Cook my error....the second I hit the SEND button I knew I had made an error...of course B-25 ......I was waiting to see how long B4 anyone picked up on it, and I appreciate Ric coming to my defense!! Joe W3HNK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:46:10 EDT From: Ms B Subject: Re: Bombardment of saipan airfields My dad was a marine on Saipan and I asked him about the army. He said the Japanese pushed the army off the island and the marines had to come back onto the island. The army didn't do anything. ********************************************************************* From Ric Yup. He was a Marine alright. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:56:45 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: The High and the Mighty >"Island In the Sky" and "The High And The Mighty" are reportedly tied up in >John Wayne's estate and are not out on videotape. Great films. Surely >there's a Black Market out there somewhere. I've been searching the web and other mail-order video outlets worldwide for years, and have never been able to find a video of "The High and the Mighty". This is a crime against humanity. Tom **************************************************************************** From Ric Absolutely. Cruel and unusual. I haven't even seen it on TV in many years. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:00:52 EDT From: David Subject: Re: Nobody Else Noticed? > Looks like I'm still the only skydiver on the Forum, cuz nobody else has > mentioned the skydiving "floater" handles above the door on the DC-3. They > didn't have those in the 40's for sure... :-) Rupe You're right!! I saw Pearl Harbor last Friday night, and I did notice it too! However, I don't think I saw the C-47's double doors, only the one little DC-3 door. Must be tight to get a lot of jumpers out in a hurry for a mass jump! I kept my eyes peeled for the 727 in the background, but I must have missed it. I also found it terrible how those B-25 throttles were just rammed forward all of a sudden, while no real pilot would treat R-2800s that roughly and get away with it! I can think of a couple of movies that got the planes pretty accurate: "Mosquito Squadron" and "633 Squadron", both British, both made around 1968, and both featuring mosquitoes. They found four of them in flying condition, and had some great flying scenes. There was also some really cheezy model work, and even a shot or two that I'm sure was used in both movies! Of course the characters were a bit contrived and the plots were predictable, but some of the formation flying scenes were great! One of those mosquitoes must have been the one that crashed at Duxford in 1996, killing both occupants. I heard that the last airworthy mosquit was owned by Kemit Weeks, but that after storing it in Florida for a few years, the high humidity caused the wood to expand and warp, thus permanently grounding it. How sad! I wonder where those last two movie-star mozzies now rest? I have a VHS copy of the movie "For The Moment", and although the plot and characters are again a bit cheezy, there are some more excellent flying shots. It was released in Canadian theaters around November 11, 1995, but came and went before I had a chance to see it on the big screen. I had to buy a copy of the tape when I was flying through the prairies in 1997, while visiting the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan Museum in Brandon, Manitoba. (www.airmuseum.ca) One time, I was chatting with an A-26 Invader pilot who knew the pilot who did the legendary low pass over the beach for that film: "The director asked for a really low pass - and that's what he got!" It was pretty low alright! Like most aviation movies, it was good for entertainment, but moderate, at best, for history. LTM, David :-) *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, so was the bar over the door on the DC-3 in PH a handle for skydivers or a GPS antenna? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:02:07 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Another Lockheed By way of in interesting comparison, on Smithy's 1931 flight in the "Miss Southern Cross" (although he calls it the "Southern Cross Minor" in his autobiography - guess he mis-counted the number of wings) he refers to taking sal volatile which I understand is essentially alcohol to calm his nerves. Sounds like the description one questionable book on AE gave to Noonan? Regards David ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:09:34 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: B-24? It amazes me when every time someone has a typo or obvious silly mistake that the "wannabe" experts come out from under their rocks to correct the situation and then retreat without leaving a trace behind except their slimy arrogance. Kind of like some of those creatures you encounter on isolated islands . . . ************************************************************************** From Ric The great thing about a forum like this is that, unless you're a dedicated lurker, you can't mask your true character for very long. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:43:02 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Nobody Else Noticed? >From David >I also found it terrible how those B-25 throttles were just rammed forward >all of a sudden, while no real pilot would treat R-2800s that roughly and get >away with it! Ramminh the throttles forward on the Wright R-2600 would also make a loud, ugly noise. Skeet >From David >I also found it terrible how those B-25 throttles were just rammed forward all of a sudden, while no real pilot would treat R-2800s that roughly and get away with it! Ramming the throttles forward on the Wright R-2600 would also make a loud, ugly noise. Skeet ************************************************************************** From Ric Those typos will creep in there, won't they? ;) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:47:10 EDT From: John Dipi Subject: Re: SAIPAN TO Ms B I RESENT THE FACT THAT SHE SAID THE ARMY DID NOTHING ON SAIPAN I AM EX ARMY. I CAN ASSURE HER THAT THE MARINES WITH THE HELP OF THE NAVY CBs air corps and yes THE ARMY DID HELP THE MARINES ON GUADALCANAL ASK YOUR DAD IF HE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE BATTLE OF GUADALCANAL THERE ARE PLENTY OF BOOKS OUT ON GUADALCANAL AS A EX ARMY VETERAN OF GUADALCANAL I FELT IT MY DUTY TO DEFEND THE ARMY **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm ex-Army too John. Marines say stuff like that. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:50:21 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Nobody Else Noticed? > From David > > ... How sad! I wonder where those last two > movie-star mozzies now rest? There's an intact Mosquito at the Dayton AF Museum. It was a recon plane and is in U.S.A.F. colors. I don't know its prior history. I believe there is another in Texas. I got this information from a booklet that a friend picked up. IIRC, it is an inventory of warplanes in museums. I spent an hour or so browsing through it. I haven't been to Dayton yet, but it's on my list of things to do. I have plans for an 80" RC Mosquito. When/if I get that built and flying, I hope to modify the plans for a Lockheed Electra. ;o) Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Now that's what I call a last ditch effort to get back on-topic. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:51:54 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Another Lockheed > From David Kelly > > By way of in interesting comparison, on Smithy's 1931 flight in the "Miss > Southern Cross" (although he calls it the "Southern Cross Minor" in his > autobiography - guess he mis-counted the number of wings) he refers to > taking sal volatile which I understand is essentially alcohol to calm his > nerves. Sounds like the description one questionable book on AE gave to > Noonan? American Heritage online dictionary says sal volatile is "A solution of ammonium carbonate in alcohol or ammonia water, used in smelling salts." From my one experience of smelling salts prior to 1966, I don't think even a desperate alcoholic would be tempted to drink the solution. From looking at some other web pages, it is clear that "sal volatile" is still prescribed for first-aid kits. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm just waiting for someone to suggest an experiment. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:06:59 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: B-25 Fuel Consumption Someone asked what the fuel burn was on a B-25. If the Mitchell had R-2800's on it they generally burn anywhere from 75-100 gallons per hour per engine (ballpark). That was the burn on the DC-6 I flew years ago-same engine and a darned good one at that. Seeing Doolittle's Raiders take an extra 10 gallons along per plane, I can understand why but in a large radial engine it would amount to little more than enough to start and taxi. Then again they needed every drop & fumes they could get. I hope they all got the brass balls award later or posthumously. No slight on FDR but I cannot believe he fully understood what he was asking for and the gravity of the situation these brave souls put themselves into. Here's to thinking grateful thoughts of our vets on Memorial Day and everyday. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric That was a "typo." B-25 had R2600s, and the Doolittle Raiders carried 10 five-gallon fuel cans in the radio operartor's compartment to be emptied into a specially-built 160 gallon rubber fuel cell that supplemented the 225 gallon bomb bay tank which, in turn supplemented the aircraft's normal fuel load. Each B-25 left the Hornet's deck with 1, 146 gallons of fuel aboard. The total fuel load, the broomstick gun barrels in the tail, and Doolittle's participation in the mission were all decided before the carrier left the U.S., not at the last minute as portrayed in the film. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:09:01 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Sal Volatile Sal Volatile is also known as "smelling salts" Dan Postellon, Tighar#2263 LTM (who has the vapors, and needs her smelling salts) *********************************************************************** From Ric Didn't Sal Volatile fight Rocky Marciano for the Welterweight title in 1954? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:15:42 EDT From: Herman Subject: Mosquitoes "633 squadron" contained great shots of real Mosquitoes but it was far from being a historical replay ! There never has been a 633 squadron in the RAF and no Mosquitoes ever attacked a German nuclear plant in Norway... As far as Mosquitoes are concerned, it may be worth mentioning that the prototype is still in existence and is religiously kept in the place where it was built in 1940 : Salisbury Hall, in the English countrey side. At least it used to be the countryside in 1940. Today it is next to the busy M25 freeway (the Brits call it a "motorway") or the "Orbital" around London. Salisbury Hall was a country house or rather a countryside mansion, used by the de Havilland design team as their HQ in 1940 as nearby Hatfield airfield (north of London) where the de Havilland plant was located, was (rightly) judged too dangerous. A hangar was built behind the mansion and in it the prototype Mosquito was built. It was completely built of wood which made critics laugh because "nobody built aircraft of wood any more". But it was the fastest airplane of its day, it could outrun any fighter and it remained invisible on radar (that was decades before the advent of the F-117). Salisbury Hall has not changed since but it did change owners. Its present occupant does not mind the shed on the estate where the prototype (which survived WW II) returned to become the centerpiece of a modest de Havilland museum that amongst other de Havilland types includes such historic types as the twin-boom Vampire and Sea Venom fighter jets, the nose section of a DH104 Comet airliner and of course some Tiger Moths and other de Havilland lightplanes. There are still af few Mosquitoes around, including at least one in the RAF Museum at Hendon (North London). As far I know none are in flying condition. It is true that "a thing of beauty is a joy forever" and I don't mind when they fly one of the old birds occasionally at airshows. But I do object to anyone showing off in them and flying aerobatics in them. Anyone familiar with Murphy's Law knows they will crash one day. These airplanes used to be fighters and fighter bombers and were flown by well trained combat pilots who were familiar with them. In today's jet age there are few pilots that have their experience to fly WW II propeller aircraft (and tail draggers at that !), as has been demonstrated dramatically when the beautifully restored sole airworthy Mosquito crashed some time ago (it was stalled in a stall turn and spun into the ground). The Mosquito accident does not stand alone. They lost one of the few remaining Lockheed P-38 Lightnings in a low altitude roll (I think it was in 1997) at the Duxford airshow. Last year they lost the sole airworthy Messerschmitt Me-109G (an Air Vice Marshall overshot the one mile runway at Duxford when coming in to land with too much speed and flipped it on its back). Only two weeks ago a beautifully restored 1950 vintage de Havilland Vampire jet crashed on Saturday, followed by a rare Bell P-39 Kingcobra on Sunday, both at the Biggin Hill show, England. This weekend a Spitfire crashed at an air show at Rennes, France. In al three latter crashes the aircraft stalled for some reason and fell out of the sky, killing their pilots. LTM (who loves the old-fashioned wooden Mosquito which was a thing of beauty) ************************************************************************** From Ric What goes up must come down. Any airplane that is flown can, and probably eventually will, crash. Old airplanes that are returned to service are not preserved. The act of making them safe to fly destroys them as historic aircraft while preserving the sight, sound, smell and experience of the flying them. It's a trade off. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:17:12 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: The High and the Mighty Absolutely best source for military movies is the belleandblade.com. Email the owner if you want to know about any specific titles. If they don't have it, it probably can't be got. blue skies, jerry **************************************************************************** From Ric True, and they don't have "Island In the Sky" and "The High And The Mighty". ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:52:14 EDT From: Scatman Subject: Sal Volatile Sal Volatile is the french department store equivivalency to Harrod's...... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:06:26 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The High and the Mighty Is "The High and the Mighty" the movie with the great theme music in which John Wayne has to ditch a commercial plane? If so, that was a GREAT movie, and I seem to remember Wayne going back into the luggage area of the sinking plane to rescue a kid's dog. It's sure hard to imagine some modern "action hero" like Tom Cruise doing something like that---he'd probably be all worried that the mousse would wash out of his hair or the dog would bite him. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric These typos are becoming a real problem. Chris of course meant to say that the DC-4 makes it to the runway and lands safely after formerly-digraced Copilot John Wayne smacks around Captain Robert Stack and gets him to conserve fuel by backing way off on the prop RPMs while leaving the Manifold Pressure high. The Duke actually threw the dog out the cabin door in-flight when he discovered that the kid had smuggled it aboard - or maybe that was a different movie. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 07:50:13 EDT From: Simon Subject: Re: Nobody Else Noticed? >From Marty Moleski >I have plans for an 80" RC Mosquito. When/if I get >that built and flying, I hope to modify the plans for >a Lockheed Electra. ;o) I'm building an Electra also - (well sort of..... slowly). Let's post some photos when they're done. LTM (who waffles - vaguely on topic) Simon #2120 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 07:53:02 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Another Lockheed > From David Kelly > > By way of in interesting comparison, on Smithy's 1931 flight in the "Miss > Southern Cross" (although he calls it the "Southern Cross Minor" in his > autobiography - guess he mis-counted the number of wings) he refers to > taking sal volatile which I understand is essentially alcohol to calm his > nerves. Sounds like the description one questionable book on AE gave to > Noonan? The Southern Cross Airplanes... *Smithy's most famous aircraft was the Southern Cross, a Focker Tri Motor. *The Southern Cross Pup (an Avro Avian biplane) was owned by a couple of his friends, Tom Pethybridge - who went missing with Smithy - and Harry Purvis. This aircraft had previously been owned by Charles Ulm another famous aviator of the day. *Southern Cross Minor was Smithy's Avro Avian biplane which be bought for an England-Australia record attempt. *Southern Cross Midget was a DH-50 biplane that was kept in service after Kingsford Smith's demise right up to the 2nd World War. It was used as a tender for the famous Southern Cross on its barnstorming trips around Australia. *Miss Southern Cross appears to have been the Pecival Gull 4 Monoplane used in Kingsford Smith's 1933 England-Australia flight. *Lady Southern Cross was the Lockheed Altair Smithy disappeared in. Sal Volatile is generally used as smelling salts and can be an alcohol base or an ammonia base. I wouldn't drink it. Sal Vital, on the other hand has been drunk in Australia for years to settle an upset stomach. It fizzes when stirred into water, and tastes vaguely "citrussy". Th' WOMBAT ****************************************************************************Fr om Ric <> I always wondered what became of him. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:11:19 EDT From: Diane Brizer Subject: Re: Bombardment of saipan airfields I just have to say my feelings were hurt by the response you made. My father is 75 years old now and has nothing to gain by what he told me. When he was there, that is what he experienced. How can you make a comment that a marine would say that. You don't know my father. He is a wonderful man. *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure your father is a wonderful man but what he told you - <> - is not true and was highly insulting to Army veterans. I got several outraged responses that I did not post. I chose to treat his comments with what I hoped would be taken as a good-natured acknowledgement of traditional inter-service rivalry (I'm a former Army officer myself). If you were offended I'm sorry but I'd also suggest that you do a little reading on the subject before repeating the 57 year-old impressions of an 18 year old kid. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:14:02 EDT From: George Mershon Subject: Re: Sal Volatile It's true. Rocky actually dropped thirty-six pounds to make the 147 lb. welterweight limit. But the Rock died from lack of oxygen before the fight with Sal came off! George Mershon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:18:43 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: B-25 Fuel Consumption Regarding the B-25 extra fuel tanks/load and the dummy tail guns on the Doolittle planes--- Thanks for correcting the errors that are floating around the forum since PH...... You saved me some research and extra time-- and a letter to the forum.. Jim Tierney ************************************************************************** From Ric My pleasure. By the way, there was one great line in the film. Just before they take from the Hornet on what is virtually a suicide mission Doolittle-With-Hair says: "There's nothing stronger than the heart of a volunteer." Kinda choked me up. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:20:56 EDT From: Bob Krebs Subject: Sal Volatile/Hepatica; Then who was Sal Hepatica? .... a gentle laxative, or a former shortstop for the cubs in the late 50's.... guess I hastened the end of that thread.... Bob K *************************************************************************** From Ric I think we better move on before I start getting emails from various ethnic antidefamation associations. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:33:34 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: Mosquito accounting There were five Mossies used in 633 sqd, and Mosquito squadron. Four were retired (1963) TT mk.35's, (target towing) conversions from the B Mk 35 bomber which had the bomber nose glazing, side observation windows and canopy. If you look, you can see where they painted over the nose glazing and bombarders nose to simulate a FB (fighter bomber variant). (4) TT35's s/n's RS709,RS712, TA719,TA634 (some of this information is a bit dated, time to go to the bookstore and get new books) RS709 is now in the United states Air Force museum in Dayton Ohio, painted and detailed to a degree to represent a USAAF F8. RS712 went to Kermit Weeks TA719 crashed in 1964, last information I have from the late eighties....went to the Imperial War Museum with an eye towards "restoration". TA634 joined the original prototype in the museum at Salisbury hall. The fifth was a T (dual control trainer) Mk. 3 which has pretty close to the right nose and canopy profile for a fighter or fighter-bomber variant, s/n RR299 RR299 was "maintained in airworthy condition" by British Aerospace engineering. untill 1996 when it was lost in a crash. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Bill. There is currently a rebuild of a Mosquito B.35 underway in Vancouver BC by a man named Bob Jen who already owns and flyis a Spitfire Mk XIV. The Mossie was operated commercially for aerial photography in the 1950s and '60s by a company called Spartan Air Service. Aeroplane Monthly magazine is following the rebuild. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:36:14 EDT From: Shirley Subject: JOHN WAYNE MOVIES There are VHS tapes available on Ebay of both movies. More of The High and the Mighty than of Island in the Sky. LTM Shirley 2299 *************************************************************************** From Ric Cool. The Black Market goes digital. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:45:09 EDT From: Tom Cook Subject: Typos & Slimy Arrogance To "Joe W3HNK A friendly suggestion, when you realize that you have just hit the "send" with a Typo in the message, send a followup message " sorry I goofed, I hit the 4 instead of the 5" and avoid sarcastic corrections from the "wannabe experts" who "come out from under their rocks then retreat without leaving a trace behind except their slimy arrogance" Wow is that me? To Wes Smith: My TIGHAR # is 2127 What's yours? With your thin skin, you'd best stay away from "isolated Islands", you might stub your toe on the rock that I'm hiding under!!! To Ric: "I'm the B 24/B 25 thing is just a typo" Is there something missing there? BTW thanks for the character endorsement. I did say in my original post that it was probably just a typo anyway! *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm probably the biggest typo offender on the forum. I regularly leave out words (as I did above) and reverse letters. I'm a lousy typist and I'm always in a huge hurry. I try to correct the mistakes of others before I post messages if I'm absolutely sure that it's simply a typo. We do asbestos we can. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:48:17 EDT From: Kelly Maddox Subject: One Last Doolittle Raider Detail Doolittle didn't have his 16 planes fly in the standard formation shown in the film, specifically because of this fuel shortage. Since the first planes to take off would waste fuel waiting around to form up with the last planes to take off, they just took off and headed for Tokyo in one long straggling single file line. They spotted each other here and there over the target areas, but were all completely separated by the time they crossed the Chinese coast in the dark. Almost all of them bailed out into the night as their planes ran low on fuel. One plane did belly into a rice patty, but were not captured, and 3 ditched off the Chinese Coast. Two crews WERE captured by the Japanese, but no one had a firefight with them. The only crew member to actually shoot his .45, did so the next morning when he shot a wild turkey for breakfast. The crew of the 16th plane found out during takeoff that they had a hole busted in the Plexiglas nose, probably from moving the planes around on deck. They shoved a jacket in it, but still the damage increased the drag, and caused them to burn their fuel at a higher rate. They diverted to Russia against orders because they felt there was no way they had enough gas to make the Chinese Coast. This was the one B-25 that didn't crash that night. The Russians interned the crew, thanked them for the new B-25, and fed them black bread and Vodka for about a year or so, then "let" them escape into Iran. Remember, Russia wasn't at war with Japan until the last week of the war. Doolittle wanted to land all his planes in Russia, which would have taken A LOT less fuel. He even offered to give them the planes, but the Russians wouldn't go for it. There. :) For what it's worth...since we seem to have decided to discuss EVERY detail PH got wrong. I'll go back to lurking now. Kelly **************************************************************************** From Ric Oh yeah.... and the sea wasn't calm when they took either. Far from it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:49:43 EDT From: Ric Subject: Typos << and the sea wasn't calm when they took either. >> See? I did it again! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:54:49 EDT From: Malcolm Andrews Subject: Re: Sal Volatile I though he was a Rebel without a Cause Malcolm Andrews ************************************************************************* From Salvatore Volatile Hey! Yous guys wanna knock it off? I understand you all have very nice families. It would be a real shame if anything were to... you know... happen. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:48:37 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: Typos & Slimy Arrogance For Tom Cook You are obviously proud of your Tighar dues and your sensitive nerves. Is this a forum or peer review? Wes Smith Tighar # None of your business . . . ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:52:55 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Nobody Else Noticed? > From Simon #2120 > I'm building an Electra also - (well sort of..... slowly). > Let's post some photos when they're done. My AE tribute is years away from even getting started, so don't anyone hold their breath waiting for pix! When the time comes, I'd like it to be authentic, so I'll be reviewing all the stuff about belly antennas, closed-up nav "window" in the back, proper worn colors for the last flight, etc. LTM, indeed! Marty #2359 ************************************************************************* From Ric Anyone seriously interested in building an accurate model of NR16020 should contact TIGHAR member Bill Harney in Massachusetts (I can provide an address by private email). Bill has spent years researching and building a metal model of the airplane with a six foot wingspan. It's nearing completion and the detail is phenomenal. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:57:12 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Old airplanes Ric said; "Old airplanes that are returned to service are not preserved. The act of making them safe to fly destroys them as historic aircraft while preserving the sight, sound, smell and experience of the flying them." Amen. During my days as a docent at the Smithsonian's NASM restoration and preservation facility in Silver Hill, Maryland, guests always asked the same question: "Can these airplanes fly." Ignoring that straight line, I always explained that the aircraft were NOT restored to flight-worthy status for a variety of reasons, primarily because the Smithsonian's charter forbids it. Nonetheless, I then pointed out that even if the aircraft were 100 percent accurately restored, few pilots would want to trust their lives to 40 year-old rubber/poly seals, 60 year-old hydraulic and electrical systems, or 80 year-old fabric coverings. LTM, who'll miss Silver Hill Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric The Smithsonian's preservation policies leave much to be desired - but that's a different topic. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:16:39 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Typos & Slimy Arrogance Wes Smith said to Tom Cook: You are obviously proud of your Tighar dues and your sensitive nerves. Is this a forum or peer review? Golly, Mr. Ric, our friend Wes seems a bit peevish today. Maybe a nice big smile and a friendly "Hello" would brighten his day. LTM, who adores Shirley Temple Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt > From Ric > > I'm probably the biggest typo offender on the forum. I regularly leave out > words (as I did above) and reverse letters. I'm a lousy typist and I'm > always in a huge hurry. I try to correct the mistakes of others before I > post messages if I'm absolutely sure that it's simply a typo. We do > asbestos we can. Of course if we all used our spell checkers..... (I'm sorry Ric, Just couldn't resist...) I have a spelling chequer - It came with my Pea See. It plane lee marks four my revue Miss steaks aye can knot sea. Eye ran this poem threw it, Your sure reel glad two no. Its vary polished in it's weigh, My chequer tolled me sew. A chequer is a bless sing, It freeze yew lodes of thyme. It helps me right awl stiles two reed, And aides me when aye rime. To rite with care is quite a feet Of witch won should be proud. And wee mussed dew the best wee can, Sew flaws are naught aloud. And now bee cause my spelling Is checked with such grate flare, Their are know faults with in my cite, Of nun eye am a wear. Each frays come posed up on my screen Eye trussed to bee a joule The chequer poured o'er every word To cheque sum spelling rule. That's why aye brake in two averse By righting wants too pleas. Sow now ewe sea why aye dew prays Such soft wear for pea seas Blatantly Stolen By..... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:24:01 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Mosquito accounting > From Ric > Thanks Bill. There is currently a rebuild of a Mosquito B.35 underway in > Vancouver BC by a man named Bob Jen who already owns and flyis a Spitfire > Mk XIV. The Mossie was operated commercially for aerial photography in > the 1950s and '60s by a company called Spartan Air Service. Aeroplane > Monthly magazine is following the rebuild. There are two very dramatic rebuilds going on in New Zealand and in Windsor, Ontario. The NZ guys have built a jig to construct new fuselages. They will build a non-flying fuse for the Windsor group and a flying fuse for their own. http://www.mossie.org/NZ2308.htm [DESPERATE STAB (pun intended) AT GETTING BACK ON TOPIC]: Of course TIGHAR will not attempt to rebuild AE's Flying Laboratory from the pieces found on the reef and in the lagoon. ;o) Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric Of course not, but crazier things have been done. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:37:34 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Great Exploration Hoaxes [DESPERATE EFFORT TO STAY ON TOPIC BEGINS HERE] The issue that the world will have to believe in TIGHAR's testimony about what the Niku team finds came up about two weeks ago. I argue that the Any Idiot Artifact (AIA) will not persuade all of the idiots of the world that the case has been settled because of any number of (virtually untestable) hypotheses that could be dreamed up to account for finding (or salting) Electra parts on Niku. I read a book last week entitled Great Exploration Hoaxes by David Roberts. The ten hoaxes are: 1. Sebastion Cabot and the Northwest Passage 2. The Shadow of LaSalle: Fr. Louis Hennepin 3. Defoe in Madagascar 4. The Tragedy of Abyssinian Bruce 5. Captain Adams Runs the Colorado 6. Dr. Cook and Mt. McKinley 7. Did Peary Reach the North Pole? (No.) 8. Admiral Byrd and the National Geographic Society 9. The Hardest Mountain in the World 10. Alone in the Atlantic All ten stories show how hard it is to obtain "proof" that something has or has not happened on expeditions. They also show how careful researchers can establish beyond ***REASONABLE*** doubt that the feats claimed by the hoaxers were false. Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric We got our first hard lesson on this subject in 1992 when we announced that we had solved the Earhart mystery with the shoe parts and airplane debris we had found on Niku. Nobody disputed that we had found the stuff where we said we found it, but what seemed to us like more-than-adequate verification of our basic hypothesis was clearly not sufficient to satisfy other Earhart researchers whose criticisms were duly reported by the media. Our own further research has eliminated or cast doubt upon some of our 1992 evidence, but new evidence has also come to light. We still think we're right. Of course, we're now hoping to find evidence much more convincing than anything we've had before but I have to wonder if Marty is right. <> LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:46:13 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Sal Volatile >Didn't Sal Volatile fight Rocky Marciano for the Welterweight title in 1954? No, No, No! Sal Volatile was a first cousin to that great shortstop, Sal Manella. ************************************************************************* (Yo, Vinnie. Dis is Sal. I got a job for ya.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:47:47 EDT From: Mark Donnel Subject: Mosquitos - Off-topic a little Know this is a little off-topic for the Amelia forum but I've been following the thread on Mosquito's with a bit of interest, think they're a marvellous plane. Interesting news re Mosquito's is that there's a group in New Zealand who are building new jigs and moulds for Mossies, using the original De Havilland drawings. Their intention is to be able to completely rebuild new airframes from these jigs/moulds. Not sure what they're intending doing for engines etc. If you're interested in a little more detail check out http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/articles/mosquito.htm I'd love to know what progress they've made since the article was written in 1996, anyone know anything? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:48:42 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Army on Saipan Ms. B, If the army had a problem in making their objectives in Saipan, and they did, it was not because of the foot soldier but because of the Leadership of General Smith who was releived of his command because of his failures on Saipan. That is factual history and not a vet's memory. It has nothing to do with the ability or willingness to fight of the army and the marines. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:54:34 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Army & Marines on Saipan Ric wrote: >If you were offended I'm sorry but I'd also suggest that you do a >little reading on the subject before repeating the 57 year-old >impressions of an 18 year old kid. A good place to start would be...'Howlin Mad v. the US Army'... written by Dr. Harry A. Gailey, a very detailed account of the invasion & ultimate capture/liberation of Saipan, profiling the enormous difficulty the US forces (Army/Navy/Marines) had in coordinating their overlapping command structures, exacerbated by an on-going feud between Marine commander Gen. Holland ('Howlin Mad') Smith (who had been designated as overall commander of all ground forces on Saipan, in spite of his previous lack of experience in commanding combat troops) & the US Army's 27th Infantry Division, personified in Gen. Ralph Smith (whom Gen. Holland Smith 'sacked' & replaced in the midst of the fighting), which engendered some very bitter feelings between the Marines & US Army. Though the Army units on Saipan failed to live up to Gen. Holland Smith's _own_ expectations, it appears, from Dr. Gailey's account, that much of the problem resulted from the confusion of dual command & differences in basic military tactics beween the Army & Marine staffs on Saipan, plus the difference in the type of terrain the two services encountered in their respective assigned areas, causing the US Army units to encounter more heavily entrenched pockets of resistance, slowing down their ability to advance at the speed expected by Gen. Holland Smith's timetable. The US Army units were never...'chased off the island'... by the Japanese, though they were often 'bogged-down' by heavier resistance, thus causing 'bulges' in the lines between Army & Marine units, which had to be 'plugged' from time to time by Marine units. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:36:01 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: The AIA Marty Moleski said: "I argue that the Any Idiot Artifact (AIA) will not persuade all of the idiots of the world . . ." True. But then we don't need to convince all of the idiots of the world, nor even some of the idiots of the world. We need only to convince ourselves and the scientific community. There is no tangible reward for solving this mystery other than the knowledge of solving the mystery. Or as a friend (who was hoping I might mend my ways :-) ) once told me: The reward for a life well lived is a life well lived. LTM, who mended her ways Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:41:30 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Army/Marines Ric: The Army and Marines have always been willing to fight - each other if no other enemy shows up. I think they call it inter-service rivalry. LTM - who abhors such behavior Dave Bush #2200 "All the way" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:29:29 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: TIGHAR B-17C Survey For those of you going on the June field trip to the B-17 crash site in California, you'll find a story and a couple of good photos on Don Jordan's web site. Makes a good "backgrounder" for the expedition. http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/ Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:39:21 EDT From: Ric Subject: Slow forum Do not adjust your set. The forum is a bit slow right now, but there is lots of activity going on behind the scenes as we prepare for a meeting next week in Reno, NV of the Niku IIII expedition team, followed immediately by the Aviation Archaeology and Historic Preservation Course, followed immediately by the B-17C Archeological Survey. I'm sure that once the dust settles and the bodies have been recovered the forum will be back to its usual self. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:00:27 EDT From: Ric Subject: False memories I thought you guys would get a kick out of this press release from the University of Washington passed along by TIGHAR archaeologist Tim Smith: 'I tawt I taw' a bunny wabbit at Disneyland: New evidence shows false memories can be created About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered or knew the event happened to them. The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn't be featured in any Walt Disney Co. property, according to University of Washington memory researchers Jacquie Pickrell and Elizabeth Loftus. Pickrell will make two presentations on the topic at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society (APS) on Sunday (June 17) in Toronto and at a satellite session of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition in Kingston, Ontario, on Wednesday. "The frightening thing about this study is that it suggests how easily a false memory can be created," said Pickrell, UW psychology doctoral student. "It's not only people who go to a therapist who might implant a false memory or those who witness an accident and whose memory can be distorted who can have a false memory. Memory is very vulnerable and malleable. People are not always aware of the choices they make. This study shows the power of subtle association changes on memory." The research is a follow-up to an unpublished study by Loftus, a UW psychology professor who is being honored by the APS this week with its William James Fellow Award for psychological research; Kathryn Braun, a visiting scholar at the Harvard Business School; and Rhiannon Ellis, a former UW undergraduate who is now a doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh. In the original study, 16 percent of the people exposed to a Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny later thought they had seen and met the cartoon rabbit. In the new research, Pickrell and Loftus divided 120 subjects into four groups. The subjects were told they were going to evaluate advertising copy, fill out several questionnaires and answer questions about a trip to Disneyland. The first group read a generic Disneyland ad that mentioned no cartoon characters. The second group read the same copy and was exposed to a 4-foot-tall cardboard figure of Bugs Bunny that was casually placed in the interview room. No mention was made of Bugs Bunny. The third, or Bugs group, read the fake Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny. The fourth, or double, exposure group read the fake add and also saw the cardboard rabbit. This time 30 percent of the people in the Bugs group later said they remembered or knew they had met Bugs Bunny when they visited Disneyland and 40 percent of the people in the double exposure group reported the same thing. "'Remember' means the people actually recall meeting and shaking hands with Bugs," explained Pickrell. "'Knowing' is they have no real memory, but are sure that it happened, just as they have no memory of having their umbilical cord being cut when they were born but know it happened. "Creating a false memory is a process. Someone saying, 'I know it could have happened,' is taking the first step of actually creating a memory. If you clearly believe you walked up to Bugs Bunny, you have a memory." In addition, Pickrell said there is the issue of the consequence of false memories or the ripple effects. People in the experiment who were exposed to the false advertising were more likely to relate Bugs Bunny to other things at Disneyland not suggested in the ad, such as seeing Bugs and Mickey Mouse together or seeing Bugs in the Main Street Electrical Parade. "We are interested in how people create their autobiographical references, or memory. Through this process they might be altering their own memories," she said. "Nostalgic advertising works in a similar manner. Hallmark, McDonald's and Disney have very effective nostalgic advertising that can change people's buying habits. You may not have had a great experience the last time you visited Disneyland or McDonald's, but the ads may be inadvertently be creating the impression that they had a wonderful time and leaving viewers with that memory. If ads can get people to believe they had an experience they never had, that is pretty powerful. "The bottom line of our study is that the phony ad is making the difference. Just casually reading a Bugs Bunny cartoon or some other incidental exposure doesn't mean you believe you met Bugs. The ad does." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:08:17 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: False memories > From Ric > I thought you guys would get a kick out of this press release from the > University of Washington passed along by TIGHAR archaeologist Tim Smith: Yes, I did get a kick out of it! Thanks for passing it on. > The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs Bunny is a > Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn't be featured in any Walt Disney > Co. property ... Notice that the study depends upon proof of a negative: if the researchers are not sure that BB never appeared at Disneyland, then the study is nonsense. ;o) "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Oh God, not again. ************************************************************************** From Mike Holt Thanks for this one, Ric. This topic became a favorite of mine when I set up a business for a woman who claimed to be a multiple personality (29 different persons). She was adopted, and I found her missing sister and her birth parent's names. Most of what she remembered was total fiction. > The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs Bunny is a > Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn't be featured in any Walt Disney > Co. property, according to University of Washington memory researchers > Jacquie Pickrell and Elizabeth Loftus. Pickrell will make two presentations > on the topic at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society > (APS) on Sunday (June 17) in Toronto and at a satellite session of the > Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition in Kingston, Ontario, on > Wednesday. I'm going to look for this one. Elizabeth Loftus is one of the guiding lights in the struggle against false memory planting. I think she was almost the first to write about it. > "The frightening thing about this study is that it suggests how easily a > false memory can be created," said Pickrell, UW psychology doctoral student. When I read "Lost Star," I wondered about this. McMenamy might be the first one to check for false memory but he's certainly not alone. After all this time and all this publicity all sorts of very vivid memories will begin to surface. I'm fairly certain that Betty may have developed some of the same memories, but she has her transcript; it's very difficult to write her off. > "Creating a false memory is a process. Someone saying, 'I know it could > have happened,' is taking the first step of actually creating a memory. If > you clearly believe you walked up to Bugs Bunny, you have a memory." This is what I saw in the multiple personalities I met. All it takes is some hint of what memory might get attention for them, and they'll create it in excrutiating detail. Oh, well. AIA suddenly sounds pretty good, doesn't it? LTM (who remembers the garden party with the Joe Stalin) Michael Holt **************************************************************************** From Ric We worked some with Dr. Loftus way back in the late '80s when were searching for The White Bird in Maine and were finding lots of anecdotal recollections but damn little else. It was the beginning of developing the historical investigation methodology that has become the cornerstone of the Earhart Project. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:10:01 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Lame movie lines There are lots of lame lines in "Pearl Harbor" but that one of Alec Doolittle was pure melodrama. The dumbest line to me was, "A P-40 can't outrun a Zero." The only American who actually KNEW that in 1941 was Claire Chennault, and no one was paying him any mind. Besides, the only correct line for Americans, when confronted with the A6M Zero-Sen in 1941, would have been "What th' HELL?" EVERYONE, but everyone, knew the Japanese were only supposed to be flying "junk." No one "knew" what a "Zero" was! Ah, so....! And did I hear a character describe Zeros as "Zekes" in one scene? Not sure, but I think so.... I will have to go see it again to be sure (actually the only reason to go see it again, is Kate Beckinsale... mmmmmm.) Actually there is one factual element to the line... a P-40 CAN'T outrun a Zero. Here's another thought.... To paraphrase something that actually pre-dates me (and let's hope I don't get sued over this): "Where has all the substance gone, Long time passing; From the Forum, where's it gone, Long time ago.... Where has all the substance gone? To Pearl Harbor, every one; When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?" 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:32:58 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Eleven Minute Gap With a slow forum, here is a puzzling alleged eleven minute gap regarding AE's final transmissions to Itasca as reported by two researchers. Carol Osborne and Don Dwiggins report that at 08:44 AE transmitted the "...line of position..." message and then eleven minutes later at 08:55 AE transmitted "... we are running north and south." (see Osborne's matrix p.290) All other researchers/authors report that the message contained both phrases at 08:44. Significance. At 08:44, AE said she was switching to 6210, and thus her 08:55 transmission most likely came in on 6210. This would mean that her radio was working quite well after the "last". Thus the switch didn't affect her transmission ability. . (The 6210 worked quite well from Lae out some 800 miles. If so skip zones shouldn't come into play ). Now it is possible that the the "north and south" entry was entered later when Thompson, Bellarts, et all got together to piece together an accurate transcription.The log is ambiguous and certainly permits an interpretation of an added signal inside the parents (?...": KHAQQ TO ITASCA WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337 XX WL REPT MSG WE WL REPT THIS ON 6210 KCS WAIT, 3105/A3 S5 [ The signal strength should be the last typed word) Then comes the questioned entry:(?/KHAQQ XMISSION WE ARE RUNNING ON XX N ES S LINE. All typed in/over "43" in the margin. Everthing in the parens, above, could have been inserted after the "S5" sometime later when the log was being reconstructed. There was room on the time "43" line after the S5 to add that and as a result the "on N ES S Line" appears in the time margin after the vertical line. The 'LSNIN 6210 KCS" / KHAQQ DE NRUI HRD U OK ON 3105 KCS ,7500" appears on time line 44-46. It is a separate entry and of course Itasca was going to listen on 6210 as that is the frequency AE said she was switching to. If there was a eleven min gap between the 08:44 and the 08:55 transmission on the 6210, the radio working capability changes. The next 3-4 hour absence of broadcasting is more inexplicable. The main problem is that only Dwiggins and Osborne,who do not offer a source or cite, report this gap. Rollin Reineck also postulates that AE broadcast for a short time after the alleged last at 08:44 based on an official memorandum. I'm sure the forum would have some thoughts on this "rosemary" gap. Have you or anyone else heard of " two " separate broadcasts?? Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric I have no idea where Osborne got her "matrix" and anything Dwiggins got probably came from Mantz. None of those people was aboard the Itasca. You are, of course, correct that Bellart's original log could have been altered later, but if it was, somebody managed to get the platen precisely aligned with the rest of the line - a very difficult thing to do and not done in other known alterations to the log. It's clear from the Bellart's log that the "we are running..." phrase was heard after the operator thought that the message had ended and had typed in the frequency and signal strength notations. I see no reason to think that the delay was 11 minutes rather than more like 11 seconds. If it came in 11 minutes later it must be the case that neither Galten nor O'Hare entered it in their logs at the time it was heard but that it was later added to Galten's log but not to O'Hare's. Just doesn't make any sense. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:33:41 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Slow forum Well--I for one am glad that you 'splained it to us... Jim Tierney ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:51:54 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Eleven Minute Gap II You have some excellent points relating to the alleged two transmissions, one at 08:44 and the "last" at 08:55. Your observation that the "...running north and south.." that follows the signal strength notation at 08:44 appears to be pefectly aligned seems to refute the two separate transmissions. My copy of the original does not look like it was reentered. The entry though is puzzling as it is enclosed in parens, with a (?). Why would you do that if you heard it right? Dwiggins indeed got all of his information from Paul Mantz as written in "Hollywood Pilot", and we know that Mantz contined to dig for information concerning AE's last hours. Namely his letter to Mrs. FDR about the Coast Guard search. Where Mantz got his information about the 08:55 transmission is unknown and not cited. Galten was maintaining the primary log and entered the 08:44 transmission and most likely the "...north and south..." transmission. My O'hara log runs out at 0757, so I'm not sure he wrote anything thereafter. And adding a bit more mystery to the log entry at 08:44-46 is Capt Thompson. In his report to the San Francisco Coast Guard re the radio transmissions he adds in parenthesis: (Other persons in radio room heard this transmission the same). He then adds the "We are running north and south". Question is what transmission did the "other persons" hear? The running north/south or the "Wait Listening on 6210 KCS". Note: Thompson said this transmission (inference just one) came on 3105 by voice a S5, and nothing heard on 6210. As you can see I'm not advocating there were two transmission, agreeing with your analysis, but where in the world do such distinct reports come from? I have emailed Osborne for her source of the matrix. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Look at the log. Earhart's 08:43 transmission caught these guys totally by surprise. Remember that these log entries are being made in real time so when, for example, the number "44" is typed at the end of a line, the event described on that line must have happened before or exactly at 44 minutes past the hour. Look at the log and take out the later overstrikes that "correct" the times. - From 08:34 to 08:41 Galten is calling Earhart on 3105 but his calls are unanswered. - At "44" Galten is "Listening 3105" but hears "nil". At that same moment "CRM" (Chief Radio Man Bellarts) is "tuning up the T-16 (transmitter) for transmission to NMC (San Francisco). - The next entry is "NMC this is NRUI (Itasca), 12600 (the frequency), Unanswered" and the time notation is "45-". That little "-" is significant because normally it would be followed by the another number to bracket the time of the attempted transmission, but the entry is never completed. Instead, the "44" time notation is overstruck with two "X"s and "42" is typed in. The "45" is overstruck with two "X"s and "43" is typed in. then below that is added: "KHAQQ to Itasca we are on the line.....etc. ... 3105/A3 S5" The time noted for this entry is "43". The "(?/KHAQQ transmission We are running..." entry is tacked on and the "43" is xed out and another "43" is typed in. It's a mess. The next entry is: "Listening on 6210, KHAQQ from NRUI, heard you ok on 3105, sent on 7500 Kcs" and the time "44-6" As far as I can see, there is only one way that the log can end up looking the way it does. It must have gone something like this: Having bought O'Hare's claim that he heard Earhart say "half hour gas left" at 07:42, by 08:42 with no further word everybody thinks that the plane is down in the water. Bellarts begins tuning up the tranmsitter to call Coast Guard headquarters in San Francisco to tell them that Earhart is down and the ship is going to go looking for her. At about 08:42 Galten notes that he is still listening on 3105. Before he completes that line Bellarts arrives in the radio room with orders from the captain to contact San Francsico. Galten notes down that Bellarts is tuning up the T-16 and logs the time at 08:44. At 08:45 he makes the first call to San Francisco but gets no reply. He types "45-" and at that moment somebody says something like, "Bill! Did you get that?" Galten - "Get what?" "Earhart! She was just back on!" Galten - "When?" "Couple of minutes ago!" Galten - "What did she say? I was trying to raise NMC." "I heard it clearly. She said, 'KHAQQ to Itasca, we are on the line 157 337. We will repeat message. Will repeat this on 6210 Kcs, wait.' Galten - "Okay, about two minutes ago? That would be 08:43. I'll have to change some of these times." He juggles the times to keep it looking chronological and makes the entry. Somebody else - "Yeah, I heard it too. She also said something about "running on line north and south." Galten - "That was part of that same 08:43 transmission?" "Yeah, I can't believe you didn't here it." Galten - "I told you, I was trying to raise San Francisco. I'll add in the bit about running on line but I'm going to put a question mark on it because you don't seem sure about exactly what she said." It looks to me like none of the three radio operators heard the 08:43 transmission. The receiver that was tuned to 3105 was going out over the speakers in the radio room and on the bridge. Galten probably missed the 08:43 transmission because he had put on his headphones to try to contact San Francisco. O'Hare, across the radio room from Galten, totally missed the 08:43 transmission and never does make any mention of the switch to 6210, but it was not his job to listen for Earhart and he may have been listening for incoming administrative messages on headphones on another frequency. Cipriani on Howland missed it because, by then, his batteries were down and he was out of business. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:52:38 EDT From: Dave Carter Subject: Re: False memories Just to add some fun fuel to the fire... A favorite prank of mine in college, and some of my buddies, was to remind fellow partiers of the RCA Victrola and Dog (Nipper?) on the cover of the Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album... Everyone "remembered" it, but the fun really started when we watched their faces when presented with the album cover for their review... It might have been the original "deer in the headlights" look... Stronger association for "WE MUST BE ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE U"? Trying vainly to stay on topic.... Dave Carter P.S. I'm sure I didn't invent this and I'm sure it was played on me... just a fun remembrance... I would never claim it as my own invention... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:56:32 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: old radials keep going round and round As long as were straying out of subject, and since the forum is such an international group.... I was watching the older fire bombers hammering out of Albuquerque the last week, amazed that variety and types of old radial engine aircraft still in use, what appears to DC6 varants, perhaps a DC7C, P2V Neptune's, and a PB4Y Privateer. I'm wondering, do they still have any radial engine aircraft still working the fire lines, or what sort of airborne delivery, do they use on forest fires in other parts of the world? Eya later Bill Zorn ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:57:25 EDT From: Herman Subject: Re: False memories Now wait a minute ! If Bugs Bunny isn't a Disney figure and never was in Disney Land/World, who was that rabbit I shook hands with when visiting Disney World? From Herman (who suddenly has a lot of questions) ************************************************************************* From Ric Secretary Morgenthau. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:44:21 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: False memories of "Pearl harbor?" My favorite line from PH was during the Cuba Gooding character's boxing match when one of his shipmates clearly yelled, "You da man!" I've always wondered where that expressed originated. :-) Or was that a false memory? Hmm? LTM, who remembers Pearl Harbor Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:47:30 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: False memories > Secretary Morgenthau. Impossible. Secretary Morgenthau was on the Akagi at the time, directing the recovery mission, in his role as a Mitsubishi "purchasing" agent. Unless, of course, you met the rabbit in the eleven-minute gap. Speaking of the gap, Ric, your dialogue is excellent. I'm glad AE and FN didn't know that sort of thing might have been going on. Where was the Electra, when it might have passed near the Itasca, in relation to the sun? Mike Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, the Electra was approaching pretty much from the west and the it was morning and the sun usually rises pretty much in the east so Earhart and Noonan would have been looking toward the sun. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:53:58 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Eleven Minute Gap II The real question is where did 0855 come from? It came from one of the radiotelegrams from the Itasca that day or the next day. I don't have access to my detailed logs right now, but someone mistakenly said AE's last transmission came at 0855. A typo perhaps, when the intention was 0844? I dunno. But that is the first report of an 0855 radio message from AE: a few hours to a day after the fact. All contemporaneous documentation shows the last message at 0843-45. ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure those guys would be shocked to know that 64 years later people would be analyzing every word in every message. ************************************************************************** Ric, I like your "real time" analysis and conclusions that the typing of the log ended up being a "real mess". Point here is those last transmissions are pretty rough approximations. According to Cam Warren, Osborne said her matrix showing the last transmission at 08:55 was in "error". I guess even books can make mistakes! Only Dwiggins is left with the 08:55 record. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************* From Ric That's always the problem with unfootnoted secondary sources. Somebody makes a mistake and everybody wonders if maybe they know something no one else does. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:12:55 EDT From: Troy Subject: No Subject Herman, I think his name was Harvey. It just might explain why only some people recall seeing him..... LTM (Ain't it a Wonderful Life?) -troy- **************************************************************************** From Patrick Gaston In April 1994, on a visit to Disney World in Florida, I was surprised to come upon a shop selling Warner Bros./Looney Tunes merchandise. It was tucked into an obscure corner of the "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" exhibit. I asked the guy behind the counter howcum. He explained that a promotional tie-in agreement executed in connection with "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" allowed the Looney Tunes folk to have one (1) shop in the Disney park. He didn't seem too happy about it, either. If you recall, WFRR was the only film (up to then, at least) in which Warner and Disney characters appeared together. Who can forget the piano duet between Daffy and Donald Duck, ending with Daffy's classic line: "That'th the latht time I appear with a duck with a thpeech impediment!" Or wordth to that effect. Lest Ms. Pickrell and Prof. Loftus think this is a false memory, I still have the Elmer Fudd T-shirt I bought that day. At Disney World. Th-th-th-that's all, folks. Pat Gaston **************************************************************************** From Jim Pearson I wonder if the people who conducted the test on false memory bothered to ask their subjects if they could tell the difference between Bugs Bunny, a Warner Brothers character, and Roger Rabbit, a Walt Disney character ? If they didnt the test proves nothing. People can be honestly mistaken in their perceptions. Every rabbit is not Bugs Bunny. Every thing that looks like an Electra is not Amelia Earharts plane--as in the Thomas Devine story and the "Lost Star" photograph. This is why it is neccessary to count production runs on Japanese transport planes ! Thats All Folks ! Jim Pearson # 2422 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:16:30 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: radials Bill Zorn asked: > I'm wondering, do they still have any radial engine aircraft still working > the fire lines, or what sort of airborne delivery, do they use on forest > fires in other parts of the world? There are a couple of companies that specialize in forest fire bombing using exactly the aircraft you just described, including an ex-air force C-97 that has been converted to fire bomber with a 50,000 gallon fire retardant chemical tank. It's one of the few jobs left that large piston engine aircraft can still perform at a competitive cost. That may be changing as well though as I read about a Lockheed Electra(the turboprop-not AE's ship) had been modified to fire bomber status. The old radial engine aircraft are great planes but they are also maintanence pigs. Turbine fuel is cheaper than avgas which will probably be history in around 10 years or so. I flew a DC-3 and DC-6 years ago and had a blast doing it. It's crying shame that the fuel situation may ground these airplanes eventually. Doug Brutlag **************************************************************************** From Herman (#2406) Most other countries operate twin engine Canadair CL215 amphibians or their turboporp variant CL415. This aircraft of Canadian design is the sole purpose built water bomber. The CL215 carries a load of 5,000+ tonnes of water that can be scooped from lakes during a touch and go. The original CL215 was powered by two Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radials and the type is operated by the Civil Defense departments of Canada, France, Spain, Italy, Greece (former) Yugoslavia, Thailand and Venezuelan. Some countries have replaced them by the more powerful CL215T or CL415 with bigger water tanks. They can drop 6,000+ tonnes through four doors. With avgas becoming exorbitantly expensive worldwide (the US has the cheapest gas in the world, while he rest of us pay some $ 5.3 a gallon) a cheaper to run and more powerful turboprop conversion CL215T was offered in 1989,having two 2.380 shp Pratt & Whitney of Canada PC123AF engines. First conversions went to Spain in 1991, followed by Quebec. Production changed to this CL215T variant. When production of the radial engined CL215 ended in October 1991, al newly built CL215T became CL415. While some CL215 are still in service Europe, others are in the process of being converted to the CL215T standard and France was launching customer for the CL415. When you see them flying CL215T and CL415 differ from the radial engined CL215 in having more powerful turboprop engines that seem to sit on top of the wings, have upturned winglets for better aerodynamic performance and additional tail fins for better lateral stability. BTW, when I was much younger I visited the original prototype CL215 then under construction at the Canadair plant near Montreal in September 1966. First flight was one year later in October 1967. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:18:56 EDT From: Jim Harsh Subject: Did anyone ever retrieve a Doolittle B-25? A few years ago there was some discussion about Tighar surveying the wreckage of one the Doolittle B-25s. I think the interest stopped when it was discovered that another group was pursuing recovery. Did anything further come out of it? LTM (who saw Pearl Harbor and knows where the wreckage is) J M Harsh TIGHAR #0638C **************************************************************************** From Ric As I recall, they never found the wreckage but collected a couple of souvenirs that some local people had saved since 1942. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:20:27 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: LOP speculation I was looking over and thinking again about what you've called the "navigational logic" of the LOP, and what others have called the "Phoenix Islands catcher's mitt." This is obviously speculation on my part, as it is a "would've, could've, should've" scenario, but here goes: You reach the LOP, and Howland isn't there. Absent any assistance from Howland/Itasca, the ONLY reason to turn left on the LOP is if land is in sight in that direction. Even IF Howland is that way, it's the ONLY thing that way besides a whole lotta water. However, Howland MIGHT be the other way, and even if it isn't, a bunch more islands ARE. You've used up 20 of your 24 hours of gas, you're in a land based airplane, and there's no land in sight. There MIGHT be one tiny speck of an island north of you, but there's FOR SURE several larger islands south of you, possibly including the one you're looking for. Admittedly, I'm not a pilot or a navigator, and even most of the conspiracy theories are older than I am, but given that situation, I'm gonna do an immediate right turn onto the LOP every time. Targets Up. You may fire when ready. LTM, who hates left turns Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:25:31 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: satellite pix The satellite image is fantastic. Thanks a million- er, ah, a hundred anyway. One question: I've gotten the impression from you guys on the Niku Crew that the Norwich City has been reduced to discorporated debris, but right there where it should be in the satellite image, just north of the main lagoon passage "funnel," there is a clearly discernable tic mark at the reef edge. What gives? LTM, who, when asked what man-made object is visible from space, replied, "the wreck of the Norwich City." Dave Porter, 2288 *************************************************************************** From Ric Although she looks a lot less like a ship than she used to, the Norwich City still exhibits a ship-like shape from overhead. The keel and surrounding structure is still there and her magnificent triple-expansion steam engine still towers above the reef. This month's TIGHAR Tracks (to be mailed this week) has a couple of photos of the NC wreckage. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:28:09 EDT From: Tom Byers Subject: Experiment Proposal It might be interesting to try to duplicate the radio equipment that Earhart and the Itasca were using and obtain signal strengh readings around Howland Island. Perhaps this might provide some additional insight to where she might have been at the time of her radio transmissions. Indeed as a start setting up the equipment at Howland Island wouldn't be necessary. I would suggest finding a similar location, Hawaii? west coast? and checking signal strength readings from different approaches and distances. Tom Byers *************************************************************************** From Ric I think our radio gurus would agree that it would be impossible to set up a meaningful duplication of the radio situation on July 2, 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:45:48 EDT From: Michael Hyman Subject: Earhart heard fone Last week I applied for membership in TIGHAR. I hope you will act upon my request favorably. Like Mr. Katz of the forum, I too, became interested in the AE&FN story through the work of Mr. Goerner in the 1960's. As a teenager in the 60's, late June and early July meant two things, summer vacation from school and just maybe, some new information on the AE and FN mystery. I have spent some time reviewing the forum, and I must admit you are correct. All of the TIGHAR projects do indeed teach how to better understand the scientific method. My daughter, however, thinks I am an "Amelia Airhead" because I spend so much time reading about AE&FN. I have read and reread the "Log Jam" posting on the web site and I have one nagging question. Does the Leo Bellarts original log prove that AE did indeed hear the Itasca broadcast on frequency 3105 Kc.? I call your attention to the three entries at 2:45, 3:45 and 4:53 Am on that fateful day. The first and third of these three entries both say "Heard Earhart". To me those two entries clearly state that Itasca heard Earhart. But it is the middle message at 3:45 Am that tasks me. The log says, "Earhart heard fone". To me, that means AE said she heard Itasca. Then the log goes on to talk about how she will "Lisson on hour and half on 3105". The end of the message reads "Sez she" to give extra emphasis to the point that this is AE talking. What does this mean to the Niku hypothesis? Is it possible that enough antennae existed to allow AE to hear Itasca prior to 3:45 Am? What was the last Itasca broadcast on 3105 Kc prior to 3:45 Am? Is this why she waited until almost 9:00 AM to abandon 3105 Kc., which was a night time frequency when it was clearly daylight for several hours? Could the fact that AE knew that she was able to communicate with USCGC Itasca convince her that she should run down the LOP until she reestablished communications with Itasca and then formulate a strategy to find a place on the LOP to land? Absent further communications from Itasca could she have just let the LOP guide her to Niku where she landed and tried to communicate with anyone who was listening?. LTM, Who now spends eternity with her two girls. Michael Hyman **************************************************************************** From Ric <> I think it means "Earhart (was) heard (on) fone." and the rest of the entry merely says what she said ("sez she"). Later, at 07:42, she quite specifically says "...beeen unable to reach you by radio...". <> They sent the weather on fone at 3:35 but Earhart had said that she would only be listening for messages on the hour and half hour. At 3:35 she shouldn't have even had her earphones on. At 3:30 they had sent the weather in code on 7500. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:49:49 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: LOP speculation Actually, Dave, there's a nice piece of land dead ahead if you turn left along the LOP and you're north of Howland. It's the Kamchatka Peninsula. It'd take awhile to get there, though. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:55:05 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Off topic -- Round engines Doug Brutlag said: "There are a couple of companies that specialize in forest fire bombing using exactly the aircraft you just described, including an ex-air force C-97 . . ." Who are the guys flying the Martin "Mars" flying boats? If memory serves, Martin built only four (?) of these in the late 40s and two are still soldiering on with fire-fighting companies in the Northwest. Didn't these beasts have P&W R-4360s, churning out something like 3,500hp each? That's 15,000hp. Those dudes can haul some freight! LTM, who loves round engines Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:36:01 EDT From: Bruce A. Yoho Subject: Re: Experiment Proposal For those interested; Article from World Radio. Baker and Howland Islands (KH1) Raymond Rodriguez Diaz, YS1RR, Announces that the same team that activated Conway Reef has planned a DXpedition to Baker and Howland Islands (OC-089) during the months of September and October 2001. with an Alternative schedule for the months of February and March 2002. The leader of this DXpedition will be Hrane, YT1AD. More details and plans coming soon. Raymond's e-mail address is ys1rr@navegante.com.sv or ys1rr@arrl.net. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:31:37 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Off topic -- Round engines I recall reading about what is probably the only surviving Mars left, located in Vancouver BC. It is used as a fire bomber( I think) but it's days were numbered due to high operation & maintanence costs as well as spares availability. Not to nitpick but I recall 4 Curtis-Wrights, not P &W corncobs-nickname for the R-4360 28 cylinder banger. By the way I must correct a typo in my posting about the chemical tank on the C-97 fire bomber. It has a 50,000 POUND tank-not 50,000 gallons as previous posted. Oops & apologies. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************** From Marty Moleski Not freight--foam. They mix it on board after scooping up about a ton of water per second for about 25 seconds. When dropped, it can discourage fire over a four-acre area. They can make about four scoops and drops every hour. Urban legends to the contrary, they have never scooped up a scuba diver. http://www.martinmars.com/ Marty #2359 ****************************************************************** From Ric The thread is dead. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:34:12 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Left Turn on the LOP To Ric and Dave Porter, Probably every pilot would look at the situation proposed by Dave that when AE and FN reached the LOP with no island in sight the obvious decision would be to turn right (south) to insure landfall. Keep in mind that AE and FN really wanted to find Howland because the whole mission is lost if they don't land on Howland. If they were south of Howland they are nearer to alternate landing options then if they are north of Howland. Thus if they turn north for 15 minutes they may just find Howland. If not they can there turn south and still be in range of islands if they were, in fact, south of Howland all along. After 15 minutes (make that 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes or what every they think their fuel allows) they turn south. If they were north of Howland all this time then it should appear as they continue to the south. If they were south all the time they still should have sufficient fuel to reach one of the islands in that direction. Thus, I think the most likely thing that happened was a short flight to the north and then a long flight to the south until some island appears. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:39:17 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: False memories Herman wrote: "Now wait a minute! If Bugs Bunny isn't a Disney figure and never was in Disney Land/World, who was that rabbit I shook hands with when visiting Disney World?" Herman, that was Roger Rabbit, who (to the uninitiated) could indeed be confused with Bugs Bunny, and who >did< ride in the Main Street Electrical Parade with Mickey & Co. (Roger actually was drawn in the Tex Avery style, which was closer to Warner than to Disney.) I was at Disneyland just two weeks ago, and Roger is still featured prominently in what is now called the "Parade of Stars." All of which just goes to prove the value of the peer-review process. The good perfessers seem to have started from the mistaken premise that no one could possibly have seen a cartoon rabbit at a Disney park, hence all such memories had to be "false." In fact, many of these recollections probably stemmed from encounters with Roger or another Disney character, Bre'r Rabbit. Non-Toonheads commonly refer to any cartoon rabbit as "Bugs Bunny," but that doesn't mean the entire memory was false -- more likely a case of mistaken identity. Methinks the profs need to go back to the drawing board. LTM (who admits to being a little harebrained) Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:42:25 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Doolittle B-25 recovery? Is this a folse memory...? Do I recall from Ted Lawson's book, "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" (NOT from the film) that the Japs recovered part of his plane, "The Ruptured Duck" and exhibited it in Japan? If not from this book, where do I remember hearing this? LTM (who sometimes suffers from CRS) and 73 Mike E. **************************************************************** From Ric I have no information on this. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:43:44 EDT From: Argon Subject: Re: Did anyone ever retrieve a Doolittle B-25? If anybody ever does retrieve a chuck of one of the aircraft, Tom Griffin -- the navigator on what I think was the #8 plane -- lives about four doors away from me. Neat guy. He deserves a souvenir. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:53:28 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: News from the Linnix in Kiribati "Linnix" is the local name for the LINe and phoeNIX islands. Also the name of a Ministry. I just came back from 3 weeks on Xmas Is. Things are just beginning a dramatic change there: NASDA, the Japanase "NASA", has started on the construction of a very big, deep water wharf on the ocean side. Starting in October they'll use it to land equipment etc, to start the conversion of an old airstrip at the far end of the island, to make it useable to land the Japanese robotic space shuttle -it is unmanned. The project is called "Hope-X". The first phase calls for launching in Japan, with only the landing taking place in Xmas... Long term plans had been to make Xmas into a full-fledge space port, with the launching capabilities as well. Now that NASDA is commited with phase one, chances are that the island will eventually see billion dollars construction projects... Some people hope that the deep water wharf will entice a main container-ship line to stop at the island again: that means quick affordable imports from North America's West Coast, instead of Australian imports which have to be transhipped in Tarawa... Now for a bit of scoop a little less off-topic: a couple of sources have mentionned that a sort of "mini P.I.S.S." recently got underway. No full time setlers, just contract workers; they go to the southern Phoenix for harvesting beche de mer, seaweed, cut copra, etc... Apparently the patrol boat of the Kiribati Navy supports them. I could not get specific details for Niku... The whole thing seems to be run from Tarawa, for workers from the Gilberts. How does this affect Tighar? Possibly, some manpower could be hired to cut lines in the bush? In Xmas, scuba gear is sometime used for collecting the sea-cucumbers, so there is a possibility one could hire local divers in Niku to help explore the reef-edge canyons??? Or hire help to set up an addition to the Kiribati Camp, in order to get a land-based Tighar camp for a few months???? That's all the news... People are still migrating to Xmas from the Gilberts; Xmas Is gives the feeling that it is the place where things are happening in Kiribati... Cheers. Christian D. ***************************************************************** From Ric I'm familar with the "mini P.I.S.S." operation. Seventy couples were recruited to work on Orona (Hull) for $AU25/week for a contract period of one year. They have to agree to not have any kids while they're there. The first group went out early this year but got sick from eating toxic fish. If the experiment on Orona goes well, they may expand to Manra (Sydney), but there are no plans to set up an arrangement like this on Niku. The cost of transporting workers to and from Niku would more than offset any benefit of hiring workers from Orona. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:55:34 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Doolittle's B-25s Ric and Jim Harsh, We, TIGHAR, were involved in the Doolittle B-25 research about 15 years ago. I think I acted as the point man on that project. There was one B-25 that ditched just off the coast and was considerd as a possible recovery airplane. Its location was known and it sank in relatively shallow water fully intact. There was a group in Eugene, Oregon working on the project as well and I met with them to see if we might coordinate an effort. There were several problems and I got the strong impression that they really didn't want our participation. At the time they were already in touch with our government people and the Government representatives from China in Washington, DC. The biggest problem was the fact that the landing site was close to one of China's large naval bases and inside that military area. I don't think any one ever got permission to get into the area. I think we also concluded that due to the nearness to the shore and the shollow water that the airplane would have probably been destroyed by storm action over the 50 plus years. For the 50th annaverary of the raid on Tokyo some limited edition prints were made of a painting of two of the B-25s flying low over the water enroute to Tokyo. These prints were signed by Jimmy Doolittle, his co-pilot, navigator, the president of the Doolittle Raider's Association and the artist. A 3/4 inch by 1 1/2 inch piece of aluminum recovered from one of the crashed airplanes in China was attached to each print. I was fortunate enough to find one of the prints at an auction about ten years ago so it hangs proudly on my wall in the reception room of my hangar at the Yakima Airport. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:38:22 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Doolittle B-25 Tell Argon & Tom Griggin, et al, that he and the rest of the men who served in WWII deserve a LOT more than a souvenir. They have my eternal thanks. Yours, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:41:17 EDT From: Dave Subject: Re: old radials keep going round and round On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Bill Zorn wrote: > As long as were straying out of subject, and since the forum is such an > international group.... Yup! Canada here! > a PB4Y Privateer. I recall seeing one of these ferry through Whitehorse, Yukon Territory (near Alaska) in the summer of 1995. What a sight and sound as it took off! Nice to know that at least one of them is still flying. > I'm wondering, do they still have any radial engine aircraft still working > the fire lines, or what sort of airborne delivery, do they use on forest > fires in other parts of the world? Well, aside from the many purpose-built Canadian CL-215s operating around the world, and using radial engines, there is a fleet of Douglas A-26 Invaders that are based in Red Deer, Alberta, which is half way between the cities of Calgary and Edmonton. You can read a little about these aircraft at: www.airspray.com Among the more unusual aircraft in their fleet is an F-86 which is used for target towing for the military, yet it still has civil registration! Radial engines were at least somewhat on topic, right? Take care, David :-) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:46:02 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: conspiracy? aliens? Ok, after intensive research I've discovered what happened to Charles Kingsford Smith. I wonder if Amelia and Fred are somewhere similar.... http://www.historysmiths.com.au/CentFedPlayKit/Docs/Starter%20script.htm Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************** From Ric (It's the script of a play about aliens and Smith as "time traveler.") ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:55:43 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Old Airplanes with Round Engines About a year ago, at Moses Lake, Washington, there was an auction of a large inventory of PBYs and spares including about 100 engines in containers. If I recall correctly there were five BBYs sold three or four were flyable. There were several different engine models in this lot and they were in various conditions from new to run out. All of this, except the flyable airplanes, were in storage at Ephrta, Washinton. I think quite a bit of the items were purchaded by a Canadian firm to be used in Northern Canada. There was also a flyable B-23, reported to be the only one remaining in original configuration. No one bid the minimum for the B-23 so it may still be in a hangar at Grant County Airport at Moses Lake. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:56:25 EDT From: Lee Subject: Re: old radials keep going round and round They still use S-2 round engine aircraft in southern Calif. for fire fighting. Lee Gaffrey, Encinitas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:57:55 EDT From: K Maddox Subject: Doolittle B-25 > If not from this book, where do I remember hearing this? It is from the Epilogue of Lawson's book "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo". He says he "heard" that that is what happened to his "Duck". But the war was still on when he wrote this, so it may or may not be true. The Japanese would have had to recover it from the surf, about fifty yards from the beach. Lawson mentions that at low tide, the B-25's tail boom was visible above water. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:05:13 EDT From: Ric Subject: Forum schedule I'm in Reno for our Niku IIII team meeting today (Fri) and tomorrow. I'll get the forum postings up as usual. Next week, however, I'll be up in the back country teaching the aviation archaeology course and running the survey of the B-17C wreck. I may or may not be able to get on line Monday and Tuesday to do the forum. I definitely won't be able to get on line when we're in the field Wednesday and Thursday, and I may not have time on Friday. Thanks for your patience. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 10:21:36 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Left Turn on the LOP > Probably every pilot would look at the situation proposed by Dave that > when AE and FN reached the LOP with no island in sight the obvious decision > would be to turn right (south) to insure landfall. Dick, I think almost every pilot or non-pilot could come to the same rationalization if they were all equally aware of the known facts. I think your scenario is unclear, however. It seems to imply they may have turned right as soon as they got to where they thought Howland was and didn't see it. I don't think you meant that. Don't lose sight of the fact they were there in the vicinity of Howland for about an hour before they ended up doing whatever they did. They said they "....must be on you...." at 7:42 and at 7:58 they "....are circling..." and at 8:43 they report "....on the line 157 337...." They already had their LOP and had computed a ground speed and moved the LOP to where they believed it would run through Howland considerably before they arrived at the 7:42 position because they were now down to 1,000' and could not do celestial there. The LOP could have been obtained from a moon fix much earlier than a sun line and both would have produced the same LOP. Go to the USN observatory web page if you wish to verify that. Of course it also could have been a sun line but it makes no significant difference. Now consider that Noonan at least thought he knew where he was. At 7:42 he believed he was at or close to Howland where he thought it was plotted. Keep in mind we don't know if FN had the correct coordinates for Howland or the erroneous 5 mile off coordinates. In any case whatever AE did in that hour FN had to keep track of and plot their position constantly or they would truly have been lost until he could climb to a suitable altitude and obtain another fix. It is therefore unlikely AE "circled" as it would have been hard to plot. More than likely they would have set up a race track like a normal holding pattern to use a methodical search pattern. I can think of no other possibility other than foolishly flying aimlessly about. They would have flown this pattern around the plotted position of where they thought Howland was. Where else? After an hour I assume they believed they had covered the area sufficiently to accept they weren't going to find Howland and they would have either departed SE for the Phoenix group as being the only reachable land or decided to keep searching until they ran out of gas and ditched. The latter choice seems foolish given no radio contact and having already made that search. If you or anyone else sees a fallacy in this reasoning AND a reasonable alternative plan let me know. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:52:23 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Left Turn on LOP To Alan Caldwell, >Probably every pilot would look at the situation proposed by Dave that when >AE and FN reached the LOP with no island in sight the obvious decision would >be to turn right (south) to insure landfall. Alan, you are right. I intended to insert the word "eventually" to make the above statement read ... to eventually turn right (south) to insure landfall. As indicated by Amelia's transmissions she appears to have spent some time looking for Howland prior to heading off to the south. My point being that it would be very unexpected for them to give up looking for Howland, knowing that to do so was to lose all they were trying to accomplish, without taking as much time as their fuel situation would allow. If our estimates on fuel remaining, as determined by Kelly Johnsons calculations, are true they should have had sufficient fuel for some searching in the area where they thought the island should be found before leaving for an alternate. We, as pilots, might all take a slightly different approach to searching for Howland based on our pilot training and backgrounds but I can't see any pilot giving up on looking for Howland provided there was sufficient fuel to make the effort possible. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:56:44 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: flying SE on the LOP >If you or anyone else sees a fallacy in this reasoning AND a >reasonable alternative plan let me know. >Alan >#2329... The most obvious question about...'flying SE on the LOP to the Phoenix Island Chain'..., is still...how could they expect to located & rescued, before exhausting their limited supply of fresh water &/or food supplies, on an eqitorial island? Assuming that flying SE on the LOP, that FN had established, (even though Howland Island had failed to appear on the horizon when FN's chronometers said the LOP should have been intersecting with Howland) _was_ the most 'reasonable' alternative plan... futher assuming that whatever AE/FN had been able to determine remained of their fuel reserve, would be just sufficient to reach the _only_ landfall within that fuel range...the Phoenix Islands..., they would now have placed themselves 300-350 miles SE of Howland Island & the Itasca (the _only_ source of rescue, known to AE/FN at that time). The fact is clear, all the recorded radio transmissions received by Itasca reflect that on only a _single_ occasion did AE acknowledge that she had actually received any radio transmision from Itasca & that _single_ two-way radio contact was too brief to permit either party to take any bearing or transmit any useful information. Additionally, none of the radio transmissions received by Itasca provided _any_ indication as to AE/FN's intentions should they have failed to locate Howland, & there is no clue as to the identification of any alternative landfall, so there is no way that Itasca could have known our intrepid duo was planning to wing their way SE to the Phoenix Islands, unless of course, AE was counting on Capt. Thompson's intuitive reasoning skills, to figure out that the only other known alternate landfall on the LOP was... the Phoenix Islands. Without previously establishing _reliable_, two-way radio communications with Itasca or at least communicating their intentions of seeking alternate landfall in the Phoenix Chain, in her _own_ radio transmissions, it would seem unlikely that AE/FN could have expected to be rescued from a group of islands that were for the most part uninhabited, well off any established shipping lanes, without any source of radio communication. Now we can certainly _speculate/assume_ that AE _did_ transmit instructions as to their intentions of seeking alternate landfall & that such transmissions were _not_ received by Itasca (or by anyone else for that matter), however having failed to establish any reliable, two-way radio communication with Itasca, it would seem (to me anyway) that without obtaining any acknowledgement from Itasca that they had actually received _such_ a message, AE/FN were flying to an alternative landfall from which any rescue was at least, highly improbable, under these circumstances. Not to say that is what they did _anyway_, as I've mentioned before...desparate people do desparate things in deparate circumstances...& perhaps _any_ landfall was preferrable to ditching in that vast empty ocean, especially when they had every reason to doubt that Itasca had any knowledge where they were anyway! Don Neumann **************************************************************** From Ric You answered your own question. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 20:03:01 EDT From: Rik Barnes Subject: Being involved in the search How can I become involved with the search? Rik Barnes **************************************************************** From Ric Participate in the forum. Everyone who contributes their thoughts is involved in the search. If you mean participate personally in the field work, the first step is to become a member of TIGHAR. Next you'll need to complete the Introductory Course in Aviation Archaeology and participate in a domestic expedition (such as we just completed in the Lake Tahoe area). Completing those qualifying steps will make you eligible to be considered for the Earhart expedition teams. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 20:05:03 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: LOP speculation For Alan Caldwell; You said that my scenario made sense based on what we know. I specifically set up my LOP speculation in terms of what Amelia and Fred knew. (or, more correctly, what we assume they knew) They knew that they had arrived at the place where they thought Howland was, and that Howland wasn't there: "we must be on you, but can not see you." They were at least somewhat aware of their fuel situation: "gas is running low." The LOP had some meaning to them: "we are on the line of position 157-337." You, in your own words, assume that they looked around for Howland for an hour. I, in my own words, speculated that they immediately turned right to fly down the LOP to a much greater chance of making some landfall. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I just wanted to point out that my wholly admitted speculation is based not on 60 years hindsight, but on what we think they knew at the time, and on previous posts about the navigational logic of the Niku hypothesis and the "Phoenix Islands catcher's mitt." That said, I'll happily admit that your speculation is just as valid as my speculation, specifically because both are speculation. If you have post-WW 2 piloting or navigating experience, which seems from what I've read to be an entirely different animal than AE & FN wrestled with, some on this forum will accord yours more than mine, and lacking such experience myself, I'll abide by such a verdict. The whole idea behind my original post was an attempt to show in layman's terms through my speculated scenario that the navigational logic is a HUGE point in favor of financially supporting further investigation of the Niku hypothesis. Sending money to TIGHAR is a way of getting beyond the emotional hoopla surrounding AE, her disappearance, and her supposed legacy, etc. It shows that we are supporting sound scientific investigative principles, regardless of what our own pet AE theories might be. LTM, and sorry for such a long post Dave Porter, 2288 (who does all his navigating on land, with a map, compass, flare gun, and cell phone) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 20:08:47 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Left Turn on the LOP The LOP could have been obtained from a moon fix much earlier than a sun line and both would have produced the same LOP. Indeed, the Moon LOP could even have been tracked in toward Howland before the Sun rose and thereafter. But the two (Moon and Sun) celestial LOPs through Howland were not anywhere near coincident enough to produce the same LOP, were they? Didn't they really cross with a good enough angle to be useful for a fix? Mark Prange ***************************************************************** From Ric If so, isn't that a pretty good argument that Noonan did not use the Moon? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 15:51:35 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP speculation > You said that my scenario made sense based on what we know. I specifically > set up my LOP speculation in terms of what Amelia and Fred knew. (or, more > correctly, what we assume they knew) Yeah! That sentence is the substance of what I've been pushing all along. By that I mean being as accurate as possible in HOW and WHAT we say. You are quite correct. We don't know what they knew and only make assumptions about that. That kind of reasoning goes along way to prevent misstatements from muddying up the waters. As to AE and FN turning SE immediately or quite soon after arriving in the vicinity of Howland that is certainly possible. I have doubts, however, and believe they remained about an hour in search simply because they were still broadcasting loudly or reasonably so an hour later. Their broadcast range appeared to be relatively short distance wise. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 15:52:13 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Left Turn on the LOP > Didn't they really cross with a good enough angle to be > useful for a fix? The answer is NO. Both produced exactly the same LOP, 90 degrees off of 67 degrees. If you will check the Naval Observatory web page you can verify that for yourself. I made that same suggestion in my original post on this subject. Had you checked you would not have needed to have made this suggestion. Alan #2329