Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:37:38 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Re: bloodhounds > "...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." Tell that to all the children and people they have helped to rescue. I hope you will remember that when you are out there lost in the wilderness or kidnapped. I have just returned from Ground Zero with my SAR Labrador after sixteen days and can tell you I saw Bloodhounds who were anything BUT misled. Sorry to be off topic but you hit a NERVE pal. LTM, (who loves and respects SAR dogs) Margot Still, #2332 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:41:29 EDT From: Joe W3HNK Subject: Re: Ric's expedition summary Welcome back to the Tri-State area safe & sound! I have been bothered by two questions that Im quite sure you and no one else can possibly tell me.....but here goes 1. If AE landed on Gardner, what could have become of those giant engines?? Even if one went to Canton where is the 2nd one. 2. This bothers me the most.....if she was transmitting on her radio the things Ive read in Bettys book, why did she not once mention that she was on Gardner Island? Or on a reef etc........doesnt make any sense....... Joe W3HNK **************************************************************************** From Ric 1. Those "giant engines" are tiny compared to the tons of Norwich City debris that have disappeared over the years. 2. How do you know that Earhart never mentioned that she was on Gardner? We have no idea what fraction of the post-loss messages were ever heard or reported. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:51:43 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Broken clamshells Assuming some castaway did live for some while on clams, along with possibly other foods- how would such person find water? Of course, water would be the first necessity. Also- i suggest that that residues of sea salt in the clam meat would possibly increase thirst. I am just trying to understand how a castaway could have any viable survival system, even for a short term, without solving the water problem. Hue Miller **************************************************************************** From Ric Without question, no castaway could survive on that island without solving the water problem. Barring supplies from the Norwich City provisions cache, the only source of drinking water available to a castaway, as far as I know, would be rain. Normally, rain showers are not infrequent on Nikumaroro. Rainwater (often termed "catchment" water) is still the primary source of drinking water on many Pacific atolls. The main problem for a castaway, seems to me, would be finding things to catch the rainwater in. A bunch of clam shell halves laid out on the ground would help. Good reason to figure out a way to get them open without smashing them. A turtle shell would also make a good mini-cistern. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:53:24 EDT From: Troy Subject: Re: "P" on .22 casing How about shooting crabs??? ************************************************************************** From Ric You better have a lot of ammo. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:01:20 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Bones I am interested in what hasn't been reported about the excursion to the islands, at least that I have seen. Did Ms. Burns find anything with the UV scan that I thought was to be performed the last several nights of the expedition? *************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry. Should have mentioned that. Yes, Dr. Burns UV scanned all of the screened material from the suspected skull hole. She found no human bones or teeth. A disappointment to be sure, but it was always a long shot that teeth may have remained in the hole when Gallagher dug up the skull. The hole itself did exhibit the characteristics one might expect from a re-excavated burial and it's still not certain that we ever actually reached the bottom of the original hole. The excavation was secured prior to our departure and could be resumed at a future time. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:07:23 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Fuel again I am still catching up on my email, but thought I'd comment on the alternate plans discussion << From Ron Bright 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 much 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". >> Capt Carrington in his book says that Paul Mantz told him that AE and FN considered the Phoenix Islands as a potential alternate destination should they not find Howland durning their planning for the first East to West attempt from Hawaii. Considering the source (I've had a most bizzare conversation with Carrington), I'd put this in the anectdote category, but as we have seen in the past, anectdotes can be the smoke that leads us to the fire. It would be nice if we could verify this through Mantz directly. For the Fuel experts, how much endurance would AE have had arriving in the vicinity of Howland from Hawaii, and would the Phoenix islands have been a reasonable Alternate? How about the Gilberts? Have we been over this before? LTM (who is still jet lagged and hoping the smell of Naia Diesel will soon fade from her clothes - funny, I didn't notice it on the boat.....) Andrew McKenna **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, we've been over it ad nauseum. Bottom line: Depending upon what theory you want to support, you can easily give the airplane plenty of fuel reach Gardner or, by postulating a variety of speculative but possible scenarios, make it run out of gas pretty much anywhere you need it to. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:40:47 EDT From: Claude Stokes Subject: Alternate I believe the key to an alternate for AE is known as compass heading. You dont just point the airplane at the empty ocean. AE was very much a compass heading person and spent her life following that needle. That leaves only 3 alternates as far as I can see. Baker island, The Gilberts group, The Phenoix group, take your pick and judge the fuel. One thing Im sure she didnt do is wander around aimlessly in mid pacific and burn up all the fuel and ditch in the water. That makes no sense at all. We know for a fact that AE was very much fixed on a compass heading after reaching Howland. 157/337 happy landings,,the Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:45:50 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: bloodhounds Based on personal observation, bloodhounds do one thing, and they do it EXCEEDINGLY well. They track. They will track until it kills them, if they are on the scent. It takes about ten minutes (if that) to teach a bloodhound to track. Anybody who doubts the ability of a bloodhound should revisit the Allie Boralis (sp) case from here in Colorado. The hound (Yogi) tracked the victim, who was being carried in a car, for miles. When the handler finally called off the track it was because the dog was exhausted, not because he was off the scent. The only reason Yogi didn't find Allie is because having given the search the correct venue, human searchers found her before the dog could be redeployed the next morning. Yogi was within about a mile and a half of the body dump site when he was pulled. Our department's hound (Columbo) tracked a burglar just last week, resulting in the clearance of several burglaries, and the recovery of two stolen firearms. Bloodhounds work. ltm jon **************************************************************************** From Ric ...and I stand by my original analogy. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:50:02 EDT From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: Fuel again << It would be nice if we could verify this through Mantz directly. >> I can't remember.....immediately after the 'disappearance', did Mantz indicate in any way, any particular area in which HE thought the search parties should concentrate the search? John Rayfield, Jr. **************************************************************************** From Ric Mantz and Putnam were both of the opinion that Earhart and Noonan very likley made it to an island, probably in the Phoenix Group. Mantz tried his darndest to get his hands on the Coast Guard radio transcripts report (see the Morgenthau transcript) and Putnam endorsed fund-raising efforts to mount a private expedition to search the islands. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:54:26 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: radial Seeing as Bruce is less than forthcoming in answering my questions on the nature of the island where he found the nine cylinder radial, perhaps you can answer at least a couple? 1) Was the island in question luxuriant with vegetation like Niku? 2) What was the approximate flight time home? 3) How far was the engine from the shore? 4) Why was (Don?) fairly sure the island wasn't Niku apart from the limited helicopter range? Regards Angus Murray *************************************************************************** From Ric 1. I don't recall that he had a specific recollection about the vegetation. He did seem to remember that the island had a lagoon. 2. He only remembered that it was far enough out to require that two helicopters be on the mission. 3. As I recall, he said it was about 50 feet from shore in thigh-deep water. 4. You'll have to ask Don. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:47:55 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Broken clamshells Another interesting water-related thing about the Seven Site is that today it's on the edge of buka (Pisonia grandis) forest, and in 1937 it may have been IN the forest, at least in part. Buka trees have convoluted trunk-root systems that create a lot of cavities that hold water after a rain. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:54:18 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: bloodhounds I should have said before, "Welcome home, to you and to all the team. Congratulations to all on a great trip." Most of us would have given our eye teeth to be able to go. Pat did a great job keeping us up to speed, and in line. Now we wait with baited breath for the eye candy to be posted. Does this mean you don't own a fedora? ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure about the fedora reference (Indiana Jones?) but in my continuing effort to provide entertainment and amusement for the forum and the TIGHAR membership I did sport a British 19th century style cork helmet for much of the expedition. Funny hats are the uniform of the day on Niku but this one also actually proved to be very practical. Film at 11. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:59:07 EDT From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Radial Engine <> I did not appreciate your remark as "being less forthcoming." I will tell you as with many Tighars I am just a few funds short since joining Tighar, expanding those funds to help prove this issue. I do not ever remember being asked any questions by you, nor have I ever failed to answer any questions asked to the best of my ability. Now if you really need some questions answered, get off of a couple hundred dollars, and I bet Ric would send you a tape of the interview they did of me and all those questions are answered in it, along with pictures I took when on those islands. I still have never had my original movie returned to me. Bruce *************************************************************************** From Ric Whoa! Bruce! You never got your original 8mm home movies back? As far as I know we never had them. All we ever had was the VHS tape made of them showing on a movie screen which, I thought, was done right at your house. Am I wrong? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:00:27 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Fuel again Is the Mantz I hear talked about so much Paul Mantz formerly partners with Frank Tallman of Tallmantz Aviation? They were a FBO here at John Wayne Airport. I thought they were both deceased. I thought Paul Mantz was killed while filming "Flight of the Phoenix". Mike Haddock #2438 *************************************************************************** From Ric Same guy. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:04:34 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Broken clamshells Don't forget the "little corks on chains" found with the castaway and the suggestion at the time that they could have been from casks. That suggests there may have been water casks in the survivor's camp cache. Did the expedition happen to have a close look at the site of the Norwich City survivor's camp? The inner part of the lagoon entrance being examined seems to be only a couple of hundred yards from the camp location (through the lagoon entrance and just along the lagoon shore to the left). Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Do you know where the NC survivor camp was located? I don't, except that it was somewhere along the Nutiran shore a little bit back in the bush. That covers an awful lot of real estate. We've certainly done a lot of exploration in that area and have never seen anything that suggested such a cache, but that's hardly surprising given the extensive later activity throughout that area. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:06:14 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: radial To: Angus Murray I don't think it fair of you to say that Bruce has been less than forthcoming about the engine. If you've been on the forum for a few years, as many of us have, you'll soon figure out that the subjects discussed run in cycles. The story of Bruce's engine has been discussed in detail on many occasions! There is a private (more or less) research project going on for the engine as we speak (type, that is). Not everybody is going to be told everything about a subject every time the cycle gets around to discussing it again. People get tired of rehashing the same old material, over and over again. Readers are expected to research the archives on the TIGHAR web site, and then ask questions without inferring that someone is being "less than forthcoming." All to often, this forum can turn nasty in a heart beat! I'd be happy to discuss the matter with you in private, if you want to contact me by private e-mail. Kenton Spading and I, as well as a few others, are currently working on the engine project, and I think Kenton has prepared a great summary to be placed on the forum at some point in the future. I told the forum in the past why I was fairly sure the engine didn't come from Niku. But remember, it is only my opinion. I'll go over it again for the forum if there is enough interest, otherwise we can communicate by private e-mail. Don Jordan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:08:10 EDT From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: Re: Fuel again From old 1937 newspapers I have read, Putnam, Mantz, and Admiral Byrd, named Gardner Island as the probable place of landing. Lawrence Talbot *************************************************************************** From Ric That's very interesting. I don't think that I have ever seen anything that specific. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:48:54 EDT From: Bill Carter Subject: Re: bloodhounds Ric - You should also let your Forum readers know that while the cork hat proved quite practical, your humble expedition team members affectionately nick-named you Colonel Boobie. Many a laugh was had at your expense over the hat most of which occurred when you weren't looking. I don't know who started the nick name but I can give you one guess. Bill Carter #2313CE *************************************************************************** From Ric Sure beats the nicknames I usually get on expeditions. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:49:48 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Baited breath? At the risk of being petty and trivial I would like to point out something of grammatical import: >Now we wait with baited breath for the eye candy to be posted. PEE-YEW! BAITED breath? Been eating sushi? Or worse yet, worms? The correct phrase is "BATED breath." Big difference. Look it up. LTM (who always uses mouthwash) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:53:37 EDT From: Craig Subject: More fuel Congratulations on another great expedition. I've got a question, and please forgive me if it's been asked 1000's of times - I haven't been able to find any reference of it. Do we have any indication as to how accurate the fuel guage(s) on EA's plane were? After running out of gas in my car recently, it got me wondering about the level of knowledge that AE would have about her own fuel guage. You know, when you're running near empty, you always ask youself, "I wonder how much fuel I REALLY have left." Does "E" mean completely empty, or do I still have some left. Since most of us never actually run out of fuel, we have no concept of how accurate the guages actually are. Could AE have experieced the same thing? Certainly running out of gas in an airplane is not something one would like to have a lot of experience with, but can anyone envision AE was staring at the gauges, watching the needle drop to "E", and not knowing EXACTLY how much was left? Saying nothing about the repercussions of this, does anyone have any thoughts, or know how the fuel was measured? With the additional fuel tanks aboard? Thanks, Craig *************************************************************************** From Ric It has been said before but it's worth saying again. Pilots don't rely on fuel gauges. Gauges are merely approximate indications of the fuel consumption that is meticulously calculated based upon the machine's known performance. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:54:35 EDT From: Dean A. Subject: Re: Fuel again > From old 1937 newspapers I have read, Putnam, Mantz, and Admiral Byrd, named > Gardner Island as the probable place of landing. Lawrence Talbot I would be interested in knowing the exact reference you speak of . ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:02:52 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Radial Engine Bruce, My remark about you being "less than forthcoming" was not intended to convey anything other than that my questions on the topic had not been answered. I seem to remember that the archaeologist commented that he hoped you would give a detailed account. Had you responded that you had already done so or explained the reason you were reluctant to do so, then I would not have referred to the lack of an answer. As it is I can understand your reticence if you feel somewhat short changed but it was not a situation I was aware of. My interest arises because I think the engine is possibly the most significant discovery to date. A number of the Phoenix islands are so different from Niku that getting a good description of the island would immediately eliminate some islands and lead us closer to our goal. Although the circumstantial evidence for Niku is extremely good, it by no means precludes a different crash site, something we should keep well in mind and not miss the wood for one particular tree. Whilst I appreciate you may have answered those questions before, I hope that in future if I or anyone else ask a question which has already been answered, we can be pointed in the right direction rather than leaving the question hanging. Presumably you missed my post but it certainly occurred as I remember several comments on it from other people. My intention was certainly not to cause any offence and if I did, I apologise. I merely wanted to get some answers. Regards Angus Murray ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:12:02 EDT From: Troy Subject: Re: Baited breath? It is amazing the little things I learn on this forum. Bated vs. baited. I always thought it was baited..... Hmmmm. And I thought this forum was only about AE/FN..... LTM (and 73's to Mike from N4MJO) --troy-- Tighar#something *************************************************************************** From Big Stretch bated adj 1: held back; "we watched the daring feats of the acrobats with bated breath" 2: diminished or moderated; "our bated enthusiasm"; "his bated hopes" *************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt Of course a number of us have been guilty on this forum of "pouring" over a map too... There are some fun typos when TIGHARS are tired.. Oops.. forgot the fuel "guages" too... Maybe we could start an english class.... Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Most of the stuff we deal with is so fuzzy that when an oportunity to give a definite answer to ANYTHING arises, we all jump on it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:13:40 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Fuel In her book ...'Last Flight'... AE observed, at their last stop (Fortaleza) before making the South Atlantic 'hop' to the African coast... ...'With the plane the only specific job to be done, so far appeared, was curing one small leak where a fuel gauge let flow a few drops of gasoline, though from a harmless source'... She also mentioned at Karachi, while describing the instrumentation in the Electra's cockpit... ...'On long flights there is always a tidy bit of bookkeeping to do, for one should know exactly how much fuel has been used & how much remains'... ...Which would at least seem to _suggest_ that AE also kept some type of a cummulative, written record of fuel consumption during the flight... _probably_ consisting of periodic observations of speed/altitude changes or variations, wind & weather variations, number of hours aloft & distance traveled... any shortcomings in engine performance... & last but not least... notations as to the sequence of fuel usage from _each_ fuel tank, in order to keep the aircraft in trim & anticipating the need to 'switch' from one tank to another during the flight. She also observed, while flying along the South American coast... ...'Strong headwinds again cut the speed to an average of 148 miles, which included dodging squalls & flying low...'I cannot make fast time at low altitude, other conditions being the same, for it is too hard on the engines to open throttles wide when near the ground'... ...providing _some_ indication of the type of problems to be considered in maintaining proper fuel management for the duration of a long distance flight. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:14:42 EDT From: Andy Subject: Re: radial <<>> Was this mostly based on the pilot's statement/belief that there was no shipwreck present on Gardner? LTM, Andy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:15:25 EDT From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Baited breath? In fact, the ACTUAL term is "abated breath," but it was, over generations, contrracted to" 'bated breath." Right now, I guess it's more of a DEbated breath, huh? Best wishes, Dr. Gene Dangelo, #2211 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:16:27 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: More fuel Craig, Ric is on the money about fuel gauges. In B-47s I drew up a fuel chart during preflight for the mission to be flown. I used the performance charts for the plane. Then during flight I plotted fuel as portrayed by the gauges. They were always quite close but the preplan was the one to be relied on. I had gauges for the forward and aft main fuel tank fail half way between Bermuda and Tampa. When they finally started working again the fuel plot matched prefilght but for a while the preplanned fuel curve was what we had to rely on. Whatever AE's fuel gauges said they would not have been as accurate as the charts taking into consideration climb, descent and power settings. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:18:24 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel again Dean and Lawrence, I have photocopies of the Sydney Morning Herald for July 8, 1937 in which "Admiral Murfin, interviewed in Honolulu, said: 'The plane is probably down in the Phoenix group............" A report on July 7, 1937 says: "The belief has grown in United States naval circles that Mrs. Putnam probably landed on an atoll. Therefore a carefully co-ordinated search, to last at least a fortnight, is being prepared." And that the search "... is moving southward of Howland Island toward the Phoenix Islands." Paul Manz expressed the same opinion that AE landed in the Poenix Group. In the same paper Mr. Putnam is quoted as saying, ".....[he believes]the plane is ashore somewhere in the Phoenix Islands." In the same paper dated July 10, 1937 Admiral Byrd is quoted , "...that there was every good reason to believe that Mrs. Putnam would be found, whether on land or floating." In none of the items of 1937 did I read anyone specifically suggesting Gardner Island. Maybe they did but not in the papers I read. All of the above came from the Sydney Morning Herald but were repeats of New York reports of the day prior. Someone posted that TIGHAR's Phoenix theory was a departure from all the early beliefs. Obviously not. I would suggest TIGHAR's web site be read thoroughly for far more complete information. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:25:57 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Broken clamshells > From Ric > > Do you know where the NC survivor camp was located? Sorry Ric, I thought I'd posted something privately to you on this before the expedition. I thought TIGHAR believed it was on the ocean shore somewhere not far from the wreck, and back in the bush a bit. I did a whole lot of studying up on the possible site of the survivor's camp a year or so ago and came to some conclusions about its location being on the lagoon shore, not the ocean side, and what I thought was a fair estimate of the approximate position, not far around the corner inside the lagoon entrance. I have a list of reasons for the idea, and i'll see if they are still on the computer. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:47:23 EDT From: Merton Backlund Subject: Re: Baited breath? Regarding starting an English class....English, of course, should be capitalized. (picky picky) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:53:52 EDT From: Dean A Subject: Re: Fuel again Alan, thanks for the reply. I knew of the particular articles you speak of , but what I was curious about was an actual reference to Gardner Island. So, it seems no one actually mentioned Gardner by name which is what I had thought. *************************************************************************** From Ric That has also been my impression. I will mention, however, that the actual search coordination map used by the 14th Naval District (now at the National Archives office in San Bruno, CA) shows the Pan Am DF bearings on alleged post-loss signals converging near Gardner Island. Given that the atoll is much larger and definitely more inhabitable than McKean (the other Phoenix island near the LOP), it's not exctly rocket science to see it as the most likely place. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:22:40 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: radial >Was this mostly based on the pilot's statement/belief that there was no >shipwreck present on Gardner?" No! The shipwreck had nothing to do with it. My "opinion" is based on many things, that when put together, seem to rule out Niku. It is mostly based on helicopter fuel range without refueling, Bruce's description of the mission that particular day and the fact that Niku/Gardner Island was not part of the missile test facility. It was simply too far away and in the wrong direction. Also, if there is an aircraft engine, then there is most likely aircraft wreckage very close by. The pilots from the Colorado flew over all islands in the Phoenix group on July 9th, and none of them saw any wreckage on any of the islands at that time. You can't use the argument that is was there and they just didn't see it. Remember Bruce saw the engine decades after it had been deposited on the reef. Because of the fact that the Colorado pilots didn't see any wreckage on any of the islands, I am also of the opinion that there most likely was none to be seen. That would also mean that the Canton engine was not yet on the reef. This would tend to rule out the engine as coming from the Electra. People had been living on Niku for decades after July of 1937, and nobody reported seeing an old engine on the reef. There were also many survey groups, some living on the island for about three months immediately after the Earhart disappearance. Nobody reported an engine on the reef. I am of the opinion that the engine, where ever it came from, was not from the Electra. It most likely was deposited on the reef after July 1937. None the less, I think it needs to be found and identified, or at least the island it came from needs to be investigated. Otherwise, it will just be another Earhart rumor that will persist over the years. "Earhart engine found, and then lost!" Don J. **************************************************************************** From Ric <> And yet SAMTEC helicopters DID visit Gardner. I can show you pictures of them doing it. <> Not that we know of, but people have reported seeing an airplane wreck on the reef edge (Emily Sikuli), "part of a wing" on the reef and "airplane parts" in the shoreline vegetation (Tapania Taeke), and wreckage from an airplane on the lagoon shore (Pulekai Songivalu). Why not an engine on the reef? Hey, anecdotes are anecdotes. Unless they saw parts from a wrecked glider there had to be an engine or engines there someplace. I don't know if Bruce's engine came from Gardner or not, but I have yet to see convincing evidence that it couldn't have. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:23:53 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Broken clamshells Wombat -- the problem is not only knowing where the survivors' camp was; the problem is that there's been a whole lot of other stuff that's happened in the same area since then, that's thoroughly scrambled the surface. Houses have been built, holes have been dug, walls have been built, people have been buried, and certainly anything that was piled up or scattered around from Norwich City days has been picked over and reused. I can imagine finding stuff from the survivors' camp that we could identify as probably being from 1929 rather than from the 1940s-50s, but even if we did, I can't imagine figuring out whether it was in its original place or had been picked up and reused by a colonist. So, while for purposes of general interest I'd like to find and see the survivors' camp, I can't think that it's a real high priority (which is a good thing, since we're not going to find it in the near future). LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:24:33 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: radial Don, I have an interest in this subject. You can email me privately. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:26:08 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel again << So, it seems no one actually mentioned Gardner by name which is what I had >> Just to be very clear I don't want to say no one actually mentioned Gardner. I want to emphasize that someone may have but none of the reports I have seen used the name of a specific island. Also there was an item in the SMH dated 6 July 1937 of a report from New York with a byline date of July 5th Saying "It is estimated that the origin of calls picked up by Pan-American Airways' direction-finder at Mokapu point (Hawaii) was south of Howland Island.......The instrument places the plane .......... roughly upon a line from Mokapu Point southward, and slightly to the east, of Howland Island. For those who have had the impression the Niku theory is new and there has never before been any indication our heroes might have headed to the Phoenix group they need to refresh their minds of all that happened during July of 1937. Also for those who may stumble across a mention of the Itasca and Swan searching toward the Gilberts please note that search was NOT in response to a theory the Electra had FLOWN westward but rather it may have ditched and had been swept westward by the current. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:27:12 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Fuel Calculations To Alan and Craig, I would agree that Amelia's fuel gauges would not be all that accurate. Consider the fact that there were extra tanks that had to be drained or pumped into primary tanks and, from person experience, fuel guage systems, at best provide gross indications. When I was with Pan Am we had a three way check to determine the fuel loaded. The gauges, the fuel remaining from the previous flight plus fuel added and the drip sticks (much like sticking the tanks). All three had to agree quite closely. Fuel density was a major part of the calculations. During the flight we made a three way check at each check point. We added up the guage reading for each tank to get a total, we recorded the totalizer which gave the total fuel for all the tanks but our primary method was to subtract the fuel the total fuel burned from the fout engines from the starting fuel. Each engine had an independent, accurate fuel used guage. The primary way of determining the remaining fuel was the fuel burned subtracted from the starting fuel. We then compared our fuel remaining against the flight plan fuel to see if we were ahead or behing on the fuel score. Even though I now fly a single engine Cessna with a simple fuel system the primary way I determine my fuel is by fuel burned subtracted from the starting fuel. I then determine endurance based on the fuel burn rate and only use the gauges as a back up. With about 500 hours on this engine in this airplane I know the fuel burn very well. I would bet that Amelia used the same method and by the time she left on her last leg she knew the fuel consumption for those engines extreemly well. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:28:05 EDT From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: More fuel For Alan Caldwell: Ah - the B-47 fuel plotting. I don't suggest that you guys weren't very careful, but wasn't the plotting of fuel expenditure more related to moving up or back the rendezvous time for aerial refueling? Sadly, AE didn't have that option. Nor did the B-36, and the flight engineers that flew long over-water trips in that monster were v-e-r-y careful with their fuel. They pre-planned, sometimes even weighing each crewmember and his baggage, telling the crew where to put it in the ship, and in flight used every instrument they had - quantity, fuel flow, etc...and yes, they always planned an alternate, too. Peter Boor #0856C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:33:06 EDT From: Kurt Thompson Subject: Accuracy of fuel gauges As a former military aviator, now retired, and a former aircraft owner for many years, I can tell you from personal knowledge, that the FAA (during AE's time, the CAA) set standards for fuel gauges on aircraft. The fuel gauges were required to indicate empty when empty. There is no requirement for them to indicate full when the tanks are full or to be accurate at any other point. With my own personal aircraft we even went back inside the wings and added resistors into the leads coming from the tanks to the gauges so that they did in fact accurately read empty when the tanks were empty and did this with tanks that were drained of useable fuel and then added fuel one gallon at a time to record gauge readings at different fuel levels. The point is, if they read empty believe them. The rest of the time, how much fuel you have left is determined by starting with absolutely full tanks, or a known amount, and then keeping accurate records of fuel burn at various power settings and the amount of time the engines have been running. Kurt Thompson # 2441 **************************************************************************** From Ric I can think of another good way to tell when your tanks are empty. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:46:15 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Baited breath? Baited? Bated? How about a tuna sandwich? I'll retract the statement and say, "Now we weight with grate antissipashun for the aye kandy to be posted"..... Hmmm.....Does that look a little funny??? ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:53:05 EDT From: Claude Subject: fuel gauges There is a way to calibrate fuel gauges. Ive done this on the Piper Seneca and the Aztec. First you must start with empty tanks. then add one quater full (measuring the actual fuel on the pump meter),, read the gauge,, add one half full,, read the gauge,, add three quarters full ,, read the gauge,, and then top them off and read the gauge. This gives a better idea than doing nothing, however it is not a regular proceedure and is something mostly done for a specific pilot who flies a specific aircraft and also has the keen knowledge of actual fuel burn. If you have done this proceedure and you always fly that same aircraft then you will know at what point on the fuel gauge is correct. I used a tiny tick of fingernail polish to mark any offset on the face of the gauge. Its better than blind trust but it takes a little time to do it. happy landings,, the Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:02:10 EDT From: andy Subject: Re: radial <<>> I am not a pilot and have no SAR experience, but wouldn't spotting wreckage be significantly easier to do from a low flying, stationary helicoptor in calm conditions than in an aircraft at ~500ft (out of bird strike range, as we have previously discussed on the forum) doing 90 knots in with heavy seas hitting the reef? Obviously Bruce spotted the engine, whereas the Colorado search spotted no wreckage. Do we know at what altitude the helicopter would be at to recover the engine? The velocity as it approached the reef flat? What were the tide and surf conditions like on the reef? (knee deep water, 50/100 yards off the shore. I do not know what tide conditions this would relate to) In addition to these items, has the ability of the helicopter to land on the beach been considered as exculpatory evidence for the engine coming from Niku? (Isn't the Nutrian beach rather sloped and very close to the treeline? Would such a beach be a very safe place to land a helicopter?) I agree with other people who have said that the Canton engine is possibly one of the most significant discoveries. I think the forum is hungry for as much evidence regarding its recovery as is available, in order to make our own analysis regarding the possibility of its having originated on Gardner/Niku. (Does much evidence beyond what is present on the website exist?) LTM, Andy ************************************************************************** From Ric You bring up a good point about the beach. These days, at least, the available clear area and surface conditions on the Nutiran beach would not invite a helicopter landing - especially not a machine as big as the H-3s used by SAMTEC. The problem with evaluating Bruce's account is that it is entirely anecdotal. There is no "evidence" beyond the anecdote. We have verified from independent sources that Bruce was there and had the job he says he had. Everything checkable about Bruce checks out just fine and all of us who know him personally are absolutley convinced that he is absolutely convinced that he is doing his absolute best to help us verify his story. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:07:08 EDT From: Andy Subject: Re: Radial Engine <<>> This brings up a good question. As I recall... obviously no landing at Howland. Baker is out (funny that the colonists there wouldn't notice a landing). McKean was ruled out in 1989. Would it even be possible to land the Electra anywhere on that rock and keep it intact? Carondelet Reef was, as is today, 6 fathoms under water. Was the elusive Winslow reef ever pinned down on the map? Niku is the only landfall left that is anywhere even close to the LOP. The nearest after that is Hull/Orona which bears 140 degrees from Howland. LTM, Andy **************************************************************************** From Ric Winslow Reef has been pinned down and it is not a place that you could land an airplane. The other point to remember is that, in the process of researching Gardner we have, by necessity, researched the exploration and settlement of the other islands of the Phoenix Group. Gardner is unique in its body of folklore about an aircraft wreck that predated the first settlement and the discovery of the remains of a castaway. There is nothing that points to any other island. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:11:21 EDT From: Angus Subject: Re: Baited breath? Bated is, of course, a contraction of abated. I will take the opportunity to take you to task re oportunity and "fueling up" as well Ric. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll admit to careless proof reading in missing the missing p in opportunity, but what's wrong with "fueling up"? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:19:23 EDT From: Mike Allen Subject: Re: Accuracy of fuel gauges > I can think of another good way to tell when your tanks are empty. Is it similar to the worst noise an engine can make? Mike Allen *************************************************** From Ric Good guess. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:22:43 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Distance from Howland Does TIGHAR have an estimate as to how close the flight got to Howland? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************* From Ric It's certainly not something that can be pinned down but not closer than about 80 miles and not more than 200 miles is probably a reasonable guess. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:24:06 EDT From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: Re: Fuel again The one 1937 newspaper I have is the New York Times, dated July 6th. Vol. LXXXVL, No. 29,018. It mentions Putnam and officials at Pan Am saying AE and FN are presumed in the Phoenix Island area. Mantz is stated only as saying she must have landed on a reef in order to operate her radio. Byrd States they have a rubber raft and can stay afloat for two week. The one article I read about Putnam, Mantz, and Byrd believing she is on Gardner also mentioned a Walter McMenamy, a los Angeles amateur radio operator who claims to have heard several messages from Earhart from his home in L.A. I'm sorry I can't be more specific than that, but what struck me as strange is that if these people believed Earhart was on Gardner, why was only a cursory search done of Gardner? Lawrence Talbot ************************************************************************ From Ric There are lots of reasons that the Navy did not put people ashore at Gardner, most having to do with safety and the pressing need to search other islands. The Navy did not feel that their search was cursory. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:25:27 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Baited breath? I used to work with a chap who'd tell me he was waiting for the next step in the process "with worms on my teeth." Baited breath. (insert pained groan here) Humans are so weird. ( -- Beth Holt, age 9) Mike Holt ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:40:51 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: More fuel >Ah - the B-47 fuel plotting. I don't suggest that you guys weren't very >careful, but wasn't the plotting of fuel expenditure more related to moving >up or back the rendezvous time for aerial refueling? No, Peter. Plotting the fuel had nothing to do with air refueling. Air refueling was not part of most of our missions. Many it is true but fuel logs were accomplished on all missions. The rendezvous time was a preplanned time and was not moved up or back in regard to fuel. The time was established to get several airplanes together at a time known by each. If the time was ever moved it was due to the inability of one or more airplanes to get off the ground on time. You have been misinformed. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:48:41 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Focus on Gardner << In none of the items of 1937 did I read anyone specifically suggesting Gardner Island. Maybe they did but not in the papers I read. >> Something to remember about the Search and Rescue business is that you try not to give out too much information about your objective in order to avoid leading potential witnesses and leads. "How many engines did the plane have?" is different than "The one we are looking for had two engines, Did the one you see have two engines?" Invariably what you put out in the press gets regurgitated by some witness who can't really remember what they saw, but remembers the newspaper report describing it. I can imagine the Navy not wanting to mention Gardner for fear of giving fuel to a hoaxer or tainting the search. They wanted to hear it independently from whoever was sending those post loss signals. LTM Andrew McKenna **************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting point, but the reason I don't think that the Navy ever specifically targeted Gardner more than the other islands of the Phoenix Group is that no such speculation is present in any of the internal Navy communications. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:55:46 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Eighth Ed/ Radio transmissions On p. 13, Chapter IV,Section B.5 last paragraph may be in error. "By now , it is clear that the Itasca personnel firmly believed Earhart was down ...after not hearing from her in the last hour and 15 minutes. In fact, they must have been startled to hear her at 2045 GCT, since at that time, they had begun callin the back the landing party..." I thought the last transmission was at 2013 or 2014. Am I reading this wrong? Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric Ooops. Clearly a typo. Randy meant to say 2013. We'll fix it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:48:03 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance from Howland Thanks. Could you explain the reasoning that lies behind both the minimum (not closer than about 80 miles) and maximum (not more than 200)? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Bob Sherman I respectfully disagree with your '80' guess. Why could she not have been just beyond the farthest visual range from anyone on HOW or the Itasca? 'Skip' could point to the possibility of being a great distance away, but the strong signal recvd. by the Itasca could also be because she was as close as one-half mile beyond the farthest sight of those looking for her. She could have been a lot closer than 80 miles. RC 943 ************************************************************************** From Ric Chris asked for an opinion. I gave him my opinion. Nobody knows. Anybody could be right. My opinion is based upon two beliefs: 1. I think that the most accurate piece of information Earhart transmitted was "We are on the line 157/337". I know of no reason why Noonan would not have been able to establish that position within an accuracy of about 10 miles. Therefore I do not think the airplane undershot or overshot the LOP running through Howland to any significant degree. 2. I think that the strength of the radio signals indicates that the airplane came within a reasonable distance of Howland. A maximum of two hundred miles is a liberal estimate based upon Bob Brandenburg's analysis in the Eighth Edition. Why a minimum of about 80 miles? The logic goes like this. Assumption: They were on the LOP that ran through Howland and Baker. Assumption: Failing to see Howland at 19:12 GCT they followed a logical course of action - i.e. they ran northwestward along the LOP as far as they dared then turned around and proceeded southeastward while they still had enough fuel to be sure of reaching land. Assumption: In carrying out this procedure they did not see Howland or Baker. Conclusion: They had to have started from a position on the LOP that was significantly southeast of Baker. Eighty miles from Howland puts them about 40 miles southeast of Baker. Like I said, it's just an opinion. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:49:14 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: radial Any idea how long before the video of your helicopter ride around Niku will be available? Please sign me up when it's available. Thanks Ric. Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************* From Ric We'll try to get something put together as soon as possible. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:54:18 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Radial Engine > From Ric > Winslow Reef has been pinned down and it is not a place that you could land > an airplane. Why do you say that its not a place you could land an airplane? You believe an aircraft could land on the reef at Niku. Areas of Winslow dry at low tide and the only question seems whether a smooth and long enough area is available and the state of the tide. Has anyone researched this? Even if you couldn't land a plane without damage, it might still be possible to crash land it and yet still be able to run an engine. What time of day is low tide at Niku at the appropriate time of year and does this fit with the likely time of arrival of the Electra? Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric Who said that areas of Winslow Reef dry at low tide? My understanding is that, at best, Winslow Reef is revealed by the presence of breakers and at other times is virtually undetectable. The Colorado pilots couldn't find it at all. There's a huge difference between a submerged oceanic reef like Winslow and Carondelet and the fringing reef of an established atoll like Gardner. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:55:52 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: fuel gauges A number of the aircraft I have flown (and flown in) have calibration cards next to the gauges which supposedly tell the real amount shown in the tanks vs the indicated amount. We are still told to treat the gauges as a rough guide and work from calculations for known power settings though for accuracy. Regarding fuel, since it comes up from time to time, this explanation is for the non flying members of the forum. Various members have explained this, but we get new forum members regularly who don't understand how flying works. Pilots usually work out how much fuel they need to get from place A to place B then add enough to get to another place if they can't land at B. This is what you see the pilots on the forum referring to as a plan for an "Alternate" when they talk about Earhart. In addition in some countries (Australia is one) the pilot, by law, must add an extra 45 minutes on top of this in case he/she can't land at the alternate either. There are other situations when even more fuel MUST be carried, but the above explanation is basically correct. The reason they don't just add full tanks every time is that an airplane has a maximum weight that can't be exceeded. If you can do without 20 lbs of fuel, you can carry an extra 20 lbs of luggage. In a car, if your fuel gauge is innacurate, as they sometimes are, and you run out of fuel you simply pull over and call roadside assistance or whatever. In an airplane if the gauge is inaccurate and you run out of fuel, there's not always a place to land safely under you........... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:06:44 EDT From: Angus Subject: LOP again > From Andy > Niku is the only landfall left that is anywhere even close > to the LOP. I can't understand the importance you put on the LOP in relation to Niku. If AE had had a mechanical failure or run out of fuel whilst still searching for Howland, the LOP would be most relevant. However, once you have decided to look for an alternative landfall there is no critical need to stick with the original LOP. You can either take a new sight for a new LOP altogether and advance it (if flying further east) or alternatively even further advance the LOP you derived from your last sight for a new LOP. Alternatively you can fly a compass course and only fly an LOP at your intended destination by way of search. Whilst this is risky when starting from an approximate position, it would not be out of the question when flying say to the Gilberts because you have a line of islands at right angles to your course and if you are too far north or south of your intended course it is not quite so important. This, after all, is how they navigated from Lae. It would seem far more sensible to fly to an advanced LOP and then fly down it to the more easterly Phoenix islands where there are closer alternate landfalls. Niku is totally isolated, and if you miss it, (travelling on an LOP you know is at least a good few miles incorrect - because you've missed Howland), there is nothing but ocean ahead . Regards Angus ************************************************************************* From Ric As we've said once or twice before, TIGHAR's hypothesis is NOT that Earhart and Noonan gave up looking for Howland and went looking for Gardner instead. Having arrived at where they thought Howland should be, and finding no island in sight, they could only conclude that they were too far north or south. They could afford to explore northwestward along the LOP for a short way, but they had to proceed southeastward while they still had plenty of fuel left because that's where all the alternate islands were. They always hoped that Howland would appear but by the time they were far enough along to get a significant "cut" on the sun and realize where they were it was too late to double back or strike off for other islands. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:11:45 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: More Kanton Radio Australia reported yesterday (7 Oct) that Australia and Kiribati are continuing investigations into whether a former US military base on Kanton could be converted into a refugee processing camp. Plans were being made to charter a flight to Kanton Island, but the uncertain condition of the airstrip was a worry as it has been more than 20 years since the strip had regular maintenance. A statement from the Kiribati Foreign Ministry said an assessment team of three Australian officials and two from Kiribati intends to examine the base's suitability, but the radio's reporter said he understod the Australian government had been unable to find a charter company willing to do the flight. New Zealand radio said a flight had left for Kanton (I think from Tarawa), but this was several hours before the Australian report that it hadn't. The Kiribati statement said the planned trip does not mean Kiribati has made any firm commitment to accept any asylum-seekers. LTM (who thinks these people must be pretty desperate) Phil Tanner 2276 *************************************************************************** From Ric Refugee processing camp? Well, at least it will remind the refugees of home. Kanton looks like a movie set for "Armageddon." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:32:02 EDT From: Ted Ostrowski Subject: Thanks My fifth graders and I would like to thank you and the other expedition members for making an exciting first month of school. We followed your expedition daily and learned map skills, the scientific method, and proper archaeological techniques. It felt as if we were on a whirlwind because we also followed Dr. Carlene Mendieta's recreation of Earhart's 1927 Flight Across America in an Avro Avian. Thanks again. Flying enthusiasts, 5-O & Ted Ostrowski ************************************************************************** From Ric You're most welcome. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:44:10 EDT From: Claude Stokes Subject: maps and mileage I just hooked up on expedia dot com and found they have espanded thier map coverage to include just the area we are all talking about in the pacific islands. Try this web page http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=over&rfrr=-1072 Then click on ,, find a map,, when you get the find a map page click the button for "search for a place" then in the next box select "world (topographic maps) and then for place name insert this -- Gilbert Islands [Kiribati], Pacific Ocean. then click the find a map button,, this should get you into the specific area and you can then zoom in,, and navigate all around the area from howland to lae to niku et all. (its rather strange if you look at a zoom of lae, that AE would have climbed out to the NE over a place named "blutcher island" ) Here are the mileages I calculated using an equation from the Soaring Society of America which is used to calc the official distance for soraing contests. (I dont have a GPS) This is great circle mileage which is an arc,, not a straight line Lae to Howland 2564 statute miles Howland to Baker 39 SM Howland to Niku 404 SM Howland to Gilberts 650 SM Honolulu to Howland 1905 SM This makes it much more fun while chatting about AE, happy landings,, the Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:47:01 EDT From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: Re: Focus on Gardner Just a quick note regarding the 1937 paper I have: On page two, column two, under the heading of, Ship reaches goal in Earhart search. "Pan American radio men estimated the Earhart ship might be in the vicinity of Gardner and McKean Islands..." Thanks, Lawrence ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay. That's the first specific mention of Gardner we've heard about. Is it a wire service story? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:48:34 EDT From: Woody Subject: Re: Baited breath? Ric, It's kind of hard to "fuel down". You are just " fueling" . It's like raising up or lowering down. You raise or lower - the direction is indicated by the first word- the second word is redundant.No more comments from the " peanut gallery " please! Woody ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:49:32 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP again "it would not be out of the question when flying say to the Gilberts because you have a line of islands at right angles to your course" Angus, I'm not sure I understand this comment. I kind of thought ALL islands were ahead and not at right angles until you were passing them. THEN each island would be at right angles to course as you pass them. I must be misunderstanding you. As to flying to the Gilberts keep in mind the sun would be behind the airplane. How would Noonan shoot a sun shot? IF he had the luxury of lots of gas he could race track for the shot but such does not seem to be the case. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:50:41 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: 80 miles distance from Howland While I agree with all the assumptions you list I disagree on the 80 mile distance for one reason. If Amelia and Fred had descended to 1,000 feet to get under scattered clouds and there were cloud shadows on the water, I think it would be very difficult to make out Howland or Baker from a distance greater then 20 miles. Twenty miles is 105,600 feet (5280' x 20) or more then 100 times their vertical position above the water. Eighty miles would be 400 times their altitude. I suspect this very fact could be the reason they missed both Howland and Baker. If there is little or no surf action (white water) Islands can be very difficult to spot or distinguish from cloud shadows. The lower you must fly to get under the clouds the greater the problem. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:52:27 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Questions for loran station veterans I have some questions for Forum participants who are veterans of the Coast Guard Loran Station on Nikumaroro. These relate to the Seven Site, which is about a half-hour's walk up the beach on the windward side of the island from the station, in an area that was relatively clear of dense vegetation; you could probably walk between the shore and the lagoon fairly easily. 1. We found lots and lots of .30 caliber shells and a few .22 shells. We're assuming that both result from recreational shooting by you guys, but is this true? Did you go back in the bush in this area and shoot? If so, what did you shoot at? Birds? Targets? If targets, what kinds? If birds, what did you do with one when you hit it? 2. If you recall being in the area of the Seven Site, whether you remember shooting there or not, can you recall what you did there? Did you ever catch and cook anything? Build anything? Take anything there from the station that you might have discarded or left behind? 3. There are some sheets of corrugated (and maybe non-corrugated) iron on the ground at the Seven Site (now reduced almost entirely to rust). Did anybody from the station put them there, as far as you know? If so, why? Or do you remember seeing such things there? 4. Any other recollections about this site? Thanks for anything you can recall, and please pass this request on to others who may not be on the Forum. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:59:17 EDT From: Ric Subject: One Week Forum Vacation We could sort of use a break so Pat and I are taking next week off. There will be no forum until Monday, October 15. See you then. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:30:04 EDT From: Ric Subject: Back to work Thanks for your patience while Pat and I depressurized a bit last week. Now - back to work - and there's a lot of work to do. Niku IIII produced a great deal of new information that needs to be examined, evaluated and interpreted; and we'll need everyone's help to do that. One of the first steps will be to get good photos of the more interesting artifacts up on the website for everyone to chew on. If we can figure out what these things are it should go a long way toward telling us who left them there. We'll also be finishing up the long-awaited Post-Loss Radio Matrix and correlating the signals with the tidal information gathered during Niku IIII. Etc., etc., etc. With so much to do that could actually move the project forward, I'm going to be keeping a tight rein on the endless revisiting of old subjects like fuel, headwinds, the LOP, and what Amelia's "Plan B" might have been. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:04:40 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Rain The picture of a castaway surviving at the seven site leads to curiosity about the environment at that time. Historically Nikumaroro has had a variation in rainfal, up to recorded droubts that effected the colonists. Within Southwestern archeology there is a study of prehistoric climate, probably now called paleoclimatology, using tree-ring widths and pollen ratios as well as other measurements. http://www.csu.edu.au/landscape_ecology/pollen.html http://www.time.com/time/daily/newsfiles/weather/oldweather.html I have no idea about coconut trees, but perhaps the Buka could give a reasonable sequence. Does Nikumaroro have a climate of seasonal rainfall, sort of like California? In addition, coral cores might also give a sequence of ocean surface temperatures in case the local island conditions correlate. http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/misc/coral/coral_paleo/coralintro.html (Probably TIGHAR's partners in the satellite photo.) Why is it relevant? 1. The lushness or lack of the environment might determine the castaway's activities, giving new clues to interpretation of artifacts or clues to finding of new evidence. 2. Fresh water would be a major preoccupation, and potential determinant of life span. Presumably in a drought, one has to dig. In a rainy period, one sets out water catchment. Can we get a correlation between July 1937 rainfall and castaway behavior? (Scary thought: the clam shells are piled because they were not water catchers but diggers. The hole? Abortive well becomes convenient grave.) One other possible source of a castaway, motivated by the speculation that the bones were years old, was the Norwich Castle wreck. Now that a bone-experiment is in hand, does that help dispell the Norwich Castle Castaway hypothesis or do we need to do the climate comparison back into the 1920s? **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that an understanding of the available climatological data for the region is vital if we're going to make informed guesses about castaway behavior. Unfortunately, the absence of clear seasons in that part of the world makes tree ring analysis problematical. We do, however, have some solid rainfall data for the region and a number of contemporaneous written observations that provide a good, if incomplete, picture of the conditions faced by a castaway. We have annual rainfall data for Gardner for: 1944 58.19 inches 1945 32.89 inches 1946 56.44 inches 1947 19.13 inches 1948 53.27 inches 1949 43.98 inches 1950 no data 1951 30.60 inches 1952 40.11 inches 1953 91.46 inches 1954 22.07 inches 1955 29.11 inches 1956 26.87 inches 1957 89.62 inches 1958 107.18 inches 1959 60.01 inches 1960 61.17 inches 1961 57.01 inches 1962 10.81 inches 1963 48.92 inches As you can see, the annual rainfall is highly variable and the environment so fragile that just one really bad year - 1962 - forced the abandonment of the colony. All of the water, whether caught in cisterns or drawn from wells, comes from rainwater. The well water is merely rain that has seeped into the ground and rests as a "lens" above the hard underground base. When it doesn't rain it doesn't do any good to dig a well. To go back earlier than 1944 we have to go to records for Canton Island, 200 miles away. Canton is normally gets about half as much rain annually as Gardner. In 1943 the annual rainfall at Canton was 15.53 inches. Data are not available for 1942, 1941, 1940. In 1939 the annual rainfall at Canton was 18.57. 1938 was a drought year. Canton got 8.68 inches. Hull (just a little over a hundred miles east of Gardner) got only 9.43 inches. When Maude arrived at Gardner with the first settlers on December 20, 1938 he was alarmed to see how desiccated the island looked compared to when he had had last seen it in October 1937. When Maude and Bevington visited the island in October 1937 they found the vegetation lush and came away with a very favorable impression of the prospects for colonization. During their three-day stay they (or, more accurately, their Gilbertese associates) dug eight wells - four on Nutiran and two on the south side of the main passage in what would later be the village. Five of the wells, including the two on the south side, produced water which Maude's official report described as being of "indifferent quality" (Bevington's diary says he "drew a blank"). Two of the wells produced water of "fair quality" according to Maude and one produced water that was "fresher than many in the Gilberts." In 1938 no drinkable well water could be found. Almost no climatological data are available for the Phoenix Group prior to 1937. We know that the Norwich City survivors were hard pressed to find drinking water to the point of drinking rainwater that had collected in crab holes. The several accounts written by survivors make no mention of trying to dig a well. So what can we say about a castaway? Up until 1938 there should have been adequate rainfall for a resourceful castaway to survive on "catchment" water. 1938, however, started out bad and only got worse. How long a castaway could survive is anybody's guess. For what it's worth, Floyd Kilts' story held that the "cognac" bottle found with the body had "fresh water in it for drinking." If that is true, it's more difficult to attribute the castaway's death purely to dehydration. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:07:53 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: World Flight: First Attempt Was the Honolulu to Howland leg of the first attempt at the world flight intended to be flown along a route which was the same as that proposed for the second attempt (i.e., direct, with no intermediate stops at, say, Kanton or anywhere else)? If so, at about 1900 miles was this the second longest leg of the flight (and, of course, if not the second longest leg what was)? Thanks, --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the first attempt was scheduled to fly direct from Honolulu to Howland (there was no runway at Canton). It was the second longest leg of the proposed World Flight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:09:12 EDT From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: Re: Focus on Gardner >From Lawrence Talbot > >Just a quick note regarding the 1937 paper I have: On page two, column two, >under the heading of, Ship reaches goal in Earhart search. "Pan American >radio men estimated the Earhart ship might be in the vicinity of Gardner and >McKean Islands..." Thanks, Lawrence > >************************************************************************** >From Ric > >Okay. That's the first specific mention of Gardner we've heard about. Is it >a wire service story? Yes, its from the Associated Press. I'm still searching for the other article I mentioned. Lawrence ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:10:17 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: LOP again Angus wrote: "Once you have decided to look for an alternative landfall there is no critical need to stick with the original LOP." Angus, you make some excellent points. I have always questioned the assumption that Our Heroes' only "logical" course of action, after failing to find Howland, was to continue southeastward for something like three hours in hopes of finding an island down there somewhere. However, this is another topic that has been debated to death on the Forum, and as TIGHAR is dedicated to the proposition that AE reached Niku, it seems pointless to rehash those arguments yet again. However, if you're interested in discussing the LOP question off-forum, my email address is Patrick@Gaston.as (no, I didn't leave off the final "s"). LTM Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:10:57 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Focus on Gardner What paper is that, Lawrence? I'll add it to my file. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:14:37 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Distance from Howland >It's certainly not something that can be pinned down but not closer than >about 80 miles and not more than 200 miles is probably a reasonable guess. Boy, have I gotten lost. I thought the 80 miles was the probable max distance away for a strength 5 radio call. I can't recall where the 200 mile estimate is from. Am I totally wrong? AT 1,000 feet they could have been just out of hearing range of Howland and still not seen it. I don't know how far away that would be. The noises of the ship would have made it hard er to hear I suppose. At sea level I think the horizon is about three miles away. A little further at 1,000' so I think they could have been pretty close and not seen Howland nor heard by Howland. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Setting hard distances for a "Strength 5" (or Strength 4 or 3 or 2 or 1) radio call is one of the big fallacies of the Elgen Long argument. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:17:10 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Spotting islands Mr. Pingrey makes some interesting observations about the difficulty in spotting Pacific islands from different altitudes... makes one wonder why Lt. Lambrecht & his compatriots seemed to have so little trouble in locating & spotting each of the scattered landfalls of the Phoenix Chain, even without the help of a worldclass navigator ? Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric It's a little bit easier to find an island if you start from 50 miles away instead of 2,500. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:18:46 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: LOP again Seems to me I recall a newspaper interview or perhaps one of the Earhart biographies quoting AE as commenting... that since the Gilbert Island Chain straddled the equitorial, 0° latitude line, it would not be difficult to fly back to the Gilberts if she was unable to make their projected landfall at Howland. (Making of course the big assumption that she would have sufficient fuel reserve for such a flight.) Not having any expertise in the area of aerial or marine navigation, might I ask just how difficult would it be to locate 0° latitude from an unknown position, on an LOP running NW/SE, either North or South of 0° latitude? From my trusty National Geographic , map of the Central Pacific, Baker Island appears to rest almost directly upon 0° latitude, while Howland is located just slightly to the NW of Baker. If such _quote_ was accurately recorded, would this have been only an oversimplified, off-the-cuff, 'air-headed' comment or boast, or would there be any validity in such a statement? Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:19:29 EDT From: Dick Evans Subject: Re: "P" on .22 casing You are right on with your comments about the weapons carrier. it came ashore with the other equipment when the station was built and the only road was to the village, where someone usually made a visit once a week. As to the suggestion that we would have been able to explore the entire island on it - we would have had time to do that by walking. We didn't. Mostly we watched the radar scope, answered our once a month mail and imbibed in a bit of medical alcohol consumption. Dick Evans ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:20:05 EDT From: Herman Subject: Amelia's shoes Just to let the forum know I got my copy of "Amelia Earhart's shoes" today. I ordered it from Barnes and Noble at $ 19.96 on 9/23. It took only 18 days to get to my place and was sent to me by what is strangely described as "International Surface Airlift", whatever surface airmail can be. It did cross the Atlantic flying I suppose... It eventually cost $ 32.91 for there was $ 12.95 P & H to be paid. But I think the book is worth it. I skimmed through it when I received it and decided to start reading it tonight. It has a lot of interesting pictures too. I do hope the royalties TIGHAR receives will help achieve the work. Herman (#2406) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:04:50 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance from Howland Ric, even if Elgen Long was wrong to ascribe a "hard" distance to a Strength 5 transmission, rather than dismissing the issue entirely I am wondering whether TIGHAR's radio experts could provide some sort of rough estimate. If they cannot, it would be helpful to know the reasons why. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:07:00 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Finding the Equator Finding the equator should have been real easy if Amelia and Fred had a toilet or sink on board. All they needed to do was watch which way the water swirled when the plug was pulled. Dick Pingrey 908C ************************************************************************** From Ric Right. At the equator it just goes straight down without swirling. Incredible to see. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:07:55 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance from Howland Concerning why the flight did not see Howland, something also to keep in mind is that we do not know for certain that Earhart/Noonan knew about the mapping error in Howland's position. We are assuming that they did, and while it seems difficult to believe that they didn't, this entire flight was a grab bag of "can't believes". --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:12:55 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: World Flight: First Attempt Thanks. I wasn't so much thinking about alternative landing strips, but whether flying a different route, other than direct, between Honolulu and Howland on the first flight would've provided an opportunity for additional fixes on position en route (say, by flying over Kanton). The thought is that this would've made it easier to locate Howland. As it is, it appears that all the problems in locating Howland after a long ocean flight would also have existed had the first world attempt gone forward. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric But, of course, Kanton is not "enroute" from Hawaii to Howland. Going to Howland by way of Kanton would mean going several hundred miles farther south than Howland then doubling back. Flying a dogleg route in order to get enroute position checks was an option on either attempt but it would have added many hundreds of miles to the flight. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:14:09 EDT From: Lawrence Talbot Subject: Re: Focus on Gardner >From Alan Caldwell >What paper is that, Lawrence? I'll add it to my file. The New York Times, July 6th issue. Lawrence Talbot ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:17:14 EDT From: Woody Subject: Re: Rain Okay Ric, Here's my dumb question for the week. Were there coconut trees with coconut on them in 1937 on Niku? Woody ************************************************************************** From Ric When Maude was there in October he counted 111 trees "in bearing." There were five groves dating from the Arundel plantings in the 1890s - all at the western end of the island. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:23:28 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: The Dado I attended one of Tom King's book signings last week in San Francisco. He made a very nice presentation and I bought a book, which I have finished reading. It was extremely informative about the entire history of the Earhart Project and was very entertaining reading. I highly recommend it to everyone on the Forum as a thorough background on past efforts and the search evolution. The book referred to an artifact, which I was previously unaware of, that sounded provocative - the Dado, Artifact 2-18. Ric, what's your take on this as possible evidence from Earhart's Lockheed? blue skies, jerry *************************************************************************** From Ric The Dado may be our best aircraft artifact ("best" being defined as most likely to be from the Electra). It's described on the website at http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/12_2/obj5.html We haven't gotten around to putting up a photo of it though. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:37:45 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Circulating Topics Your email regarding what are considered semi off topic posts set me to thinking a bit. Topics like TIGHAR's position on the value of "the LOP", backup options, the moon puzzle, the sudden radio silence after 2013, fuel limits, etc, keep surfacing on the Forum because except for a dedicated TIGHAR, there can be reasonable (and sometimes substantial) differences of opinion on these subjects. We all start out recognizing and accepting that this is a moderated forum whose primary goal is furthering the Niku hypothesis, but eventually feel the urge to jump into one or more of the above when we feel that some statement is incorrect or an issue miss-represented. Those of us fence sitters who have a broader acceptance of "other theories" may have a harder time than the relatively few true oppositionists! I think that it is perfectly fair to exclude discussion on whatever you want - it is your forum. I know that the FAQ's are supposed to take care of much of this, but it can be hard not to jump in when the subject surfaces. I can argue till blue in the face, and clearly you can too. How about a list of subjects like the above (on the website) that TIGHAR feels that it has investigated and will not accept further comment? Anyone with startling new info could just email you directly, and if it warrants further discussion in TIGHAR's opinion it could move to the forum. Anyone seeking off forum discussion could still post the subject (but no discussion) and an email address like Patrick did earlier. Maybe this would be an avenue that would allow us to feel heard while not bogging down the forum. Of course, if anyone out there has lots of free time and access to a server, we could add a non-denominational forum, so to speak! Almost laughable to ask, but you never know until you do. BTW, congratulations on a safe and successful expedition. My hat is off to you, and others, who manage to undertake the formidable (no exageration there) task of getting out there to test their hypotheses. TOM MM ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Tom. Not a bad suggestion but I'm hesitant to publish a list of "banned topics." My intention is not to thwart meaningful discussion but to avoid wasting time on subjects for which there can be no answer unless - as you say - startling new evidence turns up. Clearly such topics as "Did they have enough fuel to reach Gardner?", "Did they have a Plan B?", and "How close to Howland did they get?" fall into that category. I'm aware of at least one other online discussion group (www.frednoonan.com). From what I've seen they have, as you put it, "a broader acceptance of 'other theories' ". Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:39:11 EDT From: alex Subject: Re: Distance from Howland HI,this is my first post so here goes...back in my sideband cb days i used to DX all over the world and i found it easy to tx,rx to north america and asian coutries from the UK on only 6-8 watts...this is just a view but i thought i wouldnt tx,rx that far but the weather conditions allowed me to...so wouldnt this be taken into consideration,sometimes i could hear L.A at sig 5 but they couldnt hear me...n e way thanks for letting me take part...ALEX[UK] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:39:57 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP again Don, finding 0 degrees latitude is no more difficult OR easier than finding 1 degree or most any other degree. There is nothing out there that makes 0 degrees any different than any other place in the Pacific. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:44:10 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP again Angus is correct that staying with the original LOP would not have been critical. AND FN would have normally shot more LOPs on the way to Niku if that's where they went. The original LOP was simply a line on his chart at a particular moment. He would have DR'd around in relation to it as they conducted their search for Howland. If they then gave up and decided to head SE FN would have needed to shoot another sun shot to confirm his DR position. As they progressed SE he would have shot sun shots periodically to confirm he was on the track he wanted. Thus it would be constant adjustments to remain on track which would also have given him an east/west wind component. That component would have been used to adjust his heading to allow the plane to stay closer on course. He probably had a planet or another celestial body to shoot which would have given him a fairly accurate position and a north/south wind component. Even without the second celestial body it would have been easy to navigate SE to any of the Phoenix Island group. Some how I would think that as many times as FN flew the Pacific and because he was going to be near the Phoenix group he would have known quite a lot about the individual islands at least to the extent information was available. We have talked the LOP to death to the point folks think it was how FN got to Niku if that's where they went. Not true. It was how FN knew when he was abeam Howland or thought he was abeam Howland. =A0That's all. That particular LOP had no further use =A0other than giving him a general position to DR from for a short time.....until the wind moved him a bit from where his no wind DRing put him. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric This is a classic example of why we're not going to rehash the LOP anymore on this forum. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:48:46 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Rain > From Ric > The several accounts written by survivors make no mention of > trying to dig a well. Are any of those accounts available on the web anywhere? IS there any other source that may be accessed her in Aus? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Not that I know of. The personal accounts we've found of the Norwich City disaster come the PRO in London (where we dug them out in person) and from the captain's family. Like about three metric tons of other documentation, we haven't gotten around to putting them up on the website yet. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:16:47 EDT From: Craig Subject: Bones, bones and bones Welcome back to the world of the working. I hope you enjoyed your well deserved vacation. Three things have been running through my mind in the past week. They are more "cultural" in nature than based on hard evidence, so I'll apologize in advance if anyone thinks they are not the subject of the forum. (1) Any thoughts as to whether we seriously expect one castaway to bury the other. I mean, in my western society, it's the natural inclination. In Tom Hanks' world of castaways, it was his inclination as well. I picture myself on an island, expecting to be rescued. Burying a companion on the would be physically diffcult and mentally exhausting from a number of perspectives - despair being a prominent one. I would think it would depend on the condition of the living castaway as well. Do we lean in any direction on this? (2) Have we any knowledge as to why the adults of the island wanted to keep their children away from possible bone areas on the island? We know they're spiritual beliefs played a part. My hard look wonders if that's all. Many civilations create rules by which children are to abide, mainly created for children's protection - to keep them out of trouble. It seems to me that if the inhabitants followed through on their spiritual beliefs as we know them, they would have burried any exposed bones, instead of creating possible ghost stories to scare the children from playing near them. Is this an incongruity, or am I off base. (3) Gruesome as this may sound, would any of these inhabitants have picked up any of said bones? Might this be a reason for creating ghost stories - to keep explorative children from dragging home something unexpected? Any ornaments in the village made form bone? Courage, Craig, a new TIGHAR addict, from New Brunswick. **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Craig. Good questions. 1. I agree that whether or not one castaway might bury another is probably a function of physical obstacles. For example, just for argument's sake let's assume that Fred and AE are hanging out at the Seven Site, trying to stay alive until somebody shows up. Now, lets say that Fred gets hurt or gets sick and, for whatever reason, dies right there at the campsite. AE's choices are: A. She can bury him. To do that she probably has to drag the body down to the beach where there's enough sand to dig a hole deep enough to at least cover the corpse. The digging at the Seven Site itself is way too difficult. B. She can let the crabs eat him and then bury the bones. Not at all an attractive option to have that going on where she could see it and smell it but (based on what we saw of crab behavior during Niku IIII) it would only take a couple of weeks or so. C. She can just leave the body where it is and move her camp to someplace else. But because the unburied bones of a castaway were found later, it appears that that didn't happen. 2. We have two anecdotal accounts that describe the Nutrian shoreline near the shipwreck as being put "off limits." Emily says that the Native Magistrate didn't want anyone going there circa 1940 -41. Tapania says that the grownups told the children not to play there in the late 1950s. She also describes airplane parts in the bushes and on the reef. Aluminum airplane wreckage can be extremely sharp. It's possible that the ghost stories were just a way to scare the kids away from what was seen as a dangerous area. 3. As far as I know, the Gilbertese do not and never did make ornaments out of human bone. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:18:44 EDT From: Craig Fuller Subject: Re: Rain >>For what it's worth, Floyd Kilts' story held that the "cognac" bottle found with the body had "fresh water in it for drinking." If that is true, it's more difficult to attribute the castaway's death purely to dehydration.<< Being here in AZ I frequently see and read articles about dehydration and exposure. One thing I found interesting is that it is not uncommon to find that the victims still have water in their canteens. They realize that they need to ration the supply of water and end up rationing it so strictly they die of exposure before they use up all of their water. Craig Fuller AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research ************************************************************************ From Ric Verrrry interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:20:44 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Finding the Equator > Right. At the equator it just goes straight down without swirling. > Incredible to see. Uh, is this a joke? How far off the line does the head have to be to start swirling? I once got frantic e-mail from a friend who'd gone to Oz, and to his amazement the toilets do swirl in the other direction. But no swirl on the equator? Mike Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, it's a joke. The whole different direction of swirl thing is an old wive's tale. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:21:37 EDT From: Christopher Subject: Re: Finding the Equator [bzzzzzzzzz] WRONG. The coriolis force, which "dictates" which way LARGE SCALE weather systems and ocean currents will spin has no effect on something as small as a toilet. See: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html for the facts. LTM, Christopher (who loves to pull the plug on scientific misconceptions) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:48:22 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna Actually, this is something the radio experts really need to weigh in on, as I was going through the website last night and it appears that TIGHAR has already confirmed that Elgen Long's calculations are well-founded, even if he was wrong to specify an exact number. The following quote is from "Log Jam", under TIGHAR Tracks: "It is clear that Earhart has not heard Itasca's transmissions although they are now receiving her at maximum strength (S5) indicating that she is within at least one hundred miles and possibly much closer". So, TIGHAR seems to say that signal strength confirms that the flight got within at least one hundred miles of Howland, regardless of what Elgen Long computes. From Alan Caldwell's posting, and Ric's response, it looks like like Elgen Long was saying about 80 miles, based on signal strength. Is this correct? Also, I noticed that the same "Log Jam" article mentions that we know that Earhart was able to hear Itasca on her loop antenna. Is this antenna one that would only normally be able to pick up transmissions over a relatively short distance? Since we know that Earhart heard Itasca on this antenna, would it be possible to have used it as a rough direction finding device? That is, even if you were not able to get a minimum for exact direction, if you switched back to the antenna/frequency and no longer were able to hear Itasca could you conclude that you were moving away from the general direction of the ship/Howland? Thus, you would know whether to head north or south on the LOP. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll let the radio experts weigh in but my point is that, while the gradual increase in signal strength over time argues that the airplane was actually drawing closer and closer to Howland, it is not possible to assign hard arcs of distance (as Long did) to the various reported strengths. I used 100 miles as a rough not-greater-than distance in Log Jam becuase that is the estimate given by the Coast Guard in 1937. How valid that estimate is something I'll leave to the experts. It may have been possible to use the loop the way you describe but, it seems to me, that would have required AE to understand the nature of her problem in which case she could have communicated by voice on 3105 using the loop. How does this speculation move the project forward? What evidence might it cause us to look for? Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:55:51 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: LOP again A simple and concise explanation of "Celestrial Navigation" appears in the Nov 01,"Air and Space" Smithsonian Magazine on p.32-33. All you'll need to know about LOPs, longitude, latitude, fixes, and positions, are explained. Just look to the stars with a bubble sextant. Since the lops wont go away this is a primer for those of us not familiar with the position procedures from an aircraft. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:57:35 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Distance from Howland It is not possible to ascribe a "hard" distance to a Strength 5 (S-5) transmission, or to any other "S" number. The "S" number merely indicates the relative strength of the signal compared to the noise background at the receiver, and can be read from a meter on the receiver if so equipped, or can be subjectively assigned by the operator. But in no case can the "S" number be used as an indicator of transmitter distance when ionospheric propagation is involved, as was the case with AE's signals. Consider: a low power transmitter a few miles away could deliver the same signal strength as a high power transmitter much farther away. Received signal to noise ratio is a complex function of the many factors governing the generation and radiation of the signal, the loss in signal strength due to absorption along the ionospheric propagation path to the receiver, and reception of the signal at the receiver. However, by calculating the signal to noise ratio for various transmitter distances, it is possible to find the maximum distance from which a given signal could have been transmitted. A more detailed discussion of this process, together with the results obtained, will be found in the 8th Edition. Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:37:11 EDT From: Marjorie Smith Subject: Re: Bones, bones and bones Re: alternative B. (Ric's answer to Craig's question): She can let the crabs eat him and then bury the bones. . . it would only take a couple of weeks or so. But would Amelia know that about the crabs? I didn't, (That they eat meat, and so quickly) and I lived in the Mariana Islands (where they are a special delicacy) for seven years. Do we know that the crabs were as prolific during the late '30s as they are now? I assume crab populations go through cycles of population explosions and collapses as other species do. Are there any records of this during the time Niku was populated? -- Marjorie Smith ************************************************************************** From Ric Good point. If the crabs were anything like they are now, it wouldn't take Amelia long to find out that they are a problem. We do know that there were plenty of coconut crabs on the island in 1937 (Bevington's diary). The New Zealand survey party in late 1938 had terrible problems with rats - much more so than we've ever had. It could be that the drought stressed the rat population and made them more aggressive. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:38:02 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance from Howland O.K., I can understand that you cannot come up with "hard" numbers, but you mention that, in the 8th edition, a process was used to measure maximum distance and results were obtained. What were the results? --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:39:01 EDT From: Dean A Subject: Re: Distance from Howland > as an indicator of transmitter distance when ionospheric propagation is > involved, If AE were at 10,000 ' how far would her transmitted signal be able to go in a straight line. By this I mean where no ionospheric propagation would be involved. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:40:09 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna What I've been working on is a possible explanation of why none of the post loss signals mention Gardner by name. I've called but haven't been able to get to Purdue yet to take a look at the map that was to be used for the first world flight, and ask if you would confirm your advice to me that Gardner does NOT appear on the map---that is, it's neither named nor illustrated on the map in any way. Thanks, --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric That is correct. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:41:34 EDT From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Amelia's shoes You could have gotten a better "deal". Amazon.com sells "Amelia Earhart's Shoe : Is the Mystery Solved?" for $17.46. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0759101302/qid=1003265244/sr=1-1/ref=sr _1_22_1/102-5596705-8765755 And discounts on top of that can be had too. First, you check out the online coupon sites to get discount codes to enter into your online order form. For example, Barnes and Noble is currently offering "free shipping" if you buy two or more books and ship them to a US address. Such discount coupon sites are: http://www.edealfinder.com/ http://dealofday.com/ http://www.dailyedeals.com/ http://www.bigbigforums.com/ http://www.couponmountain.com/ http://www.bigbigsavings.com/ well, you get the idea! Low cost books also here: http://www.allbooks4less.com/default.asp http://www.half.com/ Happy Shopping, Suzanne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:50:58 EDT From: Dick Evans Subject: Questions for loran station veterans I'll give you what answers I can. Actually there were only three or four occasions when anyone went onto the area on a sightseeing mission. We just didn't bother with things like that. On one occason we got an unidentified sub warning so they sent a couple of guys onto the windward side of the island where they spent the night watching for Japanese invaders, What a joke. Question 1: We set up a target range a couple of hundreds south of the water collector which is what you call the Seven site. So there would have been a lot of 30 caliber shells laying around at that spot. No one on the island had a 22. Over the year a couple of guys walked to the lagoon from that point but I don't think they had rifles and never shot at anything. The only shooting I remember - other than a bit of target practice to learn to shoot the rifles was when we would shoot at sharks. But that was always on the leeward side, usuallt at the native village. Maybe 10 shots all together. Question 2 - What did we do at Seven? Same thing we did everywhere else: SAT. Drank grapefrujit juice and medical alcohol ( I forget what we called the drink.) For the first time in my life I smoked a pipe. Mostly we talked about how anxious we were to get the hell off that island. We never caught anything and never cooked anything. Don't ever remember taking anything from the base that we left there. Never built anything. Why would we have wanted to do that? Question 3 -Metal. Don't remeber anyone taking any such thing from the base. Don"t know any reason anyone would have. Question 4 - Recollections. The main thing I recall was that we found a water collector. This consisted of a tank that looked like it was made from a airplane gas tank that had been cut open and laid on its' side. Above it was a wooden frame holding a water collector that was made out of some kind of cloth that looked like rough canvas. We also found a bucket that I don't remember anything about. Happy to send you this valuable information. Be fascinated with it. I'm expecting to send your questions to one or two of the guys I am still in touch with. Dick Evans ************************************************************************** From Ric Believe it or not, this is valuable information and we are fascinated. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:01:41 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones, bones and bones A few bony comments: Re.: "C. She can just leave the body where it is and move her camp to someplace else. But because the unburied bones of a castaway were found later, it appears that that didn't happen." What am I missing here? Why would the discovery of the unburied bones of one castaway mean that this castaway didn't leave the unburied bones of another castaway someplace else? I'm not arguing that this is what happened; I just don't follow your logic. Incidentally, it seems to me that one real constraint on burying somebody would be the probable lack of anything to dig with. Re: "It seems to me that if the inhabitants followed through on their spiritual beliefs as we know them, they would have buried any exposed bones, instead of creating possible ghost stories to scare the children from playing near them." Seems to me that if they followed through on their spiritual beliefs as we know them they wouldn't have "created" ghost stories; they would have told them in the sincere belief that they were true. Re.: "3. As far as I know, the Gilbertese do not and never did make ornaments out of human bone." I don't think they did either, but I'll have to check to be sure. Some island groups did. Very unlikely anybody in the 20th century did, though. But bones figure heavily in Gilbertese tradition, sometimes getting chopped up, burned up, thrown in the ocean, etc. and reassembling themselves to make mischief. My impression is that bones were seen as powerful things -- probably why the graves on Niku, as Gary Quigg knows so well, tend to be deep. TK ************************************************************************** From Ric <> It doesn't. My hypothetical scenario had AE and Fred at the Seven Site when Fred dies. Because the unburied bones found there (we think) were more likely AE's than Fred's (according to the measurements) then AE did not leave there. She could, of course, have moved to the Seven Site after leaving Fred unburied someplace else. Or, conversely, Fred could have left her unburied at the Seven Site and set up a new camp someplace else. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:56:36 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Folklore Research Ric wrote: >The other point to remember is that, in the process of researching Gardner we >have, by necessity, researched the exploration and settlement of the other >islands of the Phoenix Group. Gardner is unique in its body of folklore >about an aircraft wreck that predated the first settlement and the discovery >of the remains of a castaway. There is nothing that points to any other >island. Indeed the exploration and settlement of other islands in the group has been researched....although certainly not to the extent that Gardner has. The spotlight that has been focused on Gardner has in turn resulted in research into the folklore of the island. For example, In the course of the Gardner/Niku investigation, former Gardner residents have been interviewed or contacted in Tuvalu, in the Solomons, in Fiji, in Kiribati and elsewhere and in doing so, a great deal has been learned about the folklore of the island. I am not aware, however, of any research, other than cursory, into the folklore of the other islands. Which former residents of the other Phoenix islands have been interviewed in an effort to establish the "unique" folklore of each island? Any consideration of the Gardner wreckage folklore needs to carefully weigh the influence that the Sydney Island wreck, the Norwich City and prior knowledge of TIGHAR's interview goals, may have had on the interviewees. At least two of the folks who related Gardner aircraft wreck anecdotes (Emily and Pulekai) have familial or direct connections to Sydney Island. In addition, two of them (Emily and Tapania) were briefed/spoken to by friends/relatives on what TIGHAR was looking for prior to being interviewed. This would seem to complicate the island specific (i.e. unique) aspect of the folklore. I am not suggesting that folklore research is ever "clean" or uncomplicated. It never is. I am saying that it is hard to assign unique qualities to the Gardner anecdotes when wrecks (both aircraft and ship) have occurred on other islandsin the Phoenix grp for which interviewees have direct knowledge and/or interviewees have been briefed prior to being interviewed. I could go on about how Gallagher may have influenced the natives recollections/stories about bones and wreckage (both likely from the Norwich City) by relating information about the famous American pilot...but I will leave that to your imagination. That brings us to the subject of whether or not Gardner is "unique" in relation to the discovery of the remains of a castaway. Using the term unique to qualify the Gardner castaway is complicated by the fact that eight sailors from the Norwich City were never found. In the same manner that it would be difficult for an injured, dehydrated Earhart crew member to attract the attention of the Colorado guys; it would also be difficult for an injured Norwich sailor, potentially seperated from his comrades by two swollen lagoon inlets/outlets and thick brush, to gain the attention of his shipmates. The Norwich City incident complicates the "unique" nature of a castaway being found on the island. Never mind the fact that, for all we know, castaways were found on other islands in the Phoenix group. What research has been done to conclude that the Gardner discovery was unique? Yes, we have not heard of any others...but then finding the documentation of the Gardner castaway took nothing short of a miracle from Peter Q even though a dedicated team of TIGHARs had been working on the Earhart project for almost 10 years. In all fairness I suggest that what Ric meant to say is that "Gardner appears (or may be) unique in its body of folklore about an aircraft wreck that predated the first settlement and the discovery of the remains of a castaway." LTM Kenton Spading p.s. The British in Fiji had at least two castaway discoveries reported to them (Gardner and Henderson Is.). Both included evidence of a women castaway. *************************************************************************** From Ric A couple of quick points: <> In researching the names of the lost Norwich City crewmen in preparation for mounting and dedicating the memorial plaque, I discovered a discrepancy in the casualty lists. Newspaper accounts initially listed eleven men lost: J. W. Horne, Third Engineer T.E. Scott, Fourth Engineer J. I. Jones, Steward J.J. Leslie, Carpenter F.Sumner, Ordinary Seaman "and six of the following eight Arabs:" Abdul Hassan Redman Yousef Mohammed Nassa Saleb Ragee Said Metanna Ayed Naif Ahmad Hassan Abdul Wahab However, the records of the court of naval inquiry in Apia include the following names among the list of survivors: Abdul Hassin (This must be Abdul Hassan listed above. We have a complete crew list.) Mohammed Noss (Listed above as Mohammed Nassa) Abdul Wahab It would seem, therefore, that only ten men were lost in the disaster: Horne Scott Jones Leslie Sumner Yousef Ragee Metanna Naif Ahmad Hassan Of these; Jones, Leslie, and one of the Arabs washed up and were buried. Seven bodies were never found and were presumed drowned. <> There are, of course, only two other colonized islands - Sydney and Hull. We've read everything we can find about them - just as we have Gardner. <> Emily's connections to Sydney Island and her anecdotal account of events on Gardner predate the Sydney crash by several years. <> The Gardner castaway story and the Sydney airplane crash story are, I think, good examples of verified folklore. In each case we had undocumented accounts of an event that was circulated as "folklore" and, in each case, persistence and luck eventually paid off with hard documentation. My point is that, however hard it may be to find the hard documentation, the folklore shows up quickly. Of course, you can say that we don't know about folklore that we don't know about and you can say that there might be folklore more out there, but it is undeniably true that our current level of research into the entire PISS operation has turned up folklore that is not confined to Gardner. Some of it has been verifed and some has not. Whatever significance you want to put on it, Gardner is (so far) the only place in the Phoenix Group with folklore about a pre-war airplane wreck and castaways. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:00:06 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: The Toilet Spin Now I tell you I have crossed the equator many times and I have purposely gone into the John approaching the equator to watch the flush change directions. If you don't believe this how can you possible believe in divining sticks for locating under ground water? Are we a scientific organization or not? Don't we put our faith in first hand reporting of observations? Dick Pingrey 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, we are a scientific organization and no, I don't believe in divining sticks. We put our faith in controlled scientific experiments, not first hand reporting of observations. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:03:16 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Rain water and Atoll lenses. I'm no expert, but my understanding of a water lens on a coral atoll is: that the lens actually "floats" on the sea water which is soaking the porous coral. The thin edges of the lens are at msl (mean sea level); the top surface of the lens is "domed" very slightly ABOVE msl, and the bottom surface is many times deeper, below msl. Now all that rain water is CONSTANTLY flowing -although quite slowly through the pores of the sand and the coral. It keeps flowing outward, from the higher center, and downward, until it reaches seawater, into which it mixes. In other words, to survive, the lens needs constant replenishment. When it rains, the top of the lens rises very slightly, which causes the water in that part of the lens to slowly flow downward, and also outward toward the edges. Some of the water also flows more downward and meets the saltwater interface way down, inside the coral of the atoll... These lenses are very unstable: in a drought the top surface gets lower -toward the same level as the sea, as the fresh water constantly flows outward and ultimately gets mixed with the seawater. If the "top dome" gets depleted, it means less extra weight pushing on the lens, and the bottom of the lens gets depleted as well; the lens gets thinner and thinner. Also, at the edges, with the tide variations, the fresh water gets mixed with sea water much faster. I would think the lenses on Niku are rather small, and then in a drought, they can quickly thin out to not much of anything. Is there any data in the Colonial archives about surveys of the lenses? If Tighar needed to know, it is not that difficult to do an electrical conductivity survey of the ground, during Niku -V. FWIW: I have a photocopy of the rainfall records for Christmas Is, month by month. There too, there is tremendous variations from year to year, as well as month to month. AND there is definately NO seasonal pattern either. Cheers Christian D. ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Christian. I'm sure your description is much better than mine. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:15:01 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna Thanks for the info. on the Purdue map confirming that Gardner isn't shown or identified The reason for my questions on distances from Howland, first world flight, mapping errors, etc. is as follows: There's been the question of why none of the post loss transmissions mention Gardner by name if the flight ended there and Gardner was one of the several islands which appeared along an LOP drawn by Noonan on the morning of July 2d. Why be cryptic? It tends to discount the validity of the transmissions. Even if you didn't know which of the various islands along the LOP you had landed on, there are only a few possibilities so why not mention them all. This question again occured to me after you advised me aboard Nai'a that the map of the first world flight attempt does NOT show Gardner on it. This information really took me aback. While we don't know for certain what map Noonan used for the second world flight, if he simply used another copy of the same map as the first attempt, then that would mean that an LOP drawn through Howland on the morning of July 2nd would not have run through Gardner, since there was no Gardner on the map for it to run through. So, if by some chance the flight came upon Gardner while heading along the LOP and landed there not knowing what island it was, then perhaps this explains why there was no mention of the island by name. So, one mystery clouding the LOP theory is solved. Of course, if the map used for the second attempt also did not show Gardner, there is a real potential downside here to the entire TIGHAR LOP theory. This potential problem worsened, considerably, when I consulted TIGHAR's own maps (see "The Phoenix Islands" and "The 157/337 Line of Position") on the website. What TIGHAR's maps show is that the ONLY island other than Gardner which lies within visual distance of the LOP is Baker. McKean is too far to the east to be seen from 1000', and the rest of the Phoenix isles are way too far away. You'd have to leave the LOP and fly a considerable distance away from it to reach McKean or any of them. Indeed, this assumes that the Purdue map even shows Baker, McKean and the rest of the Phoenix Group other than Gardner. As you have said, you can't find a point off of the LOP if you don't know where you are starting from along the LOP (I believe you were using with reference to flying back to the Gilberts). In other words, you have to abandon the LOP. So, if Gardner is NOT on the map, and Noonan doesn't otherwise know that Gardner is there, then the ONLY island the LOP leads you to is Howland or Baker. What this all suggested to me is that on the morning of July 2, 1937 it may have appeared to Noonan that there weren't numerous "alternative land falls" available by heading southeast along the LOP---that the only real landfalls known to him using the LOP were Howland or Baker. His map didn't show Gardner, McKean was not within visual range of the LOP and the other Phoenix islands were way far away from the LOP. Since Baker is only 40 miles away from Howland, I would think he'd head for Howland if he saw Baker. Thus, the decision whether to head north or south along the LOP would've been much more of a toss-up than we currently think. As you see, coming up with a possible answer to one question opens up the door to a host of other questions which significantly undercut TIGHAR's entire LOP theory. So, this is what lead me to asking the earlier questions: First, is there any navigational or other reason why Noonan would use a different map for the Lae--Howland--Honolulu leg of the second world flight attempt, from the map which was intended for use on the Honolulu-Howland leg of the first attempt? From your earlier answer it looks like the flight would've gone directly from Honolulu to Howland on the first flight (the second longest leg of the entire flight), thus you would have had all the same problems locating Howland that you have on the second flight. Yet, Gardner wasn't on the first map, so why would it be on the second? Secondly, how "close" to Howland might Earhart and Noonan have felt they were (and actually been) when turning onto the LOP? If an LOP drawn on their map runs too far to the west of McKean for McKean to be seen and the map doesn't show Gardner at all, then the answer to this latter question would influence how far they'd probably run in one direction before turning the other way---but they would turn at some point, not just continue running southeast to "alternate landfalls". It's only if they were, in fact, much farther away from Howland than apparently they, or we, think that they might have spotted Gardner by accident and landed there, but not known it's name. The fact that we don't know for sure that Earhart and Noonan knew of the mapping error concerning Howland (I believe the Purdue map shows Howland in the wrong position, but doesn't have any hand notations to remind the user) compounds the problem. Perhaps some of this may become clearer when I actually see the Purdue map. Anyway, that's the reason for the questions. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric The map at Purdue was used for the flight across the northeastern Pacific from California to Hawaii. Why on earth would you suppose that they would use the same map to fly from Hawaii to Howland or, much less, from New Guinea to Howland? Navigators use maps that cover the part of the world they're trying to navigate. We don't know for sure exactly which map or maps Noonan used for the Howland flights but he would have to be an extremely negligent navigator to not have maps that covered the entire region in which he would be flying. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:20:51 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Folklore Research > ... Of course, you can say that we don't know about folklore > that we don't know about and you can say that there might be folklore more > out there ... It is in a discussion like this that one may properly say, "This is the kind of negative that we can never prove: that there are no other anecdotes about downed airplanes than the few we have collected." In order to prove this negative, one would need omniscience, ESP, or staggering investment of time and money to interview everybody alive in the Pacific who might have another story to contribute to the collection. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:45:57 EDT From: Dave Robinson Subject: Kanton I too have just read Tom King's book and found it well thought out and very interesting. I would highly recommend as it gives the reader a good encapsulation of what TIGHAR has been doing relative to the various expeditions over the years. Is also gets the reader fired up in the quest to get to the bottom of this mystery. The artifacts that have been discovered and the documentation that has been found all point to something very curious going on that island. Unfortunately the "smoking gun" has proven to be elusive thus far. It's clear to me that an extended visit to Niku is required (read: very expensive). But perhaps there may be a way to get a solid piece of evidence that would hopefully prove to be the catalyst for major funding to get to the "rest of the story." I feel that this catalyst may just be on Kanton Island. I found the chapter on the Kanton engine in King's book to be of particular interest, in that, there appears to be a pretty sound basis that an Electra engine might just be buried there. I'd be willing to support such an endeavor. I'm wondering if there is any interest out there for such an expedition. LTM, David Robinson #2333 **************************************************************************** From Ric We'd go dig the dump on Kanton if the funding was available. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:50:50 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna So, are you saying that the map at Purdue is not a roll out map which covers the route of the first world flight? --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric No, it is not. That's not the way flights are done. It's not a like AAA Triptik. Pilots go from map to map to map. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:23:09 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Rain water and Atoll lenses. This is one of the best description of atoll freshwater lenses that I have ever seen. I doubt that there was much info. from the colonial period, other than well reports. Diego Garcia, lately in the news as an airbase in the Indian Ocean for the Afghan War, has a very sophisticated freshwater system based on tapping multiple freshwater lenses. I suspect that most of the information on this system has been recently removed from the web. On small islands, like Niku or Midway, the "freshwater" lens is often slightly salty (brackish). Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 ************************************************************************** From Ric That's right. I've never seen any official description of the freshwater lens at Niku but the wells were often described as brackish, especially during periods of drought. "Catchment" (rain) water was the primary source of drinking water. Deep pits were dug for the cultivation of "babai" (taro) to get the plants closer to what fresh water there was. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:06:19 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: East/West route The most important differences regarding an East to West route from Honolulu to Howland would have been the fact that both crew & aircraft were 'fresh' & presumably _all_ the radio & DF equipment would have been in proper working order. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:07:10 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna We know from the Purdue collection that Noonan did not use the maps prepared by Clarance Williams, but instead, used various maps, both aeronautical and navigational (oceanographic) maps at various scales and details. Any navigator worth his salt would use a variety of maps at his disposal, instead of relying solely upon one. Both US and British charts from the Hydrographic Office and Admiralty Office appear prominently in the Purdue collection. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:32:50 EDT From: Woody Subject: Re: Rain If that was the case then there wouldn't be a problem with drinking resources on the island if anyone had the common sense to open them up and drink the milk.There are enough electrolytes and nutrients in coconut milk to keep you alive for up to 6 months with no others food source. My first father - in -law, Joe Keeler was the Professor of Agriculture at the University of Hawaii for almost 30 years. He did a study on coconuts that should still be on file there. That was his conclusion. A little footnote though. I went back to Taroa in August for 2 weeks to do another site survey. I ate with the natives this time and drank coconuts whenever they handed me one. If youre not acclimated to the milk, you'd better carry toilet paper in your backpack! Woody *************************************************************************** From Ric You answered your own question. Regardless of the salutary properties of coconuts, a person who is not skilled or acclimated; a) will have a hard time getting down green nuts that contain milk. b) will have a hard time getting into the nut without losing the milk. c) will lose more water from diarrhea than they gain from drinking the milk. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:35:00 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Questions for loran station veterans Thanks, Dick -- we are indeed fascinated. I'll look forward to info from others. By the way -- and I almost hesitate to mention this -- a little girl who came to a book signing the other night, who was studying AE in school, innocently mentioned in passing that Earhart, as a child, liked target shooting. With -- er -- her .22. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find out where she'd gotten this information. TK ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:39:40 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Folklore Research While I agree with Kenton that it may be adventurous to call the Nikumaroro castaway story "unique," I'm impressed by the fact that Kenneth Knudson, in his rather exhaustive monograph on the Manra settlement, doesn't say anything about anything like it there, though his study did give us the first indication of a plane wreck on that island. Of course, castaway stories weren't what Knudson was studying, so if there were one it wouldn't necessarily get into his monograph. It would be interesting to try to track Knudson down and talk with him. I'm away from my files at present, but my recollection is that he was in an anthropology or sociology department somewhere in the northwest. TK *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, but it's also my recollection that he's dead. Knudson wasn't tracking stories of airplane wrecks either. It's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have mentioned a castaway story if it was part of the island story. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:48:32 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna Chris Kennedy writes: > ...There's been the question of why none of the post loss transmissions > mention Gardner by name if the flight ended > there and Gardner was one of the several islands which appeared along an > LOP drawn by Noonan... At the risk of being pedantic, we don't know that none of the transmissions mentioned Gardner by name. We know that none of the received and understood portions of those transmissions did. Not quite the same thing, and I think it's distinction always worth making. LTM Phil Tanner 2276 ************************************************************************** From Ric Agreed. Thank you. But after saying something for the 500th time you just sort of get tired. *************************************************************************** From Chris Kennedy Well, it looks like this info. on the Purdue map gets us back to our original problem (why no mention of Gardner if any of the post loss transmissions are valid), only worse---if the map used showed Gardner, then the only islands the LOP ran within visual range of was Howland, Baker (occupied and 40 miles from Howland) and Gardner. There are no others. We know they didn't land at Howland and that they didn't land at Baker. Therefore, this leaves Gardner as your only alternative, so if you ended up on Gardner you should know it by name so why not identify it? The only thing I can think of is that the map didn't include a name, yet how realistic is this? Furthermore, while Baker and Gardner are technically "alternates" to Howland, Baker is so close to Howland and Gardner is so far away (over 300 miles?). As a practical matter the lack of any intermediate points along the LOP is a real problem, as all indications are that the flight was close to Howland and knew it (which lessens the possibility that the flight continued on and on in one direction and just stumbled accross Gardner). So, looking at my "alternates", do I continue to use the LOP in such a way as to find an island which should be right under me (Howland) or an island (Baker) which will tell me I am only 40 miles from my intended destination and will point the direction, or do I continue flying in one direction along the same LOP to find an island several hundreds of miles away? Clearly my "alternates" are not of equal quality. Once I get to Gardner, why am I apparently unable to identify it by name in any post loss transmissions? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric see above ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:44:33 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna Thanks, Randy. If (1) all these maps a seasoned navigator would have used showed Gardner and named it, and (2) Howland, Baker and Gardner were the only islands along the LOP that you could see from 1000' (my reference is TIGHAR's maps), and (3) you didn't land at Howland or Baker, then (4) how could you have ended up at Gardner and not been able to identify it by name in any of the post loss transmissions? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe she did. But here's another thought: What if you were so well prepared that you had a map of what these various islands looked like? If you had a copy of the only available map of Gardner in 1937 and you compared it to the island you saw out the window, you would have had to conclude that "This can't be Gardner." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:45:37 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: AE and .22 >By the way -- and I almost hesitate to mention this -- a little girl who came >to a book signing the other night, who was studying AE in school, innocently >mentioned in passing that Earhart, as a child, liked target shooting. With >-- er -- her .22. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find out where she'd gotten >this information. Check Muriel's book. I seem to remember that the .22's were Christmas presents from their father and they were used to shoot rats in the grandparents' barn in Kansas. LTM, who always gave great presents, Amanda Dunham, tighar #2418 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:06:49 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna Sorry, folks, but if Ric has kept having to address the question 500 times perhaps the problem is in the substance of his response, or the lack thereof. TIGHAR's theory posits a plane being tossed on a reef (indeed, I have walked the very reef), possibly injured people, with only a limited amount of transmitting power left before it is dashed to pieces. I think that's one of the reasons TIGHAR finds Betty's notebook so attractive, as it so vividly portrays the pendency of this watery armageddon. Under these conditions, I cannot help thinking that if I knew where I was (which logically I should since I am using maps showing that the only "alternatives" along the LOP to Howland are Baker and Gardner, and I know that I'm not on Baker) I would be telling people as briefly and as often as possible, e.g., one word, "Gardner", or something of similar ilk would suffice. It's awfully valuable information for rescuers and simply and quickly given (and being rescued is your primary objective, I would think), as opposed to giving instructions to one's husband to get a suitcase out of a closet in California. Yet, in all these transmissions (not just Betty's notebook), something this simple and obvious doesn't appear. That's important, and on these facts, the dismissive answer that "well, maybe it was said but it didn't appear and/or was understood in any of these several hundred transmissions", doesn't cut it. Which is, perhaps, why the question has now needed to be asked for the 501st time. --Chris **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, here goes. The situation is not as you describe it. The vast majority of the alleged/suspected post-loss transmissions contain no intelligible information at all. Most are just a "carrier wave" (background signal) on the right frequency. A few have voice content but the words are unintelligible (anyone who has listened to a marginal HF reception knows what that sounds like). In fact, other than the handful of reported HAM and shortwave receptions, the only message that contains intelligible content is the "281 message" received as fragments of badly sent code. Betty's notebook is really the only instance where numerous phrases were transcribed. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:32:05 EDT From: Craig Subject: Norwich City, etc. A few more thoughts of mine (hoping to drag people off the other topics!) (1) Do we have any record of the state of the Norwich City in 1937? I've got to think if I crashed/landed on that island, the first place I'd be heading is for a mental sign of civilization - and in search of refuge, supplies, etc. Did anyone ever check inside it - for any reason - in the Gallager years? I know there's not much left of it now, but at that time could it have provided any shelter. Would the name of it have been visible in '37? Thus giving creedence to Betty's "NY" City? (2) Do we lean in any direction on AE/FN knowing where they were if they landed on the island? It looks like they most likely had enough information to make the determination (whether they mentioned it in the radio signals or not). The reason this keeps coming up in my mind is I'm trying to justify why they wouldn't have set up "camp" near the north end of the island - the probable direction from which searchers would arrive. I suppose there's nothing to say they didn't, and maybe later moved to the southeast end for reasons of wind, food, favor, etc. Courage, Craig *************************************************************************** From Ric 1. According to photos and personal accounts from Bevington and Maude, in 1937 Norwich City was a burned out hulk but parts of the hold were still intact enough for storing coconuts. The ship may have provided shelter but little else. The name does seem to have been visible at that time. 2. See the recent discussion with Chris Kennedy on the subject of whether or not they knew where they were. Bottom line is: maybe, maybe not. It seems clear (to me anyway) that there was some motivating factor that caused the castaway(s) - whoever he or she or they was/were - to set up residence at the southeast end rather than the west end where the coconut trees and shipwreck and supply cache were. The 1938/39 NZ survey party had a terrible time with rats at the west end, perhaps due to the 1938 drought. It may be that the castaway(s) only left the west end once the drought had progressed enough to dry up the coconut trees and make the rats aggressive. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:34:26 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna Is there any evidence that Fred picked up local aerial navigation charts or maps while enroute? It seems logical that in some of the parts of the world where they were headed, they might have been able to get more up-to-date or more accurate maps from airfields, airlines, or governments along the way, than back in the US before they left. ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm aware of no such evidence. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:44:57 EDT From: Denise Subject: Ringing a Bell Wombat asks: "IS there any other source that may be accessed her in Aus?" Wombat, are you aware that Sir Harry Maud and Lady (Honour) Maud run an entire archive of primary source material on the Pacific that's connected somehow with ANU (the Australian National University) in Canberra? They can be accessed on-line, although I've lost the URL for them. LTM (who thinks it's great to know that people we talk about in the forum can actually be talked to in real life too!) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric Harry Maude does not have knighthood and he certainly does not run an archive. Some of his papers are at the University of Adelaide ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:49:03 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna Is there somewhere an image of the 1937 map that shows the incorrect shape of Gardner? Offhand, it would seem to me that not being able to find Howland might have been, to say the least, very traumatic. But finding a known island that was nothing like what it should be ... would have been worse. They might have assumed they were nowhere near where they hoped to be. In that case, why identify the "wrong" island? *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, we have a copy. It's an Admiralty chart published in 1923 and based on an 1872 survey. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:16:08 EDT From: Denise Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! Craig asks: "Any thoughts as to whether we seriously expect one castaway to bury the other." Ric, I honestly can't visualise any of the three scenerios you came up with by way of reply, although c) comes closest. Taking Betty's notebook as a given, what I see happening is Noonan dying on Norwich City, and the stench of him rotting driving A.E. onto the island. While he was alive - and not well, considering the bump on the head Betty mentions - she would have trekked from ship to shore, alternating between looking for food and water and taking care of him ... but she only moved permanently ashore when she absolutely had to. I don't see her WANTING to be on the island, especially at night, and especially not THIS island at night. She: 1) had no experience of desert islands 2) would have encountered rats galore 3) would have experienced "the attacks of the killer crabs" for herself. 4) would have noticed Nikumaroro's vaguely threatning/brooding/"looming" quality that you, Ric, talk about it having, even in daylight. 5) would probably have grown up reading "Robinson Crusoe" and "Coral Island" and those dreadful but compulsive-reading Girl's Own Adventure Books (which fill Pacific Islands with cannibals etc) and you can't tell me that those thoughts wouldn't have inched their way into her head at odd intervals as she wandered around looking for water. Altogether I think she would have been spooked by the place, and never have established herself a base-camp on the island if she could have stayed aboard ship. And she certainly wouldn't have been on the island - among the crabs - at night if there was an alternative. So Craig, that's why I think that she didn't bury Noonan. He died, he stank, she left - and all this occured on the wreck of Norwich City. LTM (who noticed you didn't want to spend nights on the island yourselves, and you all had the benefit of company. This lady was all alone!) Denise P.S. Hey, what can I say? I'm a film script-writer. I need to visualise things and give them motivation and move them around in my head before I can accept them. And this is the way that all the facts most comfortably move around in my head. **************************************************************************** From Ric The downside to "camping" aboard Norwich City: - There's nothing there that you need except shade, and even in the shade it's unbelievably hot out on that reef during the day. - You can only access the shore at low tide and even then it's a long slippery walk. - How easy or difficult it was to climb up to the deck of the ship is an unknown but staying in the lower regions would be just as scary as being on land. There are hundreds of sea crabs that scuttle around the wreckage. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:03:29 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna Thanks, Ric. Your answer does help. I was looking through Bob Brandenburg's work on Betty's notebook after his reply to one of my earlier questions on transmission strength/distance, and was wondering whether TIGHAR's conclusion that Betty could've "heard" Earhart on a harmonic means that words would actually have been intellegible, or only that some sort of signal could have been received? I was holding off on asking the question (to see whether I'd get thrown off the Forum) but your mention of carrier waves reminded me about it. Incidentally, since Brandenburg's report includes analysis of both Earhart's transmitter, and signal-to-noise ratio for the days in question, shouldn't it be possible to do the analysis of distance from Howland for a transmission received aboard Itasca at strength 5? --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. It's all in the Eighth Edition. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:06:58 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! there are actually a number of good points made, here, for setting up a base aboard the Norwich City rather than battling armies of rats by day and fending off successive waves of slow-moving, voracious crabs by night ashore---the rats and crabs could quickly create sort of a South Seas version of "Night of the Living Dead", with the resultant strains on sleep, health and sanity.. You may recall that we did ask Dick Evans whether the upper decks of the vessel were accessible, and he said that the ladders inside the hull necessary to climb up to the upper decks were intact. Assuming the crabs didn't climb the ladders, they wouldn't bother you. This also indicates to me that the fire, while bad, may not have been as all-consuming as we suppose. Also, with at least some of the deckhousing intact, you do have shelter AND many steel "rain traps" (recall that Nai'a uses her steel upper decks to collect water). Also, the shipwreck is a magnet for attention, and might also contain many helpful items (think of all the cutting tools for food, for example). Sure, it's hot---the entire island is hot. At least if you could get shade the winds would blow unobstructed accross the reef, rather than having to filter through trees [the Seven Site only became comfortable AFTER we cleared the ridge----the rest of the Site is absolutely miserable]. As to the long slippery walk to shore, well, it's not that long (less than a couple of hundred yards?), and, as to it being slippery, we all managed quite well so long as we moved carefully using a branch or something as a walking stick. If you did the trip frequently, you would probably find a route which was best and could move fairly easily and confidently. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, so let's say that it's possible that Earhart used the shipwreck as shelter for some period of time. Therefore.........??????? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:07:32 EDT From: Woody Subject: AE's .22 Ric, The comments about the 22 rifle are in "for the fun of it", one of Amelia's early books. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:39:39 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! It's all explained in the 8th Edition [Just Kidding!]........The posting I replied to just reminded me that I've always wondered why she'd set up permanent shop ashore, including at the Seven Site, in preference to the Norwich City. We always seem to be so dismissive of the ship, and I can only think it's because it is now pretty much gone as anything practical. Though it was never the QE2, the pictures we see of it from the New Zealanders conveys an entirely different impression. In contrast, when you run through the possible land sites, each seems to have their own pro's and con's based upon the SAME list of factors (e.g., ability to get food, collect water), and the choice often comes down to a particular one or other of these same factors which the proponent of a particular site feels a special subjective preference for (I believe Tom, for example, found the climate of the cleared ridge on the Seven Site to be preferable to the climate under dense palm cover, which I preferred).. The point is that we can and probably will debate these same factors. Instead, I am looking for something unique in addition to these same factors, and while no one spot (Seven Site, Norwich City,etc.) is visible no matter where on or around the island a rescuer is, the unique advantage the Norwich City seems to have is that it is such a prominent landmark to a potential rescuer or visitor to the island, starting with Lambrecht who describes it. Even if I eventually moved ashore, I would try and do what I can to put some sort of signal on the vessel---e.g., cut and arrange palm fronds to form some sort of message, scratch a message on the outside wall of a deck structure. Something. The fact that this apparently wasn't done makes me wonder whether they perished on landing, or were otherwise incapacitated and survived only a very brief time. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric Because they apparently failed to do what you have decided they should have done? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:43:16 EDT From: Gary F. Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! These discussions of rats and crabs sure takes the dream element out of living on a tropic island and turn it into a nightmare! The reality of the south seas does not seem all that enticing. **************************************************************************** From Ric Being served cool drinks on the beach at a resort is enticing. Trying to survive marooned on a Pacific atoll would be hell on earth. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:49:56 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! There are pictures of the crews from Maude's expedition on the wreck of the NC. I'm sure they explored the insides of that ship. If there was anything there of interest (body, bones or anything Earhart), someone would have found it in 1937! Don J. *************************************************************************** From Ric That does seem likely. We can therefore conclude that: 1) Earhart and/or Noonan did not go aboard (which would seem odd), or 2) If they did, they didn't die there or leave anything behind (which does not seem odd, to me at least). Either way, I don't see how it makes a bit of difference. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:04:36 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Norwich City, etc. Another good reason for going south, I think, is the pool of water at the SE end, which, if seen during a pre-landing aerial circumnavigation, might have been taken to be a possible fresh water source. TK ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:54:24 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! Actually, I think TIGHAR's own hypothesis provides me support and confirms the wisdom of setting up shop, or some sort of signal aboard the Norwich City even if you decided not to stay there. After all, TIGHAR hypothesizes that Earhart landed just north of the vessel. Why? We can't know for sure, but it could very likely be that the ship attracted her attention as we know it attracted Lambrecht's. After all, there are better reef flats to land on than the one north of the vessel. I believe TIGHAR has written that there are some sections of reef so smooth that you could ride a bicycle across them. That is certainly not the case of the reef north of the Norwich City. In an earlier posting on this topic you, yourself, spoke of the long and dangerous trek along the reef from Norwich City to the shore----not the description of a landing strip you could ride a bicycle across. So, if part of our hypothesis is Earhart landing immediately north of the vessel when better landing areas were available, we should ask why she did this---she and Noonan were pretty smart and gutsy people, and could be that she or they recognized that there was a high probability that the vessel would be seen by rescuers, so best to see if you could put yourself down there and risk the landing so long as the reef "strip" there didn't look suicidal. If you landed o.k., and decided to establish camp elsewhere, why not try and leave some sort of message at the vessel if others are attracted there, as you were? Seems logical, and leads me to wonder why it wasn't done if TIGHAR has her landing there, and then apparently being ambulatory enough to get to other parts of the island and eke out a living for some time. I also remind you that among the many confusing "bones" stories is the anecdotal report of bones (a man and a woman's, I think) being found in the water on the reef near the ship, not ashore. Perhaps when the Seven Site artifacts are identified and further work is done the advantages and strengths of the site will be clearer. But for now, it doesn't appear to offer anything that's not available elsewhere, AND it has the big disadvantage of being tucked away in the brush (I think Tom speculated it may have been partially obscured by massive Buka trees back then) about as far away on the island as you can get from the island's most prominent attraction to planes (including Electras) and passing/searching ships, the Norwich City. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric <> Amnesia is a terrible thing. Chris, you were just there. If you didn't walk on the reef north of the shipwreck you at least had to see the photo I put up on the Nai'a bulletin board showing Skeet out on that reef at low tide shooting Gary with the pulse-laser distance measuring gun (Gary recovered). There's a "landing strip" out there that's about 2,500 feet long by at least 100 feet wide where anyone could ride a bicycle. There are a few potholes but nothing unavoidable or catastrophic. I've landed on worse strips that call themselves airports. One of the many accomplishments of the Niku IIII expedition was the verifaction and thorough documentation of the fact that the reef flat near the ocean north of the shipwreck was an attractive and suitable landing area. <> Nobody ever suggested that the landing was made on the part of the reef between the shipwreck and the shore. I know that you walked out to the shipwreck. You know what it's like for that first couple hundred yards out from the beach. It's like somebody bombed it and then covered it with snot, but that area is dramatically different from the reef surface near the ocean. <> Remind me where else on the island we have what appears to be evidence of castaway habitation (multiple small "meal sites" and apparent primitive tools fashioned from beach-combed items and "trails" appearing in pre-settlement aerial photos that turn out to lead from where clams were opened at the site to a place on the lagoon shore where there was a clam bed). As for being "tucked away in the brush", you must have misunderstood Tom. It's very apparent from the old aerial photos (which I thought you had seen) that, although the site is now buried in dense scaevola, in 1937/38 it was buka or possibly kanawa forest. Again, I thought you had been in the buka forest but I guess was wrong because, if you had, you would never describe a place as being "obscured by massive Buka trees." A buka forest is shady and free of undergrowth - almost park-like - with the gaint arching trees imparting a cathedral quality. And again, deciding what AE and FN must have done if they were there (leaving a message of some kind aboard Norwich City) and then saying they weren't there because no message was there is - well - not the way we draw conclusions. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:58:07 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! You can also conclude they may have been killed in the landing north of the vessel, or been incapacitated and died very soon thereafter, and that the Electra gets washed over the reef. TIGHAR already hypothesizes a landing north of the vessel, and the Electra getting washed over the reef. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, and you can also hypothesize that they ran out of fuel and crashed into the ocean. We're trying to formuate and test a hypothesis that accounts of all of the credible evidence. A fatal crash on the reef disregards the post-loss radio signals and the castaway(s) without providing an altenative explanation for them. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:04:36 EDT From: Roger Kelly Subject: Pool of water. Tom King stated: "Another good reason for going south, I think, is the pool of water at the SE end, which, if seen during a pre-landing aerial circumnavigation, might have been taken to be a possible fresh water source." Is Dr. King referring to the large brownish image located at 35-ET on the Nikumaroro satellite map? If so Ric, what were your impressions of this feature when sighted during your aerial recon in the Hughes 500? Would the "pool" lead a castaway to the south end of the island? Once there, would the enviroment at the south end of the island provoke a castaway to remain there? LTM, Roger Kelley **************************************************************************** From Ric I think that the pool Tom is referring to is the smaller depression in the "crosshairs" of the lower left corner of that box. The big pool is often dry but the little one seems to more consistently contain water. From the air it looks like a little lake, just as it does in the satellite photo. Whether or not someone would suppose that it might be fresh water would, I guess, depend upon how much they knew about coral atolls. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:08:24 EDT From: Claude Stokes Subject: Norwich City Could it be that the NC was a source of fresh water from trapped rain??? All be it dirty, if AE and FN had any survival ideas dirty water can be filterd with the sand of which there was plentiful supply. Else I can see no value for being on the NC since they were not on a 6000 calorie per day diet, each and every trip up and down and across the reef ate up calories galore. Unless there was in fact a vast food catch, 500 calories per day might be hard to come by for inexperienced castaways. regarding maps of Gardner cirica 1937, I think that what happened to the NC probably gauarnteed that Gardner was in fact a charted island. I guess everyone in the Martime community was aware of what happened to NC. We know for a fact that the Colorado had maps showing the Phenoix islands and pretty much were located at thier assigned coordinates. Logic says that Fred being from a martime origin would have martime charts in addition to aeronautical charts. I think Fred knew where Gardner was located... happy landing,, the Stoker **************************************************************************** From Ric Gardner's position was accurately charted on the 1872 map. Norwich City's problem was not that she didn't know where Gardner was but that she didn't know where SHE was. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:11:11 EDT From: Bobby Acosta Jr. Subject: Amelia Earhart/Bobby Acosta I think if you ever find Amelia Earhart, her legacy will be tarnished because after all she is really famous for dissapearing. I thik most of you fellows are more intrested if you could, rather than you should! Just think of what makes her story so unique? Did Linberg just dissapear into thin air, I think not? Most Americans dont even know her story, but that's where I entend to come in! I am young talented writer who will show her from a young girl to a adult flyer. I do hope all of you know her history? I believe her life story will be a great mystery and love story. I hope you never find her, but if you do you after all will make my story, so the best of luck. Bobby Acosta Jr ************************************************************************** From Ric It's always nice to hear from young talented writers. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:12:10 EDT From: JD Brown Subject: Norwich City There may be another explanation for why they might not go onto the ship. If they were unfamiliar with ships, and particularly ships that have run aground, they may have been fearful of going near the wreck. From our perspective of some 64 years later, we know that the ship didn't fall off the reef into the ocean. Two aviators who have just completed an emergency landing of their airplane on a deserted atoll might not be so comfortable that the ship was a safe place to go near. I have watched a modern ship break up in a matter of weeks off the Oregon coast... it's not a place I would want to go, and I am an ex-Navy guy! JD Brown, # 2468 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:22:31 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Signal strengths and distance We have been over and over and OVER this business of signal strength vs. distance. Now, before we beat this long-dead horse to death -- one more time, PLEASE read and understand this: There is NO WAY one can read an S-meter on a receiver and come up with any data to indicate distance. When a radio operator reported signal strength as S-5, he/she would be giving a SUBJECTIVE report. One operator's "S-4" might be another's "S-5." It's all up to THE OPERATOR'S INTERPRETATION, and this did NOT come from a meter scale in 1937. Indeed, most receivers in 1937 did not even HAVE an S-meter. S-meters, at least every one I have ever seen, and this includes pre-war receivers of which I have messed with a bunch -- are "scaled" rather than calibrated in terms of signal strength. The scales may indeed have numbers on them, but in actuality the numbers mean NOTHING. All they are useful for, is a RELATIVE indication of signal strength, and for use as a tuning-aid i.e. tune for maximum deflection. Where the nonradio types on the Forum are missing the point is in their apparent belief that there is some sort of absolute standard for these meters. NONONO. They also seem to believe that any receiver with such a meter is as accurate as a piece of lab test/measuring equipment. NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO. There was NO standard among manufacturers, prior ro WW2, for establishing a correlation between scale reading and signal-strength applied to the receiver input terminals. In fact, supposedly identical receivers built by the same manufacturer often show significantly different S-meter readings, for the same signal input. Yes, that is correct. The S-meter "reading" was and still is a sales gimmick. If a receiver built by National gave a higher S-meter reading than a Hammarlund receiver did, on the same signal, an operator/observer might easily conclude or believe the National receiver was "hotter" or had more amplification/sensitivity. NNNNOOOOOOOOOO! The manufacturers were not above "fudging" the S-meter circuits to take advantage of this chance to pull the wool over the eyes of potential buyers. And not all radio operators are technical people, in that they would be aware of this. The first standard was developed in the later 40s by Collins Radio Company, which established a definite signal level to be equal to an "S-9" or midscale reading on a meter. And this calibration is achieved under lab conditions, with a known signal voltage from a source of known impedance, applied to the antenna terminals. The calibration will differ if an antenna of different impedance from that of the test signal source, is used... and that ALMOST ALWAYS is the case in the real world. If Elgen Long, or anyone else says he/she can establish a definite distance from the Itasca to NR16020 based on reported/observed signal strength, I tell you, that person DOES NOT HAVE A CLUE. They are, as we say in the trade, "full of it." They simply do not understand "how" the receiver operates, the mechanics of wave propagation, or the actual practice of radio operators in judging signal strengths. Don't give a rip how many hours someone has in the left seat... And I will stand by that statement. It is quantitatively provable. LTM (whose hypersensitive ears can hear a gnat flatulate in Outer Mongolia) and 73 Mike E. **************************************************************************** From Ric We'll be happy to provide anyone with a printed copy of this posting, suitable for framing. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:26:01 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Norwich City Refresh my memory. Do we know what the cargo of the Norwich City was? ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric She was "in ballast only." No cargo. That's why she went so high up on the reef. Does anyone know what ships used for ballast at that time (1929)? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:29:00 EDT From: Denise Subject: Harry Maude Ric says: "Harry Maude does not have knighthood and he certainly does not run an archive. Some of his papers are at the University of Adelaide." Ric, I found all this stuff on the web and sent the details of it to Tom King. Since my giant computer wipe-out of August 2001, I have no record of any of this but I'm sure Tom does. Denise ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:41:55 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: LOP again >and (3) you didn't land at Howland or Baker, then (4) how could you >have ended up at Gardner and not been able to identify it by name in any >of the post loss transmissions'...? >--Chris Kennedy Chris makes some very interesting points... However, perhaps the more pertinent question that might be asked... assuming they _did_ have all these maps & charts & given FN's trans-Pacific experiences with PanAm (which was seeking to develop facilities in Samoa in the late 30s)... would they not have known that by flying far enough SE from Howland/Baker they had to encounter the Phoenix Group of islands, even if they might not have been able to identify any particular island from the depictions of such islands on any of the said maps & charts ?... & assuming (at least for this example) _any_ of the post-flight termination radio transmissions were legitimate... even if they might not have been able to determine exactly which island they landed on, they certainly might have been expected to mention the fact that they were located _somewhere_ in the Phoenix Group... at least providing any would-be rescuers with some idea as to which direction they should begin their search? Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe you have to have flown around out there to understand that you can't just go blundering off in the general direction of the "catcher's mitt" of islands in the Phoenix Group and have any reasonable hope of finding one. On any map of the Pacific, those islands are represented by dots that are far, far larger than the actual islands. To get an appreciation of the problem you'd have to get a map of small enough scale to show Howland, Baker and the Phoenix Group to scale and then draw a circle equivalent to how far a person could see an island from an airplane at 1,000 feet. An analogy might be to lay out eight quarters on the floor of a darkened gymnasium and then, starting at the far end, drag a broom across the floor hoping to hit one of the quarters. The appeal of the Gardner hypothesis is that AE and FN had a means of finding it available to them. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:46:03 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Amelia Earhart/Bobby Acosta Did you make up that "young talented writer?" If not, I think he needs to go back to class to learn basic grammar and spelling. David Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric Tempting though it often is, I never invent postings. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:53:44 EDT From: David Robinson Subject: Marker on the beach? It would seem to me at least that after a 20-24 hour flight and a landing on the reef, the two (assuming no serious injuries) would be exhausted, angry, and quite frightened. Having said that, after a bit of rest and trying to send out messages, why wouldn't they attempt to start a signal fire or arrange items on the beach to be seen by air? Although some have speculated that help would arrive by sea and not the air, I would surmise that they would have thought that planes would be be following along their last reported LOP and checking any "nearby" islands. Why didn't they do anything to draw attention to themselves? LTM, David Robinson #2333 **************************************************************************** From Ric And where, do you suppose, they thought these airplanes were going to come from? If, on the other hand, they were able to monitor the KGMB broadcasts (which Betty's notebook suggests they did) they may have known that the Colorado and its airplanes were headed their way. In a later interview with Fred Goerner, John Lambrecht described the "signs of recent habitation" he saw at Gardner as "markers of some kind." My point is, we don't know what they expected and we don't know that they didn't do all the things we think it would have been reasonable for them to do (transmit the name "Gardner", go aboard Norwich City, make some kind of signal onthe beach, etc.). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:16:34 EDT From: Janice Brown Subject: Re: Amelia Earhart/Bobby Acosta Bobby, I applaud you for wanting to write her story. However, I certainly would hope that her achievements -- notably her amazing history as an aviatrix, at a time when women were not typically setting air speed and distance records -- would be remembered rather than her disappearance. Her life story has been documented many times, I'll send you a book list if you'd like (simply ask). And I'm not a "fellow", per se :) Love to Mother, Janice Brown **************************************************************************** From Ric <> You're setting yourself for a visit from the ghosts of Jackie Cochrane, Ruth Nichols, Helen Richey, Laura Ingells, Beryl Markham, Jean Batten, and many, many more. Female record-setting pilots were a mini-industry in the 1930s. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:21:07 EDT From: Kurt Thompson Subject: Young Talented Writer This is for David Evans Katz. Thanks, David. I neglected to mention he should also study grammar. I wonder who his press agent is? Whoever he is, that fellow has his work cut out for him. I wouldn't suggest he quit his day job just yet. LTM (Who studied grammar, but never quite got it.) And also: If I were introducing myself as a "young, talented writer", I believe I would invest in some serious spelling lessons. Come to think of it, I suspect a course covering the proper use of punctuation wouldn't hurt either. LTM (Who had difficulty spelling and using proper punctuation as well.) Kurt Thompson #2441 *************************************************************************** From Bobby Acosta Well that's good cosidering I make more in one pay check than you do in a year, but if you wany to debate about that then maybe you should start another forum Mr Katz. After all how old are you? I am only 19. Bobby Acosta *************************************************************************** From Ric This is going to be more fun than we've had since they made cockfights illegal. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:24:26 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Signal strengths and distance BRAVO MIKE!!! LTM, MSTILL, TIGHAR #2332 **************************************************************************** From Jerry Hamilton- re Mike Everette's recent posting. Every once in a while there is a Forum posting which qualifies as an instant classic. Impassioned, humorous, enlightening, relevant, pithy, and just plain enjoyable reading. For the 2001 Earhart Provocative Posting of the Year award (that's an EPPY of course), I nominate Mike E's latest gem. I say send him a TIGHAR cap as prize. Heck, if he accepts, send me the bill for the cap. His posting had me smiling all day. blue skies, jerry **************************************************************************** From Ric Done. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:29:45 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Signal strength quantifiers Some more input on signal-strengths, and things to think about. Signal strength is a function of several variables. In order to measure it, and use it to derive anything like meaningful approximations of distance from the source, certain things must be known: The amount of radiated power. This is not the power output of the transmitter; it is the ACTUAL POWER RADIATED BY THE ANTENNA. See next. The characteristics of the antenna: its efficiency (i.e., gain or loss), and directional characteristics at the frequency being measured. The height of the antenna is also a very important factor. The path over which the signal is to be propagated, and whether this path introduces loss (attentuation). Signal strength is measured in terms of MICROVOLTS. One might logically assume that the more microvolts are presented to the receiver, the closer the transmitter is to it... well, yeah, BUT: Not always. Sometimes transmitted energy is concentrated in one direction more-so than another, due to antenna characteristics. More below... Now, in order to obtain an actual measurement of signal strength in microvolts at a receiving point, the following are required. A receiving antenna of known characteristics, which is in turn properly coupled to the receiver and "matched" to the receiver input circuit in terms of impedance. A CALIBRATED receiver, i.e., one which has a measuring device (meter) that is CALIBRATED IN TERMS OF HOW MANY MICROVOLTS WILL PRODUCE A GIVEN METER READING. As I said last night, "S-meters" on receivers of that day (and many in present time) were NOT so calibrated. The scales were totally arbitrary, despite any numbers which may appear thereupon. When I worked in an AM broadcasting station, we were required to make periodic checks of our antenna radiation pattern... it was directional, i.e, it concentrated most of the power in a particular direction, by means of multiple towers. We had to maintain the pattern within precise limits. The way the pattern was measured, was by means of a calibrated receiver, called a FIELD INTENSITY METER. This device uses a calibrated antenna as well. The field-intensity meter was transported to a number of points distributed around the "shape" of the directional pattern, each a number of miles from the station, and signal strength measured. If the measurements were not within a certain tolerance, precalculated by engineers at the time the station was constructed and part of the FCC filing data for the license, the pattern was "out" and we had to find out why... maybe due to mistuning of the coupling network at the transmitter or the antenna tower itself when the temperature or humidity changed, or broken parts of the "ground screen" under the towers, bad guy-wire insulators etc etc etc. The point is, for a given transmitting power and antenna, we knew to expect certain signal intensities at certain distances from the station. Now how does this relate to AE? NO quantitative measurements were ever made, or at least none survive if they were, of the radiation pattern of her aircraft's antenna. Whether the antenna exhibited a "lobe" or a "null" in the direction of a given receiver, will make a tremendous difference in the observed signal strength at the receiver. Most aircraft antennas will exhibit pronounced directional characteristics at the relatively low frequencies used by AE, because the meatl aircraft structure is so close to the actual antenna wire and because the aircraft itself is often of a size close to the wave length of the signal, or a fraction of the wave length. So, for instance, the wings or fuselage of an aircraft, if their length approaches 1/4 or 1/2 wave length, will often greatly influence the directivity of the antenna. NOTHING is absolutely known about the antenna's efficiency, or exactly how much power it radiated. From its physical characteristics we can (and HAVE, thanks to the great work of Bob Brandenburg and others) make a number of predictions about that. It is very likely that the efficiency was low; that it exhibited a loss and radiated somewhat less power than was actually generated by the transmitter. We know SOME things about the state of the signal path in July 1937 (again thanks to Bob Brandenburg) but we don't have ALL the answers. We also DON'T KNOW FOR ABSOLUTE CERTAIN what her antenna height was at any given time, i.e. what altitude she was flying. We are PRETTY SURE that some times she was at about 1000 feet. The reason the antenna height is important, is that it determines the line-of-sight radio horizon; but at these frequencies (3105/6210 KHz) the radio horizon is not that absolute a factor. "Ground wave" signals, or non-skip propagated signals, can travel well beyond the horizon with considerable strength. Modern aircraft VHF communications between 118-136 MHz have a much more definite horizon. The wave propagation mechanics are very different at low HF (AE's case) from those at VHF. THIS IS IMPORTANT to understanding how this all works. Many modern-era aviators don't realize the difference. Understand this too: The field strength of the signal decreases as distance from transmitting source to receiver increases, no matter what the frequency. And over a given path, the decrease, or attenuation, varies in accordance with a number of factors, some meteorological, some determined by the type of surface over which the path travels. (In AE's case it was sea surface; this won't change much.) As for the receiving antenna, it was a structure of convenient size and arrangement for the Itasca... a wire hanging in the breeze. The exact characteristics of this antenna, its efficiency, directionality, how much signal voltage it would deliver to the receiver at the frequency in question, are unknown. The Itasca's receivers themselves were standard type communications receivers, NOT calibrated field intensity meters. If they had an S-meter at all, that meter -- as I said last night -- tells one NOTHING about the absolute signal strength. All it says is, "the signal is weak" or "the signal's stronger." And, it's a tuning aid. As for reported signal strengths in terms like "S-5" this really does not have any relationship to the meter reading. In fact a signal reading high on the S-meter scale can still be covered up in strong noise. The operator in those days used a scale of 1 to 5. S-1 means "signal very weak, in the noise, barely intelligible if readable at all." S-2 means "weak signal, still in noise, but readable, maybe with difficulty." S-3 means "signal stronger, noise, but readable." S-4 means "fairly strong signal, some noise, very readable." S-5 means "very strong, clear signal." Like I said last night: This is SUBJECTIVE. There is a LOT of room for interpretation. An operator's ears might tell him/her that a signal is S-1 if any appreciable amount of noise is heard. Or, that a signal is NOT S-5 if there is ANY NOISE AT ALL heard. It's a judgement call. Different operators hearing the same signal may disagree. And, again like I said last night, the S-meter readings are NOT CALIBRATED NUMBERS. Even a modern receiver with an S-meter scaled from S-1 to S-9 and then in terms of "dB over S-9" is a totally arbitrary scale, unless the meter is calibrated to a known signal strength in terms of microvolts... only a handful of manufacturers ever actually established such references. So a higher S-meter reading just means "Louder," "REALLY loud," or "BODACIOUS" signal! It has NOTHING to do with the amount of microvolts. An important technical point: A receiver's S-meter operates only when the receiver is operated with the automatic gain control circuit (aka Automatic Volume Control, abbreviated AGC or AVC) is activated. Many operators of the mid-30s era preferred to operate with the AGC DISABLED until they actually acquired the signal. One reason for this was that noise bursts would cause the AGC to keep the receiver "blocked" for a period, maybe one or two seconds, which could cause the call to be missed. Even when operating with the AGC off, the operator would still report the strength as S-1 through S-5. So some of the Itasca operators' signal reports MAY NOT BE REFERENCED TO A METER after all! As for correlation of such reports with actual signal strength in microvolts, which result in pinpointing a distance? NO WAY. And anyone who thinks they can read this into it, is working with an uncalibrated brain. Yes, experience will tell you that under certain conditions, certain things MAY BE TRUE, but that does not mean they are true. NUMBERS, or QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS, are the determining factor. But you must be careful how those numbers are obtained, and to what standard they are referenced. In this case there aren't enough hard numbers. Elgen Long doesn't have any. I stand by my position that his, and other such inferences not derived from hard data, are totally bogus. TIGHAR has a lot more hard numbers than Elgen; but we don't have all the numbers. LTM (who passed Algebra II) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:31:00 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Signal strengths and distance Well, before we frame it, I seem to recall that I was told that just such a "signal strength vs. distance" analysis was done on the Earhart transmissions to Itasca, and that the results are available to initiates of the Eighth Edition. Also, if you cannot do "signal strength vs. distance" analyses, then how did we do the study that found that Betty could've heard Amelia in Florida? --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:36:07 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Norwich City ballast Ric wrote; > She was "in ballast only." No cargo. That's why she went so high up on the > reef. Does anyone know what ships used for ballast at that time (1929)? Since long before 1929, ships have used sea water for ballast. Dry cargo ships have built-in tanks that are flooded to ballast and trim the ship when in a partially loaded condition, and are pumped dry as cargo is taken on. Tankers use their cargo tanks as ballast tanks when not carrying full liquid cargo loads. Since a ship in ballast draws the same depth as when fully laden with cargo, my guess as to why the NC went well up onto the reef is that she was running down sea in a severe storm with high waves and arrived at the reef edge while surging up on a large wave. LTM, who says that running aground can ruin your entire day. Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ************************************************************************** From Andy Ships using oil for boiler fuel, traditionally will fill their tanks with sea water when they need to take on balast to keep the ship stable at sea. Since the oil floats on the sea water, it is easy to clean the oil prior to burning with an oil water seperator. Even today ships will use sea water for balast. The pipeline terminal in Valdez, Alaska has a special treatment plant for prossessing balast water prior to dischare back into the ocean. While we could go on and on RE: how much ballast water NC was carrying, determined by distance driven onto the reef/depth of water on reef in storm/depth of keel etc, these are thoroughly off topic threads. The likely scenario is... NC runs high aground, breaks its keel, fire breaks out as fuel tanks are ruptured. If NC had been using lead shot/weights for ballast (as many modern sailboats do) such ballast would certainly still be present on the reef flat. LTM, Andy *************************************************************************** From Ric The reason I asked about ballast is that we've found a couple examples of what might best be described as broken "cement bricks". One was in the lagoon shallows just inside Tatiman Passage and had the letters "BA..." molded into it. The other was down at the Seven Site. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:36:54 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Norwich City ballast Water was typically used for ballast. In the olden days of sailing ships, rocks were used for ballast. Pity the poor folks who had to load and unload those rocks in the very bottom of the ship. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:38:32 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Norwich City ballast Ric -- This post reminds me: do we have any idea what NC's cargo had been immediately BEFORE she headed out in ballast? TK *************************************************************************** From Ric I can think of any number of smartass answers but, no, we don't know. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:16:14 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! Several points from the amnesiac: 1. The picture you took was taken from a low angle and gives a deceptively smooth appearance to the landing strip---sort of like standing water on a pothole-filled street gives the same deceptive appearance that all is well below. I believe Skeet viewed it as a 50/50 proposition at best. 2. I think you are jumping the gun and have already concluded that the bones were, in fact, those of a "castaway", that the castaway was definately Earhart, and that the castaway/Earhart was definately at the Seven Site. Putting aside the issues with the forensics analysis, it seems that the features you mention at the Site as indicating the castaway's presence (campfires, bits of bird and fish bone etc.) could, and have been found at many places around the island. Also, none of the "primitive tools" you mention has actually been shown yet to have been a primitive tool, as opposed to a piece of junk (there's lots of such junk on the island). The smashed clams may, I suspect, have accidentally been smashed by us since they were underfoot during clearing operations and weren't discovered until the operation was well advanced---we need to consider this possibility. Finally, given the extent of TIGHAR's excavations (as opposed to visual searches) around the island thus far, I think that it's not wise to say that the Seven Site is the only place where one sees, or would see, any of this---even in concentration. 3. We wandered around in the Buka forest and often could not see each other at ground level, not because of scaevola or "undergrowth" but because of the density of trees, branches etc. Sort of like any other forest, it's not the best place to be seen regardless of whether people are looking from above or from the side (offshore), and definately is not a public "park". To use your cathedral analogy, consider it a Romanesque Cathedral (long, low with massive pillars and walls obscuring visibility), rather than a Gothic cathedral (high, airier with open spaces). 4. For some reason you seem to regard as a threat even the possibility that Earhart/Noonan may not have survived the landing, and are deliberately misrepresenting my observations as saying that they definately were killed. I think it is TIGHAR, not me, who needs to be given a lecture on the proper way "we draw conclusions" ---Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric 1. How do we quantify the smoothness or roughness of the reef flat? We didn't map the location and depth of every variation in the reef surface - maybe we should have. The one-meter resolution satellite photo should enable us to map holes bigger than a meter across. I'll take a look. I do know that we walked along the reef flat, not having to pay any particular attention to where we stepped. We didn't have a bicycle with us and even if we did you could say that we were carefully avoiding the potholes. The three of us who did the survey (Skeet Gifford, Gary Quigg, and me) are all pilots and each of us formed his own opinion about the feasibility of landing a Lockheed 10 on that surface without wrecking the airplane. I've expressed my opinion. I invite the others to do the same. <<2. I think you are jumping the gun and have already concluded that the bones were, in fact, those of a "castaway", that the castaway was definately Earhart, and that the castaway/Earhart was definately at the Seven Site.>> To clarify what I think: I think that it's pretty safe to conclude that the bones Gallagher found were those of a castaway. I think - based upon Gallagher's identification of part of a woman's shoe, Steenson's identification of parts of a woman's shoe and a man's shoe, and Drs. Burns and Jantz analysis of the bone measurements taken by Hoodless; and the absence of any other known source of a male and female on the island who wore shoes - that the bones found by Gallagher were probably Earhart's. Based upon everything we have learned about the Seven Site so far, I think it is probably where the bones were found. 3. <> I don't recall suggesting that anyone would go into the buka forest to be seen from the air or offshore. If you want to be seen you have to be out in the open (duh), but, as you know, spending much time out in the open on Niku is not something you do if you want to live very long. The only places on the island that are shady and free of undergrowth are the forests. <<4. For some reason you seem to regard as a threat even the possibility that Earhart/Noonan may not have survived the landing,...> I don't feel threatened by any possibility. I only ask that a stated possibility be supported by evidence and that any apparently contradictory evidence be credibly accounted for. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:18:29 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: AE & FN Is there any credible evidence that there was anything more than a professional relationship between AE & FN? Just curious. Mike Haddock #2438 **************************************************************************** From Ric None that I am aware of, and there is abundant evidence that each was committed to the relationship with their own spouse. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:46:26 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! Chris -- Where in the world are you trying to go with this discussion? To suggest that we flick in the Seven Site and go -- uh -- what? Look around the remains of the Norwich City? Search futily through the scaevola along the Nutran shore? Sure, AE and FN may have stuck around the wreck, and been so incurious that they never looked around the rest of the island for stuff to eat or drink. Sure, the castaway at the other end of the island may have been a Norwich City victim, or some passing (as it were) undocumented yachtie. Coulda been, but on the other hand, it's just possible that AE and FN got up on their legs and tried to live off the island, a rather obvious first step in which would be to find out what's there, which would require some looking around. Which in turn just might conceivably have led to one of them expiring at the Seven Site, where we have a whole lot of good evidence that somebody camped. Seems to me to be unfruitful to argue about alternative, untestable, hypotheses when we have a perfectly good one on which analysis may well shed light. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:48:09 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: The LOP Cycles For reference, Ric says: >An analogy might be to lay out eight quarters on the floor of a darkened >gymnasium and then, starting at the far end, drag a broom across the floor >hoping to hit one of the quarters. The appeal of the Gardner hypothesis is >that AE and FN had a means of finding it available to them. Ok, as someone with celestial experience and an LOP detractor, let me suggest a variation which might go down better with those of us who may not buy the "LOP to Niku" idea. With something like this, I recognize your position without feeling compelled to jump in. Might save a lot of forum time over the years on this and other subjects, and leave more time for discussion on things that TIGHAR is still looking for input on. "There are several alternatives which cannot be dismissed from a technical navigational standpoint, and until the remains of the aircraft are found this will remain a matter of speculation. Nevertheless, for many years it has been TIGHAR's firm conviction that failing to find Howland in the initial search, they remained on what they believed to be the 157 line and flew southward since this would give them a chance both of finding land and keeping open the possibility of eventually finding Howland. TIGHAR will continue to hold this position until new highly credible evidence or finding of the aircraft resolves the issue." TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric I can live with that. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:51:01 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: SE on the LOP? >The appeal of the Gardner hypothesis is that AE and FN had a means >of finding it available to them'... >Ric So they did, which also means that they _had_ the means to know that Gardner Island was a part of the Phoenix Group & even if... upon arrival at Gardner... they couldn't accurately identify the island by reference to it's appearance on any maps or charts they had available (thus unable to confirm in any of the alleged post-flight termination transmissions that they had in fact landed at Gardner Island) they certainly were able to inform their possible listeners (& any potential rescuers) that they were down _somewhere (on an island) in the Phoenix Island chain... rather than adding to the mystery of their location by presuming that Itasca, or any other radio receiver, would be able to get a bearing on their radio signal location, or failing that possibility... by simple logic or deduction that the Phoenix Island Group was the _only_ possible landfall within range of the useable fuel remaining. The inescapeable fact remains that _none_ of the pre or post-flight termination transmissions received even mentioned the fact that they had &/or were intending to fly to the SE from Howland/Baker, thus leading to Itasca's taking off in an entirely different direction from the direction which TIGHAR insists was the _only_ reasonable, logical direction for AE/FN to seek an alternate landfall. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric The U.S. Navy reached that conclusion long before TIGHAR did. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:52:21 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Hawaii flight For Randy Jacobson: Quite a while back there was considerable discussion of the March flight to Hawaii. I cannot remember now whether there was any indication of a either a planned rhumb line course or a segmented approx. of a great circle route on the charts or logs that you used to develop the CD data. Can you shed any light? Thanks, TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:07:12 EDT From: Herman Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! Well, I can think of scores of places where I went and left nothing behind and that includes ships. That does not mean I've never been there. Why should they have left anything in the Norwich City ? Does anyone expect they wrote "Amelia and Fred were here, 7/2/37" ? Not very likely. I'm sure they had other things on their minds. That does not exclude the possibility they visited the wreck, which to me seems likely. The fact that one of the post loss radio messages mentions "New York City " to me seems to indicate that she could thought she could make out the ship's name from a distance. This would explain why this name was mentioned. AE probably hoped it would make sense to anyone familiar with wrecked ships on deserted islands. They apparently did not know the name of the island, otherwise they would have said so in one of the messages instead of mentioning "New York City". Anyway, when their radio went dead they would have plenty of time to discover the island and the ship looking for food. Not necessarily to leave messages behind. LTM **************************************************************************** From Woody Ric, I cant imagine anyone going to the NC for shelter. A wet swim out, a cold steel deck and constant wave action. How easy was it to climb aboard in 1937? More likely it would have been a source of artifacts to use as rudimentery tools on shore. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric If you had to swim (at high tide) you just wouldn't do it. Make that a hot steel deck, so hot that you coudn't walk on it barefoot. It would not move with the waves though. She's there really solid. Access via ladders from the ruptured hold was reportedly good as late as 1944 so they should have been able to get aboard in 1937. *************************************************************************** From Woody >From Gary F. > > These discussions of rats and crabs sure takes the dream element out of > living on a tropic island and turn it into a nightmare! For Gary, You got that right! Try any of the atolls in the Marshall Islands. On Taroa, where I've spent a month of my life now, there's no running water, electricity or cars. I did have about 150 natives to keep me company. Extremely nice, friendly people that were very interested in what I was doing. They had never seen WW2 photos of the island and were shocked at the devastation. No shortage of brush cutters at 10 bucks a day per man, either. I even got a couple of marrige proposals! I am interested in one aspect of Niku, though. Are there any spiders on the island? You should see them on Taroa.I woke up one morning and thought I had gone blind in my left eye. Turned out to be a spider from hell about 4" in diameter. Found them making house in my luggage and clothes. When you walk through the brush you are constantly doing the "I really dont like spiders on me jig " to remove them from your body. They are totally gross and come in an assortment of designer colors. As you can guess, they aint my buddies! Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric Spiders? You want spiders? Spiders we got. Lots of little ones that build webs across everywhere you try to go and some big fellas you've only seen before in childhood nightmares. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:11:09 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Signal strengths and distance A suggestion for you & Pat (MORE WORK). :-O When you find a "dead horse" in the Forum, why not add the issue to the FAQ. For newbies (may there be many) who wish to re-consider a closed question, you can answer them--and help other newbies--by giving the URL for the Dead Horse Stable. I'm very grateful for the work you're doing. TIGHAR is my favorite mailing list. All the best. Marty **************************************************************************** From Ric The Stable of Dead Horses. Macabre (especially for us horsemen) but useful. Good idea. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:13:55 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Pool of water Tom King said: > Another good reason for going south, I think, is the pool of water at the SE > end, which, if seen during a pre-landing aerial circumnavigation, might have > been taken to be a possible fresh water source. That reminds me of what I saw inland of Pyramid Point, on Kanton: many acres of ponds on hard coral rock. These were NOT the muddy flats; they were inland, with extremely flat bottoms, and with ledges around them on the sides. Even though they were very flat smooth rock, I'm sure they had fissures and were somewhat porous, as most had a bit of salt water in them. But, after some rains, I found a few with a few inches of fresh water in them. They were probably just above sea level and never contained sea water. At any rate there was no veggies of any kind in them -just clear fresh water over the greyish rock bottom. I'm sure they don't last long after the rains are gone. I suppose if there was aything like it on Niku, it would have been mentioned already? Cheers. Christian D. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:18:39 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Distance from Howland > From Alan Caldwell > AT 1,000 feet they could have been just out of hearing range of Howland and > still not seen it. I don't know how far away that would be. The noises of > the ship would have made it hard er to hear I suppose. At sea level I think > the horizon is about three miles away. A little further at 1,000' so I > think they could have been pretty close and not seen Howland nor heard by > Howland. Actually for a person about 6 feet tall the horizon will appear to be about 2.8 miles away. At about 1000ft you should be able to see the horizon at about 37 miles, so if Amelia and Fred were flying at 1000ft they could easily have passed as close as 40 miles and not seen Howland. Bear in mind that this in on a clear day, no haze, no waves and no clouds. If there was any sort of haze or mist or rough water or there were low clouds within the 40 miles around them they could have been a lot closer and still not seen the island. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric Pellegrino's four-person crew did not see Howland until they were within about 12 miles. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:19:45 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Distance from Howland > From Dean A. > > > as an indicator of transmitter distance when ionospheric propagation is > > involved, > > If AE were at 10,000 ' how far would her transmitted signal be able to go > in a straight line. By this I mean where no ionospheric propagation would > be involved. If the Electra was flying at 10,000 feet and "IF" radio waves travelled in straight lines and could not go past the horizon they would travel about 115 miles in a straight line from the Electra to the point where they touched the horizon. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:25:26 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Rain > From Ric >a person who is not skilled or acclimated; > a) will have a hard time getting down green nuts that contain milk. > b) will have a hard time getting into the nut without losing the milk. > c) will lose more water from diarrhea than they gain from drinking the > milk. On a) - Green nuts and the older nuts that fall from the tree and lie along the shore all have milk. The milk in the green nuts however is lighter and sort of effervescent and makes a more pleasant drink. On b) - Hacking your way into a green coconut is difficult without a machete or other tools unless you know what you are doing. The average european would be hard put to open one. Hacking into a brown coconut is difficult even when you do have a machete because the shiny outside surface of the nut makes it very easy for the blade to slip off. I use a pointed stump to dehusk green nuts if I don't have a big enough knife to lop off the end, but I've had years of experience with the things. As this has been discussed before I'd be interested to know if any of the Tighars on the island have tried different methods of getting into nuts found on the ground on Niku to get the milk without using modern tools. (other than to sharpen a stake) Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Most of us have learned not to drink the stuff. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:30:52 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna And another thought. Noonan would have almost certainly carried a chart detailed enough to show the "shape" and relative positions of Howland and Baker islands, however it is common practive to use a more general chart for surrounding areas where you don't actually intend flying. Because they were well off course it is quite possible that assuming he had a chart that showed the Phoenix islands it may not have showed the actual shapes of the islands in much detail and picking out which island they were on may have relied on their relative positions. At 1000ft they would have been able to see 37 miles. IF the islands were big enough to see from that distance and IF the weather was clear and only IF there was another island or two within 37 miles would they be able to tell they were on Gardner. As a matter of interest if they flew at 10,000ft they could theoretically see an island 115 miles away. At 5000ft they could see about 81 miles. At 2500ft they could see about 57 miles. The reason I say theoretically is becasue many people can't see detail for more than 10 miles or so. I have excellent eyesight and still sometimes have problems distinguishing one coal mine from another from the air ten miles away. BTW the distances to horizon for heights are not guesses. They are determined using the coastal navigation formula: distance in miles = 2.083 x sqare root of the height of eye in METRES. (People in uncivilized countries may have to convert feet to metres). Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric We know from observations taken on Howland that there was a deck of scattered clouds with bases at about 2,000 feet that day (as there is most days out there). From "on top" a scattered deck hides everything except what is directly below you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:32:12 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Ringing a Bell From Denise > Wombat, are you aware that Sir Harry Maud and Lady (Honour) Maud run an > entire archive of primary source material on the Pacific that's connected > somehow with ANU (the Australian National University) in Canberra? They can > be accessed on-line, although I've lost the URL for them. Thanks Denise. Yes I am aware of the ANU source and its cross reference to some of the associated Universities and I checked with Ric a year or more ago to make sure he had the main URL. I also put Ric in touch with a branch of the ANU that is involved in microfilming as many original documents relating to the Pacific Islands as they can get their hands on and some other stuff Ric is aware of. They published a short (much abbreviated) article called "The Bones Of Nikumororo" in May this year which was intended to encourage the academics doing this work to keep their eyes open for anything they may come across during the microfilming. One recent project they completed was microfilming the complete journals and records of J.T. Arundel who planted coconuts on Gardner in about 1890. Unfortunately I don't think any records of the Norwich City survivors appear in the ANU records or the University of South Australia. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:44:26 EDT From: Bob Krebs Subject: Re: Young Talented Writer You gotta be kidding me.... Or, is someone out there pulling our lurking legs with this grammatically incorrect train wreck? If not...I guess I'll never get past being surprised by the arrogance of youth. Remember, there's a brick wall waiting out there somewhere "Mr." Acosta. Or should we just call you "Junior"??? Bob Krebs ************************************************************************** From Ric Were we ever that young? ************************************************************************** From David Evans Katz This is a bit nonsensical. Mr. Acosta knows nothing about me, yet he is comfortable asserting that he makes more in one paycheck than I do in a year. He is 19 years old, and already he professes to be wise beyond his years in the ways of the world. I responded to Mr. Acosta's original forum posting because it reminded me of a letter and resume I once received from a young man who was applying to me for a job, one of the requirements of which was "outstanding written and oral communications skills." The young man, fresh out of college, wrote in his cover letter to me that he possessed "exellent writting skills," and that one of his strengths was "attencion to detail." My partners and I got a good chuckle out of that one, and we saved it in our "classics" file. My advice to Mr. Acosta goes beyond seeking out a course in grammar; I suggest that he experience life a little more. "Knowledge is of two kinds," Dr. Samuel Johnson said. "We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it." Seek out the places where you can find information, Mr. Acosta, and never profess to know something that you could not possibly know. David Evans Katz **************************************************************************** From Don Jordan, You had better stop this thread now Ric, before it gets out of hand. We went through this once before with a young Spanish boy. Remember? Personal attacks, for any reason, are not necessary! Don J. *************************************************************************** From Ric I won't permit any personal attacks and I try to avoid getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, but this kid is just so determined to make a fool of himself that I didn't feel we should deny him the opportunity. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:48:41 EDT From: Janice Brown Subject: Re: Amelia Earhart/Bobby Acosta The key word there was "typically." There were, of course, women (other than Amelia) who DID set air records. However, compared with the general population of women at the time -- none of those early flight pioneers were typical. Janice Brown *************************************************************************** From Ric No argument there. They were all remarkable. We tend to remember AE because she got the best press. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:52:33 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Norwich City ballast > From Ric > > The reason I asked about ballast is that we've found a couple examples of > what might best be described as broken "cement bricks". One was in the > lagoon shallows just inside Tatiman Passage and had the letters "BA..." > molded into it. The other was down at the Seven Site. Very interesting. Could be fire brick from the NC. Fire brick is the stuff used to insulate the inside walls of a ship's boiler fire box. The same kind of material is used in the bricks that line the interior of a typical house fireplace today. Were the brick pieces you found yellowish in color? The "BA..." likely is part of the name of the company that made the bricks and perhaps the boiler(s) in the NC. Bob #2286 ************************************************************************** From Ric They're gray, like cement. We did see some surviving firebrick around the door of the ship's boiler out on the reef. My recollection is that it was, as you say, yellowish in color. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:05:14 EDT From: G. Payne Subject: Re: Young Talented Writer Man! Normally, I keep my mouth shut and behave as a lowly lurker on this forum and it never crossed my mind to consider that I might one day find myself responding to an OFF-TOPIC thread. But regarding Bobby Acosta, I've just got to throw in my two cents. Why is it, I wonder, that when someone expresses enthusiasm for undertaking a creative endeavor that is maybe even slightly "outside the box" (as though writing is a fantastically risky creative undertaking) it brings the shrill, carping negative vibe merchants oozing from the woodwork? How about a little encouragement for young Mr. Acosta rather than sarcasm? Doesn't everyone read books--watch movies--listen to music--look at paintings or otherwise enjoy the fruits of someone else's artistic efforts? For cryin' out loud, how about cutting a little slack for someone who is accepting the challenge of an undertaking an effort most people only "dream about". I'm a writer also, among a number of artistic and creative efforts I enjoy. And, no, I don't make a lot of money at it and I certainly don't do it for applause. I do it because, as a creative person, that's what I do. I don't always get it right, especially the first time and, yeah, when I was younger, I DID allow sarcastic comments and hollow, yowling naysayers to discourage me. But I will also add that if I had a dollar for everytime someone said to me, "I'd like to write too--if only I could think of a story", well, let's just say I'd have retired a LONG time ago. Don't dream it! DO IT! And don't worry if it's good or bad. And, Mr. Acosta, certainly don't allow unpleasantly smirking faces with their "knowing you've already failed" attitudes discourage you. Folks, Mr. Acosta may well INDEED be a very talented writer. Talent does NOT come from grammar lessons or school books. It comes from the heart and soul. Certainly the better you can communicate in common terms, the more likely your audience is to hear your undiluted message. But the fact is that grammar and spelling, syntax and vocabulary can all be learned. Conversely, you can have every tool in the world that can be taught to communicate and yet STILL have nothing to say. **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think anyone is trying to discourage Mr. Acosta from writing. It's his boastful manner that got him in trouble. If he's looking for someone to protect his self-esteem these are not the dogs he wants to run with. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:07:01 EDT From: Ted Werre Subject: Re: Norwich City ballast I've never posted anything to this forum but I read it everyday. I'm only speculating but I saw a nice old brick at a garage sale once that had letters stamped in it and I was told it was firebrick. Possibly the brick you saw was from the ships furnace or boiler or something. Ted Werre PS I've been fascinated by this mystery since I was a kid but I always accepted the common wisdom that she just fell into the sea. Keep up the good work I think you are on the right track, it just makes sense. **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for posting Ted. We're going to look into the firebrick possibility. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:09:59 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! Chris -- Let me just add to Ric's response as follows: You say: Putting aside the issues with the forensics analysis, it seems that the features you mention at the Site as indicating the castaway's presence (campfires, bits of bird and fish bone etc.) could, and have been found at many places around the island. I say: I don't know what island you've been on, but I've never seen a group of features like those at the Seven Site anywhere else on Nikumaroro. We've got some clams near Kanawa Point and of course we have organized firepits with bones in the village, but nowhere else to my knowledge do we have organized fire features with bones out in the bush. If you know of other such places, I'd appreciate being enlightened about them. You say: Also, none of the "primitive tools" you mention has actually been shown yet to have been a primitive tool, as opposed to a piece of junk (there's lots of such junk on the island). I say: It may indeed be jumping the gun a bit to refer to things like the flaked glass as "primitive tools," but the chances are pretty good that some of them can be safely described as such. Analysis will soon be underway to tell us. And having looked at quite a lot of "junk" on the island, I can't say I've ever seen anything like a couple of the chunks of flaked glass at the Seven Site. You say: The smashed clams may, I suspect, have accidentally been smashed by us since they were underfoot during clearing operations and weren't discovered until the operation was well advanced---we need to consider this possibility. I say: I hate to be so bold as to put my 35+ years of archeological field experience up against your expertise, Counsellor, but I do presumptiously think I can tell the difference between a clam broken within the last few days and a clam broken a long time ago. We broke a couple of clams clearing the site, before we noticed the first of the clam features; others, I'll be so bold as to say, were broken when we got there. You say: Finally, given the extent of TIGHAR's excavations (as opposed to visual searches) around the island thus far, I think that it's not wise to say that the Seven Site is the only place where one sees, or would see, any of this---even in concentration. I say: We didn't find the concentrations of features at the Seven Site by excavating; we found them through visual search, just as most archeological sites are found in most parts of the world. Having found them, we excavated some of them. There may be other places like the Seven Site, but if there are we haven't found them, and we've really looked pretty hard. Honest. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:13:01 EDT From: Dean A Subject: Re: Signal strength quantifiers > The reason the antenna height is important, is that it determines the > line-of-sight radio horizon; but at these frequencies (3105/6210 KHz) the > radio horizon is not that absolute a factor. "Ground wave" signals, or > non-skip propagated signals, can travel well beyond the horizon with > considerable strength. This point that Mike makes is what I referred to in my post of last week. I received no response because people either didn't see the relevance of my question or they didn't understand it( which is no big deal to me). I claim to be no expert in the field of radio but I do know that radio waves travel as ground waves and/or via a "bounce" off the ionosphere. Stated in other words, my original point was "can it be estimated that when AE switched frequencies and Itasca stopped hearing her--her signal went from very strong to nothing.Can one then assume that Itaska definately wasn't hearing her on a "ground wave" so wouldn't that give one a minimum distance that she would have had to have been from Itasca/Howland? With her setup and if she was at 1000' again-- how far would she have been(minimum distance) for Itaska to have heard her on a ground wave? Maybe there's no way to determine this , then my question is moot.Obviously they didn't hear her on either ground or skip. Again, maybe this can't be determined or estimated but I would be curious if this could help pin down how close she was to Howland. Dean A. 2056 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:20:41 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: New Web FAQ Mike wrote: >We have been over and over and OVER this business of signal strength vs. >distance. Now, before we beat this long-dead horse to death -- one more >time, PLEASE >read and understand this: There is NO WAY one can read an S-meter on a >receiver and come >up with any data to indicate distance. Ric replied: >We'll be happy to provide anyone with a printed copy of this >posting, suitable for framing. God have mercy on us. Mike's post should quickly appear as a FAQ on the web site. Please notify the webmaster. LTM Kenton Spading, 1382CE ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:33:01 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Firebrick? Since I'm already writing, and while I don't condone cockfighting, I do think a good scrap can sometimes be beneficial to the blood pressure. Who is this junior gazzilionaire that nobody ever heard of before? I don't remember being that egotistical when I was 19 - but then at that age I was in greens, and certainly not making anything like serious money. Oh well..... ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:35:31 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Post-loss messages never said anything about ...? Maybe they did. We decided, when Betty's journal first appeared, that "New York City" sounds a lot like "Norwich City" to those who have never heard of the latter. Is there some odd phrase that might be interpreted as "Gardner" or "Phoenix"? Or as any name of any island in the Phoenix chain? LTM (who is careful about pronunciation) Mike Holt *********************************************************************** From Ric Nothing that jumps out at me. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:36:11 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Pool of water Interesting, Christian. I've never seen anything like you describe, on Niku. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:39:33 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ringing a Bell Th' Wombat says: They published a short (much abbreviated) article called "The Bones Of Nikumororo" in May this year which was intended to encourage the academics doing this work to keep their eyes open for anything they may come across during the microfilming. They did? That's interesting. We should get a copy. TKing *************************************************************************** From Ric That's the one you wrote isn't it Wombat? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:42:25 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Firebrick > My recollection is that it was, > as you say, yellowish in color. Mine, too, and I'm still kicking myself for not collecting a sample. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:54:18 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! Actually, Tom, all I was trying to do was get an answer to my question on "strength vs. distance" radio transmissions as Earhart approached Howland. Apparently, some work and conclusions to this effect was done both in connection with Earhart's approach to Howland (confirmed by Brandenburg as appearing in the Eighth Edition), and with respect to TIGHAR's conclusion that Betty could've "heard" Earhart in Florida (I asked whether "heard" meant by voice or carrier wave, it obviously makes a BIG difference as to the validity of the notebook---Ric confirmed that this work was done and also appears in the Eighth Edition). So far a request for an explanantion as to what the conclusions were has been ignored, yet I have seen a flurry of e-mails from the radio historian apparently claiming that this sort of work cannot be done to begin with (recall his "NOOOOOOO.....," which drew such approval). It's obvious that there is an inconsistency and split of opinion among the various experts, and I question whether TIGHAR should put such reliance on member experts, or at least obtain supporting opinions from unaffiliated experts. It was in connection with getting answers on these questions that Ric asked me to explain why I was asking them to begin with. You know the story from there, although I have to say that, while I am not yet with Elgen Long, it is becomming increasingly clear that TIGHAR's entire LOP theory is a whole lot more problematic than TIGHAR would have you believe. Anyway, I hope that when the artifacts are put on the website that something Earhart-related turns up. I'll send you several research alternatives to the Seven Site separately, if you're interested. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Chris, your failure to understand the issues does not invalidate the hypothesis. Tell you what. In recognition and appreciation of your past support and the hard work you put in during Niku IIIIP and Niku IIII, I'll send you an Eighth Edition absolutely free of charge. Read Mike's and Bob's work and then, if you disagree with or don't understand something, we can discuss it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:55:23 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Norwich City ballast > From Ric > > They're gray, like cement. We did see some surviving firebrick around the > door of the ship's boiler out on the reef. My recollection is that it was, > as you say, yellowish in color. So much for the fire brick theory. Gray brick fragments could be residue from breakage in a previous cargo of bricks, or something left over from the Kiwi expedition, or . . . .? Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:15:18 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! O.K. Generally, what kind of features would you look for to differentiate the castaway as the source of the organized fire pits we found at the Seven Site from the organized fire pits found in the village (presumably villagers were the source of these)? Were the pits in the village marked or ringed with stone? That's one thing that comes to my mind. Since the castaway is not the source of the steel tank marked "Tarawa Police" at the Seven Site, we know villagers were there, so how can we tell a castaway pit from a villager pit? Also, what was it about the glass that stood out? I remember that Ric surmised that some of the plate shards could have been used as cutting tools by the castaway (other than the ones marked "United States Coast Guard"), and that the plates could have been retrieved by the castaway from the Norwich City. Same for the glass? --Chris *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure Tom will be pleased to adress your question about the pits. I'll bring you up to date on my opinions about the various plate and glass shards. The fact that one of the plate shards is known to have been from the Coast Guard leads me to suspect that all of the plate shards are probably from that source. The presence of .30 caliber shell casings of known U.S. wartime vintage and broken plates paints a pretty clear picture of some casual target practice . The four glass artifacts found at the site tell a different story. Each is clearly a small fragment from a much larger glass object, and yet none of the other pieces of the larger objects were found at the site. Had a bottle, for example, been used for target practice I would not necessarily expect to find all the pieces and be able to reassemble the entire bottle, but I'd expect to find more than one piece. Instead, we found four pieces from at least three, and possibly four, separate objects in close proximity to each other. Each piece is of a size and shape that can be conveniently and safely held in a human hand while a sharp edge was used for cutting. Whether the sharp edges were, in fact, used this way should be discernible by experts who regularly examine and evaluate prehistoric tools. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:17:03 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Distance from Howland > >From Ross Devitt > > > From Dean A. 2056 > > > > > as an indicator of transmitter distance when ionospheric propagation is > > > involved, > > > > If AE were at 10,000 ' how far would her transmitted signal be able to go > > in a straight line. By this I mean where no ionospheric propagation would > > be involved. > > If the Electra was flying at 10,000 feet and "IF" radio waves travelled in > straight lines and could not go past the horizon they would travel about 115 > miles in a straight line from the Electra to the point where they touched the > horizon. > > Th' WOMBAT I agree with Th' Wombat's geometric analysis, but it's worth noting that the strength of the signal radiated from the Electra's dorsal antenna in the horizontal plane was about one ten-thousandth of the total power delivered to the antenna by the transmitter. This goes to the heart of Dean A.'s question about ground waves. A radio signal wave front consists of an electrostatic field and an electromagnetic field, oriented at right angles to each other, and travels in a direction orthogonal to both of the constituent fields. If the electrostatic field component is vertical, a ground wave exists and propagates with its lower end in contact with the earth, losing energy into the earth as it goes. The portion of the wave front in contact with the earth is continuously being wiped out, but is replenished by energy from higher up in the vertical electrostatic field. This process continues until the electrostatic field is depleted, at which point the wave front collapses and the signal no longer propagates. In order for there to be a vertical electrostatic field component, and hence a ground wave, it is necessary that the radiating antenna be vertical. If the antenna is horizontal, the electrostatic field is parallel to the earth's surface, and is immediately shorted out, causing the entire wave front to collapse, thus preventing ground wave propagation. And there's the rub. The Electra's antenna was horizontal, hence there was no groundwave. Hope this helps to clarify things. LTM, Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:18:11 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Hawaii flight Whether rhumb line or great circle was immaterial. The plane could not fly either except with the absence of winds aloft. It flew where it flew, and the pilot and navigator adjusted accordingly. I guess your question is to what did they adjust it to? IIRC, the chart had the great circle route pre-plotted from PanAm. I'd speculate I'm about 90% accurate without having to pull the charts out of my unpacked boxes after the move. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:19:40 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Distance and signals, again For Chris Kennedy, I hope you aren't upset by all this stuff. If so that was not my intention. My remarks were not directed at you or anyone else. My hope was to keep the poor expired equine from being further tormented. Please take a close look at two things: Bob Brandenburg's analyses of signal propagation, especially regarding Betty's possible reception; and, my previous posting in which I tried to quantify this matter of pinpointing distance via signal strength. Take a close look at what Bob establishes in the Betty Analysis charts. I believe you'll discover that Bob's work is of a very different focus, than establishing an exact distance, as Elgen Long et al. would claim to be able to do. I consider Elgen's statements that he has the "distance" nailed, to be in harmony with the sort of articles in pseudoscience journals and pop-psychology magazines that begin with "Studies show that...." WHAT studies? Under what conditions? Did the person go to the mall and ask 10 people a question? Did all get asked the same question, etc? But because "Studies show that..." we are asked to buy into the scientific merit etc. As Uncle Dub says in the comic strip "Kudzu," "BULL HOCKEY!" LTM (whose favorite character in "Kudzu" is The Right Reverend Dr. Will B. Dunn) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:21:36 EDT From: J-dubb Subject: Coconuts This is my first post to the forum, so here goes with my two cents on coconuts. When I was 20 years old I was sailing on a square rig ship in the south pacific. We stopped in at one of the small low atolls in the Marquesas. My buddy and I decided to walk about 1.5 miles along the beach to an iron ship that went aground near the turn of the century. After we got there we tried to find a coconut for a nice cool drink (ha-ha). There were lots of coconuts on the ground. All eaten into by some creature and no good. There were lots green coconuts in the trees, all inaccessible to us. Finally after much tramping through the heavy brush we found a tree bent over enough to climb and got some down. We each had our sailors knives, 5" blade, sharp, strong. We worked those things open bored through the little "eyes" and each got about a cup and a half of the coconut water. (You are right , it is a little fizzy) After all the work we agreed that we lost more water through perspiration finding and opening those things than they had in 'em. Keep in mind these points: We were young, we were in shape, we were used to the tropics. We had been climbing around the rigging on a tall ship for months. We had had a good nights sleep the night before, we started off well hydrated We had hats, we had shoes, we had knives. We were not injured. We still had a hard time with those coconuts. Natives open a coconut with a machete, or use the pointed stick in the ground method, but most importantly, they have had practice. I feel that a castaway could easily be found dead in the MIDDLE of a coconut grove. AE and FN might not have had all it takes to get a coconut open. In short, (after a long post) opening a coconut is a non-trivial matter. J-dubb ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:25:24 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Ringing a Bell > From Ric > > That's the one you wrote isn't it Wombat? Yep, and it wasn't a bad read until we started chopping bits out of it to get it down to 500 words or less. I expected them to tidy it up a bit but they liked it and published it as it was, but it came out so choppy and stilted that I didn't like it at all in the end. As it turned out, had I sent the longer version they would have published that, so it was a disappointing exercise all around. It is online at: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/PambuMay2001.htm Simply put it is a precis of the Kilts story with a few odd Tighar bits mixed in. There is one glaring typo error that got through. "Modern assessment of the measurements taken by the doctor indicates that the person was female." should have read "person may have been female". My fault for chopping and changing stuff. I first came across PAMBU when I was researching stuff on J.T. Arundel and Burns Philp. Some interesting info turned up on Koata which I passed on to Ric. The ANU asked me to write the article and I really didi try to fob it off to someone better qualified Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:26:39 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Distance from Howland > From Ric > > Pellegrino's four-person crew did not see Howland until they were within > about 12 miles. Now That little gem needs to be posted somewhere on the TIGHAR web site where it can be easily found. Did TIGHAR ever manage to get permission to use a copy of the "Finch Electra/Howland Island" photo? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric No. We have no need of it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:37:23 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! > From Chris Kennedy > > Several points from the amnesiac: > > 1. The picture you took was taken from a low angle and gives a deceptively smooth > appearance to the landing strip---sort of like standing water on a pothole-filled > street gives the same deceptive appearance that all is well below. I > believe Skeet viewed it as a 50/50 proposition at best. Something for Chris to consider is that for its size, the Electra had very large fat tyres which would roll across a lot of fairly substantial surface imperfections. Also aircraft tyres usually run at considerably lower pressures than road vehicles of similar weights so the tyres could roll over rougher surfaces without shaking the airplane to pieces. The oleo struts look pretty massive also, but I guess the crash in Hawaii could cast a few doubts... Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric The gear collapse in Hawaii was caused by side-load due to the groundloop. The gear legs and oleo struts were massive forgings of SAE 4130 chrome molybednum steel. The tires were 35 inches tall by 15 inches wide and relatively low-pressure. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:47:00 EDT From: Alexander Subject: Re: bones, bones, bones ok...if AE may have seen this boat from a distance and got its name wrong...which direction would the name BE seen from and was that transmission from the air or is that unknown...ps wheres this island[co-ords] ************************************************************************** From Ric The S.S. Norwich City was a wreck on the reef at Gardner Island (Nikumaroro) where we think the plane was landed. The transmission would have been made from on the ground. The name would be seen from the side and I think that Herman's speculation that the name was misread is unlikley. The island is at 4 degrees 40 minutes South, 174 degrees 32 minutes West and you really need to look at the TIGHAR website at www.tighar.org before asking many more questions. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:05:08 EDT From: Subject: Tom MM Search Altitude What does TIGHAR assume describes the flight altitudes to Niku? On the one hand, I hear low altitude to remain under the cloud bases to spot the island, which may pop up anytime at very short sight distances from the aircraft. However, grinding along for 3-4 hours at 1,000 - 2,000 feet can require a fairly rich and un-economical mixture for safety and power. On the other hand, I seem to hear higher altitudes mentioned. That implies clear visibility and longer sight distances, certainly below and possibly above, which begs a few other important questions. Anyway, back to this one. What flight assumptions are used in TIGHAR's estimate for the fuel endurance? Do they need to climb to at least - maybe 8,000 to 10,000 ft or can they drone along on the deck and still make it with a reasonable reserve? Do they make it one way and not the other? Thanks, TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR assumes that AE and FN followed Johnson's altitude recommendations enroute to Howland then descended to 1,000 when they were trying to pick up the island visually. What altitude they may have maintained while running down the LOP is a matter of speculation but my guess would be that they stayed low. Yes, they'd burn more fuel down low but they'd also burn a lot of fuel climbing up above the clouds and they wouldn't be able to look for land from up there. However, they should have had enough fuel to do either and still make it to Gardner. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:21:35 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Artifacts Please, can we get some pictures up on the website, even one artifact, for the Forum to chew on before things get any uglier and we eat each other? Unleash the power of the Forum before it spontaneously combusts. Andrew McKenna *************************************************************************** From Ric We should have something up on the website soon. We've been putting together a CD with lots of great photos from the expedition illustrating the daily reports that were on the website. Why do that rather than the artifacts? Money, that's why. Contributions have dropped to just about zero since our return. It's a much tougher fund-raising environment now and we need something really good that we can offer as a premium for contributions. The photos taken during Niku IIII are spectacular and this CD will put them in context with Pat's wonderful description of my daily satellite phone reports. The price will be $50 to TIGHAR members, $95 to non-members (includes a one year membership). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:25:49 EDT From: Bobby Acosta Subject: Bobby Acosta's History lesson! To believe in a child is to believe in the future. Through their aspirations they will save the world. With their combined knowledge the turbulent seas of hate and injustice will be calmed. They will champion the causes of life's underdogs, forging a society without class discrimination. They will supply humanity with music and beauty as it has never known. They will endure. Towards these ends I pledge my life's work. I will supply the children with tools and knowledge to overcome the obstacles. I will pass on the wisdom of my years and temper it with patience. I shall impact in each child the desire to fulfill his or her dream. I shall teach. - Henry James - Take a lesson in history boys. Kurt Thompson- Bob Krebs- David Katz- With Love Bobby Acosta ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:26:12 EDT From: Chris Subject: Bobby Acosta Bobby could have avoided a big hassle if he just used his spell check on his computer. (he's probably gone from the forum for good). Chris in Petaluma, Ca. ************************************************************************** From Ric Dream on. ************************************************************************* From Bobby Acosta We grow great by dreams. All big men are dreamers. They see things in the soft haze of a spring day or in the red fire of a long winter's evening. Some of us let these great dreams die, but others nourish and protect them; nurse them through bad days till they bring them to the sunshine and light which comes always to those who sincerely hope that their dreams will come true. ~Bobby acosta~ Thank you to all who dream, G. Payne Janice Brown and to all who dont. Kurt Thompson Bob Krebs David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:28:40 EDT From: Denise Subject: Bobby, I salute you! Bobby Acosta writes: "Well that's good cosidering I make more in one pay check than you do in a year ... After all how old are you? I am only 19." Bobby, this is fabulous. I heartily congratulate you. You're my new hero. And what I admire most about you is that, at only 19, you've managed to discover whereabouts in Writer's World they're making out such wonderful pay cheques. I'm guessing you would have to be writing for either TV or film to earn more each one-off than Mr Katz does in a year. But where and for whom? To have managed to discover this and to have put yourself in line for them while still so young? A triumph indeed! Now you've got me wondering if I too can find the source of these wonderful pay cheques? Mmmm, just where did you look? Was it in TV World? Well, maybe. You could be writing gags or skits for an existing comedy series. They buy on spec. So, let's see ... skits and gags? They pay about, what - I get about $510.00 each so I guess you would too - but then, the competition here is so fierce they seldom buy more than one or two per batch you send them ... so that means your pay cheque would be for $510.00 or $1,200.00 on a good day ... ... but I must be wrong, because I'm sure Mr Katz earns more than $510.00 or $1,200.00 a year. Or maybe you're a house-writer for a sit com. Mmm, sit coms pay their stable of house-writers, what?, $3,600 an episode ... ... so I'm wrong again as I'm sure Mr Katz earns more than $3,600 a year. But if you're writing spec scripts and they're actually buying off you - and they do so hate buying spec scripts off people they don't know - well, one episode of the top, TOP series pays, what? around $18,000? Damn! Wrong guess again! I'm sure Mr Katz earns more than $18,000 in a year. But maybe it's not in TV. Maybe you're writing for feature films. Well, sure, there you're looking at around 5% of total budget, but spec scripts so seldom get made. Producers HATE handling work by young unknown writers. Most usually they just get their work optioned, usually at about $7,500 a year for three years (no, wrong, I'm sure Mr Katz earns more than $7,500 in a year.) and then sit on a shelf until their time is up. Or maybe you're NOT a young unknown writer afterall. Maybe you're a writer for these big BIG budget films. But most of these big budget films are written by established industry writers from a premise coming from someone high profile in the industry ... ... but since you earn more per pay cheque than Mr Katz, this HAS to be you. It just HAS to be. YES!!! That's it! I've found the answer. You're one of THESE guys! Dammit!, you must be so proud. To be only 19 and already ranked among so many established and famous film writers/novelists/academics etc, etc, etc., all filled to the brim with so much experience, so much knowledge, so much learning, so much grammar, scrambling around in there trying to hog all the good jobs, yet here you are, only 19, yet already counted in their number This is a triumph indeed! And at only 19 too!!! You should be rightly proud!!! LTM (who, after nearly 30 years in this hideous industry, would KILL for a pay cheque equal to what Mr Katz earns in a year!) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:29:26 EDT From: Herman Subject: Re: Young Talented Writer We shouldn't be to harsh on that boy. We have all been his age. After all he may feel to be gifted with writing readable English. It shows he is motivated. I've seen many of them where I live. I have worked as a journalist for nearly 40 years and I have seen a lot of young "gifted writers" joining the newspaper staff. Some even believed they were gifted as poets. On average it took us two years to teach them how to write a decent article that could be read by the public. Most of their initial work had to be rewritten. LTM (who believes in dotting i's and crossing t's and knows the value of little things like these). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:40:03 EDT From: Pete Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! With the NC speculation, how about this?: Electra is set down north of NC, July on the reef forces AE and FN out of the shiny plane. FN has a serious head injury and decides to "rest" at the lower decks while AE goes topside to look around. FN passes out, and AE returns to discover FN has become a buffet for the crabs. She leaves that scene for the Western part of the island, where the drought has made the rats aggressive. Forced to the Seven Site by the local fauna, AE is the castaway and the source of the trails seen in the aerial photos from the 30's. AE, sick prior to departure from Lae, exhausted from the horrors she's seen and the struggle to survive, "rests" herself and falls prey to the crabs. As far as Lambrecht's flyover, how long did it take the Niku IIII team to make it out to the reef to see the helicopter that landed? The helo was not zooming by, and the team wasn't castaways. LTM (who's better at brevity) Pete #2419 ************************************************************************** From Ric Some of us were already on the beach when the helo appeared. We saw him but he didn't see us. The video that we shot from the helicopter pretty dramatically demonstrates how hard it is to spot somebody on the ground there from the air. And yes, right after we finish the photo CD and get some artifacts up on the website we'll start putting together a Niku IIII video from the tape we shot. It will include the complete aerial tour of the island. The price will be $100 for TIGHAR members, $145 for non-members (includes a one year membership). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:41:27 EDT From: J. Harsh Subject: Re: Young Talented Writer Janet is back! J. Harsh #0634C ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:58:04 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again With all this discussion about radio signal strength, and the statements by some on the forum that Elgen Long allegedly claimed to have stated the distance from Howland precisely, I went back and looked at Mr. Long's book. Perhaps I missed something, but I couldn't find any reference to a precise distance. I got the impression that, like TIGHAR, he was making a subjective estimate of range, and that he points out the subjectivity of the signal strength reports from the Itasca radio operators. One might also note that Mr. Long has since had two independent radio propagation experts (one from Collins Radio) review the available material on Earhart's transmissions, and they both have concluded that the estimates are reasonable. Perhaps neither those experts nor Elgen Long are correct, but it seems to me that the estimates are within the ball-park. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric Look at pages 243-245 and tell me that Long does not make references to precise distances. He uses assumptions about navigational margins of error, visibility, and strength of radio receptions to describe - down to the mile - where Earhart "must be" and "could not be." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:59:34 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! Thanks---I'll be sure and read the issues. Even though you and Bob don't want to discuss Bob's statement that a strength vs. distance calculation was done on the Howland approach, I cannot believe that I am the first person to ask whether "heard" in the context of TIGHAR's conclusion that Betty could've heard Earhart on a harmonic means that TIGHAR says she could have heard words, or only could have received a carrier wave, or doesn't know? It's a good question, and at the very least you should want to clear this up. It's bound to come up later if, as you mention, the post loss messages you are finding have validity in your own analysis were all received as carrier waves. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:00:37 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! Mike Everett's concise explanation of radio signals and distance propagation was solely based upon the use of the S-Meter, an uncalibrated device. Bob Brandenburg's analysis used signal propagation, antenna radiation patterns, and plausible yet conservative assumptions to derive signal to noise ratios and propagation distances. The two analyses are quite different in approaches and usefulness. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:01:16 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! Thanks. I can see your rationale on the glass shards. --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:07:45 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again To Mike E: No offense taken. I mean that. Your's and Bob's knowledge on this is obviously light years beyond mine, and I'll take everyone's word that it is extremely difficult (often impossible) to do a reliable analysis, and definately impossible to do this analysis exactly. Yet, it seemed from Bob's comments concerning the approach to Howland that some sort of analysis, however imperfect, was done. Many of the factors that were relevant to an analysis of the Howland approach from Bob's standpoint (transmitter design, signal-to-noise ratio, receiving antenna and equipment), also are the factors discussed in the analysis of Betty's notebook. I am not expecting exactitude, or even something close (I deal with uncertain and incomplete facts all the time in my line of work), but being dismissed through silence is not the way to handle it, either. Frankly, I have found in other inquiries concerning TIGHAR's work that people claiming I don't understand ultimately are determined to be the ones that don't understand or know. I do feel that my question about whether "heard" (as in Betty hearing on a harmonic) means that she could have heard spoken words or only a carrier signal is a very good question for obvious reasons going to the very validity of the words and messages transcribed in the notebook. It's especially relevant in view of Ric's earlier advice in one of these e-mails that all his post loss transmission work thus far is turning up carrier waves as being the only reliable transmissions. Thanks, and take care --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric That is not at all what I said. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:16:31 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Bobby Acosta's History lesson! For Bobby Acosta, Thank you for your suggestion that I take a lesson from history. I was a history major in my undergraduate years, and I have always had a profound love of studying -- and taking lessons from -- history. Many members of this forum feel the same way; that is one of the reasons that we seek to discover the solution to the mystery of Amelia Earhart. With respect to your goal of teaching, I applaud your decision. Aviators like Miss Earhart may touch the sky, but teachers touch the future. You are to be applauded for such a noble goal. I will pass on a word of advice that Mrs. Thompson, my fourth grade teacher, gave me: Spelling Counts. I don't know why that is true, but in my several careers (as a college educator, a management consultant, an investment banker, and, lately, as a professional writer), I have always found that to be the case. Best wishes, David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:17:32 EDT From: Dean A. Subject: Re: Distance from Howland > Hope this helps to clarify things. > > LTM, > > Bob Brandenburg, #2286 Bob, thanks for the analysis, while I don't understand all the details I do understand the basics of what you say. So I guess there is no way to establish a minimum distance that AE was from Howland knowing what her equipment was and that when she switched frquencies she went from a relatively strong signal (at Howland) to one that couldn't be heard at all(at Howland). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:20:47 EDT From: Ric Subject: Re: Bobby Acosta Okay, we've all had our say. Let's move on. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:56:31 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Distance and signals and Bellarts For Radio Historians/Experts, I think we all now understand the subjectivity of the "S" strength as related to distance from an aircraft. Reportedly it is very difficult to guess distances from the signal strength alone, even based on an ever increasing strength, experience and known flight direction. But do radio operators, such as Bellarts, also consciously or unconsciously, relate signal strength to the pilot's estimate of distance. In this case, AE says she is 200 miles out, than 100 miles out then "circling...we must be on you". Thus Bellarts thinks that his S-5 about 1918 means she is very, very close. Or is this like getting a "false positive" and the signal strength remains independent of all other factors? If Bellart hears a signal "5" with no noise and AE says I must be on you, does that give him a pretty firm idea how close she is to Howland. Or is it still just a reasonable guess. ( This is a lay question ) LTM, Ron Bright. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:02:25 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again Thank you for the page references in Elgen Long's book (pp 243-245). I re-read them, and I will admit that Long does use some pretty precise numbers; however, he consistently qualifies his numbers with words such as "approximately." When taken in context of the entire chapter, one can see that he uses numbers such as "62 miles to the north or south of Howland, and within 29 miles to the east and 41 miles to the west" due to his adding/subtracting from previously approximated calculations. As I have mentioned before, I have had the privilege of reading Mr. Long's original manuscript (prior to editing and removal of footnotes by the publisher), and his intent in the writing is clear: he is endeavoring to narrow the search area through deductive reasoning based on assumptions about fuel capacity, range, relative (subjective) radio signal strength, etc. Some of those assumptions are certainly open to question and may never be determined with absolute certainty, but Elgen Long has also made an honest effort to have some of his assumptions independently reviewed by fuel consumption analysts and radio propagation experts. While some may quibble with Elgen and Marie Long's conclusions, I find them to be every bit as reasonable as many of the other hypotheses (and, in some cases, more so). David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric Differences of opinion are what make a horse race. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:04:46 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Distance from Howland > From Dean A. > > > Hope this helps to clarify things. > > LTM, > > Bob Brandenburg, #2286 > > >From Dean A. 2056 > > Bob, thanks for the analysis, while I don't understand all the details I do > understand the basics of what you say. So I guess there is no way to > establish a minimum distance that AE was from Howland knowing what her > equipment was and that when she switched frquencies she went from a > relatively strong signal (at Howland) to one that couldn't be heard at all(at > Howland). That's correct, Dean. Given what we know, we can establish an upper bound on AE's distance from Howland, based on the time at which her signal dropped below the readability threshold. That event corresponds to a specific signal to noise ratio, from which we can calculate the transmitter distance. But to establish a lower bound on the basis of signal strength, we would need a closely spaced time series of precise signal strength measurements taken with calibrated instruments. Given such data, we could determine when AE reached her closest point of approach to Howland. But all we have to go on are the Itasca radio operators' subjective estimates to the effect that at some time AE's signal became very strong and stayed very strong until some later time, and such estimates are essentially useless for any serious analysis. Bob, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:10:37 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again In previous literature, Long has been very precise in his predictions of where AE went down and his predictions were based on reception strengths of AE's signals. This is only one of the reasons i don't put much faith in the Long theory. *************************************************************************** From Ric Who says Rollin and I cant agree on anything? A few years back, Elgen made a video that explained his reasoning. He used a series of concentric colored disks representing radio reception distances overlaid on a map of the area around Howland. That graphic, for some reason, didn't make it into his book. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:42:09 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again Mr. Katz makes a very good point. I have read the pages you mention, Ric, and it appears that Long has established an "area of uncertainty" which establishes certain maximum boundaries within which Earhart was, but he does NOT say she was, for example, precisely 35.89 miles from Howland at such-and-such a time. I guess that's why he calls it an "area" of "uncertainty". Here's a good quote from one of the very pages you mention: On page 245, he says that "at 0843 the Electra was still somewhere within 52 miles of the island." I believe you replied to me that, at closest approach, she was probably no closer than 80 miles, nor any farther than 200. This seems to be your own "area of uncertainty". --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric You wanna quote Long? Let's quote Long. "On the chart at the opening of chapter 13 we have drawn 20-nautical-mile circles around Howland and Baker Islands, except to the west-southwest, where the viewer would be looking toward the sun. There we have drawn 15-nautical mile sections. The area adjacent to the islands within those lines represent the visual area where a viewer would see either Howland or Baker Island. It represents an area where the Electra COULD NOT BE (emphasis in the original) at 0742 IST. We believe Amelia Earhart when she said, "We must be on you but cannot see you. The visual area where the plane COULD NOT BE (emphasis in the original) at 0742 IST is extended by their movements between 0742 and 0758 IST. We know, because Earhart's radio signal increased in strength between 0742 and 0758 IST, that Noonan had turned in the correct direction toward Howland when he intercepted the advanced line of approach 157-337. That means during those 16 minutes the Electra was either actually to the north of Howland and flying 27 miles southward 157 degrees, or was actually to the south and flying 27 miles northward 337 degrees." Not a lot of qualifiers there, and there's no doubt that he is relying on radio signal strength to reach his hard conclusions. From this masterpiece of deductive reasoning one would might assume that the 20-mile and 15-mile "visual distances", and the increase in signal strength between 0742 and 0758 are well documented. On the contrary. As we've said before, Pellegrino's crew was "perhaps 10 to 12 miles" from the Howland before they could see it. As for the signal strength; the Itasca radio log mentions no change. Both transmissions are logged at Strength 5 (maximum). Long is relying upon an impression mentioned in Thompson's later report. Yes, Long and TIGHAR agree that there is an "area of uncertainty." The difference is that TIGHAR believes that Long's "area of uncertainty" is far, far too small. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:50:47 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! > From Chris Kennedy > > I cannot believe that I am the first person to ask whether > "heard" in the context of TIGHAR's conclusion that Betty could've heard Earhart on > a harmonic means that TIGHAR says she could have heard words, or only could have > received a carrier wave, or doesn't know? The report of the analysis assumes that the reader is familiar with the entries in Betty's notebook pertaining to Earhart. Those entries are words and phrases, and do not include any mention of carrier waves. The analysis specifically addressed the question of whether Betty could have heard what she said she heard - - i.e., words and phrases. "Heard" in TIGHAR's conclusion means Betty could have "heard words and phrases" on a harmonic. Bob Brandenburg, #2286 *************************************************************************** From Ric The contents of Betty's Notebook have been on the TIGHAR website for over a year at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html Bob's report has been on the TIGHAR website since March 15th at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/HarmonyandPower.pdf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:59:40 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: bones, bones, bones Rather than assuming that AE got the Norwich City's name wrong (if, of course, Betty's "NYC" DOES represent Earhart talking about the Norwich City), isn't it more efficient to assume that Betty, hearing a scratchy transmission of "N(two syllables) City" just jumped to the conclusion that the reference was to the Big Apple? **************************************************************************** From Ric In one notation she actually wrote: "N.Y., N.Y. or something that sounded like New York" The biggest assumption is that "N.Y., N.Y." is what she wrote down in respnse to hearing what she thought might be "New York City". For what it's worth, when we interviewed her she felt that in her haste to copy down what she heard she may very well have done that. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:02:55 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! > Some of us were already on the beach when the helo appeared. We saw him but > he didn't see us. And as for those of us in the bush when Ric flew over in the helicopter, we had only enough time to make obscene gestures before he was gone. TKing ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:05:34 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Research in England Is there anyone on the Forum who lives in England, or who plans to visit England, who would be willing to help me with some research at the Public Record Office (PRO) in Kew/London, England? Any help would be appreciated. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:07:24 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Hawaii flight For Randy Jacobson: Thanks for the info. The estimated probability of your recollection being correct is far higher than what we usually work with, and will do very nicely :). TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:09:57 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Photo CD > The price (for the photo CD) will be $50 to TIGHAR members, $95 to > non-members (includes a one year membership). I'm sold. Let me know when and how to pay. You might have my credit card number but not the expiration date (it's in 2003). I've also purchased Amelia's Shoes and am enjoying the early history of TIGHAR immensely. Nice work, authors and explorers alike! LTM. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric Thank Marty. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:15:08 EDT From: Bill Moffet Subject: Norwich City cargo Re. question of NC's cargo before she headed out in ballast. It's my recollection that she sailed from British Columbia with a cargo of lumber bound for Australia - Melbourne, I think. This came from a forum posting around the time Janet Powell joined us, December, 1998; however I believe this research was done by someone else who checked the sailing records, perhaps of the firm owning the vessel. Ric, if your filing system is better than mine, perhaps you can find it. I'll keep looking. LTM Bill Moffet #2156CE ************************************************************************** From Ric My goodness! I hope you're right. We'll search the forum archives. I know that Melbourne is correct as the port she left and that she was headed for Vancouver. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:19:58 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones, bones, bones! Responding to Chris Kennedy's pit questions: Re: "O.K. Generally, what kind of features would you look for to differentiate the castaway as the source of the organized fire pits we found at the Seven Site from the organized fire pits found in the village (presumably villagers were the source of these)? Were the pits in the village marked or ringed with stone?" Well, first off, the pits in the village are in the village, rather than out in the boondocks. They're found in close proximity to houses, in locations consistent with ethnographic and historical descriptions of how I Kiribati cookhouses typically relate to overall household complexes. The one we've probed was quite deep, filled with quite rich deposits of charcoal, with lots of burned bone, not only of fish but of mammals, probably pigs. The burn features at the Seven Site are think shallow, with very little charcoal but a good deal of burned bone, all of it (as far as we could tell from field observation) bird, fish, and turtle. They look like the results of short-term events, like a single day's meals, as opposed to the long-term facilities we see in the village. There's nothing to have kept villagers from having an occasional meal down at the Seven Site, of course, while hunting turtles or gathering eggs, or whatever else they may have been doing there. I hope we can distinguish between that possibility and the castaway possibility based on the kinds of critters whose bones are in the burn features, the ways they were prepared, and the ways they were cooked. If there are a lot of fishbones representing fish that I Kiribati don't prefer, for example, that would suggest that a castaway source is more likely than an I Kiribati source. All this is going to have to await analysis of the bones, which I'm just now arranging. One thing I can say is that there's no evidence I've seen at the Seven Site for the construction of umum, the earth ovens that are common facilities for all kinds of cooking in Kiribati (and elsewhere; the Fijian crew of Nai'a built one on the beach to cook the food for the feast they threw toward the end of the expedition, and I've excavated such things in Chuuk (where they're called uumw). It looks like whoever was responsible for the features at the Seven Site was simply cooking critters over an open fire. Obviously anybody could do that, but I Kiribati would be somewhat more likely to build an umum, while a castaway would be likely not to. Re: "Since the castaway is not the source of the steel tank marked "Tarawa Police" at the Seven Site, we know villagers were there, so how can we tell a castaway pit from a villager pit?" See above. The castaway probably wasn't the source of the corrugated iron or .30 cal. bullets, either. We've got what we call a "multi-component site" here, and archeologists deal with such things all the time. It's complicated at Niku by the fact that there's no vertical stratigraphic separation between the components, but that's not uncommon in island (and desert, and other) contexts. We can't sort out the components with any certainty based on immediate field observations alone; hopefully we will be able to based on analysis. You gotta be patient, Chris; this is going to take some time. LTM Tom ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:21:40 EDT From: John Subject: Radio questions I've always thought that the Itasca may have heard Earhart via ionospheric propagation and not ground wave, thus explaining why they thought that she was close to them but yet they could never find her. For those who have never used HF radio, just last night I worked a station on 20 meters in New York (I'm in Missouri) and both of us had S meter readings of S-9 plus 20 db (very strong signals). I was only using a small antenna (about 22 inches long - a 'stealth antenna') mounted about 7 feet off of the ground, and running about 75 watts into the feedline through a tuner. The ground losses with this antenna at 7 feet would be VERY high, yet the signal levels in both directions were extremely strong. << In order for there to be a vertical electrostatic field component, and hence a ground wave, it is necessary that the radiating antenna be vertical. If the antenna is horizontal, the electrostatic field is parallel to the earth's surface, and is immediately shorted out, causing the entire wave front to collapse, thus preventing ground wave propagation. >> I do have a question regarding your statement above. When you say 'immediately', how 'immediately' do you mean? I can 'work' a friend of mine across the city (about 10 to 15 miles from me) using my three element beam (horizonatally polarized, at about 35 feet) on 20 meters, running about 100 watts. The signals aren't strong, but they're 'there'. I've always assumed that this is ground wave propagation, but I guess it could be ionospheric (possibly the way around the world - 'multihop' skip). Or is this ground wave propagation, and the signals are so low because of the wave front collapsing over that distance of 10 to 15 miles? 73.. John ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:38:43 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again Thanks for confirming my original point that both TIGHAR and Long compute areas of uncertainty. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:02:31 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: SE on the LOP? > which TIGHAR insists was the _only_ reasonable, logical > direction for AE/FN to seek an alternate landfall. Don, given they were low on fuel as stated by AE and worked out by several folks on the forum, what OTHER reasonable, logical direction do you suggest they might have gone? Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric Oh brother... I can see this coming. We are NOT going to launch into another round of back-to-the-Gilberts versus square-search-for-Howland versus whatever. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:03:17 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The LOP Cycles > Ok, as someone with celestial experience and an LOP detractor, let me > suggest a variation which might go down better with those of us who may not > buy the "LOP to Niku" idea. That's interesting, Tom. What other method of daylight navigation do you suggest they might have used to go to Niku or anywhere else for that matter. I can't think of a way to navigate without using sun shots, LOPs and DR. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:04:01 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna > Because they were well off course How do we know that, Ross? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:28:33 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again Again, you are taking Long out of context. His book builds a case for the area of uncertainty based upon a variety of factors, including approximate fuel consumption radio strength and visual capability of spotting the island. The section you quoted relates to the ability for her to spot the island from her reported height at a maximum distance or the ability for the observers on the Itasca to spot her. It is clear (to me anyway) that Long1s emphasis on where Earhart could not have been (at least in that section of the book) relates to the zones where, if she was there, either she had the potential to spot the Itasca, Howland or Baker, or the Itasca could spot her. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric Taking him out of context? I quoted two entire paragraphs verbatim. I can't retype the whole book without violating his copyright. Remember, Elgen is not engaging in idle what-ifs. He's trying to build a case for a multi-million dollar, deep water search that relies upon a very tight constraint of the search area. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:32:01 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Landing on Niku The discussion of landing successfully or not on Niku is interesting but without knowing what the actual condition of the surface was like on July 2, 1937 seems like an exercize in futility. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric True, but aerial photography of that part of the reef taken Dec. 1, 1938 shows pretty much the same surface features that we see today. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:36:33 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio questions For John > When you say > 'immediately', how 'immediately' do you mean? I can 'work' a friend of mine > across the city (about 10 to 15 miles from me) using my three element beam > (horizonatally polarized, at about 35 feet) on 20 meters, running about 100 > watts. The signals aren't strong, but they're 'there'. I've always assumed > that this is ground wave propagation, but I guess it could be ionospheric > (possibly the way around the world - 'multihop' skip). Or is this ground > wave propagation, and the signals are so low because of the wave front > collapsing over that distance of 10 to 15 miles? "Immediately" in this context means within a couple of miles. I think it's more likely that you are working your friend via near vertical incidence skywave (NVIS) propagation, than via ground wave. That would explain the weak signals. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:36:38 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Distance and signals and Bellarts > From Ron Bright > > For Radio Historians/Experts, > > But do radio operators, such as Bellarts, also consciously or > unconsciously, relate signal strength to the pilot's estimate of distance. > In this case, AE says she is 200 miles out, than 100 miles out then > "circling...we must be on you". Thus Bellarts thinks that his S-5 about 1918 > means she is very, very close. > Or is this like getting a "false positive" and the signal strength > remains independent of all other factors? If Bellart hears a signal "5" with > no noise and AE says I must be on you, does that give him a pretty firm idea > how close she is to Howland. Or is it still just a reasonable guess. ( This > is a lay question ) Good questions. Based on my experience with Navy radio operators, I can say that they evaluate signal strength independent of all other factors. I reckon that was probably true of the Itasca operators as well. There's no way to know for sure whether Bellarts used distance cues, but even if he did they wouldn't have helped him much. He had never heard signals from AE's transmitter before that day. Absent significant experience listening to AE's signals from known distances under various propagation conditions, any estimate of specific distance versus signal strength would be pure guesswork. The scope of Bellarts' expertise included assessing signal strength, but did not include deducing transmitter distance from signal strength. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:38:18 EDT From: Dean A. Subject: Harmonic > I cannot believe that I am the first person to ask whether > "heard" in the context of TIGHAR's conclusion that Betty could've heard Earhart on > a harmonic means that TIGHAR says she could have heard words, or only could have > received a carrier wave, or doesn't know? It's a good question, and at the very > least you should want to clear this up. Chris, If I am understanding your question you ask if it is possible to hear voice on a harmonic?? I am no expert on radios but in my youth I spent many hours listening to short wave broadcasts and can state with certainty that yes, one can hear voice on a harmonic. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:41:59 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Research in England Kenton, I would love to go to England when times are better in Ireland as that is where I would end up. Unfortunately the trip is postponed for a while. But on the subject of research another TIGHAR member suggested to me that a thorough search at the museum in Fredricksberg would be in order. I live very close and would be happy to do that if there is some reason. If anyone knows what should be researched and what useful information might be there and whether it would be useful in resolving any significant issue please let me know. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:43:39 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Finished the Book (Drat) Well, I'm done reading AE's Shoes. A rollicking good story. Filled in a lot of details. Got a feel for what the expeditons have been like from the beginning (joys and sorrows). "Hey, Mister Ric Gillespie, sing your song for us. Through the wildest of hypotheses we're foooooooolowing you" (163; spelling modified). :o) The exposition of "as rigorous a scientific method as can be applied to historical research" (44-46) is outstanding. Bravissimi! I didn't see anything in Chapter 25 about the mistakes made with the high frequency DF equipment onshore. If I remember correctly from previous Forum discussions, the operator ran down the batteries by turning the equipment on too soon (his decision? on orders?) and so played no role in helping get a bearing on the plane (305). Other than that, it is a masterful and coherent account of all of the failures in radio management on both sides. It's good to know that the trail of the bones hasn't gone entirely cold (323). Sounds like there's lots of sleuthing still to be done. I look forward to Ric's book. I can't wait to hear his side of the story. :o) LTM and all of her questing children. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:01:21 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Reef Landing There have been a couple of references to the probability of a successful landing on the portion of the reef north of the Norwich City. Ric, Gary, Mark and I walked that portion of the reef, and with a Pentax PS-300, measured that portion of the reef which could reasonably serve as a runway for landing. The useable length, landing to the south (no obstacle to clear) was 2,700 feet. Additionally, most of the team members were on the most southerly portion of the reef for the plaque dedication ceremony. 1) Although we did not plot the position of the many pot-holes in the reef, it should have been possible to make a successful landing there last September. I remember saying that "...the landing would be a crap-shoot," but I would hesitate to put a number on the likelihood of success. There are just too many variables, the most significant of which is that we don't know what the reef condition was in 1937. 2) The cockpit visibility cut-off angle could also be an issue. Using a diagram of the L-10, I determined that with the airplane in a 3-point attitude, the pilot looking over the nose would be able to see the surface not closer than 100 feet from the position of the airplane. 3) The published landing speed for the L-10 is 65 miles per hour (57 knots). Reference my C-47 flight manual, I determined the landing ground roll for a weight (18,000 lbs) which called for a touch-down speed of 65 mph. Zero wind was assumed, although there is usually a prevailing light, left-quartering headwind (for a landing to the south) at that location. Deceleration rates are calculated from the published landing distances. Note that the surface description is from the manual. More recent flight manuals use other terms. CONDITION STOPPING DISTANCE DECEL RATE (ft/sec2) Dry surface 1,000 ft 4.6 g Wet grass 1,350 ft 3.4 g Wet concrete, ice 2,500 ft 1.8 g Frankly, I was a little surprised at the rather modest deceleration rates when compared to those of a modern airplane. The autobrake system on a Boeing airplane typically has five selections of deceleration rates, ranging from 4 ft/sec2 to 11 ft/sec2. Deceleration is determined by the inertial platform, which is also the source for performance and navigation requirements. If the requested deceleration rate is being met by engine reverse thrust, then the brakes will not apply. Carbon-fiber, anti-skid brakes make a difference. But I digress. Footing on the outer reef was rather good, as opposed to closer-in areas that were slicker than greased (pick your substance). Bottom line: even though the surface is obviously wet, the braking response should be good due to the rough surface. For the pilots on the forum, I'd compare it to a wet, well-grooved runway. I'd say that the 1,350 landing distance number is reasonable. In any event, there was sufficient flat surface to land and stop a Lockheed L-10. The landing distance I opined on the reef was clearly a WAG, and would have required a deceleration rate of 8 ft/sec2. Reasonable--for a 767 with a touchdown speed of 57 knots(g). ************************************************************************** From Ric What, I wonder, would be the effect of - say - an inch of standing water? One fact that was apparent from our detailed inspections of the reef surface versus tidal state is that the reef flat on some parts of the island is higher than at other parts. For example: when the water level is a good 12 inches below the surface level of the reef at the blasted landing channel, the reef surface north of the Norwich City still has a film of standing water. Clearly the reef flat there is lower than at the channel. There are periods during unusually low tides when the reef north of the shipwreck is really dry, but it's much more common for there to be at least some standing water in that area. How much standing water would impose enough resistance to a 35 inch tire at 65 mph to to cause a 7,000 pound airplane to go up on its nose? If we had a feel for that we'd have a better handle on how big or small the tidal window might be for a successful landing. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:11:17 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again > Taking him out of context? I quoted two entire paragraphs verbatim. I can't > retype the whole book without violating his copyright. Remember, Elgen is > not engaging in idle what-ifs. He's trying to build a case for a > multi-million dollar, deep water search that relies upon a very tight > constraint of the search area. Nonetheless, Ric, the section you quoted related to visual capability, not radio signal strength. David Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric Uh uh. "We know, because Earhart's radio signal increased in strength between 0742 and 0758 IST, that Noonan had turned in the correct direction toward Howland when he intercepted the advanced line of approach 157-337." I don't know how else to interpret that than that Long uses changes in radio signal strength to draw very specific conclusions about where the airplane was and was not at a particular time. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:21:00 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Pan Am in the South Pacific Just a note about an article I found on the www.panam.org website that I found rather interesting & somewhat illuminating. I've searched this site before & corresponded on their message board, but I must have missed this article...'South by West... the Route to New Zealand'... which describes in great detail the March 17th 1937 survey flight from California to New Zealand, via Hawaii, Kingman Reef & American Samoa. Seems that Pan Am had been planning & surveying this route by ship since 1934, so that FN would (as Chief Navigator...at the time) probably have had, at least some working knowledge of this route planning project & the various island groups in the general vicinity of the planned route... perhaps even access to the various maps & charts being prepared & utilized in the project. Ironically, after leaving California for Hawaii, the Pacific Clipper actually _saw_ AE's Electra enroute, on her (abortive) first round-the-world attempt, which never got off the ground in Hawaii. The article clearly emphasizes the critical importance of the radio DF system employed at the time by Pan Am, in permitting their flight to locate Kingman Reef, even during a rainstorm... Curiously, they had _no_ difficulty in making visual contact of the vessel 'North Wind' (anchored at Kingman) or the _tiny_, narrow strip of sand, showing barely above low tide at the time, in spite of the poor weather conditions. They also mentioned their great interest in obtaining information about & the importance of all the _other_ island groups to the NE & NW of Samoa. Given the detailed planning & preparation that Pan Am exerted in this effort & particularly the ultimate success they enjoyed in applying their own radio DF system... It does seem rather tragic that the AE/FN team rejected the offer of Juan Trippe to have his people 'monitor' the flight around the world. I might also mention that there is a map of the Pacific Ocean, showing the Clipper routes to China & New Zealand, as part of the...'South by West'... article... & when you print-out the map enlargement, there is a solid line from Lae, NG to the Gilberts... then a 'dotted' line to Howland Island with a (?) mark on the dotted line. I checked with the webmaster for the PanAm website & he could not provide me with any date the map was printed or any information about it's origin...However, he did confirm that the map _was_ part of the original10 page article that was published by PanAm in 1938 & found later in the company's archives. Though my Webtv isn't clear enough to read the names, all of the Phoenix Islands appear to be in their generally proper locations, also, there is a block in the lower right hand corner containing the scale for the map & some additional printing (possibly the name of the map's publisher) which I can't read either. Maybe one of you computer experts can enhance the the map's detail to determine it's origin & possibly it's date. If you've already seen this site or this article... simply consign this e-mail to the electronic, 'circular' wastebasket. Don N. *************************************************************************** From Ric That line to Howland with the question mark has got to be a reference to the Earhart flight. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:01:05 EDT From: Stuart Subject: Re: Landing on Niku Alan has a point. Isn't there still a great deal of doubt as to the exact state of the tide during the time window when AE is estimated to have been arriving at Niku? It seems to me that, unless the state of the tide can be determined as "low" fairly accurately for this time window, then landing on the reef seems like a long shot at best, impossible at worst. I'm not a sailor, and I don't know very much about tides in the Pacific, but shouldn't it be a fairly easy task to get an accurate computer prediction of what the tides should have been like at that moment in time? Given that the tide depends largely on the position of the moon, and that the location of the moon can certainly be calculated precisely for the time window in question, I would think that it would be fairly trivial to get an estimation of the tide. However, since this is apparently not the case, I guess it must be more complex than I am imagining. Can anyone explain why it is that it is so difficult to determine what the tide was doing at the time AE arrived at Niku? Stuart ************************************************************************** From Ric To accurately "hindcast" the tide at Niku to a fairly narrow time window and a specific date requires good, accurate tidal information for that particular location to hindcast from. Because Niku was never a port of any significance, tidal information was not routinely recorded during the time the island was inhabited (at least, as far as we can tell). During Niku IIII, with preparatory help from a number of TIGHAR members including Bob brandenburg and John Pratt, and working in conjunction with the captain of the Nai'a, we made a determined effort to collect tidal observations and come up with accurate tide table for the island. We're pulling all that data together now and, as soon as we can get it to Bob and John, it should be possible, for the first time, to have reliable information about what the tide was doing at Niku during the hours that the Electra could have arived. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:09:04 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Harmonic Actually, my question was what TIGHAR meant by "heard", given the conclusion that Betty could've "heard" Earhart on a harmonic. Apparently, TIGHAR is comfortable that if, indeed, Betty "heard" Earhart on a harmonic, then she heard words. Obviously, if they are not comfortable that Betty would've heard words then that would indicate that the transcription in the notebook cannot be relied upon. Thanks for your interest in this issue. --Chris ************************************************************************** From Ric We are comfortable that Betty could have heard words. In fact, the peculiarities of the reception, as Betty describes them, are exactly what might be expected if the transmissions were authentic. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:20:19 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again > "We know, because Earhart's radio signal increased in strength between 0742 > and 0758 IST, that Noonan had turned in the correct direction toward Howland > when he intercepted the advanced line of approach 157-337." All that is, is an indication of direction, not distance. The distance indicators you quoted from Long1s book related specifically to visibility, not radio signal strength. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think you understand what he's saying. Long is using radio strength to extend his exclusionary "visual distance" area to either the north or south of Howland. Look at it again. "The visual area where the plane COULD NOT BE (emphasis in the original) at 0742 IST is extended by their movements between 0742 and 0758 IST. We know, because Earhart's radio signal increased in strength between 0742 and 0758 IST, that Noonan had turned in the correct direction toward Howland when he intercepted the advanced line of approach 157-337. That means during those 16 minutes the Electra was either actually to the north of Howland and flying 27 miles southward 157 degrees, or was actually to the south and flying 27 miles northward 337 degrees." (Is anybody else getting tired of this?) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:24:03 EDT From: Marjorie Subject: Blasted channel > From Ric > > For example: when the water level is a good 12 > inches below the surface level of the reef at the blasted landing channel, > the reef surface north of the Norwich City still has a film of standing > water. When you say "blasted landing channel" are you using "blasted" in the pejorative sense or describing how the channel was created? (Once an editor, always a nit-picker I'm afraid). Marjorie (who is still getting a handle on the geography) ************************************************************************* From Ric Blasted as in with dynamite. When we're referring to the channel, particularly at low tide with a big westerly swell running, our adjectives are much more colorful. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:28:16 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Research in England For Alan Caldwell, If you get to the Nimitz Museum here are a few areas of research that may yield some significant infor that hasn't been found. Some or all of these records are at Nimitz some under the Goerner collection. 1. Tapes of Bilimon Amaron made by Goerner in 1975 and 1977 regarding his reported observations of AE and FN on a Japanese ship at Jaluit in July 1937. How credible ? Goerner is the first researcher to have interviewed Amaron, considered as a key witness that she went down in the Marshalls. 2. The Harris Powers interview of Jaluit Japaneses POWs in 1945 re AE's presence. 3. Eric Sussman, a Peace Corp worker, interviewed by Goerner, disputes the Mili Island scenario. 4. It is also possible that Dr. Wilmore Finnerman's medical records of the Caldwell-Luc operation on AE in 1934 is at the Nimitz museum with Goerners stuff. Finnerman's son told Tighar that his records went to some AE Museum, but not which one. The records would help evalute the skull found by Gallagher on Niku and described by Hoodless. Dr Finnerman wrote a letter to Goerner that should the skull be found, evidence of that oral operation into the sinus would identify AE. (No skull yet, but other conditions may relate to the description given by Hoodless) Five teeth were found on the skull but not mention of fillings etc, which would have been reasonable when Hoodless examined the skull and dental work. Finnermans records may have indicated fillings etc. Of course 1-3 items related to the Marshall Is theory and you may not want to tackle that, but item 4 relates directly to the Niku theory and was discussed in April of 2000 on the forum at length. Ron Bright **************************************************************** From Ric It would be nice to find those dental records. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:29:38 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again Ric, I understand precisely what Long is saying. He is saying that, if Earhart was traveling on the indicated line of position, she was moving closer to Howland, either moving in a southerly DIRECTION or a northerly DIRECTION [emphasis mine] during the 16 minutes indicated. He deduces this from the fact that her signal strength increased during that time. Long then uses the directional evidence to apply the probability of sighting the island or the Itasca (or the Itasca crew sighting her) based upon range of visibility. This is how he is estimating where the plane COULD NOT BE. Long certainly discusses radio signal strength as an approximate measure of possible distance, but he uses it specifically to account for direction. In narrowing down the distance, he adds to the subjective analysis of radio strength the more testable parameters of visibility. I'm sorry if you are growing tired of this thread. It is not my intention to bore, merely to point out the fact that, while one may wish to criticize Mr. Long, it should be done fairly. This thread started because someone claimed that Long was determining Earhart's precise distance from Howland using a measure of radio signal strength. It has been pointed out (very convincingly) that distance cannot be determined precisely using the highly subjective assessment of Earhart's signal strength, and I believe that Mr. Long would heartily agree that that is the case. I see nothing in his book that claims that he can measure Earhart's distance from Howland precisely by using radio signal strength. His math concerning fuel range is off, sure; but that is another story. David Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric Let's let it end there. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:12:18 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: SE on the LOP? > Oh brother... I can see this coming. We are NOT going to launch into another > round of back-to-the-Gilberts versus square-search-for-Howland versus whatever. There are two postings that almost always get a rise out of me. One is a statement of "fact" that could not possibly be known. Long's book has a few of those. There have been a few here on the forum. I hate to let them pass as they are misleading the newer people and unfortunately older forumites who, like myself, think they can remember all the stuff from the web site. The "well off course" statement is one. Maybe they were but there is no such evidence. The other posting that gets to me is one in which there is opposition to a generally accepted theory and says there are other reasonable and logical alternatives WITHOUT suggesting what they are. I have no problem with alternate suggestions as it gives everyone a chance to analyze and/or critique that possibility. This kind of posting gives me the impression the purpose is merely to oppose and avoid being taken to task for some other "possibility" that is not thought through or is not reasonably supportable. I think all such postings are made in good faith and based on what the poster believes. But simply opposing does not move the ball forward. I don't want to rehash and rehash but if someone has a new idea or can better support an old one I think that is preferable to making vague statements. Part of the problem is there is so much information now we tend to forget and put forth arguments that have many times before been shown to have little or no merit. Another problem is few people understand some of the issues that are debated. Radios is obviously one. I have used UHF, VHF, HF, and FM. I know only how to turn them on and off. I don't post about them but read our experts carefully. I think I understand the bottom line an I am sure not going to argue about what is said. Aircraft navigation is another issue not well understood by many. That is an area I DO know a lot about. It was one of my jobs in the service. Fuel consumption and fuel logs also was one of my jobs in the service. I know a lot about that but I can see few folks understand anything about fuel usage in a plane. It seems to me if I was going to propose a theory or oppose one dealing with whatever issue I should learn all about it before doing so. I used the radios I mentioned above for twenty years but I garantee off/on was all I learned. They worked or they didn't. If they didn't I wrote them up as "broke." I marvel at the wealth of knowledge our radio guys have. I'll never learn it or oppose them. A final problem I see is the great difficulty in communicating via email. It's hard enough in person or by telephone but words in an email are easily misconstrued. For example, although I nicked at it, the posting about "well off course" I can understand what the poster most likely meant. AE did not see Howland so she must have been somewhere else. No doubt true. My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that they were very close. Assuming folks were scanning the skies for them they must have been several miles away at a minimum. Isn't the horizon about 3 miles away on the sea? Of course AE was at 1,000' or so so that might put them closer to 5 miles away at a minimum. That figure can actually be computed and clearly I'm too lazy at the moment to do so but an exact figure is not the point. The point is that they could have been fairly close and niether seen the other. I make this point not to say anyone knows how close they really were but to suggest they might have been near to target and still missed Howland. If FN was able to get a couple of sun shots he would have had a fair idea of his ground speed and would have been very close as far as east/west is concerned but no idea how far north or south. This is not to say FN couldn't have messed this up or that he DID have good ground speed information. We'll never know. No, Ric. I don't want to get into a hassle about fuel OR navigation. I just dislike misleading posts. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:15:54 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Reef Landing > How much standing water would impose enough resistance to a 35 inch tire at > 65 mph to to cause a 7,000 pound airplane to go up on its nose? If we had a > feel for that we'd have a better handle on how big or small the tidal window > might be for a successful landing. Would that be more likely or would there be a tendency to hydroplane? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric To what degree does hydroplaning rely upon a really smooth undersurface? I would think that, at some point, if the water is deep enough it's just going to flip the airplane over. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:16:46 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again > "We know, because Earhart's radio signal increased in strength between 0742 > and 0758 IST, that Noonan had turned in the correct direction toward Howland > when he intercepted the advanced line of approach 157-337." > > I don't know how else to interpret that than that Long uses changes in radio > signal strength to draw very specific conclusions about where the airplane > was and was not at a particular time. In addition, Ric, Long is assuming FN offset early and turned up or down the 157/337 line. He may have tracked straight in having confidence he knew where he was. There is no way Long could assume that an offset method of navigation. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:18:32 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Re: LOP NOT Alan: As we often seem to do, I think we got our signals crossed. However, I will follow my own recent suggestion and not get started on the LOP subject, since we've all had our chance to air our different opinions without making even the most minute impression on TIGHAR's views. What I was suggesting earlier was that TIGHAR simply come out with, in essence, a list of topics for which input is essentially closed. There are a number of pieces of their hypothesis that have been reviewed to their complete satisfaction, and the liklihood of modifying that view is extremely small. In my view, these should be closed to discussion - they are the subjects which "go round and round" and will only be (possibly) resolved by finding the aircraft and artifacts. What I often find myself reacting to is TIGHAR's use of oversimplified one or two liners which present the TIGHAR way as the only way, and are often completely dissmissive of other ideas which, in fact, really cannot be ruled out. What I was suggesting was that fewer people would be inclined to fall into the often endless debates if some acknowledgement of other views was included, along with a simple statement saying that this is TIGHAR's view (or better yet, a reference to an applicable part of the website which would list closed subjects and why), and "that is that" - end of discussion. There is a lot of interesting and fun stuff which comes to light on the forum and I have posted a few things which have in some tiny way seemed useful. In spite of the fact that I do not agree with several cornerstones of TIGHAR's hypothesis, I certainly would not completely rule out Niku as a possible final destination of AE and FN. In any case, my intent was to make a few suggestions which might make the forum experience more focused on things that TIGHAR is genuinely seeking forum input on. The LOP and several other subjects are not among them. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:19:50 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again Well, yes and no. All E. Long was saying about signal strength in the passage you quote was that he assumed the plane was getting closer to Howland because signal strength increased. The 27 mile estimate is not based directly upon signal strength, but upon the time between the transmissions multiplied by the assumed best endurance speed of the plane (100mph), coupled with the assumption that the plane was either North or South on the line, and proceeding toward Howland (thereby explaining the increase in signal strength). Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:20:41 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Research in England Ron, thank you for the nice reply. I appreciate you taking the time to give reasons for the search items and guiding me to where the records should be. As to the Japanese information I will certainly tackle those as well. As you implied I'm not a big fan of the Japanese connections but that wouldn't stop me from looking into it. I have solid opinions which are obvious but I am never closed to alternatives if there is at least some rational reasoning given as support. I will try to go this weekend but at least within a week. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:22:19 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna > From Alan Caldwell > > > Because they were well off course > > How do we know that, Ross? Umm because they were around three hundred and something miles south east of Earhart & Noonan's course? I am suggesting that Noonan would have carried charts as accurate as possible for the areas he intended to fly over, but less accurate ones covering areas like the Phoenix group as "the Phoenix Islands" were well off course....... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:23:29 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Pan-am web site Here are a few excerpts from the pan-am web site as to their pre Earhart survey. ---------------------------- "As early as 1934 engineers of the Pan American Airways System took to the field to supplement their collection of all procurable data on winds and weather and water of the South Pacific region. Early in 1935 a small, unpretentious vessel put out of Honolulu with a staff of experts in flight operation, weather and oceanography, who spent months in looking over countless islands in search of practicable bases." "Following the technical surveyors, individual meteorologists, operations engineers, radio technicians, took up stations at several key points and began to tackle the problems facing air transport operation in the region, particularly the study of surface and upper air weather of the South Pacific considered the most variable of any meteorological areas in the world" "It was upon these preliminary surveys that the detailed plan of airways organization was based. Problems of fuel transport and supply, of radio and weather station locations, of clearances and tests for the powerful ocean-spanning radio Direction Finders, of detailed studies and exploration, of landing and takeoff channels upon which the safety of ocean transport so much depends-all these were gone into in exhaustive detail." "The story of the rest of the flight is not so much a flying story as it is a demonstration of our radio direction finder's amazing efficiency. Some 350 miles ahead of us lay a tiny atoll, which even a pin mark on our chart would have exaggerated the size of. Just before we entered the solid nimbus formation Canaday, our navigator, had taken a good sunsight to check our dead reckoning position to a high degree of accuracy. Once in the cloud no more celestial sights could be dreamed of. Even sights below us of the water surface were so vague and interrupted, Canaday used the magnesium flare drift sight bombs normally used only at night. Even then his dead reckoning of our path could be only approximate. Possibly never before in two years of Pacific flying was the value borne in on us of having a third navigational guard-Pan American's unique radio direction finders sending us an almost constant stream of bearings from Honolulu behind and the steamer North Wind ahead at its Kingman Reef anchorage; and a fourth guard-a direction finder on the Clipper itself with which we began taking check-bearings on signals from the North Wind." "It would be impossible to exaggerate how well these devices worked. Eight hours on the dot after we had left Honolulu we saw dead ahead of us through the driving rain and the mist a black smudge, a funnel, the North Wind itself riding at anchor in the midst of what looked like a giant slick on the surface of the wind-tossed Pacific. Without our radio we could have passed a few hundred yards or so to one side or another of that sludge and have missed our goal entirely!" As to Kingman reef the piece said they saw, ".....dry land at the position of Latitude 6023° N Longitude 162018° W." "The only spot between the Hawaiian Islands and American Samoa which immediately offers protected waters in mid-ocean for big oceangoing seaplanes, Kingman Reef is a large horseshoe-shaped coral barrier completely awash at high tide except for the little strip of sand which measures scarcely as much as four city blocks. The reefs, however, enclose a sheltered lagoon with a strong barrier of coral formation to break the ocean swells on the north, east and south. The landing area thus formed is several miles on a side-more than ample for the giant Clipper Ships. Comparatively open at the broad end, the lagoon can be entered by heavy draft vessels. The Pan American supply ship, North Wind, was anchored there as a station ship for the survey flight." "As yet uninhabited, the tiny island will be sufficiently above high water, and is otherwise adequate, for the erection of one of Pan American's powerful direction finding radio stations, together with certain other base equipment which would be installed there for the operation of scheduled service." On their way back they ran into this condition which was a subject of controversy several weeks ago. "Then shortly before noon, although flying almost immediately above the equator, we-believe it or not-ran into a neat pocket-sized snow flurry at an altitude of 9,000 feet." This was from a 1938 Pan-Am paper but this particular flight took place in 1937 and actually passed AE on her aborted flight to Hawaii. The survey began I think in 1934. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:24:32 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Kingman Reef Before anyone gets excited about Kingman Reef it is 1056 sm to the NE of Howland. Far out of reach. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:25:16 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Distance and signals, again The following is from the PAN-AM page that was mentioned yesterday.... "Two hours out of Pearl Harbor we sighted a freighter on our starboard beam. Too far off our course for visual identification we tried to raise her with our radio-unsuccessfully. Either she had no radio equipment or her 'sparks' was off watch, for at that range our transmitter would have lifted the earphones off his head." Th' WOMBAT (para break is mine) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:26:17 EDT From: Claude Stokes Subject: coconuts Growing up in Miami Fl I was surronded by coconut trees in my yard. I learned early at 4 years old how to open coconuts and I drank all the milk and ate all the meat I could handle. I never found any bad stuff except that very green ones were bitter,, and very old ones were kinda frementy, really old ones were spoiled. My favorite way to open them was to use a pick axe with the sharp end pointing up,, you just ram the small end down hard and tear off the husk with a twisting motion. The hard way to do it is to raise the nut over your head, with the pointed end facing down, and slam it into the concrete side walk as hard as you can. This takes lots of effort but if you have anything that resembles concrete or large coral or rocks,, thats all you need. With enough slamming, the husk will break open. With the pick axe you can open a nut in about five good strokes. Happy langings ,, the Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:27:31 EDT From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: Radio questions Bob Brandenburg wrote: << "Immediately" in this context means within a couple of miles. I think it's more likely that you are working your friend via near vertical incidence skywave (NVIS) propagation, than via ground wave. That would explain the weak signals. >> Yes, that does seem 'plausible'. I'll have to figure out a way to determine if this is the case. Do you think NVIS propagation could have been involved in Earhart's case? 73.... John ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:32:32 EDT From: Andy Subject: Re: Pan Am in the South Pacific <<>> Under close examination, no date or map maker is obviously apparent/legible. However, based on the visible features we can try to date this. I see a post Korean War border between North and South Korea (before 1945 it was fully occupied by Japan and no border would be present). Furthermore, most maps I have seen from the late 30s separate Japanese occupied Manchuria/Manchuko from the rest of China. This is not present on this map. Perhaps most interesting is in the Phoenix Group, below "Gardner Is." is "Nikumaroro" in brackets (The same goes for Hull/Orona). Would a map from the 30s have the Kiribati name for Gardner on it? LTM Andy *************************************************************************** From Ric No. Although the islands received their Gilbertese names (Nikumaroro, Orona and Manra) in 1937, the names did not officially change until the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony became the independent nations of Kiribati and Tuvalu in the late 1970s. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:41:51 EDT From: Craig Subject: Sources of Information For the last couple of months, I've been monitoring online auctions for Earhart related materials. It's something I can do quite easily from my home computer to feel like I'm contributing to this ongoing effort, even though I can't walk to beaches of Niku with the team. I always have the hope that someone, somewhere will attempt to sell some sort of memorabilia that will be of great interest to us (i.e. an old pair of her shoes, clothing, old photographs, etc.). I've included a photo with this message someone is selling on Ebay right now, and although I think I've seen other like it, it brings up an interesting question. How can I tell if something we haven't already seen a 1000 times? I mean, if it's a shoe or something personal (or a FN sextant box) that's one thing, but there are quite frequently original photographs of her (I already assume anything that's published, we've seen). Should I just sent each along, or just ones circa '37, or should I assume we've seen all the Earhart photos we need to see. Similarly, there are always aviation books, etc., from the late 30s, 40s relating to her for sale. Can I assume TIGHAR knows about most of these sorts of things? Please excuse me if all this is a waste of your time, but there are a few of pictures on Ebay this week that I havne't seen anywhere before. Also a number of newspaper articles. Is it safe to say we've seen enough newspaper articles? I assume all news came over the wire back then, and most news stories would be relatively similar... Also, with regard to the shoe from Niku and relation to pictures of her, could we ever possibly find a picture of her wearing the exact shoe? I don't know how many shoes she would have, or how often she'd buy new ones, but I'm sure someone at some point has scoured Amelia pictures in search of the Cinderella theory. Things that may be of interest from Ebay: (may have to cut and paste the links into a browser) http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1023132582 http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1023048560 http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1019875123 http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1021172305 http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1023703576 Anything to get people's minds off the LOP and transmission talk! Courage, Craig from NB **************************************************************************** From Ric All those items are familiar. At this point, the likelihood of anything useful to the investigation turning for sale on ebay is pretty remote but it would be foolish to say it couldn't happen. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:44:46 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Alternatives >Don, given they were low on fuel as stated by AE and worked out by >several folks on the forum, what OTHER reasonable, logical direction do >you suggest they might have gone'...? >Alan Given your own 16 Oct 2001 opinion that the original LOP was _not_ critical & that FN would have taken numerous sunshots to determine his _position_ during the dead reckoning search for Howland & even without a second celestial body to shoot... 'it would have been easy to navigate to _any_ of the Phoenix Island group'... I'm afraid I _assumed_ then the only hindrance in determining to which of the island groups they should fly... was the one truly _critical_ determination as to the _actual_ status of their fuel reserve on board, at least at the time of (what proved to be) AE's last confirmed, received radio transmission... something which still remains in the realm of pure estimation, based upon assumptions/speculations as to how carefully & accurately AE conserved &/or managed her fuel consumption during the flight... since none of her actually received radio transmissions provided sufficient data or or any useful information upon which to base any truly accurate determination. There is no argument that the Phoenix Group in general & McKean & Gardner in particular were closer to Howland than any of the other island groups, so given the somewhat casual, generalized, _single_ radio transmission reference to ...'low on fuel'..., the Phoenix Chain was a logical location for _that_ reason... However, there are also other valid reasons that would seem to mitigate against such a choice, as I've often mentioned before, such as... flying 300-400 miles to a mostly uninhabited island group, in the opposite direction from your only _known_ (at that time) source of rescue, having failed to establish any reliable, two-way radio communication with that only source of rescue, or providing that only source of rescue with at least some clue as to the intention of seeking such alternative landfall. Since Ric is predisposed to discontinue this type of discourse on the forum & I must agree it always tends to generate more 'heat' than 'light' upon the subject matter under discussion... I won't mention ...'back to the Gilberts'... Don Neumann ********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for not mentioning it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:49:56 EDT From: Darrell Whitbeck Subject: Last Takeoff Film I was just watching the film of the takeoff from Lae. I have a couple of simple questions that might have been discussed before, so I'll try to keep it short and not get too detailed. At the very beginning of the film there is a shot of AE standing next to an open door on the Electra. She is standing next to a man in a white colored shirt and pants. Who is this man? At first glance I thought it was Fred Noonan, but later in the film when you see FN, he is wearing dark pants and shirt. A little while on in the film there's a shot, (the same shot that is on the TIGHAR web page for the last takeoff), and it shows a man in light colored pants and shirt with dark colored belt. I think this is a different man then the one at the start judging by his clothes. It appears that he is also filming? Could there have been two films of this takeoff? Or is he just taking pictures with a normal camera? It's hard for me to tell from here. Also, just wondering, I have always read in various accounts that FN had a head wound. It was in Goerner's book as also the one by Loomis. But now there is this information from Betty. If this notebook is real, this is amazing proof! Besides the two aforementioned books (which strangely both go with the "captured by Japanese hypothesis), and now Betty's notebook, is there any other proof or reason to believe that FN had a head wound? Just finished "AE Shoe's". What a good read. I didn't want it to end! Thanks to all involved and to Ric and everyone - "Keep up the good work!" LTM, Darrell Whitbeck *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know who those guys are. If there is another film, we don't know about it. Goerner's and Loomis' allegations of a Noonan head wound come from the same anecdotal source. There is nothing in Betty's notebook that mentions a head wound. That's an assumption she made to explain Noonan's apparently irrational behavior. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:55:04 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Reef landing >What, I wonder, would be the effect of - say - an inch of standing water? >How much standing water would impose enough resistance to a 35 inch tire >at 65 mph to to cause a 7,000 pound airplane to go up on its nose? Two good questions. Intuitively, all pilots understand that an inch of standing water (and also sand or snow) decelerates the airplane on landing and inhibits acceleration on takeoff. I was able to locate a reference for calculating this effect in: Aircraft Performance Engineering, Joop Wagenmakers, Prentice Hall, 1991 Referencing slush, he states, "The tyre drag may be calculated by using the frontal area of the submerged part of the tyre and Cd = 0.75 as the drag coefficient in the drag equation." Elsewhere he states that slush has a density 50 to 80 percent that of water. It would be necessary to know the width of the "tyre" to calculate the contribution of standing water to total deceleration of the airplane. As to the second question, how deep must the water be to cause the airplane to tip onto its nose, one would have to know both the specific location of the center of mass of the airplane and the downward force that up-elevator exerts during the landing roll. Perhaps one of the engineers on the forum (Walt?) could give it a go. ************************************************************************** From Ric Tire width was 15 inches. These calculations are worth doing and, in fact, necessary if we're going to accurately establish the window of opportunity when the airplane could have been landed on the reef that day. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:56:52 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Reef landing >Would that be more likely or would there be a tendency to hydroplane? The formula for hydroplaning speed is: VELOCITY = 9 * SQUARE ROOT (TIRE PRESSURE/WATER or SLUSH DENSITY) Hydroplaning is most prevalent with a thin film of water on a smooth surface (war story on request). That's why they groove runways. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:59:03 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: SE on the LOP? > From Alan Caldwell > > There are two postings that almost always get a rise out of me. One is a > statement of "fact" that could not possibly be known. My hobby horse is the careless and unqualified assertion that "no one can prove a negative" (this assertion is itself an unprovable, non-self-evident, negative, and asserting it is therefore an act of faith rather than of reason). :o) > Part of the problem is there is so much information now we tend to forget and > put forth arguments that have many times before been shown to have little or > no merit. And part of the problem is that newbies happen. Every day, if TIGHAR is lucky, someone new comes to the web site, browses around, and subscribes. The more, the merrier, especially when it comes to collection time (I've paid my dues for two years and I've ordered the, um, ah, $50 thingamajig that's coming out Any Day Now). And the new people in the forum want to express their opinions, and many of them don't read everything before they start doing so. I've suggested to Ric that he and Pat create more Dead Horse FAQs so that when a topic is declared closed, newbies can be shown why. I wish I could work on the anatomy of a few of the Dead Horses, but I'm already overcommitted for the next couple of months. > Another problem is few people understand some of the issues that > are debated. Radios is obviously one. I've enjoyed the lessons from the experts very much. I'm getting a better appreciation for the mistakes made. _AE's_Shoes_ put in some facts about the change in antenna length that clarified what people have said here many times: the lengthened antenna did nothing to help with 500 Kc transmission and degraded peformance on her 3105 and 6210 frequencies. The radio posts may be boring to those who understand this stuff deeply, but for me, it's been an education. > Aircraft navigation is another issue not well understood by many. Right. Diagrams and maps help. We don't get those in e-mail very often. > I marvel at the wealth of knowledge our radio guys have. I'll > never learn it or oppose them. Amen! > ... I just > dislike misleading posts. I only object to those that mislead away from my theories. ;o) Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:36:39 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio questions > Do you think NVIS propagation could have been involved in Earhart's case? Yes indeed. For example, at 50 miles from Howland, the signal propagated via a one-hop F2 path with a takeoff angle of 80 degrees. At 100 miles, the path was one-hop F2 with a takeoff angle of 71 degrees. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:45:38 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Winslow reef info. In the past various forum members have inquired about Winslow Reef which is mid-way between Howland and Nikumaroro Islands. Specifically, inquiries were made about the reef's physical description and various environmental factors. By chance I came upon a web site which contains interesting information about the reef and would refer the site to those interested. The web page is located at http://dc3mf.tripod.com/Winslow.htm. LTM, (who loves a remote beach with lots of sun and swimming at high tide) Roger Kelley *************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting Roger. This is much better information than we've had before. Sounds like a landing by the Electra may have been possible if the tide was right. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:50:07 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Re: coconuts "The hard way to open a coconut is to slam it onto the concrete sidewalk." Is it possible that the firebricks found on the atoll were used for just such a purpose? Islanders would use the proper tool, but a castaway would use whatever was available. Lawrence ******************************************************************* From Ric The concrete bricks found on the island have not been identified as firebrick and are, in fact, the wrong color(gray rather than yellowish). The castaway was on the SE end of the island. There were no coconuts on that end of the island in 1937/38. It is, of course, possible that the broken brick found at the Seven Site was used as something to hammer with or on. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:29:07 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Discount on the Shoes Apologies to everyone who's already bought it at full price (and thanks, of course, since about 10% of each sale goes to TIGHAR), but Forum participants can now get a 30% discount on copies of Amelia Earhart's Shoes. All you need to do is go to http://www.altamirapress.com/ISBN/0759101302 and place your order, being sure to type the code BF1AWEB in the promotion code box in the shopping cart om prder to receive the discount. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:45:28 EDT From: Tom Byers Subject: Next step So what does TIGHAR propose to do now? A feasibility study for an underwater search around Howland Island? Tom Byers *********************************************************************** From Ric I know of no evidence to suggest that the plane is underwater near Howland. TIGHAR will evaluate the abundance of new information collected during Niku IIII and identify the artifacts collected. We'll also seek out the answers to the questions that work has raised through archival research and the collection of anecdotal information. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:50:20 EDT From: Dan Brown Subject: dental records For Ron Bright: Fred Goerner recruited Theodore D. McCown, an anthropologist at the University of California - Berkeley, to examine the skeletal remains possessed by Goerner. McCown received a letter from Horace L. Cartee of Miami FL, who performed dental work on AE the day before the flight left Miami. The letter from Cartee referred to Collins W. Sword as AE's general dentist in Miami. Horace Leslie Cartee (b. 3 October 1899 in Carter KY, d. 21 July 1978 probably in or near Miami FL) graduated from the University of Louisville School of Dentistry in 1923. He moved to Florida in 1926, married Miss Frank Alma Peters of Miami in 1931, and they had one daughter, Almalee. Cartee had a distinguished career as an oral surgeon and was active in national and international professional organizations. He was Vice-President, President-Elect, and President of the state East Coast District Dental Society between 1936 and 1939. A Mason and a Shriner, Cartee was also active in the social and civic life of Miami, including the Law Enforcement League of Dade County, the Miami Chamber of Commerce, the Committee of One Hundred, the Century Club, the Kiwanis Club, the Biscayne Bay Yacht Club, the Miami Country Club, and the Coral Reef Yacht Club. In short, he seems to have been a candidate to socialize with the Putnams. Collins W. Swords (b. 4 November 1891 in Big Cane LA, d. probably 1950 in or near Miami FL) was from a prominent family in St. Landry Parish LA. Swords graduated from the Northwestern University School of Dentistry in 1912. He moved to Florida some time after 1914. He was the state East Coast District Dental Society's delegate to the Florida State Dental Society (later known as the Florida Dental Association) from 1945 to 1947, therefore he and Cartee likely knew each other well. Last October I contacted Samuel B. Low, Associate Dean of the University of Florida's College of Dentistry, for advice on how to track down dental records from the 1930's in Florida. Dr. Low's opinion was that it is unlikely any survive, and he knew of no additional resources within the College. Neither the Florida Dental Association nor the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (formerly known as the American Society of Oral Surgeons; Cartee was President-Elect in 1949) responded to requests for information. The University of Louisville Archives and Records Center has no information on Cartee other than his academic records. Cartee never published anything in the Journal of Oral Surgery or the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The Northwestern University School of Dentistry is closed. For any forum members in south Florida, obituaries for Swords (1950) and especially Cartee (1978) in the Dade, Broward, or Palm Beach County newspapers may mention the names of other dentists who might have taken their active patients and preserved their records after they retired. Notices to patients may have appeared in the newspapers before they closed their practices, which could provide a clue to who received the records. Almalee Cartee may be able to provide relevant information. The correspondence, manuscripts, reports, and photographs of McCown (b. 1908, d. 1969) are preserved at the Bancroft Library at UC-Berkeley. If among them, the letter from Cartee would make a great "Original Document" on the TIGHAR website. References: Fortier, A. Louisiana: comprising sketches of parishes, towns, events, institutions, and persons, arranged in cyclopedic form. Vol. 3, p. 422. Century Historical Association. 1914. Haines, H.S. and R. Thoburn. Seventy-five years of dentistry. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1960. Thoburn, R. (ed.) One hundred years of dentistry in Florida. Florida Dental Education Foundation. 1983. Dan Brown, #2408 ************************************************************************* From Ric Whew! Good work. Anybody want to check out the Bancroft Library at UC-Berkeley? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:51:57 EDT From: Ed Subject: Re: Radio questions Just a thought regarding radio propogation for our radio enthusiasts. I recently read "Body of Secrets" by James Bradford, an anatomy of the National Security Agency. In the book, he relates some interesting phenomina regarding propogation. In one paragraph that relates to the attack on the USS Liberty, he described the experiences of the USS Valdez (a part of the United States Sigint Navy, a 350 foot vessel). These experiences were described by Frank Raven, former Deputy Director of Group G at NSA. Quote from page 190 of the book: "As she steamed west across the Mediterranean to Rota, the Valdez had also conducted "hearability studies" for NSA in order to help determine the best places from which to eavesdrop. Off the eastern end of Crete, the Valdez discovered what amounted to a "duct" in the air, a sort of aural pipeline that led straight to the Middle East. "You can sit in Crete and watch the Cairo television shows", said Raven. "If you're over flat water, basically calm water, the communications are wonderful." He decided to Park the Liberty there." Recognizing that the frequency spectrum may not be the same, these experiences indicate that such ducts exist and that Betty's reception may have been the result of a similar pipeline from Gardiner Island to Florida. I strongly believe that further analysis, careful thought, and examination is required of her transcripts, they may lead to the smoking gun. LTM Ed of PSL ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:04:47 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Winslow reef continued. Ric wrote: "Sounds like a landing by the Electra may have been possible if the tide was right." Rather than landing, I would submit that if our disillusioned aviators came upon the 4 Winslow reefs and the reefs were properly identified, a direct bearing to any other location would have been gained. Note that there are 4 exposed reefs in the immediate vicienty, not one. Therefore, 4 times more likely to visually acquire. However, several questions come to mind. Not having large scale charts of the area between Howland and Nikumaroro I ask the following: 1. How far off the LOP are the Winslow Reefs? 2. What is the distance from Howland Island to the Winslow Reefs? 3. What is the distance from Winslow Reefs to Nikumaroro Island? Other than a navigation check point, I don't think the Winslow Reefs would be of much use. LTM, Roger Kelley *************************************************************************** From Ric Somebody want to plot that out? ************************************************************************ From Dan Postellon I wouldn't want to have to land there, though. It sounds like the "cays"/sandy islands come and go with the storms, and might be awash most of the time. Sounds like Kingman reef, only smaller. Note the shipwreck on the detailed map. I wonder if every rock and island in the Pacific has at least one shipwreck (hopefully not a castaway as well) Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (love to mom, and Friday too!) ************************************************************************** From Ric I wonder if the "shipwreck" is really the metal frame mentioned. ************************************************************************* From Alan Caldwell Roger, for those who are interested here is the pertinent paragraph of your URL cite. The Winslow Reef (01°35'S, 174°56'W) The Winslow Reef is about 1 seamile in diameter and most of the reef is visible at low tide. O'Brayan, a New Zealand Skipper, reported in 1932 of a group of steep-sided and steep-to corall-rocks up to 7 ft hight. These rocks were reported again in 1944 by the American Navy. These rocks lies on a small submerged sandy cay, drying between 2 hours before and 3 hours after high-tide. The bigest Rock is Winslow Rock (Gigant Rock), whitch is reported to rise to 7 ft and with a diameter of nearly 80 ft. O'Brayan reported of no vegetation on the rock, but that it is covered with a thik layer of guano. There is a small entrance into the lagoon, situated near the northwest end of the reef. The entrance is useable by small crafts and low sea. Anchorage is possible near the north and the south-east end of the reef in calm water. In 1967 the Rosmarin, an American Yacht reports of a ruined and abandoned iron frameworkplatform up to 10 ft high, situated on the Gigant Rock. Till today it is not shure who errected these steelwork tower. There was a rumour that American troups built up these platform during WW II to observe Japan ships in these sector. As a pilot it doesn't sound inviting. And I would like to assume the yacht that saw the tower structure knew what they were looking at. Tower framework wouldn't look like a wrecked airplane, .............right? Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Randy Jacobson Still, the Colorado aviators flew right over the area, and still could not see it. Even if AE and FN did land there, they were soon underwater. ************************************************************************** From Tom MM What interesting stuff - directly in conflict with much that we have heard. I have to admit that I'm a little dubious. Some quick observations: 1. I've compared Shippke's chart with several small scale charts commercial covering the area, and they agree fairly closely. No commerical chart that I have seen comes close to the large scale of his chart. 2. If you superimpose Lambrecht's sketch chart on Schippke's, it would appear that the Colorado flights did indeed cover this area thoroughly. On 7 July, they would have flown directly over the "Doric Crain" reef (Reef and Sandbank on Lambrect's sketch). On 8 July, the search passed within 4-5 NM at most from all the features on Schippke's chart except for the "Hanston Reef". Their first turn on the search pattern was very close to "Belle Blue Reef". 3. Lambrecht's location of Winslow Reef is roughly 10-15 NM ESE of where it is located on modern charts. Nevertheless, the search pattern would have brought them almost directly over the modern location. 4. Shippke's text clearly describes Winslow Reef at or obove the surface, while modern charts indicate a depth of about 36 feet. 5. Interestingly, among his sources is Lambrecht's report(?). Lambrecht, of course, did not find anything reef related. 6. I'm totally baffled about the steel tower remains on "Gigant Rock" on Winslow. This makes almost no sense given the remoteness of the location, the clear difficulty of close approach, and the utter lack of a good reason for the effort. I doubt that a navigational safety light would have been worth installing and maintaining, and it did not sound like a good place to stay, even for short periods. The first storm surge would make things very unpleasant. Maybe it is the frame of the Electra, nose down. (OK, JUST KIDDING). Winslow has been a very confusing issue. On the one had, we have charts, developed from reliable and credible observations that show at least "Reef and sandbank" formation in the general area. On the other hand, from what I have heard, they are not visible today. Now we have O'Brayan in 1932 showing substantial features and Lambrecht with a flight of searchers with observers not seeing a thing in 1937. Later, in 1967, they are back and now have the remains of a steel tower. The tide range (low to high) is not great enough in this region to explain the sudden appearances and dissappearances. Also, in these clear waters a reef 30 or so feet down or the surface disturbance related to it should have been discernable to Lambrecht, unless the sea was rough enough to be whitecaps everywhere. But that would have made the search for anything, including AE and FN all but impossible. If volcanic activity is involved, it certainly is an active area. I did notice on the Scripps Institute site (http://www.sio.ucsd.edu/scripps_news/log/8.html) a page titled Scripps Log, February 26 - March 5, 1999 vol. 36 no. 8: Part way down, we find "R/V Melville, Nova Leg 2 Weekly Report - The Melville has now completed the fourth week of its marine geological/geophysical investigation of seamounts and atolls in the Gilbert/Tokelau region. We sampled and surveyed the northern portion of this chain, between Howland Island and Winslow Reef." I think TIGHAR looked into Winslow at one time. Was Scripps contacted to see what info they can provide on this slippery eel? Thanks, TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:07:51 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna >> Because they were well off course > > How do we know that, Ross? > > Alan > #2329 Did I answer this? I had a problem with mail. I should have written a little more clearly. "They" referred to the group of islands containing Gardner - NOT the aircrew. "Because the Phoenix islands were well off the Electra's course....." it is quite possible that assuming Noonan had a chart that showed the Phoenix islands it may not have showed the actual shapes of the islands in much detail and picking out which island they were on may have relied on their relative positions or sizes.... Just me being tired again.... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:09:59 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Book: Amelia Earhart's Shoes Marty Moleski wrote: >Well, I'm done reading AE's Shoes. >A rollicking good story. Filled in a lot of details. >Got a feel for what the expeditions have been like from the beginning (joys >and sorrows). A frequent poster to this forum recently emailed me privately wanting to know if there was any truth to the rumor that I had co-authored an Earhart book with Tom King,Kar Burns and Randy Jacobson. Even though he posts weekly and sometimes daily...he had missed this fact. So..for those who have not been paying attention, the four of us have co-authored an Earhart book. It is titled "Amelia Earhart's Shoes: Is the mystery solved?". The book discusses Earhart and Noonan's lives as well as the World Flight and the TIGHAR investigation from 1988 until the present. In addition, the book can serve as an excellent research tool for Earhart buffs. The book is extensively footnoted and indexed. Virtually every relevant Earhart related document and anecdote thru Niku IV is listed in the bibliography. Some docs are printed in the book....lots of good pictures too. It is an easy read while at the same time providing plenty of detail to those so inclined. In addition to Marty's review above...The Library Journal, which is the main review medium used by librarians to decide what to stock, wrote the following favorable review in their Oct. 1 issue. "There are competing theories about Earhart's disappearance, but in this engrossing description of the investigations, TIGHAR has produced one of the most cogent and plausible theories yet. This is a valuable and entertaining primer on the disappearance itself, and it just might hold the solution to one of aviation's greatest mysteries." [Mel Lane] You can order the book from your local bookstore or order it online at www.amazon.com or at www.altamirapress.com. For anyone who has read the book....feel free to post a review at amazon.com. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:12:43 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Reef Landing Skeet Gifford wrote: >There have been a couple of references to the >probability of a successful >landing on the portion of the reef north of the Norwich City. There seems to be 4 landing options. 1. the lagoon 2. a bare area on land, e.g. east of Baureke Passage or up in Nutiran 3. the reef 4. the beach No. 1....The lagoon... seems unlikely given the other 3 choices which offer the chance to take off again No. 2...bare area (i.e. Baureke) ties into a TIGHAR theory related to Niku III. No. 3...the reef also ties into a TIGHAR theory and was checked as part of Niku4 But we do not seem to hear much about No. 4...the beach? One of the pilots that was on the Niku III team thought the beach looked like a good option followed closely by one of the bare areas (or maybe even 2nd to it). The reef and lagoon came in last...in his opinion. Beach landings on islands in the Pacific are discussed in the literature and seem not to be terribily unusual. Having been to Niku twice now.....what is your read on a beach landing? Why choose the reef over the beach or some other area? LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:13:21 EDT From: Nick Murray Subject: Re: Research in England Alan, I live in NW Austin, which isn't too far from Fredericksburg (I think!). If you want some assistance in your research at the Nimitz museum, please let me know. You can contact me off-forum at nyxpc@aol.com. I am available on weekends mostly. Nick Murray #2356CE ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:18:41 EDT From: Troy Subject: Re: Reef Landing and if it flipped, someone not strapped in well, like FN, could be head injured VERY easily. good thought...... ****************************************************************** From Ric ...except a flip would mean no post-loss radio transmissions. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:20:27 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Reef Landing Just a couple of comments on hydroplaning - first, lower pressure tires are more prone to it than tires at higher pressure. Also, the water has to be more than a tenth of an inch deep (which it apparently is on the flats). Tire tread also plays a part in it. If you like I can dig up the formulas to calculate the speed at which a particular combination will hydroplane. I don't know what, if any, effect a rough or smooth surface underlying the water would have on hydroplaning. The accident reconstruction formulas that we use were originally developed by the air force, as a result of combat laden b-52's returning from patrol. When landing on wet runways, they would simply increase the tire pressure, and were able to avoid hydroplaning. I'll go out on a limb and speculate that the Electra, landing on an inch of water will initially hydroplane, then, as speed diminishes, the tendency will decrease until the tires are running on the under-surface. If I stretch a (now) little used part of my brain, I want to say that a passenger car with smooth tires holding 32 pounds will hydroplane in water deeper than 1/10 inch at about 50 mph. I agree that if deep enough water is present, it would flip, but we can reasonably presume that didn't happen, based upon the post-loss transmissions ie: right engine functioning to charge the battery, and transmitter antenna (on top) apparently intact. ltm, jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:34:33 EDT From: Ric Subject: photo CD sampler You'll find a summary of the Niku IIII and a link to a sampler of the new photo CD at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Expeditions/NikuIIII/NikuIIIIsumm.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:35:34 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: dental records For Dan Brown, Very nice historical work on the dentists involved with McGowan. The key here is that someone may have taken over the practices from Cartee and Sword, but still the chances of preserving old dental records is next to nil. Medical records of retiring doctors in Washington are held I think only 10 years by the physician. Recent investigation disclosed that it was not Dr. Wilmore Finerman who did the oral surgery, Caldwell- Luc, on AE in 1934, but a Dr. Joseph Goldstein, now deceased. I am running his records down most likely in the Goerner collection at Nimitz Museum under McGown. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:36:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Distance from Howland/Loop Antenna Wombat, I knew you didn't mean the aircrew but I was baffled. You always post pretty accurately. I'm clear now. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:48:53 EDT From: Ric Subject: Metallurgical question In writing up descriptions of artifacts to go with photos for the website, I've come across something puzzling. We have an artifact that is made of a very thin and very light sheet metal that does not respond to a magnet and yet is very strong and "springy". Envision a U shape you can hold in your fingers. The vertical arms of the U slant slightly outwards but you can easily compress the U to make them vertical. The ends of the vertical arms have little flanges with tiny rectangular holes that were probably meant to fit over pins of some sort. In other words, this thing seems to be a spring clip of some kind. It's in very good condition with only a few tiny holes caused by oxidation or corrosion. The surface is black with tiny rust colored spots and seems to have been painted in what might be black enamel. There is no green color that we usually associate with copper or brass. My question is, what kind of non-magnetic metal would be that strong and "springy"? Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:32:04 EST From: David Chase Subject: Re: Reef Landing Just a thought about post loss transmissions. After bumping into numerous contemporaneous newspaper accounts of these transmissions and then the icing on the cake, Betty's notes on the TIGHAR website, I've always believed that this is major smoking gun evidence that really keeps the search alive. Now, in part to establish the further credibility for these reports I've got a question to ask. In this day and age there are obviously alot of nutcases with high tech, so TODAY, we would not be surprised that someone, somewhere, would come on and pretend to be her. BUT, In 1937, (given that the radio technology was (relatively) new and expensive were these sort of hoaxes perpetrated? Can some of the veterans cite other instances of such radio hoaxes ON SIMILAR RADIO BANDS? i.e. not ham bands for example (although maybe their general purpose equipment at the time was suitable for these frequencies?). "So what?", you ask, it doesn't PROVE anything. I know that, but... if folks don't remember or couldn't find similar contemporary radio hoaxes from this period, it's a statistical nail 'in the coffin' of "these can't be real" receptions. It might be interesting to see if the FCC (were they around back then?) had any such records. If there are no other radio hoaxes documented in the '36/'37/'38 time frame, I would find it hard for someone to argue that THIS was the only one!@?!@@? Also I live in Sacramento and could get to the Bancroft library in three or four weeks. If no one else living closer offers to get there faster in the next two weeks or so, I'll come back on line and commit to it. Dave Chase, dad of Vanessa of 'Amelia Earhart at History Day' notoriety (brother, did I get sucked in or what?) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:49:53 EST From: Dale Rathdrum Subject: Re: Metalurgical question Ric: Phosphor Bronze is a common material used for leaf springs. Dale Rathdrum, ID *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not familiar with Phosphor Bronze but this stuff seems awfully light to be bronze. *************************************************************************** From Pete My first thought was anodized aluminum. Artifact may be "pot metal", an alloy of aluminum and/or zinc. The stuff is found in car door handles, headlight bezels, all over. I'm looking into the stuff for a school project, and what I have so far is "pot metal" can corrode, is nonmagnetic, and cheap to produce. The artifact may be some kind of heat sink, or a stray frequency shield (electronics student surfacing here). The other Forumites may have a better guess as to the identity since I have no idea what trim parts a weapons carrier had (Loran station) nor what NC's interior may have included. Welcome Back Fearless Leader! Pete #2419 *************************************************************************** From Ric I have a passing familarity with "pot metal" and I don't think this thing is made from it. Whatever this is it's very finely made and seems to be part of something that is fairly hi-tech. **************************************************************************** From Alexander why not take a filing and get it analysed only then would you be sure one way or the other then narrow down the possibilities of what could be made with that metal...parachute clips etc...just an idea there--- **************************************************************************** From Ric Our best chance of getting it identified is somebody recognizing it from the photos. If that fails we may need to go the materials analysis route. *************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt Stainless Steel? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I feel really ignorant about this. Are some alloys of stainless steel nonmagnetic and others magnetic? ************************************************************************** From Mike Everette Spring Brass. Commonly found in electrical and electronic equipment. That's one possibility. Mike E. ************************************************************************* From Ric Hmmm... that would fit the technological look of the thing. *************************************************************************** From Mike D. Better grades of stainless steels are non-magnetic. They still could show some pinhole corrosion... But why paint it? Some aluminum alloys can be rather springy... Can a knife blade nick it? I suggest measuring the density: an electronic scale from Office Depot for the weight, and calipers to measure the thickness; easy enough. Christian D. **************************************************************************** From Ric Good suggestions (although I don't want to try to nick it). There is one quick-and-dirty photo of it on the website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/NikuIIIIsumm.html It's Artifact 2-6-S-43. We'll have much better photos up soon. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:51:17 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio questions > Recognizing that the frequency spectrum may not be the same, these > experiences indicate that such ducts exist and that Betty's reception may > have been the result of a similar pipeline from Gardiner Island to Florida. I > strongly believe that further analysis, careful thought, and examination is > required of her transcripts, they may lead to the smoking gun. > > LTM > Ed of PSL The ducting described here is a well known phenomenon that occurs at radar frequencies, and occasionally at television frequencies. Energy is trapped in a duct formed by the surface of the earth and the bottom of a temperature inversion layer, and can propagate for long distances. The effect is highly sensitive to frequency and duct height. It is well known in the coastal waters off Southern California, and occurs when there is a strong inversion layer - - of the sort that typically traps smog. The surface search radars of Navy ships in the vicinity of San Diego, for example, can see the harbors at Long Beach and Los Angeles more than 100 miles away, which is far beyond the detection range under normal atmospheric conditions. Similar occurrences have been noted world wide, dating from as early as WW2 when the British Royal Navy noticed it in the Bay of Biscay. But HF energy does NOT propagate via surface ducting. If the signals that Betty heard came from Gardner Island, they didn't travel via ducting. The only possible propagation path was via the ionosphere. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:01:54 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: Winslow reef continued. Using coordinates furnished by Alan Caldwell the distance from howland to winslow reef etc that I calculate is as follows Howland to winslow is 198 sm on true heading of 144 degrees winslow reef to niku island is 218 sm on true heading of 172 degrees this indicates that winslow is close to howland, but off to the east from the 157/337 line since you would have to fly heading of 144 corrected for variation. then you would have to turn back south to heading of 172 corrected for variation to reach niku... happy landings,, the Stoker *********************************************************************** From Andy <<<1. How far off the LOP are the Winslow Reefs? 2. What is the distance from Howland Island to the Winslow Reefs? 3. What is the distance from Winslow Reefs to Nikumaroro Island?>>> According to my calculations... It is ~200 statute miles from Howland to Winslow, bearing 145 degrees true. It is ~220 statute miles from Winslow to Niku, bearing 172 degrees true. Winslow is 45 statute miles from the LOP at its closest point. Niku on the other hand is less than 10 miles from the LOP. <<>> Tom MM, which charts are you getting this from? Could you have mistaken Winslow reef for Carondelet reef which is today, and was in 1937, at an exact depth of 36 feet? For those of you who are interested in keeping this in geographical perspective, I would reccomend picking up a copy of "Reference Map of Oceania" by University of Hawaii Press. It is available at every Barnes & Noble I have seen, and covers all the islands/reefs etc that we have been discussing here. LTM, Andy ************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell 1. How far off the LOP are the Winslow Reefs? 2. What is the distance from Howland Island to the Winslow Reefs? 3. What is the distance from Winslow Reefs to Nikumaroro Island? 1. Winslow Reef is about 58 nm east of a straight line between Howland and Gardner. If you want to call that line an LOP be my guest but all it is a line on the map. 2. It is about 165 nm from Howland to Winslow Reef. 3. It is about 219 nm from winslow reef to Gardner. I might add, before you eagle eyes spot it that even if FN had the wrong coordinates for Howland Winslow would still be nearly the same distance off course. If, however, FN did not have a ground speed coming into Howland and was considerably off on his ETA (for example his erroneous ETA put him far past Howland) then it would be reasonable to think they might have crossed over or near Winslow on the way to Gardner. That is highly unlikely because the supposed wx conditions should have allowed FN to get a few sun shots. Spotting anything in the water if he did not have flares would have allowed him to get his drift and the combination of drift and his sun shots would have given him a fairly accurate position and a reasonable wind - direction and velocity. **************************************************************************** From Ric Seems to me that a hypothetical sighting of Winslow Reef is not supportive of the Niku theory. The feature is close enough to Howland so that, if sighted and identified, it would make more sense to turn for Howland than to continue in the opposite direction. *************************************************************************** From Mike Z. Ric wrote: "I wonder if the 'shipwreck' is really the metal frame mentioned." If O'Brayan's map of Windslow Reef proper is correct, it's a practically a mid ocean junkyard. I see *two* exposed wreck symbols, one on the NW reef and one on the SE reef (assuming N is up). The second one is labeled presumably with the ship's name: "Nickylow Wreck." These appear to be separate from the metal frame which seems to be indicated by a dot on the shaded "Sunrise Cay" (yet another name for Windslow/Gigant Rock?) to the North. It's labeled "structure of a ruined platform." Interesting: this implies the framework predates WWII and Lambrecht's flight. There's also apparently an "iron Anchor" on the reef to the east, marked with a small "x." That's distinct from the anchor picture in the deep part of the lagoon which I believe is the standard nautical symbol of a place to anchor, not the location of an anchor. Sunrise Cay is the only shaded feature which may be O'Brayan's way of indicating that it is an "islet always above water." That would suggest the other unshaded islets to the south are not, and that more tenuously suggests the reef ring itself is *never* dry. If so, I don't think Earhart would have landed at Windslow Reef. O'Brayan reports Gigant Rock to be 80' "in diameter." To the degree the map is to scale, the remaining two islets are no more than 200' long. Too short to land, right? The SE cay is labeled something like "coralheads 0.5 m." Anybody have any ideas what it means? Tom MM wrote: "Shippke's text clearly describes Winslow Reef at or above the surface, while modern charts indicate a depth of about 36 feet." I wonder if somewhere along the way there was confusion about the depth of the reef versus the depth of the lagoon. If I'm reading it right, O'Brayan's maximum sounding in the lagoon is 11. If that's fathoms, then it's... 36 feet. Tom MM also wrote: "Lambrecht's ...search pattern would have brought them almost directly over the modern location...[but he] did not find anything reef related." I hesitate to re-open the thread concerning what Lambrecht would've or would not have seen again, but does this have any import on how easily one can see an airplane wreck using Lambrecht's style of search? --Mike Z. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:05:25 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Winslow reef info. >>This is much better information than we've had before. I can't believe you'd make this statement, endorsing that "tripod" website!! The information thereon is as phony as as a three dollar bill, or was when I checked it out several months ago. You seem to forget I personally checked out Winslow Reef (and the non-existent reefs reported to the north) in 1992, and prepared a report on the place, including conversations I had with Scripps Institute and Dr. Walter Smith of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. The data gleaned was passed along to the British Admiralty incidentally, and I've cited it more than once on the Forum.. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric You're saying that the Tripod website is a hoax? Have we been sucked in? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:06:45 EST From: Darrel whitbeck Subject: Re: dental records I agree that finding such records in the practice still existing is pretty unlikely, but in the case of a noted personality, such as Amelia Earhart, it is possible that these records were saved as a sort of "souvenir". Most likely in someone's private collection, if anywhere. Just my thoughts. LTM, Darrell Whitbeck ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:14:04 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Winslow Reef I refigured the distances with a more accurate nav planner and got 176 nm Howland to Winslow, 190 nm on to Gardner and the flight path from howland to Gardner would run 52 nm west of Winslow. Not significant changes. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric We're gonna feel pretty stupid if Cam is right. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:15:19 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Reef Landing What if the airplane initially hydroplanes as Jon Watson describes, then slowing down, one of the wheels still planing the other gets a firm grip ? Wouldn't this make the aircraft swerve, possibly causing one of the gear legs to collapse ? This scenario might explain why the starboard engine remained available afterwards and produce electricity needed to keep the radio going for some time, explaining the post loss messages. LTM (who still wonders what exactly happened) Herman (#2406) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:15:59 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Research in England To Kenton Spading I don't live in England but not far away from there in neighbouring Belgium, just across the English Channel. I have no plans to go to England right now but I may go to London later this year. If I can be of any help I'm willing to go to Kew and see what I can do for you. Please let me know what kind of info you want. You can contact me privately. Herman (#2406) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:20:30 EST From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: coconuts A 4-year old opening coconuts with a pick axe..? Scary thought! LTM (Who never let us play with sharp objects), Barb Norris *********************************************************** From Ric Ahh for the good old days......... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:22:12 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Landing on Niku and sea level deviations... > We're pulling all that data > together now and, as soon as we can get it to Bob and John, it should be > possible, for the first time, to have reliable information about what the > tide was doing at Niku during the hours that the Electra could have arived. Unfortunately it seems to be a little more complicated than that: even if one could "hindcast" many years back what the *tide* was, this information is to be added to sea level deviations -and I don't think we know too much about the exact mean sea level at Niku in 1937. These deviations seems to reach one foot from min to max, and would then offset tides by a big fraction.... See: http://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/uhslc/islp.html and ftp the "islpp.dev" text file. Cheers Christian D. ************************************************************************* From Ric Hmmmm.....good point. John? Bob? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:26:20 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Electra engines Within the last month someone posted a piece about the technical aspects of the electra engines with some math of horsepower etc. If anyone remembers who posted that please let me know. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric The forum archives for the past several months are available to anyone. [Obviously, the instructions for accessing the email archives are now obsolete. All archives are here on this server.] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:33:31 EST From: Tom King Subject: Ships like the Norwich City Query for the Forum: Does anyone know of a ship of roughly the vintage of the Norwich City (i.e. early 20th century), with more or less intact fittings, that's still around someplace, perhaps at a maritime museum? It seems like it would be a good idea for us to get a better handle on what the NC may have offered to a castaway in terms of stuff that could be used for tools. LTM Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric For reference: S.S. Norwich City was built at West Hartlepool, England in 1911 by the "Len. Mar. Eng. Wks." (Len???? Marine Engineering Works?) as the S.S. Normanby (not a typo). She was 397 feet long with a breadth of 53.5 feet and a depth of 23 feet. Gross tonnage was 5,587 tons; net tonnage was 3,513 tons. She was powered by an oil fired triple-expansion steam engine. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:35:39 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Winslow reef continued. I was websurfing, and it looks like Robert Louis Stevenson couldn't find Winslow reef either. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM(who can't remember where she put her reef) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:36:16 EST From: Dave Earl Subject: Metallurgical Question. I would suggest that the artefact is stainless steel. This would account for the properties you describe, including being non-magnetic. Dave Earl. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:41:57 EST From: Paul Penwell Subject: Stainless steel Stainless steel can be magnetic or not, depends on the alloy, Ones with higher nickel, chromium content, total about 20 - 30% are not magnetic *************************************************************** From ric Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:44:17 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: dental records By the way, if someone's going to check out the McCown records said to be in the Bancroft Library, you might want to be prepared to expand the search to the Anthropology Department archives, which I presume are still in the Anthro. Building, Kroeber Hall. The Bancroft, basically a historical library, didn't used to have departmental records. McCown was a pretty famous guy, however, so it's possible that his papers wound up there. Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric Aside from being nice to have in a general sense, why are we in hot pursuit of AE's dental records? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:14:06 EST From: Stuart Subject: Re: Reef Landing Regarding the possibility that one of the main wheels stopped hydroplaning before the other, thus causing the aircraft to lose directional stability, I was wondering if anyone knows what would be the correct technique for landing an Electra (or any similar taildragger) on a surface covered with standing water? I would guess that a three-point landing would be the preferred method, but please correct me if I am wrong. So, assuming that it was a three-pointer, wouldn't the tail wheel be less inclined to hydroplane than the mains? It presents a much smaller surface area, and surely the elevator could put a lot of down force on it, to get it firmly planted through the water onto the underlying surface. With that accomplished, wouldn't the drag from the tailwheel ploughing through water then be something of a stabilizing force, tending to keep the rest of the aircraft pointed in the direction of motion? I'm not sure what purpose this exercise serves, but it seems to me that even if the main gear is hydroplaning on only one side, then the combination of a non-hydroplaning tailwheel ploughing deep in water, plus the rudder, plus differential thrust could be used to keep the aircraft running straight. My point is that even if one of the mains gets a good grip while the other is hydroplaning, that does not necessarily mean disaster. Or am I missing something? But I'm still wondering why the idea of a beach landing was rejected initially. What was the reasoning behind the preference for a landing on the reef, as opposed to landing on the beach? Wouldn't a landing on hard sand just up from the water be preferable to landing on a reef, which would most likely be swamped eventually, and even if dry at the time of landing, would still require a swim or dangerous wade to shore? It just seems that a landing right on the beach would be preferable to a landing out on the reef, unless there was some major issue with the beach. Stuart ******************************************************************** From Ric I agree that speculation about events during the landing are pretty pointless. In those days the prevalent technique was three-point (much more so than today). Most of the beach areas on Niku are rather steeply sloped and very marginal as to width for that airplane. I've been there and I've now seen it from the air. I'd go for the reef. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:31:49 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Winslow reef continued. For Andy: I have several charts of the area, but I was looking at: DMA 505 Tuvalu to Palmyra, Depths in metres, Winslow is 11 metres = about 33 feet. DMA 526 Pacific Ocean, Central Part, Depths in Fathoms, Winslow is 6 fathoms = 36 feet. I also have a copy of Cam Warren's report on his search somewhere here but not right to hand, but as I recall, he found a reef at about that depth in or near that location. Perhaps Cam can post the main points of his report. It is indeed very confusing, but the weight of evidence seems to point to a submerged reef. I have always wondered if the here today gone tomorrow now here again routine could be reconciled by possible volcanic activity, but that seems unlikely. Maybe Lambrecht was right. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:36:00 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Post-lost messages If you believe in the validity of the post lost messages, then you have to assume that AE managed to land her aircraft with little or no damage. My question is, if AE did belly in, could a prop be removed from the engine and then could the engine be run to supply power for the radio? Lawrence *************************************************************************** From Ric Nope. Won't work. An aircraft relies upon the flywheel effect of the propeller. The hypothesis does assume that the aircraft was landed with little or no damage. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:37:07 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Winslow reef info. > You're saying that the Tripod website is a hoax? Have we been sucked in? Yes. Check out the guy that posted it. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:37:49 EST From: Dale I. Subject: Re: Winslow reef continued. Mike Z. wrote that 11 fathoms is 33 feet. 11 meters is about 36 feet: 11 fathoms is 66 feet. Dale I. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:40:29 EST From: Stuart Subject: Re: Landing on Niku and sea level deviations... I wish I understood the vagaries of tides better, but as a layman it doesn't seem like those tide deviations make a whole lot of difference. I just did a very quick and dirty analysis of that deviation data, and even though the largest deviation in there is quite dramatic (about 23 inches!), the vast majority just aren't that big; about 90% of the deviations listed are 6 inches or less, and a good 50% are under 4 inches. So how much difference would four to six inches make? If, for example, the TIGHAR analysis suggests that the tide was low during the window of opportunity, and that low tide back then compares roughly with low tide today, would four inches of extra water totally preclude a landing on the reef? Or would it still be possible? Also, that table of measured deviations goes both ways: It looks like you are just as likely to have a LOWER tide than normal as to have a HIGHER tide, in most locations. So they might just as easily have had an extra four to six inches of dry reef to land on, and it's my guess that four to six inches of lower water level would uncover a fair size extra chunk of reef, giving them a lot of extra landing area. But please keep in mind that I'm just guessing in the dark here: I'm not a sailor, and all of the above is just layman's speculation on what seems logical. Of course, if it turns out that TIGHAR's analysis shows that the tide was running high for the entire window of opportunity, then this whole exercise is pointless: I'd say that high tide pretty much rules out a reef landing, no matter what the tide deviation was doing. I guess all those questions are pretty difficult to answer; I'm starting to see why it's not such an easy matter to figure what the tide was doing. Any guesses on when the tide guesstimate might be ready, and on how accurate it might be? Stuart **************************************************************************** From Ric We'll get to it. I can't promise more than that right now. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:42:20 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Winslow reef continued. To all Forum newcomers, old Forum members with faulty memories, and the usual non-believers: To restate my reasoned opinion; When AE realized Howland wasn't going to turn up as expected, she may well have ignored Fred's advice, and retreated to her last known landfall, the Gilbert Islands (as she told her friend Vidal). If so, it's quite likely she had to ditch when the gas supply was exhausted (or almost so, a more prudent choice, as Ric and other pilots have frequently pointed out). If she was still speaking to Fred (not likely), she might have accepted his suggestion to head for Canton (10 times larger than Niku, and with nice wide beaches, as described in the Navy's publication Pacific Air Pilot). Enroute, and with gas rapidly consumed, she may have spotted Winslow Reef, visible from the air due to its sandy topping, although under 6 fathoms of water. But, any port in a storm, as we old sailors say with the least encouragement, and she would be already committed before the bad news became apparent. NOTE: I have qualified this scenario merely as a POSSIBILITY, but - in my estimation - a highly likely one that satisfies many questions. My information on Winslow is first hand, personally checked out. Although a copy of the classified document PAP has never been found, it DID exist, and AE/FN at least were shown a copy. Believe it or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Electra remains turn up on the steep slopes of the Winslow sea mount. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:07:20 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Reef Landing A good example of a contemporaneous radio hoax was just earlier in 1936, when the Itasca was sent out of Honolulu in search of a ship in distress, caused by radio messages (hoax). They spent two weeks south of Honolulu in search of a ficticious ship, despite several radio messages received in Honolulu. During the post-loss, there were several obvious crank reports of hearing Earhart on the radio. Hoaxing was a cottage industry back then. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:11:52 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Winslow reef continued. The area around Winslow Reef, Phoenix Islands, and Howland/Baker are quite aseismic and devoid of any present day volcanic activity. Either Winslow reef is quite submerged, or is sticking up out of the water. I think I'd agree with Cam Warren on this, as I've done my own investigation (research only), and published a small work on Winslow Reef and the Colorado search of it as well. I'm convinced it is not breaking the ocean surface. The Sailing Directions are quite specific on this. These directions are usually quite authoritative. Whether AE and FN actually saw and recognized Winslow Reef wouldn't make a whit of difference, as the reported location(s) in 1937 were quite inaccurate relative to the true location. One could not navigate by the the reported position of the reef with any accuracy. I would hope that FN wouldn't do anything that stupid. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:32:37 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Winslow reef continued. Randy, thanks for advising that Winslow reef was mis-plotted on maps in 1937. We already know that Howland was also misplotted (but cannot be sure the flight knew about this), and am wondering whether Gardner, itself, may have been mis-plotted as well? Do you have information in this regard? Thanks, --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:33:32 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Web site hoax. Ric ask: "Have we been sucked in?" Boy, do I feel dumb. I too now wonder if the info is valid. Would one of the forum participants care to communicate with Wolfgang Schippke, the author of the subject web? Schippke's home page can be located at http://dc3mf.tripod.com/Wolf.htm" I don't speak German, otherwise I'd pursue the matter and inquire. LTM, Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:49:05 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Landing on Niku and sea level deviations.. > From Ric > > Hmmmm.....good point. John? Bob? I just downloaded that file and a quick scan shows that the maximum deviation is of the order that Christian cites, but the overwhelming majority of the tabulated values are far smaller, and there is significant variation among the study sites. Kanton Island is the study site closest to Niku, and the maximum deviation there during the study period 1975 to 2001 was 197 millimeters, or about 7.8 inches. But that is the extreme outlier, occurring only once. There are some other values exceeding 100 millimeters, but the eyeball average of the overall data set for Kanton is about 50 millimeters, or 2 inches. Based on this quick look, I don't think this is a major issue. Bob Brandenburg #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:53:18 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Winslow seamount For a map of Winslow seamount, click on Map 1 at this URL: http://earthref.sdsc.edu/cgi-bin/sc-list2.cgi?CKBsmnt=30 There is no place to land. Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 LTM (Who never cared for Winslow Homer.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:01:29 EST From: Dale I. Subject: Schippke & Winslow Reef Ric: A list by Schippke. I wonder what makes him suspect? http://dc3mf.tripod.com/Isl_val.htm Dale I. ************************************************************************** From Ric His descriptions of Howland and Baker are essentially accurate. He does not seem to be a hoaxer but that doesn't necessarily make his information accurate. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:02:34 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Winslow reef continued. The position of Gardner Island was actually quite good, as reported by the Navy in 1937. However, and this is important, the shape and orientation of the island was based upon the Southern Sailing Expedition of 1848, and the published maps of Gardner at the time bear no resemblance (well, actually slight resemblance) to what it truly appears as. As a navigator, I'd have scratched my head and said this sure doesn't look like what is plotted on the map. Maybe we landed someplace else. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:09:45 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Web site hoax. OK Ric, I contacted Herr Schippke in German. Hope he will respond. LTM (who always said it's good to speak some German when in Europe) Herman (#2406) ********************************************************** From Ric Sehr gut. Vielen dank. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:12:48 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Winslow Reef Sometimes the old filling system works wonders. Below is part of Cam's Forum email regarding Winslow reef from a few years ago. Excerpt from Cam Warren Forum posting of 10/08/98: Captain Winslow of the vessel 'Phoenix' first reported shoal water and "two rocks awash" in 1851, at 1.40S/174.51W, and got the reef named in his honor. In 1926 the British schooner 'Doris Crane' spotted a reef awash at 0.55S/174.51W, or about 45 miles northward of Winslow Reef. According to the book "Sailing Directions" (5th edition, 1940) the steamer 'Huraki' passed over the charted position of Winslow Reef in 1922 and saw no sign of shoal water. The same negative report went into the books in 1928 ('Nassa') and 1932 (the American steamer 'Golden Cross'). Then a serious search for both reefs was made in 1935 by the British naval vessel 'Wellington'. "Favorable circumstances" were reported, but nothing whatever was found. A mysterious disappearing reef, or reefs, according to the literature. Was it, or were they, visible to Amelia on July 2, 1937? Curiously, nobody I talked to in the spring of 1992 could say for sure. Nothing to do but go and have the look that Gervais wanted. By July, Many phone calls and faxes later, my associate and I found ourselves aboard a 55' schooner, departing Tarawa for the vicinity of Winslow, armed with surface cameras, kite cameras, a magnetometer and a GPS instrument. Winslow Reef? Yes, six fathoms down. The mysterious "ghost reef" to the northward? No bottom showing on the fathometer, not there or at any of six other locations where "breakers" had been reported. Seems the Colorado boys may have been right after all, and they checked that area twice. Since we're talking three miles deep around here, an awful tall seamount must have fallen down when nobody was looking.Was that a possibility? Fast forward to 1994. "The Times Atlas of the World" (7th Comprehensive Edition, 1989) is considered highly reliable in its information. On Plate 10, "Australasia and South-West Pacific" Winslow Reef is clearly visible, appearing as the southern portion of a twin-peaked sea mount, astride the 175 west longitude line, approximately two degrees south of the Equator. Aha! Surely their information is impeccable. Winslow Reef Page 2 A call to the main offices of John Bartholomew & Son in Edinburgh, Scotland, who do all the splendid mapwork in the atlas, elicited the information that "they don't maintain records of their information sources," but that it likely came from the British Admiralty Hydrographic Office. The Times book did cite several American individuals and organizations for their "valuable contributions". Among them were the National Geographic Society, NASA, and Dr. W. H. Meynard, Jr., of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. The latter sounded like a "horse's mouth" source, but a phone call revealed that worthy gentleman had passed away several years ago. That prompted a new round of faxes and phone calls to all government and private agencies that should know what's going on at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. Well, it's a big place, and Scripps Institute, who set out annually on survey cruises, hadn't been past Winslow since the late sixties. National Geographic puts out a dandy map of the Pacific sans water, but the scale was too large for accurate analysis. More goose-chasing led me to Dr. Walter Smith, at the NOAA Geosciences Lab in Maryland. Walter measures the earth's gravitational forces from a satellite, and they give him very accurate information on what the sea bottom looks like. He sent me some sectional maps based on his readings, that were quite revealing, and seemed to confirm our on-site observations. To wit, Winslow yes, Ghost Reef no. Well, there was a rise at the latter location, but a long way down. I asked Walter - could that mountain have collapsed since 1945? He didn't think so, and suspects many of those reef reports are off- base. "My work on the accuracy of data suggests that with celestial navigation one can be quite far off. There is a strong possibility that the objects sighted are not located at the points given." This, despite my pointing out that the shoal waters reported were in a 10 mile radius of one another. "They are probably 50 miles from the nearest (sea mount}. This would be a big navigational error, but I have seen much worse." Could the mariners have seen some other sort of natural phenomenon? Smith says it's possible, but not likely. Volcanic activity might cause a boiling effect, and even produce floating material like pumice that might be mistaken for a reef. However, this would also attract the attention of seismologists, who are always keeping their ears to the ground (sorry!). Ordinarily, this sort of thing only occurs near an active volcano with a summit in shallow water. Smith says "If you hold out hope that this is the explanation, I think you must look for geological evidence of active volcanism in this area..." So, where does that leave us? Or more precisely, Amelia? Somewhere else, it seems. The Ghost Reef doesn't, and apparently never did exist; Winslow maybe was awash 57 years ago, but at present is under 36 feet of water at its highest point. If we can believe in any of the post-splash radio messages from Earhart, she had to be on "dry" land. Maybe not dry at high tide, but dry enough when she sat down to get the radio to work. Carondelet Reef, much further southwest, does show sand occasionally, but there is a lot more promising real estate on the way there from Howland. Blue skies, jerry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:23:16 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Reef Landing I agree with you that three point landings were common in the Thirties and still are with most taildraggers but not with all. Some had to be landed on their main gear and the Electra was/is one of them. I have been told by Captain Alan MacLeod of Air Canada who flies one. To maintain lateral control on the ground as long as possiible after touch down, landings were and are made in a tail high attitude on the main gear with such aircraft as the DC-3/C-47/C-53..., Lockheed 10, 14, 18 and the Hudsons. The problem with them was and is that when a three point landing is made the tail surfaces come into the "shadow" of the wings, thus quickly becoming ineffective. To avoid the aircraft "breaking out", three pointers were routinely avoided and still are. One other reason was that a bad three point landing could break a DC-3's back. Three point landings were only made on short fields. There are websites on DC-3s. One good one which explains how to fly (and land) them can be found at www.centercomp.com/dc3 LTM Herman (#2406) *************************************************************************** From Ric Despite what Capt. MacLeod says and does these days, I can show you newsreel footage of Earhart's Electra being landed at Burbank (lots of runway) and the technique is definitely full stall three-point. In 150 hours as a copilot in DC-3s with a variety of different captains (in the late 1960s), I never saw anyone three-point a 3, but if you read Ernest Gann's book Fate Is The Hunter it's clear that full stall three-point was the standard technique in Dc-2s and 3s in the late 1930s/early '40s. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:30:21 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Metallurgical question > There is one quick-and-dirty photo of it on the website at > http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/NikuIIIIsumm.html > > It's Artifact 2-6-S-43. We'll have much better photos up soon. A clip to hold some sort of conduit/ cabling/piping in place against a flat surface...?? Th' WOMBAT ********************************************************************* From Ric Yes and no. I think it's a clip to hold a cylindrical object in place against a flat surface but it seems clear that the clip is removable. The little rectangular holes in the flanges were, I think, intended to fit over pins of some sort. Squeeze it, set it on the pins, release it, and the spring tension holds it and the object in place. Squeeze and lift, and the clip comes off the pins. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:31:36 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: ships like the Norwich City By the way, the National Maritime Museum is at www.nmm.ac.uk. They have a special ship's register where one can research old vessels. LTM from Herman (@2406) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:33:34 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Reef Landing > Wouldn't a landing on > hard sand just up from the water be preferable to landing on a reef, > Stuart I asked that question a couple of years ago. Since then there have been some pictures posted on the TIGHAR web site that show the beach. Steep angle and loose coral rubble. Not impossible, but awfully tricky. If those pics are typical of the Niku beaches I can imagine a pilot preferring the reef even with potholes. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:35:03 EST From: Andy Subject: Re: Winslow reef continued. <<>> Tom MM, Thanks for the info. Interestingly enough, many "phantom islands" (islands that appeared on old charts, but are known to not exist) are plotted in the same location of what are today submerged reefs. What could account for this? Changing sea levels (on a local and oceanwide scale), volcanism, tectonic shift, eroding wave action... there are numerous possibilities. It can make for interesting research, although this has now become off topic. BTW, what is the overall quality of DMA 505 and 526, for reference purposes? Are you familiar with Admiralty Chart 184 (Plans of the Phoenix Islands)? You may contact me off forum for this. LTM, Andy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:01:55 EST From: Stuart Subject: Re: Metallurgical question A long shot, but maybe something from a firearm of some sort? I've got the feeling I've seen some kind of springy thing vaguely like that as part of an ammunition magazine on a semi-automatic rifle, or some such, but I don't recall where or what. And it doesn't look much like a piece of a weapon. Besides, what would it be doing on Niku? I think I'm way off on that guess. FWIW. Stuart ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:04:36 EST From: Charles Hannum Subject: RE; Reef Landing I think a pilot use to landing on hard or soft surface would take a chance on sand than water . ******************************************************************** From Ric I agree. No pilot wants to land in deep water. Nothing good happens when you do that. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:24:59 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Schippke & Winslow Reef Cam, I'm not clear on what the problem with Schippke's posting is. I can take your word for it as it sounds like you have checked it out pretty well. Is everything in that post phoney or just some of it? If anything is accurate what would that be? I can certainly see how a young student might fake his university reports if that was done. What about the "sources:" on the last page? Do they exist and has anyone looked at them? Actually I don't see anything of significance to AE in that posting. I just thought it was interesting. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Angus All you little tiggers may be interested to know that this supposed map of Winslow Reef is indeed a hoax, a rather convincing one and almost certainly for the benefit of Amelia Earhart researchers. The map of "Winslow" itself is actually an accurate map of Beveridge Reef in the vicinity of 20.00S near Niue, nowhere near the equator. Even the wreck of the fishing vessel Nickylou and the name Sunrise Cay are identical. Of course in the text this islet area was described as Gigant Rock or Winslow Rock. Our luckless duo may have ditched there but no way did they land and run the engine to charge the battery. Regards Angus. ********************************************************************* From Tom MM Well, it is very interesting, but I'm baffled. The Winslow seamount is described as 1300 m deep at 1-40S, 176-37W, but the map itself shows the summit at roughly 1-42S, 175-23W. My DMA charts put Winslow at about 1-36S, 174-59W, with nothing indicated at the other locations above. Enough to give you a headache. TOM MM *********************************************************************** Also from Tom MM Andy: I'm CC'ing the forum on this, since I thought that others might be interested in various charts, and I'd be interested in other's findings as well. I have--- Paper copies: DMA 83037 (6/13/81) Phoenix Islands 1:485,800 (may be or similar to Admiralty 184). Great for Phoenix Islands detail, poor overall picture. DMA 83010 (11/17/84) Howland Island to Samoa Islands 1:1,740,100. Good from Howland south - nothing to the west on the approach route. DMA 526 (3/23/96) Pacific Ocean, Central Part 1:8,433,180. Excellent overall view of the entire Lae-Howland leg and on to the Hawaiian Islands. Gilberts and Phoenix Groups accounted for but minimum detail. This is a very useful big picture chart. Electronic Charts: DMA 526 as above. DMA 505 (04/18/1981) TUVALU TO PALMYRA ATOLL 1:3,500,000. Good for eastern Gilberts to Howland and the Phoenix Group. Some contour bathymetry which is unusual. I'll put up some old scanned copies of two of paper charts, highlighting the small area of interest to this group. I'll leave them up for a few days: http://home.earthlink.net/~tomjan97/Base_83010.jpg (Lat Lon is on the edge, the circles are 10 NM sight distances around islands from an earlier project) http://home.earthlink.net/~tomjan97/Gilbert-Howland-Phoenix_526.jpg (You need to georeference this yourself from what you know about Howland @ about 00-48N, 176-38W.) The grid lines are 10 degree increments. Paper charts can be copied/scanned and distributed for non commerical purposes, but electronic charts are strictly proprietary, so I can't show what they look like. Beware, these are both copied and home scanned - don't use them for anything but looking at. However, try looking at www.marineplanner.com (and a sister site www.aeroplanner.com). It takes some work, but there are free views of many charts available. Individual charts (Softchart) can be electronically ordered (typically under $10 each) and deposited into your registered account for immediate downloading. Be forewarned, the site needs a patience. You will need a viewer if you buy charts, if you don't already have a nav program. Nautical Technologies (Cap'n fame) makes available a free Softchart viewer somewhere on this site. It is a large download, and not the most intuitive I've seen, but it works well (and it is free). Alternatively, you can download a (large) demo version (20 or so uses I think) of their nav software on their website at www.thecapn.com . TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:25:52 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: old map of Gardner For Randy Jacobson Thanks! Was the 1848 Expedition you mention the one involving the Vincennes? The date sounds familiar--I wrote a history of the Vincennes expedition when I worked at the Navy Yard Historical Center one summer, and the name triggered a bell. --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:27:56 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Post-lost messages what about a wheel strut collapse? could the Electra still be able to transmit at that time? ********************************************************************** From Ric Theoretically I suppose the airplane could have the left gear leg collapse and still be able to operate the right hand engine and send transmissions. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:28:53 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Schippke & Winslow Reef An interesting list of islands. It seems to be places used for radio DX expeditions (and gives his call sign). Perhaps they are places that could be used as such. There are interesting omissions: Jethou (in the Channel islands) Ball's pyramid (near Lord Howe). Rockall is included, and is a real place, even though several web sites say it is mythical. It seems highly unlikely that he visited all of them (any of them?) Did any one notice that the peak of the Winslow seamount is 1300 meters underwater? Daniel Postellon TIGHAR #2263 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:30:54 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Three point vs wheel landings I think Ric is right in his explanation of the full stall (three point) landing in preference to the wheel landings for the Electra and similar airplanes. I instructed in Beech 18s or Military C-45 if you prefer. For those of you that don't know the airplane it is much like the Electra but smaller. We did almost entirely wheel (two point) landings except for short field landings then it was full stall (three point) landings. We did it because of the much better directional contril obtained with the tail high and the rudders in the direct air flow and to maintain an airspeed during the approach above single engine minimum control airspeed. When, after landing, the tail was lowered you needed to go to directional control with the brakes immediately because the large wing cord blocked airflow to the small twin tail rudders. also you had better have the tail wheel lock on for landing. None the less, I was told that early on, when the airplane was first introduced, most landings were made three point (full stall). I think the change occured when airplane design changed from mostly tail wheel type airplane to mostly nose wheel type airplanes and better and longer airports became available. Early airports tended to be shorter and wider but with higher speed airplane and nose gears the airports changed becoming longer and with much less width. On an early short wide airport you could full stall an airplane on landing, maintain reasonable directional control and get stopped in the shortest possible distance. I would be willing to bet that Amelia full stalled the Electra onto the reef flat so as to touch down at minimum speed (assuming that is where she did indeed land). That type landing would also minimise the chance of standing the airplane up on it nose. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:32:11 EST From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Landing on Niku and sea level deviations.. > Based on this quick look, I > don't > think this is a major issue. Probably not *that* major... But with a bit of bad luck, during Niku IIII, the dev could have been 6" one way, and in July 37, 6" the other way. Potential error of one foot. Not significant in New England, but significant at Niku. I reckon the first thing is to check what the dev was during Niku IIII: if we are lucky it was near nil, which would do away with that half of the potential uncertainty. We'd then be left with ONLY the 1937 deviation. Anybody knows what causes these variations? Kind of interesting!!! Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:34:05 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: artifact 2-6-S-43 Welcome back. Y'all did a fine job out there. My first thought on seeing the photo of 2-6-S-43 was similar to Wombat's, in that the artifact bears some resemblance to a conduit or pipe clamp. I oughtta know--we've got hundreds of the darn things in our warehouse, which I set up from scratch when the company moved four years ago. But, as you say, the flats have indentations rather than holes, and "2 hole pipe straps" are about as non hi-tech as you can get in a piece of formed metal. Please stick a ruler in the photo for scale when you put the new picture up, as having an idea of the size could help to ID the object. The valves of semi-hermetic air conditioning compressors are often attached to the valve plate by the "indentations over pins" method, but all the ones I've seen are flat. It also seems kind of unlikely that anybody ever had commercial refrigeration equipment on Niku. I think you're on the right track thinking that it's a device for attaching two parts of a mechanism of some sort to each other. Maybe for attaching a capacitor to an electric motor? That might explain the need for it to be non-magnetic. ( My knowledge in this area is very limited.) Once you get the better pic up, I'll show it to some of the old timers at work. They weren't around in the thirties, but they've all worked on equipment that was. Maybe one of 'em will say, "hey, that thing looks just like a ..." LTM, who was a toddler when AE went missing, and would probably scold me for referring to baby boomers as "old timers" Dave Porter, 2288 (who missed the end of the baby boom by 3 years, but sure as hell isn't a gen x'er) BTW, AE's Shoes is a great read. Stayed up 'till 3am to finish it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:35:00 EST From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Radio Hoaxes For David Chase: How timely a question.... October 31, 1938: Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre of the Air present "War of the Worlds." It throws the whole nation into a panic.... Do a search on line for "Radio Drama" and you'll come up with a lot on this... especially an article titled "The Psychological Power of Radio." Veeerrrrry interesting.... When do we get to see pictures of Vanessa's great work? LTM (who loves The Twilight Zone) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:35:38 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: ships like the Norwich City Thanks for the reference to the website, Herman -- very nice site, though unfortunately it doesn't look like there's anything much like the Norwich City preserved in Great Britain. There are a few much smaller cargo vessels of similar vintage, however, which might well have similar fittings and furnishings. There are a couple such in the San Francisco, CA Maritime Museum, too. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:36:54 EST From: Fred Madio Subject: Re: Metallurgical question Has anybody suggested putting beryllium copper on the list of possible materials? R/ . . . Fred Madio ************************************************************** From Ric Not until now. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:37:30 EST From: Tom King Subject: Radio interview in Tennessee For the information of anyone within range of WNWS-FM in Jackson, Tennessee, 101.5 on the dial, I'll be interviewed about the book and the project at 11 pm Halloween. I presume it's the bones connection. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:51:17 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Metalurgical question i dont know what they call them but what about a quick release clip from an OLD parachute harness...i guess they took at least one...its only a guess but im no expert...once you have a better pic things may be clearer...some interesting topics this week ************************************************************************ From Ric We actually don't know whether they had parachutes with them or not. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:53:13 EST From: David Katz Subject: Hoaxes An interesting note: Today is the 63rd anniversary of the famous Orson Welles radio hoax, War of the Worlds. David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:52:29 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: old map of Gardner The Southern Exploring Expedition had the Vincennes as its lead vessel. Very good! When I examined the original material in the National Archives, I handled some of the boat sheets used for sounding in a lagoon (not Gardner). This was an oil cloth sheet, approximately 3' square, and with penned in soundings and track lines. What a wonderful piece of history I was able to touch and feel! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:00:51 EST From: Ric Subject: Re: hoaxes The radio play "War of the Worlds" was not a hoax. There was the normal frequency of commercial breaks during which the show was re-introduced as a production of the "Mercury Theatre of the Air." Many people, however, tuned in between commercials and took the realistic style to be reality. Orson Wells later expressed surprise and concern that the show had caused so much alarm, but his smirk was hard to miss. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:59:41 EST From: Mike Van Holsbeck Subject: Re: Metallurgical question Does anyone know the exact type of military vehicle was on the Island for the guys at the Station? If so there are alot of old military/gun shows that have restored vehicles. mabey it came off of the jeep/truck/? whatever they used. Theere is a major show coming up in Dec. If I had a better photo, I could show it to the owners of a matching vehicle from the one used on Niku. These guys usually know every nut'n'bolt on the thing. Just a thought. very hard to tell from the tiny picture with no scale. Mike ************************************************************************** From Ric They had "weapons carrier", like a four-wheel drive pickup. But, as far as we know, it was never used to go to the Seven Site. ************************************************************************** I believe the release clip he is referring to is called a "capewell". Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:04:13 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City Probably the closest thing that survives today are WWII-era Liberty ships. There are two preserved in the USA -- the SS Jeremiah O'Brien in San Francisco, CA and the SS John W. Brown in Baltimore, MD. They are actually a better parallel to the Norwich City than you might first imagine. While Liberties were built in the US during the 1940s, they were based on a proven British design from the late 19th century. The only major concession to modern construction techniques was the use of welding rather than rivets. For reference: The SS Jeremiah O'Brien is 441.5 feet long with a beam of 57 feet and a draft of 27 feet, 9 inches. Gross tonnage was 7,176 tons; net tonnage 4,380 tons. She is powered by an oil-fired triple expansion steam engine. The O'Brien was retired in 1945 and remained mothballed for 33 years. In 1978 she became a museum and is maintained in operable condition. LTM, Russ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:05:51 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: SCHIPPKE Have you been contacted by Wolf Schippke in the meantime ? I haven't. I did go to his website which tells quite a bit about him. He was born in 1954, lies near Erlangen (Germany) since 1997. He studied physics and communication in Munich and Goettingen and his hobby is geography. He seems to have a special liking for islands and has published a lot on a great many of them. Interestingly he is also a radio ham (OK8AOA) and has worked in a radio propagation lab. His profession is developing databases, he writes. His website in both in German and in English (there was no link to his Italian website). If anyone wants to contact him his address is : dc3mf@rocketmail.com. Good luck Herman *********************************************************** From Ric I haven't heard from him. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:07:36 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: hoaxes Orson Wells may have planned it that way, as he knew that people "channel surfed" on the radio, and would miss the opening announcement. There weren't any during the rest of the program. Dan Postellon #2263 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:10:27 EST From: Marjorie Smith Subject: Re: Blasted channel > Blasted as in with dynamite. When we're referring to the channel, > particularly at low tide with a big westerly swell running, our adjectives > are much more colorful. I've hesitated to ask this, not wanting to be one of those people who jumps aboard without doing any homework first, but now that I've had time to do some looking on the TIGHAR website and re-reading parts of the book (Amelia Earhart's Shoe) I still am left wondering: Who blasted the channel? And when? And why? Marjorie Smith ************************************************************************* From Ric The channel seems to have been blasted around the time of the evacuation of the colony in 1963, but - oddly - we've never come across any record of who did it or exactly when it was done. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:12:38 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Post-lost messages I had asked this thinking about how AE and/or FN could be injured in a crash landing and yet still be able to use radio. A flip or anything else would seem to be too major an event to allow subsequent radio transmission, yet a smooth landing would cause one to think both AE and FN should be fairly ambulatory after landing. I doubt they were both ambulatory after the landing (if, in fact, they landed on the Niku reef) ************************************************************************* From Ric Why do you say that you doubt that they were both ambulatory after the landing? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:18:55 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Parachutes (again) >From Ric >We actually don't know whether they had parachutes with them or not'... In her unfinished autobiography...'Last Flight'... AE wrote...'At Darwin, by the way, we left the parachutes we had carried that far, to be shipped home...A parachute would not help over the Pacific'... Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric As we've pointed out time and time again on this forum, there are several incidents reported in "Last Flight" that are directly contradicted by more contemporaneous documents. This is one of them. A newspaper account written by a reporter who was in Darwin when AE and FN arrived specifically says that they picked up - not dropped off - parachutes that had been shipped there for them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:17:15 EST From: Charlie Sivert Subject: The "g" seen on Niku Do you have any more theories in regard to the "g" which you saw on Niku? If the "letter" was fashioned by human hands, and the hands were possibly Amelia's or Fred's, it might be possible to check how they made their "g"s in written correspondence, if such correspondence is available for comparison. Just a thought. Charlie Sivert, 0269E ************************************************************************* From Ric Whether it is intended to be a "g" or a "6" or something else, it is certainly one of the most bizarre phenomena we have ever come across on the island. There seems to be little doubt that it was fashioned by human hands and, in reviewing the video we shot from the helicopter, I note that the thing is even visible from the air. As soon as I can find the time I'll put together a research bulletin with photos and we can start trying to puzzle it out. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:17:52 EST From: Andy Subject: Re: hoaxes <<>> For those of you interested, the entire War of the Worlds broadcast is available for download as a WAV file at the following link. http://earthstation1.simplenet.com/wotw.html LTM, Andy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:23:33 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: hoaxes If I remember correctly, the Mercury production of "War of the Worlds" was not a hoax, but a legitimate radio play. I believe they announced several times during the program that it was a play and not a real invasion from outer space. A hoax is when one deliberately tries to fool someone. Lawrence. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:35:07 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: hoaxes For Andy, If you could find the War of Worlds broadcast, can you find the March of Time broadcast 8 Jul 37 about the recreation of AE's last flight? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:39:13 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Ships like the Norwich City I don't know of any such ships still available. But the Norwich City could well have been a potential tool source for a castaway. In every merchant ship and war ship, the ship's boatswain keeps his equipment and tools in storage compartment in the forecastle (foc'sle to us Navy guys). In the Norwich City, that would be the area under the anchor windlass deck at the bow of the ship. Typical tools would include wrenches of various sizes, hammers, sledge hammers, pliers, wire cutters, etc., plus materials such as rope, twine (actually unlayed manila rope) - - which would make pretty good kindling for campfires, paint, caulking compound, turnbuckles, and just about anything else that would be needed for maintenance and repair of the topside areas of the ship. A key question is whether and to what extent the foc'sle escaped fire damage. Given the circumstances of the grounding - - the ship being in ballast, therefore not carrying a combustible cargo - - the probable source of primary fuel for the fire was the bunker fuel that was released from the ship's tanks when her bottom was ripped out as she went aground on the reef. That would have spread oil around both inside the hull and in the immediate surrounding area on the reef. Ignition probably occurred in the ship's engine room, directly under the bridge superstructure. Fire would have spread rapidly upwards consuming combustibles along the way - - things like wooden cabin doors, paint on bulkheads, canvas fire hoses, etc. When the fire got topside, it could have spread to the cargo decks, consuming the wooden planks and canvas tarps used to cover the cargo hatch openings when at sea. But the foc'sle area was far enough forward that it could have survived the fire. If a castaway got aboard and could get to that area, he/she could have found lots of potentially useful tools. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:18:46 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: The "g" seen on Niku Ric, could you explain why you feel that there is "little doubt" that this 6 at the 7 Site was fashioned by human hands? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************* From Ric You were there. Could you explain how it could occur naturally? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:19:20 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: hoaxes The following web site has some historical March of Time broadcasts, but, alas, not the Earhart one. http://www.otr.com/news_frame.html David Katz