Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:39:35 EDT From: Roger Smith Subject: Re: Lamb experiment The email mentioned two kinds of flies on the meat so far. There's no living thing on Niku but crabs and they die in the water. How do files live on Niku with nothing to eat or to lay eggs on? The occasional bird that might die there? Roger *************************************************** I dunno where you got your information about life on Niku. The place is dirty with wildlife --- birds, rats, lizards, seven or eight different kinds of crabs, at least two of which are land crabs, and then there's the normal washup detritus any beach accumulates. Lots for flies to live on. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:46:30 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: time zones Thanks to Marty Moleski for the three links on the International Date Line The best map, IMHO is http://www.worldtimezone.com/time-oceania.htm which shows the geography and time zones in Oceania. I'm trying to find Niku on that map but my geography for that area is lousy. Niku is at approximately 4 degrees 40 minute South and 174 degrees 32 minutes West. Using the above map, that puts Niku by my calculations just a smidgen north of the "T" in Tokelau. Am I in the neighborhood? And the departure point, Pago Pago, is at about the "S" in American Samoa? LTM, who uses mint jelly on her legs of lamb Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ****************************************************** Dennis, looking at that map I'm not quite sure what the little dots are... doesn't look quite right to me. But we had a wonderful volunteer do new maps for us for the website. Check out http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/MapsandPhotos/maps/Mapsindex.html especially the LOP map, and compare it to the timezone map and maybe we can figure this out. P ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:48:50 EDT From: Pete Gray Subject: Re: Pogo's "Great Pogini" takes on the Expedition I'm not sure about Pogo, but there was a "remote viewer" on the Art Bell show that said the expedition is on the wrong island. According to this guy, the Electra is in shallow water at Koria Atoll, south of Tarawa. Maybe he'd be so kind as to tell us how the Catspaw heel got to Niku? LTM Pete #2419 ************************************************************** Oh dear.... well, psychics are amusing, at least. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:50:33 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: time zones Which, as I see it, proves the wisdom of the aviation world by simplifying matters and use UTC. LTM from Herman (#2406) ************************************************************ From Pat Having debated the nature of truth, and the nature of logic, it somehow makes sense that now the Forum should debate the nature of time.... The Date Line is one of those things that I use without necessarily spending a lot of time understanding it. Computers and automobiles fall into this category as well. Pretty interesting stuff. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:51:28 EDT From: David Potenzano Subject: Re: Tracking the TIGHARs I put my map in a frame with a clear palstic cover and use a wax pencil to note the grids and what is happening in them. Wax pencil is easy to erase if and when I make corrections or updates.(or mistakes) I'm sure I did'nt invent the wheel here but just thought I'd pass it along. LTM David Potenzano #1611(I think) ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:54:44 EDT From: Stuart Allsop Subject: Re: time zones This is kind of off-topic, but an interesting curiosity nevertheless. Looking at those maps, I just noticed that since the Kiribati change to the International Date Line, it is now possible to fly in a straight line (or rather, on a great circle), from French Polynesia to a point north of the Marshall Islands (or vice versa), and cross the international date line SEVEN TIMES along the way! And it would only take you a couple of hours to do it. So, in theory, you could leave after you already arrived, cross several checkpoints both before you left and after you arrived, then end up arriving before you left! If that doesn't confuse you about this issue, then nothing will! Stuart ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:58:16 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: time zones Let me see if I understand this time travel business ..... You and Ric are having breakfast and lunch at different times on different days together and Pogo says this trip is the one (Kings - X - just to be sure I don't jinx anything) .... Just because I am equally and as easily confused by map coordinates, as I look at the plan, you reference the 7 Site, at coordinates EV29 (September 1 entry). My chart must have suffered from continental drift, though, because that seems to be in the water. ? Fascinating stuff on how quickly the local fauna attacked the meat. It will be really interesting to see what happens. Let the team know we think they're doing a great job! A number of people at my workplace have been dropping by to find out the latest, and I've been giving out the website address. ltm jon **************************************************** Sorry, sorry.... that should have been E R 29. It's correct in my notes, just a typo. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:59:00 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Tracking the TIGHARs This is interesting. I mounted my map on whiteboard, and got some of those translucent sticky strips with the pointed arrow end (buck and a half in assorted colors) and am sticking them directly on the map. With a fine point marker I can label the strip to remind me what's going on where. By the way, I meant to mention that the plaques came out looking really great. ltm jon ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 12:00:38 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: search plan Pat, tell Ric I fully understand how the carefully planned mission is working and I am very impressed with the whole scenario. You may also tell him I am quite anxious to know the results of the meat experiment -- even moreso than finding out whether the rusty pixels on the sat. photo are Electra parts or just some old rusty 50 gallon drums stuck in the the crevis. (Just a friendly dig) Alan still in Austin *********************************************************** Even worse, they seem to be algae. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:22:55 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: time zones > From Dennis McGee > > ... I'm trying to find Niku on that map but my > geography for that area is lousy. > Niku is at approximately 4 degrees 40 minute South and 174 degrees > 32 minutes West. ... Here is a map of Kiribati: http://www.maps.com/cgi-bin/search/hyperseek.cgi?search=CAT&Category=Pacific+Ocean:Kiribati You'll probably have to cut and paste to get the whole URL on one line. :o( Here's another map showing Kiribati, the Phoenix Islands, AND the date line: http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/kiribati.htm This map makes a nice distinction: they say the date line is 180 degrees, but note that all the islands within Kiribati observe the same date, even though they are on the other side of the line. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:24:42 EDT From: Don Iwanski Subject: Re: search plan Do you know if they have any plans to bring back a bottle of that rust colored fungus stuff and have it analyzed? ************************************************************ They haven't said anything about it. Algae are pretty obviously living organisms and the divers are familiar with the different varieties. The rusty red color is pretty common. P ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:30:33 EDT From: Mike Allen Subject: Dailies What am I doing wrong? When I go to the daily report page it is only showing August 27 and 28. **************************************************************** Many ISPs/browsers only truly refresh web pages if they aren't busy. AOL is *the worst* about this, as I know to my sorrow; Explorer is much better, and Netscape is o.k. But it can be an ISP problem too, or a server farther up the line. Try clearing your browser cache, which will force your ISP to load whatever it has that is most recent. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:31:43 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Divine Providence Wow Pat! Talk about divine providence! I say let's add a new nickname for Ric....... Monty Hall would be appropriate(you know the, the "let's make a deal dude?) A chopper tour, hydralic fluid, and 3 tuna. Cool! The windfall of this scenario would rank the cost of another expedition-and that doesn't include the hydralic or the fish! A fortunate turn of events indeed. You are going to put together Niku IV-The Video for the rest of us aren't you? This I gotta see-good debt retirement material! Hope Ric & company enjoyed some good barbequed tuna. Doug Brutlag #2335 ******************************************************************* I suspect there will be a highlights film, yes. And forget barbecue. Can you say sashimi? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 22:09:49 EDT From: David Robinson Subject: Relief aboard the Electra I am enjoying reading the 8th Edition. A question occurred to me. Did the Electra have an automatic pilot? How did AE take "bathroom breaks?" Something had to rigged up for a 20+ hour flight. Could any of the that explain why they make have drifted a bit off course? LTM, David #2333 *********************************************************************** I have a feeling this was covered some time ago, but I am so far behind on the Highlights I'll never catch up. Does anyone remember? P ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 22:13:42 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: yachties, castaways and pirates A helicopter from a tuna boat wasn't exactly what I had in mind, but picking up an old thread, there could have been other people who landed on Nikumaroro that we don't know about. Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 ******************************************************************* I suspect that lots of people call in there briefly over a decade or so, but there's really not much happenin' and not much reason to stay long. P ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 22:14:46 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Divine Providence > I suspect there will be a highlights film, yes. And forget barbecue. Can you > say sashimi? Ahhh, maguro sashimi. My favorite. I don't suppose the crew had the foresight to pack some wasabi? LTM (who likes hers with shredded daikon) Kerry Tiller ****************************************************** Yup, lots of fixin's aboard. Fresh fish is a major part of the diet on expedition, for obvious reasons. P ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 22:19:13 EDT From: Pat Subject: daily up Hi kids, I have put up the new daily report. The single page format was getting to be too unwieldy and was going to take forever to download, so I'm splitting into one week per page segments. Today starts a new week. Go to http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Expeditions/NikuIIII/NikuIIIIdailies2.html -----> here's Pat checking the spelling of TIGHAR <--------- That will be good until next Sunday, when the current page will become dailies3.html and so on ad infinitum. Can't top the helicopter, though. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:12:20 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Relief aboard the Electra The Electra was equipped with a Sperry Pilot, a sort of rudimentary (by today's standards) automatic pilot, which would provide somewhat of a break from having to physically drive the thing all the time. Also, Fred was a licensed pilot, and I am sure that for the time it took to make necessary trips back to the biff, he could watch what was going on with no difficulty. We already know he seemed to prefer to ride up front, rather than in the back. ltm, jon 2266 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:16:11 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Relief aboard the Electra David Robinson wrote: > I am enjoying reading the 8th Edition. A question occurred to me. Did the > Electra have an automatic pilot? How did AE take "bathroom breaks?" Something > had to rigged up for a 20+ hour flight. Could any of the that explain why they > make have drifted a bit off course? First the answer to your question (a reprint from Ric on 11/20/00): >How good was the Electra autopilot? Could it maintain a preset >heading and altitude? Yes. >Was it safe to leave the cockpit for brief periods with the plane under >its control? That's a tough one. There's no reference to Earhart ever doing that but there should also be no need. Fred seems to have ridden up front most of the time anyway and if AE needed to go back and use the "can" (for example) it seems like it would make sense to have Fred at least sit there and monitor the autopilot. I'm not familiar with a Dalton Mark VII Navigation Computer. Anybody? LTM, Ric Second, method of finding answers like this: read the whole archive of Forum Highlights (which I've done). Then try to locate answers by the use of http://www.google.com. In this case, I searched for "www.tighar.org autopilot electra." Marty #2359 ***************************************************************** Unfortunately, I am so far behind with the highlights ... They are only complete up through January 01. I keep thinking I'll have time to get back to them.... oh well. We do have complete archives which can be sent as attached .txt files. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:17:10 EDT From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: relief aboard the Electra There was a Sperry automatic pilot which was controlled by the gyro and not slaved to the magnetic compass. As for the bathroom, there was a toilet as there was in all Lockheed 10s. It was installed in the rear of the cabin, to the port side and next to the cabin door. Interestingly its use tended to interfere with the stability of the aircraft as one can discover when going to www.acfamily.net which is dedicated to the Air Canada Lockheed 10A (CF-TCC) which still flies. It contains an interesting report on the delivery flight and contains useful information on engine performance. LTM from Herman ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:17:36 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: relief Sorry, I have been too quick off the mark again. WWW.ACFAMILY.NET have changed their address into WWW.ACFAMILY.ORG. Click on the picture of the Electra, then click on "A Classy Lady" for details on flying the Lockheed 10 (including use of the toilet). LTM from Herman (#2406) ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:18:49 EDT From: Jim Clark Subject: Visitations to Niku The Australian Army visited each island in the Phoenix chain , including Gardner, in 1985 , during manoeuvres to re-establish their geodetic coordinates for the new World wide GPS system, in OPERATION ANON. There are probably countless others , military and civilian that nobody knows about, as nobody is stationed there with a visitor's logbook 24 hours a day, to check , as per the recent revelations about the Australian tug and the dive by its skipper for possible artifacts. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:19:28 EDT From: Andy Shaw Subject: Re: Yachties and visitations <<>> This has been on my mind for some time. The can label fragment is excellent evidence of this. Fortunately this sort of brief visit is insufficient to explain away items such as plexiglas/aluminum etc. LTM, Andy ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:20:43 EDT From: Marjorie Smith Subject: Island vs. atoll An advance reading copy of "Amelia Earhart's Shoe" serendipitously fell into my hands and I read it coincidentally as the newest expedition sailed from Pago Pago to Nikumaroro. I thoroughly enjoyed the book--it took me far from my current Rocky Mountain existence back to the Pacific where I lived more than 30 years ago (1963-1970, Guam, Saipan and travelling throughout Micronesia). I am also the author of an about-to-be-published novel that is very loosely tied to Amelia's disappearance, so have read most of the earlier books on the subject. I have only one small point to cavil with in King, etal.'s book: In my days in Micronesia there was little if any use of the word "island" to refer to an atoll. "Island" was interchangeable with "islet" and the whole shebang collected around the lagoon was "atoll." For instance, if you were on Ebeye in the Kawajalein atoll and someone said they were going across the island or to the north end of the island they meant they were going across Ebeye or to the northern edge of Ebeye, not across the atoll or to the northern part of the atoll. Granted, this usage makes more sense in a huge atoll like Kwaj, where there are long spaces on the reef with no connection between islets, at least during high tide. But what if this was the usage on Nikumaroro in the 1940s, particularly by Gallagher? What if when he said the skeleton was found on the southeast end of the island he meant that piece of land between the two channels into the lagoon, the piece of land (island?) on which the village and the government center were located? Then you folks should be looking there instead of way down in the Ameriki area. Probably a thought you've already had and discarded and I, as a writer and editor, am only led astray by editorial decisions made in putting King's book together. But just in case this is a new idea . . . Best wishes for success! Marjorie Smith -- Marjorie Smith Yokoi Books PO Box 7314 Bozeman, MT 59771 406-587-8947 ************************************************************* An interesting thought. Gallagher et al had a lot of experience with Tarawa, which is much more like Kwajelein, so you may have a point. Niku consists of two islets and presents much more of a solid picture than the larger atolls. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 11:26:59 EDT From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Surviving Electra I just had a look at the list of surviving Lockheed Electra's on the TIGHAR website and I haste me to announce that the # 10 aircraft, of which TIGHAR believes the status to be unknown, is in fact alive and kicking and flying. I just bought the latest issue of "Air Enthusiast", a high quality British aviation publication which has a feature story with beautiful pictures on it and by the way says there are "at least 13 examples (Lockheed 10) known to be in existence, of which three are in airworthy condition". The magazine's story is on the one airworthy Australian Lockheed 10A the July/August issue (no 94). The aircraft is VH-UZO and is one of the original Lockheed 10B delivered to AnsettAirways. It is one of only two surviving "down under" and the only one flying. In all 15 have been delivered by Lockheed down under to Guinea Airways, Ansett Airways, MacRobertson Miller Airlines, Quantas, Union Airways of New Zealand and Trans Island Airways. Eight aircraft were eventually written off in accidents. One was destroyed in a hangar fire. Of the six that survived, three were withdrawn from use and scrapped. One was exported to the US. Of the two surviving "down under" today, one is ZK-BUT which is preserved in the Museum of Transport and Technology in Auckland, New Zealand. The other is VH-UZO. It was acquired by Sydney based businessman Laurie Ogle around 1981, who undertook a time consuming restoration job which was a work of love. It included the re-engining the aircraft since spares for the original Wright Whirlwind engines were hard to come. Receiving Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Juniors the Lockheed 10B became a Lockheed 10A. Acording to the magazine it played a role in a TV movie that paid tribute to Australian pioneer Sidney Cotton. He was the guy who flew covert spy operations over Germany in a Lockheed 12A Electra Junior, converted into a "spy plane", in 1938-39. Anyone who loves Electras should read the story. If the magazine is hard to find in the US or Australia, give my a shout. I'll let you know "Air Enthusiast's" address. Their website is www.airenthusiast.com. Herman (#2406) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 11:28:41 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: island vs atoll Marjorie Smith wrote: > I have only one small point to cavil with in King, etal.'s book: In my days > in Micronesia there was little if any use of the word "island" to refer to > an atoll. "Island" was interchangeable with "islet" and the whole shebang > collected around the lagoon was "atoll." For instance, if you were on Ebeye > in the Kawajalein atoll and someone said they were going across the island > or to the north end of the island they meant they were going across Ebeye > or to the northern edge of Ebeye, not across the atoll or to the northern > part of the atoll. Granted, this usage makes more sense in a huge atoll > like Kwaj, where there are long spaces on the reef with no connection > between islets, at least during high tide. > > But what if this was the usage on Nikumaroro in the 1940s, particularly by > Gallagher? What if when he said the skeleton was found on the southeast end > of the island he meant that piece of land between the two channels into the > lagoon, the piece of land (island?) on which the village and the government > center were located? Then you folks should be looking there instead of way > down in the Ameriki area. I think part of the reason the search has been in the Aukeraime and "7" sites is the reference in Gallagher's notes to a small stand of coconut palms growing less than 2 miles from where the bones were found. Bauareke Passage to the Main Passage is only about a mile. RossD ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 11:35:07 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: island vs. atoll Wasn't the smaller channel blasted through much later? That being the case, when Gallagher was there, except for the main channel, the island was contiguous. Perhaps someone can refresh my memory. ltm jon **************************************************************** Different channel. There are two passages from the ocean into the lagoon at Niku: Tatiman Passage, which is the one up by Nutiran and is the one you can get a small boat through at high tide; and Bauareke Passage, which is on the south side of the island and is non-navigable but wade-able. These are both natural features. The "channel" is the landing blasted through the reef up to the beach --- it doesn't pass through into the lagoon. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:56:24 EDT From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: Lagoon I have been reading the daily reports with great interest. I understand that there is a crew at the "7" site, grave site, and the divers are working the reef north of the Norwich City, but what's going on with the Lagoon? *************************************************** The divers are finishing up the reef work today and will probably begin diving in the lagoon tomorrow. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:57:27 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: surviving Electras For Herman I was following the restorastion of the Aussie Electra and I might have some jpegs still. Things like the first engine run ups etc. If I haven't lost it in my last hard drive shuffle I might even have the website address. Th' WOMBAT ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:57:52 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Surviving Electras For Herman, The website was: www.adastron.com/lockheed/electra/vh-uzo.htm It had a little of the history of the aircraft and about the restoration. Th. WOMBAT ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:02:43 EDT From: Denise Subject: Re: Island vs atoll Re: Majorie Smith's letter "Island vs. atoll" please keep in mind that once again someone is making the mistake of "thinking like an American". Smith is talking about the American Pacific, Gallagher is in the British Pacific. Remember, you say Tomayto, we say Tomahto ... you say spanner; we say monkey wrench ... or is that the other way round. (Never having much to do with either spanners or monkey wrenches, I wouldn't know.) As a fellow member of The British Colonial Service - albeit just an associate member --- I'd have to say we used to use the word "Island" to refer to the whole she-bang ... islands, atolls, islets, eyots ... yup, all of them were just called "islands" - oh, except if it were a sand-bar! A sand-bar was called a sand-bar if it were small and a sand-bank if it were larger! But, for the rest ... "island" covered everything. LTM (who called a spade a "garden-digging-thingy") Denise **************************************************************** You say spanner, we say wrench... you say boot, we say trunk... you say bonnet, we say hood... Two people separated by a common language. Thanks for the reminder. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:06:05 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Earhart wannabes AE is back in the news again -- or at least her accomplishments are. Carlene Mendienta of Sonoma, California, is retracing AE's 1928 cross-country trip in an Avro Avian, the same type of plane Amelia used originally for the trip. Details are in this morning's USA Today on page 10A. A more detailed picture of the plane and trip are in this month's edition of Air Classics (AKA Air "Comix") magazine, which is in fine kiosks the world over. Maybe the next reenactment will be a couple of AE's prang jobs, eh? LTM, who's an original Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:06:36 EDT From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Earhart wannabes I picked this up today from one of my wire sources and thought I would pass it on: WOMAN TRACES AMELIA EARHART'S ROUTE WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- Playing the part of Amelia Earhart -- right down to the same aircraft, jodhpurs, boots and antique goggles -- a woman pilot departed from Westchester on Wednesday to replicate the celebrated aviator's record-breaking, 5,000-mile route flown 73 years ago. Carlene Mendieta, 47, a California periodontist who collects and flies antique airplanes, was hand-picked -- because of her aviation skills and similarity to Earhart -- to attract interest in aviation and Earhart, who mysteriously disappeared during a flight over the Pacific Ocean in 1937. "When people think about Amelia Earhart, they think about her last flight, maybe the last few minutes of her last flight," Herrick said. "So her first long-distance flight is the flight that we're about to recreate following the exact same route that Amelia did." --- The full story can be read online at: http://www.channeloklahoma.com/okl/news/stories/news-94615120010905-100914.htm l Thomas Van Hare ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:08:06 EDT From; Roger Kelley Subject: Tatiman passage Are there any projections as to when the Dive Team will venture into Tatiman Passage? Diving in Tatiman Passage provokes several questions. 1. During what point in the tidal cycle will the dives be made? 2. During high tide, how deep is the most shallow point? 3. Where is the most shallow point? 4. What type of currents are anticipated in the Passage? 5. Will the entire passage be searched? 6. How far into the lagoon will the search proceed? LTM, Roger Kelley ************************************************************ Wow, a whole list of questions to which I do not know the answers. However, I know that they are planning on moving in that direction soon so perhaps I can learn the answers and pass them on to you. I don't think *anyone* knows the answers to 2, 3, or 4 yet. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:11:32 EDT From: Pat Subject: A question from Ric for the Forum Research time, gang. In doing metal detector work around the Seven site the team has come upon some .22 calibre shell casings, longs, with a "P" on the base. Gallagher had a .22 pistol. Could someone who has a copy of the inventory of his effects please look at see what make it was? We think we remember it was a Colt. Also, if someone could look into .22 Longs with a P on the base we would be very appreciative. Post to Forum. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:14:13 EDT From: Pat Subject: Re: A question from Ric for the forum Got lots of answers to this one: From Arnie Dabelow: The P on the 22 Casings stands for Peters Cartridge Div. Bridgeport, Conn. ------------------------------------------- The P on the base would most probably indicate that it was made by Peters. R.L."Doc" Holloway ------------------------------------------- I believe that a P means Peters, of Remington-Peters fame. Jeff Bolen ------------------------------------------- As a quick answer --- the "P" on the base of the .22 long casing probably stands for Peters or maybe Remmington Peters. I'll check in more detail tonight when I get home. BTW: It might be a good idea to keep the shells because there are almost certainly extractor, ejector, and head space marks that may help to "finger print" the casing to a particular brand and/or type of firearm. I know that forensic techniques of this type were used by archaeologists at the Little Bighorn to recreate certain sequences of events, etc, etc. It might be a good idea to get a professional opinion on this point by contacting a "real cop" such a Roger Kelley (from the Tells peak course/expidition this summer) Regards: Fred Madio ---------------------------------------- I did some quick looking on the net. anymore than just a "P" to go on? With just one letter, indication could be for "pebble powder" or the final proffmark on US cartridges. OR.... Peters Cartridge Co 1887-1934, then part of Remington after. station mark for Pembroke, Wales Poole (if P is in circle) Are the casings center- or rim-fire? LTM (who knows "WD" headstamps mean WW2 War Department) Pete #2419 --------------------------------------- In my novice opinion/guess... P is for Peters Cartidge Company out of Kings Mills, OH USA (?) Aren't 22 longs for long rifles? (again, I'm a novice in these things). LTM Christopher Ferro (2447) ---------------------------------------- I used .22 ammunition as a kid and the brand I used was "Peters" which had a "P" stamped on the base of the cartridge. Hope this will be helpful. Mike Haddock #2438 ------------------------------------------ The "P" on the base of the .22 cal shell casing may indicate the ammunition was manufactured by Peters. The manufacture of the pistol or revolver has no bearing on the manufacture of the ammunition fired so long as the ammunition was designed for that specific weapon. For example, a Colt .22 cal revolver will fire .22 cal short, long and long rifle ammunition. These three types of .22 cal. ammunition have been manufactured in the past and are presently manufactured by at least a dozen companies. Most important, .22 cal weapons are one of the most popular small arms in the world and have been popular for at least 100 + years. The fact that Gallagher is reputed to have owned a .22 cal revolver or pistol is moot unless Gallagher's weapon is available for examination and firing. By firing the weapon, shell case markings can be compared to the markings on the artifact recovered. If the markings on the artifact match those on the expended shell of a cartridge fired by Gallagher's weapon, under controlled conditions, the only statement or deduction absolute is that Gallagher's weapon fired the cartridge which produced the expended shell casing found at the 7 site. We would still be faced with several questions. Who fired Gallagher's weapon? Why was Gallagher's weapon fired? When was Gallagher's weapon fired? However, my optimism prevails. Based on 30 years of police experience which involved numerous investigations involving firearms and my own personal experience, I can't think of a better weapon to use when dispatching small game such as large birds, (gulls on land or in flight), turtles and fish in shallow waters. The .22 caliber pistol, revolver or rifle fits the bill to a "T". The abundant remains of small game in the vicinity of where the artifact was recovered leads me to believe that a .22 cal weapon was used to dispatch some, if not all of the game. LTM, Roger Kelley, 2112CE ------------------------------------------------- The "P'" on the base of the shell casing means it was manufactured by Peters. Ammunition. These people manufactured a lot of ammunition in the early years. Bruce Yoho -------------------------------------------------- The "P" stands for Peters, which is a US cartridge company. Other US 22 cal cartriges are marked H (for Henry) or U. I doubt that Gallagher would have US ammunition, but maybe the Australian or New Zealand members of the forum could tell us how local ammunition is marked (headstamped). Daniel Postellon LTM (Who only shoots centerfires!) TIGHAR # 2263 ------------------------------------------------- It is my recollection that the "P" stands for Peters Ammunition. This is how I remember this marking, from my rabbit hunting days, long ago. Charlie Sivert, 0269E --------------------------------------------- Look in Niku Source Book #2, effects of Gallagher: .22 Colt Automatic, 3.5 boxes .22 cartridges. Cheers. Randy Jacobson ------------------------------------------------- Something to consider. If I remember correctly some brands of .22 long cartridges have a "crimp" line around the circumference of the case around half way along. The crimp is to denote a low velocity round which is more suitable to pistols. I don't recall specifically which brands but I suspect Winchester. I also don't know whether any other markings were used to differentiate between super and sub sonic rounds. On the other hand as I type this I'm going through my old .22 cartridges. As you'll know private gun ownership has all but been banned in Australia and these are just a handful of rounds I haven't disposed of. I do have some pistol shorts and they have a "H" branded into the base, as do the crimped subsonic longs. The other brands on the .22s are "T" unless it's turned upside down - in which case it may be an anchor. There's "W" (Winchester) and a "double triangle". AHA! the collection also includes some with a "P" on the base !! They appear to be .22 long rifle, but I'll check the load. I guess Ric doesn't have internet access out there so I can't put a scan up for him to compare? Th' WOMBAT Ross Devitt --------------------------------------------- Hmmm A little brass polish and my "P" on the bases of the cartridges are really "F" with the top almost closed by a serif :-( Maybe I should have cleaned the cases first.. Th' WOMBAT --------------------------------------------- I checked my reference, Frank C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World, 1965. The cartridge case of the .22 long and the .22 long rifle are identical. Many pistols fire .22 long rifle cartridges, and it is probably the most widely used rifle or pistol cartridge in the world. The only one I can find was manufactured by Federal, and has the base marked (headstamped) with an "F". I'm pretty sure that those manufactured by Winchester are "H" for Henry and ones made by Peters are headstamped "P" Are you sure that Gallagher didn't have a Webley, maybe a .455 revolver? Daniel Postellon TIGHAR # 2263 ************************************************************ Wow. OK, let's see about some of the questions. Randy looked it up in the inventory and it's definitely a Colt .22 Automatic. I know that the ammunition we put in the .22 target pistol (12 shot clip, IIRC) and the .22 rifle for rabbit hunting came out of the same box and that is the sum total of my knowledge about guns and ammunition. Other than the rabbits were tasty and I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. The USCG chaps had M-1 carbines, and those shells are easy to spot. The .22 was pretty anomalous... not exactly military issue, but perfect of course for birds. Anyway, I'll let Ric know what you guys said. Many thanks! Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:22:43 EDT From: Christina Chreyts Subject: "P" on .22 casing When you said "P" on the base, I envisoned the edge where the primer is. The letter and numbers there are refered to as the "headstamp". My father suggests "peters cartridge company"..their ammunition facility was in Ohio and they were purchased by Remington in 1934. "P" was their "headstamp" from 1887-1934 (before the buyout). A quick search on the net shows that Peters did have a contract to produce .303 rounds for the British during WWI. http://kile_r.tripod.com/uscenter1.htm provides a listing of headstamps and corresponding vendors and dates. There was at least one other that used "P"--Polte--a German company. http://home.hetnet.nl/~supersmit/ww1/stamps1.html#headstamps is another reference source for headstamps and mentions only Peters and Polte using the P and it appears that the casings may have been slightly different...these people may can tell the difference. Hogg's "The Cartridge Guide" might offer more info. If we can get a picture of the casing, we can try to match it. christy creyts ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:23:43 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Re: Island vs atoll Discussing the differences in our common English language is a wonderful diversion. I was struck by those differences when visiting the UK, Australia, India and New Zealand We never want to lose sight of the fact that it is the ideas and intent that counts and not the specific words. I will never forget driving in rural England and seeing a sign for "Pub Grub" or being told that a field of wheat was a "Corn Field". Fortunately, I never had to take my car to a "Smash Repair Shop". I love British humor even though my wife couldn't stand Benny Hill. I wonder why? Denise's explanation does give meaning to Colonial Service written material that we might not other wise fully understand. Once again we all learn from the exchange of ideas on the Forum. LTM (Who always called a Spade a shovel) Dick Pingrey 908C ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:24:54 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Post lost radio calls This is old news I'm sure but haven't checked the web site to be sure yet. My daughter lives in sydney and researched the Sydney Morning Herald for me from July 3 to the 13th for 1937. Most she has to send me via snail mail but didn't see anything new. The few tidbits she included in her email included one reference to a post loss message I'm afraid I didn't recall. It follows: 7/6/37, pg.11 - "...the Howland Island radio station heard signals at 5:15 o'clock this morning, eastern standard time (8:15pm Sydney time), from Mrs. Putnam..." Alan #2329 ************************************************************ Randy, did you have this one? P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:26:26 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: "P" on .22 casing Maybe some of the Coast Guard guys had their own personal .22s for target practice or shooting any 'varmints' found on the island... to overcome the boredom of such an isolated tour of duty ? Don Neumann ************************************************************ Dick? ... somehow it seems unlikely that a military unit would permit personal weapons, but I could be wrong about that. P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:33:49 EDT From: Fred Madio Subject: "P" on .22 casing Does Randy have any more information on the "Colt automatic" such as model number and/or serial number? This information -- if available -- would provide some useful information about the shape, size, and location(s) of firing pin marks plus extractor and ejector marks on a spent casing. This information, in turn, would provide a means of creating a "generic finger print" (to coin a phrase) for such a round. If the artifact that Ric picked up happened to match such a generic finger print, then the argument that Gallagher's weapon was at the 7 site is strengthened somewhat, but all the questions raise by Roger Kelley would still remain unresolved. Regards, Fred Madio ************************************************************ Randy? ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:12:31 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: "P" on .22 casing The source of information was from the listing of personal effects left behind by Gallagher. All it stated was that it was a 22 automatic. I did not do an exhaustive review of the material, but quickly scanned it to see if a pistol was indeed part of his effects. The source material is in NIKU Source Book #2. Pat has a copy... ************************************************************ All it says is 1 Colt .22 automatic 3 1/2 packs .22 cartridges No further details. I will see if I can get my act together and post the entire effects list as a Document of the Week next week. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:14:09 EDT From: Marie Rains Subject: Re: Island vs atoll answer this question: the Kanawa Point article (from 12/1998). http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/14_2/14-2Kanawa.html It says, in part, "Tom King, our Senior Archeologist, pointed out that Nikumaroro is actually an atoll made up of two islands.... He wondered if Gallagher may have been referring to the southeast side of the westernmost of the two islands." The "Gallagher's Clues" bulletin from 3/10/00 discusses why looking at Kanawa Point is now lower priority. http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/22_GallaghersClues/22_GallaghersClues.html ************************************************************ Thanks, Marie. You get the gold star for "Familiarity With the TIGHAR Website" this week. Better than *my* familiarity, and I'm the one who put most of that stuff up there.... Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:16:25 EDT From: Dave Osgood Subject: Firearms and AE All of the excellent feedback on the .22 caliber shell issue begs for a question. Did AE ever carry a firearm on any of her escapades? IF so, is it possible she used it for hunting small prey at the Seven Site? Since it appears as though Peters stopped making rounds with a "P" in 1934, it seems as though we're looking at the use of a round that could be at least 3 years old if AE had a firearm. Otherwise, the age of the round might be a bit older at the time of firing: 5 years for the New Zealanders in '39, 6 years for Gallagher in '40, or up to 11 years for the Coast Guardsmen, or? I don't have any experience with ammunition, but is there a timeframe for safe storing and use before disposal? Does it make sense that someone would be using a round that could be 5, 10, or 15+ years old? But then again if Arundel's group had a .22 caliber firearm, all bets are off... Dave Osgood ************************************************************ Well, there's nothing in any of the biographies about AE ever shooting any gun. She was a self-proclaimed pacifist, for what that's worth. Modern ammunition keeps fairly well, I know. I personally tend to suspect Gallagher since we *know* he had both pistol and ammunition for it. Anyone? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:20:52 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: "P" on .22 cartridge Don't forget that Earhart carried a gun. Although, she claims she left it at Lae, maybe that was just part of a conspiracy. ************************************************************ And what is the source for this? I don't recall any mention of guns. A flare pistol, yes, but not a gun.. but perhaps my memory is faulty? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:22:08 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Post loss radio calls This is interesting. First, EST is +5 GMT, and Sydney is -10 GMT, for a total of 15 hours difference. So 5:15 EST is 10:15 GMT. 8:15 PM Sydney time is 20:15 local or 10:15 GMT. So far so good. Now for the day: July 6 at 1015GMT time, there is no listing for Howland reports on that day. At 0908 GMT, Howland radiologs note a green flare bearing ENE at 0830 GMT. They hear a radio phone, man's voice, but very weak. At 0930-35GMT, Howland reports a bearing to the Itasca (Itasca asked for a bearing on them), and Howland reports a green flare ESE on the horizon. At 1004GMT, Howland radio logs indicate a weak carrier. At 1100 GMT, Howland hears a poorly modulated Japanese broadcasting station close to 3105 kHz, which continues at least to 1205 GMT. Could this be July 5th? Remember, that newspaper reports are typically a day behind the actual event. At 0946 GMT, Howland radios Itasca, saying we heard Earhart calling the Itasca and that Baker heard her at 0916 GMT. Howland begins the formal radio watch at 1031GMT. It's possible that Sydney thought Howland was at +11.5 time zone, when in fact it was at +10.5 time zone. This may account for the discrepency of an hour. My interpretation: Sydney somehow intercepts radio messages from Howland to Itasca on the 5th, and the information gets corrupted by the time it is posted in the newspaper. BTW, I interviewed the Baker radio operator, who claims he never heard Earhart, and that she arrived at Howland in the middle of the night, but was shot down by Japanese pilots. His memory was very suspect, and no reliable information was available from him about this particular message. Hope this clarifies things... ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:24:06 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: "P" on .22 cal cartridge cases If you need references for publication, try this bibliography for cartridge case identification: http://www.doitnow.com/~cerci/CartridgeBib.html The Paul Klat articles in the 1981 American Rifleman should be fairly readily available in many libraries, as the is the magazine produced by the NRA. "U" is found on Remminington .22 cal rimfires, and I don't know why. There were other rimfire cartridges besides .22 cal, particularly the .44 cal Henry, which is the source of the "H" that used to be on Winchester .22's. The Swiss had a rimfire, large caliber military rifle at one time, many of which were later sold as surplus in the U.S. If you find .30 cal carbine military cases (centerfire), you might be able to identify the arsenal of manufacture, and sometimes the year of manufacture. LTM (AKA Annie Oakley) Daniel Postellon TIGHAR #2263 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:24:57 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Post loss radio calls That reads as if 5:15am E.S.T. is 8:15pm Sydney time? Since Sydney time is Eastern Standard Time (except in the case of daylight saving these days, where there is one hour difference) it had to be one or the other. Curious, unless someone else has added the "E.S.T." notation by mistake. Th' WOMBAT ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:26:07 EDT From: Roger Smith Subject: Lagoon visibility I was suprised to learn in today's daily report that there is only 2 feet visibility underwater in the lagoon of Nikumaroro. That's going to make it tough going for the divers. I would have thought the visibility underwater in the lagoon would be clear since there are no waves or surf. What makes the lagoon visibility so poor? Roger Smith ************************************************************ Wind stirring up the surface which stirs up the fine, powdery silt which is the floor of the lagoon. P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:28:12 EDT From: Troy Carmichael Subject: Re: Firearms and AE another thought--what was left in the cache of the Norwich City? and, using myself as an example, I personally have .22's in my house here in California, some of which are 25 years old. the difference in dates from Gallagher and the manufacture date of ammo does not seem like a strong concern. ************************************************************ Dunno.... I wouldn't think anyone would leave a firearm on Niku thinking it would be useful some time later. The environment is so corrosive to steel that any such thing would be a lump of rust within a few days. P ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 10:15:49 EDT From: Troy Carmichael Subject: Re: firearms and AE it would depend, I think, on how the Norwich city gear they left behind after being wrecked was cached. Thoughts that the castaway found the cache of the Norwich City survivors is what triggers my thought. Norwich City survivors leaving behind a small-caliber varmint gun (.22) would be a great survival tool for a future castaway. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 10:19:18 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: casing Re: .22 casomg As I currently work in a gun shop (recently having retired from the navy) I thought I would put in my .22 cents worth here. To answer one question: using 5, 10 or even 15 year old ammunition is not uncommon. I've used decades old ammo with only the occasional miss-fire. Peterson cartridges (with the "P" on the bottom) were commonly in circulation at least into the 1960s. As far as I know (and I know the forum will keep me honest here) Colt only produced one model of 22 auto during Gallagher's time. Colt's website claims it used the 22 Long Rifle cartridge (as opposed to a 22 short, or a 22 long - 22 magnums were not in existence yet). My boss (a 30 year veteran gun smith and long time collector) seems to think the old Colt 22 auto could feed longs, but would not be able to take modern high velocity cartridges ("standard" velocity only). Translation of all this: I couldn't come up with any reason why the cartridge found by our expedition could not have come from a Colt 22 automatic of 1940 vintage. LTM Kerry Tiller#2350 ************************************************************ I know next to nothing about guns other than the little I picked up from my father, who was interested in loading and target shooting. He had, among other things, a .22 target pistol that held a clip of about.... 12 rounds? something like that ... and it fired .22 long rifles. Would this gun have been similar to the one Gallagher had, or was his quite different? Could someone send me a jpeg or a url to a website where I can take a look? Just nosy, I doubt we'll be able to take this very far. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 10:19:57 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Case Manufacturer ID Another quick list of US commercial and military headstamps Daniel Postellon TIGHAR# 2263 http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1221/case_id.htm ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 10:21:10 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Radio expedition days Here's something very interesting and especially timely, concerning a Ham Radio DXpedition in the area of the world in which we have a great interest right now. This comes from the American Radio Relay League, the US national Amateur Radio organization. >*************** >The ARRL Letter >Vol. 20, No. 36 >September 7, 2001 >*************** >* West Kiribati T30ES operation on the air: Eric Griffin, N1JSY, will be on >the air for the next 18 months from the island of Butaritari in West >Kiribati as T30ES. The T30ES operation is not a DXpedition. Griffin is a >Penn State grad who's in the Peace Corps. His T30ES adventure is being >supported by the Candlewood Amateur Radio Association and the Bethel >Educational Amateur Radio Society, both of Connecticut, whose members >donated the various elements for the T30ES station. At last report, one >antenna was up and N1JSY had made a few regional QSOs as the station >undergoes its shakedown cruise. T30ES will be active as his schedule >permits. He's running 100 W with battery power and will operate only during >his non-work hours. QSL to PO Box 3441, Danbury CT 06813. For more >information on T30ES, visit The Kiribati Connection Web site, >.--Peter Kemp, KZ1Z LTM (whose ears hear EVERYTHING including a flatulent gnat in Outer Mongolia) and 73 Mike E. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 10:23:31 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: firearms and AE According to Lovell, p. 268, she cites Balfour at Lae who claimed that "she unloaded all her surplus equipment on me including her [Very] pistol and ammunition, books, letters and facility books'". Lovell cites Francis Holbrook, NA&SM , library,,AE general file: F011300. With her "obsession" for weight on the Lae-Howland leg, I suspect she wouldn't carry any kind of pistol. No 22 cal pistol reported here. As I understand the Very pistol used shotgun shells. Is that correct? Were any shot gun shells ever found on Howland? Are there references to AE carring a firearm of any caliber on the Flight? LTM Ron Bright ************************************************************ The Very pistol was a flare gun, may have used a special shell in a shotgun casing to carry its load, but it was primarily a signaling device if I understand things correctly. Boy, am I out of my pay grade here. P ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 10:27:08 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Post los radio calls Randy, I should have waited for my daughter to send the hard copy of the full report before posting or at least read it more carefully as I can see the confusion. I think you have it figured out, however. The vague part is the 7/6/37 notation. I take that to mean the July 6th edition of the New York paper. If so you are on the money the event had to have happened the day before. That would mean 5:15EST in New York on the 5th and 20:15 on the 6th in Sydney which would be the 5th on Howland but I'll leave it to you to figure out what time that would have been on Howland. A quick stab at it at a late hour with few brain cells functioning would be that if 5:15 EST on the 5th is correct and that is 10:15GMT and Howland local time is GMT minus 11:30 would our answer be 22:45 on the 4th at Howland local? Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:33:48 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Post loss radio signals Actually, Howland Island was on Honolulu time (-10.5), even though when the Itasca visited, the Itasca was on -11.5 time! If the GMT time of 1015 GMT was correct, Howland would be at 23:45 local time the previous day. The real question is how did the press find out about this information? Gotta go now...I get headaches everytime I deal with time zones and dates! ************************************************************ Me too, Randy... :-( P ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:35:36 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: The "g" When Ric stumbled onto the "g" he obviously discovered something very much out of place. Should time and resources permit, I would suggest that the area near the "g" be explored, searched and excavated. Who knows what may lie near, around or under the "G" ?? LTM, (who digs a good mystery) Roger Kelley ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:37:24 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Very Pistols The original Very pistol was developed by Lt. Edward Very, US Navy, about 1890. It was a flare launching pistol based on the 10 gauge shotgun shell. In WW I and WW II, most Very pistols had a 1 inch (now 26.5 mm) or 1 1/2 inch (38 mm) bore. 10 gauge is 0.775 inches. These were single shot smoothbore pistols. I wouldn't recommend them for firing actual shotgun shells. There was a large number of manufacturers of the pistols and ammunition. The shells look like 1X4 inch shotgun shells. Shorter shells were made. Cardboard, brass and aluminum shells exist, maybe others. They have been made obsolete by self-contained, hand-launched flares, but there must be millions of them around, often on ships. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR # 2263 ************************************************************ I thought the ones I had seen looked pretty big. My father had a 10 gauge side-by-side shotgun and that thing was a cannon, and you say the early and mid 20th century Very pistols were bigger.... wow. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:40:26 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: .22 casings > I know next to nothing about guns other than the little I picked up from my > father, who was interested in loading and target shooting. He had, among > other things, a .22 target pistol that held a clip of about.... 12 rounds? > something like that ... and it fired .22 long rifles. Would this gun have > been similar to the one Gallagher had, or was his quite different? Could > someone send me a jpeg or a url to a website where I can take a look? Just > nosy, I doubt we'll be able to take this very far. > > Pat That was a magazine, not a clip. The action would have been the same. The rounds are stacked in a spring loaded magazine that is inserted through the bottom of the frame that is encased by the grip (sound familiar?). The pistol Gallagher had would have looked like a diminutive version of the U.S. Government model 1911 .45 caliber automatic invented by Browning but widely produced by Colt, the Springfield Armory and others throughout most of the 20th century. (And are still being produced in a wide variety of forms.) Assuming your father's pistol was a true "target" pistol, it probably had a shorter slide (the part over the top of the barrel that cocks it) and a longer, protruding barrel for better balance and longer range. The most common of these .22 target pistols are made by Browning and Ruger. I'll see if I can find a picture of a Colt .22 auto of the type Gallagher may have had, as it might be of interest to the forum. LTM (who has never shot a gun) Kerry Tiller #2350 ************************************************************ Thanks for rescuing me, Kerry. Yes, my father's pistol was a true target pistol, long barrel and all. An excellent gun for shooting mistletoe out of the oak tree by the garage every Christmas . I think it was a Browning but I don't know why I think that. I definitely would appreciate a photo of the kind of pistol Gallagher probably had. I'll put it on the website if it's possible, or we can provide a link to another website if that would be better. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:46:36 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: .22 casings For a picture of the pistol Gallagher had (assuming it was a Colt .22 Auto) go to http://www.coltautos.com/ and then use the guide search to select "Colt ACE Model 1911 A1 .22LR" That's what his pistol would have looked like. Kerry Tiller ************************************************************ Great! It really does look like a baby .45, doesn't it. And now for something completely off-topic... reminds me of the time a member (against strict rules) brought a .22 Derringer (sp?) to Maine during Project Midnight Ghost -- a teensy little "lady's" gun, about the size of a small squirt gun... and about as effective against the bears he thought it would protect him from. 'Course, it woulda torn the h#$@ out of a person, which was why we confiscated it and then asked him to leave. Ah well. Some people just don't have the brains God gave geese. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 11:32:35 EDT From: Troy Carmichael Subject: Crabs and castaways When I joined TIGHAR almost 2 years ago, it gave me the heebie-jeebies just thinking about being stranded on an uninhabited atoll in the middle of nowhere, slowly starving to death, eating raw clams to survive (I loathe all shell-animals). Compounded by being missed by search planes, a possibly severely wounded navigator, and the only tie to the outside world--a plane and radio--inevitably being washed into the ocean and losing electrical power, I could not imagine a worse scenario. The human side of this story is so tragic--just the hopelessness of it all. How long could one keep up hope in that situation? Now, after reading the story of the crabs on Niku last night, it chills me more than any Stephen King fiction. The added possibility of being slowly eaten alive by thousands of crabs? Ohmigosh! It kinda makes one wish she went down at sea instead..... If AE was in fact the castaway on that island, then her story is much more tragic than we ever suspected. LTM (who hates a slow, lingering death) Troy ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 11:33:56 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Post-loss radio signals Randy Jacobson wrote: > Actually, Howland Island was on Honolulu time (-10.5), even though when the > Itasca visited, the Itasca was on -11.5 time! If the GMT time of 1015 GMT > was correct, Howland would be at 23:45 local time the previous day. The > real question is how did the press find out about this information? Thanks Randy. As soon as I get the hard copy you will be the first to know. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 11:43:12 EDT From: Marty Joy Subject: Firearms and TIGHAR and expeditions Well Jeees, Pat, you're not suggesting that simply because we are gun owners we wouldn't be welcome on any expeditions, are you? BTW, the shell casings you found could have come also from a Ruger .22 auto, same action as a luger. Don't know if they were around on the 40's, probably not. ************************************************************ Perhaps this is as good a time as any to clarify TIGHAR's policies on this subject: expeditions and firearms. We have nothing against gun owners, we just have something against people bringing guns on expeditions. The cans of worms that would be opened just couldn't be re-canned. The aforementioned little twerp would have shot somebody in a trice with that popgun if he'd been scared or surprised, and while it wouldn't have bothered a bear much it would have played hell with a person's insides. At least one of the people on the current team is a collector in a big way, but he doesn't seem to feel the need to tote his guns around with him... just as well, since he mostly collects rifles and shotguns! If a place is so dangerous because of people as to *need* firearms for protection, we don't go there. If it's wildlife, we might go, but we'd hire local, experienced people as guards, who could spend full time doing that job. It's not for the hobbiest when people's lives are seriously at stake. We follow the same principle in hiring other essential services, from ships to search technology: leave it to the pros. It's a policy that serves us well and has for many years. Love to Mother, who learned to shoot as a child but doesn't necessarily see it as a form of recreation, Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 11:44:24 EDT From: Roger Smith Subject: Silty lagoon If there is so much silt at the bottom of the lagoon, any plane parts making their way into the lagoon over 50 years ago are very probably covered with it. If our divers can't see airplane parts lying on the bottom because of the silt, do they have any other way to detect metal? Air hose and compressor to blow away the silt or is there some type of metal detector for under the water? Roger Smith ************************************************************ Underwater metal detectors from White's Electronics, and a portable dredge with a looooong hose. Also probes and the like. But it's a very tough job. We should be getting reports on it beginning today. P ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 11:49:32 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: AE and guns According to my references AE caried a "signal pistol (very pistol) No. A56, Mark III, one inch. Also she carried 14 signal pistol shells. ( Amelia Earhart - Case Closed pp176-177) The one inch is the diameter of the shell and, as I recall they were about 3 to 4 inches long. She also carried a 32 calibur hand gun with a small box of ammuntion. "Earhart handed the package she had brought from the plane to Balfour in appreciation for his help while they had been at Lae. Balfour opened the paper and inside was a 32 calibur hand gun with a small box of ammunition. He was very pleased and thanked her for the gift" (Amelia Earhart, The Mystery Solved. Elgen and Marie Long. PP192) There is no evidence that she left the flare gun and the shells at Lae. ************************************************************ Interesting. The note to this is: "Interview by author", Mrs. Balfour, in 1972 --- so not a really good source, but may be correct anyway. But if it's correct, then the pistol wasn't with her on the last flight. The info about the Very pistol reflects what others have said about the size of the shells. Thanks, Rollin. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 11:54:27 EDT From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Colt .22 pictures just go to http://www.colt22.com/. Here you will find all the versions of the colt .22 "woodsman" sporting pistol. Here are two pictures of version contemporary to 1937. Renaud ************************************************************ OK, so how do these pistols differ from the automatic that Kerry Tiller found the website for? The List won't support attachments so the photos can't be put here, but the pistols in the pictures he sent are more the target pistol look. The inventory of Gallagher's effects specifically says "Colt .22 Automatic" --- but of course we don't *know* that the casings came from his gun. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 11:55:36 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: "g" Reference the "g" located by the team, didn't Earhart refer to George Putnam as "gp" in her various writings and materials? Haven't I seen posts on the forum that Putnam always wanted the Navy to search Niku and thought that's where she might have gone as an alternate? Maybe the "g" is a clue to Putnam, placed near the end of her life on the island, such as "look here George". I think, along with other posts, that more attention needs to be paid to this area if time allows. ************************************************************ I'll talk about it with Ric today. P ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 11:57:16 EDT From: Bill Moffet Subject: Letter "g" A bit of research on the letter "g" found in white coral: In Mathematics, a "g" (like a number 8 on its side) is "infinity". In Electricity, either a "G" or "g" is "conductance". These came from The Handbook of Applied Mathematics, Grazda & Jansson, 3rd Ed., 1961. My Random House Dictionary of English Language, 1969, lists others: Under Astronomy, Aspects & Nodes, imagine a straight line angling 45 degrees upward to the right, then two circles touching each other, both bisected by the line. Now erase the line. The two circles signify "Opposition; differing by 180 degrees in longitude or right ascension". Now imagine two small circles, separated but connected by an arc above them. This is an "Ascending Node". If the connecting arc is beneath them, it's a "Descending Node". This dictionary also covered symbols in Biology, Chemistry, Chess, Commerce, Mathematics, Music, Physics, Religion and Miscellaneous. I found nothing else looking like a "g". Can't see how this is helpful - too esoteric! What does Mr. Teuatabo make of it? Sorry the dive team didn't find anything promising along the reef. Hope the lagoon search will be more fruitful. My best to all of you. LTM, Bill Moffet #2156CE ************************************************************ Manikaa just shook his head and said it was nothing to do with any I-Kiribati. I dunno, just another weird thing to think about... P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:57:51 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: R: AE and guns Almost all of the British protectorates that Earhart flew over and landed upon were insistent that she carry no firearms, as part of the rules and regulations provided her. She would be very foolish to carry a firearm, whether loaded or not, in those situations, as it would put her in jail. She had enough problems with innoculations and custom forms! ************************************************************ Source? P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:59:16 EDT From: Craig Fuller Subject: Re: Crabs and castaways So is the entire atoll over run by crabs? ie would it be possible for castaways to get a good nights sleep by moving father inland to get away from the crabs? How do the Kiribati and the colonists sleep on the island and not be bothered by crabs? Craig Fuller ************************************************************ The entire island is alive with crabs, yes. Everyone who spent time there mentions it, and mentions various strategies for keeping them away --- hammocks, rings of fire, raised platform houses. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:00:59 EDT From: Don Iwanski Subject: Ameriki Has anyone every spent anytime looking at the Ameriki area of the island? This seems to be the South Eastern part of the island and not much is mentioned about it. Is this part of the island overgrown to a point where it makes investigation improbable or was it ruled out for some reason when trying to decipher Gallagher's decription as to where the bones were found? Thank you Don Iwanski ************************************************************ Ameriki is where the USCG had their Loran station. It was scraped clean by bulldozers, so there's not much point in looking there for anything pre-Coast Guard. Given the very promising developments at the Seven site we think we have the right place. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:03:49 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: The "g" Roger Kelley wrote: > When Ric stumbled onto the "g" he obviously discovered something very > much out of place. Where is this in the dailies? I must have g-recognition program turned off. And the songs! Are the lyrics on the website anywhere? LTM (who can't see g without lunch, and who hasn't had lunch today) Mike Holt ************************************************************ http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Expeditions/NikuIIII/NikuIIIIdailies2.html entry for September 7. alas! the song lyrics are not yet on the website, I've got to do that sometime. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:04:37 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: The "g" I was wrong, I have searched the archives and couldn't find a reference to "GP". Searching further, I did find it in one of Mr. Gillespie's favorite books, the Search for Amelia Earhart, by Fred Goerner, page 20: "'GP', as he wanted to be called . . . ". Admittedly, its not the "g" found on the island, but Earhart may have shortened it, referring to him as "g". Had Putnam found it, he might have recognized it and realized it was a marker, clue, symbol etc. Based upon the recent report, someone went to some trouble to place it there, I doubt that it is meaningless. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:06:08 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Letter "g" If it's near the "7" site maybe it's "8" ? (Just kidding..) It could have been g for gerals or gallagher but I'd imagine one would make a capital G rather than a lower case one, the same way people tend to spell HELP instead of help on the ground. It has to be something other than a letter of the alphabet.. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************ Tom thinks it may be an old crab hole --- with the white thrown up and then scattered on top. They are going to put in a test hole 10 or 15 feet away and see if there is a layer of white coral under the gray. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:17:53 EDT From: Lee Kruczkowski Subject: Amelia Earhart's Shoes Received my copy of "Amelia Earhart's Shoes" (written by our 4 Tighars) in the mail on Friday. Reading is not my "thing" but I read it this weekend cover to cover! I was surprised and amazed when I got to the Kanton Island expedition chapter to find the picture of myself standing in back of Ric! What a pleasure to be involved and to be mentioned in the book. I think the book was an excellent job and rate it a MUST READ for other "Tighars" and any Amelia Fans! I have a list of people waiting to borrow my copy already! Congratulations on your book and hope you have more to write about!! Lee #1821CE ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:20:12 EDT From: John Hathaway Subject: Unfinished business For thirty years I wondered time and again what would happen to Betty's notebook and her story. I thought this little bit of history would slip through the cracks and be lost. However, with some prodding from Betty and a bit of luck I found the TIGHAR website. I was pretty sour with Earhart "researchers" from my attempted communication with Fred Goerner and reading newspaper Earhart drivel for years after. My jaw dropped somewhere into the basement when I read the TIGHAR hypotheses. For three days I spent all spare time flipping through the website before contacting Ric. This cursory view of TIGHAR's activities was delightful --- the concept and methodology of using the tools of logic, research, science, and Forum inputs sold me. Betty is a remarkable person who has had quite a life so far. She was once a young Betty and did what she thought her duty and is now an older Betty who finally gets her reward from being able to follow TIGHAR's activities. She enjoys this so much that it is great fun for me just to talk to her about the latest TIGHAR information. TIGHAR has a true leader with the other leader standing right beside him. TIGHAR has the sharpest troops of any. Be proud. You are doing great things. Thank you all for the hard work and serious thought that has given Betty peace of mind. Thank you for taking the load from me. It's been a great ride so far. And kind of a separate thanks to Rollin Reineck who, in his own mysterious way, provided a catalyst in my reaction. Sincerely, John H. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:22:28 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: wreck photo Yes, I know that's an old subject but in reviewing what we know so far I found myself confused by the pictures and commentary in the update. For some reason my head is not getting it. The caption above the large object in the center of the picture comment about the center strut of the windshield. I don't see a center strut OR a windshield. I can't make anything out of that large object with two pairs of rectangular "holes" I gues plus another rectangle kitty corner above and to the right of the four and then another beyond that. Can someone orient me a little? Is that supposed to be the nose section? Is there a quess on the piece to the far left? One last thought. If there is a guess as to where on Niku this photo possibly might have been taken could heavy violent storms pushed it far into the jungle -- if there is a jungle? I'm thinking of the picture from the first or second day of this trip with Ric standing on the beach in front of what looks to me like a jungle. Am I totally lost here? Alan, feeling dumb #2329 ************************************************************ Alan, you're out of my pay grade here. Possibly someone can fill in the gaps for me, I don't do technical airplane stuff. But I do know that for right now, at least, we are inclined to think the wreck photo is *not* AE's plane, although it may indeed may be an Electra. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:26:11 EDT From: Steve Gardetto Subject: Way to Go! Congratulations on the great job you're doing with the daily updates on the Website of the expedition! I don't know what kind of raw material Ric is sending halfway round the world to you at Mission Control, but the finished product is fantastic. They're nicely organized and interesting to read - the next best thing to being there. Kudos also to the anonymous member who revised the maps. LTM, Steve G. ************************************************************ Ric calls me every day at around 12:30 and we just talk. He tells me stuff, I ask him questions, I give him info I've collected, and I take pages of notes. That evening I write it up and post it. It's sort of journalism, I suppose... maybe I've uncovered a secret talent in myself to be a reporter, huh? The "anonymous" member is Christopher Ferro, of the Geology Department of Wheeling Jesuit University in Wheeling, West Virginia -- their Center for Educational Technologies, and yes, the maps are gorgeous and ACCURATE!!! which mine were not. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:27:01 EDT From: Christy Creyts Subject: g on the ground Ric noted that Gallagher did not make his g's like the one found--double circles connected by lines. Are there any correspondence available to determine if AE or Noonan did? christy creyts ************************************************************ Maybe. We'll have to dig into it when Ric gets back with the photos. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:30:16 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: .22 casings I've been out of town, and am just catching up. I've been reading with interest the dialog on the .22. Just a couple of observations. First, if Gallagher had 3 1/2 packets (.22's come 50 in a box, and the boxes are quite small compared to other bullets), that means he left about 175 rounds. One must therefore presume that at least some of the missing 25 (give or take) rounds, were expended. Even if the gun had a full magazine, that leaves a dozen or so unaccounted for. As for the pistol itself, the Colt website referenced by Kerry was quite informative. By going a little further down on the list, you come to the "Woodsman" series of pistols, which are true .22 target pistols. It seems much more likely to me that this is the type of Colt pistol Gallagher would have had. Production of the Woodsman began in 1915 and continued until 1977. I'm going to try to attach a jpeg of a Woodsman to this. Let me know if it doesn't come through... The Colt Ace was first manufactured in 1931, so it would have been available at the time, but the Ace, which is a .22 version of the military .45, is a much heavier gun, and I suspect less desireable. The main arguement in favor of it is that the Government Model was designed to endure major neglect, adverse conditions and abuse, and to keep on functioning. At this stage, it would be anybody's guess as to which he really had. If, when the team gets back, they want cartridges to compare, I have a Colt .22 conversion kit for my gummint model (turns it into an Ace), and would be happy to send you some fired .22 cases for comparison of firing pin, extractor, and ejector locations. Perhaps one of the other Tighars has a Woodsman, and could do the same. It would be interesting to know when and how Gallagher may have come into possession of his pistol. I'll send an Email to Colt's historical department - there's an outside chance they might know something. They have pretty good record keeping. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************ I agree that we'll probably never know which .22 Gallagher had. If he got his gun in anticipation of a posting to the Pacific with the attendant bad environment, he might have gotten the heavier gun; otoh, he might have wanted something light. We just can't know. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:36:20 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re; Firearms and AE >Dunno.... I wouldn't think anyone would leave a firearm on Niku thinking it >would be useful some time later. The environment is so corrosive to steel >that any such thing would be a lump of rust within a few days. > >P Actually, it was common practice in those days to keep an unused firearm in oilcloth - it was totally wrapped in a special paper that was soaked in machine oil of some kind, thus protecting it from the environment. In WWII all of our equipment was first coated in a special grease before being shipped, it then had to be "degreased" before use. I forget the name of the grease, but will probably remember it about the time I hit the send button. COSMOLINE - I remembered it before I hit the send button. Yours, Dave Bush #2200 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:57:44 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: AE and guns The source for not carrying firearms are in the State Department records of the National Archives, providing permission for Earhart to traverse and land in the various countries. ************************************************************ That's pretty conclusive then. I find it hard to think that an avowed pacifist would knowingly violate the terms of her passage by carrying an illegal firearm. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:56:30 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: colt .22 pictures Renaud Dudon wrote: > just go to http://www.colt22.com/. Here you will find all the versions of the > colt .22 "woodsman" sporting pistol. Here are two pictures of version > contemporary to 1937. > > Renaud >************************************************************ > OK, so how do these pistols differ from the automatic that Kerry Tiller found > the website for? The List won't support attachments so the photos can't be > put here, but the pistols in the pictures he sent are more the target pistol > look. > > The inventory of Gallagher's effects specifically says "Colt .22 Automatic" > --- but of course we don't *know* that the casings came from his gun. > > Pat The "Ace" is not a "baby .45" - it is the .45 automatic (1911A1) frame, with a .22 barrel and lighter slide and recoil spring, and a few other parts. An Ace can be converted to a .45 by changing these parts, and Colt sold kits to do just that (as it sold kits to convert the .45 to .22). The "Woodsman" is THE Colt .22 auto (sport and target) of prewar years (and continued in production from about 1915 until the '70's or '80's). It came in three barrel lengths, 4 1/2, 6 and (I think) 6 7/8 inches, with a variey of sights ("target" and otherwise), and stocks. Oscar Boswell ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:55:01 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Broken clamshells I note that many of them had been broken by smashing them on the rocks. I have seagulls drop clamshells to do just this. Might the birds have dropped them in a single small area? ************************************************************ These are giant clams, not the little one seagulls get. We've never seen this behavior from Niku's birds, they are all fish eaters. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:05:20 EDT From: Christopher Ferro Subject: Re: Maps Point of correction! I am a GIS/Remote Sensing Specialist (GIS is Geographic Information Systems) and a Geographer (not Geologist) with the Center for Educational Technologies at WJU (www.cet.edu). The CET is a semi-autonomous entity on campus. Alas, WJU, like many colleges and universities in the U.S.A. has no Geography department. WJU doesn't have a Geology dept. either. In fact, we are in reality a liberal arts college, but the former pres. thought calling it a University would raise our "prestige"... I'd love to have a chance to do more cartographic work for TIGHAR, time permitting. This stuff is GREAT! And I agree, Pat's web stuff for Niku IIII is excellent, enjoyable and informative. I love it! LTM, Christopher (#2447) ************************************************************ I stand corrected. I sit corrected. I am fairly hazy about the difference between geography and geology, anyway (not really, but please don't push too hard on the taxonomy there...) since my college ("the Harvard of the Midwest") was so liberal artsy as to not acknowledge that rocks existed. And thanks for the compliments, folks. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:08:10 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Colt .22s Geez, the first time a real firearms question comes up on the forum and I'm away all weekend on military duty. The "P" marking is most likely Peters, as many others have already said. Gallagher's pistol was probably a Colt Ace (similar in function and appearance to a model 1911 "Government" .45) or a variation of the Woodsman which looked and functioned slightly differently, but fired the same .22 Long Rifle cartridges. Both were produced for many, many years. I can get exact production dates if you need them. One other possibility: Denise and others have recently discussed the differences between US and UK versions of the English language. It is possible that .22 pistols in England at that time were called "Colts" as a generic term, and that Gallagher might have had some other make entirely. Even if we were able to discover the current location of Gallagher's personal effects, the pistol probably was turned in and destroyed under the UK's recent spate of rather draconian gun laws. For Kerry Tiller: I work part time in a gun shop in the Detroit area. Drop me a line and we can compare notes on "collectible inventory" and such. LTM, who didn't want her children playing with toy guns, and ended up with three grown children who are a hunter, a cop, and a gun collector. Dave Porter, 2288 (who'd love to have Gallagher's .22) ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:07:07 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: the fastest gun on Gardner It occurs to me that the artifacts found correspond well with a target practice episode by the coast guard or similar. We have shell casings (two different types) broken plates, porcelaine shard, broken lightbulb, broken thermometer, a chunk of glass and poles (for targets). Even the copper screening and tar-paper would puncture nicely. People always choose something fragile which results in a suitably spectacular or recorded event when hit. Heavy porcelaine plates would not be the sort of thing you'd take to the bush to eat your dinner off (unless of course it was Gallagher). Target practice on the other hand, might well have been an appealing idea to break the boredom. It would be well worthwhile scanning the poles (if they are still around) and any large trees in the immediate vicinity for traces of embedded rounds, both visually and with the metal detectors . Regards Angus Murray. ************************************************************ One of the plate shards is actually marked U.S. Coast Guard, so you are right on there. Some of the artifacts, though, are clearly non-U.S. in origin, hard to explain as part of a very remote American outpost with no contact with anyone else. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:11:17 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Unfinished business The note from John Hathaway was very interesting regarding Betty's notebook. But I don't remember how he fits into the picture. Pat, please enlighten me. ************************************************************ You know, I bet a lot of people have that question. Slow freight department, I'm not sure we every publicized John's role. John is a neighbor of Betty's, a friend of her son's --- boomer generation. He heard the story from her many years ago, and tried to get Fred Goerner interested in the notebook without success. When he heard about TIGHAR's work he sent us an email and was the conduit through which Betty reached us, for which we are eternally grateful. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:08:56 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Firearms and AE > COSMOLINE - I remembered it before I hit the send button. > > Yours, > Dave Bush > #2200 I'm glad you remembered when you did, as I was reading your post I was about reply but was sure I didn't know how to spell cosmoline; which turns VERY viscous with age by the way. Kerry Tiller ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:55:49 EDT From: John Hathaway Subject: Woodsman, don't spare that crab My pre-Woodsman Colt is marked on the slide COLT AUTOMATIC CAL.22 LONG RIFLE Inventory of Gallagher's stuff states 1 Colt .22 automatic. I wonder what the slide markings might be on an Ace? Don't the British refer to automatic pistols as "self- loaders"? Don't own an Ace, just the later conversion with floating chamber. Slide markings from it would not be the same as on the much earlier Ace. Thinking it might be possible slide markings were copied for inventory. For future reference, ALL Colts use left-handed rifling twist. John Hathaway ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:54:29 EDT From Claude Stokes Subject: Amelia's shoes and Betty's notes Thanks to TIGHAR for all the wonderful information about Amelia, and while loosing my thoughts pouring over the wonderful files I have noticed many perfect coorelations. Looking at the pictures of artifacts from Niku III there are some brass eyelets. Then I came across the photos of Amelia and pics of her shoes and it sure looks like the same brass elyelets on her shoes are exactly like the ones found on Niku. Im thinking wherever those eylets were found is the final resting place for Amelia and probably there are other items still in that surronding area. Reading this material is like looking at a painting and the picture comes to focus the more you read. I can see a direct coorelation in the radio logs of Itasca and Bettys note book. As AE made her arrival at howland on or around 0745 local time she loitered in the area not knowing what heading to fly, playing games with the young puppies on the Itasca. At around 0830 she realized this was going no where and rolled her big silver bird onto a heading of 160 and put the mo-jo to the throttles. The Itasca gives her splash down around 0945 but we know thats not true cause she had enough fuel to stay in the air till around 1130. aiming at 4 islands is better than aiming at one and obviousluy at this point she shuts off on the radio with better things to do. She arrives at Niku around 1100 plus or minus, and this is where it coorelates with Bettys note book. only enough fuel to make one quick pass over the island and pick a spot to land. Everything goes silent after the engines are shut down, and the deep psychological depression of situation reality sets in, parked on the edge of the reef she jumps immediatly on the radio. This is around 2300 gmt and her trip has lasted 22 or 23 hours. Im thinking she was dog-tired, but the hardest part was just begining.. In St Petersburg Bettys clock is local time plus 5 for gmt. At 5pm for betty it is 2200 gmt, almost exactly at the time Amelia has landed at Niku. I believe that what Betty heard was the very first post landing messages from AE, and then the tide rolled in and they headed for the beach. If Amelias messages sound giddie, just realize she has been in the air nearly 24 hours wrestling with a big hand full of airplane. and then finds herself stranded with no known outside contact to the real world. and so on and so on. I feal really sad when I look at the Lambrecht photo and realize that Amelia is somewhere in that picture. I bet Lambrecht spent all of 90 seconds zooming Niku before pointing his bird to the next piece of dirt. By the 7th day,, AE was probably exhausted big time and was staying awake at night swatting crabs and sleeping in the day time. As you know,, the sun hits down like a hammer, and I bet AE was in the deep cool shadows of the bush napping out getting ready for the suns daily hammer when Lambrecht arrived. I doubt if she was capable of a jump and run to the beach and by then probably weighed only 80 pounds soaking wet. She prolly hit the beach just in time to see Lambrechts tail feathers leaving Niku forever. Is it sad to know that AE spent her life daring to bite off a big piece of the apple just to end up feeding the crabs??? Darn,, this email is just to long . The Amelia story is better than the Greek Illyadds ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:51:06 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: AE and guns Yes, ok, AE was an avowed pacifist - but how about Noonan - he could have been an avowed Atlantist (just kidding), I mean, an avowed survivalist and felt that protection from possible problems enroute justified the smuggling of a gun along. After all, who wants to end up in the remote jungles with NO protection. But we really have no way of knowing without some form of documentation. Something like a receipt for a gun purchased by Noonan. And even with that, we would need documentation that he carried the gun with him. So its all conjecture, but could lead to something. Would records have been kept in those days on such a purchase. Even if there were, it doesn't mean Noonan purchased it from a source that didn't give a receipt or even possibly received it as a gift. The letters that his wife's family won't release might shed some light on it, but there we have a snag. Yours, DB #2200 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:12:29 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: wreck photo Not too long back (late last year? Early this year?) I sent Ric a photo of the firewall of the Electra, taken I believe when it was being fixed after the Hawaii crash. There is very clearly an opening in the firewall for the exhaust stack. The wreck photo, with the engine stripped off back to the firewall, shows no such opening, which leads me to believe pretty strongly that it's not an Electra. At least not AE's 10-E. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************ Mini tanks! ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:13:20 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: AE and guns > I find it hard to think that an avowed > pacifist would knowingly violate the terms of her passage > by carrying an illegal firearm. P That explains why she gave her gun to Balfour Weight saving never cut it with me. RC 943 ************************************************************ But most of the places she was not supposed to have a gun were well before Lae... P ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:14:56 EDT From: Chuck Boyle Subject: Year 2001 USCG reunion The Loran Coast Guard Reunion, for those stationed in the South Pacific, will start this coming Thursday in Michigan. Mo Lewis, a Coast Guard Loran Veteran stationed on Canton and Atafu Islands, suggests a marker be placed on Gardner Island to remember those CG who operated the Loran Station. Some that worked so hard operation the Loran Station and put up with what the group on the Island now is dealing with are Dick Evans, Leroy Neilson, Glen Burford, Bill Davis, Al Ewald, Wallace Galner, Cortland Goodnoe, George Jischke, Leo Johnson, Dick Polley, Dennis Street, Charles Spoko (Commanding Officer), Bob Begotka, Daniel Idealson, Bob Miller, Louis Turner and Eugene Warszawski. These are just a few stationed on the Island. Most likely a total of 100 or more men were there during the war days. Those stationed on Gardner Island were not there for only a week or two or three, many were there for a year or a year and a half. They have told some very interesting tales of how it was. The first thing they had to do was clear a 300 foot area to house and operate the Station. There is a lot more that could be told of their stay on Gardner. It was not easy. These men should be remembered. Lee (Chuck) Boyle 2060 ************************************************************ Perhaps if we get squared away to go out again in two or three years, over that time period funds could be raised and a plaque designed and made? We would be happy to install it. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:49:31 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Amelia's Shoes and Betty's notes Claude wrote: > As you know,, the sun hits down like a hammer, and I bet AE was in > the deep cool shadows of the bush napping out getting ready for the suns > daily hammer when Lambrecht arrived. I doubt if she was capable of a jump > and run to the beach and by then probably weighed only 80 pounds soaking > wet. She prolly hit the beach just in time to see Lambrechts tail feathers > leaving Niku forever. I was thinking about this a couple of mornings ago. Early morning, crystal clear, little wind and two Pratt & Whitney powered 1950's aircraft flying past at 500 feet. I didn't hear them until they were almost on top of me, and withing two minutes they were far enough away that I couldn't hear them, even though the exhausts were facing my way. If Amelia was on Niku when Lambrecht flew over he could have zoomed several times and she may have been 2 miles away and not had time to get to the beach by the time she heard him. Even if she was on the beach, it's entirely possible neither aircraft crew saw her as they were quite a bit higher than 500 feet by the written account, making it harder to see her and harder for her to hear them. Th' WOMBAT p.s. Our thoughts here in Australia go out to all those affected by the terrible things that have happened in the U.S., especially those who have loved ones lost or injured... ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:51:18 EDT From: Chris Strohmeyer Subject: Metric versus standard Please for give me for my ignorance, but for the uneducated ones like me could you use feet and inches in addition to centimeters? It's frustrating not knowing the distances and the metric system seems to only be used in the scientific community which I am not a part of. Many thanks, Chris in backwoods Petaluma, Ca. ************************************************************ Sorry, Chris, we've learned to think in meters and forget that not everyone has application for the metric system in his life. A meter is a long yard, and there are about two and a half centimeters to an inch. Hope that helps. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:52:00 EDT From: Andy Shaw Subject: Re: Amelia's Shoes and Betty's Notes <<>> We worked this out on the forums a while back. Based on time spent aloft and distance covered on that flight (McKean, Gardner and Carondelet reef were all flown over that morning, in that order) we estimated at the very most they had 10 minutes over Gardner before they had to move on. Basically that's enough time to do one circumference of the island. So one could really understand how something like a submerged Electra actually could be overlooked, as it may have been in their visual range for only a matter of seconds as they scanned the beach and lagoon. It is all quite sad really, especially when one thinks of the "signs of recent habitation." LTM, Andy ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:55:26 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Midnight Ghost Pat said: " . .. . reminds me of the time a member (against strict rules) brought a .22 Derringer (sp?) to Maine during Project Midnight Ghost" Yeah, I remember that episode. I was following him and his buddy by about 10 yards in the woods earlier that day when a branch fell (or something made a noise) and he swung around 90 degrees and looked like he was pointing his finger at something. I stopped looked over in the direction he was pointing, saw nothing, looked back at him and his buddy as they walked "briskly" away. From 10 yards away and with the mottled sunlight in the forest, I didn't know he had "slapped leather" until I got back to camp later that day and learned he was no longer among us. As Pat could verify, there were several "bear sightings" during each of the Midnight Ghost expeditions. If the TIGHAR team were to be believed, the brown/black bears of Maine are not in danger of extinction and keep a close eye on all who trespass their domain. :-) LTM, who believes this is barely on-topic Dennis O. McGee #0149 ************************************************************ It was Jerry Edwards who made the noise, thinking it would be funny... which it was, but he could have had a hole blown in him by ol' trigger-happy Phil, whom we called the Angel of Death (but not because of the gun). Midnight Ghost memories.... I do miss Washington County sometimes. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 21:17:05 EDT From: Malcolm Andrews Subject: Recent events May I echo Th'Wombat's words about yesterday's NY tragedy in saying all our thoughts and prayers from Down Under go out to our American friends. The awful scenes we are watching on television make everything else that is happening seem quite inconsequantial. Malcolm Andrews #2409 ************************************************************ Thank you. Ric tells me that the only way they can keep working and pushing on the island is to remember that, if the expedition is truly successful, it will be good news, and GOOD news is sadly needed right now. The whole situation is so utterly unbelievable, and so utterly real, both at once. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:03:48 EDT From: Pat Subject: Recent events I am posting up everything everyone has to say on the subject of the WTC/Pentagon terrorism in this post... then I ask that we go back on topic. I know it's hard to think of Earhart as important in the larger scheme of things, but sooner or later we'll need to rejoin our lives in progress, and I'd prefer sooner. Pat ************************************************************ Dear Ross, I read with gratitude your kind words of support. I, like so many other Americans, have lost friends in yesterday's attacks. We are grateful for the support of our friends overseas; we took a great deal of comfort from the kind words of the Australian Prime Minister. Thank you again, and bless you. David Katz --------------------------------------------------------- While off topic, I wanted to say that the recent events in NY will bring us together as strong as ever. Other countries have never understood the resolve of our people when we are joined in a common cause. Right will win out this country will survive. God bless America!! Mike Haddock #2438 ------------------------------------------------------- Please express our support, encouragement and appreciation to the team at Niku. I read your update for 09/13 and had already thought of your team and the difficult task they have remaining focused considering their knowledge of the tragic events at home. There is a temptation, and in some cases we have had the luxury to yield to that temptation to put our daily responsibilities aside, to reflect and follow the unfolding events in the northeast and around the world. However, being professionals, I know that the team realizes their window of opportunity is small and they must remain keenly focused on their objective. Theirs is a difficult task, even without the influence of Tuesday's tragedy. Please forward our appreciation of their dedication and professionalism. God speed. Steve Wilson North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- From Herman De Wulf, in Belgium My thoughts are with the American people and the friends I have in the USA. I join Th'Wombat in saying that what we saw on television worldwide makes everything else look inconsequential. There are simply no words to qualify the horror of the scenes showing how some of the human race can turn into relegious criminals for a cause nobody understands. ************************************************************ Many thanks to everyone. The team is carrying on, working hard, and looking forward to getting home as well. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:11:56 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: thoughts on Lambrecht I'm not sure where Ross got the idea that Lambrecht's search was conducted from "quite a bit higher than 500 feet." Lambrecht's ris report says that the search planes circled M'Kean at 50 feet before being forced to pull up to 400 feet by the native bird population. This suggests to me that the Gardner search was conducted from a >maximum< of 500 feet, with swoops as low as 50 feet if the pilots thought they could get away with it. Maybe I'm missing something. Lambrecht's report also speaks of "repeated circling and zooming" -- which certainly indicates more than a quick circumfrence of the island, whatever the Forum may have decided ex post facto. His description of the Norwich City wreck is not only detailed but includes an estimate of the ship's tonnage. And let's not forget that it wasn't just Lt. Lambrecht. There were three airplanes -- six pairs of eyes -- all straining to see signs of aircraft wreckage or survivors. At least, those were their orders. I mention this only because it seems to have become fashionable on this Forum in recent years (I don't mean you, Wombat) to dismiss Lambrecht and his wingmen as incompetent, blind, derelict, or all three. To me this defames six men who are no longer around to defend themselves. These guys were professionals, they knew exactly what they were looking for and they also knew that fame (and fortune -- or at least a medal) awaited the men who found Earhart. To imply that they gave it less than their all is an affront to their memories. Pat Gaston ************************************************************ Certainly I would agree with Pat that the search flight was not conducted by idiots or incompetents, but by people who were doing the very best they could, as a matter of desire, duty, and honor. I think that to look at their search now, and judge it as incompetent, is forgetting that SAR techniques were barely in their infancy at that time. It was WWII and subsequent wars that enabled (forced) the U.S. military to develop the efficiency and thoroughness in SAR that we are accustomed to now. However --- motivations are not the issue here. The fact is, that with the best possible intentions, Lambrecht et al did not stay over Niku for anywhere near long enough to conduct a thorough search. Even had they stayed longer, they might easily have missed one or two people waving frantically on a beach if those people did not have the time or the capacity to create some sort of large-scale signal (like a smokey fire). It is *terrifically* hard to spot stuff on the ground from the air. I think there is no disputing the idea that Earhart was findable, and was findable with the technology and resources available to the searchers. What was lacking was not the will, but the understanding of how and where to search, and with what tools, that seems so clear now. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:16:57 EDT From: Herman Subject: Re: metric vs. standard One yard is exactly 0.9144 m. ************************************************************ Or, one meter is 39.3701 inches. P ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:16:21 EDT From: Claude Stoker Subject: Re: Lambrecht search Regarding air search, I dont believe even 3 pairs of 20/20 eyes could see a person on Niku unless they were out on the edge of the beach. If a person were in the bush or even at the edge of the bush they are invisiible ("they all look like little black dots") I have flown search for the civil air patrol, and for the local sherriff,, in supercubs at 60 mph and in cessna 172's at 100 mph over deep forest and mountainous terrain from 500 feet down to treetop. A large ship is lots easier to see than a 5'-4" person and to give a detailed description of the Norwich city indicates his eyes were being focused on the big picture rather than on the small details. When your doing a aerial search your eyes move along with the passing terrain unless you force yourself to focus on detail. I have searched for known downed aircraft where your sure there is going to be some visible wreckage and believe it or not even a complete aircraft can be invisible. The only search patern I can think of that would give maximum results was if Lambrecht slowed down to landing speed, and the other pilots followed in trail. starting on a heading of 180 crossing the island and the making turns out over the water and recrossing back and forth over the island slowly moving from end to end. This would have taken maybe 30 minutes or more to do 2 complete circuits. (one circuit is usless 3 would be the best) I dont get the idea this is what Lambrecht did, Im thinking he flew at cruise speed up the north side and then down the south side maybe circling several times over the Norwich city. Any expenditure of efforts over the Norwich city was a total waste. A person standing up is only a little black dot with a visible area of maybe 200 sq inches. Lambrecht had a mission and Gardner was not his mission. The mission was to cover as much ground as possible before dark and then move on. Happy landings,, The Stoker ************************************************************ Search patterns such as you suggest are the product, of course, of decades of experience in aerial searching by many organizations. Folks just didn't know how to do it then. Anecdote: In 1989 while we were at Niku a Kiwi P-3 came over looking for us. They knew we were there, and of course could see our ship. We were all (about 14 of us) standing out in the open, wearing brightly colored clothing, waving and jumping up and down. And the crew of the aircraft never saw us. It is worth noting, too, that we did not hear the airplane until it was almost directly overhead, and a P-3 with two turning is certainly as loud as an Electra. Well, maybe not, but plenty loud anyway. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:21:54 EDT From: Jon Tabor Subject: Mind numbing job? I came across the Calvin & Hobbes comic strip that is referenced in today's Expedition Report, and figured everyone would enjoy the much needed humor. http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes/viewch.cfm?uc_fn=1&uc_full_date=19880 504&uc_daction=N&uc_comic=ch Enjoy, Jon Tabor ************************************************************ Many thanks, Jon, that's the one. We actually ran it in TIGHAR Tracks once. For those who want to see it, you will probably have to paste just this much in your browser: http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes and then select the May 1988 calendar and click on May 4. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:23:01 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: Re: metric vs. standard I have to work with both systems at work, depending on the agency who issued the contract drawings. a Meter is 3 feet, three and three eights. (3'-3 3/8") plus or minus or 39.370078 inches A foot is 604.8 millimeters an inch is 25.4 mm There are numerous online conversion sites ************************************************************ I have found it interesting how easy it is to think in both systems once you get used to it. It's all arbitrary anyway. P ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:24:30 EDT From: Antonio Gomez Abraham, Mexico Subject: One last condolence Dear good people of TIGHAR. From here we follow all of this terrible tragedy. was in Mex City for the last two days and please forgive me for not writing sooner. i read they may have found one of the flight recorders. We are with you friends. buena mar to those at Niku. ************************************************************ Thank you. P ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:29:32 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: thoughts on Lambrecht I have to agree with your assessment of Lambrecht's "search" of the island. Don't forget that while the pilots were officers, the observers on the search flights were Navy ROTC cadets, who were undoubtedly totally inexperienced at anything like this. Regarding their observation of the SS Norwich City, it seems very likely they were paying more attention to the ship than to its surroundings, and the rest of the time the pilots were watching out for birds as much as searching the island. ltm, jon 2266 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:31:07 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: thoughts on Lambrecht Patrick Gaston wrote: > I'm not sure where Ross got the idea that Lambrecht's search was conducted > from "quite a bit higher than 500 feet." Umm Ross did the usual and referred to someting he'd read a while ago about birds forcing the search planes higher. Unfortunately Ross didn't read it again before putting fingers to keyboard! > And let's not forget that it wasn't just Lt. Lambrecht. There were three > airplanes -- six pairs of eyes -- all straining to see signs of aircraft > wreckage or survivors. At least, those were their orders. > I mention this only because it seems to have become fashionable on this > Forum in recent years (I don't mean you, Wombat) to dismiss Lambrecht and > his wingmen as incompetent, blind, derelict, or all three. To me this > defames six men who are no longer around to defend themselves. I agree. The problem here is that many of the forum don't fly and think you can see a lot from the air. The airplane itself blocks an awful lot of the island from view, and even trained observers have a lot of trouble seeing a person on the ground. I remember a search exercise where we had around a dozen aircraft flying over a small area (at staggered times) looking for an aircraft lying on its back. The search aircraft mostly had a pilot and two or three passengers, some experienced in this sort of thing, scanning the ground. Two of the search aircraft found the plane, which was in the corner of a paddock (field). The "survivors" were in the open, waving things (probably their fists - in frustration) at the overflying aircraft. The exercise proved how difficult a search from an aircraft is. Lambrecht's men would have been highly trained observers, but would have to be looking at just the right spot at just the right time. Somewhere on the TIGHAR web site there is a picture called 1975.jpg. It is a low level aerial shot that shows a foot trail leading from the beach inland. If you can find the picture, look at it for 3 seconds then close your eyes and try to remember just what you saw. That is probably about the time Lambrecht's men saw any one part of the island from that height. > These guys were professionals, they knew exactly what they were looking for > and they also knew that fame (and fortune -- or at least a medal) awaited > the men who found Earhart. To imply that they gave it less than their all > is an affront to their memories. I think the last things on their minds as aviators would have been fame, fortune or medals. In their minds, as naval aviators, it could have been any of them down there.... Anyway, the original post was about my surprise at how quickly the sounds from two large WWII aircraft engines died out while they were still very close. Th' WOMBAT ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:30:53 EDT From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: One last condolence I should have written sooner about this, but have been somewhat in shock. I live only about 30 miles from the Somerset County, Pa. location where Flight 93 crashed. It was the 911 dispatcher here in my hometown of Greensburg, Pa. that picked up the cellphone call from the plane announcing the hijacking, and I was teaching at Donegal Elementary School only a few miles away from the Somerset crash site on Tuesday when that crash occurred. People here are stunned, but it was announced this evening that the flight data recorder of Flight 93 was found in the impact crater. Debris has been found as far as 6 miles from the crater. The cockpit voice recorder has yet to be found. It is believed, on the basis of cellphone call content from this plane, that the passengers may have actively thwarted the intentions of the hijackers, resulting in the crash at this location, rather than at some Washington, D.C. strategic target. This entire tragedy is beyond words, except perhaps for prayers for the victims and their families. Dr. Gene Dangelo #2211 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:32:19 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: metric vs. standard > I have found it interesting how easy it is to think in both systems once you > get used to it. It's all arbitrary anyway. > > P The same can be said for which side of the road to drive on and which side of the car the steering wheel is on. My last car in Japan was left hand drive (in a right hand drive world). And, of course, true bilinguality allows you to think in both appropriate languages at once. LTM (who knows a miss isn't quite as good as 2 kilometers) Kerry Tiller ************************************************************ I should note that we use metric in field work because it is the international standard for archeology, not because we think we're sharp . P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:35:28 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: metric vs. standard Bill Zorn wrote: > A foot is 604.8 millimeters > > an inch is 25.4 mm I am not posting this to laugh "at" Bill, just to laugh with him when he realises what he's written. (He did a WOMBAT) A foot is 12 inches.. an inch is 25.4mm 25.4 x 12 = ????? It just looked a little ODD.. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************ I expect that what we have here is a common-or-garden typo. I mean, the six is right above the three on *my* keypad... P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:35:53 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Lambrecht search > Anecdote: In 1989 while we were at Niku a Kiwi P-3 came over looking for > us. They knew we were there, and of course could see our ship. We were all > (about 14 of us) standing out in the open, wearing brightly colored > clothing, waving and jumping up and down. And the crew of the aircraft > never saw us. > > It is worth noting, too, that we did not hear the airplane until it was > almost directly overhead, and a P-3 with two turning is certainly as loud > as an Electra. Well, maybe not, but plenty loud anyway. > > Pat AHA !!! The whole point of both sides of my argument, from the air and the ground perspective AT NIKU... Thanks, Pat.. It illustrates what I was trying to get across about Lambrecht's task and Earhart's predicament.. Th' WOMBAT ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:37:39 EDT From: Marjorie Smith Subject: A jeep tire? Concerning the report for September 14: I'm a newcomer, so I may be missing some precedents, but what the heck is a jeep tire doing on Nikumaroro? ************************************************************ There was a U.S. Coast Guard Loran station on Niku during WWII, and they had a troop carrier. "Jeep tire" is really too specific; I should have written "a tire of the automotive/land transportation type." Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:38:59 EDT From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Metric vs. standard Chris, No need to despair. There are MANY automated sites on the net which will convert metric to standard English units for you. eg: http://www.b25.net/l39metric.html http://anduin.eldar.org/~ben/convert.html http://www.unitwiz.com/ hundreds more: http://www.google.com/search?q=convert+metric+to+english Suzanne Stockton, CA ************************************************************ Thanks, Suzanne ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:39:49 EDT From: Claude Stoker Subject: Lambrecht photo I believe we can see exactly what Lambrechts crew was looking at by a close look at the photo. The first thing i notice is that the airplane is off shore maybe 2000 feet more or less. I expect this is exactly the path flown by the search team after the initial pass and bird encounters. The altitude of the picture appears to be maybe 500 feet, maybe 800 feet, but not lower than that. It looks like almost high tide, with breakers near the beach which means any remaining aircraft parts would be submerged with breakers washing over them. The idea behind a "zoom" is that your pushing the nose down,, picking up extra speed, and then pulling up. Im not familiar with the speeds to fly on the type aircraft used, but a zoom could easily be 160 mph if cruise speed is 120. Zooming is not a good way to see stuff on the ground. He prolly zoomed at the yellow line or what ever they used as vne. The slant range visibility from 500 feet and 2000 feet offshore would be nearly 2100 feet from an object on the beach. Finally, the density of the bush is extreem, very thick vegitation. Im not saying Lambrecht was incompitent, only that I think he was in a hurry. Creating a search pattern is not neccissarily a modern idea. Its just a matter of how well an individual is tuned to the task at any given moment. Happy landings,, The Stoker ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:41:40 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: P-3-s Pat said: " . . . . P-3 with two turning is certainly as loud as an Electra." Yeah, but with ALL 4 turning it would be even louder! :-) LTM, who apologizes for picking nits Dennis O. McGee #0149 ************************************************************ HA! Gotcha, Dennis. Crews of P-3s routinely shut down one or two engines on protracted flights to save fuel once at cruise altitude. This one had two turning. Which was why I specified that.... :-PPPPPPPPPP LTM, who knows quite well how many engines a P-3 has Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:04:28 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Lambrecht's search The question is not why Lt. Lambrecht & his flight did not see any _persons_ in the undergrowth or waving to them from the beach area on Gardner Island... the queston is (& always has been) why the Lambrecht flight failed to see an _intact_ Electra 10E sitting on the reef flat during their overflight (some of which (50') was almost at ground level) ? The usual answer has always been... that sometime during the interval between the last recorded radio transmission received from the Electra & the date of the Lambrecht flight, the Electra was either smashed to pieces by _normal tidal_ &/or wavewash activity, (Randy Jacobson confirmed there was no _abnormal_ tidal or wavewash activity at Gardner Island in July 1937) that even at high tide would only rise to 4' on the reef flat... or, the aircraft was completely washed off the reef flat into the abyss at the far edge of the reef flat, during that same time frame. Now one might be ready to fully accept the... 'washed off the reef flat, into the abyss by _normal_ tidal/wavewash action'... theory, _if_ it could be proven that AE's original landing was at or very close to the outer edge of the reef flat; However, it seems a bit of a stretch to accept as _fact_ that the Electra (assuming a landing at a more comfortable distance from the reef edge) was smashed to pieces (in place) by _normal_ wavewash/tidal action, so as to render its normal configuration as an aircraft, unrecognizable from the sky, during that same time frame. With all due respect for the considerable expertise of the many flyers on the forum, with air-rescue experience, I must still harbor doubt that the Lambrecht flight could have missed seeing an _intact_ Electra, sitting in plain view, on the reef flat, from an altitude of 50'. Admittedly, it is difficult to spot small objects on the ground from the air, however Gardner Island was not a vast mountainous, forested or desert area or even a vast expanse of ocean, where it is expected that sighting objects from the air (even at low altitudes) would be _extremely_ difficult... it is a very narrow, confined piece of real estate, the only object to be seen on the surface of the ocean, with the reef flat & beach areas surrounding it, reasonably clearly defined, where numerous pairs of human eyes could readily focus their attention, especially on low altitude fly-by, in seeking to observe the _only_ item they were looking for, an intact airplane on either the reef flat or beach, or the visible wreckage thereof. Don Neumann ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:09:16 EDT From: Roger Smith Subject: Re: W10 Niku map area I'm just curious why Ric is metal detecting in W-10 area. I never saw any pre-planing where they mentioned searching this area. Why does Ric think there might be airplane parts in W-10? Roger ************************************************************ It was always the plan of the Dive team to work the lagoon shores, as well as the lagoon middle, around the delta. Because the visibility is so poor it's easier to do it with a metal detector than eyes, that's all. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:16:51 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: thoughts on Lambrecht John Stoker's post typifies exactly the sort of Lambrecht-bashing I have been talking about. I would be interested in seeing the data behind Mr. Stoker's conclusion that "Lambrecht had a mission and Gardner was not his mission. The mission was to cover as much ground as possible before dark and move on." Interesting also that, according to Mr. Stoker, Lambrecht & Co. "flew at cruise speed up the north side and then down the south side [of Niku], maybe circling several times over the Norwich city." Obviously, then, Lambrecht was lying when he said the search party engaged in "repeated circling and zooming" of the island. Of course the search would have centered on the beach and lagoon, as the wreckage would have been impossible to spot in the jungle, and no pilot in her right mind would have attempted to ditch there. However, if the Electra did go down in the jungle, one assumes the inhabitants would have found it over the course of 24 years of colonization. I realize that discrediting Lambrecht is central to the viability of the Niku Hypothesis, but that doesn't make it any more justifiable. Pat Gaston ************************************************************ Re: your last sentence: I don't think that's necessarily true. In our opinion, Lambrecht did the best he could with a bad job. As previously stated, finding just about anything from the air is hard, and in a place like Niku it's beyond hard to almost impossible. The fact that he saw something that made him think the place was inhabited, or had been recently, meant he was keeping his eyes open in a big way. The only possible fault I can see being laid at his doorstep *might* be a failure to insist on going back, or putting a ground search party ashore... on the other hand, such insistence is a real good way of setting back your chances for promotion when the Captain thinks it isn't necessary to be all that attentive. And let's remember that as far as Friedell knew, the Lexington was going to come in behind the Colorado and look at the whole area again. The 1937 searchers did the best they could with the information and technology they had. The fact that they did not find Earhart doesn't mean she wasn't right there, just that they didn't look in the right place in the right way. Which experience we've all had when we declare that we have looked *everywhere* for our whatchmajiggit and then someone else goes and finds it... Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:18:03 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: metric vs. standard Watch out Bill ! If you build houses using 604 mm as a reference to a foot you'll end up with a very, very big house and one much bigger than the one ordered. Since one yard is 0.9144 m and since there are three ft in a yard, it follows that one foot must be 0.3048 m or 30.48 cm. The amazing thing is that when the British and the French decided to build supersonic Concordes together, they split the work with the French using milimeters and centimers while the Brits measured everything in inches. And believe it or not, when the parts were assembled they fitted and was probably one of the greatest achievements of aviation in the 20th century. Suppose the Brits would have used Bill's 604 mm reference they would have ended up with airplanes double the size of the French. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:21:19 EDT From: Chris Strohmeyer Subject: Re: metric vs. standard Did Pat and most scientists grow up learning the metric system first or the standard first? You obviously think in metric but do you have to convert on paper or in your heads when you change to standard? Do you have tape measures around the house that are metric? Why is metric better than standard? Most everything I've come in contact with is standard except for foreign cars and radio equipment. It reminds me of my father saying that you should learn how to drive a standard shift car first before an automatic, otherwise it's harder to learn to drive a standard. Thanks for everybody's help! Chris in Petaluma Ca. ************************************************************ The only reason metric is easier is that most of us think in base 10 rather than base 12 . Really, being able to convert back and forth to decimals makes life a lot easier. I mean, trying to remember what 1 and 3/16 inch is in decimal form is enough to send anyone to metric. And I learned to drive on a stick too. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:17:31 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: metric vs. standard Herman de Wulf wrote: > The amazing thing is that when the British and the French decided to build > supersonic Concordes together, they split the work with the French using > milimeters and centimers while the Brits measured everything in inches. And > believe it or not, when the parts were assembled they fitted and was probably > one of the greatest achievements of aviation in the 20th century. Suppose the > Brits would have used Bill's 604 mm reference they would have ended up with > airplanes double the size of the French. Mmmm..... Wonder if they used 604.8mm/foot on the Hubble Telescope mirror :-) Simon Ellwood #2120 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:18:53 EDT From: Malcolm Andrews Subject: Re: metric vs. standard As a journalist (of some 37 years in the business) I am intrigued by the use of words, especially Chris Strohmeyer's use of 'standard' and 'metric'. I would have thought the metric system was standard as it is used in the vast majority of the countries of the world. The correct description of the system that is virtually only in use in the US and a few countries in its sphere of influence is 'Imperial'. It was, after all, invented by the British. As an Australian educated in the 1950s, I was brought up on the Imperial system. But have learned to live with metric after years of working in Europe and with Australia following most countries and changing to the metric system. Old habits die hard. I still think in Imperial measures but quickly convert in my head. It is indelibly printed on my mind that there is aproximately 2.54cm to an inch. And there are 2.2lb to the kg. I am still having trouble with temperature and miss the 100 degrees sizzler of a day. But I do know that 37 degress C is bloody hot! Malcolm Andrews #2409 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:19:40 EDT From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Re: Lambrecht's search Here's how Lambrecht describes his search: "As in the case of the subsequent search of the rest of the Phoenix Islands [which presumably includes Gardner], one circle at fifty feet around M'Kean aroused the birds to such an extent that further inspection had to made from an altitude of at least 400 feet." I take this to mean the planes made a single very low altitude circumnavigation of Gardner followed by study of unknown duration considerably higher up. There was also apparently some "circling and zooming" (low altitude passes?) but it's pretty clear from the report that this was only in reference to the "signs of recent habitation," not over the island in general. The experience of Pat and The Wombat suggests that the only way the circumnavigation would've found the AE/FN is if they happened to out on the beach before the O3U's passed. By the time they could have run (or crawled) out from any cover, the planes would have been gone not to return low again. If AE/FN were near the signs of habitation, I think they would have had a much better chance. On the other hand, the experience of other forum members suggests that being spotted from 400+ feet would be just total luck. I conclude Lambrecht could have easily missed one or two people on the ground. Assuming there was anyone alive and ambulatory at that point anyway. I have to agree with Don Neumann that it's harder to understand how Lambrecht could have missed the 10E when it was precisely the thing he was looking for. Possible to miss it due to surf and such? I guess. But at first blush it hardly seems probable. Of course, if the 10E were slam-dunked into a reef canyon, then it would've been missed but the recent dives have turned up no evidence of this. But here's a question for those of you with experience in big radial singles: You're going to circumnavigate an island off its shore at an altitude of 50 feet. Which way around do you go? If I understand 30's era military singles right, I would guess you'd choose counterclockwise so that if you have to gun it and pull up for some reason the torque of the engine would take you way from the trees. The significance of this is that if the 10E landed where TIGHAR thinks it landed, then the Norwich City could obscure your view of the 10E wreck if you flew this way. There's something else Lambrecht says that pertains to spotting the 10E: "Given a chance, it is believed that Miss Earhart could have landed her plane in this lagoon [at Gardner] and swam or waded ashore." That's curious. Why would he say "what a nice lagoon for ditching," when a reef landing would clearly be preferred? To me this suggests that it did not occurred to Lambrecht that a plane might land on a reef. Flying around at 400 feet or so, maybe he never saw the 10E because he never looked at the right place. Could've, would've, should've, whatever. --Mike Z. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:24:09 EDT From: Troy Carmichael Subject: A question I am sure it has been answered before, and non-substantive at that, but what is the reason behind using "archeology" instead of "archaeology"? ************************************************************ The archeological community has slowly been losing this battle for years, and has pretty much given in. The "ae" is not, of course, a e but the joined-together letter which indicates a Latin rendering of the Greek diphthong ai. I suspect that email has caused the final demise of the classical spelling because it's not really possible to type the letter correctly, with the ligature. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:24:47 EDT From: Kurt Thompson Subject: Search aircraft As a retired military pilot, who even flew big round engines similar to AE, in the Navy T28Bs we had in the ACE Board at Ft. Bragg, I can tell you that zooming will create an enormous amount of prop and engine noise when the dive is terminated and climb commenced, especially with a pitch change on the prop. If she was alive, and if she was there, she probably heard the multiple zooms made by the searchers. She may have been unable to respond to what she heard, especially if she were injured and the large coconut crabs found her at night. That we will never know the answer to. I would have thought that "signs of recent habitation" would have triggered a full search by people on the ground though. That omission distress me. Kurt Thompson Tighar #2441 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:25:58 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: Re: metric vs. standard 604.8 mm? That's more like 23 3/4" to 23 7/8" oops....No excuses on that one, didn't review or spell check. (or MATH check, where is that button)? 304.8 mm to the foot. My erroneous use of the number six did remind me of something..... Why was 6 afraid? Because 7 8 9. Sorry about ALL that Bill ************************************************************ And there's the bad joke of the week... a special for all of you who have small children :-). P ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:26:34 EDT From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Re: Lambrecht's search (errata) I wrote (emphasis added): "You're going to circumnavigate an island off its shore at an altitude of 50 feet. Which way around do you go? If I understand 30's era military singles right, I would guess you'd choose *counterclockwise* so that if you have to gun it and pull up for some reason the torque of the engine would take you way from the trees." But what I meant was: "...I would guess you'd choose *clockwise*..." That is, you'd keep the shore to your right and thus be Northbound as you approach the Norwich City. I must've been thinking of your Australian clocks, Wombat :-) --Mike Z. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:27:05 EDT From: Charlie Sivert Subject: Re: Lambrecht's search There has been much discussion on the forum in regard to the failure of Lt. Lambrecht's search of Gardner. No one has mentioned that there was a possibility that any castaways could NOT make their presence known to the aviators during the flyovers. The castaways had a very limited supply of food and water from the plane, and unless they were able to find something useful in the Norwich City cache, they could have been in "dire straits" by July 9th. Also, I have wondered if the storm which forced Lt. Harvey and his PBY back to Hawaii in the early part of the search could have had some effect on the Gardner area. Charlie Sivert, 0269E ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:51:22 EDT From: David Katz Subject: Re: a question Yes it is: =E6. David Katz Re: A question Yes it is: æ. David Katz ************************************************************ I rest my case . There is considerable variation in how different email programs and different browsers read "special" characters, especially in the environment of a maillist. In AOL, I see the first example as correct --- an a and an e joined together. The second example is html --- hyper text markup language --- which I can read because I work in code all the time, but which AOL does not "translate." (and which, by the way, you should set your email program to not include because it comes through on every email as extra stuff to strip out) To be sure of everyone reading everything correctly we'd all have to use the same keyboards, operating systems, mail programs, and so forth... standardization. What a concept! ---- and since we are Mac based we'd be the first up against the wall. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:54:07 EDT From: Troy Carmichael Subject: Re: a question so it is archæology? With a PC, you can hold down the key and, on the numeric keypad, type the number "145". When you release the alt key, the character will be "æ" in most western character sets. As a Southern American currently banished to California, I will be rebellious and use "archæology" as much as possible.... LTM (who knows an awful lot about DOS and standard ASCII character sets, which is useless to this investigation ) --troy-- ************************************************************ Yep, technically archæology. On my Mac G-4 you type option-apostrophe and it looks right... but that's no guarantee it will look right in, say, Germany or Japan. P ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:54:53 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Lambrecht Search The storm that sent the PBY back was typical of what is found in the Inter-tropic Convergent Zone, or ITCZ. It's typically located at 5*N at that time of the year...mostly nasty weather. All ships that sailed through it during the search and return to Honolulu experienced it, but once about 3*N, clear, sunny weather returned. No influence whatsoever on the Howland approach or what could happen at Gardner. ========================== Thanks, Randy, I was hoping you'd field that one. P ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:56:32 EDT From: Claude Stoker Subject: Gardner search I agree with Kurt, that it is disturbing what the Colorado didnt do knowing there were signs of recent habitation reported by Lambrecht. Looking at the Search map posted on the TIGHAR web site you can see that the Colorado was steaming right down the middle between Gardner and McKean. Using a pair of scissors for dividers on my screen with 60nm per degree between grid lines, Im estimating that Colorado passed within 40nm of gardner at 1030 when she retrieved the search planes for refueling. Why then didnt they just make a right turn and steam on over to Gardner and launch a ground search that same afternoon?? So easy, so quick, very little loss of time and no wasted expenditure of resources. It was a freebe. It looks like they could have made a ground search, and also launched aircraft at 1430 to search Hull right from the proximity of Gardner. The time spent on ship from 1030 till 1430 was just wasted do nothing time anyway. The next launch at 1430 and retrieval at 1645 was still just a few miles from Gardner Im thinkng that the Mind set of the search was to find an airplane. No airplane,, no survivors. I admit, this is just speculation on my part. The Stoker ************************************************************ Well, not quite a freebee. Friedell had noticed that the charts of the island group were pretty inaccurate, and the last thing you want is to put a battleship on a reef, doesn't do much for your career. And remember, as far as he knew, the Lex was going to cover the same territory. P ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 00:03:05 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Re: Blind Man's Bluff/Lambrecht I would add the following to Ron Bright's post: 1. At Hull, Lambrecht had no trouble seeing the resident natives "cloistered around a large shack erected on high stilts." Moreover, the sighting occurred "as the planes approached the island," indicating they were still some ways off. On a subsequent "zoom" of the village, Lambrecht got close enough to determine what the natives were wearing (nothing). 2. Lambrecht subsequently landed in the Hull lagoon, braving submerged reefs, for the purpose of making inquiries about Earhart. He was certainly not required to do this, nor is it the act of a guy who was just putting in his time. As Ron noted, the "report" we have was written for some sort of weekly newsletter, which explains its casual and somewhat self-deprecating tone. As far as I know his official report, if there was one, has never surfaced. Pat Gaston ************************************************************ The official report we have is Friedell's report, which of course drew heavily on Lambrecht's report but differs from it in significant ways, primarily in not passing on the remark about "signs of recent habitation." P ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 00:03:55 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Lambrecht's search Perhaps we should consider an excerpt from Lt. Lambrecht's own report, upon his flight's _approach_ to Hull Island, which he described as having very similar topography as Gardner, except for actually _having_ human habitation... ..."As the planes approached the island toward its southern end natives could be seen cloistered around a large shack erected on high stilts."... In other interviews Lt. Lambrecht insisted visability was excellent, claiming one could have easily spotted a life-raft on the calm ocean surface from a distance of at least five miles. Making a reasonable assumption that Lt. Lambrecht's flight _approached_ Hull Island, probably at the _same_ altitude & speed as they had approached Gardner Island... & again... assuming that the clear visability from the sky had not changed...can we not agree & would it not seem reasonable to also assume that Lt. Lambrecht &/or his fellow flight members would have surely been able to spot the _only_ object of their quest... either an intact Electra sitting on the exposed reef-flat, or the remaining wreckage thereof... _if_ it was there to see ? Don Neumann ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 00:05:24 EDT From: Chris Strohmeyer Subject: Re: standard vs. metric Boy, have I opened a can of worms! Any comments about Britain's Witworth form of measurements? Also, by being an American all my life the S.A.E. method of measurement is all I know or have been taught. The conversion from S.A.E. to metric in America was a dismal failure as I understand it. Why? Wonder if we're getting a little off topic here? It's sorta fun though. Chris in Petaluma, Ca. ************************************************************ Well, yes, we are a bit off-topic. Happens a lot here. If anyone knows or can reference the answer to Chris' questions let's have it, and then go back to arguing about time zones or something. P ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 00:00:36 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: a question The truth, of course, is the Americans have for many years sought to simplify and "rationalise" English. The logical conclusion of this is that they will end up spelling everything phonetically and lose that rich tapestry deriving from the classical and Romance languages. Hence we have center for centre, aluminum for aluminium and sorder for solder. Some of these particular variations are merely bastardisations or result from ignorance or laziness. E-mail has little to do with the rendering "Archeology". This is a supposed rationalisation. However as a true Brit, I can say that we invented the language and so I think we know best how to spell it. Archaeology - please! Regards Angus Murray ************************************************************ Given that this comes from one whose name, at least, is Scots --- when youse guys finish applying your spelling rules to Scots Gaelic and come up with something that is least partially consistent, then we'll talk about American English spelling. :-) Pat, who is married to a Ghilleaspuig.... where is GB Shaw when we need him? (BTW, most American English dictionaries list both spellings of such words as colour/color, archeology/archaeology, and so on, as correct.) ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 00:01:09 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Standard vs. metric Dear Malcolm: Old habits die hard. A transmission with a manual clutch is still referred to as a standard transmission in the US despite the fact that the majority of vehicles sold today have an automatic transmission, which would make them the "standard". Yours, Dave Bush #2200 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 10:50:17 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: standard vs. metric Chris Strohmeyer wrote: > Also, by being an American all my life the S.A.E. method of measurement is > all I know or have been taught. The conversion from S.A.E. to metric in > America was a dismal failure as I understand it. Why? Wonder if we're > getting a little off topic here? It's sorta fun though. I've been going through some Popular Mechanics and other such magazines from the 60s and the early 70s. In the early 60s there were articles about the conversion, which was said to be complete by the 70s. But by the late 60s, references to the metric approach were hard to find. At about the same time, some other publications -- NASA's stuff was the first, I think -- was playing with changes in spellings ("aline" for "align," and stuff like that. As far as I can see, we just lost interest when the space program wound down and the welfare state started. Or maybe we were all expected to start spelling things in phonetic ways and metric would follow naturally? My '72 Vega had metric numbers inside the English numbers on all the gauges. LTM (who is metric AND English) Mike Holt ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 10:52:51 EDT From: Leah Ouzinian Subject: Spiders and tropical islands What kinds of spiders inhabit the islands out there in the Pacific? Could they withstand the high temps out there? I understand that getting bit by anything out there can lead to a nasty (or fatal) infection. LTM, who loves those wolf spiders in Michigan Leah ************************************************************ Spiders live everywhere. I don't know much about spiders so can't tell you anything about the exact kinds, but they're all over the place. And any break in the skin could be a problem there, yes. P ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 10:54:10 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: recent habitation Lambrecht's remark about "signs of recent habitation" has always been troubling, but perhaps his report provides a clue. In the section on Canton, after noting the shacks and "constructions" left over from the [June 1937] eclipse expedition, he writes that "no signs of contemporary habitation were visible." This suggests that Lambrecht may have been making a distinction between "contemporary" and "recent" habitation, as in "currently inhabited" vs. "inhabited at some time in the not-too-distant past." I admit that's reading a lot into two words, but it's no worse than TIGHAR's interpretation of "low on fuel" as "low on fuel, not counting my four-hour reserve." More likely, in my view, is that the "signs" on Gardner were incompatible with a rude castaway campsite -- probably some sort of "constructions," like shacks or huts left over from the Arundel days. I believe that in one of his later interviews, Lambrecht spoke of "crumbling walls." Unless you're a dedicated Lambrecht-basher, it's hard to accept that the senior aviator in charge of the Earhart search party would disregard >any< evidence that suggested, even remotely, Earhart's presence on Gardner. He certainly was not averse to landing in order to check things out, as he proved that same day on Hull. And if he ever had second thoughts about those "signs," it's hard to see him writing about them a week later. Talk about putting your head in the noose! For Kurt Thompson and Charlie Sivert: Of course it's possible that Earhart was in dire straits, or dead, by July 9, which would explain the lack of an "answering wave." But there remains the problem of the Electra. Which leads into a discussion of how likely it is that the airplane was swept off the reef flat so completely, in the space of one week or less, that nothing remained for Lambrecht & Co. to see. Which I ain't touching with a ten-foot pole because it's been hashed and rehashed till there's no hash left. Still, it's a shame Lambrecht wasn't more specific about what he saw on Gardner. I wonder if there is a more formal "official report," and if it will ever be found. Pat Gaston ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 10:55:19 EDT From: Mike Ruiz Subject: Re: Lambrecht's search Don wrote >...........can we not agree & would it >not seem reasonable to also assume that Lt. Lambrecht &/or his fellow >flight members would have surely been able to spot the _only_ object of >their quest... either an intact Electra sitting on the exposed >reef-flat, or the remaining wreckage thereof... _if_ it was there to >see ? Several years ago I argued this point on the forum. Pilots I spoke with back then said it is very difficult to see an aircraft on the ground from the air. Other pilots told me there was no way they would have missed seeing the Electra on an island like Gardner, in the weather conditions they flew in. My opinion has always been that Lambrecht did not see the Electra because it was not there. The aircraft probably washed off the reef. If there was wreckage on Gardner, it was too small too see from the air. (This is consistent with TIGHARS search so far) Despite the "signs of recent habitation", Lambrecht saw no reason to put down on Gardner. I think there were huts from a old plantation and a marker of some kind there (cant remember all the details now) which i'm sure he saw. Another argument put forth was that wreckage could have been there, but not visible at high tide. At any rate, based on what I read years back, I concluded Lambrecht and his crew were careful and observant and would not have missed seeing an intact aircraft. Amelia and Fred most likely had perished by then, probably close to " the seven site. " I do not believe Amelia and Fred would have been visible from the air. I suspect they would have perished in a shady spot. I believe I recall many opinions that survival for a week on Gardner with minimal water is not likely. For what its worth.......... Mike #2088 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 10:56:04 EDT From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: standard vs. metric >Any comments about Britain's Witworth (sic) >form of measurements? Chris Strohmeyer Here is the history of the inventor, Sir Joseph Whitworth. It tells it all! http://www.lrml.org/directory/whitworth/mandb188706.htm > The conversion from S.A.E. to metric in America was a >dismal failure... Why? Tradition! Sets us apart from the world! Now, where's my 2-liter Diet Coke? More research on these matters can be self-found by starting at the Google Search Engine at http://www.google.com/ eg: http://home.clara.net/brianp/index.html lots of links: http://dir.yahoo.com/science/measurements_and_units/ Suzanne ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:34:13 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Official reports Patrick Gaston wrote > Still, it's a shame Lambrecht wasn't more specific about what he saw on > Gardner. I wonder if there is a more formal "official report," and if it > will ever be found. Were formal reports written about that sort of flight? Did any other pilot comment in writing? Mike Holt ************************************************************ Randy? ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:35:58 EDT From: David Katz Subject: Re: Lambrecht's search > Several years ago I argued this point on the forum. Pilots I spoke with > back then said it is very difficult to see an aircraft on the ground from > the air. Other pilots told me there was no way they would have missed > seeing the Electra on an island like Gardner, in the weather conditions they > flew in. It seems to me that the Japanese pilots had no trouble seeing our planes on the ground at Pearl Harbor and Clark Field. David Katz ************************************************************ Ummm, David, there is a big difference between seeing airplanes on a runway and seeing an airplane, busted up, awash in surf, and scattered across a reef in a meter or more of water..... Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:39:06 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: Lambrecht search Randy Jacobson's stated that the storm which turned back the PBY search aircraft had no influence on Nikumaroro (Gardner) Island. Did the storm in question provoke a high surf on Niku, which in turn removed AE's Electra from the reef? LTM, (who loves to watch the surf when the storm surge rolls in) Roger Kelley ************************************************************ It could have, but we don't know if it did. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:38:03 EDT From: Kurt Thompson Subject: Hopes for the outcome of the expedition Knowing that the expedition is rapidly reaching its endpoint, I hope and pray that some solid evidence of AE & FN's having been on Gardner has been found. This is a quest that has spanned many years and needs to be laid to rest for many reasons, not least of which is closure for the families of the two missing people. At this point we do not know whether anything has been found that will connect them solidly to the site, but I know we will all closely follow the results of the scientific study in the expedition's aftermath. Even a single tooth or piece of bone is capable of bearing the DNA evidence we all so desperately hope to hear of. I wish the members of the group Godspeed and fair winds and smooth sailing in their return, knowing that during a previous expedition that was not experienced. I don't think we could have assembled a more technically qualified team for this trip and I have the utmost faith in their efforts on our behalf. I honestly believe that if evidence exists on Gardner, they will bring it back. Kurt Thompson TIGHAR # 2441 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:39:21 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: Official reports The official report by the Commander ot the Colorado does not support any signs of recent habitation on Gardner. ************************************************************ That is true. But the report of the person who actually was there searching specifically says "signs of recent habitation." In general, we go with the person who was putting his eyes on the ground. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:40:09 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: official reports Fred Goerner interviewed Lambrecht, and he stated that he saw some sort of "markers". No other pilots or observers made contemporary or later reports. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:41:40 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Lambrecht search Roger Kelley wrote: >Randy Jacobson's stated that the storm which turned back the PBY search >aircraft had no influence on Nikumaroro (Gardner) Island. > >Did the storm in question provoke a high surf on Niku, which in turn >removed AE's Electra from the reef? No, it would not have. Why? The ITZC is not an organized storm, but rather a distributed one. Waves observed at Howland Island area were small; almost flat. It's inconceivable that the waves would grow in intensity from an area between the storm and Niku. The ITZC was continuously stormy, yet all ship records during the search showed at worst modest swell coming from the SE, and not from the north. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:25:44 EDT From: Mike Ruiz Subject: Re: hopes for the outcome of the expedition >Kurt Thompson wrote ...snipped....... >I honestly believe that if evidence exists on Gardner, they >will bring it back. It may not, unfortunately, happen on this trip. Unless I missed something on the daily reports, conclusive evidence eludes us so far. The best chance, I feel, are teeth and/or bones.....which appear to be scattered based on what we know. Could require alot more work given the slow pace the environment imposes on the search teams. Finding aircraft wreckage appears to be just as challenging. I think much more searching may be needed to close this case. LTM, Mike ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:26:24 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: Intertropical convergence zone I have serious doubts that such a storm ever existed. The pilot reported picking up heavy loads of ice and snow from 2000 feet to 12,000 feet. This is over water that had a temperature of some 84 / 85 degrees. The freezing level would have been about 15,000 using the standard lasp rate. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:27:02 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Landing or ditching It is the Tighar theory that AE LANDED on Niku. That means a wheels down landing. I have a memo from the Commandant ot the Coast Guard to the Assistand Secretary of the Treasury (Gibbons) that says she HIT THE WATER. That means she ditched. The memo doesn't say when or where. This memo is dated 17 May 1938. I tend to go along with the Coast Guard memo ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:09:48 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Landing or ditching Rollin Reineck wrote: >It is the Tighar theory that AE LANDED on Niku. That means a wheels >down landing. > >I have a memo from the Commandant ot the Coast Guard to the Assistand >Secretary of the Treasury (Gibbons) that says she HIT THE WATER. That >means she ditched. The memo doesn't say when or where. This memo is >dated 17 May 1938. Rollin: Where did he get the information? What is his source? I can say that she landed on Mars, but without proof and documentation, it is still just speculation. Who was the castaway on Gardner? Where did the artifacts on Gardner come from? Why was there a sextant box with numbers on it that correspond to the numbers on a similar sextant box in a museum in Pensacola - that came from Fred Noonan? In other words, WHERE'S THE PROOF! But, believe what you want - btw - do you want the e-mail addresses of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:12:37 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Intertropical convergence zone Rollin Reineck wrote: >I have serious doubts that such a storm ever existed. The pilot >reported picking up heavy loads of ice and snow from 2000 feet to 12,000 >feet. This is over water that had a temperature of some 84 / 85 >degrees. The freezing level would have been about 15,000 using the >standard lasp rate. Rollin: Are you a meteorologist? Are you a pilot? In heavy thunderstorms, in the middle of 110 degree heat in south Texas, we get a formation of very hard water which we, in our ignorance, call hail. Can you explain the presence of hail in the middle of the summer? I thought not. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:13:34 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: landing or ditching Rollin, with all due respect, how could he possibly know that? "I have a memo from the Commandant of the Coast Guard to the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Gibbons) that says she HIT THE WATER. That means she ditched." Absolutely impossible to know unless: 1. He or someone saw the Electra hit the water or later saw the plane in the water. 2. AE radioed she was ditching or had just hit the water. 3. Your turn to explain. Finally, I'm surprised given your experience and expertise that you would opt for a totally unsupported opinion by someone who could not possibly show the slightest confirmation of what he says. That's absolute garbage, Rollin. Do you not arrive at conclusions based on some solid or otherwise supportable evidence? If you can support this conclusion with some fact that no one else has ever dicovered I'll apologise but I'd sure like to know what it is. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:14:07 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Intertropical convergence zone Much better, Rollin. I don't know whether you are right but you made a logical supportable argument. I've never picked up ice at hot temperatures. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:14:51 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Official reports The '"signs of recent habitation" didn't have anything to do with Amelia Earhart, says John Lambrecht and the other two pilots and observers. Notwithstanding that for some extraordinary condition that Lambrecht and the other pilots missed seeing AE and the Electra, Lambrecht then and later in numerous correspondence and taped interviews with Goerner has maintained that if they saw anything remotely linked to the plane or AE, he would have insisted they return with a landing party or additional flyovers. Tighar reports that Lambrechts observer was J.L. Marks, but Lambrecht's wife and J.A. Donahue, and Carol Osborne say it was James Ashley Wilson, Jr,. reportedly still alive. I'm atatempting to contact him now. LTM' Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:15:34 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: landing or ditching Rollin Reineck wrote: > It is the Tighar theory that AE LANDED on Niku. That means a wheels > down landing. > > I have a memo from the Commandant ot the Coast Guard to the Assistand > Secretary of the Treasury (Gibbons) that says she HIT THE WATER. That > means she ditched. The memo doesn't say when or where. This memo is > dated 17 May 1938. > > I tend to go along with the Coast Guard memo Rollin; I got some news for you. Landing doesn't necessarily mean wheels down. It can also mean wheels up if need be. Also, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding-where specifically does it say in the memo AE hit the water? Give us a lat/long location and we'll tell Ric to wrap things up and come home-the mystery is finally solved-hallelujah! Doug Brutlag #2335 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:17:09 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: landing or ditching Rollin Reineck wrote: > I have a memo from the Commandant ot the Coast Guard to the Assistand > Secretary of the Treasury (Gibbons) that says she HIT THE WATER. That > means she ditched. The memo doesn't say when or where. This memo is > dated 17 May 1938. Did "hit the water" mean literally or was in a metaphor? What data did Gibbons have to support it, in either case? Michael Holt ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:17:42 EDT From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: Coast Guard memo? On what evidence was the memo based on? Thanks, Lawrence Talbot ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:16:29 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Coast Guard memo? So, Rollin has a memo from the Commandant of the Coast Guard to SECTREAS saying, presumably of AE, that "she hit the water." Given that she was flying over the ocean, and that they couldn't find her on land anywhere, isn't this akin to a pilot reporting to his wing commander that the bombs he dropped HIT THE GROUND? How exactly is it that they established this "fact" given the overwhelming evidence that Itasca never established any kind of useful commo with NR16020? Is this memo real? Has it been seen by anyone else? Has its existence been corroborated elsewhere? What possible source is there for the information it contains? Or, is this just another bit of holy grail Earhart lore that only the true believers of the AES are allowed to see? TIGHAR, greatly to its own credit, does self funded archaeological and historical research, and has no secret files. All that we do and find is open for any and all to examine, question, and criticize. I fail to understand why some folks get peevish when we choose to continue following the trail that has led to Nikumaroro. Everything that is known about Gardner Island's castaway, and everything that TIGHAR has found there suggests that more research is needed. So what if we didn't find a smoking gun artifact on this trip. The stuff that has been found certainly suggests that something unusual happened there, and that the expenditure of more time and money in the future to find out what that something was is certainly justified. Love to Mother, who never sent memos Dave Porter, 2288 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:18:30 EDT From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Re: landing or ditching Rollin Reineck wrote: "It is the Tighar theory that AE LANDED on Niku. That means a wheels down landing." It is certainly a dead horse, but could AE have landed NR16020 on the lagoon surface ? Of course, you would say, and you would be right, that the best logical solution would have been to land it on the reef flat with the low tide. Other hypothesis possible: the plane was landed on the reef flat at the lowest tide very near from the outer reef edge. Since it would have spent at least 950 gal. of gas, the plane's buoyancy would have been high. The crew could have reach land but the plane could have drifted somewhat off shore and sank there. Could the water level have been sufficient at high tide to allow the plane to float ? Anyway, i guess that is extremely difficult to find something left after 64 years. Especially on an environment such as Nikumaroro. Remember that it took nearly two centuries to find the remnants of La Perouse who disappeared in 1778... "Courage is the price..." ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:08:16 EDT From: Kent Vanderwaal Subject: Re: intertropical convergence zone Rollin Reineck wrote: >I have serious doubts that such a storm ever existed. The pilot >reported picking up heavy loads of ice and snow from 2000 feet to 12,000 >feet. This is over water that had a temperature of some 84 / 85 >degrees. The freezing level would have been about 15,000 using the >standard lasp rate. When I got my private pilot's license back in 1975 (age 18) I had to make a solo cross country stopping at two other airports, A->B->C->A. After I left B, I picked up a bit of ice on my wings, did a 180 to go back to B, changed my mind and continued on to C. When I got back to A, I was three minutes late (the old, standard, 3 minute 360). I was flying at ~5000 feet and the ground temp was probably in the 70s, farenheight. Ice on the wing, at 5000 feet in the summer. Kent Vanderwaal ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:17:48 EDT From: Rolling Reineck Subject: Re: landing or ditching [I am combining several short posts from Rollin Reineck in this post in order to save aggro. P] ************************************************************ Tighar made 21 trips to the northeastern part of the U.S looking for the White Bird using the same type of reasoning that what is need is more time and money. If my math is right he has 15 more trips to Niku to find 16020. Good luck. ************************************************************ From Pat Well, the analogy is poor but the question is not irrelevant. After exhausting the possibilities of anecdote in Maine, we finally wised up and figured out that old woodsmen's tales are *NOT EVIDENCE.* Any more than old Polynesians' tales are. We are reasonably convince that l'Oiseau Blanc ended up in Newfoundland; whether the remnants are findable, no matter how much money and time one poured into the search, is a different question entirely... just as it is on Nikumaroro with Earhart. ************************************************************ >On what evidence was the memo based? Thanks, Lawrence Talbot >Did "hit the water" mean literally or was in a metaphor? What data >did Gibbons have to support it, in either case? > >Michael Holt I don't understand the question. I have a copy of the memo that I obtained from the Coast Guard. The memo was written by the Commandant of the Coast Guard who was a Rear Admiral. His name was Waeshe. ************************************************************ From Pat ... actually, I can't quite think of anything to say. ************************************************************ >I got some news for you. Landing doesn't necessarily mean wheels down. >It can also mean wheels up if need be. Also, as the saying goes, the proof >is in the pudding-where specifically does it say in the memo AE hit the >water? Give us a lat/long location and we'll tell Ric to wrap things up >and come home-the mystery is finally solved-hallelujah! > >Doug Brutlag #2335 I understand that it has always been the position of TIGHAR that AE landed wheels down so she could use the radio (Right engine running) and that explains the post lost messages. Has Tighar changed its position? I can't give you anything thatwas not in the memo. It says " It hit the water" Probably right near Mili Atoll ************************************************************ From Pat I spend some time on various public message boards here and there around the internet, boards mostly concerned with horses. I use a sig line to remind myself not to waste bandwidth unnecessarily: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time, and it annoys the pig. LTM, who never gives singing lessons Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:18:19 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Ash Wilson To Ron Bright - I interviewed Ash last year at his residence. Email me and I'll tell you how to reach him, if you wish. blue skies, jerry ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:21:15 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Official reports Jim Wilson was alive 3-4 years ago and lived in the San Francisco Peninsula area. He is a friend of Wally Dean, retired PAA Captain who lives in the same area. Ron Reuther Ron Bright wrote: > The '"signs of recent habitation" didn't have anything to do with Amelia > Earhart, says John Lambrecht and the other two pilots and observers. > Notwithstanding that for some extraordinary condition that Lambrecht and the > other pilots missed seeing AE and the Electra, Lambrecht then and later in > numerous correspondence and taped interviews with Goerner has maintained that > if they saw anything remotely linked to the plane or AE, he would have > insisted they return with a landing party or additional flyovers. > > Tighar reports that Lambrechts observer was J.L. Marks, but Lambrecht's > wife and J.A. Donahue, and Carol Osborne say it was James Ashley Wilson, Jr,. > reportedly still alive. I'm atatempting to contact him now. > > LTM' > Ron Bright ************************************************************ Well, the official (!) reports and manifests and so on list Marks as Lambrecht's observer, and we consider that to be more reliable than 60 year old memories. P ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:24:26 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Lambrecht search In view of the recent revival of the controversial Lambrecht search, the following may not have been seen by some of the researchers. It seems therefore appropriate to have Lambrecht himself have the final word on his search over Gardner. Longtime researcher Fred Goerner was quite interested in the Lambrecht search and in the 60 and 70s he conducted numerous interviews (taped) with Lambrecht and the two other pilots that made the flyover on 9 July 37 (Short and Fox). In a private letter of April 1993 to J. Gordon Vaeth, also an Earhart researcher, Goerner quoted John Lambrecht: "As far as Gardner is concerned, we[ Short and Fox] saw absolutely nothing except the wreck of a fairly large ship [the Norwich City]...I'm sure there was no one there in 1937. We saw nothing to lead anyone to think the island occupied. I want you to know we took that search seriously. There's nothing we would have liked better than to find her and Noonan. If we had seen anything on any of the islands that was possibly connected to Earhart, we would have recommended landing a making a ground search..." (circa 1970) Whether he and the other five could have missed seeing some sign of Earhart or of the Electra can be debated forever. In my opinion we shall have to find some conclusive evidence that AE ended up at Niku to show his search was perfunctory, and/or evidence that AE , FN , the Electra and or any kind of SOS signal (kites,raft,etc) were not visible on 9 July mid-morning, seven days after she went down. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************ Ron, do you understand the difference between what Lambrecht wrote *at the time of the search* and a thirty year old memory, overlaid by whatever thoughts and conclusions had been seeded in his mind in the meantime? Lambrecht wrote, *at the time*, that he saw clear signs of recent habitation. The end. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:25:54 EDT From Claude Stoker Subject: ITCZ; landing or ditching The rule for wing and prop ice is as follows: Anytime your in the clouds, and above the freezing level, you can pick up ice. summer, winter spring and fall, in russia and in china too. When your in a storm you must pick an altitude that will give you the best ride, if it happens to be above the freezing level and also in the clouds then you can get ice. Many airline pilots, and military pilots, and corporate pilots have lost thier lives cause they didnt turn on the pitot heat. In 1937, im guessing but Im thinking all they had was pitot heat, and prop alcohol. Wing and tail boots I think came later. The worst icing occurs between 0 degrees C, and 15 degrees C, but the area to be alarmed is from plus 3 degrees C and below. Happy landings If AE reached Gardner then she was running on fumes cause the clock had run out on available fuel. So her first choice of landing sites had to be the only choice. If youve ever flown down to the bottom end of the fuel gauge youll know what I mean. The lagoon was not a first choice for many reasons for a prudent pilot. Its possible that engines were sputtering as she approached the island and she took her only shot at the reef. Happy landings,, the Stoker ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:40:14 EDT From: David Katz Subject: Re: Official reports Before TIGHAR decides to rely on "official reports" or "60 year old memories" to decide who was Lambrecht's observer, why don't we wait until Ron has contacted Mr. Wilson before judgment is passed. David Katz ************************************************************ Well, because Mr. Wilson --- fine man though he no doubt is --- is perfectly capable of remembering incorrectly. IOW, being wrong. While the flight manifests filed at the time are not capable of remembering incorrectly. That doesn't mean they are necessarily right, as anyone who has dealt with military paperwork knows, but there is a greater chance of them being not only right, but verifiable. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:40:49 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: ITCZ; landing or ditching I don't know of anyone who ever has picked up wing ice or snow when the outside air temperature was 80 degrees.or even 75 degrees or 65 degrees . I've had my share of experiences with ice and snow and freezing rain. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:43:20 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: landing or ditching Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong I guess. Isn't the point of the Tighar expeditions to try to prove OR disprove that Earhart landed on Niku? If proof is found that she landed on Niku, a part of the mystery is solved. i.e. Did Earhart make it to Niku? - YES! If proof is found that neither she nor the airplane were ever there, a part of the mystery is solved. i.e. Did Earhart make it to Niku? - NO! Either way a positive result to the project eventually proves something. (finding that Earhart definitely was not there is also positive) It is a little like the search for the Holy Grail, except that unlike the Grail, it does not take an act of faith to prove the original existance of the Electra. On the other hand, theories abound as to where both may have finished up.. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************ Well, this is one of those negatives that can't really be proved (DOWN, Marty, DOWN!!). We can't prove that Earhart was never on Niku, all we can prove is that we can't find her there. If someone else proves she was somewhere else, then *that* proves that she isn't on Niku unless you think someone can be in two places at once. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:44:50 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: landing or ditching LT> On what evidence was the memo based? MH> Did "hit the water" mean literally or was in a metaphor? What data did Gibbons have to support it, in either case? RR> I don't understand the question. I have a copy of the memo that I obtained from the Coast Guard. RR> The memo was written by the Commandant of the Coast Guard who was a Rear Admiral. His name was Waeshe. PT> ... actually, I can't quite think of anything to say. I understand... Let's try this. Rollin: You say she "hit the water." We wondered how you knew that. You referenced the memo. So, YOUR source is Rear Admiral Waeshe's memo. HE said "hit the water." We wonder how HE knew that. What is his reference? What's HIS source for the statement? That is, did he see the ditching himself? Have a report from someone else who did see it? Make a conjecture based on their inability to find her? How did HE know? Also, later you say "Probably right near Mili Atoll." Does the memo say this? If so, how did Rear Admiral Waeshe know this to put it in his memo? Who does he say is the source for this and/or the other conjecture. PT>Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time, and it annoys the pig. You're probably right, but I'm known for trying just a bit longer than I probably should. - Bill #2229 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:45:45 EDT From: Mike Ruiz Subject: Re: Lambrecht search Pat wrote: (snipped) > Lambrecht wrote, *at the time*, that he saw clear signs of recent habitation. Its not just Lambrecht............Fox, Short, and three others obviously did not consider these "signs of recent habitation" something that they felt could be connected with AE & therefore worthy of landing on Gardner and checking. The bottom line...........Lambrecht + 5 others saw *nothing* that led them to believe AE & FN were on Gardner. They saw no evidence of an airplane. And while the piece of aluminum, shoe heel, bones, and other evidence are very promising, to this date Lambrecht's observations have not been overturned by hard evidence. As a matter of fact, Lambrecht's observations may very well stand the test of time. A. Lambrecht & Company could not have seen bodies hidden under a tree. B. There is no sign of the plane. LTM, Mike ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:46:20 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: Landing or ditching What surprises me is that when ever I reveal some documented evidence, for the god of all concerned, I am always questioned about its authenticity, etc. Yet for ten years Tighar has continually pushed the theory that AE landed on Niku, but there is not one tiny bit of credible evidence to support that theory. There are no shoes. There are no bones, there is no aluminum airplane skin from 16020, there is no sextant box, or sextant. If you have any credible evidence i would appreciate you posting it. Many thanks. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:48:24 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Running on fumes I would like to ask Claude Stoker how he knows that AE would be running on fumes if and when she reached Gardner Island. Where in the research does it show that she would not have had ample fuel to survey the island, select the best landing sight and even make a fly by at low altiture to determine if the sight was, in fact, suitable? We do not know the winds, the exact fuel consumption and many other factors that would allow us to know if she was about to run out of fuel or if she had ample fuel remaining to do all these things. We simply can not make those assumptions. We do know that under average conditions (not defined here) she should have had ample fuel to make it to Gardner with some fuel remaining. I have to agree with Roland that it is highly improbable that icing was a factor in that part of the Pacific Ocean for any altitude she would likely select. The water and resulting air are simply much to warm for icing to be a logical factor. Dick Pingrey 908C ************************************************************ The question of icing is really a reference to the reports made by the PBY which attempted to fly south from HNL as part of the initial rescue effort. They ran into storms and icing in the ITCZ north of the Equator, which Randy tells us is fairly typical. P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:50:55 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: official reports Re: Lambrecht's observer Pat, maybe we are both right. I think in rereading some logs, that Wilson was the afternoon observer, and Marks the morning flight observer over Gardner. But I'll check with Jerry Hamilton that interviewed J. Ashley Wilson. Hope he can recall when he flew!! Ron Bright ************************************************************ Apparently they swapped around observers quite a bit. And don't forget the fellow who swore to us he flew with John Lambrecht in the Earhart search. We were so thrilled to talk to him first hand... until he said he flew off the Lexington. Turned out he *did* fly with Lambrecht, and he *did* fly off the Lex in the Earhart search --- just not at the same time. Lambrecht was on the Lex right before he was transferred to the Colorado. Crew records are nice. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:00:25 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Lambrecht search Clear signs of habitation does not make evidence of Earhart as it is certainly clear in Lambrecht's original report that what he saw was not connected to Earhart. Believe me, if he thought it was signs of Earhart as compared to the other "signs" he saw on the other Islands, Lambrecht would have returned. No way Earhart just left ambigous signs of "recent habitation-"where were her kites, flares, SOS msgs,.I just can't buy she and Fred were incapacitated and unable to respond or set up a clear SOS signal within a few days. Her top prioriity seven days later was to be seen. Time does not always diminish the accuracy of a memory. I'll bet you know exactly what you were doing when JFK got shot. Ron Bright ************************************************************ OK, I'll try again. 1.) "Clear signs of recent habitation" is what Lambrecht wrote in his report. 2.) He apparently did not think *at the time* that those signs of recent habitation pertained to Earhart. 3.) He could easily have been wrong in that judgment. It was simply his opinion, an opinion formed without benefit of full knowledge of the situation --- for instance, that no one had lived there since 1897. 4.) I agree that if he seen something he thought was an airplane, or some clear sign that the habitation was Earhart, he would have done something about it. However, just because you think she should have had kites, flares, SOS messages and so on, does not mean she had them or had access to them. 5.) You may be right in your assumption that AE and/or FN would not be incapacitated and unable to respond one week after arriving on the island. You may also be wrong. I've experienced that environment and it is quite easy for me to believe that yes, someone could be sort of dead in one week, or very nearly so. 6.) I don't know "exactly what I was doing when JFK got shot." I know what I remember; that does NOT mean I remember correctly. I remember I was sitting in my third grade classroom, teacher Mrs. Myers, when the principal came on the loudspeaker and said, "The president has been shot. School is dismissed. Please wait in your classroom for you bus to be called." Note: this is what I remember. If I were to run into someone who sat beside me in that same class, s/he might remember something quite different. Human memory is not an automatic recording device, it is an impressionistic artwork, constantly overlaid by new experiences and new perceptions. LTM, who likes the artistic analogy Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:01:14 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Coast Guard memo? Dave, I was glad to see your comment about the events of this Niku trip. I think you probably echo what most of us feel. The guys did a great job and have gone a long way toward narrowing the search. It is not always what is found that is the only importance. It is also what is not found and what areas need to be searched more and what areas need to be searched less. As to Rollin's comment I think we, and me included, have done him a disservice. We are mostly "fact" and "evidence" people. Rollin is not. We need logic and reasonable support and Rollin is not. We are trying to solve a puzzle and Rollin is not. We generally try to think within rational boundaries and require our comments to meet reasonable tests. Rollin does not. He merely tossed out a statement for whatever reason. We aren't telling him anything he doesn't already know. He knows that his statement cannot possibly be supported but Rollin isn't into support or facts or evidence. Just thoughts or ideas. This one has no merit but that isn't saying his next thought will be so easily shot down. If we all think only inside the box we may miss something. Just don't get so far out of the box, Rollin. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:02:45 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Re: Official reports >Well, the official (!) reports and manifests and so on list Marks as >Lambrecht's observer, and we consider that to be more reliable than 60 year >old memories. In reference to the above, some time ago, I did a search for J.L. Marks and found him not listed on the Colorado's muster rolls nor did I find any other sign of him in the late thirties Navy. That, however, does not rule out the possibility he could have been a ROTC cadet. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ************************************************************ Now we're outside my competence. Ric has all this stuff at his fingertips and knows where the files are and so on... dang. P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:04:37 EDT From: Roger Smith Subject: Re: shoulder of lamb Now that our group is leaving Niku, what shape is the shoulder of lamb? Is there any meat left on the bones? ************************************************************ Rats, should have put this in one of the daily updates. The crabs took it all. All gone. I guess crabs *do* go off with biggish bones. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:09:32 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Intertropical Convergence Zone For Dave Bush: "Who was the castaway on Gardner?" The only potential "castaway" on Gardner is the owner of the skeleton found by Gallagher in 1940. I don't know who it is, but were there any other documented events during that era where lives were lost and bodies never found? Do the words "Norwich City" ring a bell? "Where did the artifacts on Gardner come from?" Which artifacts are you talking about, Dave? The bones, Benedictine bottle and (US Women's) Size 11 clodhoppers that haven't been seen by TIGHAR or anybody else since 1941? The sheet of aluminum whose rivet pattern fails to match the Electra's? The "navigator's bookcase" that came from a B-24? The "1991 shoes" which (thanks to Rollin) we also know were too big for AE's Size 7 feet? The plate fragments marked "US Coast Guard"? The can label from the "castaway campfire" bearing a UPC code? Please be specific. "Why was there a sextant box with numbers on it that correspond to the numbers on a similar sextant box in a museum in Pensacola - that came from Fred Noonan?" The word "correspond" is pretty strong. The Niku sextant box had two numbers, 3500 (stenciled) and 1542. The Pensacola/Noonan box has three numbers -- 3547, 173 and 116 -- all of which are hand-written. Thus the numbering schemes seem to be different and the only "correspondence" is in the first two digits of the first number. That is well within the realm of coincidence. "Are you a meteorologist? Are you a pilot?" Don't know about meteorology, but Col. Reineck is a pilot and navigator who served with distinction in World War II and afterwards in the Pentagon. He has done more for this country than you or I could ever hope to, so you might think about treating him with a little respect. Oddly enough, Rollin and I get along just fine even though I disagree with him about the Waeshe memo, too. "In heavy thunderstorms, in the middle of 110 degree heat in south Texas, we get a formation of very hard water which we, in our ignorance, call hail. Can you explain the presence of hail in the middle of the summer?" Ice form way high up in sky, above freeze line. Ice eventually get too heavy, start falling. Already melting on way down. Called "hail." Sometimes ice do melt before reaching ground. Called "rain." I will save Ms. Thrasher's remarks about singing pigs for another time. You guys always have to stoop to personal attacks, don't you? Pat Gaston ************************************************************ Ummmm, no, not *always*. Col. Reineck's accomplishments in the military, whatever they were, are not germane to the arguments he makes on the subject of Earhart. Many people on this Forum have made, and are currently making, major contributions to this country and I for one am not impressed with jingoistic hero-worship of military (or other) retirees simply and solely because they had braid on their hats. And I have a feeling that Ric had to deal with this once before.... LTM, who never hands out respect until it's earned Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:11:00 EDT From: Kent Vanderwaal Subject: Re: ITCZ and icing Rollin Reineck wrote: >I don't know of anyone who ever has picked up wing ice or snow when the >outside air temperature was 80 degrees.or even 75 degrees or 65 degrees >. I've had my share of experiences with ice and snow and freezing >rain. I personally know of no one who has been to Timbuctou, so it must not exist. It's not the temperature of the still air around you, it's the temperature of the air speeding over the leading edge of your wing that matters. And the temperature of the moisture in that air. Kent ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:12:11 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: landing or ditching Rollin Reineck wrote: > What surprises me is that when ever I reveal some documented evidence, > for the god of all concerned, I am always questioned about its > authenticity, etc. Yet for ten years Tighar has continually pushed the > theory that AE landed on Niku, but there is not one tiny bit of credible > evidence to support that theory. There are no shoes. There are no > bones, there is no aluminum airplane skin from 16020, there is no > sextant box, or sextant. If you have any credible evidence i would > appreciate you posting it. Many thanks. While I don't think anyone is on a jihad so to speak to bash your contention, you nonetheless cannot call the good Admiral's note "documented" evidence. The only thing perhaps you can say (maybe) is that he wrote it? Granted, he has since passed on and cannot be cross-examined over the note but there is NOTHING to back up his note. If you believe AE ditched near Milli atoll then by all means let your voice be heard. But you cannot call in any way shape or form this note"credible evidence". I am not an attorney, but I have no doubt that if you were cross-examined on the stand in a court of law to back this statement, you would (figuratively of course) be tore a new one. I am only a professional aviator, but my money is still on Ric & the Niku hypothesis. Doug Brutlag #2335 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:20:17 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Evidence Col. Rollickin' Rollin Reineck (USAF Ret.) said: "What surprises me is that when ever I reveal some documented evidence, for the god [sic] of all concerned, I am always questioned about its authenticity, etc." We appreciate your altruism, Rollie, but don't feel persecuted on this point, everyone that submits something is questioned. Nothing personal, just good science. RRR said: "Yet for ten years Tighar has continually pushed the theory that AE landed on Niku, but there is not one tiny bit of credible evidence to support that theory. There are no shoes. There are no bones, there is no aluminum airplane skin from 16020, there is no sextant box, or sextant. If you have any credible evidence I would appreciate you posting it." The difference is TIGHAR is working to prove its hypothesis; we walk the walk, others don't. We believe the credibility of the evidence we have presented far surpasses "evidence" (i.e. "hit the water" etc.) presented by others. LTM, who's learned to walk the walk Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:22:00 EDT From: Lee Shephard Subject: Thanks Forgive me if I'm sending this note to the wrong address...but I'll be darned if I can figure out how this forum works. I guess that makes me the second dumbest bozo....in the forum class. (Actually, I think the winner in that catagory, Rolling Rock...or whatever his name is just pulling your leg...) Please pass on my ever grateful thanks to all the team members ......yourself as well as all the other TIGHARS for you efforts. Following along with the expedition......was mostly responsible for helping me maintain my sanity....during last week's awful events. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! -Lee ************************************************************ Alas, Lee, Col. Reineck is for real. But you did send your note to the correct address, and you are most welcome. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:23:02 EDT From: Chris Strohmeyer Subject: Questions I'm curious at what point Tighar is going to be reasonably convinced that EA was not on Gardner or at least not able to find her there? Is there a secondary plan as to where else to look? How close are we to coming to a dead end at Gardner? Has anyone circumvented the island with sidescan sonar or is that next to look for the plane? Chris in Petaluma, Ca. ************************************************************ We are nowhere near that point. We did a side-scan sonar sweep in 1991. P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:25:32 EDT From: Chris Strohmeyer Subject: Re: Coast Guard memo? In the fervor of Rollins comments, I've learned a lot of details I didn't know such as the shoe. I thought Tighar had the shoe. I thought the #'s matched on the sextant box, no? The only thing I really knew was that the Electra skin didn't match. Learned a lot today! Delicate question: could we be ignoring the obvious? Chris in Petaluma (who hasn't had a lot of time to read up on the details) ************************************************************ ummmm, Chris, you may need to consider that you still haven't learned enough. Do read up on the details, there's only about.... 600 pages on the website alone. I mean, not to be rude, but we've spent 13 years at this and the whole shoe question, and the sextant box, and many other things *including* the skin are much more complicated and unclear than Col. Reineck likes to make out. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:19:35 EDT From: Jim Clark Subject: HMS Leith Signs of recent habitation observed by Lambrecht were undoubtedly the signs(signboards ) proclaiming annexation by the Crown that the crew of the HMS Leith positioned in FEBRUARY 1937. HMS Achilles was also surveying these islands secretly , both by air and on land, during the AE flight . Hence the USA search ship's angry response to keep out of the search area when HMS Achilles sent messages about a possible radio fix on the islands. The Walrus aircraft could also have landed in the lagoon and inspected the island. We just do not know until the logs can be found, or the crew or their descendants located for interviews. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:17:36 EDT From: Claude Stoker Subject: Icing in the ITCZ Could it be that the PBY reporting ice in Mid pacific was talking about carbuerator ice?? Carb ice can form at any temperature, and perhaps they got into a situation whence thier anti icing was not capable of keeping the carbs clean. That was certainly the case for many WWII military pilots whom I have known that flew DC3 and C47 aircraft. Carb ice can get so severe that the heaters wont keep the carb open. If I were out in Mid pacific,and hit such an area,, I would one eighty so fast the crew would stick to thier seats. happy landings, the Stoker ************************************************************ Dunno. I don't have the report in front of me and Ric's filing system is one of the Great Mysteries of life. Anyone? P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:25:09 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Thanks to all Please extend to Ric & all the team a "well done" for me. I can't tell you how much I enjoy being a new member of Tighar. I appreciate everyone's attention to facts and the objective approach the majority of our members take when dealing with those things which aren't so clear. One quick question, would there be any interest in a current photo of AE's home here in Calif.? I found the address of her home in an article on the internet. I'll be in that area tommorrow if you think there would be any interest. With great appreciation to Ric, you and all our members. Sincerely, Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************ You might just go ahead and take it. While we don't have much use for it, some media outlet might. Make sure the light is good and the house fills the frame. P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:26:57 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: HMS Leith Has anyone tried to contact the Royal Navy about this ? Sixty four years and one world war later there is little chance of finding any of the sailors or RNAS airmen involved alive. But if HMS Achillesleft any files chances are they can be found in the files of the Royal Navy. I'm not sure but I seem to remember naval files are kept in the huge library of the Royal Maritime Museum in Greenwich, near London. However, HMS Achilles seems to ring an other bell as well. I seem to remember this vessel was involved in one of the big naval engagements in SE Asia in WW II (probalby around 1941). She could have been sunk. Anyway, it's worth a try. Do we have any TIGHARS around Greenwich ? LTM from Herman (#2406) Jim Clark wrote: > Signs of recent habitation observed by Lambrecht were undoubtedly the > signs(signboards ) proclaiming annexation by the Crown that the crew of > the HMS Leith positioned in FEBRUARY 1937. HMS Achilles was also surveying > these islands secretly , both by air and on land, during the AE flight . > Hence the USA search ship's angry response to keep out of the search area > when HMS Achilles sent messages about a possible radio fix on the islands. > The Walrus aircraft could also have landed in the lagoon and inspected the > island. We just do not know until the logs can be found, or the crew or > their descendants located for interviews. ************************************************************ I am 99% sure we have covered this territory but you'll have to wait on Ric's return, alas. That's what he gets for leaving the web designer in charge . P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:37:21 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: landing or ditching RR> What surprises me is that when ever I reveal some documented evidence, for the god of all concerned, I am always questioned about its authenticity, etc. That's what we do. I can produce a document claiming that AE was snatched by space aliens, but unless I can prove it's authenticity it's just so much paper with markings on it. Same thing here. I suspect that we all believe you have the document you mention. But that doesn't make it documented evidence. RR> Yet for ten years Tighar has continually pushed the theory that AE landed on Niku, but there is not one tiny bit of credible evidence to support that theory. Hmmm. Define "credible." We seem to be using different meanings for that word. RR> There are no shoes. There are no bones, there is no aluminum airplane skin from 16020, there is no sextant box, or sextant. There is, however, credible evidence that they existed. RR> If you have any credible evidence i would appreciate you posting it. Many thanks. Go to http://www.tighar.org/index.html click on "Earhart Project" and read... well... everything. Degrees of credibilty are even outlined. - Bill #2229 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:38:18 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: shoulder of lamb > Rats, should have put this in one of the daily updates. > The crabs took it all. All gone. > I guess crabs *do* go off with biggish bones. > > Pat Are the leg of lamb bones tagged so they don't cause too much excitement when they're found on another expedition? Were they seeded so they can be tracked to see if they went down a hole or were left lying in the bush? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************ To tell you the truth, I don't know. I guess we'll all have to await Kar Burns' report. P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:39:30 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: landing or ditching If there is REALLY anyone left who thinks the Electra could fly to Mili Atoll please take the time to look up the distance to Mili from within 80 NM of Howland and compute the fuel left at Howland and tell me HOW the plane could possibly fly that far on insufficient fuel. They were lucky to make it to Niku if indeed they got that far. The Marshalls stuff is utter garbage. Alan #2329 ************************************************************ No, no Alan, they never went near Howland, the radio sigs are all bogus and they had a 90 degree error in their compass. Or something like that. P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:39:58 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: landing or ditching "What surprises me is that when ever I reveal some documented evidence,...." You didn't Rollin. That's what everyone is trying to tell you. I can send a memo to someone saying the Electra went back to Lae but that won't make it so. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:40:50 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: running on fumes Dick, I think AE had enough fuel to make it to Gardner but exactly how much is, as you state, subject to conjecture. At the same time it is not all that difficult to make a very good guess as to her fuel. We DO know what the consumption was throught various stages of the flight. Johnson provided that. We don't much care about other factors such as wind as it is a function of time mostly. We know the time. Running a fuel curve on the electra which was part of my job in SAC B-47s indicated to me she would have had about 139 gallons at Howland. Some TIGHARs guessed about 150 gallons and either figure or anything close would give about the same result -- sufficient fuel to make it to Niku but not a lot to play around with. Consider that upon arriving at Niku there was now no other place to go so it didn't matter all that much where the wind was from or what the landing conditions were. They had to land and flying around much wasn't going to solve a lot. If they had the luxury of a little time and I think they may have then determining landing wind direction and making a low pass to get a feel for the landing area might help make the landing a bit safer. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:41:32 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Icing in the ITCZ Rollin, unless I read their icing comments wrong I think they were referring to GROUND temperature in the 60s, 70,or 80s not temperature at altitude. They also referred to hail storms which you know can happen in the summer time. Wherever the source of the hail is there has to be a threat of icing. Would you not agree? If anyone is suggesting the Electra iced over at 1,000' between Howland and Niku I would have a lot of difficulty with that theory. But as Pat stated the icing referred to a plane North of the equator at some unknown altitude. What that has to do with anything is beyond me. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:42:38 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Re: Lambrecht search Once again the Forum has revisited the issue of what did Lambrecht's crew observe at Gardner Is.? I have posted some of the following information in the past but it seems the Forum needs to review the whole picture again. I offer the following information to help ponder the basic Lambrecht question: Why was no land search conducted if "signs of recent habitation" were reported? To answer the Lambrecht question we first need to ask ourselves: could there have been anything on the island that may have looked like "recent signs of habitation". One answer is.....yes, Earhart and Noonan could have been there. But there are also many other logical possibilities. Lets take a closer look. Reports of various people seeing signs of previous habitation on Gardner/Nikumaroro Island are discussed below. Lets examine what other visitors saw and what they reported both contemporaneously and during later interviews or correspondence. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of visitors to the island nor is it meant to exclude what Lambrecht saw as being Earhart related. It is meant to provide the interested reader with a full menu of items from which to draw conclusions about what Lambrecht may have observed on Gardner/Niku and thus speculate as to why a land search was not conducted. Reference No. 1. NIKU Source Book, TIGHAR Archive 2. TIGHAR TRACKS, March 12, 1992, Volume 8, Number 1/2 3. Tom Kings personal files and Email messages to Kenton Spading (and others) 4. Kenton Spading's field notes and pictures from NIKU III and various Email messages to TIGHAR members and the Forum. 5. TIGHAR TRACKS, June 15, 1993, Volume 9, Number 2 1. 1891, John T. Arundel's Project Mr. Arundel obtained a coconut (copra) license for Gardner/NIku Island from the British government on Feb. 1, 1891. A group of natives were left on the island that year (some were reported to have arrived prior to 1891....). Apparently the project was abandoned sometime in 1892. This project resulted in the construction of buildings with galvanized steel roofs and a large water tank all of which were later observed and described by the Norwich City wreck survivors (see below). Later, in October 1937 Harry Maude reported 111 coconut bearing trees on Gardner/Niku gone to riot from the Arundel period. See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 15. 2. 1892, His Majesties Ship (HMS) Curacoa When the HMS Curacoa visited the Gardner/Niku island on May 28, 1892, 20 Niue natives (under the command of an Englishman) were working on the Arundel coconut project. The British made a point of placing a Union Jack flag on the island as they were very concerned about documenting their claim to the island. See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 15. We can speculate that, given the manpower and materials on the island, and with the possible knowledge that Arundel was preparing to leave later in 1892, that they may have constructed some sort of a permanent concrete marker or monument to hold the flag. They probably did not just stick it in a tree. 3. November 1929, Norwich City Wreck Mr. J. Thomas was a survivor of the S.S. Norwich City which ran aground on Gardner/Niku Island in November 1929. Mr. Thomas states in a hand written note, (original spelling and grammar left intact): "[On Gardner/Niku] Near the palms we found two desused galvanised roofed huts and a large water tank which were in a state [of] collapse, but which indicated to us that the island had at one time been inhabited most probably with a view of growing coconuts......." See Reference No. 1, Tab No. 3, Doc. No. 14. The huts and water tank Mr. Thomas refers to were undoubtedly left behind by the aforementioned John T. Arundel group. In addition, the Norwich City crew left behind two life boats and a substantial stack of provisions covered with a tarp. All of the above was in the vicinity of the wreck, a landmark which Lambrecht would have undoubtedly been drawn to. As an aside, in 1989, TIGHAR team members John Clauss and Veryl Fenlason photographed some very dilapidated wooden framing along the northwest shore of the island just north of the shipwreck. Upon reflection, these buildings probably dated from the Arundel period as opposed to the British 1938-1963 habitation of the island. TIGHAR also found the 1940 era British-built wood-framed COOP store in 1989 in a relatively intact state (although in a "desused" state). This suggests that Arundel's buildings and water tank may have survived fairly intact until Lambrecht's overflight in 1937 (only 8 years after Mr. Thomas observed them). Arundel's structures would have certainly looked "Recent" from the air (i.e. galvanized roofing) as opposed to the very "Old" adobe type walls Lambrecht saw on McKean (see Lambrecht's comments below). 4. Her Majesties Ship (HMS) Leith, February 15, 1937 The HMS Leith visited Gardner/Niku on February 15, 1937 just long enough to erect a flagpole and placard proclaiming the island to be the property of His Majesty the King. (Niku Source Book, Section 2, Item 2). Earhart disappeared and Lambrecht flew over the island, of course, roughly 5 months later. As Lambrecht observed, someone indeed had visited the island "recently" in 1937. 5. Colorado Search Planes, July 9, 1937 The following are some quotes from Lambrecht's report. Most of Lambrecht's comments are quoted out of context on the Forum. In light of that, I hesitate to list them here as it is difficult to absorb Lambrecht's writing style, and therefore the overall theme of the report, without reading the entire thing. At this point I am going to assume that the serious readers will carefully read the entire report on the TIGHAR web site in order to place the selected quotes in their proper context. Lt. John O. Lambrecht (and crew) reported the following (these are excerpts) after the flight over Gardner Island on July 9, 1937. See Reference No. 5, Page 6. [quotes below listed in the order that they appear in the report] ".........Enderbury, although a bit larger, was much the same as Phoenix. Here and there were what appeared to be oases with a few surrounding palm trees... no signs of habitation were evident and an inspection did not disclose the object of our search......" "........M'Kean did not require more than a perfunctory examination to ascertain that the missing plane had not landed here, and one circle of the island proved that it was uninhabited except for myriads of birds. Signs of previous habitation remained and the walls of several old buildings apparently of some sort of adobe construction, were still standing.........." ".......Here [Gardner] signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there........." [note the reference to "recent" on the heels of his reference to "old" at McKean] "........There [Sydney] were signs of recent habitation and small shacks could be seen among the groves of coconut palms, but repeated zooms failed to arouse any answering wave and the planes headed northeast for Phoenix Island........" During an interview with Mr. Lambrecht in 1972 regarding what he observed on Gardner he stated that he saw "markers" (See Reference No. 5, Page 6). The "marker" Lambrecht remembers could have been a concrete monument/marker claiming British ownership from either the 1892 or the very recent 1937 British visit or something from Arundel or the Norwich City camp. 6. Eric Bevington and Harry Maude, October 1937 British subjects Harry Maude and Eric Bevington visited the island in October of 1937 to conduct a survey as part of a colonial resettlement project. Mr. Bevington stated in his diary that he saw "signs of previous habitation" on the island. During an interview in 1992 he stated that (as best he could recall) "it wasn't much.....like someone had bivouacked for the night" He indicated (without knowing where TIGHAR had been) that the place was near the area where TIGHAR found the shoe artifact in 1991 (SE part of the island). See Reference No. 2, Pages 6 and 7. Eric, however, could have easily seen something from the Arundel period or any of the later visitors. Dr. Tom King (TIGHAR member) corresponded with Mr. Maude. He asked him about the "signs of previous habitation" that Eric mentions in his diary. Maude remembered it as being [a] "pile of sand" (see Reference No. 3). During the 1997 Niku III expedition, TIGHAR found relatively large piles of sand/coral on the SE end of the island near the shoe artifact site in the area indicated by Bevington. It looked like a Babai pit or an abortive well from either the British or Arundel periods. (see Reference No. 4). We don't have evidence that the Arundel group was in this area (the British colony was) but we have no evidence that they weren't and a search for well water could take you anywhere. Wrap Up Thoughts: Anecdotes aside....a lot of the information was recorded contemporaneously. I will say up front that Lambrecht could have seen Earhart related habitation. I will also add that I am offering some speculative thoughts here. My goal is to get people thinking about the issue which could lead us to a better Earhart hypothesis. We do not know what Lambrecht told his fellow shipmates and commander if asked....."What do you mean by "recent signs of habitation" However, it is not too hard to imagine that he told them he saw: a. the flag and/or marker left behind by the British only 5 months earlier or b. the life boats and stack of provisions left behind by the Norwich City crew...or c. the corrugated steel roofs of the huts or the water tank or other debris left behind by the Arundel group earlier and noted by the Norwich crew in 1929...or d. some or all of the above We can speculate that Lambrecht told his commander: "We checked out the island as best as we could. Repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave. We tried hard, commander, to get the attention of anyone who might have been there. We saw no signs of an airplane and, in my opinion, what we saw was not related to the lost fliers." The key words here for the commander were probably.....no signs of an airplane. The Colorado was sent to the Phoenix group on the strength of the post-lost signals/bearings. And the commander was told....the plane must be on land to broadcast. No airplane....no problem....lets move on. I am not prepared to fault the commander for this decision (there were also other good reasons to move on). It is much too easy in hindsight and from the comfort of our homes to do that. Lambrecht's description of what he saw on Gardner and Sydney as "signs of RECENT habitation" may be an attempt to contrast them to the obviously much older "stone" ruins he had just seen at McKean Island. Indeed, in my speculative opinion, his report can easily be interpreted that way. Thus he uses the word "recent" to describe Gardner after viewing the older stone ruins on McKean. Whatever Lambrecht saw, it obviously was not a smoking camp fire, clothes hung out to dry or footprints in the sand. Clearly, he and in turn his commander, would have acted on that type of evidence. On the other hand, after seeing some old huts or life boats etc.. and getting no response from repeated zooming, it would not be worth the risk to life and limb to put a landing party ashore. Getting a landing party on to and off of the island is a very dangerous affair as is positioning the Colorado anywhere near the island. There is an additional piece of very speculative evidence that suggests Lambrecht saw but did not mention Arundel's huts. A Colorado crew member took notes as the ship visited the various islands. He had some artistic talent and as such drew pictures to accompanied his notes. For Hull he drew a canoe and people...and of course Lambrecht landed there and was visited by the locals in a canoe. For Gardner he drew a picture of native huts/houses. Summary: "RECENT" visitors to the island prior to Lambrecht's flyover include: 1) the Norwich City crew (8 yrs. before) and 2) the HMS Leith (5 months before). Earhart notwithstanding, it is not surprising to me that he observed signs of recent habitation. Love To Mother Kenton Spading 1382CE ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:43:15 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Official reports The observers on Lambrecht's flights were NROTC cadets. This is referenced in the Colorado's newsletter. These boys had probably never BEEN in a plane before, and likely had no experience to judge how really tiny a great big thing like an airplane can look from up in the air. Gollllll-eee. Not their fault, just a fact of life. The fact that Lambrecht, et al., didn't see the airplane, AE or FN proves ONLY that they didn't see the airplane, AE or FN. It certainly doesn't prove they weren't there. LTM, jon 2266 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:45:19 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Icing in the ITCZ Rollin: I'm not trying to make you out wrong or say that you don't know what you're talking about. I need clarification on one point. What altitude was the PBY flying at? Given say 85 degrees at surface, with a standard 3 degree per 1000 feet drop, 5000 feet would yield an outside temp of 70 degrees, and 10,000 a temp of 55 - now add (or rather, subtract that from) to that the airspeed of the PBY, add in the amount of moisture and the likelihood of freezing conditions goes up considerably. I know that as a pilot on the Texas gulf coast, we are told to ALWAYS us carb heat even in the summer to prevent carb icing due to our speeds and the high humidity (somewhere around 500% or pretty close to it - really 98-100% most of the year) and that's even in 100+ temp in the summer. So, I can believe that the PBY would experience icing conditions. The temp inside a major thunderstorm can drop considerably more than just the standard 3 deg. I don't have the info close at hand to back that up (I know, 50 lashes with a wet noodle for not doing my homework). But the point is they could experience icing even at relatively low altitudes. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:48:12 EDT From: Pat Subject: Reports for the next two or three days I just heard from Ric. He was standing on the foredeck in the driving rain with his arm wrapped around a post to keep from being flung overboard when the ship lurched in the seas which were high. I will post a report on the web tomorrow morning, and then there probably won't be one until Saturday because the phone was getting wet and we were losing the connection and anyway it would be majorly not cool to lose the expedition director overboard. ....for those in peril on the sea, indeed. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 09:55:55 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: icing in the ITCZ Reports were of lightning, rain, ice and snow from 1000' to 18000'. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 09:57:19 EDT From: Nick Murray Subject: Re: HMS Leith Some information on HMS Achilles: Leander class light cruiser built in 1933. Transfered to the New Zealand division of the Royal Navy in 1937 (became HMNZS Achilles). Participated in the Battle of the River Plate (off of South America) against the German Pocket Battleship Graf Spee. Served primarily in the Pacific during WW2. Was transferred in 1946 to the Royal Indian Navy and renamed Dehli. This information is from the Royal New Zealand website: http://www.navy.mil.nz/ops/ship.cfm?ship_ID=24 I haven't seen any mention of her involvement in the search for AE other than the information on the TIGHAR website, and what has been discussed on the forum. Nick Murray (2356CE) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:02:50 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Outside the box If you look at all the ideas and books prior to TIGHAR'S entrance into the AE story, then you have to figure that TIGHAR was thinking outside the box, otherwise, we would be looking at the bottom of the ocean or digging up Saipan. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ************************************************************ I dunno. It seems to us we're just looking in the most obvious place. P ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:04:59 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: icing in the ITCZ Really . . . does all this talk about ice really matter? What good does it do to have post after post on the subject of ice. It isn't going to find Amelia! Don J. ************************************************************ I think the whole thing started in the debate about written reports from the time ("primary sources") and interviews conducted thirty to forty years after the fact ("anecdotes"). Topic drift, you know. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:07:07 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Lambrecht's observer From the mouth of J. Ashley Wilson, he was not on Lambrecht's morning flight to Gardner on 9 July 37. He can't help with the Gardner observations. He was on the afternoon flight to Hull. Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:11:47 EDT From: Troy Carmichael Subject: Re: HMS Leith hmmmmmmmm. interesting theory, Jim (seriously!). That could explain Lambrecht's reasoning for not investigating further as there was obviously something about the "recent habitations" that caused him to discount their source being from AE/FN. Forum, how could we further elaborate/clarify this theroy? What records are there of either HMS Leith or HMS Achilles going on shore 5 months previous AE's flight? LTM Troy #something BTW, Pat what was the outcome of the fluorescent studies at night? I am assuming either very good or nothing at all, since they weren't mentioned on the highlights.... ************************************************************ Well, we've looked at all the records there seem to be and nothing jumps out. Lambrecht: "Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there." http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html Doesn't sound like simple placards to us, but that is a matter of judgment/opinion. Nothing on the UV light search. P ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:12:17 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: HMS Leith I understand that the HMS Achilles was crewed predominantly by Kiwi's and was involved in the Battle of River Plate where they were part of the armada that sunk the Admiral Graf Spree. I can't remember if they survived it or not. David J Kelly ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:15:25 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Logs Here's the information on HSM Achilles. She was a cruiser, built in 1930. She was part of the New Zealand branch of the Royal Navy and took part in the sea bqttle in the South Atlantic that ended with the sinking of the German pocket battle ship Graf Spee in 1939. HMS Achilles survived WW II and was eventually sold to the Indian Navy in 1946. No further information on her career. Now here comes the important part. The Royal Navy Historical Branch tell me the HMS Achilles logs are kept in the Public Records Office, National Archives, in Ruskin Avenue at Kew TW9 4DU, United Kingdom. That is in Western London. Has TIGHAR been there before ? Has anyone looked at the HMS Achilles log ? If not, do we have any TIGHARS in that area who could go and have a look ? If so, please acknowledge ASAP. If there is no-one in the area, please let me know ASAP. I'm willing to travel to Kew. Its only 50 minutes flying (plus 45 minutes by subway) from where I live (which is near Brussels airport in Belgium). And no, I'm not scared of flying these days. Herman (#2406) ************************************************************ >Has TIGHAR been there before? Yes. Several times. >Has anyone looked at the HMS Achilles log? Yes, have copies. Guys, I'm sorry that I'm not Ric, but I cannot begin to figure out his filing system and pull the logs and read through them and find the correct information and post it up here... AND do everything else I gotta do, so this question will just have to wait until next week. You should have seen what I went through when Ric wanted me to find a single photograph on his desk a few days ago. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:16:10 EDT From: Claude Stoker Subject: Floater? Where did the electra go?? At the end of AE trip to Niku, the fuel tanks were almost empty. 1100 gallons of emptyness using the equialence of 7.48 gallons per cu/ft equals 147 cu/ft of bouyancy. Thats just in the fuel tanks. Then there is the empty space in the wings adding more bouyancy, plus the cabin. All in all the electra was a boat ready to float off in any direction, according to the forces of wave, tide, and wind. Is it any wonder that by July 9th there was no electra visible?? Using 147 cu/ft of air, displaceing an equal volume of water, just the fuel tanks of the electra was capable of lifting 9172 lbs. Happy landings, the Stoker ************************************************************ Yeah, if the first few waves didn't just cave her in. P ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:15:36 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Logs > Guys, I'm sorry that I'm not Ric, but I cannot begin to figure out his filing > system and pull the logs and read through them and find the correct > information and post it up here... AND do everything else I gotta do, so this > question will just have to wait until next week. > > You should have seen what I went through when Ric wanted me to find a single > photograph on his desk a few days ago. OK, now we know why you got left at home. If you can't even excavate Ric's desk, what would you have done with a pile of bird bones? ;o) LTM, Marty #2359 ************************************************************ The problem is not me. The problem is Ric. I used the word "system" advisedly. The system is pile everything on top of everything and if you put it in a folder in a filing cabinet make sure no one will ever find anything ever because you actually rely on remembering where you put it and this is done on a reptile brain level so you can't even tell someone else where to look. He can always find everything, quickly and easily, but it defeats me consistently. And I'll have you know I do just fine with bird bones :-) Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:16:22 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Re: running on fumes Alan, I totally agree with your thoughts on the fuel. My point, and I think you agree with that as well, there is no reason or evidence to assume she didn't have enough fuel to consider and even look at her landing options when she reached Gardner. We simply can't state that she was running on fumes. That is possible but having sufficient fuel to look at all the landing options and even make a low pass is also possible. If she did send post flight radio transmissions, and the evidence seems to support that she did, then she most likely landing with her engines operating normally and there was some fuel remaining. Dick Pingrey 908C ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:18:56 EDT From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: Re: running on fumes Am I to understand correctly that AE only had approximately 139 to 150 gallons of fuel left when she reached the vicinity of Howland Island? I'm not a pilot or mathematician, but isn't that cutting it close? It seems to me that I would want a little bit more of a cushion than that. Thanks, Lawrence ************************************************************ Oh, sorry... no. She probably had about that much when she arrived in the vicinity of Gardner, 400 miles south of Howland. If we understand her flight plan and fuel load correctly (and we think we do) she should have had about four hours' reserve when she was overhead Howland or in that immediate area. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:17:41 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: outside the box I submit that prior to Tighars entrance on the AE scene Wade, Willi and Gannon, Putnam and the US Navy speculated with good reasons that AE went down the LOP and landed in the Phoenix Islands. Ron Bright ************************************************************ Well, yes. And your point is...? As I said, we are merely finishing the original search by looking in the most likely place. P ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:21:46 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Fuel There is an inaccuracy in your response to someone re fuel. The first paragraph is not correct. The second one is. The 139 to 150 gallons IS the four hour reserve over or near Howland. At that point she was using about 38 gph. That gives her 3.6 to 3.9 hours of flight. Niku is 349 nm SE of Howland. At 130k her no wind flight time would be about 2.68 hours. The wind should have been generally east/west so the flight time should be close. That would have given her possibly an hour at Niku to check it out and decide what to do. Whatever the winds were and whatever her actual airspeed was would not dramatically change those figures. Alan #2329 ************************************************************ Many thanks, Alan. Told you guys i don't really know this stuff. P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:35:22 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: outside the box Ron Bright wrote: >I submit that prior to Tighars entrance on the AE scene Wade, Willi and >Gannon, Putnam and the US Navy speculated with good reasons that AE went down >the LOP and landed in the Phoenix Islands. > >************************************************************ >Well, yes. And your point is...? As I said, we are merely finishing the >original search by looking in the most likely place. In February of 1942. The Army Air Corp Navigation class I was in at Kelly Field, Texas came to the same conclusion. However with the passage of time and study, it became obvious that such was not the case. ************************************************************ Obvious to whom? On what basis? P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:39:38 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: fuel The only comment I have to this is the positive use of "she was using". We were not there. As far as we know she could have been running rich which would increase her consumption. All we can say is "should have been using...." David J Kelly >From Alan Caldwell > >There is an inaccuracy in your response to someone re fuel. The first >paragraph is not correct. The second one is. The 139 to 150 gallons IS the >four hour reserve over or near Howland. At that point she was using >about 38 gph. That gives her 3.6 to 3.9 hours of flight. Niku is 349 nm SE of >Howland. At 130k her no wind flight time would be about 2.68 hours. The wind >should have been generally east/west so the flight time should be close. That >would have given her possibly an hour at Niku to check it out and decide what >to do. Whatever the winds were and whatever her actual airspeed was would >not dramatically change those figures. > >Alan ************************************************************ Technically correct, of course. Any circumstance which took her very far from Kelly Johnson's directives would change her consumption. P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:40:29 EDT From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: fuel The assumption that AE achieved 38 gph fuel flow continuously is incorrect. At 7:42 she reported to the Itasca "we are flying at 1000 feet" It is impossible to achieve 38 gph at 1000 feet. To get that fuel flow you must be at 10,000 feet according to Kelly Johnsons actual tests of fuel flow. No one knows when did AE descend to 1000 feet or how long she stayed there, but if she turned south on heading of 157 down range away from Howland at 8:45 which seems likley, then she was running full rich for at least an hour at 1000 feet. If she climbed out again to 10,000 feet enroute to Gardner then she would have lost another 9 gallons plus or minus in the climb. The actual fuel remaing at 8:45 I believe is somewhat less than your estimates. I remember reading long ago an article about Paul Mantz who was one of AE mentors. He scolded her for descending to lower altitudes when she was in trouble and it was her style to do that sort of thing. We dont know how close she got to Howland Isl but at 1000 feet you cant see very far. the Stoker ************************************************************ Dick Pingrey, can you help me out here? P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:50:32 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: fuel Claude Stokes wrote: > The assumption that AE achieved 38 gph fuel flow continuously is incorrect. > At 7:42 she reported to the Itasca "we are flying at 1000 feet" It is > impossible to achieve 38 gph at 1000 feet. To get that fuel flow you must be > at 10,000 feet according to Kelly Johnsons actual tests of fuel flow. Not so. At normal gross weight and 1000 feet, standard conditions and normal leaning, the 10E would do 150 mph on about 32 gph (200 hp per engine). The data are in Lockheed Report 465 (KJ's 1935 flight tests on the 10E), a copy of which Ric has. Oscar Boswell ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:54:32 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Fuel consumption There are so many things we do not know and can not know that it is impossible to determine with and degree of certainty how much fuel would have been remaining when Amelia arrived at Gardner. We don't know the exact winds on that day, we do not know if she used Kelly Johnsons recomendations, etc. All we can really do is try and determine if it was possible for her to reach Gardner and, if so, is she likely to have had some fuel remaining. Alan has looked at this very closely and correctly states that, in theory, she could have reached Gardner with fuel remaining. As far as the descent to 1000 ft is concerned, we know from her transmissions that she apparently did descent to 1000 ft, probably to see under cloud cover. If she made a small power reduction and descended very gradually over the last several hundred miles she would have saved quite a lot of fuel and thus the over all fuel burn when flying at 1000 ft rather than 10,000 ft would not be significant. Again, we just don't know what she may have done. If she is flying at max endurance power and airspeed at 1000 feet she probably isn't burning much more fuel then she would a 1000 feet using Kelly's recomendations. By this time she had lot of hours in the airplane and lots of time to figure out what speeds and power setting work best. Did she do that? We just don't know but it is certainly possible. When you are low on fuel over water you do what you can to conserve your fuel. The evidence supports the idea that she did make it to Gardner, landed and sent post landing radio messages. If the evidence is correct she must have done enough of these things right to get her to Gardner. Dick Pingrey 908C ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:56:55 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: The Earhart Book This is an update on the Earhart book that was co-authored by TIGHAR members Tom King, Randy Jacobson, Kar Burns and myself (Kenton Spading). For those new to the Forum, the book it titled "Amelia Earharts Shoe: Is the Mystery Solved?". The book covers much, much more than just the shoe artifact story. It starts with where Amelia and Fred were born and goes on to cover TIGHAR's entire investigation up until Niku 4. The book is an easy and fun read for the casual reader while at the same time being heavily footnoted which provides a wealth of information to the dedicated researcher. The book is scheduled to appear in bookstores sometime in October. A friend of mine recently ordered some copies from www.amazon.com and they arrived 4 days later. The book lists for $17.00 and change on Amazon (retail price is $25.00). The publisher (Altamira Press) has informed me that the book was recently reviewed in Publisher's Weekly. Publisher's Weekly is the main magazine used by bookstores to determine what to order. The book received a good review that is true to the intent of the book. The reviewer wrote: "While their judgements are tantalizing and plausible, the fun of the book is being in on the excitement of the discoveries and the scientific testing of the hypothesis. Written in a colloquial, good-humored style that takes itself seriously but is not aboove cracking a joke to make a point, this is a must for "what happened to Amelia" fanatics, and also those who are interested in how science can be used to test the veracity of theories about historical mysteries." You can find this review and others at www.altamirapress.com to include a review by Dr. Ballard (of Titanic fame). If anyone has any questions about the book, feel free to contact me (or any of the other authors). LTM Kenton Spading ************************************************************ I might add that three of the four authors have made arrangements that 100% of their royalties go to TIGHAR. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:58:42 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel You're correct, David. We don't know how she managed her fuel. I should have been more careful with my choice of words. The best estimates of her fuel usage are predicated on her following her plan for most efficient fuel usage. If, for some unknown reason she decided to poorly manage her fuel she could only have ended up with less not more of course. If she managed to blow as much as an hour of her reserve it would have been dry tanks to Gardner or ditch when the gas was gone. There still would not have been enough gas to go anywhere else. Gardner or ditch. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:59:50 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: HMS Leith at Niku Troy Carmichael wrote: >Forum, how could we further elaborate/clarify this theroy? What records >are there of either HMS Leith or HMS Achilles going on shore 5 months >previous AE's flight? In regards to the HMS Leith, and some other "Recent" visitors to Niku....see my recent long post to the Forum on Sept 20, 2001. In that post, I discuss the HMS Leith's visit to Niku on Feb. 15, 1937 and I included a reference to where you can find information that documents the visit (Niku Source Book, Sec. No. 2, Item No. 2). The Leith visited Niku 5 months prior to Earhart disappearing. Note that my post includes 5 reference docs that direct readers to more info on the subject of pre-July 1937 visitors to the island. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:00:38 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel Claude, I wrote along the same lines to someone off the forum. I agree her fuel was most probably less than my general post. I didn't want to get too detailed. My point was simply she probably had enough gas to get to Niku and a little time to check it out. I wasn't trying to be too exact. You are certainly correct in your post. There are a number of factors that remain unknown such as her various climbs and descents and where she kept her mixture and what her actual fuel flow was at verious parts of the flight. I pointed out off forum that we don't know how much fuel she used climbing out of Lae with such a heavy plane or how long it took. Given all that I think the basic theory that she had fuel to Niku and a little left is probably accurate. The real question might be "did she have enough to go back to the Gilberts." My guess (just a guess) is that she did not. I think YOUR analysis is closer to the truth. She had less fuel than we thought she did. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:01:02 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel Claude, an afterthought. What fuel flow do you think she had at 1,000' and why? I'm not shooting at you just want to know. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:02:42 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: fuel Doesn't it seem odd, that she would descend below her cruising altitude of 10,000 feet without seeing the island or at least establishing two way radio contact. Over all that water, I think I'd stay up high until I had both. At 1,000 feet she was basically at pattern altitude with no runway in sight. I wonder is the log is incorrect where it says she was "Flying at 1,000 feet"? Do you suppose they copied it wrong, and it really should read 10,000 feet. Maybe they left a zero off by mistake! Is there anyway to verify the entry? Don J. Alan Caldwell wrote: > Claude, an afterthought. What fuel flow do you think she had at 1,000' and > why? I'm not shooting at you just want to know. > > Alan > #2329 ************************************************************ Not odd at all. There is usually a scattered cloud deck at 1000 to 2000 feet out there. You have to get below it to see anything, because viewed at an angle the deck looks solid. P ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:03:26 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel Good information, Oscar. Every little tidbit helps. Claud made mention AE possibly might have her mixture full rich at 1,000' and most certainly she might have. It has been a long time since I flew a recip but my recollection is that one goes to full rich for landing, I suppose for safety reasons in the event of a go around or just to make sure there was plenty of juice there. Simply flying at 1,000' would not require full rich, is this correct? I can imagine AE may have gone to full rich on descent planning on a landing and may not have leaned out. I suppose we'll never know that. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:03:55 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel consumption "The evidence supports the idea that she did make it to Gardner, landed and sent post landing radio messages. If the evidence is correct she must have done enough of these things right to get her to Gardner." You're sure right, Dick about so many factors we don't know. I think we all agree on what she should have done. The problem I have is I can't think of any logical reasons she would do otherwise. In other words I can't think of any reason she would want to use her fuel inefficiently. I can't think of any reason for her to deviate from recommendations and thus reduce her fuel reserve. We know she was aware her fuel was "low" because she said so. Can anyone think of a reason she would not want to run as conservatively as possible? What am I missing? Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:04:22 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: fuel If AE was the worst fuel manager in the world, but she was on course, where would she have gotten to? David J Kelly ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:05:10 EDT From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: fuel OOppssss,, I think I found my mistake. Ive been using the 600hp wasp as my basis for fuel, but in checking back Im now not sure which engine did AE have in her electra???Was it the 550 or the 600??? If she was flying the 550 then Dick and Alan are 100 percent correct since the fuel flow using a power setting of 55% would be .42 lbs per horse power per hour (thats decimal 42), or (.42 X 605hp diveded by 6) = 42,35 gallons per hour. If she was running the 600hp it would be (.42 X 660hp divided by 6) = 46.20 gallons per hour. She could have easily cut back to 50% power and on the 550 that would be (.42 X 550 devide by 6) = WALLAHH,, 38.5 gallons per hour even at sea level Amelia was one really good professional pilot and was so very familiar with the 10E that she could finess any power setting and fuel flow required to meet the need. I have no doubt that she reached Niku island and was only figuring with how much fuel would remain. If she clombed out again to 10,000 then the fuel loss would be 10 minutes to clomb, at power of maybe 70% vs/vs 55%. (.42 X 165hp divided by 6 X .1666hours) = 1.9 extra gallons to climb back to 10,000 When she departed Lae on the other hand at maximum weight she would be lucky to get 300 or 400 feet per minute at full power and the fuel reqired to climb to 5000 ft is (.42 X 1100hp divide by 6 X .27777hours) 21.3 gallons Sorry if i made a mistake,,, the Stoker ************************************************************ Earhart's Electra used PW R1340s. P ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 17:36:11 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: fuel Alan Caldwell wrote: > Simply flying at 1,000' would not require full rich, is this correct? Yes. And Max Conrad (who did quite a lot of flying at 1000 feet - or even 100 feet) was (in his own words) in the habit of "leaning out his engines until they almost stopped" on his long distance flights. "Full rich" or "lean" is not the major factor in fuel consumption - the major factor is horsepower generated. As I said the 10E was capable of about 150 mph at 1000 feet and 32 gph with normal leaning and 200 hp per engine. If you ran rich, it might burn 34 gph. Lean or very lean might be 31 or less. Oscar Boswell ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 17:36:35 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel Claude, they were 550s. Send me a private note. I want to chat about fuel a bit. Alan Caldwell ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 17:37:35 EDT From: Chris Strohmeyer Subject: Re: fuel consumption Perhaps fear or even panic played a role. Thinking about being low on fuel and perhaps ditching in that vast ocean might make her a little jittery and affect her thinking. Knowing that AE was a little stubborn, did she have the final word on decisions made? ************************************************************ I don't know who else would make them. She was the nut behind the wheel, as they say. P ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 17:38:32 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Mixture settings Most smaller ricprocating engines run at full rich below 3 to 5 thousand feet and they certainly do for take off and landing. Larger round engines can be leaned at low altitude as long as cylinder head temperatures stay within limits. If Amelia was looking for minimum fuel usage she would most like lean the mixture even at 1000 feet and let the engines run on the high tem. side. On most engines there is added enrichment provided at full power (Full forward throttle) to provide extra cooling for the high power setting for take off and climb. It is an automatic part of the carburetor/throttle set up. Some readers may not understand that part of the fuel that goes to the cylinder from the carburetor is there simply to provide cooling to the cylinder. This is true in all reciprocating gasoline engines. Without that fuel vapor cooling the engine would overheat. It is like our bodies being cooled by sweat. If the ratio of fuel to air is reduced too far the engine over heats. If it is reduced even further there is power loss and at even a smaller ratio the engine will not run. In a jet engine all of the fuel is normally consumed to produce thrust. Dick Pingrey 908C ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 17:39:28 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Descent to 1000 feet For Don Jordan Don, having flown out in the Pacific amoung smaller islands I can say from personal experience that you must drop down to or below below the base of the clouds to make out islands. Shadows on the water often look like islands or the clouds completely hide them. Thus, if there was much cloud cover Amelia would need to drop down to the cloud base in order to see Howland. That complicates her search because the distance of observation is restricted at 1000 feet. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Dick Pingrey 908C ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:11:29 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Descent to 1000 feet Yes, I know about the difficulty in seeing island from above the clouds. We discussed it at length several years ago. But the question was, how do we know she was in, or above the clouds. Remember, they didn't know for sure where she was, and only assumed she was northwest of Howland. I think there were some clouds up that way. My question was, are we positive she stated she was at 1,000 feet. Unless she was in or above an overcast, I think she could tell the difference between a cloud shadow, and an island from 10,000 feet. Particularly if it was directly below her. We have found other discrepancies in the logs, and the memories of those onboard Itasca. I think it would make a significant difference in how far she could travel from the area of Howland if she were really at 10,000 feet, verses 1,000. Really I'm just thinking out loud and throwing out an idea to see if it has merit. Kelly Johnson said she could get the best fuel economy at 10,000 feet, so we know she was at that altitude at one time. So I wonder, why did she pick 1,000 feet to start her search. Why not 3,000, 2,000 2,500 or any other altitude below 10. 1,000 is almost pattern altitude. The shadows will be on the water, not matter what altitude she was flying. Personally, I don't descend to pattern altitude until I know I can make the runway if an engine fails. With her non feathering propellers, I'd think she be in the water, or at least sea level within seconds of losing an engine at 1,000 feet. As I said, I'm just wondering if there could be a mistake in the reported altitude. Don J. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:12:36 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Pilot in Comman For Chris Strohmeyer. Chris, good crew management and common sense calls to the captain of the aircraft to make final decisions after full and complete discussion of the options with the rest of the crew when there are problems (time permitting). We can never know for certain but I would guess there was a plan for locating an alternate place to land if Howland could not be found. All indications are that Amelia and Fred had such a plan. It would have been completely out of charactor for Fred and probably Amelia as well to start for Howland without such a plan. Fear and panic may play a role but if the crew has an alternate plan they would work on getting to that alternate and that is where their attention is directed. Only if they were in the process of running out of fuel having failed to reach their alternate would fear normally come into play. Even then they are going to be very busy attempting to make a good water landing and may not have time for fear and panic. Let's not forget that many studies show that many women are better at working in a crisis situation than men. (sorry guys). Dick Pingrey 908C ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:13:35 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Worst Fuel Manager To David J. Kelly, David, Your question is really impossible to answer because there are far too many unknowns. There is no reason to believe that Amelia was a poor fuel manager. By the time she got to the Howland leg she had lots of experience in the airplane and most certainly understood good fuel management from all those previous legs. Additionally, she had Kelly Johnson's recomendations on fuel management and it would be dumb not to follow those instructions. Put yourself in her position. You know you have a difficult long ocean crossing where fuel management is very important. Are you going to disregard all that good information you have been provided and manage your fuel improperly? I don't think so. Really, I am with Alan on this. I can't think of any good reason for her to not manage her fuel properly nor any reason why she and Fred would not have an alternate plan for finding land if Howland could not be found. It is not logical to think she would do it any other way. That, in itself, is to me the most logical reason for believing she and Fred landed on Gardner Island. All the evidence found on the island is secondary to this basic fact. I understand that most non pilots may not understand the logic in this reasoning but most pilots certainly will. Dick Pingrey 908c ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:14:43 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel Thanks, Oscar. The last prop I flew was a T-28 and I've forgotten all that stuff. After that I flew jet fighters and bombers and finished up in turboprop C-130Es. My mixture days are long gone. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:15:39 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Kanton in the news This seems very unlikely to come to fruition, but Kiribati has offered Kanton Island as a possible place to house the asylum-seekers currently locked in the impasse over whether or not they will be allowed to land in Australia. An official interviewed on Radio Australia a few days ago said there were currently 20 or 30 residents on the island and any influx would require attention to water resources, ideally a desalination plant. LTM Phil Tanner 2276 ************************************************************ Yeah. Also to the hazmat left by the USAF and so on.... not a garden spot, Kanton. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:14:24 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel consumption Chris, FN was also a qualified pilot. Well, at least a pilot but it appeared to me AE ran the show pretty much. In that situation She may have welcomed advice but we'll not ever know that. I don't know her temperment and I don't recall her being in a real tight box before so it's kind of difficult to second guess. Maybe someone else has better insight for a more educated guess. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:17:38 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Next episode coming soon? As I clearly recall, when we last heard from the intrepid voyagers, mountainous grey-green seas were crashing over the decks, horizontal rain was coming like machine gun fire out of blackened skies, and the wind was moaning through the rigging like a tormented demon. Ric was out on the foredeck, one hand clutching the forestay and the other the satphone, waiting for a lightning strike to boost the phone power so he could be heard at least as far as St. Petersburg (with or w/o the satphone). Any further info? Hope he eventually went below for a spot of tea and a dollop of scopolamine. TOM MM ************************************************************ I finally got a report on the final day on the island from Ric now that he's back on dry land. I'll be working on it this morning and getting it posted up, I hope, by lunchtime. They are spending today packing stuff for FedEx. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:19:23 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Expedition update? It's the evening of the 23rd as I send this so it must be the 24th on the other side of the world where Ric & company are getting on the great air yatch for the final voyage home if I read the schedule right. Just wanted to know that they made it back to port ok. The pix you inserted of the high seas got my attention. Hope he packed the dramamine & an extra pair of shorts. Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************ Dramamine is old hat. Meclazine hydrochloride, better known as Antivert, is the drug of choice on these deals. By the time you've been at sea as long as they have, usually your inner ear has adjusted anyway and you don't need anything. But yes, they did make port just fine. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:27:03 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Alternate plans Pingrey asserts that it would be logical for AE to have an alternate landfall if she missed Howland. I don't think anyone disagrees, but the only alternate landfall that has surfaced attributed to AE is in the Vidal interview .Vidal recalled she once mentioned reversing course to the Gilberts. [Not really must further than Niku.] No other alternate plan discovered by those at Lae, and those planning the flight or friends or relatives, that may have been aware of her plan "B". The validity of Vidal's comment has been rehashed on the forum several times. The preponderance of oral evidence suggests that Gilberts were the alternate, but whether she made last minute decisions depending on where she thought she was, and headed elsewhere,say to Niku, or to the Marshalls, and made it, will only be resolved when something conclusive is found associated with AE or the Electra. Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:27:34 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Descent to 1000 feet I think it stands to reason AE descended to 1,000 ft. for the simple reason that they expected to have arrived at their destination. Landing on Howland would be VFR (they didn't have ILS in those days) so she had to see the island. Descending below the cloud base was the thing to do and then look for the island. And 1,000 ft. would be pattern altitude to fly the circuit anyway. There was no point staying up at 10,000 ft. since they couldn't possibly see Howland which was hidden under the couds. Even when they later flew along the 157 radial she most probably didn't climb to 10,000 as soon as possible but most likely decided on a more economic cruise climb. Herman (#2406) ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:28:47 EDT From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: the Earhart book I ordered "Amelia Earhart's Shoes" from Barnes and Noble yesterday hoping this will help fund TIGHAR. I also wish the air mail people contribute to TIGHAR, for sending the book costs almost as much as the book itself... But that's because I'm living on the wrong side of the world. LTM (who believes in the good cause) Herman (#2406) ************************************************************ No, no, not the wrong side of the world, just the wrong side of the Atlantic... a distinction without a difference perhaps until you start paying the shipping to the Pacific. P ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:29:24 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: fuel Perhaps a look at AE's ...'last will & testament'... ("Last Flight') might provide _some_ clue as to how she handled _some_ enroute, fuel management problems. She experienced fuel analyzer problems due to a broken shaft, between Natal & Dakar & a jammed, manual mixture-control lever beween Assab & Karachi, to which she responded... ...'With it misbehaving , I could not regulate the quantity of fuel consumed by the right engine, which gulped gasoline unconscionably... I was afraid I should run out of fuel, so I reduced speed to economize'... Though I can lay no claim to _any_ expertise in the area of aerial fuel management, I can at least attest to the validity to an old truism...' whatever _can_ go wrong, usually does'... Given the number of hours & the high temperature extremities & sometimes severe weather varities to which the aircraft was exposed, over a course covering about three-quarters of the earth's circumference, can anyone not wonder just how efficiently & effectively the Electra's engines & fuel delivery system were operating during that last 2,000 (+) mile stretch from Lae to Howland ? Admittedly, AE never mentioned any engine or fuel problems in any of her radio transmissions (that were actually received)... other than her vague reference to being ...'low on gas'... (or... half-hour left... if you will) during one broadcast... yet I believe I must concede at _least_ the _possility_ that her engines may not have been utilizing the fuel supply as efficiently or effectively as they approached Howland, as they were at the start of that leg, with the _possibility_ that such poor fuel utilization was so subtle... or ... at least not so dramatic that AE was not even aware of any problem until she mentioned being low on fuel (whatever she implied with that comment). However, on the other hand, with the steady depletion of the weight of the Electra's fuel load during that last leg of the flight, perhaps the steadily lightened load of fuel would have offset any fuel system malfunction or engine inefficiency in fuel consumption... again, a lot of speculations & assumptions, with no truly factual documentation being available. Don Neumann ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:30:07 EDT From: Pat Subject: Final expedition report up I managed it, only four hours later than I hoped, which isn't so bad. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:42:53 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Land fall To Ron Bright, You are missing one big point in the difference between heading for the Gilberts and heading for Gardner. By heading for Gardner, which is on the LOP, she is still hoping to find Howland. Thus she is accomplishing two things. Holding out for the possibility that Howland is to her southwest and at the same time heading to an alternate if it isn't. She can't be certain if she was north of south of Howland when she reached the LOP. If she takes a short look to the north and then follows the LOP to the south (southwest) she may still find Howland but if she doesn't she should find Gardner or another island in the group. We must keep in mind that finding Howland is extremely important. All the effort for the record attempt is lost if she makes a forced landing any where else. The only thing that is more important than finding Howland is survival. Following the LOP still keeps Howland in the picture but provides her with a place to land if Howland can't be found. Dick Pingrey 908C ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:43:33 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Returning to the Gilberts To Ron Bright (again), If AE and Fred were falling behind on their fuel and there was a good possibility, as a result, that she would reach the vicinity of Howland with very little fuel then she would find it wise to return to the Gilberts while still very close to them. This would be to insure a controlled landing. Her, "We must be on you but can not see you", radio message would indicate that she did go to the area of Howland. Thus a return to the Gilberts is unlikely in my view. Dick Pingrey 908C ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:44:26 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Descending to 1000 feet To Herman, I disagree that AE descended to 1000 feet simply because she expected to see Howland and was simply getting down to pattern altitude. She was having all kinds of Radio problems and did not get the DF direction bearing to fly she had expected. She couldn't get a fix with her loop so she was very uncertain of pin pointing Howland. From 1000 feet on a clear day your range of visibility is greatly reduced from that of 10,000 feet. I think she descended to get a look under and behind scattered clouds. She would have all kinds of time to descend once she spotted the island and would probably want some time to look it over prior to landing any way. Dick Pingrey 908C ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:48:33 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: pilot in command "Let's not forget that many studies show that many women are better at working in a crisis situation then men." Could that be because they get more practice? Alan #2329 ************************************************************ And just what is that supposed to mean? LTM, while she wipes blood off the four year old, answers the phone call about the mortgage, makes arrangements for the car repairs, finds the 10 year old's sneakers, irons hubby's shirt, puts a face on for work, deals with the INS about the housekeeper, prints out the budget for the department, uploads the files to the server, and mops orange juice off the kitchen floor..... Pat (no, that doesn't describe my life, thank heaven.) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:49:18 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: worst fuel manager "Really, I am with Alan on this." Careful, Dick. I can be a pretty big target occasionally. Seriously, I think you summed it all up pretty well. Pilot logic. Not everyone believes, however, they had a sound alternate. If it had been me I certainly would have had some kind of safety plan. I suppose the theory COULD be that they were so dead certain they would find Howland and that they had such great support awaiting them that they didn't plan for an alternate. Maybe a loose plan like we'll have to find the closest land and put it on a reef or near enough to swim for it. It appears to me from several of the recent fuel postings that even mismanaging her fuel would not have made a difference big enough to change the outcome. Well managed she makes it to Niku. Poorly managed she makes it to Niku. It might make a difference whether we could definitely eliminate the Gilberts for fuel reasons though. I think that is already the case even with good fuel management. Remember AE herself said her fuel was low which I took to mean we can't hang around much longer before we start hunting for a place to put the plane down. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:50:20 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: alternate plans Ron, I think that was a good general summation of where we are on what happened that day. Just to muddy the waters we have a lot of theories -- some reasonable and some very difficult to support. I think most agree there is a lot we don't know for certain although we try to make some educated guesses. The fuel situation is such a theory. Obviously we don't know exactly what her fuel was but I think we've come pretty close. I computed 139 gallons at her last message time and others computed 150 gallons. It doesn't matter much which figure is correct or closest But I would be interested in any supportable computation showing more than that. Computing preflight and inflight fuel was part of my job in B-47s so I know how to do that. As I refine my data I am getting slightly less fuel remaining but not significantly so. Here are some hard facts, however. Niku is 349nm from Howland. The nearest Gilbert (Nikunau) is 436nm. Mili Atoll is the nearest Marshall Island at 753nm. Giving AE the most fuel of 150 gallons at 38gph she would be dry tanks 240 nm short of Mili. To make it to the Marshalls Noonan would have had to be 240 or more miles off course. The strength of the radios alone dispute that. The report of an airplane flying over head at Tabiteuea in the Gilberts disputes that. So to get the plane to Mili FN had to be the worst navigator in the world. There had to be a radio skip for hours of a consistant degree. The flyover had to be a phony report. OR there were other airplanes in the area no one knows about. The reports from Nauru have to be all wrong. Tough to get the plane to Mili I think. Did she have fuel to make it to the Gilberts? Just barely to Nikunau with about 10 or 15 minutes to spare. No reserve. No way to navigate accurately to the Gilberts with the sun behind and only giving speed lines not course lines. But I'm with you, Ron. They could have done most anything logic or no. BTW, you said something about "The preponderance of oral evidence suggests that Gilberts were the alternate,...." It's been so long ago we talked about this I have forgotten what oral evidence other than Vidal there is. Refresh my memory please. And if I said something incorrect tell me what I'm missing. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:06:18 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: land fall We had this discussion years ago, but tell me again how you know the LOP ran between Gardner Island and Howland Island. It could have been anywhere, as long and it ran 157-337 degrees. I know where it should have been, and so did they. If it really did run between Gardner and Howland, and they knew it, then why fly three hours in one direction hoping you are right. After an hour, they should have known, or at least had a clue, that the LOP they computed did not run between the two islands. They had enough fuel, most likely, to fly a search on the suspected LOP for 1 1/2 hours in each direction. It is not very logical to think Fred was off in his navigation by over 200 miles. Possible, but not likely. And, how do we know she was in, or above the clouds at 08:43, making it necessary to descend below them to 1,000 feet? That's an assumption, used to prove a theory, not a fact used to support it! Don J. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:09:41 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: returning to the Gilberts I think the Back to Gilberts has been debated in depth, but one little tidbit of interest is that when the Earhart Foundation (Elmer Dimity) sent out the "Yankee of Glouchester" to search the Gilberts and Ellice Islands, I think in 1938, one of the crew was reportedly Margot deCarrie, AE's secretary. Capt Irving reported back they found nothing except perhaps someone heard a plane pass over Tabiteuea Is in the night. But while speculating, if anyone knew of a plan "B" it may have been deCarrie, who was at Hollywood during the planing stages. To my knowledge deCarrie has never made any public statements about what she knew to any researcher??? FDR sent his secret agent friend Vincent Astor in his yacht to the Gilberts and Marshalls in 1938 ostensibly to find out what was going on, but I have guessed that part of his mission included AE's disappearance. I have never seen that log, but I presume nothing of note was found. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:10:23 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: alternate plans Some time ago we found the extensive interview of Eugene Vidal, but had trouble dating the interview and who was conducting the interview. I have a copy of the entire transcript from the U of Wyoming. Of interest to you is Vidal's remarks about her plans, which he said he spent considerable time on the living room floor pouring over maps, etc. Vidal said she planned to arrive in Howland area and hunt for Howland until she had four hours of fuel left. "If she had not located it by that time she planned to return to the Gilbert Islands, which she felt she could not miss, and land on a beach." Of course we have no corroborating witness to AE's alleged plan, but it is doubtful that Vidal would make it up; whether his recollection was influenced by time, other events, we don't know. Whether this is what happened is the nature of our discussions. Adding to the Gilbert destination possibility, George Putnam in July 18, 1937 issued a press release from the National Geographic Society claiming the search in the Gilberts was "incomplete". GP a few days after AE was lost cabled Dan Roper, Sec of Commerce, and asked if he could obtain the cooperation of the British and the Japanese and search the Ellice, Gilberts and Marshalls, and offered to defray the costs of the U S Navy of searching the Gilberts,etc. GP never said to my knowledge that AE intended to head back to the Gilberts prior to the flight so GP may have been guessing her alternate landfall or simply guessing based on other factors. So it seems that Vidal is the only witness that has surfaced claiming AE had made an alternate plan prior to the flight. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:11:53 EDT From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: alternate plans << To make it to the Marshalls Noonan would have had to be 240 or more miles off course. The strength of the radios alone dispute that.>> The strength of the radio signals do not necessarily indicate that Noonan wasn't a great distance off course. Very often, conditions can be such that 'ground wave' signals are MUCH weaker than signals propagated via ionospheric propagation (often, loosely referred to as 'skip'). The fact that the signals were as strong as they were, at one point, yet she didn't 'appear' to be within 'eyesight' of Howland, might actually indicate that they were quite some distance from Howland at that point, as compared to the '50 to 100 miles' that was originally 'assumed' because of the strength of the radio signals. Assuming that they were close to Howland, basing this thought upon the strength of the radio signals, is just that - an assumption, that can be difficult to prove one way or another (at least until someone finds 'hard evidence' of Earhart and Noonan - the 'smoking gun'). Just the other night, I was able to keep in contact with a 'ham' near Houston TX, with VERY strong signals, for about an hour, while a friend of mine across town (only about 15 air miles from me) was almost 'unreadable'. This just shows how well ionospheric propagation works at times, and the 'stability' of it at times (and, of course, sometimes it's horribly unstable). John Rayfield, Jr. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:12:44 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Descending to 1000 flight For Dick Pringrey Aren't we saying the same thing ? Of course Amelia Earhart was having problems with the radio. But if Fred Noonan had done his job -and there was no reason to doubt this- they were near Howland. Therefore it was time to descend and see where Howland was. I'm confident that problems with the radio notwithstanding she was at that time they would see Howland soon. Flying at 1,000 ft. and flying a landing pattern are two different things. She said to be flying at 1,000 ft.. So we have to accept that. It just so happens that this is also the normal altitude to enter a landing pattern. However, I did not say AE was preparing the landing procedure as you seem to conclude from what I wrote. What I believe is that she descended below the clouds in the belief they would see Howland or that if they didn't see it immediately they would soon see it if they flew along the 157/337 radial. Flying at 1,000 ft. is below the cloud layer which, if I'm not mistaken, was at something like 2,000 ft. but don't pin me down on this figure. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:14:59 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Re: The Earhart Book A recent posting mentioned something that I should have mentioned in my earlier post on the Earhart book (Amelia Earhart's Shoe). If you are not able to give Amazon.com your credit card number over the internet, you can order the book from your local bookstore. The publicity for the book is not far enough into the system yet for it to be actually be on the book selves. The buyers for the bookstores should begin to hear about it soon. LTM Kenton Spading ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:19:29 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: worst fuel manager I think you may have missed my point. If she did not manager her fuel as effectively as she may have - where may she have ended up? If you can determine this we have one side of a wall. All the fuel calcs to date assume almost perfect fuel consumption. This "perfection" calc is the other wall. Somewhere in between is AE. Regards David (a pilot who is big enough to admit he has made fuel management mistakes) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:20:06 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: land fall Dick, I think we think pretty much alike on the events of the last few hours of AE's flight. Perhaps where we disagree with some other theories is that we are hard set that the Electra was close into Howland. Ron and others are suggesting we shouldn't be so certain of that. And if I'm putting incorrect words in anyone's mouth It's unintentional. The possibility of the Gilberts, the Marshalls and radio skip just won't go away easily. I'm not sure why but it may be because the Japanese angle was pushed so hard for decades and repeated so often that it became the "proven" solution to most everyone. Now it is hard to let go of even in the face of total lack of evidence and virtual impossibility. I say there was no way to get the plane to the Marshalls and I say it with emphasis. But others think the plane was so greatly off course to the north that the Marshalls was the logical choice. Some even still think they made false position reports and flew to Truk and across but if they would sit down and run the fuel usage to fly that route they will quickly see AE would have run out of gas shortly after Jaluit or even before. I would never believe that could have been a plan. Besides it was night time thus eliminating any reasonable spying. IT would have been a suicide mission and I just don't see the purpose. For another thing there wasn't anything to see. To be so far North of course we have to assume they made a false call passing Nauru and the station ship was wrong in thinking an airplane flew over. We also have to assume the report of a plane flying over Tabiteue was also made up. We have to believe AE's position reports although strength 5 were actually being skipped from hundreds of miles North of where she claimed to be. And we have to assume FN navigated unbelieveably bad. That's a lot of evidence to discard to try to prove a theory that has no evidence or support at all. Or is there some I'm overlooking? There are some who also believe she turned back way short of Howland thus giv ing her plenty of fuel to return to the Gilberts but we know by her postion reports she didn't turn back and kept going until she thought she was over Howland. Once we agree she was very near Howland fuel becomes the deciding factor of what happened next. Was she almost out of fuel upon arriving at Howland? Running a fuel log with known factors says no. AE says no by flying around for another hour. In a previous post I attempted to show it might have been possible to make it back to the nearest Gilbert with a maximum of 15 minutes to spare. With a tail wind maybe a little more. I also attempted to show it would have been difficult navigation. In spite of this it is useful to keep the options open as Ron has implied. I don't think they went back to the Gilberts but what if they did? I don't think they ditched but if so that makes all the post loss radio messages bogus. Someone show me where my thinking is erroneous but think it through and show me WHY I'm wrong. Please don't mistake confidence for arrogance. I like being right but I'll happily (maybe happily is a little strong) be the first to admit my errors. I know I occasionally come down hard on unsupported statements but I suppose that's the lawyer in me. They don't fly in court. I don't know what happened that day any more than anyone else but untrue statements only confuse folks who don't carefully read everything on the web site. Ideas and suggested possibilities don't need evidence or support as it keeps everyone thinking but they need to be thought through. They should at least be possible. If known information shows they are not they only confuse and waste time. It must be obvious that I don't have much patience with posts that are erroneous or impossible because the poster does not bother boning up on the subject. I say things wrong and I have no more patience with me than I do with anyone else so I'll try to be easier on all of us - - sorta. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:25:48 EDT From: Chuck Boyle Subject: Re: Final expedition report up Will the update of 9/22/01 be the last update until the team arrives home? When can we expect a final report from the team? ****************************************************************** Good question. I am done with the updates, yes, since everyone is now scattered and the expedition is over. But there will be tons and tons of information to think about, write up, and send out. Exactly when it will start to happen will depend a lot on how soon Ric can get the last bits of logistical stuff cleared away, and on how well the fund-raising goes for the next six weeks; we are still $90,000 short and will have to have funds to do testing, pay printers, etc., etc. I know that most people have, with very good reason, been turning their donations dollars towards New York and the rescue effort; but as the calendar year starts to draw to a close, think of TIGHAR; the expedition isn't finished until the paperwork is done, and that can take a year or more, which takes some fairly serious funding. Next newsletter goes out Wednesday or Thursday next week with a flier with any breaking news; then another later in October with first results. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:30:55 EDT From: Lee Shephard Subject: Re: the Earhart book Got your "Shoes" book today from Amazon. Got here in about 2 days. Will give you my complete review ....................later. When I get hold of a really good book....I like to savor it....real slow. I'm alread hooked; and I'm just on page 5. $17 plus shipping.......$23 total! Can't beat that.....as far as a lot of bang for your buck! Lee ****************************************************************** I just want to re-emphasize that the book is *not* a TIGHAR publication, not a TIGHAR book. It was written by four TIGHAR members, yes, but as a private endeavor. There are even a few things we disagree with in it. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:31:25 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: the Earhart book To elaborate on what Kent Spading mentioned, I just ordered the book from Barnes & Noble. It will be delivered in 4-5 days at which time I will shell out $24.95 + the Governor's fee for the great state of Illinois in payment. Amazon may give a discount but I will not give out my credit card number on the internet. I look forward to reading it. Doug Brutlag #2335 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:32:39 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Theories To Alan: There is a lot to be said about having been there and having done that. No matter how much we talk about how shadows from small clouds can look like islands only those that have seen the effect will ever believe it is true. No matter how much we talk about the logic of good fuel management many will feel Amelia did not manage her fuel well. No matter how much we talk about the need to have an alternate plan many will conclude that Amelia and Fred simply circled in the area around Howland until they ran out of fuel. And, on and on. I have concluded that you can never convince people with facts and evidence unless they have experienced the conditions giving them a basis to understand those facts and they are willing and have an open mind to learn and become convinced. Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. Dick Pingrey 908C ****************************************************************** Yup. And remember Mother's advice about teaching pigs to sing.... P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:36:07 EDT From: Claude Stoker Subject: Searching for Amelia Has anyone combed over the memoirs from Paul Mantz regarding AE around the world flight?? From articles I have read he was very close to AE and did give advise on her around the world flight. One thing I remember Mantz reportedly advised AE was to fly the trip from east going west, which she obviously ignored. Now that we can see what happened it seems that Paul Mantz wisdom was profetic. For many reasons going west was easier and safer. Maybe Pauls public records can shed some light on AE plans and alternates.. I dunno,, just guessing, the Stoker ****************************************************************** Claude, I'd really like to see you spend some time in the website before going into any more questions. I'll answer these, but a lot of this stuff is covered in depth elsewhere. Paul Mantz was AE's advisor, yes. And yes, of course we have looked at the material available. And it is not helpful. AE changed direction not to "ignore" Mantz, but because, having wrecked the aircraft in Hawaii, she was enough behind schedule that the winds and weather patterns had changed, making it a good and correct decision to do so. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:37:51 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Where's Ric? Damn! Where's that Scotsman when you need him? If he was here he'd put a quick end to this endless blather of fuel consumption, going to the Marshalls, Mili Atoll, FN's "bad" navigation, ad nauseum. Give it a rest guys. Ric: Godspeed, and hurry up; we need you! LTM, who patiently awaits the return of "Da Man"! Dennis McGee #0149EC ****************************************************************** Yeah, I guess I'm just not tough enough. The nastygrams I've been getting from Rollin and Cam just make me tired. As I type, Ric is or should be in the air winging his way from LAX. Look out, guys, here he comes! Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:50:18 EDT From: Ric Subject: Ric's expedition summary It's great to be back! Pat has done a wonderful job keeping everyone up to date on the day-to-day progress of the expedition so this will be a just-off-the-plane, still-jetlagged impression of where The Earhart Project stands now that Niku IIII is in the record books. Let's be clear about one thing right out of the gate - this was the most successful Earhart expedition ever conducted. Whether or not it has produced the proverbial smoking gun remains to be seen, but there is no question that we have now identified and begun the clearing and excavation of a bona-fide archaeological site on Nikumaroro that is producing artifacts which have the potential of conclusively solving the Earhart mystery. Thirteen years and five expeditions had revealed archival, photographic and artifactual evidence that strongly suggested that the island was where Earhart and Noonan met their fate, but the paramount question has always been, "Yes, but where?" A few airplane parts found in the village may well be from the Electra but were clearly brought there from somewhere else. The grave and shoe parts on Aukeraime looked promising for a time but the grave proved to be that of an infant, the shoe ultimately didn't fit, and a detailed look at that site revealed nothing but a campfire containing a 1970s vintage can label. By contrast, the Seven Site has proven to be rich in a variety of artifacts. Like most archaeological sites it bears evidence of layers of activity over time. Clearly the Gilbertese colonists and the U.S. Coast Guardsmen were there at various times and left their respective debris behind, but there are also definite indications of an earlier presence at the site - indications that are consistent with the presence and residence of a person or persons who fashioned primitive tools from 20th century objects and subsisted inexpertly on local food sources (for example, bashing rather than cutting giant clams open). We know, of course, that a castway or castaways died on the island and was ultimately written off by British authorities as being "some unfortunate native". However, if initial indications from the the Niku IIII excavations at the Seven Site are borne out by subsequent research, the castaway or castaways exhibited "Western" rather than "native" behavior. If, in fact, any of the bits of lightweight metal technology recovered from the site prove to be from prewar aviation-related items there will be a distinct scent of gunsmoke in the air. In addition to the very positive results at the Seven Site, the Niku IIII expedition answered several other important questions: - Do either of the grave-like features (Grave 3 and Grave 4) on the Nutiran shore hold human remains that match anecdotal acounts of bones found in that area? No. - Is the Triangle Site on the southern shore of Aukeraime a reasonable candidate as the place where the castway's bones were found in 1940? No. - Is the anomaly in the satellite photo the wreckage seen by Emily Sikuli? No. - Is there aircraft wreckage in the canyons or on the ledge off the west end of the island? No. - Is there shipwreck and/or aircraft debris visible on the lagoon bottom just inside the main ocean passage? No. - Does metal debris from the reef wash into the lagoon and around the corners of the passage to lie buried under sand and coral? Yes. Some vital questions remain unanswered: - Where is all the Norwich City debris that must have washed into the lagoon? Buried in the lagoon bottom? Airplane debris from the reef should logically follow the same or similar pattern. - We've only scratched the surface at the Seven Site. What lies buried beneath the tangles of scaevola we haven't yet cleared? Field work is data collection. In a search operation sometimes (read usually) the data are entirely negative -that is, you only establish where something isn't. Niku IIII produced plenty of that kind of information but it also produced that rarest of commodities. It established where something is. We have recovered some of it and in the coming weeks and months we'll need a lot of help to discover the significance of what we have brought back. Once we've had a chance to do some high-quality photography under controlled conditions we'll be mounting an Artifact Identification section on the TIGHAR website and publishing it in TIGHAR Tracks. We'll be seeking out all kinds of experts in specialized fields and commissioning a wide variety of studies and laboratory tests. It will be time consuming and it will be expensive. We will need your help. There will be those who will say that TIGHAR has once again returned from Nikumaroro without proof that Earhart was ever there. They will sit back in their chairs and say that the island has been thoroughly searched and that there is nothing there. You will know them by their words and accord them the regard you feel they deserve. For my part, I want to thank you all for making this expedition possible. All of us out there felt your presence with us and you made us strong. I want to thank the team for their unflagging dedication, courage and hard, hard work. They gathered a tremendous amount of information with a lightness and good humor that belied the trying and often dangerous conditions under which they labored. They didn't break any equipment and nobody got hurt. They made it look easy - and it isn't. I want to thank the captain and crew of the good ship Nai'a. They were as much a part of the TIGHAR team as any of us and they went far beyond their contractual obligations to give us the support that made our success achievable. There are many, many others I want to, and will, thank in due course but for now, let me say again how delighted I am to be back home with so much new information to digest, analyze, and interpret. Love to mother, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:01:48 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: re-ploughing old ground The Wednesday posts re-ploughed some old ground, but many of the comments provided (at least) _some_ additional thoughts I'd not previously seen expressed... at least not recently, in the context(s) being considered. However, as I expressed in a previous post, we all are exploring the various _possibilities_ concerning the termination of the AE/FN flight...based upon many seemingly reasonable & necessary speculations & assumptions, because of the considerable lack of any available, concrete physical facts or documentary evidence. For instance...In all the discussion about fuel management, we apparently have made the assumption that the Electra's fuel delivery systems & engine(s) performances (for the Lae to Howland flight) were functioning according to the same specifications that they were when Mr. Kelly Johnson developed the Electra's pre-flight, fuel usage chart... However, since we know that AE reported troubles with her fuel measurement/delivery systems while crossing Africa & the Subcontinent of Asia, all the way to Bandoeng, is it not possible that this same system & even the engines themselves (given the total number of hours in almost constant use, under often severe weather & environmental conditions) were simply not functioning as efficiently on the final leg of the flight as they might have been on the earlier legs of the flight... & could not such a factor have had a deleterious, though subtile effect upon the rate of fuel consumption, _possibly_ un-appreciated by AE until the 'lo-on-fuel' message... not-withstanding her best efforts to conserve fuel ? There are other areas where our own assumptions & speculations often require some reappraisal or adjustment...especially since the latest expedition to Niku/Gardner Island has not provided any conclusive evidence of any successful landing of the Electra or survival (however brief) of it's crew on the island. From my own viewpoint, the most persuasive argument for Gardner Island being the termination point for the flight, was the simple logic that...'it was there'... with the SE end of AE's broadcast LOP pointing to it... well within what the general concensus of Forum opinion seemed to believe was the remaining fuel reserve available when the flight reached the vicinity of Howland Island. However... further consideration developed several important questions...answers to which... that seemingly raise doubt as to the wisdom of such an otherwise logical & reasonable choice. Without ever establishing any reliable radio communication with Itasca, (their only source of rescue _known_ at _that_ time) would it still be reasonable to fly over 300 miles in the opposite direction, without providing the Itasca with any (known) clue as to such intentions?... Recognizing the futility of her attempts to establish _any_ reliable radio communication with Itasca & assuming (again) that AE had _no_ assurance that Gardner Island (or any other Phoenix Group island) would provide a landfall which could support a wheels down landing (critical to any continuing operation of the aircraft's radio)... how could AE/FN expect to communicate their position to Itasca & facilitate their rescue? Would a turn-back to the Gilbert Islands (which are scattered in a line, across either side of the equitorial line for a total of 500 some miles) have been a more reasonable or logical choice?... not unless AE/FN had sufficient fuel reserve for the 500-to-600 mile flight... or they were already resigned to the fact that they were going to take a 'bath' anyway & it might as well be in reasonably well traveled waters, where their chances of being rescued, by known residents of those islands, would be considerably enhanced... rather than ditching in closer proximity to Howland, where their only hope of rescue was Itasca, whom AE had been unable to provide with any position report... or any clue as to where they were & what their intensions were, should they not locate Howland before the fuel supply was exhausted. The total lack of any truly useful &/or reliable information regarding the flight's fuel reserve situation... any _estimated_ position report & the failure to provide any clue as to their intensions... during the course of the _received_ radio transmissions from AE... continues to remain the most mystifying part of their disappearance & the biggest single obstacle to developing any unimpeachable theory as to the cause/location of the final termination of the flight. Don Neumann ****************************************************************** From Ric Coulda, woulda, shoulda. How does an "unimpeachable theory" differ from absolute proof? The bloodhound's nose is to the ground and he's baying like a brass band and you're wandering around in a fog of speculation. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:02:46 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Here Come Da Man' Thank God Ric's coming back. Hope he's got his rubber hose. Doug Brutlag #2335 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:11:46 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: the Earhart book Pat said: > I just want to re-emphasize that the book is *not* a TIGHAR publication, not > a TIGHAR book. It was written by four TIGHAR members, yes, but as a private > endeavor. There are even a few things we disagree with in it. Ah, I knew that there must be SOME reason it never got mentioned in publicity surrounding the expedition. Lest the above seem to cast us in the same league as the Longs et al, let me just remind the Forum that TIGHAR did cooperate in the book's creation, although it is quite explicitly not a TIGHAR product and as Pat implies, TIGHAR exercised no editorial control over us or it. Actually, though, the original idea was for it to BE a TIGHAR product, but TIGHAR and the publisher couldn't reach agreement on terms, so we collectively decided that the contract should be between the publisher and the authors. This was also helpful in that it maintained our authorial independence, and (maybe) will counter the widespread impression that TIGHAR's whole effort is just Ric's schtick. TIGHAR does receive all royalties on book sales, however. I should also mention that the publisher gives a 15% discount on orders placed via its website, www.altamirapress.com. Van Hunn was able to get a copy of the book before we sailed, and we held Nikumaroro's first (as far as we know) book signing on the beach at the landing. Patted sand on the book's cheeks, too -- an old I Kiribati custom that we hope convinced the island spirits that the book, like ourselves, was "of the island." Tom King ****************************************************************** From Ric The book does not portray the project the way I would describe it, but it is not my book so that is hardly surprising. I do recommend the book to anyone who is interested in Tom's perspective on the TIGHAR investigation. We deeply appreciate the donation to TIGHAR of royalties by three of the four authors. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:13:27 EDT From: Al Jeffries Subject: Re: the Earhart book For us Massachusetts fans the book is availaable at the Newton Mobile Book Fair @20% off list. There were two copies on the shelf last night. Al Jeffries ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:15:51 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Why switch? Considering the _actual_ weather conditions AE described as prevailing in the South Atlantic... while crossing from Brazil to the African Coast... the warnings of unfavorable (tornados & sandstorms) weather conditions acoss the African continent... & the severe monsoon rains encountered throughout the Asian subcontinent... one must wonder what real advantage the West to East switch gained for the flight? On the other hand, by such switching from East to West... the longest, (mostly at night) most dangerous & challenging, (for both aircraft & crew) over-water leg of the journey... was scheduled for the very _end_ of an already lengthy & arduous flight, with an airweary crew & aircraft... whereas, an East to West flight plan would have scheduled such leg at the very _beginning_ of the journey, with a far less airweary & presumably more alert crew & radio/DF equipment in far better working order than at the tag end of the flight. We might also consider the fact that making landfall at the _end_ of the journey, with two very large continents stretching across the horizon ahead, would seem much preferrable than trying to spot a tiny sand-spit of an island, after a 2000(+) mile flight, thoughout the hours of darkness, across the middle of the vast Pacific, with very limited fuel reserve to compensate for the discovery of any navigational errors or locational vagaries at the termination of such flight. For me... the 'switch' still remains a significant piece of the puzzle connected with the mystery of the AE/FN disappearance... albeit just another of many...'what ifs'...... Don Neumann ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:37:53 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: Welcome Back Ric--Welcome back old son............ My congratulations to you and the whole expedition team on the completion of a successful expedition... Nobody got sick-Nobody got hurt... Now comes the work of evaluating what you brought back....... Well Done----- Jim Tierney ************************************************************************* From Doug Brutlag Good to see you back in the USA & on the forum. I am especially pleased that you completed the mission with no casualties-an accomplishment in itself. As for the jetlag, I prescribe a couple of cold barley pops and at least 1-2 nights in your own bed in your own time zone. Trust me it works. Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************************* From Alan Caldwell "From Doug Brutlag Thank God Ric's coming back. Hope he's got his rubber hose." We probably ALL need beating for making Pat's task uneccessarily difficult. She did a phenominal job. But don't tell her. Ego you know. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************ From Jackie Tharp To the team: I want to express my deep and sincere thanx to all of you for your dedication, and your thoroughly fascinating way of making this an adventure that we all shared. I must have checked the updates about 5 times or more each day impatiently waiting for the next chapter. Although I'm disapointed that you didn't find that "smoking Gun" (I was soooooo sure you would find bones or teeth in that hole on seven. It drove me nuts waiting for the updates on that particular part of the expedition) You guys are the BEST, and you WILL find it. To the Forum: I don't feel myself to be knowledgeable enough to debate the issues that were being discussed on the forum at the time. I'm not an expert in ANY field, not a pilot, etc. but must say I was a little disappointed that the topics weren't more focused on the expedition itself. But I believe Amelia and Fred's spirits are with us and they keep directing us back to Nikumaroro, (now don't go writing me off as some kind of nut here) I'm just making a point that not all hypothesies come from scientific or physical evidence. I've read many, many books, EVERYTHING on the Tighar site, and most of the forum debates and tried to learn and decide for myself what happened to Amelia. I was particularly touched by anything written by AE herself, before and during the last flight. I just adore that woman. And deep in my soul I believe her demise occurred on or near Nikumaroro island. To Ric: It is soooooo nice to have you back, writing in your honest, sincere, and comical way. How you handle all the "black and white" attitudes in this world of ours is truly inspiring. You and Pat together are the most "refreshing" writers I've ever read... I can't wait for your book or books on your findings and experiences in the Earhart Project. I have never read so much as since I discovered and joined Tighar, and I myself believe you are definitely on the right track, and I beli eve you HAVE found the answer whether you found the difinitive physical evidence or not... Thank you for being you. Jackie Tharp #2440 *********************************************************************** From Ric Thank you, from both of us. ************************************************************************* From Dennis McGee Welcome back Ric! Can I get you a drink? How about a haggis pastry? Would you like to relax with my CD of "Surf Sounds?" And thank you Pat for your heroic efforts to the Earhart Forum rabble under control. Great job! As the saying goes, "When you're up to your butt in alligators . . . " LTM, who will miss Cal Ripken Dennis McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric Aaaargh!! Not the Surf Sounds! No, no, anything but that! ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:46:06 EDT From: Dick Evans Subject: "P" on .22 casing Your right Pat. The only guns were official. They were Springfield 03"s, Thompson Sub-machine guns. and two machine guns which, as I recall, fired 38's. The skipper also had a 45. pistol. These were the ones we used when we were taking target practice. What this amounted to was that each of us got to shoot 10 or 12 rounds in a year and a half. No 22's while I was there. Fortunately, nobody was shooting at us. The only occasion when action was necessary was once when we got a report that "an unidentified sub" was reported in the area and we had to take action. That meant we turned the lights out. On two or three other occasions somebody would spot a "flair". Then we had to get everybody out of bed, pick up our rifles from the wrack in the galley and walk down to the other end of the atoll - where we never saw anything. Dick ************************************************************************* From Ric This is an important point. If no one in Unit 92 had a .22 (which is not yet established because Dick was not there for the entire time) then the most likely origin of the .22 shell casings found at the site is Gerald Gallagher whom we know had a Colt .22 automatic. Because it seems highly unlikely that Irish would pass his pistol around to his Gilbertese charges, that would be direct evidence of Gallagher's personal presence at the Seven Site. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:48:04 EDT From: Dick Evans Subject: A jeep tire? You are pretty close. The truck we had was really a Weapons Carrier. That was the next bigger thing than a jeep.I have no idea what size tires were on it. I do recall that they were round. Dick ************************************************************************* From Ric Yup, sounds about right. This one had plenty of wear and almost no tread left. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:54:39 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Crush the Infidel Ric wrote: "There will be those who will say that TIGHAR has once again returned from Nikumaroro without proof that Earhart was ever there. They will sit back in their chairs and say that the island has been thoroughly searched and that there is nothing there. You will know them by their words and accord them the regard you feel they deserve." So the "peer-review process" has now become the "peers-who-agree-with-me review process"? Or maybe us fence-sitters are just no longer considered "peers." LTM (who will stand to type from now on) Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a low blow Patrick. Don't put words in my mouth. This project and this forum remain dedicated to the peer review process and I have never asked anyone to do anything other than decide for themselves what is true and what is not - that includes deciding who is a peer and who is not. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:35:19 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: "P" on .22 casing Welcome back, Ric. You need to keep Pat: she does good work. The casings say that someone fired the weapon, don't they? At what would it have been fired? LTM (who's never fired on anyone) Mike *************************************************************************** From Ric It's Pat who keeps me (so far). From the broken plate shards and numerous .30 caliber shell casings at the site it seems apparent that the Coasties engaged in some casual target practice. The same might be true of Gallagher and the .22 shells. ************************************************************************** From Fred Madio Good to have you back. I'm sure you brought that .22 casing home with you because it might contain some useful information. You probably should check my comments out with someone who really knows about guns, etc, but if the casing has any firing pin, extractor and ejector marks on it that could be traceable to any of several possible "period" Colt .22 automatics --- then the case for Gallaghar being in that area is strengthened but not proven conclusively. Of course, the same types of marking might be traceable to other types of .22s such a bolt action rifles. The absence of extractor and ejector marks might logically point to the presence of a .22 revolver -- in which case "the thick plottens." On another topic --- the presence of a "jeep" tire is also interesting (BTW a jeep tire of that period would probably have been a 6.00 or 7.00 X 16 inch tire with a Non Directional Tread). Evidence of any vehicles on the island suggests a number of things. First off it might indicate that the "Coasties" were able to explore the entire island fairly easily. In which case the island ____?_____ . It also leads to the question of how it got there. Where was the landing beach? How was the vehicle off-loaded? Driven off an LCT or LCV? The landing site might might be a place worth exploring during some future expedition. Keeping in mind that the average GI fought WW II for the souvenirs-- not to save democracy, you never know what odds & ends might still be laying around that spot. etc, etc. Where are the official records of the Coast Guard's time on Niku, and have they been studied in any detail? Regards, Fred Madio **************************************************************************** From Ric We know that the Coasties had a Weapons Carrier that was used to trundle back and forth between Unit 92 and the village. No indication that it was used to "explore the island." It probably came ashore will all the other equipment aboard a landing craft. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:43:11 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: bloodhounds ...'The bloodhound's nose is to the ground and he's baying like a brass band and you're wandering around in a fog of speculation'... Maybe I just misunderstood your use of the bloodhound for an analogy in this instance, (sure hope you aren't comparing the bloodhound to TIGHAR's recent expeditionary efforts on Nikumaroro Island) as my own experience with bloodhounds (mainly garnered from 'old time' movies where bloodhounds are used to chase after escaped criminals) is that they are somewhat dull-witted creatures, often, easily over-excited... misled by false leads & generally overly engrossed in that patch of real estate directly under their own nose. (They do make, I'm told, good (but noisy) pets & loyal companions, & great with little kids, who love to pull on their long ears.) As for my... 'wandering around in a fog of speculation'... in that wonderful land of... 'Coulda, woulda, shouda'... I'm afraid my wife beat you to that one... she thinks this whole Earhart business is wacky & all the 'nuts', like myself, must be playing this game with less than a full deck... So Ric... won't you please come up with at least a strong wiff of gunpowder, from the new artifacts gathered during your most recent trip, so I can attempt to justify all the time I spend viewing posts & archives of posts all over the internet, in this seemingly unending pursuit of our mutual quest ? Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric The artifacts will be what they will be. All we can do is try to figure out what they are. The portrayal of bloodhounds in old movies is as inaccurate as the portrayal of archaeologists. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:47:11 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Broken clamshells Just to elaborate a bit on Pat's response about birds breaking the clamshells: she's right, the clams in question are of the giant variety (Tridacna gigas). Though not particularly giant members of that species (maybe 6-8 inches long), they're way too big for a bird to handle. Interestingly, we found two distinct linear clusters of Tridacna valves, each accounting for about 15 clams, and one had lots more broken valves in it than did the other. The valves in the one with fewer broken members also tended to be bigger than the one with more smashed shells. There were fist-sized coral chunks among the smashed shells that could well have been the smashing implements. Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric (For further discussion of weight ratios and avian ability to grip and carry large tropical objects see Monty Python And The Holy Grail.) ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:52:05 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Book signing I don't quite know how to announce this without embarassment, but folks in the San Francisco area might want to know that I'll be giving a talk and signing books (A. Earhart's Shoes) at Building 924 on Crissy Field, Presidio of San Francisco, at 5:30 pm on October 10. Books will be on sale there, via Borders. The following evening I'll be doing another signing gig at the Borders near San Francisco State U. (19th and Holloway, my alma mater). I don't have any other particulars; this book signing thing is a mystery to me. Tom King ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:55:04 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: "P" on .22 casing > that would be > direct evidence of Gallagher's personal presence at the Seven Site. I agree, but let's be careful. Try this scenario: Irish decides to shoot a few rounds through the ol' Colt to make sure it's functioning; goes out on the veranda and pops off a couple into the jungle [or where ever]. Later one of the Gilbertese (maybe who's job it is to keep the house and grounds clean) finds the shell casings and pockets them because they are unique to his experience. You get where I'm going. Sometime later the casings are discarded after the initial interest has worn off and no practical use for them has been found. The shell casings PROBABLY were found by TIGHAR in the vicinity of their original ejection; but post firing transportation (I just made that up) by an intervening hand to a distant location can't be entirely ruled out. LTM Kerry Tiller #2350 *************************************************************************** From Ric True. That's why I said "direct evidence" instead of "proof." ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:56:59 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: A jeep tire? If it was the Chevy ton and a half weapons carrier, I think the tire size was something like 7.50 X 20 (I used to have one). The three quarter ton Dodge version was a little smaller. Any military vehicle collectors on the forum? LTM Kerry Tiller