Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:50:02 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Transmissions > The Coast Guard Captain may not have > understood the running on the 157 - 337 line.............. Good analysis, Dick. I don't see how it could be faulted. As to the good Captain understanding the 157-337 line comment we, of course, don't know but I would suggest he did since the 157-337 line not only runs SE in the air but also on the water and the ship used the same or similar navigation as did the airplane. As the ship's Captain he had to be knowledgeable of the ship but also how to navigate it. Speaking of navigation I have another question of our Marshall theorists. Since I won't allow them enough fuel to fly from Howland to Mili (which doesn't bother them) they conveniently move the airplane north of Howland. It also doesn't bother them that they have make Noonan such a stupid navigator that he was 400 miles off course. But for the sake of argument let's say he flew into a hurricane with horrendous winds out of the South or flew through a worm hole and ended up 400 miles north of Howland -- all so he could have enough fuel to make Mili and crash or be shot down or midair with a Japanese Admiral's son or whatever the stories were. Being so far north of Howland it would make sense then to turn north to Mili -- right? Hello Marshallites. Explain to me how he would have been soooo lost that he was 400 miles north of Howland, thought he was over Howland yet mysteriously knew he was so close to Mili that he turned north and flew there. Not one single Marshallite has ever or will offer a rational explanation of their theory. ALL they will do is fall back on a totally insupportable claim that someone thought they saw an airplane crash sometime and somewhere therefore magic occurred. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:54:12 EST From: Veryl Fenlason Subject: Re: Bones, Sextants, Dumps The dump I was referring to in the conversation with Kenton was the collection of stuff { distillers, barrels etc } that we found in 1989, in the area of WI-23 and WI-22 on your grid map. Tom King might remember the piece of stainless steel with the nail holes in it that he found in that area. It looked like most of the stuff was loran site leftovers. LTM Veryl Fenlason ************************************************************************* From Ric Yeah, that's the place I figured you meant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:55:50 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Devegetate? > From Alan > > Dennis, where have you been all this time? I wish I had thought of this. > We've been wasting our time digging in the sand when all we needed to do > was burn down all the Marshall, Phoenix and Gilbert Islands. > (I know you were jesting but it was too funny to pass up) Sorry Woody. Does Scaevola Burn? *************************************************************************** From Ric We've never tried to set it afire - nor will we. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:56:17 EST From: R.L."Doc" Holloway Subject: Re: Transmissions I also agree with wholeheartedly with Dick Pingrey. Doc, near Bland, MO ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:58:06 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: SE on the LOP << Perhaps, but the only LOP we know about for sure is the one AE specifically mentioned, and the only time Noonan could have gotten that LOP was at dawn. There is also the point that, once they have descended below the scattered cloud deck to look for Howland, getting further sun shots might have been very difficult if not impossible.>> Noonan could have also got that exact same LOP from a moon shot not all that much earlier. I posted the exact time and data of that possibility long ago -- lost into oblivion. As to taking another sun shot it could have been done easily by climbing only a little to get on top of the scattered cu depending on their tops. Too high and fuel might have been too big of a problem. The only reason for taking subsequent shots would have been to assure he was on his desired track and not having drifted off too far. With a drift meter that could have been unnecessary of course and he may not have felt he needed to do that. As far as navigating to Kanton instead that would have not been that difficult. The LOP he was on would have been little more accurate than one projected from that one to a point that would have gone through Kanton. I see no real rationale for going to Kanton, however. Just that it was bigger wouldn't necessarily offset the fact that it was a little further away. Plus, not exactly knowing where he was on the North/South axis would have made it foolish to alter course. Alan, calming down and not so testy after dealing with Ron, Daryll, and Don's posts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:15:08 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Nauticos plans > but if you > draw a 450 nautical mile circle around Howland that is lopsided a bit to the > west and northwest (to allow for the east southeasterly winds) you'll have a > pretty good idea of all the places where the flight could have ended up. Does Nauticos know this? That's 1,413.72 square miles. Two decimal places for RC, Ron, etc. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a 450 nm RADIUS from Howland. It's just under 160,000 square miles. I had a nice chat yesterday with Lynn Jourdan at Nauticos. (Lynn is the webmaster for their website. Her husband David is the CEO.) They are, as she said in the email to Chris, planning a three-month expedition for later this spring but they have not yet found enough investors to pay for the search nor have they selected or scheduled a ship. I don't know anything about finding people who want to invest in a treasure hunt but I do know a little bit about chartering and scheduling ships. If they don't have a boat laid on by now I don't understand how they can possibly hope to go out this spring even if the money materializes. Mike Kammerer tells me that he has moved his expedition departure up to sometime in March. To answer Alan's question: No. Lynn asked me why we thought that there was any possibility the airplane could have reached Nikumaroro. I explained it as gently as I could but it was apparent that Elgen Long's computations (and various expert verifications that his arithmetic is correct) have been accepted as gospel without questioning the myriad assumptions upon which they are based. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:25:57 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence I agree that the points you made make Josephine's story strongly suspect. Agent Joe Patton,ONI, went to Saipan in 1960 and interviewed Mrs Antonia Blanco, Josephine's mother. She recalled that Josephine came in one day in the summer of 37 all excited and told the story about seeing the white fliers,etc. If you can believe that Mrs Blanco was recalling Josephine's story correctly, it would add substance to the account. Matsumoto, the brother -in -law confirmed Josephine's story in 1960, also suspect. There are five others at the base that also "claimed" the saw an airplane come in with the white fliers, etc. Josephine did tell the story in 1946 to Sheft. The single photo lineup used by Briand is worthless. I accept that it a very suspect story and "anecdotal" in nature. In fact, a close exam of her various stories does casts great doubt, but yet there does seem to be a sighting. Personally I attribute it to a lookalike twin eng.(civ1lian) seaplane that arrived on a new Tokyo-Saipan airline being developed in 1937. Those aboard were mistakenly identified as Amelia and Fred. ( In one version (to her mother) the white woman was sittting on a bench "combing her hair") hardly something the Japanese capture scenario would fit.) Somebody landed there and I would like to find out who, as it started the whole new episode in the Earhart disappearance. My bet, it was not Amelia. For some, it is wholly acceptable and credible evidence; Goerner didn't regard it as such in 1960. LTM, R. Bright, Bremerton, WA **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that it would be interesting to try to trace the origins that story (similar to the debunking you did of the Love to Mother telegram), but the Japanese capture myth did not start in 1960, nor was Josephine's story the beginning of its revival. What year did Briand, Gervais and Ringer come up with their "list of witnesses"? Briand's book was published in 1960 so it seems like their shenanigans had to predate Goerner's entry into the fray. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:28:36 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Evidence At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if something is lost, and you want to find it badly enough, you start looking. Logical, easily determined places first. Like Winslow Reef. I'm not convinced that's where they are, but hey, it's a) a possibility, b) it's a FINITE location and easily checked and (if you draw a blank) easily dismissed. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if Winslow Reef is so damn easy to search why didn't you do it when you were there? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:36:03 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Transmissions Capt. Pingrey maybe "bang on" when he mentions AE flew SW (straight to Niku, of course), but he adds she may have revealed her intentions via . . . . > Later messages that were not picked > up by the Coast Guard True enough, but there WAS at least one ship in that quadrant listening on 3105, and that was the ACHILLES, at (approximately) 160°W and 10° S. They THOUGHT they heard a signal from the Electra, but NO course or coordinates were mentioned. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric Make that SE, and I'm aware of no documented account that Achilles was listening on 3105 at that time or that they heard anything until 0700Z (1830 local), long after the plane had to be down.. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:46:45 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Noonan's navigation Does anyone know what kind of sextant Noonan was using? what kind of calculation method he used for calculating his line of position? *************************************************************************** From Ric We know that just prior to the first World Flight attempt, Harry Manning borrowed Pioneer Bubble Octant Ser No. 12-36 from the Navy and that Noonan signed a receipt for it when Harry baled after the Luke Field wreck. We do not know whether Noonan used that instrument on the second attempt or whether he returned it and used something else. Noonan's navigational practices are well known, in part because he wrote about them in Pan Am memos and a letter to the director of a navigiation school. We've also studied existing maps he actually used and annotated on transoceanic flights. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:48:02 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: OFF TOPIC: Fate of the PN9-1? Do any of you happen to know what ultimately became of the PN9-1? For those who don't know the story, the PN9-1 was a Boeing-built flying boat (a PB-1) that the U.S. Navy attempted to fly from California to Hawaii in 1925. The flight was forced down at sea and search efforts proved fruitless. Fortunately, the resourceful crew formed a make-shift sail with canvas from the plane's lower wing and completed their journey by sea. Some friends and I were discussing the story yesterday and wondered whether the aircraft (or one like it) had been preserved anywhere. Anyone who might shed some light on this question, or just wants to kick around a non-AE related aviation history thread, are invited to respond to me off-Forum. Thanks and Love to Mother (who thinks boats weren't meant to fly), Russ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:51:37 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Bones lecture Thought you might be interested in the attached website which provides a brief syllabus for a lecture by Dr. Albert, last spring, at the University of North Carolina, covering the Nikumaroro 'bones' discovery, uncovered by TIGHAR. Wonder how the professor responded to 'Question for review' numbers 4 & 5? ANT 211: Fundamentals of Forensic Anthropology with Dr. Albert, Spring 2001 ANT 211 Forensic Anthropology Address:http://www.uncwil.edu/people/albertm/ant211spring01/historic/ae02.htm ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:54:47 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: DRing from the unknown >You can't DR to a specific point from an unknown point. > >Ric Yet, isn't that what Alan said FN _was_ able to do (in Alan's 16 Oct 2001 posting) & that: 'Even without the second celestial body it would have been easy to navigate to any of the Phoenix Island Group.'? Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric At last we find something you and I can agree on. I don't understand how he thinks that is possible either. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:56:36 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Gilberts vs LOP >Perhaps flying at max range would get them back to the Gilberts but >that was not their goal. There goal was Howland. Landing any other place >was a disaster for the purpose of the around the world record. Even >Gardner was a disaster and to be avoided unless it was down to a choice >of ditching or landing in the Phoenix group. >Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C Again, I must admire your very logical reasoning & conclusions, however using that same logical train of thought, _if_ Gardner/Nikumaroro was also a 'disaster' (as far as terminating the R-T-W flight) & 'to be _avoided_ unless it was down to a choice of ditching or landing in the Phoenix Group', & if _perhaps_, 'flying at maximum range would get them back to the Gilberts', wouldn't returning to an island group that _was_ known to be inhabited & administered by a friendly government, be more preferrable than a very sparsely (if at all) populated island group, without any assurance that any of AE's radio transmissions had been received by Itasca, or anyone else, for that matter? Naturally, all of my observations are purely speculative, but of course so is everyone else's opinions & observations, since they are _all_ based upon looking at AE/FN's situation & circumstances from _our_ own perspectives, & while our views, observations & opinions, however statistically or factually they _seem_ to be based, from _our_ vantage point, they may have looked quite differently from the unique perspecives of AE/FN in 1937. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:02:36 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Evolution of the search >She still expects or at least hopes to find Howland on that heading >but if she doesn't she will have at least told anyone who might be able >to hear her what they are doing. >Dick Pingrey Her LOP message, which just _might_ have been intuitively translated by an experienced pilot, to mean that they were going to fly SE on that LOP , simply did _not_ register with Cmdr Thompson at all & according to Capt Friedell's report, even the _initial_ Navy decision to search SE of Howland was triggered by weather reports that showed stronger winds than normally expected in the region, might have carried the Electra further to the SE & out of sight of Howland, rather than any significance being given to AE's LOP message. In fact, in reading the report, it also claims that, prior to leaving Pearl Harbor, the Colorado was informed of radio signals (allegedly) from the Electra had been intercepted by amatuer radio operators in California, suggesting a location SE of Howland. ( by the 3rd & 4th of July they also received reports from Wyoming, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Australia & other points, of radio signals, including some voice reports had been received (allegedly) from the plane.) The very first search plan is reported to have been determined to have the Colorado sail East on the Equator, with her float planes flying a basically rectangularly configured course, of 60 miles, both to the North & South of the Equator. There is _no_ mention in that report of searching the Phoenix Islands _until_ a report was received from GPP 'stressing' the Phoenix Island Group, stating that headwinds aloft had been much stroner than expected for the flight, & further suggesting that a plane from Colorado investigate the Phoenix Island Area. The Commanding Officer, still convinced the SE quadrant from Howland was the _most_ likely location to search, irrespective of the various radio reports pointing in that direction, therefore he decided to hold to his _original_ decision, searching to the SE of Howland, with one _modification_, planes from the Colorado would _also_ search land areas of the Phoenix Islands, prior to the larger water areas, which would also be covered on the flights to & from the Phoenix Islands. At the end of the report, it is also confirmed that the Nav was aware that Commander of Coast Guard had checked with persons familiar with FN's navigational methods & was told that, 'If short of gas, he'd probably follow the LOP to the nearest land', which the Navy finally concluded, as an Air Navigator, FN would have followed the line towards the most probable land. Tragically, (_assuming_ AE/FN did reach Gardner/Nikumaroro Island) the Navy's apparent lack of confidence in GPP's & the Commander of Coast Guard's instructions, provided _only_ a brief flyby of all but _one_ of the Phoenix Islands. We can only speculate what the difference _might_ have been, had Lt. Lambrecht decided (intuitively) to land in the lagoon at Gardner/Nikumaroro, instead of Hull Island, or if AE's last transmission had ended: ' We are _now_ going to fly SE on the LOP seeking an alternate landfall' . Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric You were doing prety good until the last sentence. Would someone please remove the restraining bolt on Mr. Neumann so that he can get it through his head that running SE on the LOP does not constitute "seeking an alternate landfall"? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:04:33 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Take your pick ! For Hal : <> http://www.abacuspub.com/ Got to their retail store (bottom of page) then "Round the World". << Subject: Re: Autograph please...? From Randy Jacobson Let poor Daryll masticate in peace, will ya? Sheesh! >> Randy,...I don't have a computer...ergo....I don't have a video computer camera....ergo.....YOU CAN'T see me do that......WHATEVER you said.......!!!! << From Ric It was an experiment. He took "Bolinger Class Conspiracy" as a compliment. I just wondered how far we could go. It's not as if I accused him of being a sexagenarian. >> WELLLL......slam me to the floor and step on my nose ! Did you mean that as a degenerative comment about me ?? << Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence From Ron Bright For Alan Caldwell From Ric Excuse me for jumping in here but 34 year old Josephine Akiyama (maiden name Blanco)...>> AHHhh OOOooo !.......clear out your mailboxes.... Hey,...All you guys with fancy dancy Nav Computers. Let's try a little experiment that I don't know the answer to. Enter : Mili Atoll is 5.58 N and172.07 E (Woody) Do a heading from Mili 101° (recip of 281°) WHERE does that course line cross the LOP 157/337 from Howland? (Howland Island is at 0.80 degrees North and 176.63 degrees West, Alan #2329) Does your computer give a mileage to that "point at sea" from Howland? Now be honest with your answer because I can't cross check ya. Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:06:39 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Search for an Earhart Flight Simulator > but a really good > simulation would be very labor intensive to construct and a less than very > good simulation would be worse than none at all. Ric and Hank, I know a little bit about this subject so let me briefly (I've never been brief) give you the current situation. Several years ago Abacus software marketed a computer program called "Around the World" which was only compatible with Flight Simulator 98. It included the scenery, adventure and aircraft files for an Electra. The scenery was not all that good and the Electra was not an acceptable model for AE's plane. Abacus decided not to update the program for Flight Simulator 2000. Lae airfield on the coast no longer exists in Flight Simulator and the new airport is about 20 miles inland. I have checked every Flight Sim Electra that has been created and none to date are acceptable. I am in contact with a couple of guys and probably the same ones who contacted Ric. They are slowly but without great interest trying to fashion a 10E for me. I am also having a scenery update fashioned to put the old Lae airport in my FS2002 program. Fuel usage is the critical factor of course as little else matters. I am also working on getting a few of the pertinent island scenery files built. Once all this is done I can have a lot of fun reflying AE's flight but as to what that will tell us the answer is little or nothing usable. Anything the simulation can tell us can already be computed with paper, pencil and a small calculator. That too tells us little or nothing we don't already know. I assure you we could do all this and put a few of our forumites who shall go nameless at the controls and it will not deter them in the slightest from their magical theories. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:16:25 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: SE on the LOP > From Ric > > They didn't DR from Lae to the LOP. They DRed from Lae to the general > vicinity of Howland with occasional checks during the night using celestial > observations. They got the LOP at dawn and advanced it (by DR) through > Howland but they had no way of knowing where they were on the LOP and when > they reached the advanced LOP and did not see Howland they had no way of > knowing whether they were north or south of where they wanted to be. You > can't DR to a specific point from an unknown point. I agree with you on the penultimate sentence. Which is exactly why I corrected myself to make it clear that I was talking about accurate navigation to the line 157 337 rather than to Howland.OK if you want to be precise they didn't rely on DR positions for the whole trip from Lae but I don't agree with you that they didn't DR to the LOP. If they got the LOP at dawn this was not a fix, only an LOP and so they couldnt correct their longitude and had to rely on the DRd longitude from the last fix. While its quite true that you can't DR to a specific point from an unknown point, that wasn't what I was saying. You can DR from one known LOP to a parallel LOP. You know the bearing of LOP1 (through Howland) so you fly at right angles to it for the appropriate flying time to LOP2, through Canton. You won't know where you are on LOP2 but you can search along it. Advancing the dawn sight to Howland is no different from advancing it to Canton except that the error in DR will be more significant for a long than a short distance. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, you can do that - but why on earth would you? You're already on an LOP that runs through three islands, and one of them is the one you really, really want. You can throw out another LOP through Canton but you have to fly about 400 miles to get to it only to have the same problem you have now - which way do I search on the line? Except by that time you have very little fuel left to do anything. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:17:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence II > the earth is about 40 nm. longer around the equator than the 'model' used I believe you RC. Now how much off does that make the figures? Does that mean it's in error by 1.851851852 (-0.3)? ------ x 10 Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:18:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence > I would suggest you as an attorney closely review those witnesses and point > out why they are either mistaken or lying. Ron, "as an attorney" I would first ask (as I have many times) for an explanation as to how the plane could possibly get there in the first place. This makes as much sense as if the supposed crash occured in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The plane couldn't have crashed in Altoona no matter if 12 bishops told the story. Tell me how to get the plane to Mil. Don't just keep repeating that old hogwash. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:21:44 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: New Mileage to Mili Atoll > I cannot come up with any realistic scenario of how the fuel burn > could have been manipulated anywhere near what it would take to do an > about-face and reach the Gilberts Doug, lately I've been reading (not from you) that the fuel schedule from Johnson could have been altered at the expense of the engines and could have produced a larger reserve at Howland. Wouldn't that presuppose they somehow knew immediately after take off they couldn't make it and therefore had to change to a high powered fuel conservation schedule? Second question. (The questions are really directed at those who seem to know about this other fuel schedule}Tell me what that other fuel schedule, power setting is and how much difference would it make. I also want to know where this information comes from. Alan ************************************************************************** From Ric Patience Alan. Oscar Boswell is working up some numbers. He told us where they come from in his recent posting. If you're gonna gadfly ya gotta read the postings. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:22:35 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Transmissions To put my two cents in (or a little more than 1 cent with the Aussie dollar), I agree Dick totally and would only add that the direction on the LOP they took first would be the opposite one to the direction they felt that they drifted. This is similar to the idea of off-set navigation where you fly, for instance, to the right of your track and after a known period of time, hang a left and your target should be right in front of you. Regards David Kelly (Sydney) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:30:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > From Ric > > "We are on the line 157 337" is merely a statement of position. What makes > you think that the order in which she said the numbers revealed her > direction of travel? Nothing, except convention. Dick suggests "I think Amelia's "Flying on the line 337 - 153" statement was a clear message of her plan to follow that line to the southwest." I'm trying to suggest that nothing in the message tells us which direction they flew, but could have confused searchers. As a rule, if you say you are travelling on a line from L.A. to N.Y., someone in L.A. would usually assume you are NOT travelling towards them. I's a convention thing. Most people say the departure point first. The post had to do with Dick's numbers being the wrong way round, which just happened to make the direction sound S.E. Yes, on the line 157/337 is a statemement of position. Saying they were running on line though could have suggested to Cdr Black that they were running in the direction 1st number to last number. The convention thing again. Do you say you are "going up the road and coming back", or you are "going coming back and up the road"? Please don't get the idea I think they headed N.W. This is all about how the message could have confused searchers. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric I think you're on to something important but it's not what you think it is. I'll confess that "157-337" has bothered me from day one. It sounds backward. Most practioners of the English language read from left to right and top to bottom. (The words make more sense that way.) If I draw a slanted line on a map and lable the top left end 337 and the bottom right end 157 and ask a hundred people to describe the line using the numbers, I would wager that about ninetyfive of them would say 337-157. (The other five turned out to be Hebrew scholars.) However, if I round up another hundred people and show them the same line but I tell them "You're travelling southeastward along this line and you want to describe the line to someone on the radio." I'd wager that they would still say the line is 337 - 157. But apparently that is not what AE said and it's worth asking ourselves why. Now let's try another experiment. Let's get a hundred pilots and, one by one, we'll sit them down in a simulator with an old-fashioned drum type DG (Directional Gyro) in front of them. We tell them: "You're the pilot, I'm the navigator. We're going to fly a 337 - 157 degrees True line, first in one direction and then in the other direction. The DG is set to the magnetic compass and there's some wind to contend with, so the actual heading I'll ask you to fly will be different from the track we're after but I've worked it out so all you have to do is hold the heading I give you. Let's go to the northwest first. Fly heading 346 degrees. Okay, that's good. Now let's go the other way. Come around to 166 degrees and hold that heading. Good. Now, pick up the mic and tell the controller what we're doing." Under those circumstances, flying the line to the southeast rather than reading a line drawn on a chart, I'll betcha that a significant number of people would describe the line as 157 - 337 because they are focused on the 157 direction. Pilots on the forum know that runways are numbered according to their compass orientation. Thus, Runway 33 -15 runs 330 degrees one way and 150 degrees the other. It's Runway 33 - 15 (usualy shortened to 33) if you're going to use it in the 330 degree direction and it's Runway 15 - 33 if you're going to use it in the 150 degree direction. It was no different in 1937. In summary, I think a good argument can be made that Earhart's description of the line as "157 337" indicates that she was probably flying southeastward at 20:13. Fire away. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:35:00 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Ocean currents I have always contended that the only possible way for AE & FN to have arrived at Mili Atoll (or anywhere else in the Marshall Islands) is for them to have landed in the ocean (ditched or crashed) somewhere northwest of Howland (close enough for their last radio message to have been received at S5 strength) and then drifted there in a life raft. I believe that the prevailing ocean currents could have carried them in a northwesterly direction at a rate of 80 to 100 miles per day. I am not suggesting that that was what happened, merely pointing out that I do not believe that the Electra could have made it there under any conceivable fuel calculation. Therefore, if they made it to Mili, it was by other means. I have yet to determine how such a hypothesis could be tested. One cannot rely on unsubstantiated and vague testimony, irrespective of who provides it (so no accusations of prejudice against the Marshallese, please --- I would not rely on the type of testimony offered thus far on the Marshall Islands theory even if it had been offered by the Pope, the President and the Queen). The stories are just too vague and, more often than not, contradictory of each other. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think the drift theory works very well either. I think you'll find0 that the Navy calculated the probable drift and that's what prompted the decision to send Itasca and Swan to the Gilberts. Randy? Northwesterly drift in the Howland area? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:35:37 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones, Sextants, Dumps It sounds like the place Veryl's referring to, as Ric thought, is the southern part of the village, which is loaded with piles of Loran Station leftovers. I don't see any of this as a "dump," per se, and since it's all post-Loran it's full of confusing aluminum and other stuff. What would be really good to find is a dump representing the early days of the village -- ca. 1938-1948. I haven't seen anything that looks like that. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:36:07 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Devegetate? "Devegetation" as Woody proposes, with bush knives and muscle, and full approval of environmental, historic preservation, and local government authorities is one thing; torching the island is quite another. Nobody had better contemplate the latter in the Marshalls, the Phoenices, or anyplace else. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:40:19 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: This wouldn't be the good Father himself, would it? To Denise---Re Father Jim of the Columban Fathers.... NO- My dear- I am not the 'Father Jim' of the Columban Order... For those of you who dont know me-I am a 68 year old unreconstructed New Yorker -who has lived in SoCal for 35 years....Brooklyn Irish-married 36 years to the same patient long suffering woman..... I do have a connection with the Columban Fathers in that I did some volunteer work in my Brooklyn years-along with my mother and her group of 11 Irish Widows who did charity functions for the Good fathers....I did the driving and heavy lifting..... Sorry to disappoint you -Denise.... LTM from the LOL Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA *************************************************************************** From Ric The above must be read in Jim's wonderful unreconstructed Brooklyn accent. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:41:30 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones lecture for Don Neumann Thanks, Don. That's an interesting use of our data. A bit out of date, since of course we've been to Fiji and regrettably found no bones, but still, a nice use of our info. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:43:08 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Caldwell's FltSim 2002 Ver. 1.1 Alan Caldwell said: "Once all this is done I can have a lot of fun reflying AE's flight but as to what that will tell us the answer is little or nothing usable. Anything the simulation can tell us can already be computed with paper, pencil and a small calculator." Alan, you're on to something here but you need a couple of add-ons and more ambience. First, set up your computer in your garage between your car and your wife' s car. Remove the exhaust pipes from the exhaust manifolds on both cars. Set a five-gallon can of gas and a two gallon can of used motor oil underneath the computer desk with a small fan in front of them pointing at your legs. Lower your chair as far as it will go and place it on top of your power lawn mower. Here's the fun part: start the car engines, start the fan, start the lawn mower and sit in the chair, and fire up your Flt Sim 2002 Ver 1.1 and sit there for 20 hours without getting up. Are we having fun yet? Not only will your innovative and challenging FltSim 1.1 allow you the pleasure and excitement of recreating AE's flight, but including these simple add-ons will allow you to experience the noise, vibrations, heat, fumes, and discomfort our sterling heroine endured for those 20 long hours -- 23.5 if she made it to Niku. It doesn't get any better than that! Let me know how it works out; maybe we could do a joint venture. :-) LTM, who loves the smell of avgas in the morning Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:43:53 EST From: Hal Subject: Re: Search for an Earhart Flight Simulator To Alan Thanks for the update. You've confirmed my suspicions that a computer sim would add nothing to the total body of knowledge we now have...but it sure would be fun! I'd be very interested in any further developments in an Earhart sim. Hal ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:45:17 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Daryll's Experiment For Daryll I'd be happy to run your experiment as per your request. I will use not only the fancy-dancy computer but also a south pacific navigation chart as this will take both to accomplish. I'll try to have something for you by tomorrow(Saturday) as I need to take the chart to a big copier and run off some extras to scribble on. Your question is: Where does a course line measured via 101 degrees true from Mili Atoll intersect a 157/337 deg. LOP from Howland Island? Latitude/longitude of intersecting point desired- Is this correct? If so, I'll be back with an answer hopefully by tomorrow. Just one problem....I have no means to scan in the chart to display to the forum. No scanner & representation probably too big to do anyway. Daryll, if you would like a copy to see for yourself, send me your address & I'll be happy to oblige with your own copy. Off to navigate fellow forumites. Later, Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:46:15 EST From: Stuart, in Santiago, Chile Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence On the subject of witnesses: > >From Alan Caldwell > > > I would suggest you as an attorney closely review those witnesses > > and point out why they are either mistaken or lying. They don't need to be either wrong or lying. They just need to be normal, average, everyday, unreliable witnesses, who sincerely believe they saw something which in reality they did not see in quite the way they remember it. Although I'm no expert on the subject of aviation accidents, I have a deep interest in the subject, and I've learned a lot about it over the years. One of the things that I have learned, is that eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. Investigators usually end up with about as many totally different accounts of a crash, as there are witnesses. And all reports take distant second place in the investigation. The reports are believed ONLY if the evidence corroborates, never the other way around. I don't recall how many aircraft crashes I've heard about, where witnesses swear blind that the plane "blew up" in the air, or was "streaming flame and smoke", or "falling apart in the sky". But when the investigators get there and do their objective job, they find that such was not the case. The aircraft did not blow up, burn, or fall apart until AFTER it hit the ground. Yet witnesses swear that it did. Not only do witness accounts not fit the facts, more often than not, they conflict directly with each other. Even witnesses who were standing together, watching the same event from the same point of view, can differ in their accounts of te facts. Especially non-expert witnesses. Those who don't really understand what they are seeing, who don't know the basics of how airplanes fly, or the physics behind Newton's laws, tend to interpret what they see in unusual ways (which is one of the reasons why we know have the wonderful appearance of "chemtrails" in the sky). Case in point: In the crash of Swissair SR-111 in 1998, one witness swears that he saw the aircraft come directly over his house at an altitude of about 60 feet(!), flying east to west, yet making very little sound. Yet, the radar track shows the aircraft flying about 5 miles away, north to south. Even though there was no mode C altitude reading for the closest point to the witnesses house, just forty seconds earlier the mode C return showed them at about 18,000 feet. So who do you believe? The witness or the data? Another witness saw flames coming from the wing, as it flew over her house. It really did fly over her house, but the wreckage showed no signs of flame in the location she indicated, even though there was an onboard fire. So once again, who to believe? But the point is that these witnesses are neither dishonest, nor lying, nor mistaken. They really did see something. They didn't understand it fully, so they interpreted it in a way that made sense to their own personal point of view. Distant events are perceived as being much closer. Details that weren't really there are clearly "remembered". Real details that should have been obvious, are not mentioned (an MD-11 flying just 60 feet above you is going to make more than just a little sound!). Etc. The witness ends up truly believing that their interpretation is the way it REALLY happened, not just their INTERPRETATION of the way it happened. I know that we are not talking about witnesses to a crash here, but the principle remains the same: witness reports are unreliable, and take second place. Unless there is hard evidence to support the story told by the witness, no matter how unimpeachably righteous and truthful the witness is, it is far more likely than not that he didn't REALLY see what he THINKS he saw. FWIW. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:49:01 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence I think it was the Josephine story to Briand that rekindled the Earhart fever in early 1960, but I can't find out how Josephine's story initially got to Briand. Maybe someone knows. After the Briand interview, Josephine's lawyer went to the San Mateo Times mid May 1960 and Linn Day, a reporter, published a copyrighted story on 27 May 60 of Josephine's version . I have tried to locate Linn Day who wrote it, but no luck yet. Goerner said that he then contacted and interviewed Josephine in first week of June 60 and learned that Briand had talked with her a few months earlier. Briand, said Goerner, told Josephine to keep her mouth shut, but her lawyer Penaluma told her to tell the story and she talked with "several news people" about it. About this time on June 5,1960, Goerner said he learned that Gervais and Dinger, Air force officers, were heading to Saipan from Okinawa to write the "final answer". I do not know for sure what prompted their research, but Klaas writes that Gervais had read Briand's "Daughter of the Sky" in April 1960 that included Josephine Blanco Aikyama's story. Probably based on his book and their own interest, they initiated their investigation at Guam and later Saipan beginning in late June 1960. Thus it seems that Josephine's story rejuvenated interest in Earhart. Little surfaced about AE from about 1946 to 1960. On 16 June Goerner left for his first trip to Saipan with Josephine's husband. Gervais was heading for Guam about this time. It is interesting to note that in the Linn Day interview on 27 May 60 Josephine reported that "... after about 15 minutes a beautiful black sedan came and they[the American pilots] got in with the soldiers. I never saw them again." She told Day she later learned through a Japanese soldier that she had been executed. Briand's interview reported that Josephine told him that the American woman and the man were taken away by Japanese soldiers to a clearing and "shots rang out" and the soldiers returned alone. In Briands version the "beautiful black sedan" disappears. Seems like some of those details should be consistant if told within a month or so. As I said Josephine's mother recollected that Josephine said the "American woman was sitting on a bench combing her hair". ( AE must have been concerned about her appearance after such a long flight!) I have written an extensive analysis of Josephine's story, motives, etc that I could furnish if anyone cares. It also serves up an alternative explanation of mistaken identity. But these analyses are of little interest to your Forum's primary focus. Ron Bright Bremerton WA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:46:43 EST From: Mike in Lakewood CA Subject: Status Ric, All these speculations on fuel, LOP, transmissions, Japanese, and Aliens are fine but as a change I would like to inquire about the research you have been able (or unable) to do since returning from Niku IIII. Is there any news on artifacts? Are they being looked at or simply in storage? I ask because for a few weeks after you came back, the forum was asking questions and making suggestions about alot of "new" things. You were answering questions and alot of "new" info was coming out. Now it seems every thread is a rehash of threads from when I started getting the forum a year ago. BTW, I am a lurker also but do participate when I can and I am looking for clues about the artifacts. I do not have an aviation background so I do have to struggle to understand some of the intense explanations given. But some of the endless debates on fuel and distance are insane. Unless FN had a distiller and was making fuel out of cloud vapor, they did not have the range to get close to howland and then to end up in these far off places. I brought out maps and rulers and followed along on the TIGHAR hypothesis and it makes sense. So my vote goes for Niku if she made land and the post loss messages are real. Or the splash and sink. I have read some of the other stuff out there and I just think the ideas they are following have no evidence only 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand stories to go on. TIGHAR has the best approach I have seen and I like the way things are done in this group. Ric, You are doing a great job and I wish I had your patience. That's it for now. thanks for your time. Mike **************************************************************************** From Ric A great deal of research is going on behind the scenes, as it were. We have a few answers and some interesting possibilites developing. We'll be putting out a summary of the progress so far in the next TIGHAR Tracks which I am writing now in my copious free time and which we hope to mail out to the TIGHAR membership in a week or so. Once it is in the hands of the members we'll mount much of the information on the website, but fair is fair. The people who make the work possible get to hear the results first. If you'd like to be in that category you'll find a printable membership form on the website at https://tighar.org/membernew.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:55:26 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Noonan's navigation That stuff sounds very interesting, is it on you web site somewhere or is there another place to get it? Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric It's not on the website yet but we'll get to it. If you can get your hands on a copy of the May 1938 issue of Popular Aviation you'll see the letter that Fred wrote to P.V.H Weems of the Weems navigation school. ************************************************************************* From Bob Brandenburg Noonan used H.O. 208 for sight reductions. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 20:00:18 EST From: Ed Subject: Re: Evolution of the search Has there been any more analysis of Betty's journal. I was wondering whether two types of analysis would be worthwhile? Each done by a separate work team. One would look at/study the notes that she transcribed relative to one another (e.g., do they reflect a scenario that fits the situation), the second would examine the notes relative to what AE & FN expected/hoped the people back in the world were doing (actions taken on their behalf). I feel that the secret of Niku still kurks in that journal. Also, (don't laugh too hard) but what about having one or two of the better-known psychics take a look at the journal and provide some insights. LTM Ed of PSL, FL *************************************************************************** From Ric We already know that the situation described in Betty's notebook fits the scenario suggested by the clues we've found about what may have happened at Niku. Psychics? If somebody can show me any valid scientific study that establishes that psychic ability exists I'll be happy to read it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:36:05 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Fuel Burn In a big recip engine, one can get the fuel burn down somewhat lower by reducing props down to the absolute gear-grinding cylinder pressure increasing, minimum RPM's, and then lean the mixtures past peak EGT to just above detonation-as you say at the expense of the engines, true enough. Would that presuppose that our duo knew they couldn't make landfall with safe reserves immediately after takeoff? On the immediately after takeoff, I kinda doubt it. I can't see being able to make that judgement call so soon. I would think they would need at least a few if not several hours into the flight to examine their progress before changing the fuel burn, and even then I'd personally be thinking real hard (several times) before doing that in such a critical flight scenario,but then that's just me. You and I both know they were pushing the envelope into the extremely critical risk territory with this leg. But apparently they accepted the risk as such. Sure would have been nice to be fly on the wall of Fred's flight planning room and see how he did the pre-flight planning for this leg. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric Been there, done that. My Dad taught me how to pull the props back to conserve fuel. Works great unless you overdo it and the pistons come through the cowling. It can also cause a bit of tension in the cockpit. It's why John Wayne slapped Bob Stack in The High and The Mighty (sure wish that classic was available on tape). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:37:05 EST From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Evidence III > From Ric > > <> > Remind me never to live next door to a target. Poor choice of words. The 'perfect sphere' used for course and distance computations is more than accurate for all navigational purposes because the error it is small, and each new position 'erases' past inacuracies. The point is that precision beyond the accuracy of the original measurements is gilding the lily. As for targeting data, I suspect small adjustments are made, and the 'map' in the nose is like 'in range df'. RC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:41:05 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence I think you are 100% correct: the Electra didn't make it to Saipan. Crashed/ditched, broken wing, out of gas, etc., and I don't believe ala Devine that she made an inadvertent navigation error. But suppose AE/FN did go into the water and were captured say several hundred miles from Howland. We know by many accounts that the Koshu was searching in the area and according to the New York Times, Japanse officials reported that many of their fishing boats were in the area. The Japs who are well aware of the flight and with their DFs at Jaluit,etc, track her to final spashdown. Pick her up and take her to say Kwajalein, Jaluit, etc., then fly her back in a Japanese seaplane landing at Saipan late July 37. Who did those 5 witnesses see who saw the plane summer of 37 at the Harbor? [ Japanese Capture Theory 101] Now it is driving me crazy why we can't find out who those mystery people were at the Kobayashi Hotel, Garapan or wherever. Josephine saw somebody, but who? It is a collateral issue to the Niku, but I brought it up since many people regard that "eyewitness" evidence as good as the stuff found on Niku. Sometimes one has to prove the "other guy did it" to exonerate your client. The Marshallites vs. Tigharites in the Earhart Superbowl. I won't tell you the Las Vegas odds.... Ron Bright Bremerton WA ************************************************************************** From Ric Whoa! Koshu and Japanese fishing boats near Howland? Who says? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:41:50 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Caldwell's FltSim 2002 Ver. 1.1 Dennis McGee1s description of how to simulate AE's experience during the World Flight is downright startling. It makes me wonder -- Just what the hell was Amelia Earhart thinking?! David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:52:14 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence For Stuart in Santiago Your analysis of eyewitnesses is right on. They saw something but what was it. Unfortunately in the US, juries love, respect and honor eyewitnesses testimony despite all of the problems you cite. Ask the guys that got convicted about eyewitnesses and later exonerated by DNA. We even allow experts in the Eyewitness Identification difficulties to testify in court, but seldom do they prevail. The Saipan witnesses saw someone, but who. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric It is not the case that there are a whole bunch of Saipan "witnesses" who describe the same event. Quite the contrary. The question is how many European couples (husband/wife, brother/sister, tourists, missionaries, whatever) were taken into custody by the Japanese in the prewar years? Years later, with enough leading questions by "Earhart researchers", they all become Amelia and Fred. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:53:27 EST From: Hal Subject: Earhart Mystery Solved by Flight Sim > Here's the fun part: start the car engines, start the fan, start > the lawn mower and sit in the chair, and fire up your Flt Sim 2002 Ver 1.1 > and sit there for 20 hours without getting up. > Dennis O. McGee #0149EC Well there you go....mystery solved....Earhart died of carbon monoxide poisoning and carpal tunnel syndrome :-) Hal *************************************************************************** From Ric We could prove it if we found the bones. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:58:13 EST From: Stephen Miller Subject: Gallagher's sextant? New to the forum, though life long interest in the Earhart mystery. Been reading through the achives and noticed a interesting item in galegher's effects after his death, under the section titled : 32. Effects left at Gardner Island In custody of Aram Tamea: a sextant was listed. A sextant was a very valuble item in 1937-38 and why would he have one? I also seemed strange that a precision instrument such as sextant was listed as a loose item in the inventory. If this subject has been addressed already please accept my apology. Stephen Miller **************************************************************************** From Ric Having a sextant is not nearly as wierd as having a flying helmet, but Irish had one of them on Niku too. (And before anybody gets excited, he was a licensed pilot and AE almost certainly did not have a helmet with her.) Gallagher was a well-educated man of many interests from a well-to-do family. I don't see anything remarkable about him owning a sextant. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:15:30 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) Navigational convention at sea usually describes the lower number of a line passing through two compass directions, regardless of the direction one is traveling. Check American Practical Navigator, for example. It is not required, but it is the usual convention. I've never thought of the 157/337 description as anything other than a line through those two compass points, let alone a particular direction of travel. Suppose someone was on an island and made a similar dawn observation. Since they are not moving, what description of the LOP would they make? 157/337 in my mind. **************************************************************************** From Ric Ahh, but yours is not the mind of Amelia Earhart (aren't you glad?). However, if AE was referencing a note handed to her by master mariner Noonan, and the nautical conventions are as you describe, then 157/337 makes all the sense in the world. ************************************************************************** From RC OR: AE had a slip of paper in front of her [on her leg?] from Fred with an eta for his advanced lop; or something from Fred relative to the lop. When she made the radio call with the lop she referred to the paper & read off the numbers. The question may be: In what order did Fred note the numbers for her info. RC **************************************************************************** From Ric See Jacobson above. **************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt So if we take out the pilots and leave in the Coast Guard, would they interpret the numbers the same way? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Apparently (see Jacobson above), being sailors, they would have seen nothing to interpret. Just the normal way of describing a line. ************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell Sounds good to me. There are specific rules in celestial navigation as to how to plot LOPs which I will spare you. That 's how to PLOT them. How you call the LOP is something else. Trying to think back I suppose I would have read the directions left to right but if I was ON the LOP I would have named the direction I was flying first. Exactly your summary point. Alan *************************************************************************** From Ric It's an intersting question of context. If aviator/nonsailor AE came up with that way of describing the line, it may be an indication that she was flying SE at the time. If she was just parroting something Noonan gave her (which, frankly, seems more likely) no suppositions can be drawn about the direction of travel. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:16:27 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Ocean currents Drift speeds were on the order of 1 to 2 knots Westerly to west-northwest (270* to about 285*), not enough to carry them to the Marshalls. The further west they were from Howland, the more difficult it would be to reach the Marshalls. If they were far north of Howland, they would be quite dead by the time they did reach them, due to the longer distance of drift. By the time of the end of the carrier search, I calculated the carrier did cover all expected drifts of a ditching within reasonable distance of Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:21:25 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Key to Earhart Plane Position In an article to the LA Times, 6 July 37, Clarence Williams, AE's navigator, explained where he thought the Electra should be. In sum after assuming his course from Lae to Howland was followed, he believes her base course could have been 8 degrees to the right or 8 degrees to the left of Howland. He called that the "zone of probability" where she might have flown, which meant roughly a 16 degree "maximum divergence" from her base course. He attributed these estimates from expected winds in the area. AE and FN could have flown anywhere in this area and come down somewhere in this cone of "possibilites". But because of currents, the plane would be drifting westward from ten to forty miles per day. He thought up to 100 miles two and one half days after her splashdown. He then identifies the following islands where the plane could be: Hurd Island Byron Island Drummond Is Sydenham Is. I have a National Geo. map of the Phoenix, Gilberts, and Marshalls, but I can not find those islands. Tighar mapers can you so locate them? A photo accompies the article showing Williams charting out her possible position. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric 8 degrees from where? Lae? Lord a'mighty, that's about half of the Pacific. I've never heard of those islands either. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:22:03 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > you start looking. Logical, easily > determined places first. I agree, Cam. I think that is a good theory. I don't profess to know where the plane came down. Wish I knew. I do believe there are some places it couldn't get to -- besides Altoona, PA. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:33:02 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: DRing from the unknown > Yet, isn't that what Alan said FN _was_ able to do (in Alan's 16 Oct > 2001 posting) & that: 'Even without the second celestial body it would > have been easy to navigate to any of the Phoenix Island Group'. ? > Don, send me a copy of my 16 Oct posting. I have trouble remembering what I said right after hitting "Send Now." Obviously whatever I wrote was not clear at best. To set the record straignt, I can't DR to anyplace from an unknown point. No one can. There has to be a known starting point. Notice I said "DR." Can I NAVIGATE from an unknown point to some other place? Yes, of course, with a caveat. In the case of the Phoenix Island question IF I know I'm north of the Phoenix Islands I can do it. If I don't know that there is no way. I'm only talking about using ONE celestial body and one that gives me a generally north/south line as the sun did for Noonan at 157--337. How? Simply shooting sun lines and moving them east or west as necessary so their LOPs run through whatever island that is chosen. Just like he tried to find Howland in the first place. Let's say he decided to go to Kanton. He would shoot a sun shot and plot the LOP. He now knows his east/west position. He then continues east and shoots another one which gives him ground speed. He then projects his LOP so that it runs through Kanton, computes when he will reach that point and turns down the line. He will not know how far he is from Kanton but if he knew he was north he knows he will soon reach the island. This proceedure works whether he has yet to get to the place where the projected LOP will be plotted or if he has already pssed it. As you can see there are two "IFs. He has to know generally he is north of his desired targets and he has to use a celestial body that will give him generally north/south cuts as the sun did that morning. If they had chosen instead to fly west to the Gilberts a similar proceedure using the planet Saturn or Venus could have worked depending on their visibility and whether Noonan had the astromomical data. Again that would have been a single celestial body process and far more iffy given the probable fuel reserve and the geography of the islands as opposed to the layout of the Phoenix group and their nearness. I've navigated that way numerous times between the States and Europe or Africa. The sun would give me nice speed lines and our radar would tell me where we were north or south and how good the sun lines were. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************ From Ric But since he DIDN'T know whether or not he was north of Howland it's academic, and if he DID know he was north of Howland he would have to be an idiot not to simply run down the line to Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:35:09 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Gilberts vs LOP > if_ Gardner/Nikumaroro was > also a 'disaster' (as far as terminating the R-T-W flight) & 'to be > _avoided_ unless it was down to a choice of ditching or landing in the > Phoenix Group', & if _perhaps_, 'flying at maximum range would get them > back to the Gilberts', Here's the problem with that logic, Don. They were NOT trying to get to Howland OR Gardner. They were trying to get to OAKLAND. Howland was merely a refueling stop. To max out the engines just to have extra fuel would have run the risk of them ending up stuck on Howland waiting for engine changes. If they thought they needed to treat their engines that way because they weren't going to have enough fuel do you think they would have continued? A short strip was built on Howland for them so a short strip could have been built somewhere else so they didn't have such a long stretch to fly IF it was that critical and they knew it. You're right. I don't know but it seems doubtful to me they would purposefully run the risk of ruining their engines if it wasn't necessary. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:36:02 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Caldwell's FltSim 2002 Ver. 1.1 > Let me know how it works out; maybe we could do a joint venture. Thanks, Dennis but I've had 7 decades of realism. I pick and choose now. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:37:23 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence > From Stuart, in Santiago, Chile > > On the subject of witnesses: > > > >From Alan Caldwell > > > > > I would suggest you as an attorney closely review those witnesses > > > and point out why they are either mistaken or lying. > > > > > They don't need to be either wrong or lying. Stuart, that's misleading. I didn't post that. That's a copy of someone else's post I was replying to. You are correct about the reliability of witnesses, however. There are many law cases in which not only witnesses but even rape victims identified the wrong person. The latter shown by subsequent DNA evidence. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:38:49 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Which Direction First? For David Kelly, David, there is a compelling reason they went to the northwest first. They knew the only alternate places to land were in the Phoenix Islands. They had to turn to the northwest first so the condinuation of their southeast leg would take them to the Phoenix Islands if they did miss Howland. It won't work to do it the other way. Additionally, I think they were doing the best they could to use every correction to bring them smack on to Howland. That was the best way to get the directional finding radios to work at optimum. If that is true they would not consider themselves to be either north or south when they reached the advanced LOP. I suspect they passed very close to Howland on either the run to the north or as they flew south but being at 1000 feet above the water so limited their visability that they simply missed seeing the island. Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:40:41 EST From: Kurt in Emerald Isle Subject: Navigation at sea or flying It is interesting that we keep coming back to the crux of the problem, which was, when they approached Howland, they took a sun shot and knew that they were on a line that passed approximately through Howland and thru the Gilberts. They had planned for and counted on getting a DF steer once within range of the Itasca. We all know how that went. It is also interesting that some of us were taught, both in navigating aircraft using DR, and in navigating boats using DR, that we could plan a slightly offset course and use time enroute, that would get us to the proper distance out but would insure that we were off to a particular side of the intended landing site, either left or right, depending on winds or currents. We were to do this to intentionally get in the vicinity and then, knowing ahead of time which side to turn to, we would turn the correct way and find our destination within a reasonable time. I wonder why they did not incorporate something like this in their planning? It seems quite obvious that they bet their lives on the DF steer and lost. Kurt ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:47:57 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Return to the Gilberts To Don Neumann, Don, you miss the point that returning to the Gilberts prevents them from searching for Howland. If they don't see Howland when they first reach the line of position they have to abandon looking for Howland and immediately do a 180 to have enough gas to get back the Gilberts (Assuming they flew at max range power settings). We agree that it was a disaster to land any where other then Howland. Thus the plan must be to do all that is possible to find Howland with only the need to eventually find an alternate if Howland can't be found as an over riding requirement. Returning to the Gilberts takes them away from the LOP almost immediately but searching on the Line of position will allow the maximum time to search for Howland and still insure an alternate can be reached if Howland can't be found. The choice is obvious to most of us. Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric I also take issue with the assumption that landing anywhere other than Howland would be a disaster. AE had a long history of getting lost and landing off-airport only to refuel and continue on her way. I can see her rolling to a stop on the dry reef at Gardener and thinking, "Now if we can just figure out where we are and what's wrong with the damn radio we can get Itasca to bring us enough fuel to let us takeoff and fly to Howland where we can top off and continue the trip." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:37:41 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: You can get there from here - fuel for the Gilberts Out of curiosity, following a recent posting regarding Kelly Johnson's telegrams, I went back to the website and re-read them. The third was a tad confusing to me - REVISED FLIGHT DATA FOR EIGHT THOUSAND FEET AT BEGINNING OF FLIGHT AS FOLLOWS STOP CLIMB AT TWO THOUSAND FIFTY RPM TWENTY EIGHT AND ONE HALF INCHES AT ZERO SEVEN EIGHT TO EIGHT THOUSAND FEET STOP Is he now recommending that AE make the entire climb to 8k ft at 2050 rpm regardless of how long it takes? Or does the next paragraph mean the first three hours of the flight? FIRST THREE HOURS AT NINETEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY EIGHT INCHES AND ZERO SEVEN THREE AT SIXTY GALLONS HOUR STOP If so, what does the first paragraph mean? NEXT THREE HOURS AT EIGHTEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY SIX POINT FIVE INCHES AT ZERO SEVEN TWO AT FIFTY ONE GALLONS HOUR STOP AFTER SIX HOURS USE DATA GIVEN IN PREVIOUS LETTER OR WIRE STOP I must be missing something in this. By the way, do you perchance have a picture of a Cambridge Anaylyzer? I've looked everywhere, and have so far been unable to locate one. Also, my membership renewal is on the way. ltm jon 2266 **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jon. Here's how it looks to me. In the first telegram he doesn't address the initial climb and starts off recommending 3 hours at 4,000 feet carrying 1800 RPM and 28 inches of manifold pressure with a Cambridge setting of 073 which is supposed to yield 58 gph. Then, for the next three hours, he wants her to climb to 6,000 and back the props off to 1700 RPM and pull the power back to 26.5 inches with a Cambridge setting of 072 which will yield 49 gph. It's only after six hours into the flight that he has her at 8,000 feet leaving the props at 1700 RPM and pulling the power back further to 25 inches with the same 072 Cambridge setting for an estimated 43 gph. In the third telegram he appears to abandon this recommendation for a "stepped" six hour climb to 8,000 and instead recommend a continuous climb at a honkin' 2,050 RPM and 28.5 inches with a Cambridge setting of 078. He doesn't mention what the fuel consumption will be at these settings but it's probably on the order of 100 gph. The idea, apparently, is to get up to an efficient altitude as quickly as possible. Once there, he then recommends three hours at 1900 RPM and 28 inches with the Cambridge set at 073 for an expected 60 gph. The next three hours are 1800 RPM and 26.5 inches with the Cambridge at 072 for an expected 51 gph. Without a good idea of how long it would take to climb to 4,000 in the first instance and all the way up to 8,000 in the final recommendation, it's hard to say just what the total anticipated fuel burn would be in each case, but it does look like the final recommendations are easier on the engines (less time at high manifold pressures and relatively low RPM). The Lae takeoff was almost certainly followed by a relatively short (10 mnutes?) period of time flying in ground effect with everything to the wall before the airplane was able to climb at all and the power could be reduced. We have a photo of a Cambridge Exhaust Gas Analyzer head that is in the cockpit of the Grumman F-3-F that was rebuilt at the San Diego Aerospace Museum. I think the airplane is now at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola. Information about just how the thing worked has been hard to find. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:40:47 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evolution of the search > Psychics? If somebody can show me any valid scientific study that > establishes that psychic ability exists I'll be happy to read it. Ric, I'll have you know I am a psychic. I can tell ahead of time whether you will post my notes or save me from myself. Is that proof enough? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, you are a psychic. The technique is called "cold reading." Old carnival trick. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:44:15 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Don's Reasoning I think there is a point when we simply have to pull the plug on trying to explain the basis for our reasoning. The logic of our arguments isn't getting through the door of a closed mind. No matter how many times and how many different ways we state the reasons for flying along the Line of Position it isn't going to change Don's mind. Dick Pingrey ************************************************************************** From Ric While there is some value to new subscribers in our attempts to explain it (again) to Don, it is also true that no one else - even others in the Chorus of Carpers - has chimed in with "Say, Don has a good point there." I agree that its time to move on. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:52:55 EST From: Jim Pearson Subject: No Time For Psychics Sorry Ed, but I think using psychics to do research is a bad idea. No, I'm not a sceptic. I am absolutely convinced that some people have extraordinary abilities. I have known probably a dozen people who were psychic and even lived with one for a while. Using a psychic for information is not a good idea because: 1. First of all psychics are human beings and are subject to all the failings and foilibles that the rest of us are. They have good days and bad days, How would you tell that you got your information on a "good" day ? 2. Confirmation, information gained from psychic sources is almost impossible to confirm. If a psychic told you that AE died at 11:45 am on July 14 from heat and exposure, they could be 100% right. How could you confirm it ? 3.Cost, Tighar expeditions operate under constraints of time and budget. How much of those precious resources would you be willing to spend on something that may yeild absolutely nothing in return ? No, let's confine our search to more conventional methods ! *************************************************************************** From Ric We have a procedure for accepting help from psychics. Step 1: The psychic comes Wilmington. Step 2: We all go over to Delaware Park racetrack (10 minutes away). Step 3: We put a $2 bet on the psychic's pick to win each of the first 8 races. Step 4: If we win in all eight races we put all the winnings on the psychic's pick for the 9th race. Step 5: Repeat as needed until we have the next expedition funded. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:54:13 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Evidence II <> It would add about 3 miles to the Lae- Howland leg and, at most, .6 miles Howland to Niku. Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:57:53 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Itasca's clock Does anybody know why Itasca kept time 11 1/2 hours behind GMT? I thought everyone set their clocks to a whole number of hours. Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric Half-hour time zones were standard Navy procedure for ships at sea. In for civilians at that time Hawaii was 10 1/2 hours. There are still several half-hour time zones (Newfoundland for example). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:00:54 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: SE on the LOP >You were doing pretty good until the last sentence. Would someone >please remove the restraining bolt on Mr. Neumann so that he can get it >through his head that running SE on the LOP does not constitute "seeking >an alternate landfall"?'... >Ric I know I'm awfully 'slow' on the pick-up, (certainly by your own exalted standards) however can you explain more sloooooowly, just how _you_ would describe the _reason_ for flying 300+ miles away from your _original_ landfall target & your only _known_ source of rescue, if _not_ to 'seek an alternate landfall', or are we simply playing a fun game of semantics ? In all good humor, <:-) Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric No Don, in all good humor, I no longer believe I can explan that to you. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:04:22 EST From: Phil Tanner in Reading, UK Subject: Kanton New Zealand radio mentioned a possible new role for Kanton a few days ago. The US military has been using Johnston Atoll as a site for chemical arms disposal and the work is now complete or nearly so. The atoll will be turned into a national park and the airfield will no longer be maintained, at least to its current level. This means it will no longer be able to serve as an emergency runway for trans-Pacific twin-engined flights, which are apparently obliged to stay at all times within a certain mileage or flying time of a runway. Kanton was mentioned as a possible alternative, but it would presumably need work done itself by now. LTM, Phil 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric Not much though. The runway was in great shape when we were there in '98 but room service at the hotel was a bit slow. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:06:10 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Daryll's Navigation Question Ok forumites here's what I came up with on the retreat to Mili Atoll question. Daryll asked, "where does a line 101 deg. true from Mili Atoll intersect the 337/157 deg LOP from Howland. Lat/ long of intersecting point and all mileages. Point of intersection occurs at N3' 27" W177' 44" (101 deg. line & 337/157 deg LOP) Mileage from intersection to Mili Atoll: 625 nautical miles/ 544 statute miles, initial true course 284 deg. (great circle) Mileage from Howland to intersection northwest: 172 nautical miles/ 150 statute miles I will break the course line from the intersection to Mili via waypoints you can follow or copy on a chart if you have one available. All waypoints will intersect lines of longitude to make it easy to plot. Waypoint 1: N3' 27" W177' 44" Waypoint 2: N3' 46" W 179' 00" Waypoint 3: N4' 02" W180' 00" (international date line) Waypoint 4: N4' 17" E179' 00" Waypoint 5: N4' 32" E178' 00" Waypoint 6: N4' 47" E177' 00" Waypoint 7: N5' 01" E176' 00" Waypoint 8: N5' 16" E175' 00" Waypoint 9: N5' 31" E174' 00" Waypoint 10: N5' 45" E173' 00" Waypoint 11: N5' 58" E 172' 07" SE corner of Mili Atoll Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric Was there a point to Daryll's question? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:23:05 EST From: Ric Subject: OFF TOPIC research needed We have a request for information about the TBF Avenger from which Lt.(j.g.) George H. W. Bush parachuted on Sept. 2, 1944 near the island of Chichijima-retto (27.06 degrees North/142.12 degrees East) from someone who might be interested in attempting to find and recover the aircraft. We'll probably need to get into the Navy archives for primary source particulars (after action report, etc.) but I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has information on the subject. Thanks, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 07:53:32 EST From: Daryll Subject: Re: Daryll's Navigation Question At one time....Ric has said that of all the post loss messages the "281 message" seemed to be the most credible. No one could figure out what 281 meant, north of Howland 281 miles? What Doug has just done was run the recip of 281° from Mili. I will label this point "AE". This could possibly be the point AE&FN executed plan "B". This point also coincides with Rollin's oft presented "LOP off-set" to the left for a LOP land fall for Howland. It also shows why the Itasca sailed NW for the initial search. The mileage numbers seem to be in fuel range re "Mr. Boswell". Ric,.......I claim the "281 message" for our side ! Daryll **************************************************************************** From Ric Let me get this straight. You're saying that the phrase "281 north Howland call KHAQQ" was transmitted from Mili and somehow means "We flew 281 degrees from a point north of Howland." Brilliant deduction. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:03:42 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Was there a point to Daryll's question Ric asks "was there a point to Daryll's question?" Daryll, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think with this exercise you wanted to find out if it was feasible to divert to Mili from the point of the intersection of 101 deg. true line & 337/157 deg. LOP? It's 625 miles from the point to the SE corner of Mili. Unless she had some hidden fuel aboard or hellacious mystery tailwind I can't buy into it. I also cannot fathom being able to get the fuel burn down to such a value running R-1340's without driving yourself behind the efficiency curve or simply trashing the motors. It's just too far to go, not to mention not having an exact position fix to navigate from to even find Mili. Either way you slice it, it spells doom. Daryll, It was interesting running the scenario. I hope this answers your questions in full. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric See previous posting. You have confirmed Daryll's darkest suspicions. The "281 Message" obviously proves that they implemented a Plan B from "Point AE" on the LOP and flew 281 degrees to Mili. He doesn't mention why in God's name they would do such a thing or how they could have gotten all the way to Mili, but I'm sure he'll think of something. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:07:16 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Ocean currents If Randy Jacobson is correct about the drift, then I can conceive of no possible scenario that the dynamic duo could have reached the Marshalls. With respect to the reading of the LOP numbers, has anyone considered the possibility that Noonan or Earhart may have secretly been a Talmudic scholar, and therefore were accustomed to reading right to left? :-) David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, me. <> ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:10:14 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: You can get there from here - fuel for the Gilberts Thanks for the explanation - it makes sense now. I was looking at the altitude references in the telegram as the "target" altitude for each "leg" of his recommendations, not the "starting" altitude. There was some discussion of the Cambridge Analyzer on the forum (last year?) which I recently went back and read in the highlights. The explanation (as I recollect now may have been from Birch Matthews) described the sensing unit as a "wheatstone bridge". The discussion at the time had to do with AE's communication about having to replace the "cartridge" and it was decided that she was referring to the sensing unit. There was some discussion that at the mixtures being cited by Kelly Johnson, the unit would have been (I think the description was) "operating at the ragged edge of efficiency" (or some such). At any rate, in my ongoing quest to try to put together as accurate a picture as possible of what the front office looked like, could you email me a scan of the photo? If that's not possible, maybe you could mail me a photocopy. Thanks! ltm jon **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll dig it out as soon as I get minute. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:20:29 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Return to the Gilberts > I can see her > rolling to a stop on the dry reef at Gardener and thinking, "Now if we can > just figure out where we are and what's wrong with the damn radio we can get > Itasca to bring us enough fuel to let us takeoff and fly to Howland where we > can top off and continue the trip.">> I agree. Does give one pause,though, to speculate about what available equipment resources might have been on the airplane that could have been pressed into service to replace the missing belly antenna...once they got out and saw what the problem was... ltm, jon **************************************************************************** From Ric If they have some spare antenna wire, I suppose they could run it from the treminal under the copliot's seat out to the left wing. (They only need to run the starboard engine to recharge the batteries.) Otherwise, the best plan is to just use the loop as the receiver. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:24:15 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Drummond Island is the old name for Tabitueua. ************************************************************************ From Ric Interesting. So Clarence Williams was using a map or maps that, at least in this case, favored the old European names for islands - such as Duke of York rather than Atafu. I wonder if AE and FN were using the same maps. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:28:37 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence <> The Koshu was near Truk Island doing oceanographic surveys on the day Earhart went down. She was instructed to go to the Marshalls on the 4th, arriving (estimated) on the 9th. ************************************************************************** From Ric So - no Koshu anywhere near Howland. Can anyone establish that there were Japanese fishing boats way down there? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:30:10 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Return to the Gilberts > I also take issue with the assumption that landing anywhere other than > Howland would be a disaster. AE had a long history of getting lost and > landing off-airport only to refuel and continue on her way. Thanks for posting that comment, Ric. Most everyone has viewed this flight as simply Lae to Howland even though they know that was only one part of the overall mission. Viewing the flight as going to Howland has clearly affected some folk's reasoning. They were only stopping for fuel and they certainly weren't going to ruin their chances of continuing on to Oakland by wrecking their engines or dumping the Electra into the drink if there was any other way out. The thought that even putting the plane down on a reef was not the end of the mission is a great comment for all to keep in mind. Had the plane landed at Niku AND been found it would have merely been a delay until fuel and necessary repairs got them on their way again. For those who want to nick at the idea and say they couldn't have got back off the ground with a new fuel load are missing the point. A little fuel would get them back up to Howland where a full load could be put on as originally planned. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:34:22 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence > . We know by many accounts that the Koshu was > searching in the area and according to the New York Times, Japanse > officials reported that many of their fishing boats were in the area. I know of no such evidence, Ron but I appreciate your good try at offering an explanation for AE in the Marshalls. This is one of the first rationales I've seen and that is all I've been asking for. Even if someone might poke holes in it the exercise makes you and all of us think and keeps old ideas from stagnating. As you can see each theory requires accepting some evidence and ignoring other evidence. Our job is to try and evaluate each piece of evidence and rank it so to speak. For example hearsay evidence is ranked according to several factors not excluding the character of the speaker. That is and will be a continuing evaluation as new information comes to light. What you see with your own eyes has a fairly high quality to it. What someone tells you they saw has less and what someone told someone who told someone is pretty low on the totem pole. Ric took exception as I did on your statement of ships in the vicinity of Howland but if you can show newspaper accounts or other documentation to that effect then your "evidence" gets a higher ranking. There may even be a way to get the Electra to the Marshalls but no one has come up with it. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric As you have by now seen from Randy's posting, the Koshu was never anywhere near Howland and we've seen no documentation on the "fishing boats" allegation. What evidence (other than anecdotal) do we have to ignore to accept the Niku hypothesis? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:35:56 EST From: Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho Subject: Re: Daryll's Navigation Question > From Doug Brutlag > > Mileage from intersection to Mili Atoll: 625 nautical miles/ 544 statute > miles, initial true course 284 deg. (great circle) > Mileage from Howland to intersection northwest: 172 nautical miles/ 150 > statute miles. It seems as if the conversion from nautical miles to statute miles has been reversed. Which are the correct numbers? Dale ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:37:06 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Cambridge analyzer > From Ric > ... We have a photo of a Cambridge Exhaust Gas Analyzer head that is in the > cockpit of the Grumman F-3-F that was rebuilt at the San Diego Aerospace > Museum. ... Information about just how the thing worked has > been hard to find. Birch Matthews found some interesting literature: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Highlights101_120/highlights105.html#17 Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:38:11 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence They (Saipan witnesses) saw AE or Irene Bolam, "lookalikes" !!!! This may help but my friend Joe Patton, the ONI guy who went to Saipan in Dec 60, after Goerner et al, found noone that could confirm a crash or AEs presence. In fact he found Jesus Salas ( I think) former inmate at Garapan who said no "white woman" was at the Garapan Jail in 1937on. But maybe Jesus was "covering up", the Capture Theorists would argue. I just talked to Joe, but he doesn't have any of his old notes re his investigation and doesn'nt recall much else other than what is in his ONI report. He was aware of Goerner's interviews and he did interview Mrs. Antonia Blanco, Josephines mama, but the story was much different. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:40:41 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) Speaking as a pilot I would say that the most obvious reason why AE said she was flying the 157-337 line is because she was heading SE, the gyroscopic compass set at 157 and probably or almost certainly compensating for drift. Since this was their LOP, she was flying SE along the 157? radial and to 337? was the reciprocal course. It stands to reason that she would therefore first say 157 rather than 337. I'm pretty sure that if she had been flying NW instead she would have set the gyroscopic compass at 337 and would have transmitted to be flying the 337-157 line. In short the situation at that time was SNAFU. To the non flying crowd this aviation English and is short for "Situation Normal And Fouled Up". Of course we'll be sure about the heading she flew when Tighar finds the Electra... Ric, if and when you do, look at the gyroscopic compass if it is still in one piece. However, these old mechanical things tend to survive crashes. I bet a bottle of champagne it is still showing 157. LTM Herman 2406 **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll take that bet. The 157 337 LOP is True, not Magnetic. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:44:28 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: No Time For Psychics Re. Jim Pierson's point: <<2. Confirmation, information gained from psychic sources is almost impossible to confirm. If a psychic told you that AE died at 11:45 am on July 14 from heat and exposure, they could be 100% right. How could you confirm it?>> Actually, I've long wanted to find a way to subject a psychic's conclusions to archeological verification. It seems like a natural: psychic says "Amelia buried Fred right THERE," we dig, and he's either there or he's not. So if anyone wants to take the Niku grid map to a psychic..... *************************************************************************** From Ric Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away I did that with a "renowned" psychic while searching for l'Oiseau Blanc in the hills of coastal Maine. Probably the second stupidest thing I ever did (right behind my first marriage). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:47:03 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position << In an article to the LA Times, 6 July 37, Clarence Williams, AE's navigator, explained where he thought the Electra should be....> For Ron Bright Maybe I'm being painfully naive, but that LA Times article sounds very intriguing. Can you post a copy of it, or give directions (no LOP, please) as to how to find it? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:48:10 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: DRing from the unknown > But since he DIDN'T know whether or not he was north of Howland it's > academic, and if he DID know he was north of Howland he would have to be an > idiot not to simply run down the line to Howland. Once again I was unclear. Knowing whether he was north or south meant north or south of Kanton or whatever other island he was wanting to go to NOT north or south of Howland. Of course this is academic as I don't think he had intentions of doing anything other than heading down the LOP hoping to find Howland or Baker and as a last resort Gardner. The purpose of my nav posting was simply to show how one could get to Kanton or any place else IF the knew their relative north south position in regard to those islands. I can see now that in my attempt to clear this up I have befuddled all. Anyone versed in celestial navigation has a chance but the rest of should move on. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:26:01 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Island names > Sydenham Sydenham Is is at 0 degrees S 174 degrees E. I didn't look up the others. Nor did I plot out the distance from anywhere. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Bruce Yoho has tracked down Clarence Williams' islands: Hurd Island----is ARORAE Island Byron Island -----is NIKUNAU Drummond Island---- is TABITEUEA Sydenham Island --- is NONOUTI Reference is this URL--- http://www.wysiwyg.co.nz/kiribati/islands.html #GILBERT ISLANDS These are all in the Southern Gilberts and it's odd that he didn't also mention "Francis Island (BERU), "Clerk Island" (ONOTOA), or "Rotcher island" (TAMANA) which are all right there with the others. Williams' consistent Eurocentricity in the use of island names really has me thinking (again) about this Duke of York business and Betty's Notebook. How many time have we questioned the authenticity of the alleged post-loss radio signals by asking why Earhart was not saying, over and over again, the name of the island she was on? "We're on Gardner Island, Gardner, Gardner, Gardner!" and here we have Betty's Notebook with repeated references to "NY, NY, NY, (or something that sounded like New York" and sitting right there we have Duke of York (Atafu) which just happens to be on that same 157 337 LOP. We have also wondered if Betty had written "NY, NY" as shorthand for "New York City" when AE had actually been saying "Norwich City" in an attempt to convey the only unique thing she knew about the island she was on. Not bad as a theory, but the Duke of York theory is a lot cleaner. No need to interpret Betty's notation. Why AE thought they were on Duke of York is a bit of a mystery. Apparently she assumed that they had erred to the SE farther than they did and, just as apparently, Noonan had not been able to fix their position with celestial observations, but then, the Noonan described in Betty's Notebook was in no shape to observe anything. Of course, it could also be that a hoaxer was saying Duke of York and Betty heard it as New York, but it does appear to be an internal consistency in the transcription that Betty was not aware of. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:29:00 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Sydenham From Howland to Sydenham Is is 650 statue miles give or take 1.85.....to the minus point three to the...........oh never mind. Anyway I don't see that list of possible alternates as a consideration. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:45:38 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) LOP conventions aside, what about the syntax convention of ".. are running north and south". Does that suggest you are first running north, then turning and running south? ************************************************************************** From Ric The jumbled entry in Bellarts' log can be read "we are running on north and south line" or it can be read "we are running on line north and south" but it's clear from the strike-overs that it was inserted several minutes after it was heard by somebody other than the guy who was keeping the log at the time (Bill Galton). Later, when everyone sat down to get their story straight, it was decided that she must have said "we are running north and south" and so it has been represented for 65 years, but the truth is, nobody knows what she said. There was apparently some reference to "running on the line" and some reference to "north and south" or maybe it was "north to south" but it's way too fuzzy to draw any conclusions from syntax. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:47:43 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Clarence Williams thought she was on course to about 900 miles, then detecting winds, she changed either 8 degrees north or 8 degrees south of Howland. He thinks about 150miles north or 150 miles was the "cone of possiblity" for her slashdo Who knows where those Islands are?? *************************************************************************** From Ric See previous postings. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:49:22 EST From: Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho Subject: Re: history Amelia's disappearance has been full of mystery since 1937. The same can be said for Hormel's SPAM which appeared that year. Dale *************************************************************************** From Ric And you think that's a COINCIDENCE? Tell him Daryll. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:51:25 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Ron Bright - All of those "islands", with the exception of Sydenham, are listed in Sailing Directions (enroute) for the Pacific Islands (4th Edition - 1992). Trouble is, they are capes or points. Some folks don't have to high an opinion of Williams anyway. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric Or of Sailing Directions if that's what they say. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:53:56 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Yet another play Just when I imagined that I had all possible AE scenarios neatly cataloged, up 'pops' another: Amelia Earhart Address:http://www.sdtheatrescene.com/Theatre%20Home%20Pages/6th%20@%20Penn%20 Folder/Amelia%20Earhart/amelia_earhart.htm Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:56:55 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Ocean currents Ric, There was an event during the war that bears on the discussion. An Olympic champion runner (Zamborini ?) from the LA area was a crew member (pilot?) on a B-24 which ditched west and north of Howland. Zamborini and some of the crew survived for quite awhile drifting on a raft and finally got to the Marshall Islands where they were imprisoned and tortured by the Japanese and later were transferred to Japan. Zamborini and some of the others survived the war. Zamborini became a minister after the war and revisited Japan forgiving his torturers, He was the featured Olympic torch bearer at one of the recent summer Olympics. ************************************************************************** From Ric The question, of course, is how far north and west of Howland did they go down? Go far enough north and west of Howland and you can wash ashore in Tokyo Bay. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:58:52 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gilberts vs LOP > I don't know but it seems doubtful to me they would > purposefully run the risk of ruining their engines if it wasn't necessary. > Alan Except that Kelly Johnson specifically says they can run leaner still if they want to if they run into stronger than expected headwinds etc. He's unlikely to have advised that if it could ruin the engines. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:00:41 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: You can get there from here - fuel for the Gilberts I think everyone is still missing something right under their noses as far as the fuel useage goes. In all the posts I've seen there are guesses at how long Earhart would have flown at full power and how much fuel she used to get to altitude. I frequently mention the odd 22 minutes at the start of the Clarence Williams flight plan, before everything reverts to hours (plus 11 then 10 minutes). To me it still smacks of initial climb. 500fpm for 22 minutes would be 11,000 feet. We know the Electra was unlikely to climb out fully loaded at that rate, but if it could drag itself up at around 350fpm it would just about make 8,000 feet in 22 minutes (55 miles). I can see no other obvious reason that that short period would appear right at the beginning. Especially as Clarence Williams had the estimated time planned "to the minute" (17hrs and 01 minute). and no course change until 3.5 hours later. My suggestion is that there was to be 22 minutes to: CLIMB AT TWO THOUSAND FIFTY RPM TWENTY EIGHT AND ONE HALF INCHES AT ZERO SEVEN EIGHT TO EIGHT THOUSAND FEET STOP followed by: FIRST THREE HOURS AT NINETEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY EIGHT INCHES AND ZERO SEVEN THREE AT SIXTY GALLONS HOUR STOP NEXT THREE HOURS AT EIGHTEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY SIX POINT FIVE INCHES AT ZERO SEVEN TWO AT FIFTY ONE GALLONS HOUR STOP AFTER SIX HOURS USE DATA GIVEN IN PREVIOUS LETTER OR WIRE STOP I can't see any other logic to the way the plan was mapped and the odd 22 minutes at the beginning as well as an odd amount of time at the end. Th' WOMBAT. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:07:08 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Sydenham is a part of Nonouti 0S 174E approx Byron ditto Nikunau 1S 176E appr Hurd ditto Arorae 2S 176E appr Drummond ditto Tabiteuea 1S 174 E appr These islands are in the general area of closest approach of the Gilberts to Howland. I think it is interesting that Williams uses the old european names for the islands rather than their native equivalents. It rather suggests that at least some maps of the time did not use the polynesian names and perhaps Atafu would have been similarly described by its european name of Duke of York. One of the early post loss messages gives a position of 1.36S 179E. This position is just empty ocean but it is on a line from Howland which runs just south of Arorae, one of the closest islands in the Gilberts to Howland. One can speculate that they might have splashed down at this position en route to Arorae. Taking another tack, one of the few Gilberts with a name that sounds remotely like New York is Puarik. This lies at 1.28S 175.04E, very close to where Williams predicted a possible landfall (also on Tabiteuea) and only a few miles from 1.36S 175E. It is well known that 9 is often confused with 5 in voice transmission and hence 1.36S 179E could refer in fact to 1.36S 175E. If Noonan had erred in estimating latitude by only 8 minutes, this would not be a big error in terms of a cut with sun shots. Of course it is possible there is some small reef, unmarked or unnamed on Noonan's charts, a few miles south of Puarik which is actually at 1.36S. I wonder, do we have an accurate time frame for the report of an aircraft over Tabiteuea? Could it be that the aircraft was actually flying east to west at that time and not, as has generally been assumed, west to east? Although night was mentioned in this context, which would seem to rule out an east to west crossing, has the time of the report actually been verified? Regards Angus ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't have a post-loss message that says anything about 1.36S 179E. What's your source? The Tabiteuea report is just a story that was told to the captain of the yacht Yankee when it visited the island in 1940. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:10:27 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Confusion It's nearly one am and I just realized I've done it again. Confused everyone. All this time Alan is saying FN couldn't reasonably navigate to the Gilberts. Ric has been saying he couldn't reasonably navigate to other Phoenix islands and I've agreed. THEN Alan says he CAN navigate to the Gilberts or Kanton or other Phoenix Islands. Wow! in the middle of the night it dawned on me I was inadvertantly giving the Gilbert folks hope, albeit false hope. Am I saying I can navigate to those islands but Fred couldn't? Not exactly. First of all let me make it clear. I couldn't get to the Gilberts or islands further away than Niku with what little fuel the Electra had. I would have needed much more as there would have needed to be some manuevering. What I was trying to say was that it is technically possible to navigate most anywhere in that area at that time given the resources at Fred's disposal. OR possibly at Fred's disposal. What he didn't have was fuel. He also may have not had celestial visibility. But most important of all - going to Kanton or the Gilberts was not the plan. The plan was to go to Howland and then on to Hawaii and on to the States. What Ric has been desperately trying to get across (that I've now confused) is that FN HAD to fly SE on the LOP. He had no choice. ONLY on that course was there a chance to find Howland or Baker and Howland was where he was going. No other course went there. He's trying to find Howland and some of you guys want him to head 270. Why? How would he find Howland heading west? No, he had to fly 157. Plus he had a bonus. If he missed Howland next came Baker and if he missed Baker next came Niku. IF he heads in ANY other direction next comes nothing. Most certainly next doesn't come Howland. Some of you are micro viewing this problem. Step back and look at the whole picture. They were flying back to the States. They were going to stop at Howland for gas. They were not going to the Marshalls or the Gilberts. They were on course south of Nauru and across Tabit...whatever in the Gilberts. (it's too late to look up the spelling) Get a map. Plot their course over those points. They are flying at 150 tas. That's mph. Apply the forecast winds. That will give you a heading. Then apply a wind shift. If I remember correctly there was a slight shift at some point from slightly north of east to slightly south of east. In the short distance remaining how far would that put them off course if Noonan is too stupid to catch the change? Not very far. Plot it out. Don't just fuss about it. The bottom line is he may have missed Howland north or south by a small amount. Maybe. Maybe he came pretty close. The important point is not where he was but where he thought he was. And we know that. We know where he thought he was. "We must be on you.." What does that tell you? It tells you he believed four things. 1. He was over or nearly over Howland 2. That means he thought he was about 400 miles from Niku if he needed it. 3. He also would have believed he was 500 miles from the nearest Gilbert island. 4. And he would have believed he was 868 miles from Mili Atoll. Now he searches around where he thinks Howland is for an hour and now it is decision time. He still believes he is close. There is no way he would head north. He might think about west to the Gilberts but his fuel is low. Going west gives him one shot at hitting an island. Going SE gives him another shot at Howland if he is actually a little north of where he thought he was or Baker and Niku as a last resort. Now tell me which of the choices you think is most reasonable? And yes, I know a fourth choice could have been to continue milling around until the gas ran out. Somehow I can't see why anyone would do that. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:11:20 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Devegetate? For Tom, Thank you. It's my belief that you do everything within the confines of local customs and law and be as non- invasive to the local populace as possible. That's why I usually do everything on Taroa alone. I will be taking my son, Joel with me the next time to run the laptop. He's half Hawaiian and 20 so I hope he doesn't fall in love. Ah, the vagaries of youth! Woody ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:12:09 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence For Ron , I can shed some light on Joe's involvement. He was the search Flight Commander in New Guinea when Nelson Rockefeller's son dissappeared in the early 60's. He looked up the surviving takeoff witnesses on a whim and it went on from there. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:14:32 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence Sorry, Alan. I guess I screwed up in cutting and pasting from the original message, and somehow attached your name to the original, instead of the reply. I did not mean to attribute to you something that you didn't say! Sorry about the confusion! Stuart ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:23:14 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: No Time For Psychics Anything new on the analysis of Betty's Journal? Psychics aside, I think there is info contianed in the notes as well as anlysis of them that will bear fruit. LTM Ed of PSL *************************************************************************** From Ric Betty's Notebook is what it is. We have already determined that, in theory at least, it coud be the real thing and that there is no obvious alternative explantion for it. As we proceed with other research we may come across information that brings us back to the notebook - such as the recent observation that Clarence Williams was apparently using maps that featured the European names of islands, whihc reinforces the possibility that Betty's "NY, NY..." was really "Duke of York, Duke of York...". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:32:09 EST From: DAVE BUSH Subject: Psychics I very much mistrust so-called "psychics". However, I do believe that some people at some times are able to sense things or are shown signs. Shortly after I was married, I had a dream in which my wife and a fraternity brother's wife were in hospital beds in the same room. A second fraternity brother's wife came in with a baby and gave it to the first fraternity brother's wife and said: "Its a boy!" She went out and came right back in with a second baby and gave it to my wife and said: "Its a boy!" There was a small space and she came back with a third baby and handed it to my wife and said: "Its a girl!" That was the exact birth order with the two boys about a month and a half apart and my daughter 3-1/2 years later. While my wife was in labor, the nurses kept telling me that because of the heart rate and other indicators that our first would be a girl, but I was adamant that the dream said a boy and it would be a boy. And a boy it was. At 21 he now stands 6'3" tall. I had the same experience with the second, the nurses saying the indicators said a boy, but again, I knew it would be a girl and of course I was right. The first fraternity brother later divorced with no more children by that marriage and the second fraternity brother and his wife divorced with no children. We have had no more children. I can give you many more precognitive events, but this was the most dramatic and one in which I told a number of people about the dream PRIOR to the actual events and thus have a number of witnesses including my wife and the fraternity brothers and their wives. LTM, Dave *************************************************************************** From Ric If you're like most people you have three or four or more dreams each night - at least a thousand per year. In the 3.5 years between the dream and the events you related to it you probaly had upwards of 4,000 dreams and one of them seemed to sort of come true - and you see that as proof of psychic ability. The illusion of paranormal events is a function of selective recall and a failure to understand how often wierd coincidences just naturally happen. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:37:09 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Let me check my copies of C. Williams' maps. My memory (sometimes bad) doesn't recall the names of the Gilbert Islands on those maps.... *************************************************************************** From Ric The strip map Williams prepared for the Howland/Lae leg (first attempt) doesn't have any of the Gilberts labeled nor does it even have the group labeled. Baker Island, just 40 miles southeast of Howland is not on the map at all, nor are any of the Phoenix Group. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:37:41 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Daryll's Navigation Question Woooopsss! Brain gas Dale. Good Catch. 625 nauticals = 719 statute miles 172 nauticals= 198 statute miles Thanks for catching the error. As you can see I usually do not work with statute except when driving my car. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:40:56 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: Island names I think things are getting a bit difficult to grasp. I can understand AE saw the wrecked ship from a distance and misread Norwich City for New York city when she sent her blind transpission. All this still stands to reason. I can understand that she believed mentioning the name of a wrecked ship would ring bells somewhere and make rescue parties head for the place where they were but of which they themselseves had no idea where it was. Now putting them 281 miles NW of Howland, which is in the middle of the ocean, is leading nowhere. Where exactly is TIGHAR standing now ? Herman (#2406) **************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry if I confused you. TIGHAR is standing right where we have always stood - on the sunny shores of Nikumaroro. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:42:40 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: LOP/FUEL ad nauseum Why cant the actual fact of what happened to Amelia be far more simple than all the chatter?? If you stick with the known instead of the imaginary, it seems like it took AE about an hour to figure the Howland thing wasnt gonna happen. She looks at Fred and says "hey Fred,, were lost, were low on fuel , and the radio dont work". IF you want to go somewhere you must point the nose of the airplane at something. We know for a fact AE wanted to point the nose of the plane at 157 and or 337 or else why would she waste her breath telling everyone (there were no railroad tracks or check points to follow) When it comes to fuel,, Amelia had to know better than anyone on earth how much hours of endurance she could get from 1150 gallons. If your half way smart as a navigator in those waters dont it make sense that you allow your track to slip south of Howland as opposed to North? What the Hell is there to the north??? Then when the clock runs out (FN was a real bonafied clock freak according to the reports) you turn to 337 degrees and search for 30 minutes,,, see nothing,, turn around and go 157 for 1 hour,, see nothing,, look at the maps and see that "Ohh look Amelia,, here are some pieces of dirt south east of Howland and 157 seems to point directly at them" Could it be as simple as that?? The Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:47:23 EST From: DAVE BUSH Subject: Re: Psychics Yes, you are right about coincidence, however, this one was more than coincidence - at least to me. I told several people the very next day about the dream and the exact birth order was followed. That goes beyond chance or coincidence in my mind. I believe that I have related the story to you before about the car and the dead person. That when I was still several miles from the scene, I began to see the image of a car, its make, model and color and location. When I arrived there I had an overwhelming urge to force the trunk open. But being a pragmatic person and not wanting to go to jail for damaging someones car, I went home and called the police. They found a dead body in the trunk. That goes WAY beyond coincidence and was in REAL time, not dream state. I can't explain it, but it happened. I guess if you haven't experienced these things it is hard to explain. And yes, I have a lot of dreams that don't seem to come true (and some I wouldn't want to come true). But many premonitions seem to be just what they are and I can usually (not always) spot them. They seem different to me than the rest of my dreams. Again, I can't explain it and won't try - because if you haven't experienced it, you just can't understand it. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:48:53 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Cambridge analyzer Yep, this is the post I was thinking of. Thanks, Marty, for digging it out. Birch seemed to have a lot of information. Do I recall correctly, Ric, that he passed away? ltm jon 2266 **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, Birch died very unexpectedly about a year or so ago. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:55:40 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: No Time For Psychics Don't beat yourself up. A lot of us made _THAT_ mistake (you figure out which one of the two you cited I'm referring to). Nevertheless, I think the psychic idea is great, and when you get ready to do the proof test, let me know and I'll send you eight crisp new two dollar bills that you can take over to the track -- er test facility - and put down for me! ltm, jon 2266 *************************************************************************** Frrom Tom Byers Didn't Jacquie Cochran the famous aviatrix write that she dreamt that Earhart had landed intact on the open ocean and was awaiting rescue? Of course, the psychologists would attribute this free association to sub-conscious wishful thinking. Tom Byers **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, AE and Jaqueline both believed in psychic ability. There is also some indication that AE was into astrology and may have delayed her departure from Miami for a day or two for the sake of a more auspicious horoscope. Remember, despite her obvious writng ability, AE never completed any course of education beyond high school. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:03:15 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Daryll's Navigation Question 281 NW of Howland ? Where does this land us ? Surely not on Gardner Island ? LTM (who admits she is now completely lost) Herman (#2406) *************************************************************************** From Ric Herman, don't worry about it. Nobody is saying that the airplane ended up 281 NW of Howland. Daryll's reference was to the fragmentary post-loss message received by the Navy which included the phrase "281 north Howland call KHAQQ." We have speculated in the past that the "281 north" might refer to the equator which happens to be exactly 281 nautical miles north of the Seven site on Nikumaroro. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:05:05 EST From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Ron Bright has indicated that Clarence Williams believed Amelia may have come from one of four islands; Hurd, Byron, Drummond and Sydenham Islands. If forumites would like to know where these islands are located: Hurd Island is located 2 degrees South, 176 East, just east of Onotoa and South of Nikunau. It has an peak height of 3 feet above water. Byron Island is also called Nikunau Island, and is located at 176 degrees East, 1 degree, 18 minutes South. It is near Hurd and also has a height of 3 feet. Drummond Island - As Randy Jacobson earlier indicated, is an old name for Tabituenua, which is located further West of Byron Island, and just South East of Nonouti Atoll. Sydenham Island is along the equator at 174 East, with no elevation. It is may also be called Aranuka, and is the furtherest North part of the Nonouti Atoll. With the approach that Daryll has indicated on his interpretation of the 281 message, the path to Mili would pass just between two reefs about 35 nm before you reach Mili. The name of these two reefs are Langa (also called Keats Bank) and Tokemule. I have collected many maps and reef locations from this area, since I believe she did land on land (or a reef), as the post crash messages support that. Harry #2300 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:51:15 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Psychics Give it up, Dave. Ric and I have had this kind of discussion before, and trying to convince him to consider the possible reality of psychic stuff is about like trying to sell the Nikumaroro hypothesis to -- well, supply your own name. Like one or two others, it's a subject on which he and I have just agreed to disagree. Not that I necessarily "believe" in the alleged phenomena; it's just that the only thing I'm sure of in life is that I don't really know enough to be sure of anything. *************************************************************************** From Ric Like Tom says, we've been around this barn before. I approach it the same way I do the Earhart Alien Abuction hypothesis - I'm will to consider the possibility but it has to meet the same standards as the rest of the stuff I believe. I can't take it on faith. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:56:14 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > From Herman De Wulf > > Speaking as a pilot I would say that the most obvious reason why AE said she > was flying the 157-337 line is because she was heading SE, the gyroscopic > compass set at 157 and probably or almost certainly compensating for drift. Are we sure that AE had a gyrocompass? I thought that her autopilot system used a non-azimuth-seeking directional gyro, that was manually set to the magnetic compass heading, and had a relatively high drift rate. Bob Brandenburg #2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric We pilots are sometimes casual in our terminology. I'm quite sure that her Sperry Gyropilot used a Directional Gyro that was not slaved to the magnetic compass and had to be manually reset periodically. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:08:31 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > There was apparently some reference to "running on the > line" and some reference to "north and south" or maybe it was "north to > south" but it's way too fuzzy to draw any conclusions from syntax. It's worth noting that the radio operators on the Itasca had virtually no experience in logging verbatim voice radio messages. Their experience was in Morse code, which has a well defined and measured pace, and which, even at its maximum transmission rate, is much slower than conversational voice. At best, the operators could be expected to accurately capture isolated words, or even some phrases, but we need to be careful about relying on the the logs as verbatim transcripts of AE's transmissions. Bob Brandenburg #2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric Good point Bob. Over the years the Itasca radio log - especially the "enhanced" version in Thompson's "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight" report - has become enshrined as Amelia's last words, with phrases like "we must be on you but cannot see you" and "running north and south" attaining almost liturgical status. And yet, time and time again, we've seen that a critical look casts real doubt upon the accuracy of several of the log entries. For example, she almost certainly did not say anything about "circling" or "overcast", and there's room for debate about whether she ever said she was "100 miles out." The Itasca log is not a court reporter's transcription of testimony but the hasty notations of inexperienced and increasingly rattled radio operators. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:18:46 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Ocean currents Included is an article about the B-24 bombadier Louis Zamperini that I referred to as having gone down west and north of Howland and drifting to the Marshall Islands during WWII. His is a geat story. I do think their drifting for 47 days from near Howland to the Marshalls bears on the discussion. Ron Reuther **************************************************************************** From Ric Ron, I didn't post all of the story because the formatting is so screwed up that it's very difficult to read and there is nothing in it that helps us determine whether he did, in fact, drift from somewhere near Howland to the Marshalls. I've fixed the formatting of the pertinent part of the article: "During the war in the Pacific, Lou was a bombardier on a B-24 Liberator when his plane crashed on a search-and-rescue mission south of Hawaii in 1943, killing 8 of his crewmates. Zamperini and another survivor drifted nearly 2,000 miles in the ocean, living in terror every day and night because of the sharks that constantly surrounded the raft. On the 47th day the two men were picked up by a Japanese patrol boat and imprisoned." If you have the cooridnates where the plane went down and where the patrol boat picked them up it could provide a useful model but otherwise I don't see how it bears on the discussion. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:25:42 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence re: Koshu and Japanese fishing boats An AP release of 6 July,New York, reported that tthe Japanese officials said that the Koshu is searching in the vicinity of the Marshalls, for AE. Koshu logs show she was dispatched about 6 July went south into the American waters for a few days,got worried and ended up at Jaluit 13 July, leaving 19 July for Saipan. An AP release from Tokyo cites Japanese government officials claiming they radioed all its v essels in the south seas near Howland to join in the search. Radio operators were on the alert "attempting to pick up signals". "Scores of Japanese navy boats are converging on the Marshalls and other areas near Howland". I haven't seen any independent confimaton that Japanese boats were in the Howland area as seen by US Navy ships, etc. Who knows if it is a fact. Ron Bright Bremerton *************************************************************************** From Ric The "scores of Japanese navy boats" bit is known to be malarkey. I've seen the deck logs of most of the U.S. Navy ships involved in the search and have seen no reference to any Japanese vessel, naval or otherwise, being sighted by either the ships or the planes. To assume that there were Japanese vessels where they should not have been and which somehow eluded detection by a huge American search semms unwarranted. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:27:28 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence RE: Koshu and Japanese boats I just posted newspaper accounts from the AP in the Honolulu Star Bulletin and the AP office in Tokyo. Japanese government officials must have told the reporters, but who knows how accurate those "offvcial" releases were. No doubt the Japanese were charting AEs course and no doubt that the US asked for search help, and no doubt that the Koshu made a cursory search for a week in the Marshall Is areas. There is no evidence the Koshu got close to Howland. And for the Japanese fishing boats, your guess is as good as mine. For Alan C,.to clarify, I do not support the Mili, Jaluit, Saipan Japanese capture theory, and in fact have written extensively on those witnesses and other circumstances that have convinced me that it is highly unlikely she survived there. Starting with Aikyama. But that is my opinion based on the reports available. Joe Klaas recently has chastized me severely for ignoring his evidence, Akiyama's statements, other researchers, and a host of other Marshallese and Saipanese eyewitness accounts. My research has not included talking with any eyewitnesses and depended upon their stories to others.(never under any kind of oath or formal procedure). I have talked to several former Saipan residents who knew several of the witnesses and I have talked to Joe Patton who interviewed witnesses at Saipan in 1960, who found noone there that could confirm AE's presence. Yet Klaas and many of his friends insist that the Japanese capture theory is not a theory but a fact. Maybe it is, but for me, I ain't convinced. Ron Bright Bremerton ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:29:25 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position For Tom King, Send me your fax and I send you the page with Clarences photo. Or if you want a nice fresh copy, call LA archives at 1-800 788 8804 ask for Renee Verrett, ask for that article of 6 July 37 and for $5.00 they will send it to you. They have about 100 articles on AE that I have ordered over time. If they need to use an artchivist going back that far it is $40 an hour. They will send you free a list of all larticles on AE since 1985. Somebody just posted that Drummond Is was the old name for Tabitieau. From his description of the westerly flow, no doubt he is talking of the Gilberts. But as Ric mentione he must be using a map used in her navigation plans that was used by Christopher Columbus. He also suspected she could get to the Solomon Is in a lifeboat. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:42:45 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Island names Now that those islands have been identified it is an intriguing aspect of the various names used as you point out. She must have been using maps that Clarence gave her. He beleived she would reach Hurd first, then Byron, by July 13, either Drummond or Sydenham. Interesting. Ron Bright Bremerton *************************************************************************** From Ric The strip maps that Clarence Williams made for her first World Flight attempt are at Purdue. They're hand-drawn and do not include many island names - none at all for the Gilberts. I don't know whether he also provided her with commercial maps but I can't imagine that Noonan would not have equipped himself with his own maps prior to the second attempt. For the "Duke of York (but it was really Gardner) Hypothesis" to hold up we're going to have to establish that there was a map that AE and Noonan could have reasonably had with them that showed Atafu as Duke of York. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:48:40 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Sydenham For Alan C. I think Clarence was estimating AE would get to the Gilberts drifting on a liferaft or the plane itself, not flying there for plan "B". Thus, I guess, if she went down say hundred miles west of Howland, she would be picked up by the current. And I don't see the Itasca searching there the first week. That is what Clarence thought. He does have a chart in front of him as he is calculating her direction!!! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:28:35 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Standing up for Lambrecht Don N. wrote: >We can only speculate what the difference _might_ have been, had Lt. >Lambrecht decided (intuitively) to land in the lagoon at >Gardner/Nikumaroro, instead of Hull Island. Someone has to stick up for Lambrecht. It is possible to ascertain many good reasons why Lambrecht and/or his Commander choose not to land at Gardner/Niku. You seem to imply here that Lambrecht should have been more intuitive. I get the feeling that you are puzzled as to why a landing party was not put ashore at Niku. In that context you are reading way...way...too much into Lambrecht's "signs of recent habitation" statement. I will not take up any more space here by posting (for the 3rd or 4th time) my long Forum thesis which contains many non-Earhart examples of what Lambrech may have observed. Anyone who is interested in the details (new comers etc.?) can email me off-Forum. LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul, MN ****************************************************************************** From Ric Unless Lambrecht had seen someone waving to him from the shore (as he did on Hull, where he did land) it would not have done him any good to land in the lagoon at Gardner. As those who have seen the Aerial Tour video can attest, you can't just taxi your floatplane up to the beach, hop out, and go hollering around in the bushes. The water is too shallow near the shore. You'd just run aground way out in the lagoon and have to listen to your observer in the back seat say "Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into." What he told his commanding officer back aboard Colorado about the "signs of recent habitation" we'll never know, but apparently no one considered them worth further investigation. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:02:11 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Island names Just to complicate things, the following comes up in a simple web search for "Duke and York and Island" Duke of York Islands, group of 13 coral islands, 23 sq mi (60 sq km), SW Pacific, in the [http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0807697.html] Bismarck Archipelago, part of Papua New Guinea. There are several coconut plantations. Duke of York Island is the largest of the group, which was formerly called Neu Lauenburg. He was a busy fellow, that Duke. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:13:23 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Ocean currents Ric, I'm gaining on the drift route of Lou Zambrini and his 2 crewmates. Apparently they went down near Palmyra Island and were picked up 47days later near Wotje in the Marshalls. Enroute they would have been north of Howland by perhaps a hundred miles or more. Ron Reuther *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know what map you're using, but if I draw a line from Palmyra (been there, nice place) to Wotje I don't come any closer than 400 nautical miles from Howland. If I move the line of drift down to Howland and speculate that the same winds and currents would apply, a raft would have ended up in Tarawa. Starting from 100 miles north of Howland would still put the raft in the Gilberts. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:17:03 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: A weird coincidence The problem with trying to solve a mystery is that it is relatively easy to find scenarios to fit the few bits of information one has. Some futher food for thought on "New York" is that it could have been a misinterpretation of Due North, (presumably of Howland) We have north mentioned in the 281 message of course. Reference "Marie" we could have either Meelie (it appears in a context where Noonan could have been remonstrating with Amelia or talking to her) or possibly M'ckean. Marie always occurs in the close context of NY. Could AE have been transmitting her interpretation of their position and Noonan disagreeing, believes them much further north, perhaps in the area of M'ckean? However, since M'ckean is further from the LOP than Gardner, its difficult to understand why he should have decided they must be at M'ckean in preference to Gardner. One has to wonder if Gardner was actually marked on their chart, since if your'e flying 157 it would be an obvious possible landfall and yet there's no mention of it in post lost messages. Perhaps a wrecked Noonan, starting to examine the Phoenix area chart out of idle curiosity, (having slept for most of the trip) decides a "hair of the dog" is in order and puts down his hip flask right over Gardner island. Being damp, the paper sticks to it and as he hurriedly returns it to his back pocket on Amelia's sudden approach, he tears off a small patch of paper, removing Gardner from the map forever......................... It was just one of those weird coincidences that naturally happen. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric You're kidding - right? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:37:17 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Mantz and Fuel Consumption A couple of posts ago I asked if Mantz had ever constructed a fuel consumption recommendation after the March 37 crash and in view of his significant role in planning the second attempt those figures may help. His recommendations may have been different from Johnson's and may have been used by Amelia. Ron Reuther pointed out table 6 in FLIGHT INTO YESTERDAY...THE AMELIA EARHART ENIGMA,by Capt Safford, and edited and compiled by Cam Warren and Robert Payne. The table shows consumption data from 0-15 hours and up. l am unable to figure out what his table might show for 20.13 mins of flight in terms of gals used. I wonder if you or someone of our inhouse fuel experts could interpret that. The table presupposes that AE had it and secondly if she used it. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe Cam can tell us where that table came from. He has it labeled "Paul Mantz Data on Fuel Consumption (courtesy of Col. Polhemus)" from which I gather he got it from Bill Polhemus who was the navigator on Ann Pellegrino's 1967 recreation world flight. Does Polhemus say he got it from Mantz? And, if so, when did Mantz make it up? The table itself seems to give two differing sets of recommendations for the first 6 hours but it's very similar to Johnson's recommendations for the Oakland/Honolulu flight ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:40:24 EST From: Ken Feder Subject: Amelia Earhart in Arizona I thought you (and maybe the forum) might be interested in a brief note that appeared in the January 2002 issue of Arizona Highways, a slick little mag extolling the virtues of all things Arizonan. Titled Amelia Earhart Touches Down in McNeal, it provides a short discussion of the time Earhart had some engine trouble in her "French biplane" and landed just behind the post office in McNeal, AZ on September 12, 1928. No real details except for the fact that she paid local mechanics $10 to fix her engine. Ken Feder ************************************************************************** From Ric That French biplane would have been her Avro Avian, an English airplane with (apparently) a French-sounding name. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:42:02 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Confusion Caldwell and others make a good case for what Noonan would do when AE couldn't find Howland. BUT, they are overlooking one factor;. i.e., Fred wasn't flying the airplane. Amelia was (and don't you forget it). Obviously we don't know what went on in the cockpit, and never will. But I continue to believe (maybe I should qualify that by saying "have reason to suspect") that the Star Pilot had strong opinions of her own. If Fred hadn't got them to Howland in X minutes, Earhart would do it HER way, and fly (unwisely, but bravely) by the seat of her pants. That could have taken them anywhere of course, but the only alternate plan she described to ANYONE was to fly back to the Gilberts. If so, it's obvious she didn't have the fuel to make it. And most likely didn't make it anywhere else either, due to fuel exhaustion (most likely) or mechanical failure of one sort or another. And no, save your breath, I can't PROVE it. We'll just have to await a deep-sea recovery of the Electra, which may not be as far off as you think (wish?) Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:50:46 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Island names > For the "Duke of York (but it was really Gardner) Hypothesis" to hold up > we're going to have to establish that there was a map that AE and Noonan > could have reasonably had with them that showed Atafu as Duke of York. The albeit slight possibility that Noonan used Clarence's maps would perhaps explain why no mention of Gardner. Was the island marked but unnamed, as with many of the other islands on his maps? Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric For waht it's worth, there's an Al Bresnick photo in the new version of Safford's "Flight Into Yesterday" edited by Cam Warren and Robert Payne that shows AE and Manning standing over a map of the world with Clarence Williams. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:55:01 EST From: Dustymiss Subject: Re: No Time For Psychics Just for the record; Amelia took various courses in chemistry and biology at Columbia University in or around 1920 or 21. She left Columbia to move to California in an attempt to help stabilize her parent's marriage. Jackie and Amelia experimented with what we now call "remote viewing" where they would try to psychicly "see" the location of airplanes that had crashed in and around the San Bernadino and Sierra mountains. According to a curator with whom I spoke at Purdue, Amelia often carried on long conversations about psychic phenomena with the female students in the dorm rooms where she stayed. It was Nilla Putnam (George Putnam's oldest son, David's wife) who had a dream a week and a half after Amelia left Miami that Amelia was pleading to her for help from under water, through a thick pane of glass. Jackie Cochran writes in her book "Stars At Noon" about how she psychically sensed that Amelia went down at sea, near where a Japanese fishing boat might be. She had the feeling that Amelia lived for about three days and then died. Albert Bresnik, the photographer that George Putnam hired to record her around the world flight, tells the story of a man coming to his photography studio to tell him that he was psychic and Amelia was about to die. He then called George and George told Bresnik that Amelia had gone missing. For what it's worth LTM and K - Dusty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:18:12 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Landing Disaster I will stick with my thought that landing any where other then Howland would be a disaster. She did land some where other then Howland and it was a disaster which cost her her life. That would be reason enough to stick with my opinion but lets look a bit further. Howland probably had the only prepared landing strip any where in the area (I don't know that for certain). If she managed to get to Gardner and and it happend to be when it was during low tide she was very lucky. The majority of the time the island probably doesn't have a suitable landing area. If she did land at Gardner at low tide why didn't she taxi up to the beach to keep the high tide and swells from carrying the airplane out into the surf? Very probably because she had some landing gear damage that would prevent her from a subsequent taxi or take off without major repairs to the airplane first being accomplished. Keep in mind she is flying a large twin and not a land any where piper Cub. In short she would have to be a very lucky person to avoid a disaster landing almost any where other then Howland. I don't think other islands within her range offered any better landing options then Gardner. Certainly none along the Line of Position. She didn't land at Howland and she suffered a disaster as a result. Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric The operative consideration is what Amelia may have THOUGHT she could get away with - not the realities that she could not have been aware of. If there is any truth at all to her reported comment to Gene Vidal about returning to the Gilberts and landing on a beach it's an indication that she thought that landing on a beach might be possible (even if Noonan disabused her of the notion that returning to the Gilberts was a good idea). Landing on beaches for the heck of it was not uncommon as late as the 1950s (as I remember my Dad doing when I was a kid). No, her Lockheed 10 was not a land-anywhere Piper Cub, but neither was it a tiny-tired, tricycle gear modern twin. Landings on what we now call "unimproved" runways were commonplace back then - much more so than today - and her conventional gear airplane had big balloon tires for just that purpose. Of course, if she reached Gardner one look would tell her that a landing on the narrow, sloped beach was a poor option. The dry reef (if the tide was low) was much more attractive, but taxiing shoreward once a landing was made would have been impossible. The only areas smooth enough to land on are out near the breakers. The two thirds of the reef closest to the beach are deeply pitted and cratered. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:23:52 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: What's next? Ric, What's next in the vast scheme of things? Is another trip to Niku likely? Could you list what physical evidence looks promising to date? Are the artifacts being studied for their origin as we speak? Sounds to me that if nothing conclusive has been found another trip to Niku is in your future. Where will the next search most likely be? Chris #2511(who likes looking towards the future) *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, artifacts are all over the place being studied by various experts as we speak. As I've mentioned, we'll have a progress report in the new TIGHAR Tracks to be mailed soon. Will there be a Niku V? You betcha. We should be ready to announce the projected timing and anticipated objectives within a few weeks. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:31:31 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) A recent post got me to thinking about the radio messages, and the "circling" reference in particular. Seeing Bob's post prompts me to comment. When AE and FN got to where they thought Howland was - and it wasn't - I suspect that they had to take a few minutes to regroup, see what their options were, and finalize their plan. If I were doing it (okay, zero hours pilot in command, but capable of occasional rational thought) I would probably circle for a short time, waiting for Fred to come up with navigational recommendations, etc. So maybe they really were (briefly) circling. ltm jon 2266 **************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe, and maybe they did loops to stay in position until they decided what to do next. The point is, the Itasca log entry that purports to document that AE said they were circling turns out to document only that they didn't know what she said and "circling" was a guess to replace "drifting", which is what the operator typed first. And, as we've said before, the word that makes the most sense in context is "listening." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:33:28 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Ocean currents I wonder where their map case wound up..... ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric Noonan had a briefcase but his maps were rolled (we can see them in several photos). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:36:40 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence <> Oh I don't know, the US managed to loose a very large carrier force which re-surfaced within flying range of Hawaii..... ************************************************************************** From Ric If the Navy had been watching the seas around Hawaii as widely as they had searched for Amelia Earhart, things may have turned out differently. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:37:39 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Island names So, did your average map of the World in 1937 show Gardner, and/or Atafu, and if the latter, under what name? Apocryphal question, but more seriously, is there an archive of Williams' papers somewhere in which one might be able to find maps he might have used in discussing the flight with Earhart, whether he gave her any or not? ************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:44:27 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Island names (Duke of York) Confirming Tom King's info, see Sector 9, The Bismarck Archipelago, in the Fourth Edition of Sailing Directions for the Pacific Islands (1992), Page 289-90. [And that book is DMA Pub. 126, and should be in your library]. No wonder you haven't been able to find Amelia. She landed on the wrong island (although it was "low, densely wooded and partly cultivated") . (That Fred was such a tease!) Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric There's probably a Duke of York in some lake in England too, but the one that might just be where AE thought she was is the one we now call Atafu. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:46:37 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Mantz and Fuel Consumption The "Paul Mantz Data for Fuel Consumption" was included in Safford's papers, and as you've indicated, came from Col. Polhemus. Safford discusses it in Chapter 9 of our book FLIGHT INTO YESTERDAY. On page 9, Safford says: "We can now interpret Table 6, correctly. The first 6 1/2 hours of the Oakland-Honolulu flight were spent in climb-out to cruising altitude (30 minutes) at full power with a fuel consumption at the rate of 96 gallons per hour, followed by cruising at a true airspeed of 150 miles per hour, and a total fuel consumption of 315 gallons at this speed. [Etc., Etc] . . . . This would give a total fuel consumption of 715 gallons for the flight, and a reserve of 232 gallons after landing. This is consistent with Paul Mantz' s estimate of 'more than four hours of fuel remaining'" Note that these calculations were based on the OAK-HON flight. But the bottom line, according to Safford, was Earhart's fuel consumption flying to Howland was "7% higher than than these figures". He figured AE "had to make a cruising speed of 150 mph for the first six or seven hours of flight to get beyond the dangerously high mountains of New Britain and Bouganville while it was still daylight." And then she was supposed to throttle back to "an indicated airspeed of 120 mph" but forgot, which seems possible.. Personally, I'm an electronics man (primarily) and leave the mechanical details and fuel consumption figures up to the experts in that area. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Good idea. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:56:08 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > And, as we've said before, the word that > makes the most sense in context is "listening." A word that make more sense, and which could easily have been misheard as CIRCLING would be SEARCHING. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric She has just been talking about how "(we have) been unable to reach you by radio" and the next thing she says is "We are (fill in the blank) but cannot hear you. Go ahead on 7500 with a long count...." and you think the missing word is SEARCHING? This could be a question on a SAT. What's the missing word kids? Surely we must have an English major out there somewhere. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:36:20 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > This could be a question on a SAT. What's the missing word kids? Surely we > must have an English major out there somewhere. No need to be a wise ass. Searching makes as much sense in the context than circling, and more sense than drifting, which neither sounds like circling nor fits the context at all. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Exactly my point. Neither "drifting" nor "circling" nor "searching" fit the context. The word was "listening." Two syllables (lis'ning); short "i" sound followed by "ing". ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:37:49 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Mantz and Fuel Consumption The direct course from Lae to Howland passes over New Britain, but over a 1000 foot saddle between two mountain peaks. A better navigational beacon during daylight (which it was at the time) could not have been planned any better. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:43:11 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Island names (Williams) for Tom King - There's some of the Williams charts at Purdue, and also the copyright material at the Library of Congress. Also, Safford cited the National Archives Map Room, for "charts and maps covering the areas of the Earhart flight". Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric The only Williams charts I saw at Purdue were the strip maps he drew for the first attempt, and they have very few island names at all. There is a National Geo map of the Pacific with some pencil markings (Enderbury in the Phoenx Group is underlined) but it's not clear when and for what purpose it was used. Atafu, on that map, is Atafu. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:45:17 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence I must be confused. What "american waters" were within a days steaming radius of the Marshalls? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:48:14 EST From: Suzanne of Stockton, CA Subject: AE on Front Page of The Everett Daily Herald Of interest: AE on the front page of the The Everett Daily Herald, Everett, Wash July 3, 1937 http://www.heraldnet.com/100/index.cfm?image=3jul1937#historic Click on the picture of the newspaper and you can read the article. It's best to save the picture to your hard disk, then you can zoom in to read. (This can depend on your monitor size and screen resolution, of course!) Suzanne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:09:33 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: location of howland Didn't I read once that the position of Howland Island being used by Earhart was incorrect and was several miles away from its actual position? Would this have been enough to make them miss the island? What were the incorrect coordinates that they were using.? Have you posted the applicable pages from the almanac that they were using so we can figure out the time of sunrise? Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric That's another aspect of the Earhart mystery that is steeped in folklore. The maps drawn for AE by Clarence Williams prior to the first World flight attempt give a postition for Howland that is about 5 miles off and this has been held up by many as the "key to the mystery". It is not known whether the error was caught before the second attempt but it IS known that William Miller, the advisor from the Bureau of Air Commerce who worked closely with Earhart and her team, was well aware of the island's correct coordinates. We have not posted an almanac. To know exactly when sunrise came for the Electra you'd have to know where it was and at what altitude when the sun came up - and of course we can only guess at that. Sunrise on the surface at Howland came at 17:48 Z or 06:18 local. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:22:56 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Landing Disaster > The only areas smooth enough to land on are out > near the breakers. The two thirds of the reef closest to the beach are > deeply pitted and cratered. Would it have been possible to tell that from the air? Is the pitting and cratering that pronounced that flying over it would show it. Now that I think about it, was it that bad back in '37? - Bill *************************************************************************** From Ric The reef surface changes over time - geologic time. Aerial photos taken in 1938 show the same reef features we see today. As anyone who has seen the Aerial Tour video can tell you; even at high tide it's easy to distinguish features on the reef flat from the air. At low tide it's even easier. The pits and craters become tidal pools. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:45:49 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Daily Herald story Any idea when that picture of AE in the Everett Daily Herald was taken? Boy, she looks real stressed out -- tired, gaunt, and listless in spite of the smile. p.s. At first I thought it was Mick Jagger's brother, but nah, Mick doesn't have any brothers. LTM, a former rolled stone Dennis O. McGee #0149 ************************************************************************* From Ric Old photo. That's her Vega behind her (you can see the distinctive features of the R985). Probably taken in 1932 or 1935. My guess is that it was taken in Ireland after the 1932 Atlantic crossing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:48:28 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Will close examination of the video in the area where the anecdotal evidence describes the wreckage provise any touchdown indicators? Are there any spots on the video that show two points of different lighting/shading the same distance apart as the wheels of the electra? From an aerial view as in the satellite pix such a difference on the reef may be discernible. Any thoughts? LTM Ed of PSL #2415 *************************************************************************** From Ric No way. There aren't even any visible scars on the reef from the break up of the Norwich City. That reef is real tough. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:31:54 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Pits and Craters I find it hard to believe that it isn't possible to find a path way between the pits and craters on the inner reef flat to taxi the Electra to the beach area. You have been there and I haven't so I will take your word for it. I still feel strongly that to land any where other then Howland unless she was extreemly lucky would have been and, in fact, was a disaster for Earhart. She may not have looked at it that way from her past experiences but that is how it turned out. We agree to disagree on this point. Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric We certainly can agree that it turned out disastrously. As for finding a way to shore, I had a unique opportunity to test that hypothesis on this last trip. We had been working out on the reef edge, taking measurements and photos and so forth. I had walked up from the landing channel along the smooth part of the reef and had scrupulously avoided getting my shorts wet because I had found that wet shorts resulted in some really painful chafing. So when it was time to go from the reef edge back to the beach I was highly motivated to stay out of the water-filled pits and craters. I wandered back and forth for a good half hour trying to find some route that would keep my butt dry. All I needed was a winding path about one foot wide. Couldn't do it. (You'll be relieved to know, I'm sure, that my thighs have since healed.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:54:55 EST From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Is the pitting why you selected that particular spot on the reef to simulate the Electra's landing approach on the Niku video? You came in right over the keel of the Norwich City and I was wondering if that would have been possible in 1937 when the wreck was still upright. Or is this a trick of the lens? Granted I was watching this on a 13" tv but it still seemed awfully low. And by the way, while you people have been nattering on about circling vs. searching vs. listening, I've managed to achieve something Amelia Earhart never did: I've just hit my fortieth birthday (head on, apparently). Aaaaack! LTM, who's also in full denial Amanda TIGHAR #2418, patron **************************************************************************** From Ric Congratulations - but I think there's a real good chance that AE made her fortieth birthday (July 24, 1937) although it wasn't much of a party. We selected the simulated landing spot we did based upon all the evidence (cl ues) that suggest that the landing happened right out there and because that is where the reef surface is smooth enough to permit a landing (as you will see in the Niku IIII video which will show the on-the-ground survey that was done at low tide). Yes, we probably came in too low over the shipwreck but there is more than enough "runway" there to make a higher approach - and there's probably a better chance that the actual approach was made from the other direction, towards the ship. The approach we made was expedient because of where the helicopter happened to be. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:56:20 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Back to the Gilberts Cam Warren says << but the only alternate plan she described to ANYONE was to fly back to the Gilberts. >> But if Mantz was accurate when he told Carrington that they planned the Phoenix Islands as an alternate, she could have just as likely headed off to the SE looking for land that was within her fuel reserve while Fred was telling her to press on to Kamchatka. Just because she was pig headed doesn't mean she was incapable of making a smart decision. Works both ways, the only difference is that there are some clues that she might have chosen the Phoenix solution. Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:57:14 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: AE on Front Page of The Everett Daily Herald Attention: Suzanne of Stockton Interesting front page. I saved the file to hard disk, trying "CFM" and also the "JPG" extension, but can't read it with Quick View Plus, which reads just about anything. Do you have some wizard software?? Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:00:18 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Ocean currents Sorry for not including the original reference - I was speaking of the mapcase from the ditched Liberator that has been the topic of some discussion recently, and the B-24 map case that was found on Niku. Again, apologies for the confusion. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Artifact 2-1 is not a mapcase, it's a bookcase, intended for the storage of publications a navigator needs. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:01:27 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: location of howland Ric, the more I've thought about the Howland misplotted issue the less I think it is important. Noonan had no exact navigational way of getting the Electra to either the correct coordinates or the incorrect ones. He had the ability to navigate to within maybe five or ten miles and then they needed a DF or just to look around for the island. Had the sky been clear instead of scattered CU that should have been sufficient but such was not the case. When they got to where Noonan thought the island should be he would have had no idea which set of coordinates he was closest to. They had the exact same problem in either case. I think it's a non issue. If you think about it and FN had a GPS AND the wrong coordinates he could not have been more lost. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:02:27 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Mantz and Fuel Consumption > flight to get beyond the dangerously high mountains of New Britain and > Bouganville while it was still daylight From her first known position reports it appears to me her first leg was angled just for that purpose -- missing the 8,000+ volcano to the north of her course. I don't see that airspeed was a factor. There was also a little neck of land that they apparently over flew which gave FN a good solid position before it got dark. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:03:55 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Island Names Tom King wrote: >So, did your average map of the World in 1937 show Gardner, and/or Atafu, and >if the latter, under what name? >Apocryphal question, but more seriously, is there an archive of Williams' >papers somewhere in which one might be able to find maps he might have used >in discussing the flight with Earhart, whether he gave her any or not? >************************************************************************** >From Ric: Good question. I agree that it is a good question. The discussion regarding various maps/charts using different geographical place names for the same islands in the Pacific is interesting. It is certainly worth pursuing which charts may or may not have been available to Earhart/Noonan in 1937. In particular it would be insightful, as has been pointed out, to know which charts her various advisors were using (e.g. Clarence etc.). Ric and I have been down this road before. We could not make sense of some of the clues in New Foundland regarding airplane parts found in the Avalon wilderness (possible White Bird artifacts). Geographic place names (names of lakes) and compass bearings, mentioned in an old letter, did not make sense when trying to piece together the puzzle using contemporay maps of the Avalon area. It began to fit together, however, when a map that pre-dated the letter in question, was uncovered that used different place names than the modern map. Clues that we currently have from alleged post-loss messages, radio logs etc...might begin to fit togeher given the applicable reference chart. I thought Randy Jacobson had some sort of an inventory of at least some of the charts available pre-1937? That might be a start. LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul MN ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:12:03 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > From Ric > > Exactly my point. Neither "drifting" nor "circling" nor "searching" fit > the context. The word was "listening." Two syllables (lis'ning); short > "i" sound followed by "ing". I think perhaps life would be easier if you reminded some of us of the "context", which as I understand it in this case was: We are but cannot hear you. We are circling but cannot hear you. We are drifting but cannot hear you. We are listening but cannot hear you. We are searching but cannot hear you. I suppose "listening" goes best with "cannot hear you", especially as we are pretty sure that Earhart was listening and events have shown that she appeared not to be able to hear Itasca. That isn't to say listening is the correct word, but it does seem to be the more logical in terms of phraseology. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the context is Amelia is desperately trying to receive voice radio transmissions from Itasca. That is what she is talking about. Yes, "listening" is joined with "cannot hear you" by the conjunction "but." It's the ONLY way the sentence makes any sense. *************************************************************************** From Brandon I took the SAT's in March and June 2001, I never saw a quesion like that! -Brandon, KB3GPA **************************************************************************** From Ric The SATs aint what they used to be (and don't add an apostrophe to make the plural). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:24:35 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Pits and Craters >(You'll be relieved to know, I'm sure, that my thighs have since healed.) Many years of walking about on tropical reefs taught me that naked is good! However, where modesty is a virtue, try a lap lap (sarong, wrap etc.) as uniform on Niku V. Depending how you wear it you can cover as much or as little as you like, if you get the right type of cloth (ask your Nia'a friends) you can rinse them out in seawater. I'm not pulling your leg, Ric, it could be well worth looking into (the wrap part, not the naked part). European style clothes are not necessarily the best rig in the tropics. Th' (naked) WOMBAT.... *************************************************************************** From Ric My problem wasn't the shorts. I found that if my thighs got wet in seawater, when my legs dried it left a residue that chafed where my thighs rub against each other when i walk. Sweaty thighs don't chafe. It's the salt from the seawater that is the culprit. I found that the solution was to either not get wet (almost impossible) or rinse off well with fresh water (which you'd usually rather conserve for drinking). The issue of what the well dressed islander will wear is very much an individual thing. Everyone's costume evolves as they figure out what works for them. The result is a rather motley looking lot but they get the job done. So far we haven't had any nudists in the mix, which is probably a good thing given the ubiquitous video cameras. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:31:37 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Island clothing Just thought after my last posting re clothing in the tropics. No clothing was reported found with the castaway. Any time I was spending more than a day on an uninhabited tropical island, the first thing to go was the normal clothes. During the hot part of the day I usually kept out of the sun as much as possible. In the early morning to about 10am and after around 4pm I got around nude. I'm not a nudist by lifestyle. Many of our tropical islands have no fresh water. You use what you can carry. Clothes in the temperatures we had to work in (a bit over 100deg F mostly) tended to get very wet fast. Human sweat rots cotton and makes many other materials chafe. Washing them in salt water makes them as hard in places as the sweat does. Underclothing is the first to go, then trousers (or short pants). Shirts tend to be kept handy for shelter from the sun in the hot part of the day, but left mostly undone. I bet the castaway had the same problem. His/her clothing was probably bundled up with things like watches and pens and stuff at wherever her/his base camp was. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I've wondered about that too. Whoever the castaway was, there probably wasn't much clothing there to begin with and if they died wearing anything the decomposition process might make the items very attractive to the crabs. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:40:18 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: New Mileage to Mili Atoll We know what time AE left Lae. We know what time she called and said she should be see her destination. By working backwards, we should be able to come up with a reasonable assumption on how she managed her fuel i.e. the amount of power she would have used to travel a known distance in a known time. Of course this presupposes that she did travel the distance and was just off course due to drift. Regards David *************************************************************************** From Ric Seems pretty simple doesn't it? But if you need for the airplane to get to someplace it can't get to after it arrives near Howland you have to invent tailwinds that weren't there. On the other hand, if you need for the airplane to run out fuel about four hours before it should, you have to invent a whopping headwind and say that AE suicidally abandoned her fuel management plan. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:44:48 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Ocean currents > Artifact 2-1 is not a mapcase, it's a bookcase, intended for the storage of > publications a navigator needs. (cringing) Memory - the second thing to go --- I forget what's first. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:46:09 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Island Names The basic problem with contemporary maps is that we do not know which maps AE and FN had with them at the time of the flight. We do know of a number of map companies that they bought maps from, but they include British and American sources, primarily. Most were charts developed for ships, but there were some aeronautical maps. Most ocean charts are very poor for details about islands, as to cover a large area, small islands tend to become "points" on the map. The American maps of the Phoenix Islands date from 1848 surveys, and there was only a large-scale map of the central Pacific at the time, along with high resolution maps of each of the islands. It would be very difficult from the large-scale maps to determine which islands were inhabited, were capable of being landed on, etc. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:08:27 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Longer Range Flight Plan When Ric asked me to prepare a flight plan from Lae to Howland with 1150 gallons and more fuel efficiency than Kelly Johnson's plan from California to Hawaii, I started to say "I've already done that in my posting. All we need do is factor in the extra 50 gallons, which will add perhaps 100 miles in range, while reducing the average speed." But I decided that that would not convince anyone who hadn't already figured it out. And in any case, it's the details that count. So I looked at the papers again, and, as usual, I've learned some things: (a) there is an obvious typo in one of KJ's telegrams; (b) a comparison of the recommended settings with the "Power Control Chart" ("Curve No. 2868" on page 11 of Report 465) with the measured fuel consumption figures in KJ's tests shows fuel consumption substantially less than we would have expected at the settings given; and (c) the South Atlantic "cross-check" of speed v. weight in my recent posting is in closer accord than I believed (the error being caused by shifting assumptions about gross weight). None of these things is a big deal, but I intend to mention them (and a few others) in the appropriate places. Because of the (real or imagined) tendentiousness of many postings, I want to say this: I am not a member of the Mili school, the Marshall school (or for that matter) the Phoenix school. I merely believe that the airplane could have been flown to the Howland area with fuel remaining to reach any of those other areas - whether it was flown in that manner or did reach one of those areas is another question. I write this simply because it bothers me to see something dismissed by assertions that "X" was "impossible" when I don't believe that it was. Any plan for flying an airplane is a compromise, and we can't decide which plan is "better" until we decide what we are trying to achieve. Take the Cessna 210M as an example. Flight planning on 480 pounds net fuel (leaving another 54 pounds for start, taxi, extra fuel in climb, etc.) the plane will fly for 5 hours at 170 knots, 6 hours at 160 knots, and 8 hours at 130 knots (these are "no sweat" figures, and can be easily and consistently achieved). If we want to fly 650 nautical miles non-stop, no wind, which plan is "better"? At 130 knots, the flight takes 5 hours and we arrive with a 3 hour reserve; at 160 knots, time en route is 4 hours 4 minutes and we have 1 hour 56 minutes reserve; at 170 knots, flight time is 3 hours 50 minutes and reserve is 1 hour 10 minutes. Any of the plans will get us there, but they leave us different reserves to deal with contingencies. (I overstate the differences by not calculating the reserve time at 130 knots for all plans.) Obviously the "best" plan (in terms of fuel cost) is 130 knots. The best in terms of time is 170 knots - flying at 130 knots costs us an hour or more of the time that we use an airplane to save. But the reserve at 170 knots (though legal) is perhaps less than some of us like to have. All things considered, 160 knots gives us good time (only 14 minutes more than 170) with much improved reserves - perhaps it is the "best" choice. Suppose another goal is landing with 2 hours fuel in reserve. The 160 knot setting won't quite give us that, unless we plan to reduce power to 130 knots at some stage. Simple arithmetic shows that 2 hours at 130 knots requires (2 x 60 pph =) 120 pounds. This means we can burn (480 - 120 =) 360 pounds in flight at 160 knots (at 80 pph) (equal to 4 1/2 hours) and still have 2 hours in reserve at 60 pph and 130 knots. If we make the reduction at 4 hours, the remaining 160 pounds will keep us aloft for another 2 hours 40 minutes. But we must have the discipline and presence of mind to go to the lower setting at the appropriate time, rather than letting the reserve be burned away at the higher setting. The flight of the Electra from Lae to Howland is the flight of the 210 writ large - with the added complexity of operation far above the normal gross weight of the plane. That overgross operation has two major implications: (1) early in the flight, speeds will be greatly reduced below those normally achieved at specific power settings, and (2) because a great weight of fuel will be consumed, the performance of the plane will change dramatically during the flight. Let's look at the flight plan first, and then discuss some of the conclusions. We assume that the plane departs Lae at a gross weight of 15,100 pounds (see discussion below) carrying 1150 gallons. This is the fuel management plan I propose: Hour 1 - Takeoff, departure, climb to 7,000 feet; speed 0-120 mph; STILL AIR distance covered in hour say 100 miles; fuel consumption say 110 gallons (95-100 gallons in flight + 10-15 gallons burned on ground before start of flying hour 1); weight at end of hour is 14,440 (speed factor .62). Hour 2 - Cruise 7,000 (drift climb to 8,000) at maximum cruise (72 gph); speed (200 normal) 124-130; distance covered (average speed) 127; weight 14,000 (speed factor .6495). Hour 3 - Cruise 8,000 at 60 gph; speed (196 normal) 127-132; distance (& av.speed) 130; weight 13,640 (s.f. .6754). Hour 4 - Cruise at 60 gph; speed 132-138; distance (av.speed) 135; weight 13,280 (.7030). Hour 5 - Cruise 8,000 at 51 gph; speed (190 normal) 134-138; distance (av.speed) 136; weight 12,974 (.7280). Hour 6 - Cruise at 51 gph; speed 138-143; distance (av. speed) 141; weight 12,668 (.7528). Hour 7 - Cruise at 51 gph; speed 143-149; distance (av.speed) 146; weight 12,363 (.7828). Hour 8 - Cruise at 43 gph; speed (180 normal) 141-145; distance (av. speed) 143; weight 12,104 (.8079). Hour 9 - Cruise at 43 gph; speed 145-150; distance (av.speed) 148; weight 11,846 (.8346). Hour 10 - Cruise 43 gph (drift climb to 10,000); speed 150-155; distance (av.speed)152; weight 11,588 (.8625). (In 10 hours, 1358 statute miles covered in still air - say 1350 at an average speed of 135 mph - on 584 gallons of fuel. Remaining fuel = 566 gallons.) Hour 11 - Cruise 1600 rpm/23 [sic] inches 0.72 Cambridge at 10,000 feet and 36 [sic] gph; speed (normal 170) 147-151; distance (av.speed) 149; weight 11,372 (.8872). (Note setting is 23 inches rather than 24 called for in KJ telegram. This is a 250 hp setting.) Hour 12 - Cruise 36 gph; speed 151-155; distance (av.speed) 153; weight 11,156 (.9131). Hour 13 - Cruise 36 gph; speed 155-160; distance (av.speed) 158; weight 10,940 (.9403). Hour 14 - Cruise 36 gph; speed 160-165; distance (av.speed) 163; weight 10,724 (.9688). Hour 15 - Cruise 36 gph; speed 165-170; distance (av.speed) 168; weight 10,508 (1.0000). (In hours 11 through 15, 791 miles covered in still air - say 790 at an average speed of 158 mph on 180 gallons of fuel. Total distance 2140 in 15 hours at an average speed of 142.66. Remaining fuel = 386 gallons. Speed continues to increase somewhat with decreasing weight, but no addition to range is made for that in following figures.) Hour 16 - Cruise at 1600 rpm/21.5 inches 0.72 Cambridge at 10,000 feet and 30 gph (200 hp per engine); speed 160 mph + ; distance 160 miles; weight 10,358. Hour 17 - ditto; weight 10,208. Hour 18 - ditto; weight 10,158. Hour 19 - ditto; weight 10,008. (Cruise descent - 20 minutes - to 1000 feet near end of hour.) (Remaining fuel 266 gallons. Still air distance in 19 hours is 2780 miles at average speed of 146 + mph.) Hour 20 - cruise at 1,000 feet at 1600 rpm/25 inches and 32 gph (200 hp per engine rich); speed and distance 150 mph; weight 9,848. Hour 21 - ditto until 20+40; initiate climb at 130 IAS 500 fpm and 60 gph to 10,000; average speed and distance 145 mph; weight 9,600. Total still air distance covered in 21 hours 3075 miles. Average TRUE airspeed 146.4 mph. Fuel remaining 198 gallons. Hour 22 - cruise at 10,000 feet 1600 rpm/20.5 inches and 26 gph; speed 155 plus; weight 9,444 (KJ's tests achieved 161 TAS at 10,000 at temperatures about 12 degrees above standard, at 1620 rpm and 20.6 inches, for a horsepower of 175 per engine. This is the lowest horsepower setting shown in the tests in Report 465.) Hours 23 to 28 - ditto - hours 22 to 28 total SEVEN hours at 155 plus = approximately 1085 miles still air. Fuel remaining 16 gallons. Weight 8508. Still air distance flown in 28 hours, including descent, low level flight and climb back to 10,000 = about 4,160. ALTERNATE PLAN: If we do not wish to go below the 200 hp per engine setting, after climb back to 10,000 fly again at 30 gph for SIX hours (22-27). Speed 160+; distance covered 960. Total distance in still air 4035 in 27 hours. Fuel remaining 18 gallons. Weight 8520. (Neither of these plans relies on the agressive leaning at lower power settings approved by KJ.) ACTUAL AIRCRAFT WEIGHT. In a recent posting, I estimated the takeoff weight of the plane at Lae at "15,000 pounds". I selected that weight for the wrong reasons - ie, because of off-the-forum discussions sometime back in which a consensus seemed to be reached around 15,000 pounds - because 15,000 is a nice round number - and because of a feeling that it was close enough for the kind of work we are doing now. In fact, my true takeoff estimate from Lae is 14,800 with 1100 gallons and after the removal of say 100 pounds of excess gear. In working backwards to estimate takeoff weight for the South Atlantic flight, my offhand use of 15,000 distorted the calculation of takeoff weight at Natal, which would be say 1100 pounds less than Lae (1200 pounds less fuel; 100 pounds more gear), or 13,700 net with 900 gallons. After burning 2000 pounds of fuel, weight 5 1/2 hours into the South Atlantic flight would have been 11,700. Using our procedure for calculating the effect on airspeed of weight (varying with the square root of the cube) we find that the true airspeed should be 85 % of the 10,500 pound true airspeed. Eighty-five per cent of 182 = 154.7 versus the reported 155. Close enough! STALL SPEED AND ITS EFFECT ON THE PLAN. The stall speed of the plane varies with the square root of the difference in weight. This means that at 14,400 pounds, stall speed will be 1.1711 times the 10,500 pound stall speed. (14,400/10,500 = 1.3714 and the square root of 1.3714 = 1.1711.) At 10,500 pounds, wheels and flaps up, power off, out of ground effect, the 10E stalls at 80.7 mph. Multiply that number by 1.1711 to calculate that the stall at 14,400 pounds is 94.5 mph INDICATED. Remember that stall speed is an INDICATED air speed, which remains constant with altitude. Since TRUE airspeed increases over Indicated AS by 2% per thousand feet, at 7000 feet the stall will occur at (1.14 x 94.5) 107.7 mph TRUE. At 60 gph and 7000 feet, the normal cruise speed at 10,500 pounds would be about 194 mph. Applying the speed factor (.62) for 14,400 pounds gives a true airspeed of only 120.3 mph - only 12.6 mph above stall speed. A bit too close for comfort! (Note-we could convert both stall and cruise to Indicated AS and work the problem, but we'd end up in the same place.) Since the normal maximum cruise at 7000 feet is about 200 mph, going to that setting gives us 124 mph, and a little more breathing room. MARGINAL EFFECT OF ADDED FUEL. Perhaps the easiest way to discuss the marginal effect of adding fuel is to consider a few of the changes that would result in the flight plan with a 900 gallon fuel load. Takeoff weight would be 1,500 pounds less, or 13,600. Reducing the estimate of fuel consumption to 100 gallons for ground and Hour 1 makes weight at the beginning of Hour 2 13,000 pounds rather than 14,440. Assume the climb is direct to 8,000 feet. Stall at 13,000 pounds is (1.1127 x 80.7) 89.8 IAS, which equals 104.2 mph true. (89.8 x 1.16 = 104.168.) The 60 gph setting is quite sufficient to give adequate flying speed, because the normal gross weight cruise of 196 at 8,000 gives 142 mph plus when multiplied by the 13,000 pound speed factor of .7259. There is a 38 mph spread between stall and cruise - much more comfortable - and the True airspeed at the beginning of Hour 2 is 18 mph higher than it would be with an 1150 gallon fuel load. Consider the end of Hour 10 with a 900 gallon load. Instead of the 11,588 weight shown on the 1150 gallon plan, the weight would be only 10,160 pounds (11,588 - 1500 + 72[weight of unburned extra 12 gallons in Hour 2]) - below normal gross. Speed would be in excess of the 180 mph normal cruise expected at the 43 gph power setting, rather than the 152 called for in the 1150 gallon plan - a gain of 28 mph. Without doing the math for the entire 10 hours, let's jump to the conclusion that in hours 2 through 10 there would be an average airspeed increase of say 25 mph, for an additional distance of say 225 miles. Adding 225 to the 1350 miles flown in the first 10 hours of the 1150 gallon plan gives 1575 miles in 10 hours at an average speed of 157.5 mph. What happens in hours 11 through 19 ? Since we are not considering any speed increases below normal gross weight, we assume simply that the plane achieves its normal gross weight cruise speed at the given power settings and altitudes. This means 170 mph in hours 11 through 15 (at 36 gph), for a total of 850 miles, and 160 mph in hours 16 through 19, for a total of 640 miles. The plane thus covers (1575 + 850 + 640) 3065 still air miles in 19 hours, at an average true airspeed of about 161.3 mph. There are 16 gallons of fuel remaining. Does this mean that range with 900 gallons is 1,000 miles less than it is with 1150 gallons? Not at all. The reason is that instead of flying at the same cruise settings as shown in the 1150 gallon plan, the plane carrying 900 gallons could fly at the lower settings earlier in the flight. (For example, we could go to 36 gph in Hour 8 with the same performance we obtained in Hour 11 of the 1150 gallon flight plan.) PENALTY FOR CARRYING EXTRA WEIGHT (FUEL) PERSISTS THROUGHOUT FLIGHT. This is just something to remember. If we add say 50 gallons extra fuel, we add 300 pounds extra weight. This 300 pound weight penalty reduces airspeed at any given power setting. The penalty doesn't disappear when the 50 gallons is burned, because the plane is still 300 pounds heavier in Hour 2 than it would have been than if the extra 50 gallons were not carried. The plane will continue to be 300 pounds heavier in each hour of the flight, and the 300 pound performance penalty will be extracted in each such hour. This penalty is about 4 mph at the beginning of Hour 2 and about 7 mph at the end of hour 15. (Since we have avoided making speed adjustments for weight below normal gross, it would be unfair - or at least unsystematic - for us to make them now, but in fact the speed penalty would continue until the very end of the flight, to some degree.) Let's say with some certainty that carrying 1150 gallons rather than 1100 will cost us something more than 100 miles of still air distance UP TO THE POINT AT WHICH 1100 GALLONS IS BURNED. At that point, of course, we have 50 gallons to recoup some of the loss. Fifty gallons gives us 1 + 20 at 38 gph (175 + mph; distance 240 miles) and 1 + 40 at 30 gph (160 + mph; distance 270 miles), so the net gain (after subtracting the 100 mile loss) is say 140 to 170 miles range for the extra fuel, IF WE DISREGARD THE STALL SPEED ISSUES MENTIONED ABOVE. If the extra 300 pounds forces us to a 72 gph setting in Hour 2, it costs us 12 gallons of the extra 50, which reduces our extra time at the end of the flight by 20 or 25 minutes (and perhaps 50 to 60 miles) giving us only 90 to 110 miles net extra range. (You can quibble and say that the burning of 12 extra gallons in Hour 2 removes 72 pounds of the weight penalty for the remainder of the flight, and thus reduces the speed penalty by a mile or so per hour. And you'd be correct. Anyone who wishes to do the numbers is welcome to the task.) IS OUR METHOD OF CALCULATING THE EFFECT OF WEIGHT ON SPEED CORRECT? I am not certain, but I am pretty sure that if it is incorrect, it errs on the conservative side - that is, it predicts speeds lower than actually obtained (and thus less range). Let's consider 3 theoretical methods of calculating the effect on speed. (A) SQUARE FOOT OF THE CUBE OF THE WEIGHT: The method we have used is based upon the square root of the cube of the weight ratio (the fraction 10500/actual weight), which produces a "speed factor" of (for example) .6495 at 14,000 pounds. As suggested in my recent posting, this method seems to conform well to the distances that were covered to "the Fix" and the "ship in sight." As pointed out in the "Actual Aircraft Weight" section of this posting, this method also corresponds well with the "South Alantic cross-check." (B) SQUARE ROOT OF THE WEIGHT: If instead of using the square root of the CUBE of the weight ratio, we simply use the square root of the weight ratio, we obtain a speed factor at 14,000 pounds of .866 (the square root of .75). But this approach produces implausibly high speeds early in the flight, as one can see by returning to the table. At the beginning of Hour 3, weight is 14,000 pounds, and the speed factor would be .866. Multiplying the normal 8000 foot 60 gph cruise of 196 by .866 gives nearly 170 mph (169.7). Similarly, at the beginning of Hour 10, using the "square root of the weight ratio" gives a speed factor of .9415 (based upon a weight of 11,846 pounds) and again predicts a speed of over 169 mph. Speeds in the 170 mph range early in the flight seem pretty difficult to square with the apparent distances flown during that time (best summarized by Roy Blay in LOCKHEED HORIZONS May 1988 issue). (C) DIRECT VARIATION WITH WEIGHT: Because this approach is so straightforward, most people should be able to do the calculations, given the information in our cruise chart. To illustrate this approach at 14,000 pounds: the speed factor will be 10500/14000, which equals 3/4, which equals .75. Speed at 14,000 pounds would be (.75 x196 =) 149 mph. Running all the numbers predicts that the plane would cover 1490 miles STILL AIR in the first 10 hours (average speed 149) and 810 miles in the next 5 hours (average speed 162) for an overall distance of 2300 miles in 15 hours (153.33 mph). Still air distance would be 4,320 over the 27 hour flight. There are two problems with these otherwise plausible numbers: (1) they don't seem to fit the distances the plane apparently achieved early in the flight (unless you assume an average headwind of over 30 mph) and they don't match the South Atlantic flight "cross-check." On the South Atlantic flight, with weight reduced to 11,700, the "direct approach" produces a speed factor of .8974. Multiplying that by the normal true airspeed for the altitude and power setting gives 163 mph +. Too much to be a good fit with AE's report of 155. All things considered, I will stick with the the square root of the CUBE of the weight ratio, until something better comes along. (Suggestions are welcome.) CENTER OF GRAVITY. We should give some thought for a moment to the fact that CENTER OF GRAVITY also affects speed. This is important because CG is, of course, shifting constantly with fuel burn. The farther aft it is (all else being equal) the slower the plane should be in overgross conditions. (Ann Pellegrino, WORLD FLIGHT page 80, reports that at heavy loads, her 10A would show a loss of 10 mph in airspeed when a crewmember moved aft of a certain point in the cabin.) This is one reason why any calculation of speed changes based upon weight can never be more than a good approximation - such an approach in effect assumes that CG remains constant with the weight change. (And this brings us in a roundabout way to a related topic. Last year I posted information on the cruise speeds of the 10A and 10E and remarked upon the peculiarity of the indication that at the same gross weight and the same horsepower, the 10A was faster than the 10E at high power settings, but slower than the 10E at low power settings, despite the 10E's greater drag. I admit that I don't know why, and that I lack any expertise in the area, but I am willing now to speculate for a moment that the variation may have something to do with the 10E's CG being farther forward [because of the larger engines] than that of the 10A at identical weights, thus reducing the "wetted area" of the fuselage at low power settings. Comments are welcome on this topic too.) POWER SETTINGS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION. I compared the power settings given in KJ's telegrams with the POWER CONTROL CHART (Curve No.2868)("PCC") given on page 11 of Lockheed Report 465. The first thing noted is that the MP and RPM settings given for 60 - 51 - 43 gph correspond very closely with the PCC settings for 400 - 350 - 300 hp. But the fuel consumption figures are below what we would have expected at those horsepower settings. At a "specific fuel consumption" ("sfc") of 0.48, we would have expected 64 - 56 - 48 gph, respectively. At an sfc of 0.46 (which means .46 pounds per horsepower per hour), we would have expected 61.33 - 53.66 - 46 gph. The KJ settings are given for Cambridge settings of 0.72 and above, which is normal maximum leaning in the P&W engines of the period. (The export POH on the Lockheed 10A indicates that the best fuel economy to be expected is normally 0.46 to 0.48.[it says .209 to .218 kg/hr] at cruising speeds using 230 to 300 hp. Pages 21 and 24. This manual shows the minimum Cambridge setting to be .72, with the smaller 450 hp engine.) The "38 gph" setting is interesting for an additional reason: the MP and RPM settings KJ gives for 38 gph do not correspond with the 250 hp setting on the PCC as we might have expected from the progression 400 - 350 -300. They are not far off, but the difference is apparent. Using the PCC, the RPM and MPP settings given for 38 gph indicate a power output of about 270-275 hp per engine. If the engines really were producing 270 hp at 38 gph, this is an sfc of 0.4222 - not impossible, but certainly very good for the period. Laying aside the question of sfc's, why was this particular setting selected rather than 23 inches and 1600 rpm, which falls much closer to the 250 hp line. Let me suggest that it was for the sake of simplicity. An RPM setting of 1600 is the lowest shown on the chart, the maximum MP that the 10E could be expected to pull in normal conditions at 10,000 feet and 1600 rpm is slightly less than 24 inches. (Thus the instruction to fly at 24 inches "or full throttle" - which means "pull whatever manifold pressure you can at 10,000, you won't be significantly off this setting or fuel consumption.") In making the 200 hp calculations for the flight plan, I used an sfc of .45 at 10,000 feet and a richer .48 at 1000 feet, again erring on the conservative side, rather than assuming a .42 or .43 sfc. A TYPO IN THE TELEGRAMS. KJ's first telegram of May 11, 1937 ("I am advising Marshall ...") contains a typo in line 4. It says that at 5000 feet 1900 rpm 29 inches gives 51.5 gallons. This should probably be 61.5, since the Power Control Chart shows this as a 400 + hp setting. This is good economy in that power range at slightly over 0.46 sfc. See also the next sentence of the telegram giving 52.4 gph for 1800 RPM 28 inches, which makes the typo pretty clear. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO THE KJ SETTINGS? If we're going to make the commparison, we need to compare apples to apples. That means that we should assume that 1150 gallons were carried in both flights; that 16 or 18 gallons remained as a bare reserve; that allowance is made for extra fuel consumption at 1000 feet and the climb back to 10,000; and that the fuel consumption in hours 1 and 2 was 10-20 gph higher to compensate for the extra fuel weight (as I assumed in my flight plan). Let's summarize what would happen under the KJ settings. Performance is identical in the first 10 hours. In hours 11 through 15, an additional 10 gallons total fuel is burned by flying at 38 gph rather than 36 gph, and the speed is perhaps 6 to 7 mph higher; this gives a total still air distance in 15 hours of about 2175, with 386 gallons remaining. In hours 16 through 19, flying at 38 rather than 30 results in 10 to 12 mph higher speed and an additional 32 gallons of fuel consumption. (Still air distance in 19 hours 2860; fuel remaining 224 gallons.) In hours 20 and 21, with enriched mixture, fuel consumption is about 40 gph plus additional 7 gallons burned in 20 minute climb at 60 gph, total 87 gallons burned, fuel remaining 137 gallons, distance flown about 310 miles, for a total still air distance of 3170 in 21 hours. Allowing say 17 gallons for our bare reserve, we have 120 gallons left to burn at 175 mph + at 10,000 feet and 38 gph, which works out to 3 hours 10 minutes. Total endurance 24 hours 10 minutes (NB - with 1150 gallons); still air distance 555 miles, for a grand total of 3725 verus 4035 to 4160 under the "longer range plan." But perhaps this is somewhat more than you wished to hear about the subject! Oscar ************************************************************************** From Ric No, no... I appreciate the detail. I'm just going to need a little time to digest it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:29:13 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: re Daryll's Nav Problem Last Saturday when Doug sent the nav problem results to me, I had a "Eureka" moment. Since then, I have had an internal dialog that is quite confusing. Is a solution to this mystery possible? Is a solution _wanted_? We profess a desire to find the truth in the AE mystery, but do we really? I have a conscious and I don't want to have someone's beliefs hang on my initiative. We know that Fred Goerner did an about face in his later life concerning Mili Atoll. I wonder if he had a similar dilemma ?.......enough philosophy. I want to be perfectly clear at the start, I favor the Mili Atoll scenario. For the past 35 years researchers have been trying to fill in the missing links between Lae & Mili. This is not to suggest that it hasn't been done before _by someone else_. I will agree to go into the TIGHAR "meat grinder" to see if sausage or dog food comes out. I do this for Amelia's and Fred's sake, not to attack someone's belief. I don't know how many Forum postings this will take. I will focus only on the time between the Gilberts and Mili Atoll. I will address some things that have been discarded before. Let it be clear that, I'm only after the truth and not out to convince anyone of my perspective. Most of us will be able to follow along with a diagram of Howland and Mili, in the proper relationship of course. I think Doug B. or someone with the proper navigational tools will only be able to give exactness to the nav problem. I think Mr. Boswell has demonstrated a good understanding of "below gross weight flight" regarding 10E performance. _If_....we start out on this we need a starting point. FIRST, look at the Dakar LOP approach after crossing the Atlantic. I don't think GPP wanted to go into the LOP technic in "Last Flight". Dakar is the precedence for the Howland nav plot. At Dakar, I see a 100 mile off-set to the left on the Dakar LOP. We all know AE turned left on the LOP and landed at St. Louis but Noonan had plotted the 100 mile off-set. 100 miles was also the last reporting point for AE when she turned inbound to Howland. Why 100 (nm) miles ? Celestial navigation has an accuracy of what ? 10-15 miles. 100 miles works out pretty well, math wise (BC). I might even have seen the 100 figure in one of Weem's articles. This off-set is one of the items that has been discarded before by the Forum. SECOND. We should study the sequence of events in "LOG JAM". I want to confirm the "decision point" (Itasca clock & Electra clock) between "Fuel" & "Reserve Fuel for plan "B" that I deduced. This is a check for myself so I won't say what I found. I also want to know the remaining flight time available using KJ numbers at that point. That's enough for now to consider. Daryll *************************************************************************** From Ric What makes you think there was a 100 mile offset to the left (north) on the South Atlantic crossing? The chart that was used on that flight, complete with course lines and notations, is in the Purdue collection. I don't care what it says in Last Flight. It never happened. This forum has discussed that entire incident in detail and the reality was very different from the tale AE told to the newspapers and was later published in the book. Daryll, as I've said before, I'm happy to post new information but I'm not going to post a long string of speculations based on folklore. So far you have not shown that you have a basic grasp of the facts of the case. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:32:55 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > The SATs aint what they used to be (and don't add an apostrophe to make > the plural). If you left the apostrophe out of ain't on purpose, then I commend you wholeheartedly. But if you got carried away by the thrill of catching apostrophe abuse, you deserve to die all alone and get eaten by junior hermit crabs. :o) Marty Self-Appointed Grammar Cop :o( *************************************************************************** From Ric I have to get my thrills where I can. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:34:36 EST From: Marjorie Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > From Ric > > The SATs aint what they used to be (and don't add an apostrophe to make the > plural). But my dictionary (American Heritage) requires an apostrophe in ain't. ************************************************************************* From Ric Over to you Marty. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:34:07 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: The Naked Truth I can understand the need to be comfortable as is possible in a tropical island scenario near the equator but really don't think full frontal nudity (borrowed from Monty Python genre) is the way to go--how about sunburns? The angle of the sun hitting your bod would be blitzkrieg-style devastating. Unless you've got different skin than I've got Wombat, your buns (and everything else) would be Kentucky-fried. I've allowed my 12 & 8 year old sons to see the Niku IV video. I hate to see Niku V have to marketed with a warning label. Doug Brutlag #2335 (who always wears his sun-block on his fair skin) ************************************************************************** From Ric It's no accident that Australia is the skin cancer capital of the world. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:37:31 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Japanese ship activity July 37 For those that suspect or claim that in July 37 there were many Japanese fishing boats, military support ships, aircraft carriers in and around the vicinity of Howland, The Gilberts, Ellice and Marshalls, J.A. Donahue writes that in the 250,000 square mile search by the US Navy only one "non-descript merchant tramp freighter" was seen. Donahue says it was so inconsequential it wasn't even identified by the Lexington force.[ Could that have been the Koshu south of the Marshalls?] Donahue doesnt cite a source, but I haven't seen any other specific Japanese boats identified in the research literature during the Navy search. It seems as if the Itasca, Lexington, Colorado, Swan, et al came across a Japanese boat they would have identified it. Were any Japanese ships sighted and identified by the ships or the Lexington aircraft? What does it mean. If Donahue is right, the chances AE was picked up by a slow, Japanese fishing boat within a couple of hundred miles of Howland seems unlikely. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric As conspiracy theorists go, Jim Donohue makes Daryll look like a Little Leaguer. If he couldn't find a nefarious "Jap" lurking around Howland, no one can. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:39:51 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > From Marjorie > >> From Ric >> >> The SATs aint what they used to be (and don't add an apostrophe to make >> the plural). > > But my dictionary (American Heritage) requires an apostrophe in ain't. > ************************************************************************* > From Ric > > Over to you Marty. I sent Ric a note about how much I admired him taking the apostrophe out of "SATs" and contemned him for dropping it from "ain't". I had hoped he would read it, get a laugh, maybe, and toss it in the bit bucket. My apologies to the Forum for contributing to thread drift. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Back to the original point: as a former English major and self-appointed grammar nag, I endorse Ric's argument that "listening" fits the context better than any other suggested corrections for the transmission. For me, the part of the transmission that is not in doubt is one of the most poignant parts of the story: "but can't hear you." What a world of difference it would have made if AE and FN could have had some problem-solving dialogue with the Itasca. I've just finished reading three books about manned space flight. Gene Kranz quotes a saying that appears to have circulated among pilots since World War II: Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect. Poor old Amelia and Fred: "but cannot hear you" was their death-sentence. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:40:38 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Andrew McKenna posts that Mantz was quoted by Carrington that the Phoenix was an alternative landing area. Could that have been when she was flying to the West from Honolulu to Howland on the first attempt. Vidal was citing AE's plan "b",the Gilberts, flying east. Andrew where is the cite in Carrington's book, I can't seem to find it. Ron Bright Bremerton ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:46:36 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Island Names I beleive that Clarence Williams charts and papers are now at the Radcliff College, Cambridge , Mass. It is always easier if someone can approach the archivist in person. Do any Tigharites live in or near Boston? I think it is apparent that Williams was using some older charts in view of the names he employed. (What was Gardner known as before Gardner?) Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric New York New York Island (just kidding). It was Kemins Island, but the U.S. Navy confirmed the Gardner name in 1840 and all of the 19th century maps we've seen show both names. By the turn of the 20th century it seems to have been firmly Gardner. Anybody want to dig around at Radcliffe? Could be interesting. As I recall they also have a large collection Amelia's letters. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:48:57 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Island clothing No need to assume nudist castaways. Clothing tends to disappear pretty quickly in a tropical island environment, at least when associated with dead bodies. Kar Burns and I examined the site where a guy had committed suicide in Fiji some 4 months before; the police had only just found his bones. They'd found very tattered portions of a backpack, but that was about it, though the guy had been clothed when he left the hotel where he was staying. A couple of years ago the police and the HPO's archeologists on Saipan examined a site where the victims of a double murder had been deposited, 3-4 months before; all that remained, oddly enough, were the remains of one of the victims' pantihose, UNDER the bones. **************************************************************************** From Ric And before somebody suggests it, no, I am NOT going to try pantihose to reduce chafing. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:50:46 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Flight Plan Errata Let me be the first (I hope) to call to your attention the errors in gross weight shown in the Longer Range Flight Plan for hours 16 and following. The weights should (I think) be Hour 16 (10,328), 17 (10,148), 18 (9968), 19 (9788), 20 (9596), 21 (9388), 22(9232), and 28 (8296). In the Alternate Plan, the end weight should be 8308. Never do your flight plans late at night! Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric Don't worry Oscar. Nobody beat you to the corrections. We're all still in information overload. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:00:31 EST From: Tod Swindell Subject: Is a solution wanted? > Is a solution to this mystery possible? Is a solution > _wanted_? > > We profess a desire to find the truth in the AE mystery, but do we > really? I have a conscious and I don't want to have someone's beliefs > hang on my initiative. > > We know that Fred Goerner did an about face in his later life concerning > Mili Atoll. I wonder if he had a similar dilemma ?.......enough > philosophy. What you ask is right on. A few years ago both Linda Finch and author, Susan Butler, said something along similar lines, Butler about the mystery "Let her rest in peace, it isn't important anymore," and Finch "Who cares about what we never knew? Earhart's been gone for sixty years, that's all that matters now." They between the lines acknowledged the true value of the mystery, but likened to its on-going investigation as un-important, if not absurd. The point that is being missed by nearly all, as pertains to the "mystery," is the diffussion of Earhart's reputation the mystery clearly spawned. Because it has long been characterized by "official silence," people have on their own invented all kinds of reasons that caused such silence to exist. "She was a spy on a secret mission" is the most common among them. Yet, if you think about that, who in their right minds, officially linked to the Executive Branch and/or Military Intelligence, where such a plan would have come from, would ever be willing to affirm such a notion as Earhart having been a spy? Nobody. Of that we can be certain. Earhart's last flight circumstances surely entailed more than we'll ever know, but the silence that spawned the diffussion of labeling her as a "spy," or "a double agent" or "a traitor" is where the government truly does remain at fault. For Earhart's legacy did not deserve having her life's reputation lined with such here-say and innuendo. Such is akin to tabloid press practices only. People who discovered some interesting information over the years painted that picture without realizing the damage they were causing to Earhart's legacy, to the only factually regarded person she ever was... a civilian. Those advanced "spy-like" scenarios diminished the quality of how her true heroic legacy should really be regarded today. Ric Gillespie obviously realized this many years ago. The beauty of TIGHAR in the media's eyes, and therefor the public's eyes, is that its whole foundation is one based on a latent invented scenario where an evolved-to-ignorance about Earhart American public, found its interest renewed by his whole new late 1980's suggested idea, one that was characterized by a romantic castaways story and complete political correctness. If the elements that characterized his Niku theory were not so outlandishly far fetched, less of the most astute researchers would refer to him as the idiot he made made himself out to be. He surely realized he would be shielded by the impenetrability of the mystery when he invented his all but baseless "Gilligan's Island" scenario, in fact, I'm certain he knew the government would only silently support such an idea as it clearly detracts from the true value of the controversy that joined Earhart and our government at the hip. And it worked, and he has earned fame and fortune in the process of advancing his "baseless" theory that tricked un Earhart educated folks into supporting him with money and accolades. The reason the Executive Branch needs to be a participant in straightening the Earhart mess out for us all, has to do with re-writing a correct epilogue history for Earhart so the "spying" and other defaming conjectures can be eliminated from her legacy for our posterity. Only official historical sanctum controls such an ability as that. Otherwise, Earhart's entire person will forever remain in the category of one as having been "suspect." As a whole, fortunately, the American public and media is too intelligent to allow consideration for Gillespie in that "correction" direction. Moreover, people should pay attention to Earhart's certified, bonafide contributions to man and woman-kind. Nobody originally gestated the placing of women on a level playing surface with men more than she did. And she was a remarkably profound poet and writer, and an all too obvoius world humanitarian who wrote and spoke about equal rights for all races and cultures, let alone her own gender. Just read how she denounced her own county's treatment of African Americans in "Last Flight," ten years before Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color line. Here was a woman, so so far ahead of her time, as evidenced by the abilities she knew she controlled and was courageousely willing to demonstrate on the grandest of scales against opposing forces, both physically and philosophically, and both spiritually and emotionally, and yes, I do blame our government's Executive Branch's of the last two decades for not standing up for her, when it easily controlled and still controls the ability to correct her historic legacy for our posterity, by expalining to the public in its own terms, what has for decades been clearly unexplainable by the public it its own terms. Also, as long as TIGHAR exists, it too can be blamed as the chief entity that obfuscated the true value of Earhart's history to the media, and therefor to the public, as for about a dozen years now it has stifled the more Earhart knowledgeable and concerned individuals' abilities to bring the true value of Earhart's legacy into focus... with the help of our own government. I argue, if TIGHAR never existed, such help gained might have already been realized by now. Tod Swindell *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know who you are Mr. Swindell, but I thank you for sharing with us your unique perspective on the case. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:12:07 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Mystery Flight? For years I have looked at that very famous photo of Amelia and Fred standing by the tail of NR 16020, AE on the left, looking intently at a large world map. AE is in her checkered shirt and Fred in his usual dark long sleeved dress shirt. ( see back of Donahue's book, Klaas's book, photo section, for example) Now look at the chart. There is a route plotted from Miami, to Chicago, to Oakland, to Hawaii, and to the southwest. Or in reverse. When did AE fly that route? *************************************************************************** From Ric You're right. I never noticed that. Odd. Could that have been the 1935 Honolulu/Oakland flight? Where did she go after Oakland? Was there a PR tour? The photo is obviously just a staged photo-op but I wonder when it was taken. My guess would be prior to the first attempt. There was no publicity for the second attempt until they got to Miami and AE's long-sleeved shirt doesn't look like Miami in late May (Fred always dressed exactly like he is seen in the photo). The map is just a prop and it could be one that AE had kicking around in Burbank. You don't actually use a map like that except for general planning or demonstration purposes. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:13:36 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts > But if Mantz was accurate when he told Carrington that they planned the > Phoenix Islands as an alternate, > Well, A) I couldn't find any such remark quoted in Carrington's "What Really Happened at Howland" ("Unabridged Report II). And B) I don't find Mr. C. to be a very credible reporter in the first place. Nor does Ric, if I recall correctly. Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric As usual, I agree with Cam. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:15:42 EST From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: [earhart] re Daryll's Nav Problem The old rule about offset was that the less sure you are of your possition the greater the offset. When crossing the Atlantic, Noonan had only the sun for celestial support. Therefore he was not to sure of his positon. Conseqently he used 100 mile offset. That equates to about 36 minutes of time. I would have done the same. **************************************************************************** From Ric Pssst, guys, there was no offset on the South Atlantic crossing. Go look at the map. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:17:19 EST From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: [earhart] re Daryll's Nav Problem Daryll, I think you can be sure that all the AES members would klike to see a solution to the AE story. (Not so withTIGHAR) When AE couldn't find Howland, they headed for the Marshalls, not necessarily for Mili. They weren't sure of their position when they departed the Howland area so it would have been very difficult to be precise about where they were headed in the Marshalls, But the Marshalls haveover 1100 islets and 13 or so atolls spread over a large ocean area. I think thatthey felt confident that they would see one of these pieces of land if they could stay in the air that long. In short, Mili was not the target, it just happened to be the area where they landed The Goerner about face is still a mystery to me. He seemd to havemounds of supporting evidence concerning the Marshalls , but for reasons apparently known only to him he "disabused" his belief in the Marshalls. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:24:46 EST From: Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? Re: Tod Swindell Could this be one and the same? From "The Crew of Trigon" Tod Swindell Producer Past President of Desperado Films, Inc. (w/ Universal Television) was Co-Creator and Head Researcher for the CBS pilot Miracles and Other Wonders, 1992. With D.W. Maze, Swindell Produced Ariadne Kimberly' The Woman in the Moon in 1995 starring Maria de Medeiros and Portia De Rossi. He also founded The Tod Evan Company in 1996, an acquisitions company specializing in historical hi-concept. Dale ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:35:29 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Island names (Duke of York) Presumably you're well aware that there is a New York island in Kiribati? The trouble is it is way over at 160W, 1176 miles away from Howland. I suppose the more optimistic assessments of fuel consumption might get them there but we have the problem that it was inhabited in 1937 with 80 Gilbertese and 2 supervisors. Seems a very long shot but that name is soooo good a match with the notebook. The bearing, at 76.6degrees from Howland is entirely consistent with an extension of the track from Tabiteuea (where they were supposedly heard) to Howland. However, this would have added more than seven hours over and above the flight to Howland and would have left little time to search for it or for Howland considering the maximum flying time available.Could they somehow have flown further than they realised and got to a point where the Line islands were closer than the Phoenix group? Seems highly unlikely. This would need a reversed equatorial jet stream and no-one doing any serious navigating. Another possiblity is that AE thought they were at NY although in fact they were somewhere else (eg Gardner). Clarence's individual maps with few island names got me thinking. What if the Phoenix map had been unlabelled as such (because Clarence knew very well which map was which), and Amelia, (Noonan being out of commission after the landing) was actually looking at the Line island map. Could she have thought Gardner was New York island? One of those weird coincidences (which happen naturally) is that Gardner is at 4 40S. New York island is at 4 40N. Could Amelia have put two and two together and got 5? Again - rather unlikely. Longitude is the one parameter that she should have had some good idea of, unlike latitude, and the longitude of Gardner and New York island are very different. However, I thought I'd throw this lot into the pot to keep it boiling and provoke a few comments. Although the Duke of York hypothesis has some good points, one of the things I don't like about it is there are too many syllables to equate directly to New York. Under conditions of poor reception, Due North, for example, would be more easily mistaken for New York than Duke of York would have been, even though in the latter situation we have one word identical. The difference in distance from Howland of Gardner and Atafu is 264 miles. If they believed themselves on Atafu and were in fact on Gardner, they had made an error of 264miles. The only way that such an error could have realistically been made is that they joined the LOP around 264 miles north of Howland. Although Noonan could have made an error of maybe 150 miles (according to Clarence), 264 miles is really rather unlikely. If they were actually at Atafu of course, there was no error in estimating their position. However, it would be strange for them to fly as far as 614miles before sighting land and nonetheless be able to find Atafu. Moreover it was inhabited, so they probably didn't land there. Maybe we need to look elsewhere for NY. The 1.36S 179E position you queried, appears in Friedells report. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric What is attractive about Atafu/Duke of York is that it is on the LOP. It is, of course, not at all reasonable to think that the flight actually got there, but the same document that raises the question (Betty's Notebook) also presents a Fred Noonan who is in no shape to help AE figure out where she is. It's not hard to construct a scenario where there is a 157 337 line drawn on a chart that goes far beyond the plane's actual range and passes to, or even points to Atafu. It's likewise not hard to imagine that Fred had not kept AE breifed on where he thought they were in the noisy cockpit, and if injured in the landing, was unable to bring her up to speed. But it's all speculation. <> Okay. I see it. That's gotta be a reference to McMenamy and Pearson. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:24:25 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Do I understand correctly that Cam Warren has furnished you with a table that is supposed to show Mantz' cruise control advice? I would be very happy to obtain a copy and to defray any costs involved. Ditto for the Carrington document. Thanks. Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric It's a table but it's not at all clear exactly what it represents. It's in a published work so I'll suggest that you communicate directly with Cam about getting a copy. I'll send you Cam's email address privately. I don't have the Carrington document he refers to. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:29:32 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Rollin wrote : << Daryll,, The old rule about offset was that the less sure you are of your possition the greater the offset. When crossing the Atlantic, Noonan had only the sun for celestial support. Therefore he was not to sure of his positon. Conseqently he used 100 mile offset. That equates to about 36 minutes of time. I would have done the same.>> Rollin, I would propose for Doug, a course line starting at Tabiteuea because of the report of an aircraft flying overhead during the night. That course would go to Howland. 100 nm out from Howland on that course line would be an X "marks the spot". That spot is a procedure turn to the NW. That course line is the Hypotenuse of a right triangle with 100 nm legs. That leg would be ~ 141 nm if the LOP was at a right angle but I don't think it is. AE reported this point as 200 miles out. She roughly added 141 + 100. The objective is to hit the DR (dead reckoning) point which is a procedure turn also on the LOP and was 100 nm out from Howland in the 337° direction of the LOP. AE reported this point as ABT 100 MILES OUT. They were then inbound to Howland heading 157°. (they thought) Do you see any problems ? Daryll *************************************************************************** From Ric Daryll, I recommend that you not use terms like "procedure turn" when you obviously don't know what they mean. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:37:05 EST From: Tom Roberts Subject: Re: Nauticos plans >From Ric > >That's a 450 nm RADIUS from Howland. It's just under 160,000 square miles. It's more like 636,000 square nautical miles, or 840,000 square statute miles. I think your number was for a 450 nm DIAMETER. LTM, Tom Roberts, #1956CE Riverside, CA **************************************************************************** From Ric Oooh .... you're right. Thanks. And Nauticos believes thay have the search area pinned down to 500 square miles. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:38:23 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? > I argue, if TIGHAR never existed, such help gained > might have already been realized by now. > > Tod Swindell Tod, does the fact that for many decades after 1937 TIGHAR actually did not exist affect your argument any? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:45:35 EST From: Subject: RRon Reuthere: Japanese ship activity July 37 Ron Bright writes: >J.A. Donahue writes > that in the 250,000 square mile search by the US Navy only one "non-descript > merchant tramp freighter" was seen. Donahue says it was so inconsequential it > wasn't even identified by the Lexington force. I think Donahue was referring to the British ship M.V. Moorby. Ron Reuther *************************************************************************** From Ric That doesn't sound right. The Moorby was actually recruited to help Itasca check out the 281 message on July 6. By the time Lexington got to the area she should have been long gone. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:52:15 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? > And it worked, and he has > earned fame and fortune in the process of advancing his "baseless" > theory that tricked un Earhart educated folks into supporting him with > money and accolades. > If the elements that characterized his Niku theory were not > so outlandishly far fetched, less of the most astute researchers would > refer to him as the idiot he made made himself out to be > Tod Swindell I am glad you posted this rather pompous and ungrammatical verbiage. I certainly had a good laugh.The writer shows as much ignorance of the likely circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and the motives of Tighar as he does of good English. There's little doubt in my mind that in spite of the limited evidence, the Niku hypothesis beats any other, and I say that as a sceptical physicist. The other day I checked the bearing of Niku wrt the radio station on Hawaii. It was 211.8 degrees, just over 1 degree different from the 213 degree bearing obtained on one of the post loss messages and well within the suggested 1.6 degree error bracket for this type of DF. When one additionally considers the bones, the radial (admitedly anecdotal), the LOP, the nearest alternate land, the sextant box, the dado, the perspex, and the post loss messages, the Tighar hypothesis is way ahead of anything else. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric The fame and $2.50 will buy me a cup of coffee in Washington, D.C. where I meet with my fellow government conspirators. If I had the fortune I could afford the $2.50. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:53:22 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? In response to Tod Swindell, remember, fire bad, food good. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:59:45 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? Shhhhh! Can you keep a secret? Earhart was indeed a spy, and the government was involved then. To help deflect researchers from uncovering the real truth, I was contacted by Col. North on behalf of Ronald Reagan to enlist Mr. Gillespie to pursue the Gilligan Island hypothesis. Both Ric and I have been well paid by the government, as evidenced by our homes, cars, jewelry, and extensive first class travel. God Bless America. **************************************************************************** From Ric RANDY!!! First Chester Nimitz spills his guts to Goerner and now you have to go and .... just a minute ... Condee Rice is on the phone. This could get ugly. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:01:40 EST From: Marjorie in Montana Subject: Re: Island clothing > From Tom King > > A couple of years ago the police and the HPO's archeologists on Saipan > examined a site where the victims of a double murder had been deposited, 3-4 > months before; all that remained, oddly enough, were the remains of one of > the victims' pantihose, UNDER the bones. Pantyhose? In Saipan? What, is the whole island airconditioned by now? In my day (1967-70) no one in Saipan owned pantyhose, let alone wore them to be murdered in! Marjorie Smith *************************************************************************** From Ric New heights in off-topic discussion. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:09:22 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: [earhart] re Daryll's Nav Problem Actually, there was an offset, but we can't tell whether it was deliberate. Noonan had one apparent fix midway, which showed him well north of the track, and the plane apparently diverted course more southerly to compensate. As they approached the coast, Noonan believed he was south of Dakar, and had AE make a left turn so that she would enter the city from the south. Unfortunately, when she did so, she ended up well east of Dakar in heavy cloud cover and didn't discover where she was until she crossed the land-sea boundary northeast of Dakar. ************************************************************************ From Ric I'd argue that it's not an "offset" if it's not deliberate. Sure looks like Noonan merely over-corrected for the northerly error and hit the coast too far south. When you're shooting for a coastline with many distinctive features I don't see any point in an offset. Unlike shooting for an island, if you miss your target it should be no problem to figure out which way to turn. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:11:34 EST From: Marjorie in Montana Subject: Special for the grammar cop Marty wrote: > I sent Ric a note about how much I admired him taking > the apostrophe out of "SATs" and contemned him for > dropping it from "ain't". I had hoped he would read > it, get a laugh, maybe, and toss it in the bit bucket. I assume to contemn a person, the condemnation must be uttered with contempt? > My apologies to the Forum for contributing to > thread drift. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea > maxima culpa! > Yeah, me too. Sorry. Marjorie Smith ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:12:56 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Island clothing > From Ric > > And before somebody suggests it, no, I am NOT going to try pantihose to > reduce chafing. Have you thought about thinner legs? *************************************************************************** From Ric Constantly. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:35:40 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Apostrophe All through the discussion of "Hoist on his own petard" it bothers me that no one noted that the spelling in Shakespeare was "Hoist on his own petar.("Petar" was to rhyme roughly with "engineer" on a previous line. **************************************************************************** From Ric Oh brother, here we go. A petar (now spelled petard) is a case containing explosives which was placed against or under a wall to bring it down. To be "hoist with your own petar(d)" is to be blown up with your own charge. Hamlet, Act III, scene iv Hamlet is speaking with his mother, the queen: "There's letters sealed, and my two school fellows Whom I shall trust as I will adders fang'd, They bear the mandate. They must sweep my way, And marshall me to knavery. Let it work; For 'tis the sport to have the enginer [sic - not engineer] Hoist with [sic - not on] his own petar; and 't shall go hard But I will delve one yard below their mines, and blow them to the moon." There is no need for "enginer" to rhyme with "petar". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:49:24 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Island names (Duke of York) > It's likewise not hard to imagine that Fred had not kept AE > breifed on where he thought they were in the noisy cockpit, and if injured in > the landing, was unable to bring her up to speed. But it's all speculation. This is a scenario I have considered but can she really have had no idea of time elapsed since they thought they were near Howland, and/or no idea of her ground speed and unable to make even a rough calculation of distance? Deciding it was Atafu, meant an overestimation of distance travelled of 264 miles (1.75hrs). (I always thought time passed quickly when you were having fun or running out of fuel so if anything she should have chosen Gardner) I suppose Noonan could have made a 150 mile error (too southerly) in estimating the position of Howland but even then she was still wrong by over 100 miles (40mins). They would both have to make large errors in this scenario. Possibly she decided that at 156 degrees Atafu was closer to the LOP (157) than Gardner at 159 degrees. Angus. ****************************************************************************** From Ric When Howland did not appear when "we must be on you", all they knew for sure was that they were not where they had thought they were. They had good reason to think that they had the east/west component nailed pretty close but how far off they were north/south was anybody's guess. You make a short run to the northwest then you turn around and head southeast, not knowing what you'll find, but convinced that you should find something before the fuel runs out. After what seems like an eternity an island appears that is clearly not Howland or Baker. You have a pretty good idea how far you have come but, because you have no good handle on where you started from, all you know is that it's an island somewhere more or less on the LOP. Could be Gardner, could be Duke of York. Maybe you have a map that shows island shapes. Maybe you don't. If you do, you take one look at the map of Gardner and conclude that this can't be it. Gotta be Duke of York. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:59:43 EST From: John Temple Subject: Noonan grave I have just finished a copy of Amelia Earhart's Shoes. I was very impressed with the methodical research and the volume of information you have unearthed. I find your hypothesis very compelling and hope future work will validate your effort. One thing struck me though - there was very little mention of any concerted look for a separate grave for the navigator, Fred Noonan. All the discussion of the bones focused on Amelia, yet at least one of the possible post event messages heard by listeners suggested that Mr. Noonan was badly hurt. If this is true, wouldn't it be likely that the two would have stayed together in the vicinity of the ship and the supply cache, perhaps until his demise? It would seem strange for them to split up and for one to end up as far away as the seven-site if the other was injured and in need of serious care. In that event, isn't it likely that Amelia buried him there on the beach, perhaps adjacent to the stricken sailors from the wreck? Without adequate digging tools, the sandy beach would have offered the easiest way to dispose of a body. If this happened, his bones, disturbed by weather and animal life over the next few years could have become mixed with those of the hapless sailors and been found by the later colonists and thought to be from the ship. If, as the book suggests, the early colonists were very sensitive about these bodies, they may have been gathered and reburied, possibly on the beach or even in the colony cemetery. It just seemed strange to me that, except for a possible male shoe, nothing else surfaced to indicate his fate. You may have already come to this conclusion and thrown it out for very viable reasons I am unaware of but none of your writings I have seen suggest that. If that is the case, then perhaps an expanded excavation of the oldest graves in the graveyard might yield some good result. Good luck with the project. I'll follow your future efforts with considerable interest. John E. Temple **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks John. I hope you'll consider joining TIGHAR. There is no communal graveyard. Each colonist family buried their dead on their own land. Following just the logic you describe, we excavated a suspected grave site near the Norwich City wreck last September but it proved not to be a grave at all. There's another site close by that might also be a grave but we didn't have time to address it on this last trip. Excavating a grave or suspected grave on Niku (we've done four so far, counting the skull hole at the Seven Site) involves, on average, three to five days of back-breaking labor in 100 degree heat. There's a limit to how much we can get done on any given expedition. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:07:27 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Mystery Flight? Re: Mystery map Klaas cites the Los Angeles Co Museum of Natural History as the photo credit. He says the photo shows them in a hangar showing route of last flight. That can't be entirely true since it includes Chicago. But the photo does look like it was a posed "photo-op" and taken during the world flight.(Note FN's finger pointing to the map!) If that was the map they used, they may have ended up in Fargo, ND My guess is the photo was taken on 31 May 37 at Miami as AE and FN are wearing the same shirts with "Bo" McKneely in an other publicity shot, see p. 32 of Donahue's book. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, I'll buy that - except I don't agree with Donohue that the guy in the white coveralls is Bo. Lord knows what the map is supposed to represent. I don't think it's important. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:32:30 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: [earhart] re Daryll's Nav Problem I have to agree with Ric on this. There was no offset on the South Atlantic crossing. AND, there was no sun . . . at least not very much. The weather was so poor: . . . "it necessitated blind flying for ten of the thirteen hours we were in flight." I have a personal letter from Fred Noonan describing that very flight. Visibility was less than a half mile when they made the landfall. They could not determine exactly where they hit the coast. Fred said to go right . . .Amelia said to go left. Guess who was correct? Now look at the map. If they offset 100 miles to the north, they would have missed St. Louis as well. St. Louis is nearly on the same heading as from Natal to Dakar. Continue to fly the same course used to cross the Atlantic and you will pass very close to St. Louis. And, they didn't turn left to fly north on the "LOP". They turned left to fly up the coast looking for Dakar! Don J. ************************************************************************* From Ric << I have a personal letter from Fred Noonan describing that very flight. Visibility was less than a half mile when they made the landfall. They could not determine exactly where they hit the coast. Fred said to go right . . .Amelia said to go left. Guess who was correct?>> Don, the above creates a false impression of what Noonan wrote. Here's what he said: "With few exceptions the weather has been splendid. The flight from Natal, Brazil to Africa produced the worst weather we have experienced - heavy rain and dense cloud formations necessitated blind flying for ten of the thirteen hours we were in flight. To add to our woes the African coast was enveloped in thick haze, rendering objects invisible at distances over a half mile, when we made landfall. And our radio was out of order - it would be in such a jam. However, with our usual good luck, if not good guidance, we barged through okay." There is nothing there about not being able to determine exactly where they made landfall - only that it was difficult because of the haze. And there is certainly nothing to support AE's later story about a disgreement as to which way to turn. I think AE fabricated the story to cover the fact that they intentionally chose to bypass Dakar (because of the horrible visibility) to land at St. Louis. They didn't have permission to land at St. Louis and there were no customs facilities there - and they couldn't get permission because the radio wasn't working. The French authorities might easily have impounded the airplane and caused all sorts of trouble, but by saying it was a mistake ("Silly me. I should have listened to my navigator.") she avoided any delay. It's speculation, of course, but there is no way to reconcile AE's version with the map. Anybody who doesn't think that AE was capable of lying to get around the authorities hasn't done their homework. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:42:15 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Just curious, why do you think Amelia survived to see her birthday on the 24th of July? I understand the post lost messages ended on the 9th, and I can see her surviving that long (hell of a struggle) but an additional 15 days? Thanks, Lawrence **************************************************************************** From Ric She may even have seen her 41st birthday. We know there was a cache of supplies left by the Norwich City rescuers somewhere near where she probably came ashore. If she was the castaway whose remains were found by Gallagher she had moved far from that location, had figured out how to catch local wildlife to survive, and didn't have much at all in the way of clothing left. All of that offers the possibility of a considerable period of survival prior. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:47:30 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Niku nudity The Wombat said: "Many years of walking about on tropical reefs taught me that naked is good! However, where modesty is a virtue, try a lap lap (sarong, wrap etc.) as uniform on Niku V. Depending how you wear it you can cover as much or as little as you like . . . " No way, Dude! Ric and I are about the same size and neither of us could with a straight face argue for walking around with a loin cloth or sarong. Ok, maybe a sarong, but anything less and even the natives would blanch. LTM, who's under orders to remain fully clothed at all times Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric We could test your hypothesis with some photos on the website and some natives. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:52:22 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? I missed the original message. Actually, I'm more commenting to people who make comments like this one, rather than to this particular individual, so I guess it doesn't matter. > And it worked, and he has > earned fame and fortune in the process of advancing his "baseless" > theory that tricked un Earhart educated folks into supporting him with > money and accolades. Have you actually read, with an open mind, the "baseless" theory? Then read, with an at least equally open mind, the supporting research? The use of the word "baseless" above and "outlandish" later on would seem to indicate not. I came into this thinking these people were a bunch of loons. Everyone KNOWS Earhart went down in the Pacific around Howland. Truthfully, I had nothing better to do for an hour (I was waiting for a test to complete at the office) and spent it wandering the TIGHAR web site. After the hour I'd moved from thinking they were loons to thinking they were just wrong. That night and home I finished everything on the site and decided maybe they had something, joined the forum, and went about reading the researches of the "crashed at sea" and "captured by the enemy" theorists. Over the next month I became convinced. NOT convinced that they, or now I'd say "we," (I'm a member now), have absolutely found the final resting place of E&N, but that the evidence says we MAY have found it. And that, compared to the other theories, this one holds water better than they do. I'm a trouble shooter by profession. All I care about is the facts. I'll postulate theories to match the facts I've got, thent est them to see if they work out. This is what TIGHAR is attempting to do with this theory. One of the most impressive things I've seen in the Earhart forum is admissions that we barked up the wrong tree about something. There is little display of hanging on to some idea after it's been proven wrong, and the attempt is always made to prove it wrong. This is, in my not so humble opinioni, the very basis of scientific analysis. If it turns out the plane is found in the water off Howland, I won't be shocked. Just a bit surprised. And, I hope the research continues to determine what the evidence that was found at Niku really was attached to. I doubt there would be another trip there, but from what we've got and what we know, I'd like to see if we can figure out who was really there and what they were doing. The store of knowledge on research methods would be worth the effort, I think. - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:52:37 EST From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? Oh, let him have his opinion. The forum is full of opinions, like well, you know what I mean. Regards, S. Wesley Smith ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:55:31 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Apostrophe For the medically or linguistically inclined, "petard" means "fart" in French, a reference to the unusual noise such a device made. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM(Who swore, but only in French.) ************************************************************************ From Ric One way or another, all of our off-topic threads seem to end up in the same place. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:03:40 EST From: Daryll Subject: Howland off-set LOP approach >Daryll, as I've said before, I'm happy to post new information but I'm >not going to post a long string of speculations based on folklore. >So far you have not shown that you have a basic grasp of the facts of >the case. >Ric Is this where the ridicule starts ? Re your first para : You say you can't see the "off-set" on Noonan's chart of the South Atlantic? Did you look right at the end of the _BIG_ line, maybe short little lines 1/16 th of an inch ?.....Can you see any approach plates on a sectional today? This reminds me of the Movie "A Few Good Men",....Cruz tosses the Marine Corps Manual to the witness and asks what page the directions to the mess hall are on !...... I said I would refer to items that had been discarded before. This is why you are still looking for AE. I refer to a standard navigational technic used in the '30's that has been documented and a reference in "Last Flight" to the technic and you call it folklore. I understand your hostility Ric,....the off-set LOP technic is your achilles heel. Any navigator (or logically thinking person) would see by studying the approach what the "miss" consequences are. A navigator can miss by 100 nm south (right) of the course line and still find Howland without a radio. A navigator can miss north (left) of his course line by 100 nm and be out of luck when low on fuel and without a radio. The critical miss point regarding AE & FN seems to be 50 nm to the north (left) of the intended course. Commander Thompson knew what the "miss" consequences were, that's why when he "steamed-up", he didn't waste time looking south on the 157° LOP. You can sit down with a piece of "quarter ruled" paper and a protractor and see that. To answer a couple previous questions; ......after a couple of 100 nm trips up and down the LOP, Noonan realized he was lost somewhere north and by now off the LOP. The 281° heading also corresponded to Jaluit by a couple of degrees. Jaluit had a strong broadcast station on 3105. It operated from the morning into the evening. Just to keep you posted, our side has July 2, 1937 figured out by using, facts and contemporaneous documentation. How's your side doing again?.... Anyone with questions about constructing their own LOP approach plate for Howland can reach me off-Forum. Philosophically speaking, I read you loud and clear. Daryll **************************************************************************** From Ric The longer I let you go on, the harder it becomes to avoid ridicule. In the interest of civility this is probably a good place to stop. I think you've given everyone a good look at how "your side" operates. I would urge anyone who is so inclined to take you up on your offer of direct communication. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:08:07 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: Noonan grave I may be missing something here on the issue of the grave(s), but I had assumed that the theory was that Amelia died, Fred buried her, and that was that. At that point, the only living person on the island was Fred, so I don't find it surprising that there was no grave found for him. Who would have dug it? Even if he dug one himself, and lay down in it to die, there is still the question of who would have filled it in once he died. I somehow doubt he would have been able to pull the filling in on top of himself. So either Fred died in the bottom of an open grave (that was never found), or he died out in the open. Either way, from the experiment with the leg of lamb last year, I don't see how his remains would have stayed around for very long. Am I missing something else? Why is it a mystery that no grave was found for Fred? Stuart **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, you're missing quite a bit. Indications are that the castaway whose partial skeleton was found in 1940 was a woman, so if somebody buried somebody Amelia buried Fred. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:28:03 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: Noonan grave > From Ric > > Yes, you're missing quite a bit. Indications are that the castaway whose > partial skeleton was found in 1940 was a woman, so if somebody buried > somebody Amelia buried Fred. Thanks for the correction, Ric. I guess I need to go back and re-read the web site about the skeleton. I had completely the wrong impression about the skeleton issue. It just goes to show what happens when you assume things, without checking the facts! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:31:14 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Special for the grammar cop > From Marjorie in Montana > > Marty wrote: >> I sent Ric a note about how much I admired him taking >> the apostrophe out of "SATs" and contemned him for >> dropping it from "ain't". I had hoped he would read >> it, get a laugh, maybe, and toss it in the bit bucket. > > I assume to contemn a person, the condemnation must be uttered with > contempt? The beauty of contemning people is that it can be done when one lacks jurisdiction to condemn: Main Entry: con-temn Pronunciation: k&n-'tem Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English contempnen, from Middle French contempner, from Latin contemnere, from com- + temnere to despise Date: 15th century : to view or treat with contempt : SCORN synonym see DESPISE Making judgments about researchers and research projects is essential in conducting archeological investigations. With limited resources, you have to pick and choose whom to trust and what to spend time on. No scientist can examine all possible hypotheses or conduct all possible experiments; to be scientific is to select what to work on, and to be a good scientist is to have good hunches about what will and will not work. I trust Ric's judgment about what happened to AE and FN. I admire the way that he and TIGHAR have published the story of things found and evaluated. Some clues have proven to be dead ends (the book case, the red algae, maybe even the shoes); others still seem viable. Ric's punctuation skills are not on par with his archeological gifts. Fortunately, he's married to someone who has the grammar gene, and she brings TIGHAR's publications up to professional standards. Lamentably, good grammar isn't going to contribute to the solution of the Earhart mystery. What is needed can't be gotten out of a dictionary; it's got to come out of the ground--or out of the ocean. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:34:48 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Apostrophe > From Ric > There is no need for "enginer" to rhyme with "petar". Agreed. One of the few books I've kept from my BA years is my Hamlet Variorum. What we see printed in our modern editions of Hamlet is the result of thousands and thousands of editorial choices. I'm in Chicago for a few months, so I can't just pull the old Variorum off the shelf and look up the line in question, but I remember from previous readings that it is a substantial entry. My favorite, for ethnic reasons, is the series of arguments about leaded poleaxes (or sledded Pollacks) smitten to the ice. Textual criticism is where this whole drifted thread began: just as with Shakespeare (Shakspere, Shaksper; see http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html), so with the radio transcripts--it's not easy to determine the original words with the precision we desire. Garbling happens. There are parts of the story about which reasonable people of intelligence and good will may respectfully disagree--until the Any Idiot Artifact (AIA) is found. Hmm, I'm going to re-coin the phrase: what we want is evidence that will convince any REASONABLE idiot. Unreasonable idiots will imagine that artifacts on Niku were planted by the U.S. or Japanese government in order to cover up the coverup. So what we want, and all we can ever get, is an ARIA. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric Well sung. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:35:57 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Niku nudity > We could test your hypothesis with some photos on the website and some > natives. This is a great idea - charge everybody to vote - fund the next expedition. In the alternative - charge everybody MORE, to keep the pictures OFF the website - fund the next TWO expeditions! ltm, jon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:24:35 EST From: Ric Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan For Oscar Having girded my loins and carefully read your treatise, my non-enginer (sic) brain has been unable to fault with your computations. I think you have shown that the airplane had the theoretical capability to fly considerably longer/farther than a simple application of Kelly Johnson's recommendations for the Oakland/Honolulu flight would suggest. My original suggestion was : "Let's suppose that Mr. Johnson (or someone else who was competent to do so) prepared a simple hour-by-hour power management program for Amelia for the Lae/Howland leg." You have certainly laid out an hour-by-hour power management program but it differs from the kind of plan Kelly presented to AE in some important respects. Because you're pushing for a higher standard of performance, your hour-by-hour program is naturally far more demanding than Johnson's three-hour blocks. More importantly, your program is consumption-driven whereas Johnsons was speed-driven. In other words, for each hour you instruct Earhart to achieve a particular rate of fuel consumption within a range of airspeeds, in most cases leaving it up to her to figure out what combination of throttle, propeller, and Cambridge setting will achieve that result. By contrast, Johnson's plan apparently assumed a constant airspeed (150 mph) which simplified monitoring progress at the expense of efficiency, and gave the pilot Sesame Street instructions - so many inches Hg, so many RPM, such and such Cambridge setting - and told her what rate of fuel consumption to expect. I suspect that Kelly did it the way he did because he knew his customer. The kind of power managment profile you have constructed might be very similar to that flown by Dick Merrill on his impressive Lockheed 10E Special nonstop flight from London to Boston and thence to New York (something over 24 hours unrefueled) but I'd be very surprised if AE had the knowledge and expertise to get that kind of performance out of the airplane. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:26:44 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noonan grave For John Temple -- Thanks for your thoughtful comments; let me add a bit to what Ric has said. Assuming we're basically correct in the hypothesis, there are several things that could have happened to Noonan: 1. He could be the castaway and it's Earhart that's missing (In other words, Hoodless could have been right). 2. He could have wound up buried near the landing site, i.e. presumably near the Norwich City. This presents us with some real problems, since the Norwich City victims were buried there too, and there were I Kiribati living in the area who in at least one case certainly buried their dead there. So there may be quite a few bodies in the ground around there. And not only does it take at least 3-5 days to excavate a grave (and that's with a team of 3, so more like 12-15 person-days); it's also something that we want to do only with great care and respect, and obviously the permission of government. 3. He could have wound up buried at the Seven Site after he and Earhart both worked their way down there and lived awhile. There are some interesting largish rocks lying around there that -- well, the imagination runs rampant in the tropical heat. 4. He could have died somewhere in between the landing site and the Seven Site. There's no reason to think that, having run out of provisions and patience at the landing site, the Electra's crew made a bee-line for the Seven Site. They may have, particularly if they thought the pond at what would later be the Loran station was fresh water, but they may also have worked their way around, camping for awhile at other places, and Noonan could have died at any of these spots or anywhere in between. So, there's a lot of territory in which we could look for Noonan's mortal remains (which, if buried, weren't necessarily marked in any way), and digging for them when we think maybe we've found them is a big investment of time and labor, and a touchy matter culturally and politically, so...... Any suggestions will be welcome. Thanks for your note; I'm glad you enjoy the book ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:58:35 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Re: She may even have seen her 41st birthday. But to do that, she would have had to avoid detection by Maude, Bevington, and their I Kiribati colleagues when they looked the island over in the fall of '37. I can easily imagine their missing dead people in the bush, but not live ones. I know, it's POSSIBLE, but ... ************************************************************************* From Ric Just for the fun of it.... Let's say that Earhart and/or Noonan are hangin' out at the Seven Site in October 1937 (probably still arguing about whose fault it all is) when RCS Nimanoa ties off to the stern of Norwich City on the morning of Wednesday the 13th. She has come down from the Gilberts so her approach to the island is not visible from the ocean beach at the Seven Site nor can the western end of the island be seen from the lagoon shore. Bevington and a few of the Gilbertese delegates set out to walk around the atoll which they believed was only a three mile hike (it's more like eight). They went counter-clockwise from the main lagoon passage, walking at first in the bush but soon deciding that they could make much better time walking along the ocean shore. They had not brought any water with them and by the time they got to the southeast tip they were all in trouble. The walk up the shoreline past the Seven Site was made around 2 p.m. - the hottest part of the day - and was more a survival trek than an exploration and was almost certainly made down at the water's edge where the walking is easiest but footprints disappear with the first tide. Anyone who has been to the inland Seven Site knows that the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade could go up that beach and you'd never know it. The British expedition remained at the island two more days but, according to Bevington's diary, never again went closer to that end of the island than Aukeraime just east of Bauareke Passage - still about a mile away. Could Maude and Bevington have made their visit and never seen or be seen by someone living at the Seven Site? I'd say not only was it possible but it would have been remarkable if they HAD been seen. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:59:55 EST From: Carol Linn Dow Subject: Re: Island Names For: Ron Bright I have been in the library at Radcliff College, and they are very cooperative. You can look at anything they have, no questions asked. The "Cliffes" are very nice. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:09:11 EST From: RC Subject: Noonan grave II >> Yes, you're missing quite a bit. Indications are that the castaway whose >> partial skeleton was found in 1940 was a woman, so if somebody buried >> somebody Amelia buried Fred. I must have missed quite a bit too, Ric, because I do not understand your reply. Could you have meant that Amelia WAS buried by Fred?? RC **************************************************************************** From Ric No. Have we communicated so poorly? Look: 1. A castaway's bones were found in 1940. 2. The castaway is thought to have been a woman (woman's shoe sole and recent analysis is bone measurments). 3. The castaway had not been buried. If the unburied castway was Earhart then if anyone died and was buried by the other one it had to be Fred. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:30:24 EST From: Christopher Ferro Subject: 41st Birthday > Just for the fun of it.... > Let's say that Earhart and/or Noonan are hangin' out at the Seven Site in > October 1937 ... > I'd say not only was it possible but it > would have been remarkable if they HAD been seen. > LTM, > Ric Perhaps it is conjectures like this that get some of the forumites to get bent out of shape and make accusations like "baseless speculation" and the like. Some "what ifs" are fine, but in my opinion this leads us nowhere. LTM, Christopher (still in Wheeling) *************************************************************************** From Ric I have to disagree. We know there was at least one castaway on the island - possibly two people, a man and a woman. We also know at least one place where he/she/they hung out. There is nothing baseless about that. We don't know when he/she/they arrived or how long he/she/they survived. I think it's perfectly legitimate and useful for us to try to get a handle on how long a castaway might remain undetected given known events at known times. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:33:22 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Howland off-set LOP approach >I refer to a standard navigational technic used in the '30's that has >been documented and a reference in "Last Flight" to the technic and you >call it folklore. Riccen, Volkloren? Konnen sie nicht Vorsprung Durch Technic? (Wirklich dieser Darryl ist ein wunder an gelehrsamkeit!) Von A. Earhardt.(Am ende der welt an Mili atollen) *************************************************************************** Von Ric I am already off my chair falling. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:43:08 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Mantz citation Ron Bright asks <> Unfortunately, I do not have a copy as I borrowed TIGHAR's copy and read it before I talked with Capt. Carrington re the "wreck photo" and had one of the most unusual conversations in my life. The fact that I could say "I read your book" helped keep him on the phone for 10 minutes even though he basically denied that both the photo and himself ever existed. He kept insisting that since I was only a 400 hour pilot, I wasn't "qualified". For what I don't know, and he wasn't about to explain. Later on he insisted that the "owners" of this (nonexistent) photo were likely to sue TIGHAR and the Smithsonian for publishing it. Go figure. It is a shame that he won't cooperate and let anyone track down the origin of that photo. I cannot remember where exactly in the book the cite is, and I can't find any notes that I may have taken while reading it. It's in there somewhere. Yes, the context of the quote was a conversation with Mantz regarding the planning for the first E to W attempt, however it strikes me that if they thought about the Phoenix as an alternate for the first attempt, it makes sense that they would consider the Phoenix as a possible alternate for the second attempt, or at the very least remember that they were there. For Cam It was in his book, (Ric - what's the actual title?) not "What Really Happened at Howland" ("Unabridged Report II). I never said that Carrington was a credible reporter. His anecdote is what it is, just as the 25 year old anecdotal quote by Vidal of Amelia saying she would return to the Gilberts is what it is. They both carry about the same weight. Either, both, or neither may be accurate. Your point was that the "only" alternate plan that anyone had heard of was going back to the Gilberts, and I just wanted to point out that this is not the case. How credible they are is another story. LTM Andrew McKenna *************************************************************************** From Ric The book is "Amelia Earhart - A Report by G. Carrington". It's not indexed so finding the reference means plowing through the whole book, which I'm not particularly eager to do. I'll send it to you again if you want to chase it down. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:45:45 EST From: Les Kinney Subject: Re: Noonan grave II Ric rarely do I write here - yes I am only a guest on your forum - a lurker at best, but Ric give it up on the bones - Whether you agree with the doctor in 1940 or not, he was trained as a physician, I am sure he saw many skeletal remains in his career, and yes he had more knowledge of the bone structure of the "locals" than anyone on this board. - he did not believe the bones were that of a Caucasian female - period. He had no axe to grind and I imagine that if he thought there was the slightest possibility the bones were that of a Caucasian woman, common sense would seem to think he would have examined them even more closely prior to issuing a statement in the matter. Secondly - you have not been able to find those "bones" to prove he was wrong. Thirdly, like you, I have been on many South Pacific islands and I have found all sorts of debris including shoes washed up hundreds of yards inland, well beyond the shore, dumped by storms and surges. To say the "sole" which apparently came off of a rotting shoe found anywhere on the island possibly could have come from AE is a reach especially when you consider that none of us will ever know how many individuals were on that island from 1937 until the discovery of the sole of the shoe. Les Kinney ************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you for your opinion. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:46:18 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Island Names For Carol Linn Dow Any chance you can get back to Radcliff and snoop around Clarence Williams papers,etc looking for a map that has Hurd Is on it? Thanks Ron Bright Bremerton ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:08:34 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Clarified > but I'd be very surprised if AE had the knowledge and expertise > to get that kind of performance out of the airplane. > LTM, > Ric From Oscar Boswell Well, I agree with much of what Ric says about the Longer Range Flight Plan, and there is certainly no satisfactory evidence that anyone prepared such a plan for AE. But I disagree with the suggestion that the Longer Range Plan is somehow more complicated than KJ's, or more demanding on the pilot. It's really the SAME PLAN, only with a couple of extra lines in the telegram. That it appears complicated is merely the result, I suppose, of my inept exposition. The plan doesn't INSTRUCT the pilot to maintain a range of airspeeds. Those airspeeds are simply what RESULT from following the plan, and they are included in the posting as a running commentary for forum readers on what is taking place. In hour 5, the "plan" is simply "Cruise 8000 at 51 gph [at KJ's settings]". That's it! After 10 hours, the instruction is simply "fly at 10,000 feet, 1600 rpm, 0.72, 36 gph" instead of "24 inches ... 38 gph". Makes not a bit of difference to the pilot - it's no more difficult to select one MP than the other. There are only two additional sentences to the plan: "After 5 hours (at 36 gph), fly at 1600/21.5 inches, 0.72 and 30 gph", and "after 5 more hours, fly at 1600/20.5 inches and 26 gph." The comments on the plan in the posting are information for us, not the pilot. Look at Hour 5: "Speed (190 normal)" simply means the plane will normally (at 10,500 pounds) have a True air speed of 190 on 51 gph at 8,000 feet. The weight at the END of HOUR 4 (13280) is, of course, the weight of the plane at the START of Hour 5. The speed factor for that weight is .7030. Multiplying that speed factor by the normal speed of 190 gives 132 mph, which should be the true airspeed at the START of Hour 5. The posting gives the weight (12,974) and speed factor (.7280) for the END of Hour 5 too. Multiplying the normal speed (190) by that speed factor (.7280) gives 138 mph, which should be the true airspeed at the END of Hour 5. The average airspeed (and distance travelled in still air) for the hour is thus about 136 miles. NOTE WELL: at this stage of the flight, this is still KJ's plan and not mine. And note also AE doesn't need to know anything about the weight or "speed factors". The Longer Range Plan is NOT "an hour by hour plan" - which would give even greater range at the expense of a bit of speed. Actually it's really not that complicated either to draft or to follow such an hour-by-hour plan. After giving the outlines of the plan as sketched in KJ's telegram (as expanded above), you merely say "in hours 11 and following, also monitor the INDICATED airspeed at hourly intervals (or more often). If the speed exceeds 130 mph IAS, reduce MP to reduce speed to 130 IAS, and relean to 0.72" (Note that 130 IAS is about 154 true at 10,000 feet.) The sharper the pilot, and the more frequent and accurate the monitoring, the greater the efficiency that will be achieved. To repeat: the Longer Range Plan does not ask the pilot to maintain an airspeed between 134 and 138 mph during Hour 5. The posting simply points out that the plan (which at this point in the flight is KELLY JOHNSON'S PLAN), if flown with 1150 gallons (instead of the 900 for which it was intended) produces between 134 and 138 (and not 150) in hour 5 (assuming my calculations are correct). At 38 gph late in the flight, KJ's plan should produce 175 mph (not 150). Remember that KJ wrote his plan for 900 gallons. That is 1500 pounds less fuel. The weight of the plane upon which KJ based his calculations would have been about 1000 pounds less than the 15,100 we have used. (Subtract 1500 for fuel; add 100 for extra gear; add 400 for two extra occupants anticipated on the Hawaii flight.) That means that at the START of Hour 5 the weight would have been (13,280 - 1000 = 12,280 + 132 [assumed extra fuel not burned in first 2 hours because of lighter weight] =) 12,152. Speed factor is about .80 . Multiply the normal speed (190) by the speed factor (.80) and you get 152 mph (fancy that!). One reason that I am interested in any information on Paul Mantz' cruise instructions is that Mantz apparently told a number of people that he prepared some sort of curve-based table for AE to fly by - this would be an "hour by hour" management plan. I find the fragmentary information about such a plan interesting because I see no reason for Mantz to have said he had done this if he hadn't - I mean, it's like taking credit for instructing the Titanic crew on ice-avoidance procedures, isn't it? Oscar ************************************************************************** From Ric You'll have to pardon me if I'm being dense here, but if I'm flying Kelly Johnson's plan for - say - the second three hour block (hours five, six and seven), I know that I'm supposed to be at 8,000 feet and that the Manifold Pressure (throttles) should be set at 26.5 inches, and that the props should be set at 1,800 RPM and I should lean the mixture until I get 072 on the Cambridge Exhaust Gas Analyzer. That should get me 51 gph and an airspeed (I presume) of 150 mph. If I'm following the your program you say: <> I don't know where my throttles, props and mixture are supposed to be set in order to do that. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:10:49 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan I agree where you say that Kelly "apparently planned a 150 mph airspeed". I was reliably told by guys who still fly a Lockheed 10A today that 150 mph is the Electra's best cruising speed. Performance of the 10A and the 10E was very similar although the 10E had more power. The Electra was built to fly faster than 150 mph. Those were the days when gas was cheap and speed more important to airlines. But "the figures Lockheed used in those days were optimistic", my spokespeople told me. They stick to their 150 mph they found in their manuals. Even Kelly Johnson must have been aware of the optimism of Lockheed sales people. It is my belief he did advise AE to fly the Electra at 150 mph (that would be 130 kts to the rest of us who were taught to fly knots). As the flight progressed the Electra would become lighter and would climb. AE would let the ship climb and throttle back to maintain her best cruise speed, using the settings Kelly Johnson had advised. She may have encountered stronger headwinds at higher altitudes. I have seen many educated guesses and learned calculations about fuel management and ground speeds, headwinds, cross winds and wind components. Eventually it all adds up to AE flying the 2,556 miles from Lae to Howland (or very near to it) at 150 mph in under 20 hours. Which translates into an average ground speed of 129.4 mph. OK, let's say it was 130. That means she had battled against an average head wind of 20 mph (17 kts), which is not unusual. According to Kelly Johnson at that time she would still have had four hours of fuel left. Flying a heading 157? there would be a cross wind but no head wind anymore. And that would have allowed the Electra another 600 miles before running out of gas. That's why I believe the Electra pilots who say one flies a Lockheed 10 at 150 mph. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:18:52 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Ric says: >I'd say not only was it possible but it >would have been remarkable if they HAD been seen. Well, maybe, but although Eric B. may have kept a stiff upper lip about the ordeal on the windward beach, I have trouble imagining all his I Kiribati colleagues struggling along without a whole lot of banter, or maybe moaning and groaning. But anything's possible. In which case, maybe AE and FN swam to Mili.... **************************************************************************** From Ric It's interesting. You and I have both spent lots of time at the Seven Site and you feel that somebody sitting in the shade of a ren tree up on the ridge could hear people talking down by the water's edge on the beach. My impression is that I couldn't shout loud enough to make somebody on the ridge hear me if my life depended on it. Any other Seven Site denizens want to weigh in on this one? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:19:46 EST From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: Special for the grammar cop > Lamentably, good grammar isn't going to contribute to the solution > of the Earhart mystery. What is needed can't be gotten out of > a dictionary; it's got to come out of the ground--or out of the > ocean. > LTM. > Marty #2359 Marty, I have great respect for you as a scholar for making this statement. I for one do not post for the very issue of correct grammar. Thank You Bruce ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:21:46 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Niku nudity > This is a great idea - charge everybody to vote - fund > the next expedition. In the alternative - charge > everybody MORE, to keep the pictures OFF the website - > fund the next TWO expeditions! > ltm, > jon Or you could do a really scary Niku V calendar..... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric That would depend on who we put on the team. We might need some new criteria for team selection. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:24:19 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: island attire/chafing A book I once read about Navy Seal training alleged that during extended periods of exposure to saltwater surf, they wear silk boxers to prevent chafing. Of course the author may have been conspiring with the Executive Branch to keep some other more dastardly truth from us. LTM, who says there's nothing more dastardly than Navy Seals in silk boxers. Dave Porter in Detroit, TIGHAR# 2288 **************************************************************************** From Ric I feel a little better knowing that even Navy Seals get chafed thighs. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:59:52 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Here's the Telegram with the Longer Range Plan The point I was trying to make earllier today is that the 72, 60, 36, 30 (etc) gph cruises are EACH at ONE CONSTANT POWER SETTING. There is only ONE power setting for 51 gph, which is flown for 3 hours. There is only ONE power setting for 36 gph, which is flown for 5 hours. And so forth. With 1150 gallons of fuel, the telegram reads: Climb [*] to 7000. Fly one hour at 72 gph [*], drift climbing to 8000.[* insert power settings] Fly 2 hours 60 gph [*] Fly 3 hours at 51 gph [*] Fly 3 hours at 43 gph [*] Fly 5 hours at 36 gph [*] 10,000 feet Fly 5 hours at 30 gph [*] Remainder at 26 gph [*] (If I were sending a telegram with these instructions, I would add:) TRUE airspeed about 125 at start of cruise flight (72 gph at 7000), gradually increases to 155 by end of tenth hour, averaging 135 mph in first 10 hours. At 10,000 and 36 gph, TAS about 145 to start, and will increase gradually to 170 over 5 hours. At 30 gph, TAS about 160 mph to start, will increase to 165 mph plus. At 26 gph, TAS about 155 to start, will increase to 160 mph plus. (I might also add something like the following:) To increase range after the first 10 hours, at 1600 rpm hold 120 constant INDICATED air speed (approximately 142 TAS) at 10,000 feet. Monitor speed closely (hourly or more often), and if IAS exceeds 120 reduce MP and relean to 0.72 to reduce IAS to 120. Fuel consumption 35 gph at the start of hour 11, declining to less than 25 gph near end of flight, and averaging under 30 gph. Estimated total endurance 28 to 30 hours. Thanks. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 10:01:11 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Mantz citation (Carrington book) I really couldn't care less, and wouldn't bother, but I happen to have the Carrington book on my desk. George's first book was Amelia Earhart - a Report (1977) He apparently rewrote it in 1989, when it was titled Amelia Earhart - What Really Happened at Howland. ISBN 0-9693015-1-4. There IS an index. Apparently he deleted the Mantz reference to the Phoenix Islands, although I've seen it elsewhere. Bear in mind that Mantz was out of the loop for Earhart's second attempt at circumnavigation of the globe. Cam Warren Oh, and Carrington's dedication to "Cam" (and others) certainly wasn't for me! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 10:13:09 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Howland off-set LOP approach > Volkloren? > Konnen sie nicht Vorsprung Durch Technic? > (Wirklich dieser Darryl ist ein wunder an gelehrsamkeit!) > Von A. Earhardt.(Am ende der welt an Mili atollen) My German is VERY rusty, but I think Angus said, "Folklore? Aren't you familiar with the famous [passage?] technique? (Actually, this Darryl is a wonder at scholarship!) From, Earhardt (at the end of the world at Mili Atoll). Did I get that right? Or even close? Vorsprung Durch Technic has me perplexed. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric I read it as: Folklore? Don't you understand Progress Through Technology? (Certainly this Darryl is a wonder at scholarship!) From, Earhardt (at the end of the world at Mili Atoll). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 10:16:32 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Clarified > From Oscar Boswell > > Well, I agree with much of what Ric says about the Longer Range Flight Plan, and > there is certainly no satisfactory evidence that anyone prepared such a plan for > AE. > > But I disagree with the suggestion that the Longer Range Plan is somehow > more complicated than KJ's, or more demanding on the pilot. It's really the > SAME PLAN, only with a couple of extra lines in the telegram. We only have Clarence Williams's flight plan for the first attempt. It suggests 22 minutes to climb to 8000ft, then blocks of around 71 minutes in groups of three which correspond to small changes in heading. Kelly Johnson's advice seems to tie in with that, with his power setting changes fairly closely to the times of the heading changes. All of which suggests that things were arranged so the pilot and navigator had the simplest job possible,fly at 150mph changing heading and engine settings at about the same time, even though there is anout ten minutes difference each hour. One thing is obvious. The first flight plan relied on maintaining as close to 150mph as possible over the entire route, which would enable Fred to estimate drift and work out his DR position as well as possible. It seems very strange than no similar flight plan has been found for the Lae - Howland crossing. Had Clarence Williams been dropped from the planning team by then? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I think Williams (a paid consultant) was probably dropped when Noonan became the sole navigator. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:03:54 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Clarified >From Ric > > If I'm following the your program you say: > > < (av.speed) 136; weight 12,974 (.7280). > > Hour 6 - Cruise at 51 gph; speed 138-143; distance (av. speed) 141; > weight 12,668 (.7528). > > Hour 7 - Cruise at 51 gph; speed 143-149; distance (av.speed) 146; > weight 12,363 (.7828).>> > > I don't know where my throttles, props and mixture are supposed to be set in > order to do that. The 60, 51 and 43 gph settings are those shown in KJ's telegram. The setting for the 51 gph cruise is "Three hours at Eighteen Hundred RPM Twenty Six point Five inches at Zero Seven Two at Fifty One Gallons Hour." REPEAT: the Longer Range Plan is simply KJ's plan, with a slight reduction in power in the 11th hour (a 36 gph setting rather than 38 gph) followed by further reductions to 30 gph and 26 gph rather than holding the 38 gph setting for the entire flight after the first ten hours or so. The only other change is the assumed higher setting (72 gph) for Hour 2, for stall speed reasons. I jumped to the obviously incorrect conclusion that when people saw "60 gph" and "51 gph" and "43 gph" they would realize this. Similarly, when I gave my 36 and 30 gph settings, I expected readers to understand that the power setting (and altitude) would be maintained until a change was indicated. My mistake - no, I mean it! It's my job to make it clear, and I obviously failed to do that. Your presumption about airspeed may be correct in the 900 gallon plan, but I don't think you're going to get 150 mph at this point in the 1150 gallon flight because of the increased weight - the speed shift with weight is what this entire discussion is about. As I mentioned in my first posting today (this is my third), with a 900 gallon departure(and 4 people), I would expect around 150 at the beginning of Hour 5. (Reviewing the posting, I see an arithmetical error. With 900 and 4 people, at the start of Hour 5 weight should be 12,412 and the speed factor .7781, which would give a speed of 148 when applied to the 51 gph normal cruise of 190 at 10,500 pounds.) With 1150 (and 2 people, less 100 pounds of gear) the plane would weigh about 13,280 at the start of Hour 5. At KJ's 51 gph setting, speed should be about 134 True at the beginning of hour 5 and 138 at the end, for an average of around 136. In Hour 6, the speed would be 138 to 143 for an average of 141. Hour 7 143 to 149, average 146. (With only the 1100 gallons they actually carried, it would have been a little bit faster.) We all know that increased weight reduces speed at a given power setting. The interesting (and hard) question is "by how much." It may be that KJ expected to produce an average speed around 150 under the conditions of the flight to Hawaii with 900 gallons. And those numbers may have worked very well for the entire flight to Lae, BECAUSE GROSS WEIGHT NEVER EXCEEDED THE HAWAII FLIGHT - until Lae, when the extra fuel was added. If AE had no plan from KJ or Mantz for this leg, she was a test pilot exploring the performance of the plane. At the start of Hour 5, these models show a loss of 14 mph between a 900 gallon load and an 1150. On the actual flights, she carried 947 and 1100, which narrows the performance gap. But there was a reduction in speed. And the weight penalty persisted throughout the flight. Over 18 hours, how much is it? An average 5 mile penalty is 90 miles. An 18 hour flight plan takes 19+12 before they "must be on" , and the reduced speed may be part of the reason.. I'm tired of the numbers too, and I'm making silly mistakes - but let's try one more quick set of calculations and end it for the day. Assume that the KJ flight profile is used for both flights (ie, no increase to 72 gph in hour 2). With 947 gallons and 4 people (actual Hawaii departure), weight at the start of Hour 5 would be about 12,700 pounds, which gives a speed factor of .7517 and an estimated True airspeed of 143. With 1100 gallons and 2 people (less misc. gear) (actual Lae departure), weight at the start of Hour 5 would be about 13,100 pounds, which gives a speed factor of .7175 and an estimated True airspeed of 136. The penalty in this hour seems to be about 7 mph, rather than the 14 we saw comparing the 900 gallon and 1150 gallon flights. After slightly more than 10 hours, weights would be reduced by 1700 pounds, to 11,000 (speed factor .9326 x 175 = 163.2) and 11,400 pounds (sf .8839 x 175 = 154.7), a difference of 8 1/2 mph. What would be the average over the entire flight? Maybe we'll do those calculations another day. And to all a good night! Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric Oscar, I really do thank you for your patience with my denseness. The numbers are indeed wearying, especially for those of us who are numerically challenged in the first place, but it's worth slogging it out because natural law is one of the few absolutes we have in this mystery. I think you may be on to something. As you note, Earhart expected the flight to take 18 hours and yet it was 19 hours or so before "we must be on you". We can't say 19 hours and 12 minutes exactly because the message was sent very close to her scheduled transmission time of quarter-past the hour. I think the best we can say is that the flight to "we must be on you" took roughly an hour longer than she expected it to. The question is, why? Stronger than expected headwinds? Maybe, but there's no evidence of that. Her "time chart" for the world flight (second attempt) now on file at Purdue has the Lae/Howland leg flightplanned for 17 hours and 1 minute (150 mph). Her 18 hour estimate was made in Lae and apparently anticipated an average 8 mph headwind component. However, her "height 7,000 feet, speed 140 knots" transmission back to Lae at 4 hours and 18 minutes into the flight seems to indicate that they were actually picking up some tailwind at that time. So why did the flight take an hour longer than anticipated? I think you may have found the answer. A. As far as we have been able to determine, the Kelly Johnson recommendations for the Oakland/Hono flight are the only long range power management instructions she ever received. We know that the Oakland/Hono flight went very well from a fuel conservation standpoint. I see no reason to believe she was not content to use that same formula for similar flights at similar weights, and it should have worked very well. B. As you point out, Lae/Howland was the first time she had flown the airplane at a weight greater than the Oakland/Hono flight. C. If she didn't understand the degree to which the greater weight would affect her speed, and if, in fact, it is the case that the greater weight slowed the airplane by an aggregate of about 8 mph over the entire flight - bingo - there's the added hour. If the arithmetic works it's a pretty good argument that she was using the old Kelly Johnson formula. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:05:46 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Clarified .... preparing to escape from California on Sunday if my lungs can take that much more stuff in the air I am breathing. You folks out here must have iron lungs Oscar, Your posting of a longer range fuel plan is incredible. Too bad AE only had Kelly Johnson. That was very thorough and detailed. I think I even understood it. Although I might not totally agree AE came anywhere near flying that profile I appreciate the points you made in doing this. Namely that we may be too quick sometimes in coming to conclusions. You have shown me that at least it was technicially possible to end up with more fuel than is conventionally thought. I hope she did. If I didn't get lost in the figures I believe you indicated a fuel consumption factor of .48 and possibly .46 (?) per horsepower per engine. Did I get that right? That figure I believe you said referred to pounds. I don't dispute that but it made me wonder why it was in pounds rather than a liquid amount. Do you know why? Just curiosity. It also brought to mind a question I tried to get an answer to earlier and that is how to figure horsepower at different RPM and manifold pressure settings. Can you tell me that? I suppose CCs of the engine goes into the formula and maybe some constant or other factor. I've seen it before but can't find it again. Does mixture affect horsepower or just fuel consumption? You can see my low level of understanding of recips. I flew only a few props and mostly pure jets and turboprops. You have certainly made me reopen some of my conclusions although I may not alter them significantly for other reasons. I really appreciate when someone goes to such extents to help us all better understand some of the factors involved in our mystery. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:07:02 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Mantz citation I reviewed Carringtons book and I find no reference to Mantz telling Carrington that the Phoenix was an alternative. It could be in there but well hidden. But even if Vidal was on the witness stand with a hearsay statement from Amelia, she could well have changed her route, say to Niku, based on all the circumstances at the time. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:11:19 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Landing Disaster > From Ric > >It's interesting. You and I have both spent lots of time at the Seven Site >and you feel that somebody sitting in the shade of a ren tree up on the ridge >could hear people talking down by the water's edge on the beach. My >impression is that I couldn't shout loud enough to make somebody on the ridge >hear me if my life depended on it. > >Any other Seven Site denizens want to weigh in on this one? I'll have to side with Ric on this one. While surveying the site, 30 meters was about the limit that we could hear each other, even with the advantage of no scaevola between us to absorb the sound. Given the sound-absorbing qualities of dense scaevola and the perpetual white noise created by the wind going through the tops of the brush and the ocean surf, I'm certain that a person at the high point (and coolest spot) of the 7-site would be unable to hear shouting, much less normal conversation on the beach. My ears suffer from 40 years of flying, but I never heard the Naiad approach from the lagoon side either, nor could I hear the helicopter until it was almost directly overhead. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:13:16 EST From: Suzanne Subject: Re: AE on Front Page of The Everett Daily Herald >Interesting front page. I saved the file to hard disk, trying "CFM" and >also the "JPG" extension, but can't read it with Quick View Plus, which >reads just about anything. Do you have some wizard software?? > >Cam Warren No, I don't have any special software. Did you make sure to save the "larger" picture of the newspaper? It has a pixel size of 1000 x 1405 pixels. (The smaller version is 290 x383 pixels.) To get to the larger photo, you have to double click on the smaller photo on the web page front: http://www.heraldnet.com/100/index.cfm?image=3jul1937#historic This is the direct link to the larger picture: http://www.heraldnet.com/100/images/3jul1937lg.gif Put your mouse over the pic, right click, and choose "save picture as" and save it to your hard disk, without the html code. You will see it's actually a "gif" format and not a "jpg" format. Then, open the picture in any picture-viewing software. A good all-around one is VuePrint Pro http://www.hamrick.com/upg.html it's easy to zoom in and out, by right and left mouse clicking. I've got Quick View Plus also, and it does show the picture. And again, the type of monitor you have can make a difference. Generally, trinitron screen offer the sharpest picture quality, while LCD screens offer the weakest quality. CRT screens have a wide range of quality and clarity. Try setting your screen resolution to at least 1152 x 864 True Color, reboot. (Go to Display Properties in your Control Panel, Settings tab.) Good luck! Suzanne ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:18:40 EST From: Phil Major Subject: Itasca Communications Is it possible for someone to post or direct me to the official records of the radio messages recieved by the Itasca from the Electra with the exact text, frequency, local time and strength recieved. Is there a record of wind speeds and direction in the Area of Howland Island from midnight untilfour hours after the last message was recieved. Phil Major **************************************************************************** From Ric The Earhart Project Research CD available via the TIGHAR website (see http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR_Store/tigharstore2.html) may be what you're looking for. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:23:30 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Noonan grave Sort of an odd question, those twin radials probably burned a lot of oil on such a long Lae to Howland trip. Did they carry extra oil to replenish the engines in flight or was the trip not long enough to use that much? If so, I imagine that the oil would have been in large cans or can with a spout of some kind. If they did crash on the reef, I wonder if they would have thought to bring some for signaling purposes? What other uses might it have? Did they have a tool kit on board? (Just thinking of artifacts to look out for) Chris #2511 (who wishes Ric would post my complements to Oscar Boswell!) (From Ric: Okay.) I sure wish Oscar Boswell was my math teacher in high school, I sure coulda used him! Chris #2511 ************************************************************************** From Ric The airplane had oversize oil tanks. There was no way to add oil in flight and there is no reason to think there were cans of oil aboard the airplane. We really have no way of knowing what was aboard and what wasn't. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:25:28 EST From: Phil Tanner in Reading, UK Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Clarified Thinking about the merits of different fuel plans - what arrangements (if any) do we know/can we make an educated guess at for Earhart and Noonan grabbing some sleep during the flight when out of radio ranage at both ends? Would less frequent adjustments have been factored in with this in mind? LTM (who needs seven hours a night) Phil 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not aware of any such arrangements. Beyond that, we can only speculate. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:43:22 EST From: Russ Plehinger Subject: pertinent thoughts This may get me banned but I have 2 things to say. 1st--we all know that you are "the man" and have more expertise in the area of AE & FN but is it really necessary for you to be so sarcastic and smug when others present ideas and theories that you don't agree with. 2nd--I had some weird idea that this forum was to evaluate evidence regarding the Earhart flight. So why all the nonsense about grammar and nudity and the redundant dribble about island names. Does anyone really care to tune into all of this? *************************************************************************** From Ric No, criticism of my immoderate moderating will not get you banned. I make no apology for my failure to suffer fools gladly or for my indulgence of occasional whimsical excursions for the sake of a little comic relief. We take the work very seriously, but not ourselves. I take as many punches as I throw. Solving the Earhart Mystery is an extremely difficult task and we're not here to exercise some kind of politically correct notion that all opinions are created equal. I try my best to keep ad hominum attacks off the forum but stupid is stupid and it reveals itself without my help. This can be a pretty rough place and sometimes a pretty silly place, and I really don't expect everyone who tries it to like it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:47:35 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo Ron Bright wrote (excerpts): >For years I have looked at that very famous photo of Amelia and Fred .... >looking intently at a large world map. AE is in her checkered shirt and >Fred in his usual dark long sleeved dress shirt. > >My guess is the photo was taken on 31 May 37 at Miami It's interesting that you mentioned this photo, since I'd just seen it on the web at this URL: http://celebrate2000.cjonline.com/stories/051799/his_1937.shtml That page states: Aviator Amelia Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan hold a map of the Pacific Ocean showing the route of their final flight before Earhart's around-the-world attempt in 1937. --ASSOCIATED PRESS/FILE A larger photo is here: http://celebrate2000.cjonline.com/images/051799/Amelia_Earhart.jpg To me, the picture looks doctored. It may look that way due to the image being a low resolution one. Yet, in the photo, her left arm looks like it's at an unnatural position, and her left hand and arm look drawn on the photo. With her elbow at her bustline, would her hand reach up so far? So my point is, if the picture is possibly doctored, the "route" could have been sketched on as well. As the famous "I Heard It Through The Grapevine" song lyrics go, "People say believe half of what you see, son, and none of what you hear." LTM, Suzanne ************************************************************************* From Ric I see what you mean. AE's left arm definitely looks weird. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:00:29 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Howland off-set LOP approach Danke schoen. David Katz ******************************************* From Ric Bitte. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:01:53 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Noonan grave II I think that the bones are the most intriguing part of the story. As a physician myself, I doubt that the good doctor saw many human skeletons, unless he did a lot of forensic anthropology investigating murders in the islands. How many murders could there have been? The doctor most certainly did have "an axe to grind". The previously uninhabited islands, like Canton/Kanton were claimed by both the US and Britain, and at the time had economic value as potential airplane landing sites for cross-Pacific flight. It makes a difference if the skeleton is local, as it would give added value to the claim that "we" (the Gilbertese and the British) have been on this island since ancient times. If the bones were AE's or Noonan's, this would make and strengthen an American claim to "our island where our brave pioneers died in an attempt to cross the Pacific." If your salary was paid by the British government, and there was any doubt that the skeletons were American or Pacific, what would you say? Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Who knows on which side her bread is buttered) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:28:09 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Points well taken, Ric and Skeet. Until Ric's post this morning I hadn't really thought about my own auditory experience at the Seven Site, and having now done so I think you're right. It would be easy enough for someone to pass by on the beach, even engaged in a good deal of chatter, without being heard. Pretty awful to imagine that one or more of them may have been alive and missed by Maude and Bevington. There's a helluva novel in this. ******************************************************************** From Ric Think about finding footprints after it's too late. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:29:52 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noonan grave II For Dan Postellon -- I generally agree with you about Hoodless' ability to analyze bones, particularly since he hadn't been doing doctoring very long. He'd come out to Fiji as a teacher, and only very recently had gone back to England and gotten his MD. No offence to his memory; he was a truly great man in the history of Pacific medicine, but there's no reason to think that he was a bones expert. As to whether he had an axe to grind, I wouldn't want to cast aspersions, but you're right about the political situation between the US and GB at that time regarding the Phoenix Islands. Plus, I've always wondered if larger geopolitics may have played a role in Sir Harry Luke's unwillingness to let the Yanks know about the bones find. The Battle Britain was underway; England was fighint for its life; Churchill and Roosevelt were trying to get the US engaged; Lend-Lease was underway, and Lindbergh was travelling the country trying to keep the US out of the War. Gotta wonder whether there was a certain reluctance to spread around the idea that AE had died on a British-held island. However, I've asked Sir Harry's erstwhile Aide-de-Camp, Sir Ian Thomson about this, and he says he never heard of such a consideration. Anyhow, on balance there doesn't seem to have been much reason for Sir Harry to want to get the Americans involved; whether that influenced Hoodless in any way -- even subconsciously -- is something we can't know. It's also worth noting that even when one has the bones in hand, and real experts looking at them, there can be lots of arguments about just what kind of person it is, as shown by the current case of "Kennewick Man" in Washington State, whose Native American credentials have been challenged by some highly qualified physical anthropologists and defended by others. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:03:27 EST From: Russ Plehinger Subject: gas and oil It has been mentioned that "we have no way of knowing just what was on board". Has anyone ever thought that AE might have had extra tins of fuel on board. These could have been easily added to the cabin tanks. In many of the Atlantic flights of the 1930s (as well as numerous endurance record flights) carrying extra fuel in tins was quite common. *************************************************************************** From Ric There is no mention by Collopy or Chater of such extra fuel being carried and, as far as we know, there were no filler necks on the fuselage tanks that could be acessed from inside the cabin. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:10:00 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Foot Prints To Ric and Tom King, But wouldn't the cast-a-way(s) have left foot prints in the sand to be seen as well? Dick Pingrey in Selah, 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point. However, the footprints might logically be only right around the beach in front of the Seven Site. The sand there is very deep and soft and footprints are just depressions in the sand. Someone trudging past could very well miss them. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:12:33 EST From: Michael Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo Well - doggone, Freds right hand looks pretty dodgy as well. And ... what is the map resting on? If Fred was holding it pressed against the tail fin, then surely the rolled part of the map would be crushed flat????? Perhaps somebody would like to try holding a map as per the picture? Just some more food for thought! Regards Michael [in Edinburgh Scotland] **************************************************************************** From Ric It's not quite as strange as it appears. The map is resting on the tip of the horizontal stabilizer that sticks out past the vertical fin. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:14:07 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Specific Fuel Consumption > From Alan Caldwell > > If I didn't get lost in the figures I believe you indicated a fuel > consumption factor of .48 and possibly .46 (?) per horsepower per engine. Did > I get that right? That figure I believe you said referred to pounds. I don't > dispute that but it made me wonder why it was in pounds rather than a liquid > amount. Do you know why? Just curiosity. > > It also brought to mind a question I tried to get an answer to earlier and > that is how to figure horsepower at different RPM and manifold pressure > settings. Can you tell me that? I suppose CCs of the engine goes into the > formula and maybe some constant or other factor. I've seen it before but > can't find it again. Does mixture affect horsepower or just fuel consumption? Alan Caldwell's questions about "specific fuel consumption" raise issues we've discussed before (particularly in the posting "Learning to think about the Performance of the 10E" on 4/11/00). Consumption is measured in pounds because the engine "burns pounds" - that is, it is the DENSITY of the fuel that determines the power available from the fuel. We say a gallon of ordinary aviation gas weighs 6 pounds, and it is very close to that at 59 F and 29.92 inches of mercury (standard conditions). In colder conditions, because of contraction that volume of fuel weighs more than 6 pounds. In warmer conditions, because of expansion, it weighs less than 6 pounds. Note well - the total weight of the fuel doesn't change, only the VOLUME of the fuel changes. Assume a 2 gallon container (to eliminate the question of venting): If you place 1 gallon in the container at 59 F (weighing 6 pounds) and allow the fuel to warm up to 80 F, there will be slightly more than 1 gallon of liquid in the container, but the gas will still weigh 6 pounds. If the fuel is cooled to 30 F, the fuel will still weigh 6 pounds, but the volume of it will be less than 1 gallon. (You can chill the fuel with dry ice if you wish. This will enable you to put "heavier" gallons in the tank, and pack more energy into the plane. As the fuel returns to ambient temperature it will expand and the tanks - if full to the brim - will "vent" the excess fuel. Any lightplane pilot has seen fuel streaming from the vents as the sun warms the wing of a plane topped off early in the morning. The dry ice technique was used by none other than Paul Mantz to fuel his Mustang for the 1946 Bendix race. The plane's tanks had a volumetric capacity of 856 gallons. By cooling the fuel, Mantz was able to put THE WEIGHT EQUIVALENT OF 875 gallons (5,250 pounds) into the 856 gallon (5136 pound) tanks - an increase of roughly 2.2%. See Birch Matthews, WET WINGS & DROP TANKS, pages 158-160 and 177. There's a picture of Mantz' plane with the wings draped in blankets to insulate against heating and venting in Robert C.Mikesh, EXCALIBUR III: THE STORY OF A P-51 MUSTANG, page 12. This P-51 C [NX-1202] was purchased from Mantz by Charles F. Blair, Jr., who used it on his solo flight over the North Pole, and is in the collection of the National Air and Space Museum.) I don't know how to figure horsepower at different RPM and manifold settings, without the manufacturer's chart for the engine. (I know that there is a theoretical way to do it, but I think the manufacturer does it with a dynamometer.) Modern piston engines are assumed to burn 0.45 pounds of fuel per horsepower hour, with normal leaning techniques. This is equivalent to 7 1/2 gph per 100 horsepower being produced. Fuel consumptions somewhat higher than that were normally expected from the P&W radials in the 1930's. P&W said the 10E's engines would burn 0.52 pounds per hour at maximum cruise hp (412 per engine) and 0.48 at 350 hp. As I mentioned, the 10A export manual indicates a range of 0.46 to 0.48 at lower horsepower settings IF (as it is careful to point out) the Cambridge analyzer is used - "without this unit, it is quite hard to obtain the ranges shown consistently as it is advisable to run the mixture on the rich side when uncertain as to just what it is." (page 24). When you look at the 10E Power Control Chart and locate the RPM and MP settings given by KJ for 60, 51 and 43 gph, you find that the settings correspond very closely to 400, 350 and 300 hp per engine, but the fuel consumption figures are significantly BELOW what would be expected at those horsepowers. At 300 hp per engine (600 total) an sfc of 0.48 would give 48 gph; an sfc of 0.46 would give 46 gph; and so forth. (The strict coincidence of the sfc and fuel consumption only exists at 600 hp total power for mathematical reasons - makes it easy to calculate.) KJ's indication of 43 gph at this setting is equal to an sfc of 0.43 - too low for 600 hp (particularly when maximum leaning is not being used). Alan's question "Does mixture affect horsepower or just fuel consumption?" hits this nail on the head. Mixture can affect BOTH horsepower and fuel consumption. Back to the Cessna 210M for a minute. Cessna provides detailed charts showing TAS at various power settings, altitudes, and temperatures, at "recommended lean mixture" (ie, 25 degrees rich of peak - if you don't know what that means, don't worry about it). Each of the 6 pages of the chart contains the notation "For best fuel economy ... operate at 6 [pounds per hour] leaner than shown ... or at peak [exhaust gas temperature] ..." NONE OF THE CHARTS MENTIONS SOMETHING ELSE THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO THAT. Buried in the "Amplified Procedures" section (page 4-19) is the note "This will result in approximately 6% greater range .. [and] 4 KNOTS DECREASE IN SPEED." If leaning the mixture to peak only affected fuel consumption, the speed wouldn't change - there would be nothing to cause it to change if the power produced remained the same. The aggressive leaning reduces horsepower a little, as well as eliminating the fuel waste caused by running too rich. Let's illustrate the effect with the "rule of thumb" standard cruise in the 210 - 160 knots at 80 pph, which equals 2 nm per pound of fuel. If at the same MP and RPM settings we lean 6 pph to 74 pounds per hour, and speed falls off the predicted 4 knots, we are getting 156 knots on 74 pph, or 2.108 knots per pound - about a 5.5% increase. In short, the fuel consumption figures given by KJ tend to indicate that in addition to operating efficiently, the engines were producing a bit less horsepower than the MP and RPM settings given called for, because of ... ? ( non-standard conditions, instrument variations, whatever?). Thanks for the kind words. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:20:19 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Prolonging the project Rollin Reineck snipes: <> WELL, EXCUUUUUUUSE ME! Think what you like about TIGHAR, but I can assure you that all of us on NIKU IIII are not a bunch of dolt headed boobs who took a month out of our lives to go out there and sip pina coladas while discussing how we can prolong the project by means of fooling the rest of the world and laying the ground work for future expeditionary fun. In fact, it was quite the opposite with a serious sense of urgency to find the "smoking gun" infused into everything that we did. Many a conversation on strategy and tactics were had, and all of them were slanted on taking our best shot at finding what we were looking for. Solving the mystery is the key to prolonging the project, not the other way around. The smoking gun will only be the beginning of the unraveling of the "the rest of the story," and the impetus for further research. Perhaps you'd like to tell us about the latest efforts of the AES and the progress you've made in solving the mystery. I'd love to hear it, give us your best stuff to chew on. Who knows you might change all of our minds on the subject. In the mean time (I expect it will be a while before you share anything) please don't insult TIGHAR and its membership by offering up pot shots on how we're not trying to solve the mystery. It is just those kind of quips that undermine your reputation as a serious researcher, and indicate that you are incapable of being objective. Andrew McKenna ************************************************************************** From Ric Down boy - sit, sit. Good boy. Rollin, don't SAY stuff like that. If this chain snaps you're toast. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:24:10 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: pertinent thoughts <<...This can be a pretty rough place and sometimes a pretty silly place, and I really don't expect everyone who tries it to like it.>> Well said Ric. For this newbie, I enjoy the hell out of the forum & I frequently catch myself laughing out loud! Keep up the good work my friend!! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:30:11 EST From: Carol Linn Dow Subject: Re: Island Names I was in the Boston area like once in my life to call on Parker Brothers Games and to meet Muriel Morrissey, Amelia's sister. I had extra time so I visited the Radcliffe library and got stuck on Amelia's book of poems (not very scientific I'm afraid). I wish I would have realized at the time what was there (the Hurd Maps). Right now I don't have any plans to return to the Boston area. Anyone who is in the neighborhood can stop in. By the way Muriel was a super gal. We really hit it off. I have a small collection of letters from her that I'll donate to the Library in Atchison some day. I'm rambling on a little bit, but some of our people might like to know about Muriel. I called her from Boston and received an instant invitation to visit her home in a Boston suburb. She was a very gracious and kind woman, and anyone who visited Muriel's home was instantly invited in for tea and cookies. Muriel was very slender, the same as Amelia, and an exceptionally avid listener. The air crackled with electricity when you talked with her. I believe she was in her sixties when I visited her, but she was not diminished by age by any amount. She was active (chased the cat out the door) and had a high degree of enthusiasm for almost anything she did. We talked about Amelia, and Muriel believed her sister crashed at sea and was lost forever. There was a Commander Thompson ( I believe, I would have to check the books) from the Navy who called on her and impressed upon Muriel the extent of the storm the Lexington Carrier Group ran into in the events that followed Sept. 2, 1937. He didn't see how anything could have survived at sea if they went down in the ocean in the area close to Howland Island. There was quite a storm system that was evidently developing in the area. On the other hand, Amelia's mother (Amy) believed she was on some type of a spy mission. Muriel didn't mention anything about spy missions but Amy's position on her daughters disappearance did come out in later newspaper articles. So... we're back to the drawing board. What happened and where's the airplane? Hope you enjoyed this short narrative on Muriel. Carol Linn Dow ************************************************************************** From Ric Uh, Carol, it was July 2nd and the Lexington group did not run into any storm. It is interesting, however, if it's true that Commander Thompson called upon Muriel to assure her that her sister went down at sea. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:47:21 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan According to Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, page 161 the specific range varies directly with the weight ratio. SR2 = SR1 x W1/W2 So for 14000 vs 10500 the specific range would equal .75 times the specific range at 10500 meaning that it would take 1/3 more fuel to go the same distance if everything is done right.. However, to achieve maximum range the airplane must be operated at the airspeed that produces L/D max (lift over drag). This is approximately the same as best rate of climb speed. It seems to me that 150 mph is well above that speed (does anybody have a flight manual for a 10a that gives the best rate of climb airspeed?). This speed then varies with the square root of the weight ratios so the cruise speed at 14000 pounds to achieve L/Dmax is 15% above the speed at 10500 pounds. It appears that they were operating well above the speed for L/Dmax for 10500 pounds. Since a higher speed is needed at 14000 pounds then they were probably operating closer to the L/Dmax airspeed and so were operating more efficiently. This presupposes that they did not increase their airspeed still higher while operating the the higher weight. However, they would have done better to slow down to the correct speeds for L/D max for the takeoff weight and then periodically reduce speed as fuel was burned off. They would not need any fancy power setting tables for this. They only need to operate the engines at the lowest rpm that the engines will tolerate and then set the manifold pressure to achieve the target airspeeds. Also, the power required varies with the weight ratio raised to the 1.5 power. This means to fly at the most efficient speed at 14000 pounds requires 53% more power than at 10500 pounds with a fuel flow increased by the same 53%. See if this fits in with your calculations. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:54:07 EST From: Ed Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo You probably are aware that there are living witnesses to AE/FN's time in Miami. In fact there is a Gentleman who I think may be a member a TIGHAR who was the last to put fuel in the plane before her takeoff. His name is Bill Schleisenger(spelling?) who is a pilot himself (Spitfires, American Eagle squadron, P51, U.S. Army Air Corp, etc.) a real hero. Maybe Bill could shed some light on events that took place, etc. He was interviewed by the Miami Herald when the flight was reenacted a few years ago. I had a chance to break bread with him and what a Gentleman! He's walking history! LTM Ed of PSL #2415 *************************************************************************** From Ric I've never talked to Mr. Schleisenger. Eyewitnesses 65 years after the fact are a real challenge to the historical researcher. The best you can hope for is that they can point you to some source that will verify what they tell you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:03:14 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Brussels Subject: Re: Noonan grave Chris' question is interesting. Any pilot has to calculate weight and balance before take off. The includes calculation of the weight of the fuel in the tanks and oil the in the engines. I don't know about 1937 procedures but today the weight and balance sheet has to be on board. AE must have made the calculation and probably took it with her. But isn't there a chance she left a copy ? or let's try an other approach : if we know to the last drop (or almost) how much fuel she bought in Lae, there should have been a bill for oil. Pratt & Whitney could answer the question how big the oil tanks were. If we know that we can figure out how much oil the engines had used to get to Lae. Do P&W still have documents on the Wasp SH3-1 engine ? If not, what about people who fly a Lockheed 10E ? They should have a manual. I'm thinking of Linda Finch in particular. She flew her Lockheed 10A turned into a 10E along (almost) the same route and must have had the same big oil tanks. How much oil did she use ? LTM (who wants to know everything) *************************************************************************** From Ric The Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection Report for NR16020 dated May 19, 1937 (the last one before the world flight) shows tha airplane having an 80 gallon oil capacity in 4 tanks. That's a lot of oil. Maximum oil capacity for the off-the-shelf 10E was 17 gallons. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:28:40 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Castaway Hangout Ric wrote: >I have to disagree. We know there was at least one castaway on the island - >possibly two people, a man and a woman. We also know at least one place >where he/she/they hung out. There is nothing baseless about that. Did you mean to say: "We also know at least one place where he/she/they....may have....hung out."? Isn't the place where the castaway hung out still a theory? LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul MN *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. So is evolution. Let's briefly review the reasons we think that the Seven Site is where the castaway(s) hung out. 1. It fits (as good as any place does) Gallagher's description of where he found the bones. 2. We have photographic proof of brush-clearing activity at the site contemporaneous with Gallagher's search for more bones and artifacts (search done in the fall of 1940; photo taken June 1941). 3. We have documentary evidence in island maps that the Seven Site was set aside for some purpose attributed to Gallagher, but no mention of activity in any of his reports (other than the "secret" bones file) that would explain what is going on there. 4. We have physical evidence recovered from the site ( charcoal, bird bones and the partial remains of a turtle) which matches Gallagher's description of what he found with the skeleton. 5. So far, analysis of the faunal material (animal remains) recovered from the site suggest inexpert non-islander practices (clams carried inland and bashed open; a turtle butchered out on the beach and only the shell and meat brought inland). 6. We have photographic evidence of a human presence (trails) at the Seven Site that predates the settlement of the island. One of the trails just happens to join the clam shell deposits at the site with an old clam bed on the lagoon shore. 7. We have recovered artifacts from the site which appear to be beachcombed objects used as cutting tools. 8. There is an old excavation at the site which appears to be a burial of something small that was later dug up - which, of course, matches Gallagher's description the burial and exhumation of the skull. I'm probably forgetting something, but the point is it's pretty overwhelming. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:31:59 EST From: David Katz Subject: St. Louis diversion In re: > I think AE fabricated the story to cover the fact that they > intentionally chose to bypass Dakar (because of the horrible visibility) > to land at St. Louis. They didn't have permission to land at St. Louis > and there were no customs facilities there - and they couldn't get > permission because the radio wasn't working. > > The French authorities might easily have impounded the airplane and > caused all sorts of trouble, but by saying it was a mistake ("Silly me. > I should have listened to my navigator.") she avoided any delay. It's > speculation, of course, but there is no way to reconcile AE's version > with the map. > > Anybody who doesn't think that AE was capable of lying to get around the > authorities hasn't done their homework'... Exactly what is your basis for presuming that AE did not have permission to land at St. Louis? She certainly had permission to land at Dakar. What motive would the French authorities have for impounding the plane, or even causing a delay? Why would AE believe that they would? Please cite some factual basis for your premise. Thank you. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Even today, countries have designated "airports of entry" which have customs services available. Take off from Buffalo, fly across into Canada and land at a little airport that is not an "airport of entry" and see what happens. It was even more stringent in 1937. A major part of Earhart's planning for the World Flight was obtaining landing clearances for her intended destinations. Even so, there were glitches (there was a big flap and delay in Darwin, Austalia because her immunization records were not in order). She had permission to land at Dakar but that took special arrangements. Remember, there were very few international flights into French Senegal in those days. Ever mess with the French? I am, of course, guessing about why AE made up the story, but it's very clear from the chart and from Noonan's letter that it's not true. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:24:58 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Sydenham ...mercifully back in Austin (no offence to Californians) Thanks, Ron for a couple of your posts. In shooting at the Gilberts and Marshalls I have never denied the possibility of our heroes getting there nor have I ever championed the ideas. It is the Electra I have focused on in trying to fathom it's flying possibilities upon departing the Howland area if indeed that occurred. Oscar, in great detail and well supported, has tried to point out we might be cutting AEs fuel reserve too short. I think he has certainly made a good point that it was possible to fly the plane much more conservatively than we believed was possible. I don't necessarily believe that was done but I must rethink some of the factors in light of Oscar's postings. You add much to our understanding as does Oscar and many others on this forum. I'm often awed at what this group can come up with. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:26:00 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Confusion > Caldwell and others make a good case for what Noonan would do when AE > couldn't find Howland. BUT, they are overlooking one factor;. i.e., Fred > wasn't flying the airplane. Amelia was (and don't you forget it). Cam, you may well be right about AEs strong headedness. And as you say who will ever know. I've thought of that possibility but just couldn't come up with an alternate plan she might have insisted upon. She might have been strong willed but she wasn't stupid nor was she a navigator. Fred was both a navigator AND a pilot. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:27:54 EST From: Nicolas Uribe Subject: North star? I'm sure my question has been answered before at some point in time, but for the benefit of us "lurkers" with a limited knowledge of celestial navigation, WHY was it that FN had "no idea of his north-south position on the LOP?" Surely he would have sighted the North Star at 4 or 5 AM - just before sunrise - thus giving him a pretty good idea of his latitude? Kind regards, Nicolas Uribe Cali, Colombia **************************************************************************** From Ric Would someone in the Celestial Choir care to answer this? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:28:47 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Landing Disaster > From Dick Pingrey > > I will stick with my thought that landing any where other then > Howland would be a disaster. Dick, first of all seeing my name and Ric's linked must be a terrifying thought to both of us. I guess landing somewhere on dry land under those circumstances would have been a great victory to me. "Live to fight another day" To me, water would have been the disaster. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:30:17 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Oil Consumption As I recall the R-985's in my Twin Beech used about 1/2 pint per hour(or less sometimes) between the 2 motors combined. The R-1340's being an identical engine should have been about the same as long as everything else was normal. My engines were fresh overhauls at the time as well and running like swiss watches. Doug Brutlag #2335 (who enjoys the sound of finely tuned round engines) **************************************************************************** From Ric I assume that you're using "identical" in a general sense, ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:37:19 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > I would probably circle for a short time, Whatever they did FN had to be able to plot it to keep from losing his position. It would not have been random circling. (And I know you didn't say random) The only thing that makes sense to me is to fly half standard rate turns and race track lines parellel to his LOP. At the lower airspeed he might have opted for standard rate turns so they could see down at the water better but it and the airspeed needed to be plottable. My nav flew "quarter" turns and "Dime" turns because they were easy to plot quickly. They had to surmise they were either short or long of target in addition to being either north or south so a race track would have been the thing to do. They milled around for about an hour so they may have turned north on the LOP direction for a short time, then south making their turns to the left both times. After flying south for a while they would have covered the line through where they thought Howland was and now they need to similarly fly a line north and south some miles to the west then some miles to the east. They may have tried one more line even further east and even further west but I doubt they would have done more. My guess is that they thought their problem was one of north/south error rather than east/west. They may not have done that at all of course or they might have put all their search in north/south. The point is that whatever they did FN had to be able to follow it. My personal belief is that at some point he had AE climb so he could get another fix. I don't know what the tops of the CU were. Too high and they most likely did not climb. anyone know the cloud tops? Bases were around 2300 or 2400 feet I think. Correct me on that. Alan #2329 *********************************************************************** From Ric Bases were at 2,650 over Howland but that was at noon. No mention of tops. On a typical morning out there it's not unusual to get build-ups that look to go to maybe 5 or 6 thousand. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:40:48 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Island names OK, two substantive things for me to ask/state. Forgive me if these Q's have already been asked, but I am just getting to last weeks email and have 150+ to go: Q1: Say "Duke of York" emphatically (as if you were trying to make that information clear over the radio) and I find that in my 2002 American English I emphasize "Duke" and "York", glossing over the "of". This is due to several reasons, the most obvious being the hard "k" consonant sounds. This could explain why, over a static-filled reception, Betty could say "New York or something that sounds like New York". Both share the York and the "ew" sound of the if the first word. In hurried, unclear speech, the "Duke of" could easily make someone wonder "what was that word?". I do it all the time when listening to music; I'm always pulling out the J-Card to read the lyrics (quick aside, if a cassette has a "J-Card", what do we call it on a CD?) Q2: Now to my supposition as to why (assuming AE transmitted she was on D of Y island) AE/FN could've thought they were on DofY and not Niku. Supposing they turned NW first on their LOP, went as we suppose for 30 minutes or so, and didn't see Howland. They would then think they are two far south of Howland(we know, now, that they could be right on it and not see it due to cloud cover, etc) and proceed SE on the recip of the LOP. Thinking they were two far South of Howland when they began their SE course, they would forward their starting position along that line farther SE than actual. When they saw the island and landed, they would assume it was DofY because, for time in the air, airspeed, etc, it couldn't be Niku because they started (in their mind) much further South of Howland than reality. This has happened to most of us pilots at some time in our career if we have had the (mis)fortune to do much dead reckoning. Ok, fire away..... Those are my thoughts LTM -troy-- TIGHAR # two-thousand something ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:54:01 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: 10E's Range The on-going discussion regarding the range of AE's Electra makes me wonder if there are any surviving fuel consumption records from AE's previous flights. If there is evidence that she habitually/occasionally/never hit the mark regarding fuel consumption on her many earlier flights, it seems we could draw some inferences regarding her technique in July 1937. I apologies if this issue has been covered before. LTM, who is a creature of habit Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric It's an interesting point. I can't think of a time in AE's career when she had to land early because of gas. On the 1932 Atlantic crossing she landed in Ireland having used only 350 of the 420 gallons she took off with. Her Honolulu/ Oakland and Mexico City/Newark flights likewise do not seem to have been at all close on gas. The Oakland/Honolulu flight has huge reserves. Whatever her other failings, Amelia seems to have habitually played it safe on fuel consumption. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:55:46 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Foot Prints >Someone trudging past could very well miss them. In the tired of the afternoon, one tends to focus on just placing one foot in front of the other. Between coral rubble and deep sand, finding firm footing is a constant problem. It would not surprise me if our intrepid hikers missed unexpected clues. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:58:38 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Brussels Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan For Gary LaPook Yes. That manual exists. Ask Cpt. Alan MacLeod, ex- Air Canada, who flies a Lockheed 10A. His e-mail address is : alan.macleod@sympatico.ca LTM (who loved flying the Electra) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:59:57 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Expedition criteria Exploiting Ric's wickedly playful nature of late and drawing from recent Forum postings, here are my six new criteria for participation in future Niku expeditions. All participants must: 5. Understand basic navigation (i.e. the BIG arrow on a map usually points north); 4. Explain the difference between KmPH, KPH, and MPH; 3. Have the wit, satire, and subtleties of a Dorothy Parker, Ogden Nash, or Sam Kennison; 2. Possess impeccable grammar; 1B. Look good in a loin cloth or thong; 1A. Look even better without a loin cloth or thong. LTM, who has forsaken hedonism Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:11:00 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: The Identical Sense Yep, I mean identical sense. The folks at the engine shop said the R-1340 was a growth version of the reliable R-985. Design similiar but greater displacement, bigger pineapple, beefier crank & main bearings......you know the routine. I'm guessing that when AE met her demise the engines had around 150-200 hours on them. The R-985 does not have a TBO (time before overhaul) per se-Pratt has an AD (airworthiness directive) on the crankshaft which requires an inspection to be done at 1600 hours, meaning you have to disassemble the case so you might as well perform an overhaul & bring the engine back to 0 time. Assuming all required, preventative, and routine maintenance was performed along the way, those motors should have performed faithfully, ran smooth, and had a lower(relatively speaking of course) oil consumption on the predicted/historical parameter. I don't believe they were major oil burners until they approached their recommended overhaul time. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:11:48 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Foot Prints When we got to the site this year, there were some very apparent turtle tracks up from the water to the vegetation fringe, and within a few days they were pretty well invisible. Of course, that was with a lot of people tromping up and down the beach. I'd guess that if a person had walked down to the water within a couple or three days before Bevington and the guys walked by, their tracks would have been clearly evident (assuming that the weather hadn't been too rough and the seas running too far up the beach), but older tracks would be easy to miss. Plus, the beach is most easily walked on down close to the water where the sand is firm, and there, of course, tracks aren't preserved. If Bevington & Co. were strung out along the beach near the water line, which seems likely, they wouldn't be able to see tracks very easily. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:13:50 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: North star? No way Nick. Assuming they were even close to their planned course line they were south of the equator which means the Polaris the North Star would have been more than 90 degrees up from their field of range to sight it. Polaris is very close to being on top of the North pole of the earth (don't ask me to quote how close). One can only sight up to 90 degrees perpendicular of whatever is available. In other words-impossible. Polaris is very useful to gauge latitude as a norm, but if you're south of the equator it's not available. Good question. This reminds me of an old sailing movie (black & white)- I think it was a 1940's--50's version of Captain Bligh or Cook or something. Anyway, they are trying to get an idea of their position when the Captain says "get me a latitude from Polaris". They were sailing in the south pacific near Tahiti or thereabouts. Ha! The writers really screwed up or didn't do their homework. Very amusing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:14:19 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: North Star Clarification I may have made a poor choise of words on my description of why Fred could not have seen Polaris. When I said it was more than 90 degrees up I meant from their position on Earth-not their actual plane of sighting. It would have been below the horizon off to their left (north, since they were heading east). I apologize for any confusion. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:16:59 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Last Will and Testament You and your navigator have been on a deserted island for nine days or a hundred and nine days. Food and water are a problem and your health is fading. You know you are not going to be rescued in the near future and you fear the end is very near. What do you do? Do you try to write a letter to your husband or wife and seal the document in some way as to protect it from the elements? Do you carve your name on a coconut tree? Do you scratch your initials on a rock? The point being, wouldn't you try to leave something for future searchers to find? This may sound a little romantic, even a bit silly, but leaving one's mark on the world is basic human nature. I'm sure if AE and FN were on Niku, they would have tried to leave something. Perhaps something simple as a pile of rocks with a personal item at it's center. However, storms, animal action or human interferrence destroyed what you left. Perhaps, its so simple, it has been overlooked by all who visit. Just a thought. ************************************************************************* From Ric Well, if it's there it has been overlooked by people who were trying very hard to look at everything. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:18:20 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Island Names For Carol Linn Dow, Carols story of meeting Muriel Morrisey was entertaining for if anyone had some inside dope, it seems Muriel would have been in on it. One of the unsolved collateral mysteries withing the Earhart mystery is did George Putman really trek behind Japanses lines for three days to get to a Marine Corp radio station off the China coast so he could "hear better" the Tokyo Rose broadcasts. He reportedly said after less than a minute that " ... although fiendishly well coached, but Amelia-never". Although this has been quoted in other research , the source of that information comes only from Muriel Morrisey, see p.266, of AE, My Courageous Sister. I have always doubted this story. Why would the US want to put George in such a perilous position when the radio broadcasts were quite clear in the So Pacific. I don't beleive he went there and the story by Muriel remains unresolved. Her mother, Amy, allegedly attended every single day of the Toyko Rose trial in San Francisco. Too bad when you visited you were unaware of some of these questions. She and Carol Osborne wrote a heck of a book. Ron Bright Bremerton, WA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:33:55 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Castaway Hangout Your description of all of the evidence at the 7 site suggests a pretty well established Castaway spot with remarkable pre-settlement well traveled trails, bird and shell evidence, and other stuff that suggests lots of activity for the pair of castaways . But the haunting question is how could Maude and Bevington and the colonists there just 2 1/2 months after AE's alleged landing at Niku missed such observable activity. It seems that all of the evidence of human activity that you point out would be quite fresh at that time. I just can't beleive that if AE/FN were still alive in Oct 37, when Maude,et al arrived . It seems that AE/FN (if capable) would continue to engage in affirmative actions to signal potential searchers,e.g.,flying kites,building fires, marks in the sand,etc., not only at the seven site but other strategic areas of the Island. Maude describes that every nite they build large camp fires up near the Norwich City for several days to keep the crabs away. Wouldn't AE and FN been looking in all directions day or night for help. My guess is that if AE and FN made it to Niku, they were dead by early Oct 37, and that any of the obvious visible signs of activity at the seven site were mostly obliterated when Maude and Bevington trudged by. LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ron. That's probably the best advertisement for the Aerial Tour anyone could write. Does anyone who has seen the video have any trouble whatsoever believing that somebody could be at the Seven Site and have no idea that somebody was building bonfires up on the shore near the Norwich City? Unless you've either been there yourself or seen the place from the air in the video you really have no idea what the situation is like. You also do not seem to have an accurate impression of what the Maude/Bevington visit was like. You might find it instructive to read or re-read Bevington's Journal at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:39:38 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Island names For this scenario to work it means that essentially they had to believe that they met the LOP 264 miles further south than they should have. I think it is just possible, as Ric suggsted, that AE could have lost track of her flying time from the supposed position of Howland (or where they met the LOP) and Fred was in no condition to put her right after the landing. However, if Fred believed he was at Atafu, he would be admitting to a 264 mile error in navigating to the LOP. Perhaps he did not get a celestial fix at all but to admit to himself that he was that far out would have been difficult. Especially as he probably wasn't. Even Clarence Williams did not think he would be more than 150 miles off. However, if he got a good sun shot at sunrise he would have been very confident of the LOP even though he didn't know his position on it. Consequently the non-appearance of Howland might have been interpreted as them being too far south (there were no islands to the north). It seems more likely though that he would have believed that they missed it and his navigation was generally good. The difficulty of spotting a small island without a lagoon amongst the cloud shadows would be well known to him. The amount that he would have reassessed his position of interception of the LOP in a southerly direction would in any case be only by the distance of the northerly leg of the LOP search. In other words they would have had to have flown 264 miles (less say 10 miles for extra visual range) north on the first leg of the search. This seems an unreasonable distance to fly unless Fred had reason to suspect that they were miles too far south. We doubt he used offset navigation so this would not in ordinary circumstances be a contributory factor. It is of course possible that he got no celestial fixes and so decided to use an offset of say 100 miles to the south. This could have added to an error of say 150 miles south caused by drift which he might want to take account of. However, if he did use an offset, it is more likely that he would have used an offset to the north. Then when they flew the (longer) southerly leg there would be less chance of missing Howland by not going far enough. They would also end up initially closer to Howland when they met the LOP as the offset offset their too-southerly course. A southerly offset of 100 miles would need a 300 mile northerly leg. A northerly offset would only need a 100 mile northerly leg assuming their maximum expected error was 150 miles and they searched 50 miles beyond the extreme expected position in both cases. Regards Angus. ****************************************************************************** From Ric I think you're suffering from a surfeit of "would haves". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:41:55 EST From: Ric Subject: No Forum Tuesday There will be no new forum postings on Tuesday, November 12. The forum will resume as usual on Wednesday. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:44:37 EST From: Ric Subject: No Forum Tuesday (correction) November??? Did I say November??? Make that February 12. Sheesh! LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:14:48 EST From: Ric Subject: Knob answers & questions Tom King and I spent a fascinating day yesterday at the Nondestructive Testing Lab at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD. Through Tom's contacts, the lab has undertaken the task of identifying the little metal knob (Artifact 2-6-S - 45) recovered from the Seven Site. So far, using ultrasound and conventional high-powered magnification, the lab has not been able to decipher the badly degraded raised letters and numbers on the face of the knob. We suspect that it could be a patent number. Yesterday was the day that they tried the Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) to see if better results could be obtained that way. Tom and I were on hand as observers. As you may or may not know, an SEM uses a beam of electrons to "excite" materials placed in a vacuum chamber. The result is graph with various peaks corresponding to the elements present. Thus, you can find out what elements something is made up of and in what proportions. It's also a good way to get really good, close-up look at something. Unfortunately, we found that the SEM did not make the raised markings any easier to read. They're going to try cleaning the artifact with ultrasound and then see if conventional microscopy and angled light will work better. We also tried to identify the elemental make-up of the artifact, and the results were surprising to say the least. Normally (make that, always) the peaks on the graph exactly line up with one of the elements in the Periodic Table (remember that big chart on the wall in chemistry class?) but in this case a reading taken on a place where the knob had been filed to expose bare metal resulted in a peak that did not align precisely with any element. That can't happen - but it did. After several hours of head-scratching and jokes about artifacts from Roswell, we concluded that the closest match is lead. The knob seems to be made of lead, but we also got one spot on the back edge of the knob where it came up bang-on aluminum. The only thing we can think is that the surface against which the knob rotated was aluminum and a fleck of aluminum remained after the knob broke off. So what sorts of devices have lead knobs that (perhaps) rotate against an aluminum surface? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:54:00 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Last Will and Testament I doubt if there's a one of us who's been to the island without fantasizing about finding a bottle with AE's diary in it -- or something. Trouble is -- besides the bigness of the place and the fact that we haven't looked at it all -- there are all kinds of simple things that COULD be where somebody secreted something -- a big rock here, a couple of rocks there. In 1989 we spent a long time puzzling over something we came to call "Coralhenge," on the mudflat at the head of the lagoon in Nutiran -- standing coral slabs and small cairns, arranged at intervals around the edge of the mudflat. We invested far more time than we probably should have in plotting them all out and scratching our heads before we figured out that they were property boundary markers from the 1950s. Then there's the tree at Aukaraime with names carved into it. Nope, not Amelia, not Fred, nor Koata, nor Gerald -- a bunch of I Kiribati names that don't match anybody in the records we've found so far, at the site where the shoe was found. One of many loose ends. We're looking, Lawrence, we're looking. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:01:52 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: island names > From Ric > > I think you're suffering from a surfeit of "would haves". Well - four "would haves" in such a long spiel is hardly repetitive. So I'm jumping to the conclusion that you think I'm jumping to conclusions. I don't think there's any problem with "would have" if one makes it clear the scenario is hypothetical and that the object of "would have" is in fact a necessary consequence; and even if it isn't, that most sane people would think that it is. Two w/hs were qualified by "likely" which leaves two to use as a sanity test. If you don't agree, you fail the test. (I bet he doesn't agree) Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric One thing I've always found useful in historical hypothesizing is to remember that whenever we say "would have" it means we're guessing. Anytime we say "so-and-so would have done thus and such, so therefore they would have done this other thing" we're piling guesses on top of guesses. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:05:18 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo > I've never talked to Mr. Schleisenger. Eyewitnesses 65 years after the > fact are a real challenge to the historical researcher. The best you can > hope for is that they can point you to some source that will verify what > they tell you. And of course, only by talking to these people while they're still around and asking the right questions can you know if there's a missed verifiable source out there somewhere... Maybe the odd surprise even... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric That's right, but I have to tell ya, it gets real old. Sometimes it seems like everyone who was within a mile of Amelia Earhart at some point holds "the key to the mystery." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:06:18 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo Regarding the picture with the map, > From Ric > > I see what you mean. AE's left arm definitely looks wierd. it looks to me like she's pushing the paper against the tail. Also, it was not at all uncommon for pictures to be "enhanced" by darkening outlines for clarity when printed in the newspaper. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:07:25 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Re: Landing Disaster I think my original posting said that in terms of the around the world record flight landing any where except Howland was a disaster and was to be avoided at all costs except if the option was ditching. I am in full agreement that when Howland wasn't found Amelia and Fred needed to have a plan to take them to an alternate place to land (not to ditch). I simply feel that the chance to continue the around the world flight was very likely to disapeared once a landing at Howland was not possible. As it turned out, whether or not they landed at Gardner, failing to find Howland cost them their lives an even greater disaster. Dick Pingrey in Sealh, 908C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:09:14 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Specific Fuel Consumption Oscar, I couldn't have asked for a better or more complete answer. I really appreciate the time you take to explain such things. I'm a technical person in as much as I went to an engineering college prep school and I have an insatiable thirst for knowledge. If I see or hear something I don't know or understand I have to look it up. Is that compulsive? I understand the dynamometer test for HP and I can also see how easy it is for little rules of thumb to throw our answers off over a significant distance. I know there are many factors in this issue we don't have data for. Altitudes, OAT, etc., can clearly mess up our educated guesses. You have, BTW, given me everything I need to work out some scenarios for whatever value they may end up being. Thanks again, Oscar Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:10:43 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan > However, they > would have done better to slow down to the correct speeds for L/D max for the > takeoff weight and then periodically reduce speed as fuel was burned off. They > would not need any fancy power setting tables for this. They only need to > operate the engines at the lowest rpm that the engines will tolerate and then > set the manifold pressure to achieve the target airspeeds. Don't forget stall speed and angle of attack. I'm not convinced you can make easy comparisons between the 10a and the 10e. Nor am I certain DIRECT relationships are accurate. I can't argue one way or another but that is my thoughts on that. Alan, open to the possibility #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:29:20 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Castaway Hangout You say you have photographic evidence of trails around the seven site indicating castaways. To form trails it seems to me that you would have to walking the same pathway over and over for a LONG time before you actually made what appeared to be trails. (trail would be devoid of any foliage and leave a pathway of bare earth) If this is the case, then I suggest that perhaps other castaways that were there were there for months or longer. If Noonan had died soon after arriving, then AE alone would have had to make those trails. Seems unlikely. Could those trails have been years old? Some of the trails left by the gold rush pioneers were still visible 100 years later. I know, vastly different, but you get my point. Don't you have recent photos of the seven site that still show trails 60 yrs later? Chris #2511 (who would be burned to a crisp if caught sitting between Angus and Oscar Boswell from their sheer brainpower) ************************************************************************ From Ric As you say, California is a vastly different environment. Coral rubble is a darker gray on the sun-exposed top than on the shaded bottom. When you walk across it you scuff up the surface and expose the lighter colored coral rubble underneath. One person walking the same route could easily make a visible trail in a just a couple of days. Such trails do not, however, persist for very long if not used because the sun darkens the coral. The trails visible in the Dec. 1,1938 photo of the Seven Site are not visible in the July 9, 1937 photo taken by Lambrecht or in the April 30, 1939 photo taken by the survey plane from the USS Pelican. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:31:05 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Foot Prints And this also assumes that the castaways, should either still be alive, were/was also highly mobile and had not given up hope on survival and frequented the ocean front. doesn't seem likely to me. The location of the 7 site seems to imply that a base was set up near the food supply in the lagoon and not the most obvious place to be rescued from, ie the ship. What I mean is that, after a while, you move away from being rescued (the ship) and move near to your food source (clams/lagoon) and water. 6 months later how inspired would a castaway be to go look out at the ocean everyday for....... nothing? LTM troy in Pleasanton, CA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:32:28 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo regarding this picture: http://celebrate2000.cjonline.com/images/051799/Amelia_Earhart.jpg excerpts: >From Michael >And ... what is the map resting on? --------------------- >From Ric >The map is resting on the tip of the horizontal stabilizer that sticks out >past the vertical fin. Plus, if my theory of the altered picture holds true, Amelia is also adding support with her left arm which is probably under the map. (Thus, they drew the phoney left arm on top of the map for dramatic effect.) Maybe! Suzanne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:42:07 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Best Range Speed & Power Required Many thanks to Gary LaPook for his input and questions. Let's consider some of the issues he raises. WHAT WAS THE BEST RATE OF CLIMB FOR THE 10E? About 120 mph INDICATED airspeed. Report 465 contains a chart (page 13) showing climbs at 105, 120, and 137 mph. These correspond, apparently, to best ANGLE, best RATE, and CRUISE climbs. [As it happens, I have a 10 A flight manual (export version - metric) which contains the following instructions on "maximum power" climb: "start at an indicated speed of 182 km/hr and drop off 1.609 km/hr for each 305 meters of climb". Laying aside any extensive comment on the unintentionally hilarious picture introduced by the drone who converted so literally to metric ("Fritz, we are now at 1830 meters, your speed should be 172.346 km, not 171.902 km, watch it"), we need only note that this corresponds to increasing the IAS 1 mph per 1000 feet of climb (or, as the Lockheed clerk should have written, about 1 km per 200 meters). The 10 E chart contains no notations about increasing IAS (though I should add that the copy of the chart I have is a bit incomplete, and is copied on several letter sized pages from a larger chart). Report 465 is an analysis of flight tests on the 10 E and not a formal flight manual, so perhaps the omission is not surprising.] WHAT IS V L/D AND WHAT WAS IT IN THE 10 E ? As Gary points out, the "speed of maximum lift over drag" (V L/D) is a single unique INDICATED airspeed at which the airplane achieves its most efficient angle of attack. V L/D (the "L/D" should be written in subscript to the V) varies with weight. See the discussion in Peter Garrison, LONG DISTANCE FLYING, pages 137 ff. Garrison says V L/D is "typically somewhere near the speed for best rate of climb." Since we know that best rate of climb is 120 mph INDICATED, let's assume that V L/D is about 120 INDICATED at 10,500 pounds. Like the stall, V L/D is said to vary with the square root of the weight ratio. At 14,000 pounds then (for example) V L/D will be equal to 120 mph multiplied by the square root of 14,000/10500, which equals 1.1533 (or, as Gary said with reference to the stall, roughly a 15 % increase). That gives 138 mph INDICATED (using 138.396 would be pretending to more precision than exists). Remember this: at sea level, INDICATED and TRUE airspeeds are the same, but TRUE airspeed increases over INDICATED by a factor of about 2% per thousand feet. Since V L/D is an INDICATED airspeed that remains CONSTANT WITH WEIGHT, the TRUE airspeed flown when flying at V L/D INCREASES with altitude. At 8000 feet and an Indicated airspeed of 138 mph, TRUE airspeed would be about 160 mph - this is the TRUE airspeed that the 10 E would have to hold at 8,000 feet to attain V L/D and achieve maximum efficiency at 14,000 pound weight At 12,500 pounds, V L/D would be about 9% higher than at 10,500 pounds (the square root of 12500/10500 = 1,091), say 131 mph INDICATED, which would be about 157 TRUE at 10,000 feet. At the normal gross of 10,500 pounds, the V L/D of around 120 mph INDICATED would require a TRUE airspeed of about 144 mph at 10,000 feet. Once weight was reduced to 9,000 pounds, V L/D would be about 93 % (.9258) of the normal gross weight V L/D - say 111 mph INDICATED (about 133 mph TRUE at 10,000 feet and about 113 TRUE at 1,000 feet). Take it the final step - just before fuel exhaustion, weight would be about 8,200 pounds and V L/D would theoretically be about 88 % (.8837) of the normal gross weight value - 120 x .88 = 105.6 - call it 106 mph INDICATED (107 TRUE at 1000 feet; 127 TRUE at 10,000). As the foregoing shows, V L/D gradually DECREASES from 138 mph INDICATED at 14,000 pounds early in the fllight (say 140 indicated at 14,200 pounds and the start of Hour 2 with 1100 gallons) to 106 mph INDICATED as fuel is exhausted. The MOST EFFICIENT FLIGHT PLAN is a smooth continuous reduction of power to follow the reduction in V L/D as weight is reduced by fuel burn - ie, you fly slower and slower as the flight progresses. (As a practical matter, you would follow a precomputed chart showing a reduction say every hour to a new lower IAS. If your IAS was 138 at 14,000 pounds and you expected to burn about 360 pounds of fuel during the hour, your target speed at the end of the hour would be a bit less than 137 mph - or to show the numbers 14000 - 360 = 13,640 pounds; and 13640/10500 = 1.2990; and the square root of 1.2990 = 1.1397; and 1.1397 x 120 = 136.7. Remember also that at a constant power setting speed would be increasing with fuel burn, perhaps by as much as 5 mph at this stage of the flight. The best technique, then, would be to maintain IAS no higher than 138 during Hour 2 by making reductions whenever you observed an IAS in excess of 138, radually reducing the target airspeed to slightly below 138 as the hour progressed and arriving at 136.7 at the start of Hour 3 - more precision than any pilot was likely to achieve. But flying a little above V L/D costs little in efficiency, and merely reducing the IAS at hourly intervals would approximate flying at V L/D very well.) DOES POWER REQUIRED VARY WITH THE WEIGHT RATIO RAISED TO THE 1.5 POWER ? Let me confess at the start that though I have some facility with numbers, my math background is deficient, and my engineering background is non-existent. But I believe saying that something "varies with the weight ratio raised to the 1.5 power" is the same as saying that it "varies with the square root of the cube of the weight ratio" - if I am wrong about that, perhaps someone will be kind enough to correct me. The issue of power required is discussed in John D. Anderson, Jr.'s AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN, pages 234 ff and passim, and the notes I made when I waded through it indicate that I understood that the power required varied with the square root of TWICE the cube of the weight ratio (it's more complicated than that, but that's how I simplified it). I have doubts about the accuracy of either of these formulas WHEN APPLIED TO AN AIRCRAFT OPERATING FAR ABOVE ITS NORMAL GROSS WEIGHT. Let's assume that the 10 E will maintain 150 mph at 10,500 pounds at 1,000 feet on 200 hp per engine (the chart says it will do 151, but let's round the numbers). At 14,000 pounds, what horsepower will be required to maintain 150 at 1000 feet ? Using the square root of TWICE the cube of the weight ratio gives a power factor of 2.1691, which seems to indicate that 434 hp per engine would give 150 mph at 1000 feet and 14,000 pounds - just under the METO power of 450 hp given for the engines. (Using merely the square root of the cube of the weight ratio gives a power factor at 14,000 pounds of 1.5338, which seems to indicate that 306 hp per engine would give 150 mph at 14,000 pounds and 1000 feet.) Remember that the initial cruise power setting ("60 gph") is about 400 horsepower per engine. Let's work backwards from there to calculate at what weight 150 mph would be obtained with 400 hp per engine under the formula that horsepower required varies with the square root of TWICE the cube of the weight ratio The "power factor" is 2, because 400 is twice our base figure of 200 hp. Working backwards, we square 2 to get 4 (which = twice the cube of the weight ratio), divide 4 by 2 to get 2 (which = the cube of the weight ratio) , take the cube root of 2 to get 1.2599 (which equals the weight ratio), and multiply 1.2599 by 10500 to get 13,229 pounds, the weight at which 400 hp per engine should theoretically give 150 mph at 1000 feet, under this formula. This is roughly the weight of the plane (starting with 1100 gallons) near the end of hour 4, when we expect the plane to be at 8,000 feet. True airspeed at 8,000 feet should be about 5.5% higher than at 1,000 feet by rule of thumb that there is a 0.8% variation per thousand feet in the 10 E at the same setting (see posting 4/11/00 - Learning to Think about the Performance of the 10E), or about 158 mph - this is 20 mph higher than I estimated in the posting of 1/30/02 "Fuel for the Gilberts." At 12,000 pounds (see discussion below) this formula predicts about 156 mph at "43 gph", which is 14 mph above the number given in "Fuel for the Gilberts." (Note that in this discussion I am factoring in my subsequent adjustment reducing initial weight to 14,800.) Let's do a slightly different calculation using the formula stating that power required varies simply with the square root of the cube of the weight. That formula indicates (as mentioned) that 306 horsepower per engine should maintain 150 mph at 1000 feet and 14,000 pounds weight. If this formula is correct, what speed would be obtained at 12,000 pounds weight and 306 hp?. The weight ratio (12,000/10500) is 1.1429. The cube of that is 1.4929, and the square root of 1.4929 = 1.2218. Dividing 306 hp by 1.2218 = 250 and indicates that at 12,000 pounds and 306 horsepower per engine, speeds equal to those at 250 hp and normal gross weight should be achieved. The cruise chart in Report 465 indicates that at 250 hp per engine, 8,000 feet and normal gross weight the 10 E is capable of about 173 mph. Remember that the "43 gph" setting is about 300 hp. A 12,000 pound weight would be reached near the end of hour 8 (with 1100 gallon departure). This approach predicts say 170 mph at 8,000 feet, 12,000 pounds and 43 gph. This is 27 mph higher than estimated in "Fuel for the Gilberts". (At 14,000 pounds and "60 gph" this formula predicts about 180 mph [=normal gross speed @ 283 hp/engine] or about 42 mph higher than predicted in "Fuel for the Gilberts".) All of these numbers are rather on the high side to match what apparently took place during the flight, which is why I modified the "power required" calculation to apply to airspeed. As mentioned in the original posting, it may be incorrect, but was chosen to err on the side of conservative estimation of range. If the plane really was faster earlier in the flight than estimated, that simply means it could have gone even farther than estimated in the Longer Range Flight Plan. And that's it for the time being! Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:47:47 EST From: Thomas Hamberg Subject: Re: North star? Doug Brutlag wrote: "Polaris is very useful to gauge latitude as a norm, but if you're south of the equator it's not available." Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the Southern Cross have a similar position and navigational function in the Southern Hemisphere? Then the question remains why didn't FN get the latitude before sunrise? LTM (who mainly stay in the north) Thomas Hamberg #2380 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:04:14 EST From: John Clauss Subject: Re: Knob answers & questions > After several hours of head-scratching and jokes > about artifacts from Roswell, we concluded that the closest match is lead. > The knob seems to be made of lead, but we also got one spot on the back edge > of the knob where it came up bang-on aluminum. Having held the knob I am skeptical about it being made of lead. It's just not heavy enough. How about an aluminum knob with remnants of lead paint or a lead coating? John Clauss *************************************************************************** From Ric We at first thought it might be an aluminum knob with remnants of paint (which would explain the lead) but the results we were getting from the SEM were just backward of that. On two different places where the surface had been filed down to what we're sure is bare metal, we got the "sort-of lead" reading. We got the same thing on a couple of spots where it had not been filed. The only aluminum we could find was the one spot on the back edge. They're going to look for more aluminum along that edge. We ran out of time. I can't argue with you. The thing is fairly heavy but it doesn't seem heavy enough to be lead. I had assumed that it was probably aluminum and that most of the weight was from the steel channel around the inside. But it's also hard to argue with a Scanning Electron Microscope. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:48:45 EST From: Matt Subject: Re: Knob answers & questions I would think a lead knob would feel obviously heavier than an aluminum knob just holding it in your hand and playing with it. Does the artifact feel more like lead? or aluminum? Matt Mondro *************************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately. it's not that simple The knob has a ferrous (probably steel) channel that sort of lines the interior surface. It's hard to know how much of the knob's weight to ascribe to the knob itself and how much is due to the channel. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:34:27 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Knob answers & questions I very doubt much the knob is lead. It would be obvious from its weight when compared to aluminium alloy. You can easily check its density by putting it in a "specific gravity bottle" which is a bottle with a ground glass stopper having a fine hole. You top it up with water until it exudes through the hole in the stopper. You then weigh it . Remove the knob and re-weigh. The difference in weight is that of the volume of water displaced by the knob. The knob itself is then weighed and its density is its weight in gm divided by the volume of water it displaced in cc. (Since the density of water is 1gm/cc, the difference in weight in gms is the same as the volume displaced in cc).This could be compared with the known density of different elements or alloys. The same technique could be employed on the other artifacts. It seems altogether more likely that it is aluminium alloy contaminated by lead ( if indeed lead is detected). Something like the adjuster on the sight of a rifle might fit this scenario. Aluminium alloys do in any case contain trace quantities of lead. An SEM produces a characteristic X-ray spectrum for each element. Because the technique covers a finite area, the X-ray spectrum generated will be a superimposition of the spectra for individual elements in an alloy. This maybe the source of the difficulty in interpretation. A specific gravity bottle can be obtained from even a school lab and the test is very easy to do. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric From the work we did with the NTSB lab in determining the aluminum alloys of airplane components recovered from the island, I'm familiar with the superimposition of peaks you describe. I don't think that's what's going on here. We took multiple shots at two different places where we had filed down to bare and on places we hadn't disturbed. Each time we got the same return (except the one aluminum hit on an undisturbed spot). The immersion technique won't work in this case because we have an artifact made up of two components of different metals. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:36:21 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Knob answers & questions Just a thought. Would it be difficult to do a weight comparison. You could immerse the artifact in a graduated cylinder to determine it's volume & then compare it's actual weight to a sample of lead of equal volume. Make sense? LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************* From Ric The artifact is not made of all one kind of metal. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:37:09 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Southern Cross While I'll confess up front I've never had the opportunity to view the Southern Cross personally other than charts, I have to wonder if it would possible to view in the pre-dawn light of an early morning over the pacific. In such time Polaris would not be bright enough to see. It is fairly dim and one would need to be a while after sundown or before sunrise to view it. I'll also confess that if my memory serves me correctly the cross is not necessarily useful for a latitude check the way Polaris is-Bob-Alan-help me out here? Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:53:47 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: island names > One thing I've always found useful in historical hypothesizing is to remember > that whenever we say "would have" it means we're guessing. Anytime we say > "so-and-so would have done thus and such, so therefore they would have done > this other thing" we're piling guesses on top of guesses. That "would have" means you are guessing is true only in a very limited sense. If someone jumped into a river, you can very reliably say that they "would have" got wet. Mere jumping to unwarranted conclusions is what is objectionable, not putting forward a scenario which includes "would have" where any reasonable person would agree that whatever was being suggested would be an inescapable consequence. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric What you say is true. There are reasonable "would haves" and unreasonable "would haves" but the term always expresses an assumption - a guess. Sometimes it seems like a safe guess ("Had I jumped into the river I would have gotten wet.") and sometimes it seems less so ( "Had I jumped into the river I would have just walked across the water to the shore.") but it's always a guess. The important thing to remember is that it is a guess and not a fact. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:58:06 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: North Star and Southern Cross Ric, Tom Hamberg and Doug Brutlag, Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think you can see either the North Star within 10 or 15 degrees north latitude nor can you see the Southern Cross within 10 or 15 degrees south latitude from the Equator. You have to be further north or south before they are visable. Dick Pingrey 908C (Washington State) *************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell Doug, you are correct, the Southern Cross is not nearly as easy to use as Polaris is. To answer someone else's question re Polaris, the star varies between 1 and 2 1/2 degrees from North. It rotates in a tiny circle if viewed from the "North Pole." That sounds like an insignificant amount but we took that into consideration when doing Celestial for SAC inspections (Strategic Air Command for new folks ). Using the Southern Cross required making an imaginary point between the cross and earth five times the length of the long axis (not of evil) of the constellation. Tough way to navigate but OK for a rough answer. I've never used it but I have seen it. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg Doug is right. The Southern Cross is not over the pole, although two of its stars are listed in the 1937 Nautical Almanac. The question is whether FN could have seen those stars given the local presence of clouds obscuring his southern horizon. On the weekend, I'll check the geometry of FN's southern horizon star field and get back to you. Don't have time now - - I've been summoned for jury duty. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:02:17 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: North star? > Then the question remains why didn't FN get the latitude before sunrise? What makes you think he didn't? If it is because you are buying all the rhetoric about Noonan being far off course north or south of Howland let me point out again that once the Electra faded out of view after take off from Lae, New Guinea there is not one single soul living that knows where the airplane was at any given time. I don't know. Long doesn't know. No one knows. Could Noonan have passed directly over Howland? Sure. Why not? Because they didn't see the island? No, with the scattered CU below they could have easily missed it from ten thousand feet. Because no one on the ground or on the Itasca saw them? No, for the same reason. Because no one on the ground or on the Itasca didn't hear them? Not necessarily. Not at ten thousand feet with all the noise of the ship. But WERE they still at ten thousand feet over Howland? Who knows. Maybe they were lower but still out of sight or maybe they weren't even close to Howland. We will never know and NO ONE KNOWS NOW. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:32:15 EST From: Fred Madio Subject: No Subject Is it possible that the file might have been used previously to file something else that contained lead? Fred Madio **************************************************************************** From Ric If file contamination accounts for anything it might be the one aluminum spike we got, but not the lead. We got the same reading from spots we had not filed at all. *************************************************************************** From RC to Ric & John: Try the Eureka way. Weigh it in air then immersed in water. I have done that many times to determine density of both pure metals and alloys. **************************************************************************** From Ric The object is made of two component parts which are of different metals. ************************************************************************** From Angus Murray > From Ric > Unfortunately. it's not that simple The knob has a ferrous (probably steel) > channel that sort of lines the interior surface. It's hard to know how much > of the knob's weight to ascribe to the knob itself and how much is due to the > channel. Since the density of (steel + aluminium) is less than that of say (steel + lead) in the same volumetric proportion in each case, a specific gravity test would still determine if the knob itself was a substance denser than steel (eg lead). Even if it was all steel (ie a zero aluminium component), its density could not approach that of a knob with any component of a denser material than steel in it. Regards Angus.. **************************************************************************** From Jerry Ellis I've learned something; I didn't know SEM could do elemental analyses! > It's also a good way to get really good, close-up look at something. I did know about this capability. > After several hours of head-scratching and jokes > about artifacts from Roswell, we concluded that the closest match is lead. > The knob seems to be made of lead, but we also got one spot on the back edge > of the knob where it came up bang-on aluminum. The only thing we can think > is that the surface against which the knob rotated was aluminum and a fleck > of aluminum remained after the knob broke off. 1. The total volume of the entire knob can be determined by displacement in a liquid; that is, the volume of the liquid substracted from the volume of the liquid with the knob immersed. 2. The volume of the sleeve inside can be calculated by measuring its dimensions. Its mass can be determined crudely by using the density of iron and its volume. You did say it seemed to be ferrous in another posting. 3. The difference in the total volume and that of the sleeve would give the volume of the rest of the knob. 4. The mass of the total knob can be found on a simple balance. 5. The difference in the mass of the total knob minus the mass of the sleeve from 2. gives the mass of the rest of the knob. 6. The mass of the rest of the knob from 5. and the volume of the rest of the knob form 3. can be used to calculate the approximate density of the metal composing the rest of the knob (without the iron sleeve inside). The density of lead is 11.3 g/cc. That of iron is 7.86g/c and for aluminum the density is 2.70g/cc. Even with crude measurements, it would seem possible to determine if it is lead or aluminum. It may be an alloy with some intermediate density; but then they should have found other elements too. Have the folks at the Naval Lab done that sort of density study? Jerry Ellis #2113 **************************************************************************** From Ric Not to my knowledge. ************************************************************************** From Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho >We took multiple shots at two different places where we had filed down >to bare and on places we hadn't disturbed Did you use a file that was absolutely uncontaminated? Files are very difficult to clean. Dale *************************************************************************** From Ric Contamination from the file might explain the one aluminum spike but not the multiple places, filed and unfiled, that came up as lead. *************************************************************************** From Paul Penwell Measure the specific gravity of the knob. Easily done with the suitable balance. The result may not tell you exactly what the material is but may rule out what what the bulk composition is not *************************************************************************** From David Osgood So called "pot metal" is an alloy that can contain large amounts of lead in addition to other metals. The term doesn't dictate any specific ingredients or proportions, but rather a witch's brew of metals. It's commonly used to create inexpensive components - like knobs. This could explain the "sort of lead" diagnosis. David Osgood *************************************************************************** From Ric I had wondered about "pot metal" myself, but being an alloy doesn't explain the off-element peak. Each of the elements in the alloy should exhibit its own peak. **************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt What common alloys contain a high proportion of lead? Solder is of course the best known lead alloy. Pewter is another such alloy. Pewter was used for many things, knobs included. The lead in the alloy made the metal more malleable. As a point of interest, if the knob was common (lead) pewter, in a marine environment the artifact would probably oxidize enough to form a lead sulfate film over most of the object, possibly resulting in the "almost lead" reading. Of course this doen't tie in with the aluminium readings and you'd have high tin/antimony readings. We're getting way outside my metalurgy and archaeological knowledge. It may give you something to consider though. There are other alloys used for knobs on things like cockpit instruments. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric The surface does have a coating of some kind of oxidized accretion and we were picking up traces of sulfur - all of which fits your pewter hypothesis - but I don't recall getting any tin or antimony. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:00:53 EST From: Dave J. Subject: Longitude and Lati. Question OK Forum, I have this thought and question. Go to Page89 of Donahue's book. Being around Ham operators, I really don't go along with the idea that they where feeding wrong info to the sources that was collecting info back then. Lets say for the study, if this transmission was picked up, and was somewhat not clear; and you don't buy Donahue's "Unreadable Code Message" ( which I DON'T) as recorded at " 0900-920/3 ; then what is it. Well, I believe Fred knew where they went down. He had the equipment, and new the navig. " 179 is the Longitude and if the sound is not clear of the 1 and you drop it and in the ? blank place your "0" then you have 06 for the Lati. So it's 179/06 or maybe if the 9 was not clear and it sounded like a 5; Then we have 175/06. I don"t charts but can someone tell me where 179/06 shows up in the area. Next thing I wonder and feel strongly about, is that you may never find Fred on island. Have you ever tried digginga grave for someone when you are week and small your self? I read that we don't know what equipment was on the plane, but you think they would be smart enough to at the most to have a rubber raft. If so, then when it looked like things where going down, the thought was that we will try for 50/50 chance. You stay AE and me Fred the Navg. will try to nav to some island for help. I have been enjoying the forum, and I wish I could have made the trips with you. DaveFlyer ************************************************************************** From Ric From what I can see on the map 179W 06S is maybe seven hundred miles east of the northern islands of the Ellice Group (modern day Tuvalu) 179E 06S is closer. Maybe 200 miles. 179 E or W 06N is the middle of nowhere. 175W 06S is south and just west of Nikumaroro something just under 100 miles 175E 06S is not close to anything. For what it's worth. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:22:27 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Castaway Hangout Are you suggesting AE survived until around Dec 1, 1938? A year and a half? Not a pleasant prospect. Just to think she may have been alive when that photo was taken. *************************************************************************** From Ric In theory, entirely possible. The only real limiting factor we have on when the castaway died is the length of time it took for the remains to get to the condition they were in when found first discovered in 1940. Based upon what we've learned about deterioration rates and crab behavior, a couple months would be plenty of time. As long as we're writing novels, there is a folktale from the earliest days of colony on Niku that tells of the Island Magistrate's wife having an encounter with a tall, fair-skinned woman with a blank (deadpan) expression. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:57:56 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Mystery Photo Redux Still sort of an interesting photo as a trivia question on Millionaire. It seems to be ubiquitous. For those who have Cam Warrens edited "Flight into Yesterday...the Amelia Earhart Enigma" by Capt L.Safford, turn to page two for a close up view of the same Mystery Map. This time it is on a wall back of Amelia's head. Photo taken by Albert Bresnik, her "official" photographer. No date. The Map clearly shows an air route from Miami, north to Chicago, west to Oakland, west to Honolulu, and west toward Lae with mileage, etc. Where the map you have is folded against the stabilizer, South America is shown with what appears to be aeronautical airport circles around Paramaribo, and Fortaleza. No return route back to Miami. It could be a Map prop that they carried with them for publicity stills. The only interesting thing is it doesn't show the world flight as planned/performed (almost). Ron Bright Bremerton,Wa *************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting photo - and I think it solves the mystery. I think what we're looking at is simply a photo of the first World Flight route starting in Oakland going westward until it comes back around via Miami and Chicago to Oakland once more. The line isn't visible over the Caribbean for some reason, but I'll betcha it's there. If Bresnik took the photo (which he apparently did) then it has to date from late February/early March 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:50:57 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Assuming that the only difference between the "a" and the "e" is the power of the engines I would expect the lift of the wings and the drag, both parasitic and induced, to be the same so that comparisons that are based on lift and drag should be valid. So that at the same weight the best rate of climb airspeed should be the same and the angle of attack for best L/D would be the same, irregardless of weight. Of course the airspeed needed to fly at this angle of attack would vary with the square root of the weight. To understand why this is so remember when you fly at the fixed angle of attack that produces best L/D that angle of attack is producing a fixed coefficient of lift. Since you need to make more lift to support a heavier airplane and the coefficient of lift is fixed you must increase the indicated airspeed. Simplifying the formula for lift, lift is proportional to coefficient of lift times velocity squared. So if you fly twice as fast you will make four times as much lift. This is the same analysis as required for figuring out accelerated stall speeds and maneuvering speed. Gary LaPook **************************************************************************** From Ric The more powerful R1340 engines of the E series airplane had a diameter that was roughly 3 inches greater than the R985s of the A series. That may not sound like much but it represents a significant increase in flat plate area and, therefore, drag. The bigger engines were also heavier which moved the CG forward which, of course, had to be compensated for with elevator trim which, of course, caused more drag. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:03:12 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Southern Cross Polaris is particularly useful for determining latitude because it is a special case being less than one degree from the north pole and special tables are available in the Nautical Almanac which makes the computation of latitude quick and easy after measuring its altitude with a sextant. It might have been visible from the vicinity of Howland island as it is visible as far south as 3 degrees south latitude from an airplane at 10 thousand feet. However, its altitude, at the most, would have only been one and a quarter degrees and may have been obscured by haze. Also, such low altitudes have larger errors possible due to large variations in refraction of the light from the star when at low altitude. Navigators prefer to use stars more that 10 degrees high. If viewed from 10 thousand feet when south of the equator, the altitude of Polaris could be below zero and the correction table in the Nautical Almanac doesn't cover altitudes less than zero. (If you are wondering how you can see a star below an altitude of zero it is because you are looking slightly downward to the horizon. From ten thousand feet the visible horizon is more than one and a half degrees below zero. In addition, refraction of the light from the star allows you to see a star that is actually below the visible horizon. A star observed exactly on the visable horizon from ten thousand feet is actually at minus 2 degrees- 27 minutes altitude.) The Southern Cross is a constellation in the southern hemisphere that is not very near to the south pole being 27 degrees away. Its two main stars, Acrux and Gacrux, are in a line that points to the south and this constellation is useful in determining direction but no more useful than any other stars in determining latitude. Also, these stars would not have been visible during the last 5 hours of the flight. (You can see the entire Southern Cross anywhere south of 27 degrees north latitude so you can see it the next time you are in Florida or farther south.) Of course Noonan could have used many other stars either to the north or to the south to determine his latitude. Fomalhaut and Markab would have been perfectly placed to provide his latitude near the end of the flight. Of course the computations would have been a bit more complex than when using Polaris but nothing that Noonan would have found difficult as it is just the normal computations done when calculating celestial lines of position. Gary LaPook *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't recall that anyone here ever suggested that Noonan could not have verifed his position through celestial observations throughout the hours of darkness. (Later allegations that Earhart had mentioned an "overcast" are not supported by the original Itasca log.) Let's give Fred a good three-star fix at some time an hour or so before dawn. It's going to show him either that he is on course or that he needs to make an adjustment and so he either leaves things alone or plugs in a correction. Fine. Then what? That last three or four hundred miles that is the tricky part. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:13:50 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo I looked at several reproduction of this phote in several books today and it is clear that she is resting her elbow on the chart which is laying on the horizontal stabilizer. LaPook ************************************************************************* From Ric Gary, I suspect that - like me - you're a lot less annoying in person than comes across in print. :) Her elbow is nowhere near the chart. She is resting her elbow on the horizontal stabilizer and part of the map is also supported by that surface. Her left arm and hand do look funny but I really don't think it's worth worrying about. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:33:37 EST From: Jdubb Subject: Re: the knob For my two cents, the artifact looks like the crown on top of older canteen stoppers. A pewter cap might have a steel washer inside. The ring bolt passes through cap, washer, and cork. Also explains the aluminum on the back. (if the canteen was aluminum) Check out http://www.angelfire.com/ma4/j_mayo/uscanteen.html for some civil war examples Jdubb *************************************************************************** From Ric I see what you mean. Of course, it's not just like the Civil War examples (we'd have fun explaining THAT one) but the principle is the same. There are two canteens in the Luke Field inventory so we might be forgiven if we jump to the conclusion that Castaway Amelia had a canteen. A canteen is an interesting possibility. At first you think "Canteen. Sure, makes sense." but then you think, "So where does your garden variety castaway get a canteen?". Which leads me to try approaching this whole castaway business from a slightly different direction. Let's construct a Null Hypothesis, i.e. the castaway is NOT in any way attributable to the disappearance of NR16020. Is there a scenario that fits the facts better? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:36:15 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Niku from the air Just got my aerial tour video (the conversion to PAL worked fine, by the way). It really brings this place I've been to in my head every day for the last three years to life. I'm very surprised how difficult it is to spot people on the ground from the air - even from a lower altitude than Lambrecht seems to have flown at and with no doubt much better downward vision from the cockpit than he had. One of the things that first got me really hooked on TIGHAR was Bruce Yoho's compelling account of finding an aircraft engine on an island he never knew the name of and taking it back to Kanton. I was wondering if there are any features of Nikumaroro as seen from the air which make Bruce more or less inclined to think Niku was the island? (Bruce - I realize it's a long time ago and you didn't have posterity in mind when you made the trip!) LTM Phil Tanner 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:37:33 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Polaris > - I've been summoned for jury duty. You too? I have to report on the 25th. This will be my 6th time and they never pick me. They don't want lawyers on their juries. As to Polaris the only comment I saw was that it is not usable unless more than two degrees above the horizon but I'll tell you NOTHING is really usable until ten degrees above due to atmospheric distortion. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:40:27 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Knob answers & questions Pretty exciting news, very interesting and puzzling as well. Could the artifact be an alloy of Lead? Pewter perhaps? I took a couple minutes to look up a periodic table, and found that Lead (#82/atomic wt 207.2) sits between Thallium (81/atomic wt 204.38) and Bismuth (#83/atomic wt 208.98). No overt clues there that I could see. Good work. Let's home that their further research turns up some more data. ltm, jon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:44:18 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: the knob Ok, the knob is made of lead or aluminum or a combination of both. Non-magnetic metals. I'm not an expert in radios, but does this suggest a radio component, yes or no?. Thanks, Lawrence **************************************************************************** From Ric No. Just means that somebody doesn't want it to rust, doesn't need it to be real hard or strong, and doesn't care if the knob is itself is kinda heavy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:48:18 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross You are talking about two different uses for Polaris and the Southern Cross. The main use of Polaris is to determine direction as it is always between 359.3 and 000.7 degrees true when viewed from the equator and between 359.0 and 001.0 when viewed from the latitude of the U.S. Its azimuth varied slightly more in 1937 as it was located 1 degree 2.5 minutes from the pole which is 17.5 minutes farther from the north pole then than in 2002. The Southern Cross is also used to determine direction but since the closest star in the Cross, Acrux, is located 27 degrees from the south pole you must imagine a line through Gacrux and Acrux which points towards the south pole and extend that line 5 times the spacing between those stars which then takes you to approximately the south pole. You then use this estimated spot to determine the direction of south. As you can see, this is quite approximate especially when compared to the precision of using Polaris for direction. Now a completely different use for Polaris is to use it to find you latitude. Since it is located so close to the pole it was possible to construct a special very short table that is included in the Nautical Almanac which gives a correction factor that you just add to the altitude that you measured of Polaris with your sextant to very quickly determine your latitude. There is no comparable procedure for using altitudes of the stars in the Southern Cross for determining latitude and you must use the much longer computation that you would use with any star for determining a celestial line of position. The declination of Polaris in 1937 was 88 degrees 57.5 minutes north which means that it was located 1 degree 2.5 minutes from the pole. (You just subtract its declination from 90 degrees which is the declination of the pole.) This means that during a part of each day it would be visible on the surface at 1 degree 2.5 minutes south latitude. In fact, refraction adds 34.5 minutes to the height of a star on the horizon which makes it appear that much higher in the sky. So when refraction is taken into account Polaris was visible as far south as 1 degree 37.0 minutes south latitude from the ground during part of each day in 1937. From an airplane at 10 thousand feet you are looking downwards 1 degree 37 minutes when you look at the horizon. Refraction for a negative 1 degree 37 minute altitude is 55 minutes so any star that you see right on the horizon is actually at a negative 2 degree 27 minutes. You then add this to the 1 degree 2.5 minutes that Polaris is south of the north pole and you find that Polaris was visible as far south as 3 degree 29.5 minutes south latitude from 10 thousand feet for part of each day in 1937. On July 2, 1937 polaris would be at its highest point in the sky at about 0646 local time but would not be visible as the sun would have risen at 0600 local time. However, about one and a half hours earlier at 0512, nautical twilight, Polaris would still have been less than 5 minutes lower than its maximum elevation. So Polaris might have been visible to Noonan during the later part of the flight leading up to morning twilight. At the other end of the spectrum, the Southern Cross would not have been visible during the last 5 hours of the flight. BTW, the Southern Cross is visible in its entirety as far north as 27 degrees north latitude so it can be seen in Florida. It is at its highest point in February at about 0300 local time.( There is a pattern here. As many degrees as a star is from the pole is the same number of degrees of latitude that it is visible on the other side of the equator.) Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:03:02 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: the knob The idea that the knob is really a canteen top is interesting. Maybe consistent with the idea of a pewter-like alloy, too. Do we know what kinds of canteens the Coast Guardsmen had? ************************************************************************* From Ric I can't imagine that they were anything but standard GI canteens. You know, the kind with corks and little brass chains. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:09:02 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Polaris > From Alan > > You too? I have to report on the 25th. This will be my 6th time and they > never pick me. They don't want lawyers on their juries. > > As to Polaris the only comment I saw was that it is not usable unless more > than two degrees above the horizon but I'll tell you NOTHING is really usable > until ten degrees above due to atmospheric distortion. They don't want mathematicians, either. I was excused on peremptory challenge by the defense yesterday. That's my second time being called and rejected. A few more of these and I may develop a complex. Hmmmm. I wonder if they'd buy that as an a priori excuse next time. I agree completely that nothing is really usable below ten degrees. It's worth noting that Noonan had both the Nautical Almanac and H.O. 208, neither of which provides refraction corrections for observed altitudes less than 6 degrees. I'm currently doing a detailed audit of Noonan's navigation on the Oakland to Honolulu flight looking for insights into his methods that might shed some light on what happened on the Lae-Howland leg. The audit includes every aspect of his navigation, including reworking all his sight reductions using H.O. 208, and he didn't shoot any bodies with Hc less than about 30 degrees. As for getting a latitude without using Polaris, he didn't have to use southern hemisphere stars. For example, assuming he was bang on track for Howland at 1612Z (3 hours before the "we must be on you" signal) about 350 nmi out, DUBHE (the alpha star in Ursa Major) was available at altitude 29* 03', azimuth 359* 23'. If there weren't any clouds on his line of sight, he could have obtained a good latitude from DUBHE. But, as Ric says, then what? Bob #2286 *************************************************************************** From Ric You wanna see faces blanch at jury selection, just tell 'em you're a former accident investigator. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:05:18 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: the knob > I can't imagine that they were anything but standard GI canteens. You know, > the kind with corks and little brass chains. Oh, THAT kind. Actually, I was wondering if maybe they got issued older equipment, and hence might have had something left over from WWI, which might have had a lead cap. ************************************************************************* From Ric Dick Evans? Chuck Boyle? What say ye? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:15:45 EST From: Ric Subject: Off Topic - Jury Duty Since the little exchange between Bob Brandenburg and me about not being selected to serve on juries, I've received a number of messages from others citing the reason that THEY are considered as undesirable. I don't really think we need a new thread - Why I Didn't Get Picked - but it does make me wonder if there is something mutually exclusive about Earhart Forum participation and desirability as a juror. Has anyone on the forum ever actually been selected and served on a jury? Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:20:28 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross > You are talking about two different uses for Polaris and the Southern Cross. Not at all, Gary. You are preaching to the choir. Although a pilot, I shot celestial and navigated airplanes for twenty years. I never used ANY celestial body to determine direction. They were used to establish fixes. I can't recall ever being in an airplane or any where else for that matter that I didn't know which direction I was facing or flying. I never cared what celestial bodies I was using as long as they were spaced to allow a nice three star fix, weren't above 70 degrees or below 10 degrees. That left more stars and planets than I can count. Too much is being made of the celestial subject. It is quite simple. Noonan could see to shoot objects or he couldn't. He also had other techniques to help determine his position and track. The necessary objects were in the sky. Whether he could see them is something we will never know. Whether a particular object was available has no significance. Finally, he got the airplane to the vicinity of Howland. Exactly how close will never be known nor can anyone figure that out by any set of data or method that is known at the moment. They did not see Howland. We know that but we don't know why. The reason if known would not advance the ball. We know they could have gone down nearby or gone somewhere else. No one knows where. All the rehashing of celestial in the world will not answer that question. We can use the available information to look at places they might have gone to see if there are any clues. IF they went down at sea the possible area is too vast to conduct a practical search using current technology and funds. There is some evidence found on Niku and none anywhere else. It seems to me that the game would be to search where evidence was found and not where none was found. Seems common sense to me. I cannot see the significance of whether the Southern Cross or Polaris even existed let alone whether they were available for any useful purpose. We are having fun trying to reconstruct navigation and fuel but with all the unknowns those issues may well never be resolved to a useful degree. There is a reasonable assumption our heroes arrived in the vicinity of Howland with some gas left over. If so they didn't have a lot or AE would not have indicated they were low on fuel. How much they had left is subject to great speculation and can never be computed to an exact amount. That means we don't know exactly how far they could roam before exhausting their reserve. We can guess and eliminate extreme distances. The great effort the guys have put forth on Niku has the best chance of moving the ball down the field. Anything else is mere distraction at the moment until other evidence is discovered. Unsupported speculation will not do the trick. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Very nicely put. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:32:07 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: other castaway A castaway not related to NR16020? If you just had the skeleton, I'd consider sperm whalers. I just finished reading a book "Ahab's Trade" that discusses whaling in the Pacific. Some captains took their wives, and 5 degrees to either side of the equator was prime sperm whale hunting territory. Some captains preferred to stop at uninhabited island to avoid the problems with alcohol and venereal disease. The Wilkes Expedition was partly an exploration in support of the sperm whale fisheries. The prime years for the whale fishery in the tropical Pacific were about 1820 to 1849, with a few stragglers later than that. You might get a metal knob, but no Plexiglas! If you found any pieces of iron, most whaling tools were wrought iron and not steel. I seriously doubt that you would have anything from that era made of aluminum, which was exceedingly rare and expensive. All the castaway site finds could have been left after the castaway, but I would expect a whaler to have left something that could be dated to pre-1900. Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 *************************************************************************** From Ric No plexi at the Seven Site, and the only artifacts we can be sure were associated wth the castaway are the ones that Gallagher found. Nothing that he found was prima facia 20th century in origin. Sextant boxes, shoes, and corks with brass chains were certainly around in the 19th century. We also know that bones can survive for a long time in the open on the island. The best indication that the event was relatively recent rather than ancient is the legibility of the numbers on the sextant box. It's hard to imagine a wooden box out in the weather on that island holding up for more than a few years. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:46:54 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: New York Lifebouy In an unrelated investigation I found a memo from G-2, Japan, dated 8 Aug 49, in which the Army has asked the Japanese to research any clues to Earhart in the Marshall Islands. In a response by a Japanese official of the Jaluit Branch Office, a Y. Nakajima wrote in part that he learned from an employee of the Jaluit Branch office, Ryzuzo Morita, that Morita in 1937 had found a red horseshoe lifebuoy inscribed with "NEW YORK" adrift on the sea near "Radak Island". Morita thought the lifebuoy may have come from the Electra. [ I can't find Radak Is ] I can't offhand recall all of the references in "Betty"s notebook to New York but here is a Japanese report referring to a 1937 discovery of a New York clue. Have no idea if there could be any connection to that life ring to Betty's notes. We don't know what emergency gear was aboard but AE was from New York and the Electra was at New York, and maybe,,just maybe......!!! Ron Bright Bremerton, WA *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm from New York. Most of us have been to New York. Few of us carry around red life buoys that say New York. The 1937 Berne List shows no fewer than five ships with the name NEW YORK - 3 German registry and 2 U.S. registry. Any one of them could have lost a life buoy over the side. I've long wondered if the Morita incident might be the kernel of truth at the heart of the Japanese capture myth. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:56:34 EST From: Subject: Re: the knob > From Ric > > No. Just means that somebody doesn't want it to rust, doesn't need it to be > real hard or strong, and doesn't care if the knob is itself is kinda heavy. Wouldn't weight have been an issue for a knob designed to be used on avionics equipment? Or were the entire units so heavy back then, that the extra few grams from a lead knob would not have made any difference, either way? Isn't it possible to check with manufacturers of avionics equipment from that era, to determine if they ever used knobs made of lead, or lead alloy, on their equipment? Just a thought. *************************************************************************** From Ric Reality Check Number 531: Current manufacturers of anything can rarely provide useful information about products the company made decades ago. Cataloging and storage of historical archives are seldom in the corporate budget. Employees retire, then die. Companies are sold or merged. There are exceptions to the rule, but they are rare. Preservation of paper history is the job of archives. Preservation of physical history is the job of museums (which are increasingly becoming quasi-educational theme parks rather than repositories of preserved objects - but that's a different issue). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:04:58 EST From: Mike E. Subject: Re: the knob >The idea that the knob is really a canteen top is interesting. Maybe >consistent with the idea of a pewter-like alloy, too. Do we know what kinds >of canteens the Coast Guardsmen had? Is this the "knob" I looked at? No Way! Something this small would not be a canteen lid. The top of some other kind of bottle PERHAPS, but I recall no evidence of threads. It surely is NOT the cap from a GI canteen. I have a bona fide WW2 version of one of these. Uh-uh. My thought was that this thing COULD be part of a plate-cap from an electron tube -- the connection point outside the glass envelope for the plate electrode. MAYBE. But I am not convinced of it. Especially if it's lead. Conceivably it could be part of the internal structure of a tube however, but that is doubtful if it is marked with a patent number... I haven't done a lot of looking (to do so requires busting a tube and they don't make too many of 'em any more, right?) but do not recall seeing much in the way of patent numbers INSIDE a tube. A lot of tubes, when new, were packed with lists of patent numbers pertaining to them, on paper, as part of the box liner stuff. 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric For what it's worth, the knob was not found in association with the other artifacts that we are now quite sure came from one or more vacuum tubes. It was found at the second deposit of clam shells. The only other artifacts found in that particular archaeologcal unit were the little fasteners 2-6-S-03A and 03B. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:07:55 EST From: Marty Joy Subject: Canteens >I can't imagine that they were anything but standard GI canteens. You know, >the kind with corks and little brass chains. Are you making a funny? Wouldn't G.I. canteens in 1937 be much like G.I. canteens in 1941, I.E. aluminum with plastic or aluminum screw-on caps? *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, that was a joke. 1937 GI canteens are not an issue. The Coast Guard was there in 1944/45. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:11:28 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Off Topic - Jury Duty > From Ric > ... Has anyone on the forum ever actually been selected and served on a jury? I got to see a whole rape case (6 men, 2 of whom were father and son, one woman, one night). Just before the case was given to the jury, I and two other alternates were dismissed. We didn't know we were alternates, but everyone else knew. I asked one of the lawyers why they let me be an alternate, since I came to the courthouse every day wearing clerics. She said, "You have a nice smile." Other than that, I've never even made another voir dire. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric That must be it. We all think we were dismissed because of our professions or associations and it's really because we have bad smiles. :)))))))) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:55:23 EST From: Kathi Subject: Re: Off Topic - Jury Duty (huge) Rick, last November I served on a jury; the case, a drive by shooting. During the interview process, I told them I was a field investigator for MUFON for the last six years and investigated privately for twenty eight years in the field of ufology - I also told them I was a follower of TIGHAR (and gave them the thumb nail view of TIGHAR) and that I wasn't a mem- ber but a daily reader of their form - My name was the first one they chose. Ended up getting sequestered out of the deal too! Kathi **************************************************************************** From Ric Oh my God. **************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg It has been my observation that forum participants display higher-than-average intelligence. Although I do not wish to cast aspersions on our learned counsel forum colleagues, I am impelled to wonder whether trial lawyers n general try to compensate for a weak case by weeding out intelligent prospective jurors. Bob #2286 *************************************************************************** From Harry Poole I may have been the only member of the forum who was actually picked on a jury. In October, I was selected for a drug purchase trial, and was selected as the foreman. In our case, since the defendent claimed it wasn't him, and since even the arresting officer could not identify him, we found the defendent innocent (actually we found that the police did not prove he was the guilty party). Harry #2300 **************************************************************************** From Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho Re: Jury duty I was on a jury but it was pre-forum so maybe it is a purloined Forum List that is used by the lawyers. Dale **************************************************************************** From Doug Brutlag Yep Ric I've served on 2 juries in as many trials a few years ago. What do you want to know? Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Bill Zorn One of these days, some of my juror experience is going to be included some web pages I've been working on. Perhaps this little off topic discussion will inspire me to work on it a bit more. I was on jury duty, and went three for three. In three. Three Voir dire, three trials, in three weeks. My experiences over the years with TIGHAR, and this forum made me a better juror. Critical thinking, Occams' razor, LTM, et al. My experiences last year with the State of New Mexico, Second Judicial Distinct made me a better person...... events inside and outside the courthouse forced me to think about citizenship, freedom, justice, et al. I was on jury duty, September 11th. Bill Zorn TIGHAR 1562C juror #177 ************************************************************************** From Peter Boor Yes - every once in a while I have been picked, although having a college degree seems to keep one out. Mine is in Physics. My most memorable trial was of the seven LA County Sheriffs (Majors something) that were caught skimming money from drug dealers. There were some others. Unforgettable...Peter Boor in Doylestown. ************************************************************************** From Randy jacobson We don't serve on juries because we don't have any peers: we're peerless! *************************************************************************** From Gary Paine I'm not a TIGHAR but I do lurk on the forum and, yes, I have been on a jury and served through all the way to a verdict. It was a case concerning a woman suing a grocery store chain for a hundred grand because she was horsing around with a shopping cart, tipped it over in the parking lot and skinned her hand. What was hilarious is that the woman claimed to be an artist and that she was no longer able to paint, draw or even comfortably hold a brush or pencil because of nerve and muscle damage to her hand. One of the corporate defense lawyers set up on an easel a map of the store and parking lot and asked her to show the path she had been traveling when the cart tipped. She started to point it out. He asked her if she would trace it so the jury could see better and handed her a fat marker. She did, drawing without a hint of difficulty or discomfort, making a bold line across the huge easel map. The defense lawyer asked her to indicate some other landmarks on the map, which she did without hesitation, flipping the marker around in her hand so she could use her finger to point, then flipping it back to make the notations when he asked her to label the spots. He took the map away then, without another comment other than to say "thank you." The defense rested. The woman's lawyer looked like he was about to choke on glass the entire time she was drawing and actually slumped his head on the table when she handed the marker back to the defense attorney. We, the Jury found in favor of the defendant. And I NEVER thought I would be one to side with corporate suits over an individule. *shiver* I was also on a jury for a murder trial that was a potential capital punishment case. When it ended early in a mistrial, I was VERY relieved. --gary payne *************************************************************************** From Ed of PSL I was called twice for jury duty and selected twice. Once as a juror (two week trial involving multiple suits and loss of life) and one as an alternate (released when the case went to the jury). These were very interesting experiences, one in Pennsylvania and one in Florida. I felt good as a citizen afterwards in each case. LTM Ed of PSL #2415 *************************************************************************** From Bill Moffett Ric: Guess my smile is OK. I sat on a jury in Houston, TX Traffic Court back in the 60's. Don't remember the details of the case(s). In the late 80's I caught a week of Federal Court in Philly. One case dealt with and apparently defective pacemaker which meant, as I recall, that the plaintiff had to undergo a second operation to install a replacement. We found in favor of the plaintiff and against the maker of the pacemaker. There was a second case dealing with drugs. Recall listening to a young woman who got into the sale of "coke" in order to support her habit. Sad! Tragic! We nailed the dealer, but the DEA couldn't get higher up the chain. Too bad. I got out of a third case which dealt in some fashion with the local mob. (Angelo Bruno was still around as I recall.) In the jury selection process we were questioned by the attorneys. When they learned that my father-in-law retired as the US Marshal in Seattle, I was excused! Stay tuned: I've been summoned to sit on the jury in the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County, PA, Feb. 25-26. Bill Moffet #2156CE of Wayne, PA *************************************************************************** From Janet Powell >Has anyone on the forum ever actually >been selected and served on a jury? Certainly have, - twice! Theft and attempted murder, - but it was before joining the Forum, and I've often wondered why I've never been selected again........ Mmmmmm.... Janet #2225 *************************************************************************** From Mike Haddock Last year I had the priviledge to serve on a jury and was the foreman of the jury in a medical malpractice suit. Fascinating but extremely frustrating. Our jury found for the defendant, an orthopedic surgeon, who had botched a knee replacement surgery. The surgery had to be redone but the surgeon doing the corrective procedure would not make any incriminating statements about the doctor in question. I was so bothered by the decision that I wrote the plaintiff's attorney a letter and explained how our august group had ruled in favor of the doctor. He appealed and lost. I enjoyed the entire week but the result left a bad taste in my mouth. LTM Mike Haddock, #2438 **************************************************************************** From David Kelly If you really don't want to be picked, you can walk into the court and when the silk (a senior lawyer in Australia/UK etc) starts to question you for selection, you can just say "I think the bastards guilty" and you are guaranteed not to be picked. Although you won't win any friends amongst the judges. ************************************************************************ From Jim Tierney No- I have never served on a jury--but here in Ventura County , CA--I got the notice and on five occasions in six years-I went-got on the panel and after the questioning I was bounced by one side or the other..... Must be the way I look and talk which is different from the majority of those here on the left coast.. Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:09:25 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: other castaway Let me take a stab at the null hypothesis (i.e. castaway is not AE or FN). I'll base my scenario on the case of the Wing-On, an American yacht that fetched up on a reef in Fiji in 1940 after drifting for some hundreds or thousands of miles following a disaster that left her without power and unable to steer. Scenario: The year is 1925. The yacht Leg-Off, out of Los Angeles, is cruising the south seas, her crew consisting of Joe Oarless and his wife Mary, and Sarah Spikeless and her husband Marlin. Somewhere east of the Marshalls they encounter a storm and the yacht is dismasted. Using their trusty sextant to navigate, the Oarlesses and Spikelesses crank up the engine and chug along toward Jaluit, but soon run out of gas. They can do nothing but drift. They soon run out of food and water. Things get desparate. One by one they expire until only Sarah is left alive. A rain squall strikes and Sarah is able to collect some water in a benedictine bottle and some casks with small corks. The squall drives the Leg-Off up on the windward side of Niku, where Sarah, virtually deranged from her experience, is able to struggle ashore with her water containers, a couple of pairs of shoes, and the sextant in its box, which to her somewhat confused mind seems like it might come in handy. The Leg-Off breaks up on the reef. Sarah is revived by the water, the need to protect herself from several hundred voracious coconut crabs, and the ready availability of fish, shellfish, birds, and turtles. Having been a girl scout in her youth, she is able to get a fire going with the sextant lenses, and subsists on the island for some months before finally expiring. Voila -- this scenario not only accounts for everything both Gallagher and we observed at the Seven Site (except the probable Coast Guard and later material) AND it's consistent with Gallagher's and Isaac's estimates of the age of the bones. The population structure of the Win-On's crew was as described above, by the way, and only one member of the crew, one of the wives, survived, landing in Fiji in a thoroughly deranged state of mind. ************************************************************************** From Ric One question: Did no portion of the yacht Leg-Off survive to later be noticed on the reef or shore by the two ships that rescued the NC survivors in 1929 or be seen and mentioned by the NZ or Bushnell surveys or Gallagher's search? The NZ survey in 1938 saw, photographed and noted the presence on the shore of a lifeboat from the NC. One to the things that I have always found interesting about Gallagher's castaway is the apparent absence of any explanation for how the person or persons got to the island. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:12:42 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: New York Lifebouy Is it confirmed that AE had a life raft? If so, she had no need for bouys. Right? **************************************************************************** From Ric It is NOT confirmed. In fact, there is no indication that she did have a life raft aboard the Electra. She did have one aboard her Vega for the 1935 Hono/Oakland flight, but the Luke field inventory lists only personal flotation devices on the Electra. And nobody knows what was aboard coming out of Lae. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:14:10 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Seeds of AE's survival You may well be right that the origin of AE's survival, true or not, may have started with the Ryuzo Morita report in July 1937. He was an employee of the Jaluit Branch Office, South Sea Government. Morita believed [ most likely mistakenly] there could have been a connection between the New York lifebuoy and AE's plane. No doubt that the Japanese were searching the Marshalls at our request. Morita was "later" transferred, according to the G-2 memo, to Saipan as a secretary in a hospital, then to Guam when the war started. Morita must have discussed his "findings" with contemporaries at Saipan. Interestingly, Morita makes no mention that the Koshu sailed in to Jaluit Harbor in late July 37 with the Electra on the stern where Japanese corpsman Bilermon Amaron treated AE and FN, according to some researchers. Morita was there in July 37, and in view of his familiarty with the Earhart disappearance would have been in a positon to know or personally observe those events. I had not heard of Morita before. LTM, Ron Bright Bremerton,WA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:19:18 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: other castaway > From Ric > > It's hard to > imagine a wooden box out in the weather on that island holding up for more > than a few years. You did leave one there I hope? To check back on NikuV? Possibly one of the more important experiements. Mine was left in as near to a similar environment as I could find above the coral rubble, back a couple of metres behind the tree line, but about 10 mths later it had disappeared, probably picked up by some yachtie wandering around on the island. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric We've left lots of things on the island over the years in the hope of being able to use them on future trips but they always either disappear or deteriorate to the point of being useless. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:20:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: New York Lifebouy > that Morita in 1937 had found a red horseshoe > lifebuoy inscribed with "NEW YORK" adrift on the sea near "Radak Island". > Morita thought the lifebuoy may have come from the Electra. [ I can't find > Radak Is ] >.....!!! Ron Bright Google lists a Radak Island in the Carolines.. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:21:47 EST From: Susie Subject: Re: Off Topic - Jury Duty I served on a Grand Jury for three months. It was an eye opening experience! Don't ever go to jail. Susie ************************************************************************** From Ric It's a constant struggle. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:27:17 EST From: Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho Subject: Amelia Mystery solved? http://www.bluegrassnet.com/tgbs/A/Amelia_earhart.html Dale **************************************************************************** From Ric They've got the lyrics screwed up and song misattributed. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:28:44 EST From: Harold Davey Subject: Artifacts 2-6-S-21-F and 2-6-S-32 I have been in the commercial aviation business for over 50 years (I'm 68) and in looking at the unidentified artifacts on your web site two of them seem somewhat familiar. Artifact 2-6-S-21F looks like it might be the mounting cap of a radio tuning coil. In radios of the 1937 era tuning short wave radios was usually done with a combination of tuning capacitors and tuning coils. The coils were usually constructed with very fine copper wire wrapped around a cylindrical waxed cardboard tube and the item 2-6-S-21F looks like the mounting base found on one or both ends. The Artifact 2-6-S-32 looks like part of the ceramic mount for a plate type tuning capacitor out of a radio set. The capacitor blades were usually made of aluminum and could have corroded away. On the other hand I could be entirely mistaken about the nature of the parts. I am in the middle of reading "Amelia Earhart's shoes." Very interesting. Cheers, Harold Davey Bedford, Texas (near DFW airport) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:29:57 EST From: Chuck Boyle Subject: Canteens I do not remember ever seeing a GI Canteen during my stay on Atafu or Canton. Chuck Boyle. Presently staying in Naples, FL for the month of February. This is the place to be. **************************************************************************** From Ric So were there no canteens around at all? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:30:55 EST From: Doc Holloway in Bland, MO Subject: Canteens I dug out my old canteen from my Boy Scout days. It's a surplus "almost" WWI variety with a 1918 date on the back. It has a screw-on cap secured with a brass? chain. The cap is ~ 1 1/4" in diameter and ~ 5/8" tall. The top is somewhat dome shaped and the sides have 1/2" vertical striations. The cap is attached to the chain with round headed rivet. Both the cap and the canteen seem to be aluminium. As I vaguely recall, the cap used to have a cork insert to provide a seal. LTM (Who was known to keep "medicinal" brandy in her canteen.) Doc ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:32:08 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: the knob > Current manufacturers of anything can rarely provide useful information > about products the company made decades ago. Tell me about it. When I was a kid my grandmother used a product called fomaline in her ice cream. My best guess is that it is akin to Junket Rennet but there is not a living soul on earth that knows what it was or now has ever heard of it. I contacted all the ice cream makers. They never heard of it. Gone into oblivion. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:07:58 EST From: Stuart Subject: Fomaline > From Alan > > Tell me about it. When I was a kid my grandmother used a product called > fomaline in her ice cream. ... For what its worth, from a Copernic web search, this is the only reference that came up to anything called "fomaline". I hope it wasn't this stuff that your grandmother used in her ice cream! http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/1998/280898/Features/FN6.html Stuart ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:13:45 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: other castaway In response to the question: >Did no portion of the yacht Leg-Off survive to later be noticed on the reef >or shore by the two ships that rescued the NC survivors in 1929 or be seen >and mentioned by the NZ or Bushnell surveys or Gallagher's search? No; in the four years prior to the Norwich City wreck it was entirely beaten to scrap, and besides, it was on the SE windward side while the NC was on the NW lee. All signs were long gone by the late '30s. It wasn't a very big yacht (The Wing-On, as I recall, was described as a converted whaleboat, or something of the kind) *********************************************************************** From Ric And why, apparently unlike the Wing-On, was the loss of the Leg-Off never reported? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:14:57 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: other castaway Re.: We've left lots of things on the island over the years in the hope of being able to use them on future trips but they always either disappear or deteriorate to the point of being useless. True, but on the other hand, in the village the wooden walls of the Co-op store and wireless shack have held up pretty well for 40 years. It's not at all clear to me what controls the rate at which wood deteriorates on Niku, but I suspect that it varies a lot with exposure to sunlight and moisture. Since we don't know the conditions under which the sextant box was found, I've never given much thought to trying to replicate them. However, we left a lot of stuff at the Seven Site, and recorded what was left in fair detail, so we should be able to get some kind of fix on the question if and when anyone goes back. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:20:55 EST From: Mike E. Subject: Re: Artifacts 2-6-S-21-F and 2-6-S-32 Thanks to Harold for this input. My thoughts.... >Artifact 2-6-S-21F looks like it might be the >mounting cap of a radio tuning coil. In radios of the 1937 era tuning short >wave radios was usually done with a combination of tuning capacitors and >tuning coils. The coils were usually constructed with very fine copper wire >wrapped around a cylindrical waxed cardboard tube and the item 2-6-S-21F >looks like the mounting base found on one or both ends. I'm not sure I agree with this... the 30s coil forms I am familiar with, from commercially made equipment, are made of either Bakelite, ceramic, or Steatite. Very few tuning adjustments are actually found on coils... most stuff of this vintage was tuned by means of variable "trimmer" capacitors connected to the coils. AE's receiver was not tuned by varying the coils themselves in any way. Rather, it was tuned by a large variable capacitor like most any other radio of the period. The transmitter was tuned by means of taps on the coils, or connection to the wire of the coils themselves. There was one small "trimmer" adjustment on the transmitter output coil, but this was adjusted using a screwdriver or tuning tool, through a hole in the panel... not a knob. All the other tuned circuits in the transmitter were "broadband" in nature, no tuning adjustments. >The Artifact 2-6-S-32 looks like part of the ceramic mount for a plate type >tuning capacitor out of a radio set. The capacitor blades were usually made >of aluminum and could have corroded away. Now, this is an interesting thought... I have seen variable capacitors, from this era, of which part of the structure -- usually the part where the connections to the "stator" or stationary plates was made -- was made of Micarta (and this artifact is made of Micarta). I have a few such capacitors, which I think were made by Hammarlund or National, who made parts for everybody in the radio manufacturing business. By the way, most variable capacitors were and still are constructed so that the rotor plates, and the adjustment shaft, are at ground potential. Especially those used in a transmitter. Some, mostly small "trimmers" are made with a ceramic structure to which the plates are mounted by means of metal shafts or other structure. AE's transmitter, however, used fixed capacitors in all tuned circuits; again, the tuning was done by changing tap points on the coils. This artifact could just as easily be part of the mounting base for a coil assembly... but: Unless and until we get a chance to examine a real, live WE 13C transmitter, and a WE 20-series receiver, to see if any of the pieces match, I fear we are shooting at the moon, trying to make a connection to AE through these items. The AT&T Archives in Warren, NJ may have one in its collection. Perhaps contact should be made there. That may "settle this hash" once and for all, including the debate on the artifacts we are pretty sure are the remains of vacuum tubes (but not necessarily from AE's equipment). Unfortunately I am a long way from Jersey and due to my teaching schedule a trip is not possible now.... LTM (who has more connections than the phone company) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric I, for one, see no reasonable connection between the artifacts that are increasingly certain to be radio tube components and Earhart's radios. More and more, these are looking like radio tubes brought from the Loran station and used for rifle target practice. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:22:04 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: other castaway Not a bad scenario, but I'd bet in 1925 that the yacht would have been insured, with some record of a total loss or a missing vessel. I originally mentioned whalers, thinking that there wouldn't have been many records, but apparently many of them were insured as well (The crew paid the insurance out of their "lay" or share of the profits). There are recorded whalers, who disappeared without a trace. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Thar she blows!) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:55:58 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: No Subject This has probably been discussed, but I was looking at the inventory list of Gallagher's personal items and there were 2 wireless radios. Any thoughts about the artifacts being from Gallagher's wireless equipment? Hope this hasn't been beaten to death already. LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 *************************************************************************** From Ric Small radios. Receive only. Can't be the source of this stuff. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:28:26 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross Alan, we are on the same sheet of music. I guess my previous postings got pretty long winded, I just slipped into "instructor mode." Mainly I was responding to the postings from Dick, Bob and Doug who didn't seem to have a clear understanding of celestial. Also, your previous comment about extending the line through the Southern Cross five times to an imaginary point didn't make it clear that this was for an approximation of the south direction (in a boy scout sort of a way, not for precise navigation) and not for determining latitude. It is hard to measure the altitude of an imaginary point with a sextant. It is common, however, for many "Navs" to use Polaris to determine direction to check compass error and gyro drift. See AFM 51-40 (1973) page 14-16. This technique is still in AFPAM 11-216 (2001) page 268. Although Noonan didn't have a peroscopic sextant, which makes it real easy to measure the bearing to a star, I believe the aircraft had a pelorus which he could have used to take such bearings in the same way (either with Polaris or other stars) to check for compass errors. I also agree with you that you want to avoid using altitudes below 10 degrees due to the variations in refraction that can throw your LOP off by many mile. (Comments mainly aimed to provide additional information to non navigators.) Gary LaPook **************************************************************************** From Ric <> Cough, choke, gag. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:40:33 EST From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Re: Amelia songs Is this the real song? http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/ly-from.htm#amelia And what of this? http://freespace.virgin.net/dream.tree/japanps.html Does TIGHAR have this kind of stuff in its collection? Dale *************************************************************************** From Ric http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/ly-from.htm#amelia has it right. Red River Dave is the songwriter and those are very close to the lyrics I've heard on an original recording (although we do not have such in our collection). we do have two or three other songs about Amelia that people have sent to us over the years. I'm not familiar with the True Story of Amelia Earhart by Matthews mentioned in the second url. We, of course, have an extensive libarary of songs written in the course of various TIGHAR expeditions, including such classics as "Finding Amelia" (tune: Waltzing Matilda), "The Earhart Song" (tune The Air Force Song), and "Pardon Me, Tin" (tune: Chatanooga Choo Choo). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:42:59 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: other castaway Dan Postellon Excellent point about insurance, so how do we go about finding all the insurance records of vessel losses between, say, 1910 and 1935 in the central Pacific? *************************************************************************** From Ric It's called Lloyd's List and it's at the PRO in London. Kenton and I dug around in it for the better part of day when we were there. I suppose it may even be available on line now. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:49:43 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: other castaway Re: And why, apparently unlike the Wing-On, was the loss of the Leg-Off never reported? The Wing-On drifted ashore on an inhabited island in Fiji, where the lone survivor was treated in hospital by Dr. Steenson, as I recall. So it was reported at that end; Sir Harry and his staff had to interact with Abbott, the US Consul, about it. The Leg-off wasn't thus reported because, of course, there was no one on Niku to report it. As to whether the Wing-On's loss was reported at the U.S. end, no doubt it was, but the only reason I've seen documentation about the wreck was that it turned up in Abbott's files, now in the National Archives, and is also mentioned by Sir Harry in his "From a South Seas Diary." I've never seen documents from the U.S. end, and don't know where they'd be. So the hypothetical Leg-Off's loss might well have been reported, but where would such records exist today? Coast Guard archives? But where? No doubt The Forum Knows. It would be interesting to know how many boats and ships were lost upwind of Niku between, say, 1910 and 1937, with crew members or passengers (especially female) going missing. I'll bet that (a) it's not a terribly small number and that (b) there's no real way of putting an outside number on it, considering all the nations whose nationals might be puttering around the Pacific. *************************************************************************** From Ric The best source is probably Pacific Islands Monthly. They reported all sorts of things that went on in the islands. A missing yacht or sunken frieghter would be a big story. Library of Congress has, as I recall, a pretty collection. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:50:53 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? Ref--Todd Swindell and his discourse/diatribe---- Thats a lot to read and digest.... Where did HE come from????? Ric/Pat have gained 'fame and fortune'' ??????? Not the Ric/Pat I know..... OK-maybe 30-45 minutes of fame--but not fortune!!!!!!!!!!!!! I could copy and read it again--but I will leave that to better forumites--if they wish to......I will get on with my life... Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:55:02 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Formalin Alan wrote, excerpts: >When I was a kid my grandmother used a product called fomaline in her ice >cream... there is not a living soul on earth that knows what it >was.... the ice cream makers never heard of it. Gone into oblivion. Alan, here is your info. (Ric *knew* I'd find this for you!) Formalin is a water-based solution made from formaldehyde, and is used as a preservative, and in the making of disinfectants, fungicides and germicides. It's also apparently used in dairy products in foreign countries. It's also used in fish tanks to kill parasites. It is more often spelled "formalin" than "formaline". You can read more, by searching Google http://www.google.com/search?q=formalin+solution http://www.google.com/search?q=formalin+ice+cream LTM, (who would rather wait for the embalming table for her dose of formalin) Suzanne **************************************************************************** From Ric Good Gawd. I've used formalin to toughen horses' hooves. Not the sort of thing I would expect to find in ice cream. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:59:31 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: other castaway > Did no portion of the yacht Leg-Off survive to later be noticed on the reef > or shore by the two ships that rescued the NC survivors in 1929 or be seen > and mentioned by the NZ or Bushnell surveys or Gallagher's search? The NZ > survey in 1938 saw, photographed and noted the presence on the shore of a > lifeboat from the NC. Apparently, no portion of an Electra 10-E survived to be later noticed on the reef (or anywhere else) by anyone, either. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric True - as long as you discount John Mims, Timou Samuelu, Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu, Tapania Taeke, etc. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:01:13 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Fomaline I suspect that the chemical on the reference site is a typo, and should actually be "formalin", which is a formaldehyde compound. My recollection is, they use it in the beauty shop business as well, as a disinfectant. Or used to, anyway. The beauticians liked it because it made their fingernails really hard, so they'd grow longer without breaking. ltm jon 2266 **************************************************************************** From Ric Same for horses' fingernails. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:15:00 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: The Crashed and Sank Theory "The Race to Find Amelia" (Project Bulletin 2/20/02) is a handy summation of deep water search activities, despite your strong hints that such projects are sheer folly. (What was the name of that well-known PR man who actually FOUND a needle in a haystack - on a bet?) The conventional wisdom around TIGHAR hangouts is that the Electra couldn't possibly have sunk to the bottom of the Pacific, since there is no confirming evidence, such as floating debris (be it flotsam or jetsam) or an oil slick. Those clues are mighty handy for searchers, but all to often never turn up, even if the crash location is reasonably well identified. Capt. Safford said it well; "I was aboard a destroyer performing plane guard duty for the NC-4 trans-Atlantic flight in 1919, and on another for the Dole Flight (Pineapple Derby) in 1927. I was present at the scene of the crash of the dirigible AKRON and missed seeing the MACON crash by less than an hour. I know from personal experience how rapidly the ocean can swallow a disabled aircraft, leaving no visible trace." I'm sure the Coast Guard can tell you the same, and may even be able to provide statistics. [Note: there were several planes lost on the Pineapple Derby - with no survivors or oil slicks found, despite their wood and cloth construction..] Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric The bulletin can be found at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/35_Titanic/titanicbulletin.html No argument. The lack of any direct evidence that the airplane went down at sea does not mean it didn't happen. In the absence of direct evidence that something else happened, crashed and sank seems to be the most logical default explanation. The problem is, there is quite a bit of direct evidence that suggests that something else DID happen. But that's not why the deep water search is folly. The folly is in thinking that a reasonable search area can be constrained and such a tiny target can be found - even if it's there somewhere. Watch for another bulletin "RMS Ttitanic versus NR16020" later today. It will present graphic comparisons between the two searches. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:28:06 EST From: Ric Subject: Not off topic - believe it or not Here's a question I'd like to put out to the forum. After we have some answers I'll explain it all but I don't want to prejudice the respondents. The question: You've dug some clams at the seashore (or bought them at the fish market) and you're going to eat them raw. How do you get them open? Second part: Same question but this time it's oysters. How do you get them open? In each case, describe the tool(s) and technique(s) and also where and how you learned how to use them. Thanks, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:57:48 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross > From Gary LaPook > > > I guess my previous postings got pretty long winded, I just slipped into > "instructor mode." Mainly I was responding to the postings from Dick, Bob and > Doug who didn't seem to have a clear understanding of celestial. It is a relief to know that those of us who thought we understood celestial navigation can look forward to learning from a real expert. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:01:06 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory Cam, the needle in a haystack is not a good analogy. The haystack is a small contained object and it is known the needle is in it. I echo Ric's comment about the lack of evidence not being the folly issue. The folly is thinking it is rational to search over 600,000 square miles of ocean without the slightest clue where in that area to search. If you don't know where the 600,000 sq miles of ocean came from you've missed a lengthy thread. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:27:48 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory Yes, the Electra was "a tiny target" compared to the TITANIC. But what about that cargo door (from a United Airlines {?} plane) recovered halfway between San Francisco and Honolulu?? By all means read "Blindman's Bluff" re cold-war submarine activity, if you haven't already. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric The technology exists to find a safety pin on the ocean bottom. That's not the point. The 747 cargo door was found because the search area could be accurately constrained with practical limits. They had radar plots that tracked its descent. It wasn't "lost". They knew where it was within relatively tight parameters so they could search very tightly - and they still felt lucky to have found it. If you drop a contact lens while standing over a stoppered sink you have a reasonable expectation of finding it. If you drop it while leaning over the edge of a hot air balloon basket at 2,000 feet you can probably forget it. To say that Earhart may have run out of gas and crashed at sea is not unreasonable. Finding a target that small in a 2,000 square mile area 17,000 feet down is theoretically possible given enough time, but it has never been done. The real search area, however, is more like 636,000 square miles. We've seen the reasoning used to narrow the search area to 2,000 square miles and it is deeply flawed. Make no mistake, I am all in favor of Nauticos, Timmer, Kammerer, and Howdy Doody (if he can raise the money) going out and searching the ocean bottom for Amelia Earhart. It stimulates the economy and keeps the search in the news. Their failure will naturally (if not logically) swing the pendulum of attention back to where the evidence is - Nikumaroro. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:38:06 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross > Mainly I was responding to the postings from Dick, Bob and Doug > who didn't seem to have a clear understanding of celestial. > > Cough, choke, gag. I guess I came in late on something. *************************************************************************** From Ric You might say that. You're talking about folks who have years of practical experience in celestial navigation in the air and on the sea. They are among a group of forum subscribers we have come to refer to as our Celestial Choir. They'll listen to what you have to say and debate you point by point, but you just rode into Tombstone and told the Earp brothers to meet you down at the OK Corral. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:35:05 EST From: Ric Subject: Of Clams & Oysters (huge) Here are the first day's results of of our "How to open a clam or oyster" survey. ************************************************************************** From Tom King "When the oysters have a slight gap at the closed hinge, you can make quick work of them either with a beer-can opener or a stout oyster knife. Place an oyster, curved side down, on your work surface; the small or hinge end of the oyster should be facing you. "The beer-can opener. This is the easiest opener. Turn it upside down, insert the pointed end into the gap at the hinge, press down on the handle while holding the oyster firmly with your other hand -- the hinge pops open. "Or the oyster knife. Work the point of an oyster knife into the hinge with an up-and-down pushing motion until the hinge pops." Julia Child: The Way To Cook. Alfred A Knopf 1999:118 *************************************************************************** From David Katz Simple observation of the clams (or oysters) would indicate that I would need a knife or similar implement to open them. Been there, done that many times on numerous clambakes. Can't wait to learn how this relates to the search for AE. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Herman De Wulf (#2406) in Brussels I don't know about clams. I've never tried to open clams. I do know about oysters. And mussels. A simple way to open them is to cook them. If you want to eat your oysters raw you'll need a special "oyster knife" which is sold in any decent supermarket and therefore you'll find in any decent kitchen. If you live in Europe, try your Swiss army knife. They are on sale everywhere and are not only used by the Swiss military... I think everyone has one (I have two because I lost one and later found it). Swiss army knives can be used for a dozen or more various jobs and have at least a dozen different knives of different sizes, awls, screwdrivers, a pair of scissors and whatever it takes a soldier to survive in the open (or do some repair work at home). Even opening oysters. Remember oysters have a week spot where you have to put the knife, then jerk it open. But it's sound advice always to protect the hand holding the oyster by wearing a leather glove or at least a towel. Sometimes oysters fight back and refuse to open and if you lose control over the knife. Oooooch ! By the way, Ric, if you buy them at the fish market you can always ask the guy who sells them to open them for you... LTM (who always carries a Swiss army knife when in the open) Herman (#2406) *************************************************************************** From Amanda Sorry, I've only ever seen Julia steam them. ;-) But here's a naive question from a city kid: if you've just harvested them from the lagoon, doesn't that mean they're still alive? When Julia was cooking clams and oysters she had live ones from her fishmonger. Julia demonstrated how to tell they were still alive: tap gently on the top shell. They don't like it and close up. LTM, who always watches Julia with me. Amanda Dunham TIGHAR #2418, patron ************************************************************************** From Jon Watson Well, if I didn't really know what I was doing, and had limited or no real resources - ie: marooned on a tropical island - I suppose I would put them on a hard surface and hit them with a rock until they broke. If I had a knife, or a piece of thin, spring steel, I might figure out how to cut them open, but I probably wouldn't be that sophisticated initially, especially if I was really hungry and didn't want to take the time. If I had a pot, fire, etc, I might try boiling them or steaming them. Sounds pretty good, actually. Makes me nostalgic for the days of my youth, when we raked a few clams out of the Delaware Bay.... ltm jon **************************************************************************** From Dan Postellon I'd prefer to steam them with hot rocks and seaweed. If I had to eat them raw, I'd slip a very thin knife between the shells and cut the "hinge" or muscle that holds the shells together. I've never actually done this, but I think I saw it in "The Joy of Cooking". I'd do the same for oysters. The only shellfish around here are zebra mussels, and I wouldn't want to try eating them. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM(But only in months with an 'R'.) **************************************************************************** From David Kelly The answer to both is an oyster knife and a lot of bandages (I always cut myself whenever I do that). Also, with regards to oysters, if you are taking them off a rock at the sea shore then you don't have to open them, you can only prise half the shell of the rock anyway. If, of course, you are talking about how AE etc could open shell fish, I would suggest that if they did not have a handy oyster knife or similar, a large rock would suffice. Regards David *************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell Ric, I saw my dad shuck oysters after we bought some at the docks in Baltimore. I had the impression this was the first time he had bought raw oysters. He pried them open with a screwdriver. It appeared to be a first impression attempt. It wasn't easy until he finally got on to it. I don't think a pocket knife would hold up to the chore. I later saw a neighbor do it with a tool he called an "oyster shucker." It looked like a short broad heavy duty knife. Again he just worked it in and pried but for him it seemed easy. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Lawrence I use a small, but thick edged knife and force my way into the shell to cut the abductor muscles. A good, spicy sauce is the key to enjoying muscles, clams, and oysters. Thanks, Lawrence. **************************************************************************** From Angus Murray How to open a Clam: 1) Find a large piece of coral or steel from the wreck to use as a hammer and smash open on a hard surface (eg the reef). 2) Find a sharp piece of steel or glass to use as a knife to cut the muscle at the hinge of the clam from outside. 3) Find a thin strip of steel to drive with another heavy chunk of steel into the edge joint of the upper and lower halves and wedge the clam open. 4) Heat the clam in its shell along the hinge with fire which will destroy the muscle and allow easy opening or perhaps cause voluntary opening. 5) Put the clam in a container full of water, or a pool on the reef, watch until it opens and quickly ram in a chock (chunk of coral etc) to hold it open. 6) Throw clam repeatedly against a hard surface (coral, Norwich City, etc) until it breaks ( the clam) 7) Climb up the superstructure of the Norwich City and drop the clam as far as possible on to the deck. 8) Find a long bar or girder of some sort on the Norwich City. Wedge the end under eg a door hinge or flange. Put the clam underneath and use as a giant nutcracker. 9) Use a steel door on the N.C. as a nutcracker.Prop the clam close to the hinge and slam the door. 10)Salvage the radio & battery from the electra. Radio to the outside world that I was having a clam bake and ask for instructions or find out from the guests. 11) Connect the anode supply of my radio to the clams hinge, ground the other end of the hinge to the chassis and await developments. 7) would probably not apply to oysters owing to the unfavourable surface area to weight ratio. I have never opened a clam in my life so most techniques are entirely theoretical. I have only opened shellfish on the beach as a kid using stones as a hammer. I think if I could find the tools, I would cook the clam in its shell using the sextant lenses as burning glass to start a fire. Then I would wedge/cut open to avoid damaging the meat of the clam by smashing the shell. Most of my knowledge of the habits of oysters resides in the following Oysters are prolific bivalves Rear their young ones in their shell (how they piddle is a riddle But they do - So what the hell!) Angus. *************************************************************************** From Lp Hi Ric, You have to pry them open; with something thin and that can give you leverage without bending. If I came upon some and was looking at them, my first thought would be to try prying first. Then, if no luck, I would try hot or boiling water. IM not a sea side person, and live only 50 miles from AE home. But the above logic would be for me first. The last thing would I would do was to smash them, but figure there must be an easy way since I have never found broken shells with the ones I eat. Haaa . good luck ************************************************************************** From Marty Joy I, like many others in the Northwest, have had considerable experience in opening clams and oysters. As I recall, our Heroes were from the Midwest and probably had no experience with either. Putting myself in their position with no experience. I would probably do this: noticing that each bivalve had a seam around the middle, I would try to insert something like a pocketknife, belt-buckle, clamshell half, into the seam and pry it open. Now while we all know that raw oysters are very tasty, our heroes may not have shared our opinion. If they had a way to boil water, they could have just dumped them in and waited for them to open. If they were really hungry, they probably would have smashed them open, scooped out the innards and eaten them raw or cooked them over an open fire. **************************************************************************** From Chris Rehm I can pry them open with a screw driver, both types of shell fish will probably break off some pieces of the shell,ie the shells will be chipped really could use any rigid pointy object, even maybe a stick if it was a really hard wood chris rehm *************************************************************************** From Tom King: Since I know why this isn't off topic (but won't tell), let me add one other factor: our primary interest is in BIG clams, like Gooyducks on the Pacific coast and whatever's similar on the east coast. *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, this is interesting. My initial request for information was: <> Mostly we've demonstrated that forum subscribers can't just answer the question - but we already knew that. Several respondents had no knowledge or experience in the subject but offered their opinion anyway (so what else is new?). Several tried to second guess what I was getting at. However, some interesting information has emerged. 1) The "right" way to open an oyster is not intuitive. You have to have been taught how to do it. 2) The technique seems to also work on clams, although only David Kelly said so specifically. 3) Those who knew how to open an oyster by going in at the base of the shell, as described by Julia Child, were Herman in Belgium and David Kelly in New South Wales, Australia. So far we've not heard from anyone in New England. Marty Joy, who says that he has a lot experience opening clams and oysters in the Northwest, didn't answer the question but instead speculated about what he thought a castaway might do. It's not clear whether he knows the Child technique or not. Let's see who else responds. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:36:32 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory I agree that a deep water search for AE's plane is a real crapshoot. The Titanic's position was pretty well documented if I'm not mistaken and she was a large target. On this forum we can't agree within a hundred miles or so where AE "might" have wound up. I personally subscribe to the Nikuu hypothesis. I can't imagine well intended people putting up large sums of money to promote a deep sea search when there is no hard evidence she went down at sea let alone WHERE she went down. Keep up the good work Ric! LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:39:39 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Of Clams & Oysters Living by the seaside where oysters and clams are plentifull in front of my home, I see daily one of the most effective but simple ways to open them. A seagull takes the clam or oyster up about 30-40 ft in the air, drops them on the rocks to crack the shell. If one drop doesn't work the gull tries again,and within two or three drops has a nice beak full of an oyster or clam. The shell usually is damaged. The gulls on Puget Sound never go hungry. LTM ( Love those Mollusks) Ron Bright Bremerton, WA *************************************************************************** From Ric Northwest US. Not familar with the Child technique. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:43:04 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Fomaline I'd recommend carrageenan, made from red algae. (See, I told you I could keep this on-topic) Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:47:26 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Radio queries etc Can anyone qualified offer any opinion on how AE's signal strength (qualitatively) might change with orientation of the aircraft? E.g. If she turned 180 would the signal be expected to change noticeably? Has anyone considered the effect of wet or dried salt spray on aerial insulators in allowing leakage to earth. I imagine a landing on a reef close to breakers would rapidly result in degraded communication from this problem unless the operator knew enough to clean the insulators regularly. Presumably this is not something pilots or navigators were taught about? How similar is the inaccurate19th C map of Gardner to Atafu? Do we know the probable basis and its date of Noonan's charts of the Phoenix group? Where did Pan Am source their charts at that time? Regards Angus **************************************************************************** From Ric Bob Brandenburg and Mike Everette can help you with the antenna orientation question. I don't know the answers to your other questions. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:49:32 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Crashed and Sank Theory > But what about that cargo door (from a United Airlines {?} plane) recovered > halfway between San Francisco and Honolulu?? At last, a subject about which I have a little knowledge! The coordinates where the door impacted the ocean surface were known, as was the current. The door was found within a short distance of its predicted location on the ocean floor. The specific technology used to pinpoint the door was not revealed, but the location was determined during the first week of investigation at HNL. Recovery of the door was another matter. The cause of the door opening in flight was chaffed wires rather than human error, as was initially postulated. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:17:23 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Of Clams and Oysters Yet another trend is the responses from non-coastal types is that they would try to cook them first. This reminds me of a line from the song "Hopelessly Midwestern" "If you still think sushi looks a lot like bait, you're hopelessly Midwestern" from Grand Rapids, Michigan Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:19:14 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters In the northwest where clams and oysters are plentiful, the Indians probably found them about 200 years ago. I have always wondered who tried to eat the first oyster! Anyway, as I said, by observing gulls dropping clams on the beach, one would simply take a clam and strike it on a rock,crumbling the shell. There is your raw clam. Same with an oyster. Simply take a rock and hit the oyster a few times, crack the shell, and you have a raw oyster. It wouldnt take long before one could observe the hinge where you could now insert an instrument, but others prefer opening the oyster at the opposite end of the hinge. A good shucker can do about 20- 30 oysters in a minute. The easiest way is to put an oyster on top of a fire, and in about a couple of minutes , the oysters opens up. All Tighars are invited to a Hood Canal Oysterfest this summer. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:22:42 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio queries etc > From Angus Murray > > Can anyone qualified offer any opinion on how AE's signal strength > (qualitatively) might change with orientation of the aircraft? E.g. If she > turned 180 would the signal be expected to change noticeably? > Has anyone considered the effect of wet or dried salt spray on aerial > insulators in allowing leakage to earth. I imagine a landing on a reef close > to breakers would rapidly result in degraded communication from this problem > unless the operator knew enough to clean the insulators regularly. > Presumably this is not something pilots or navigators were taught about? The radiation pattern of AE's antenna was essentially circular at radiation angles exceeding about 2 degrees above the horizontal. So when the aircraft was airborne, orientation had no significant effect on signal strength. When the aircraft was on the ground, the radiation pattern for low takeoff angle (i.e., long distance single-hop ionospheric paths) varied slightly from omnidirectional, so aircraft orientation made a slight difference in radiated field strength in any given direction. This effect was taken into account in modeling the field strength for post-loss signals. I have not considered the effect of salt spray on the antenna insulators in the radio signals analysis. For what it's worth, I know that shipboard antenna insulators work well in salt spray conditions, even without intervening rain to wash them clean. I've often operated in high sea states with lots of spray, and no rain, without noticeable degradation of radio signals. My guess is that AE's insulators probably were not seriously encrusted by salt spray, even absent rain, because the combination of breeze and high ambient temperature at Niku would tend to dry the spray rapidly thus minimizing salt adherence to the insulator surface. TIGHAR expedition team members may be able to shed some empirical light on this question based on their observations of debris on the reef flat. What say, guys? Is there significant salt spray encrustation on the Norwich City wreck, or on debris such as the boiler, etc? Bob #2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric Nah. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:17:42 EST From: Ric Subject: False alarm A little drama has played out here over the last few days that I'd like to share with everyone as an illustration of the pitfalls of anecdotal evidence. My notes: About 09:30 this morning, Monday February 18, we got a phone call from Charles "Chuck" Troutman who said that he is a former employee of Global and was a flight "mech" (mechanic) with an Air Force missile project in the Phoenix Islands in 1974/75. He remembers being on a trip where some scientists went to look at the wildlife on Nikumaroro. The name Roger Clapp sounded familar to him (Roger is an ornithologist who was on that trip and has shared his notes and photos with us). They landed, he thinks, near the smaller lagoon passage and while the crew was waiting for the scientists to do their thing he did some poking around back in the bush where he says he saw that shoe that we found and two graves. He also saw the wreckage of an airplane similar to a Twin Beech. He has photos. There was a building that had a monument near it. At first I thought he was talking about the old landing beacon near the Co-Op store but he says that the monument was much smaller than that. Maybe an 18 or 21 inch base and about four feet tall. It wasn't far from the beach. He says that the airplane wreckage was "a little distance" away and "off to the right". There was a cylinder that he thought might be from a Pratt & Whitney "1320" and a "hydromatic" prop. He has seen our documentaries on television and just assumed that we must know about this stuff. He is now flying for a company called Airahoma(?). He's flying left seat in a Convair 240 (former USAF T- something or other), hauling priority freight for DHL between Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. Best way to reach him is by his cell phone. When he called he was driving to the company's main office in St. Louis and expected to arrive there in about four hours. He had prints of the photos with him and, once he gets to the office, he'll scan them and email them to me. My impressions: The guy certainly sounds totally legitimate. No indication that he is looking for fame or fortune. Everything he said about SAMTEC and the island checks with what we know. He is absolutley certain that the island was Gardner. He is also quick to admit that his memory may be mixing up details about where he was on the island. I didn't quiz him too hard on this first call. I kept it light but I made it clear I was very interested in seeing his photos. All we can do at this point is just wait and see what the photos show. 14:45 Chuck called to say that prints have been scanned and should be on the way shortly. He says there was a "centersection" and a "two-bladed prop" on the ground just behind it. after thinking about it, he thinks that the photo of the monument was taken on Sydney Island, ( I know there is such a monument there) but he feels sure that the others were taken on Gardner. 15:30 Nothing has arrived. Called and found out that the file is too big and the person on the computer doesn't know how to make it smaller. We'll try again tomorrow. My impressions: If he really has photos of a centersection and prop beside graves on Gardner it almost HAS to be somewhere in the village, which means that it's not there now. So where did it go? An Electra centersection weighs several thousand pounds. Nobody would move something like that without having an awful good reason - which means a big conspiracy to hide Earhart's fate. Seems totally incredible, but if the photos are for real.....? What if they show the famous Wreck Photo, but further deteriorated? Tuesday, 2/19/02: 11:40 Chuck called. He'll take the prints to Kinko's and have them scan them and email them to me. The more I think about this the less sense it makes. Centersection, prop, grave - all sounds like the C-47 wreckage on Sydney. We have a photo of that wreckage taken in 1971. Should be apparent if his photo shows the same scene. 12:30 Photos arrived. Just as I thought. It's the C-47 on Sydney. Called Chuck and gave him the news as gently as possible. He's disappointed and not a little embarrassed. He says that the pilots "led him to believe" that they were on Gardner. I guess that's easier than saying that he just remembered it wrong. No matter. Thank goodness he had photos and we have good information and a photo of the Sydney wreck or we'd be concocting all kinds of explanations for where the wreckage went. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:16:24 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters I think: Clams are best openend from the front by prying open the shell and cutting the muscle inside. You need a fairly sharp instrument to get between the two halves. ( via visual survey at the raw bar while waiting for oysters ) Oysters are best opened from the rear by cutting the ligament that holds the two halves together. You need a less sharp and more durable instrument (Personal experience shucking many dozens) LTM ( who prefers oysters) Andrew McKenna ************************************************************************* From John Harsh I have never liked seafood and would only consider trying to eat a clam or oyster (there's a difference?) because there was absolutely nothing else left. I can imagine myself trying a few times unsuccessfully to pry one open before smashing it with a rock or similar tool. Assuming the resulting mush failed to attract a cow or chicken, I would consume it raw. Anything else would require more effort than I would be willing to expend for mere seafood. Regarding demographics, I live in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia (home of 2002 Daytona 500 Champion, Ward Burton). LTM (who thinks you should determine if either Fred or AE liked seafood. The one who did was survived by the one who didn't, if you know what I mean) JMH #0634C ************************************************************************** From Troy ok, I've never done either. If it were me, I would get a knife and pry it open. If that didn't work, I would try crushing some against eachother unless I had a rock. Maybe then I would smash it and pull the broken bits of shells out. If I had a fire, I would just boil them until they open up. It is my assumption that they would open up when you boil them. What is the difference between a clam and an oyster???? ************************************************************************** From Ric Well, for one thing, oysters grow pearls. Clams don't. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:36:10 EST From: Ric Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters - the point Okay, here's the reason for the question: Some of the clam shells recovered from the Seven Site show clear signs of having been bashed open. Others appear to have been opened the way oysters are opened (by people who know the technique). So far, our research indicates that Pacific island peoples don't bring clams "home" at all, but rather remove the meat in situ or right on the shoreline. In other words, the presence of the clam shells and the ways they were opened suggests that the person who ate the clams (presumably the castaway) was not a Pacific islander and was familiar with the "right" way to open an oyster. Our little survey suggests that, at least in 2002, that technique is known to relatively few people in the general population. At least in the 20th century, the custom of eating raw shellfish seems to have been pretty much confined to coastal areas where fresh seafood was available (naturally) and was most common among upper-middle class and upper class economic groups. For what it's worth, Earhart - who lived most of her adult life in Massachusetts and New York - fits that profile. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:40:30 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Radio queries etc Bob, First thanks for your very illuminating reply re signal strength. Re leakage via salt water I would query your conclusion that water/salt was not an issue. You may have heard of an Australian by the name of Ben Carlin who crossed the Atlantic in an amphibious jeep (really!) just after WWII. He had continuous radio transmission failure until it was suggested that sea water might be the problem. I quote: "And that was the end of our radio troubles except that even in the finest weather I always had to wipe the invisible film from the insulator before transmission" (Half Safe - Andre Deutsch p166). Sea water is undoubtedly a better electrolyte than a dry salt film and a damp salt film concentrated by repeated evaporation of water would be even better. In the high temperatures of Niku at the reef edge one might expect these conditions. If the film that caused Ben Carlin problems was invisible, lack of dried salt on eg the Norwich City would prove nothing. Further, I don't see why rapid drying would hinder adherence of such a film. Repeated wetting and rapid drying would in fact thicken the layer of salt. If on the other hand the insulator was continuously wetted, no real concentration by evaporation could occur as the strengthening solution was washed off by and diluted by fresh seawater. Perhaps you have run into no problems with shipboard insulator leakage because the insulators were specifically designed (long leakage path) to cope with just this problem It is unlikely the electra antenna insulators would have been designed with this problem in mind. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric On the island we carry handheld marine band radios for intra-team and ship-to-shore communications. Salt film has not been a problem. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:42:51 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: False alarm It may be a disappointment but at least it shows some people are interested in what TIGHAR does and are motivated enough to go out of their way to try and be helpful. LTM (who said that all clouds have a silver lining) *************************************************************************** From Ric We consistently find that most people are eager to help and very few seek any kind of personal gain. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:46:30 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Convair 240 I looked it up. The military Convair 240 was the C-131. LTM ************************************************************************** From Ric It was also the T-29 "Flying Classroom". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:54:17 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Sydney photos Is this the C-47 that bit the dust in the 1940's doing some low passes as observed by locals and killed a few people? Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************************** From Ric The same. See "The Crash At Sydney Island" http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/14_2/14-2Sydcrash.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:02:12 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory > The Titanic's position was pretty well documented if I'm not > mistaken and she was a large target. The reported position was never believed, but yes, it was a hard, precise data point to start from. She was ultimately found fourteen nautical miles south east of that reported position. But it's worth remembering that the searchers EXPECTED to find her many miles south east of the recorded location, for reasons I won't go into here. There's no comparable data point (reported position) for the Electra and no (in my opinion anyway) equivalent data for alteration of whatever line or point one might generate from what is known. - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:04:51 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross Oops, sorry, didn't mean to step on any toes. I didn't know who the players were. Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric S'OK Gary. We all wear steel toed shoes. It's your own tootsies you have to watch out for. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:07:42 EST From: John Clauss Subject: Re: Crashed and Sank Theory > But what about that cargo door (from a United Airlines {?} plane) recovered > halfway between San Francisco and Honolulu?? A little background for forumites. In 1991 we took a team from Oceaneering International to conduct a sidescan sonar search of the waters around Niku. The group was headed up by a fellow named Ric Horgan and he had recently been part of the team that had located this particular 747 cargo door. This is just to say that when Tighar's Ric talks about deep sea searching he knows a bit about the subject. Over the years we have had the benefit of advice from some of the top people in the industry. John Clauss Lake Tahoe ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:22:46 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: 'The Folly of it all' So why not simply persuade Mr. Kammerer (who has already invested $300,000 to help finance NIKUIIII) to spend his _own_ 2M+ diving with the Argus, 'where the evidence is', off the edge of the deep end of the reef-flat at Nikumaroro Island, rather than having everyone wasting all that time, money & effort 'trolling' the bottom of the Pacific depths, where _no_ evidence exists? Don Neumann sandon@webtv.net ************************************************************************** From Ric Or I could simply persuade Bill Gates to fund it and then I wouldn't have to deal with Kammerer. Or I could persuade Elgen Long to change his mind and then the Nauticos effort would be directed at Niku. Why didn't I think of this? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:26:05 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Radio queries etc > On the island we carry handheld marine band radios for intra-team and > ship-to-shore communications. Salt film has not been a problem. But presumably you don't stand in the surf at the reef edge with them for days at a time. Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric No, but they ride back and forth every day from the ship to the island in a spray-soaked skiff and get splashed about in the landing channel. Nothing stays dry out there. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:27:34 EST From: Jim Kellen Subject: How Big Is Your Haystack I think the needle in a haystack analogy is a little optimistic. Assuming the Electra to be the size of a 4 inch long by 1/16 inch diameter needle I calculate it is lost in a 10 foot by 10 foot haystack about 2 miles high, or a 10 foot high haystack covering 4 football fields. (Assumes the Electra is somewhere in a 600,000 square mile by 10 foot high volume of ocean. Its not really fair to count the full 17000 feet of ocean on top of it, as it can only be in the last 10 feet, or more likely last six inches). Jim Kellen #2331 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:47:07 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Other Castaway, Null I will also take a stab at the null hypothesis regarding the castaway being someone other than AE or FN. My edition will involve some known facts along with some assumptions. The year is 1929. The Norwich City runs aground on the reef surrounding Niku during a very severe storm. The large waves generated by the storm pound the ship. As the ship begins to flounder, the life boats are prepared to be lowered. The crew members quickly grab a few valuables and provisions and begin to board the boats. The captain wisely grabs his trusty albeit expensive sextant. The rough seas, however, quickly capsize all the life boats tossing the crew and all their gear into the ocean. Most of the sailors make it to shore. Three of the sailors drown and their bodies wash up on the shore and are buried by the survivors. The bodies of 7 of the sailors are never found (2 Englishman and 5 Arabs). [the above are givens] One of the lost Arabian sailors manages to grab onto a piece of floatsam and is eventually washed through Taitiman passage and into the lagoon. The waves deposit him on the shores of the lagoon east of Baureke passage. He swallowed enough sea water to make himself very sick and he has also sustained a head injury and a badly sprained ankle. He manages to crawl ashore where he passes out from a combination of exhaustion, sickness, and his head injury. He comes to a few days later but finds that he can barely move around due to his ankle injury. He manages to struggle along the shoreline where he finds some debri from the Norwich City to include a sextant box, a bottle with some water in it and a wooden cask (with corks and brass chains) containing a bit of food. An inverting eye piece that he found in the sextant box works well as a fire starter. By this time his comrades, failing to locate him (or the others), have been rescued and have left the island. In turn, he was unable to locate them as he was physically separated a long distance from his shipmates... and was prevented from hearing any of their activites by the loud ever present deafening noise from the surf and wind that continue in the wake of the storm. In any case, the injured ankle... and the badly swollen (read deep and swift), shark-infested Baureke and Taitiman passages prevent him from making his way back to the Norwich City wreck site. At one point he thought he heard something on the ocean side, but in an effort to follow the noise, he became hopelessly lost and entangled in the almost impenetrable brush and jungle...all the while being hampered by his foot injury. He eventually made it to the ocean side...but not in time to see anything or to be seen. His first camp was on Aukaraime South..a camp site that is later discovered by Bevington (or not if you so chose). With the swollen Barueke Passage blocking his path to the west, he wanders to the east. He is disoriented in any case and not sure even whichway the wreck is. He struggles along for a while eventually reaching the windward side where upon he catches a turtle, clams and some birds (at the 7-site or wherever) and sets up another camp. His meager food and water supply eventually cathes up with him and he expires. Ahh, but what about the shoe parts that Gallagher found? There are two possibilites. 1) The Arab was wearing the men's shoes IDed by Steenson and he found the women's shoe while beach combing....or 2) Gallagher (and the British) were unfamilar with Arab shoe customs (or for that matter the entire Arab culture) and mistakenly mistook an odd looking heavy sandle as a women's shoe. LTM Kenton Spading **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, let's take a hard look at the Norwich City as a potential source of the castaway whose bones were found in 1940. First of all, let's be clear about who among the ship's company is unaccounted for. There is a discrepancy between newspaper accounts and the record of the Naval Court inquiry held in Apia, Samoa on December 9, 1929. According to The Times of December 5, 1929, eleven lives were lost. Drowned were: J. W. Horne Third Engineer T.E. Scott Fourth Engineer J.T. Jones Steward J.J. Leslie Carpenter F. Sumner Ordinary Seaman "and six Arab firemen" Among the survivors are listed "an Arab donkeyman and three firemen". (I'm not sure what a donkeyman does but a "donkey engine" is a small, portable steam engine on a ship used to lift cargo, so a donkeyman might be the guy that runs the donkey engine.) A local Welsh newspaper - her home port was Cardiff - ran an article on December 4, 1929 that listed the same five British seamen as drowned and then said: "Six of the following Arabs have been drowned:- Abdul Hassan Redman Yousef Mohammed Nassa Saleb Ragee Said Metanna Ayed Naif Ahmed Hassan Abdul Wabab All firemen of 132, Sommercial Road, South Shields. Ali Hassan (fireman), 16, Prince's Dockside, Hull Among the survivors is listed "Cassim Hassan (donkeyman)." The Naval Court record lists as survivors: Abdul Hassin Mohammed Noss Abdul Wahab So, allowing for some spelling confusion, it looks to me like the dead (or presumed dead) are: J. W. Horne Third Engineer T.E. Scott Fourth Engineer J.T. Jones Steward J.J. Leslie Carpenter F. Sumner Ordinary Seaman Redman Yousef - Fireman Saleb Ragee - Fireman Said Metanna - Fireman Ayed Naif - Fireman Ahmed Hassan - Fireman Ali Hassan - Fireman Of these, Mr. Jones, Mr. Leslie, and one of the Arabs (we dont know which one) were buried on the island. That leaves Mr. Horne, Mr. Scott, Mr. Sumner, and five of the six Arabs - eight individuals - lost and presumed drowned. I don't know any way to prove that the scenario you describe, or one similar to it, did not happen. For the castaway to be a Norwich City survivor you have to: 1) Explain why he was not rescued with his shipmates. 2) Explain how he came by what Steenson took to be part of a woman's shoe and part of a man's shoe. 3) Dismiss the fact that the bone measurements taken by Hoodless are interpreted by Fordisc II as being a female of Northern European descent rather than an English or Arab male. You have done all three. The eight Norwich City crewmembers are people known to be missing in the area and must therefore be considered as castaway candidates. Of course, there are two other people known to be missing in the area who seem to fit the evidence better. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:54:04 EST From: Angus Subject: Landing Site I wonder if pilots on the forum could comment on choice of the reef flat adjacent to the Norwich City as a preferred landing site? Would anyone voluntarily choose to land there knowing that if you had to go around there was a 5000 ton ship across the end of the runway? If however the wind direction was such that the approach was over the Norwich City, would this additional hazard to navigate, make them feel more inclined to land on another part of the reef? (It may be of course that there is more than enough "runway length" without coming too close to the Norwich City. I assume there are other reef areas suitable for a wheels down landing. If this is the case, perhaps someone could point out those areas. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:05:57 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: The Folly of it all >Or I could simply persuade Bill Gates to fund it and then I wouldn't >have to deal with Kammerer. Or I could persuade Elgen Long to change his >mind and then the Nauticos effort would be directed at Niku. Why didn't >I think of this? Since my original post was sent to your personal e-mail address, I was quite surprised to see it appear on the Forum. Since you chose to publish my post on the Forum, I would have hoped that you might have favored us with a more direct answer to my question. None of the persons you mention ever offered TIGHAR any funding for the NIKU IIII expedition, only Mr. Kammerer offered the $300,000 to, as you suggested, 'help make NIKU IIII possible' . While Mr. Kammerer may be a difficult person to bargain with, it would seem (to me anyway) that a person with your own, obvious, persuasive, promotional talents could have convinced him that the _only_ place that has any 'evidence' of a deep-six resting place for the Electra is off the edge of the Nikumaroro reef-flat. Even if such a venture proved negative, it would not have affected funding for the archealogical research _on_ the island, since Mr. Kammerer would have been paying the 2M+ cost of such a deepwater, visual exploration out of his _own_ pocket & if such an effort _was_ successful, it would seem to open the doors to almost unlimited funding resources for TIGHAR's _on_ the island exploration & research. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric Your original post was NOT sent to my personal email address. It was sent to the forum address. I did not notice that it was addressed to me and not the forum. Again, as I've said before, messages sent to TIGHAR1 and not intended for the forum should be clearly labled NOT FOR THE FORUM or sent to my personal email address -TIGHARIC. As for your funding suggestions, to put it bluntly, you don't know what you're talking about. Kammerer did not "fund" anything. He purchased commercial exploitation rights. I have no interest in further dealings with the gentleman. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:09:38 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory Either way you slice it, it's alot of $$$$$$$$$$ going down the crapper or the pacific in this case, as I believe it will turn out. Oh well, we are a free country of speculative capitalists....................onward to Niku V. And BTW Ric, put me down for a presale copy of the Niku IV expedition tape or DVD if you will dub it as such. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Doug. Whether or not we produce it as a DVD will depend primarily upon whether we have the funding to equip ourselves with a DVD burner. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:25:48 EST From: Christopher Ferro Subject: Re: Other Castaway, Null Regarding Mr. Spading's post: >He comes to a few days later but finds that he can barely move around due >to his ankle injury. Wouldn't the crabs have either A) Eaten him or B)Woke him up, rather nastily? LTM, Christopher (Wheeling around Wheeling, WV) ************************************************************************* From Ric Someone lying unconscious on Niku for several days and surviving is not the most plausible of scenarios, but I don't think we can say that it couldn't happen. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:37:47 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters - the point This is actually a very valuable survey, and it's first important result is that we now have a scientific basis to dismiss an entire class of artifacts found at the Seven Site (smashed clams) as Earhart-related, as she would probably have opened her clams properly. The second major importance of the survey is that the presence of smashed clams confirms that non-Pacific islanders were at the Seven Site, other than Earhart, probably smashing (and presumably eating) clams. Since we now know that westerners other than Earhart were there "clamming", this opens up the real possibility that some of these other people may have known how to open clams properly, so that might account for the Earhart clams. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll assume that you're joking. The "oyster" technique does not work particularly well with clams and the presence of smashed clams as well as clams opened by the "oyster" method can not be said to prove anything (and I never claimed that it did). It merely suggests that the person opening the clams was using methods that are not typical of Pacific islanders and seem, if anything, to suggest that he or she was someone more familiar with oysters than clams. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:40:47 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Landing Site I'll take a stab at it Angus. Having viewed the Niku map & video (for those who haven't bought one yet, I urge you to do so--it's fantastic) I think Ric is dead on in his choise for the reef by the Norwich City wreck as the likely landing site for 3 reasons: 1. By the time our duo would have arrived at Niku I believe they would be inclined to put the airplane down on the first available landing area as fuel was down to fumes, and after which you're going to land-period. This is no time to get picky as to where you can land. It is now desperate and they have to do something-even if it's wrong per se. 2. After some 20+ hours in the air in a noisy airborne tube sniffing petrol fumes, our duo would want to get out ASAP. 3. In my opinion it was the best choice available of all the clear area real estate on the island to put the aircraft down on and hopefully walk away from it. As to the Norwich City being a landing hazard I hesitate to make a real informed opinion since I've never witnessed it personally. The tape does a spectacular job with the chopper flying a low pass over the reef, but this is one of those scenarios I'd have to look for myself on the spot to say one way or another. The speculator in me says this though: The wreck could well become a hazard if AE botched the approach glide path and her speed as it could be hit on the ground or in the air. She would only get one shot at doing it and it would have to right or else. And even with a successful approach & landing I have to wonder how dry the reef would have been as well as how well a runway the sand could be with an airplane that would weigh several thousand pounds and would conceivably as lift is reduced on the landing roll, possibly start sinking into the sand causing it to go out of control into a ground loop or even up on it's nose and flip over. As to a go-around I'm not sure that would be possible if the fuel is down to almost nothing. If one would suddenly panic, cram the throttles, props, mixtures to the wall, and raise the pitch attitude to a go-around deck angle, one could momentarily slosh the remaining fuel away from the intake lines and cause one or both engines to quit. Several aircraft I have flown have a caveat warning of this scenario in their flight manuals as well as the unfortunate souls who have experienced this for real. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:50:35 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Brussels Subject: Re: Other Castaway, Null I went to the Public Record Office in Kew on two occasions, in December 2001 and in January 2002, to find information on the missing crew members of the Norwich City and help Kenton Spading in establishing the height of the missing ONES and see if any of them matches the size of the bones found. First of all they are not "presumed drowned". Their names are entered in "Deaths at Sea 1929-1932" with the mention "drowned at sea" next to the name of the Norwich City shipwreck. No further information is provided. The PRO does not keep any records on the missing Arabs. It does keep the C.R. cards of the British crew members but Horne's. The PRO could not explain why either Horne or the Arabs are missing from their files but said their files were not complete. Their guess is that the Arabs were not in the file system because they did not sail from England. That leaves open the question how the Welsh newspaper knew they all lived in 132, Commercial Road, South Fields. Was this a boarding house or was it an address of convenience, the address of some agency perhaps ? The names of the missing crew members are entered in "Deaths at Sea 1929-1932" however, which is kept at the PRO. it's a large leather bound book and all entries are written by hand. I had a photocopy made of the page and sent sent it to Kenton together with the copies of the crew members' heights. Those that could be established that is. There is no height for Horne since his card is missing. If there is anything at all that can be said about Horne is that there are plenty in the files of the PRO. But J.M. we are looking for, born in Hull and "deceased Norwich City" is missing. All Hornes, coming from all over Britain were between 5 ft. 7 and 5 ft. 9. This says nothing about J.M. Horne of course but chances are his height was something like that. Does that fit the size of the bones found ? The PRO does not keep the crew list of the Norwich City which might contain further information. That list is kept at the St. John's Library in New Foundland. And that is across the Atlantic and a bit too far out of my way. LTM Herman **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the Hornes of England who were not on the Norwich City are in the right range of height. I wonder what conclusions Chris Kennedy will draw from that. St. John's, Newfoundland? That's our old stomping ground. I know that Memorial University there has a big nautical department. Maybe we can get them to look up the records for us - but if we knew the height of every missing crew member, what good would it do us? Several are bound to be within the height range of the bones, but so was amelia Earhart and probably thirty percent of the world's population. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:58:18 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Searching and funding While reading all the interesting messages passing thru the forum, It makes me think an el cheapo, Rube Goldberg scenario for the next Niku search mission is what might be needed . Why not select 5 volunteers from Tighar membership and let them live as castaways on Niku for 6 months and explore, explore , explore while living the true life as a castaway.. The ground rules would be simply this 1 Tighar would control the expedition with the use of daily satellite communication via Dick Tracy wrist cams, cell phones, or what ever 2 The volunteers would pay their own expenses to and from the island and provide their own stash of personal effects that would meet their creature needs over the 6 months including food 3 The volunteers would provide daily reports on their findings and discoveries to Tighar via their Dick Tracy 2 way wrist cams 4 The volunteers would follow daily patterns of exploration provided by the Tighar Think tank and search laboriously and diligently 12 hours per day, 6 days per week (reserving one day per week for crab cricket and watching satellite movies of Gilligans island) 5 The only expense Tighar would incur is to provide a meager supply of food rations for the prevention of malnutrition and guarantee that food and rescue is available if required, and any other implement or device deemed by Tighar to assist or aid in the search for information. 6 Anything else not listed here that is deemed necessary by the Tighar think tank,,,, I mean,, just go figure, you can feed a human for a few dollars per day if they supplement their diet with native treats, and with so many crabs it could be both fun and satisfying to create a game of crab cricket and whack the crabs across the sand until they are ready for the Barbie que. Wouldn't the chances for finding something be greatly increased over the fast and furious pace of a 2 week visit??? I only have 3 reasons for thinking this way,, one is it could be cheap, and two it could provide a large scope of coverage over the entire island and 3 Gilligans Island sure looked like lots of fun. Let them other dudes dig deep in their bank accounts to provide Millions of $$$$$$ to search the empty ocean, Just figure who among Tighar members can qualify as Gilligan, Skipper, Ginger and Marianne, and the Professor (Millionaire and his wife optional) I mean just go figure,,, the Stoker *************************************************************************** From Ric When we were preparing for Niku IIII, Mike Kammerer tried to sell CBS(?) on the idea of filming the pilot for a new episode of Survivor on the island during the expedition. It's just amazing how many misconceptions people have about the practical aspects of going to and working in that place. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:04:07 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory Does anyone know when Mr. Nauticos is going to start his march to the sea? The last I heard he hired a P.R. man. *************************************************************************** From Ric If you mean the Nauticos company, they're still talking about going out sometime later this spring but - at last word - still didn't have the money or a ship. If you're talking about Mr. Kammerer you may be referring to Jeff Leach as his "P.R. man". Mike bought into Jeff's publishing company last year. Kammerer was talking about going out in early March but there have been some unforseen (by Mike anyway) developments that I'll explain in a separate posting. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:25:24 EST From: Ric Subject: Scratch On Thursday, February 14, Mike Kammer's company "In Search Of Amelia LLC" filed suit in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, NM demanding a partial refund from OceanWorkers Discovery Inc. of San Diego - the deep sea search company it had hired to conduct a search for the Earhart plane. Apparently the robot submarine ARGUS that was to be used in the search did not perform as advertised. The lawsuit charges OceanWorkers with misrepresentation and breach of contract. The plaintiff has asked for a jury trial, a refund of at least $446,000 and for a lien on ARGUS. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:27:10 EST From: Phil Tanner in Reading, UK Subject: Re: Other Castaway, Null The "bones and artefacts relate to the Norwich City" scenario still requires acceptance that a sextant box would survive in the open for a decade and not only remain identifiable as such, but with the numbers on the lid remaining legible - in a harsh environment where wood presumably rots and wind-borne sand and grit scours items left outside, if it doesn't bury them completely. LTM Phil 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:28:13 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Oysters etc. Chris Kennedy said: " . . . we now have a scientific basis to dismiss an entire class of artifacts found at the Seven Site (smashed clams) as Earhart-related, . . ." But Chris, wouldn't that rule out the possibility that whoever it was eventually learned the "correct" way, thus the co-mingled pile of shattered and whole shells? The first person on earth that ate an oyster probably did not force it open by severing the muscle, but, I suspect, smashed that bugger on a rock. (However, if that person were real clever he or she may have gotten the idea of eating oysters in the first place by watching raccoons and such and learned from those little thieves how to open them.) But as we know there are/were no raccoons on Niku, therefore the person(s) responsible for the shells had to come on the idea all by himself. To me it doesn't seem that great of a leap in knowledge from bashing the oyster to learning how to ram a stick between both halves and forcing it open. I suspect your average European could figure that out in a week or two. As for us North Americans, well, it may take a few days longer. :-) LTM, who avoids the phlegmy looking things Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric But that's not the technique. Somebody at the Seven Site was opening clams - some of them anyway - by jabbing a sharp tool into the base of the shell. It's a technique that is usually used only on oysters but can also sort of work on clams - and it is not intuitive. You have to be taught. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:30:53 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters - the point I'd like to suggest another possibility for the 7 site and the smashed clams/oysters. We do know that the coasties were target practicing in the area. Many of the "technical" artifacts may be remnants of their target practicing. So what about the clams and oysters? Maybe some of the coasties got hungry during an extended practice session, and went to the lagoon side to scavange some of these tasty morsels. Some coasties may well have been aware of the "easy" and proper way to open shellfish; others may not have. Being part of the Coast Guard, many of them may have come from coastal communities and have known of the proper technique. With two or more coasties at the site (at the same time or at different times), I could easily imagine a variety of clam/oyster breaking techniques. Is there anything concrete that can shoot holes in this hypothesis? **************************************************************************** From Ric We can certainly ask the vets if they ever ate clams on the island. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:40:41 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters - the point RE: For what it's worth, Earhart - who lived most of her adult life in Massachusetts and New York - fits that profile. Let's not forget about our world-traveling Fred. His many years as a seaman plus minor celebrity with PAA as part of Musick's crew taught him a few life, survival, and social skills. I would think he was no stranger to shellfish cuisine. blue skies, jerry **************************************************************************** From Ric Very true, and fun to speculate about. Fred is the guy who wouldn't take his shoes off to visit a Buddhist temple. He's the guy that never varies his wardrobe. His education has been almost entirely in the school of hard knocks, coming up through the ranks from deckhand to master. He can function in polite society without embarrassing himself, but he is by no means refined and, I would guess, would never pretend otherwise. Amelia, on the other hand, is a dedicated social climber. If I had to guess, I would expect Fred to politely decline raw oysters while AE would consider it a mark of sophistication to be familar with the rituals of the Raw Bar. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:53:44 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Other Castaway, Null > Okay, let's take a hard look at the Norwich City as a potential source > of thecastaway whose bones were found in 1940. What about the Cat's Paw heel? And woman's Blucher oxford? blue skies, jerry **************************************************************************** From Ric As coming from a Norwich City castaway? BiltRite dated the heel to the mid-1930s, but they could have been off by a few years. The heel is American, but Norwich City had been in Vancouver, BC in April of '29. The identification of the shoe fragments as being from a woman's shoe was based upon the tightness of the stitching holes and the small size of the shoelace eyelet, but - as Kenton says - we don't know what sort of shoes the NC crew might have worn. But the real problem with the shoe parts TIGHAR found on Aukeraime being from a castaway is the lack of any other sign of castaway activity at that site. The campfire that was there dates from the 1970s or later. No beachcombed objects. No animal or fish bones. Nothing, except a grave and some coconut plantings that we know are associated with the colonists. And, again unlike the Seven Site, the Aukeraime area was land allocated to families for development. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:56:51 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Atafu map Someone asked yesterday if the only map of Gardner in circulation in 1937 made it look more or less like Atafu, formerly Duke of York. I've only seen the Gardner map as an on-screen still in the intro to the excellent TIGHAR aerial tour video. Essentially, the map cuts the island off above the midpoint northwest/southeast and depicts only the northwestern portion. In other words, Gardner from the air looks very little like that map of Gardner. But it does bear a very close resemblance in shape (and, approximately, dimensions) to Atafu as mapped in my official British regional handbook from the early 40s, a map which was presumably available some years earlier (as the island was densely populated). This doesn't get around the problem of Atafu apparently having been known only as Atafu at that time, making it less likely that the "York" bit of "Duke of York" would have appeared on the broadcast heard by Betty in Florida. But maybe Betty's notebook is a red herring here. I think, post-loss transmssion or no post-loss transmssion, it's still reasonable to say anyone who was lost and had current maps of both islands in 1937 and arrived over Gardner would have been much more likely to think it was Atafu. LTM (who is 71 today, and much loved by her sons) Phil Tanner 2276 *************************************************************************** From Ric Any chance you could send me a jpg of the Atafu map Phil? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:29:07 EST From: Troy in Pleasanton, CA Subject: To Do List talking about landing on the reef--were tide studies done on Niku IIII and, if so, what were the results? This would be particularly interesting in light of the post-loss radios signals. Which brings me to another Q, when is that table going to be up on post lost signals LTM --troy-- Tighar #something **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, we collected quite a bit of tidal information but it has not yet been pulled together and analyzed. Having now gotten TIGHAR Tracks out the door and the new reserach bulletins up on the website (including an artifact ID update, by the way), the next thing I'm going to tackle is the long-lobbied-for Sesame Street LOP explanation for the website. After that, with the help of Bob Brandenburg and John Pratt, I'll dive into finishing the Post-Loss Radio Matrix, of which the tidal analysis is an integral part. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:37:00 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Landing Site Thanks Doug, You raise a few interesting points. It seems to me that as AE was a very cautious pilot, the idea of an approach over the Norwich City or towards it would definitely not appeal. Ok so you're short of fuel - but unless the engines were actually starting to quit, I think I'd rather fly an extra mile or two. The fact that you'd only get one chance at it because a sudden go-around might cause fuel starvation makes me think she'd rather opt for a landing area free of hazards like the NC where you had one more thing to think about on approach. Wet brakes would make the stopping distance uncertain as well. I would certainly get picky about a landing site if I thought the first available might well kill me. 20hrs breathing fumes and die or 20hrs and five minutes and live - I know which I'd choose. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:38:23 EST From: John Clauss Subject: Fatigue factor > 2. After some 20+ hours in the air in a noisy airborne tube sniffing > petrol fumes, our duo would want to get out ASAP. This may be a much overlooked factor when considering how AE and Fred made decisions at the end of the flight. There was a fellow, since passed away, that used to live in this area by the name of Wayne Polson. He was one of the founders of Squaw Valley Ski Resort and flew Martin flying boats all over the Pacific during the war. He used to stress to me how incredibly difficult it is to make good coherent decisions after spending 12, 16 or twenty hours in a noisy confined cockpit. He was convinced that fatigue was a major contributing factor to the final outcome of this flight. John Clauss Lake Tahoe ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:39:50 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Aerial tour > From Doug Brutlag > Having viewed the Niku map & video (for those who haven't bought one yet, > I urge you to do so--it's fantastic) ... Got mine today, watched it twice. Gorgeous production. Enjoyed hearing Ric's voice. Tantalizing ad for the next TIGHAR tape. I didn't realize the white "G" was so visible from the air. > The tape does > a spectacular job with the chopper flying a low pass over the reef ... Yes. Next time, please arrange to have the unexpected visitors arrive at low tide. :o) Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:41:05 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Other Castaway, Null Excellent point about the sextant box, Phil. The condition of the box works against my "Leg-Off" scenario, too, unless we bring our hypothetical yacht in a good deal later than I've imagined. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:48:35 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Colonial Dr's Experience Dan Postellon wrote: >I think that the bones are the most intriguing part of the story. As a >physician myself, I doubt that the good doctor [Hoodelss] saw many >human skeletons,unless he did a lot of forensic anthropology >investigating murders in the islands. How many murders could >there have been? Dan raises some interesting issues. Dr. Hoodless, of course was not the only doctor who examined the bones that Gallagher found. Dr. Lindsay Isaac also examined them but, unfortunately, we have not been able to locate a copy of his report (assuming there was one). I suspect that he did write a report, or at least documented his examination in some fashion. It may have ended up as a hospital related file or perhaps even filed as a police report. What is that you say? A police report? Well..... Dr. Isaac was, after all, not only the Acting Pathologist of the Pathology and Research Division of the Tarawa War Memorial Hospital but also the Police Surgeon....and he did a lot more than that. The following are excerpts from the Western Pacific High Commission Annual Medical and Health Report for the year 1939: "The Pathologist [Dr. Isaac] is also [the] Police Surgeon, and deals with not only the routine autopsies, but also miscellaneous exhibits sent from all districts of the colony and the Western Pacific High Commission." The report only hints at the number of autopsies done in 1939 by stating: "Miscellaneous examinations not include in the above list (but including autopsies), 608..." Note also that Dr. Isaac's department was involved in research [he headed the Pathology and Research Division]. The report also states: "Dr. Isaac has continued to spend much time on the investigation of the problems of nutrition and has been giving attention to the important preliminary task of establishing normal criteria for the stature, growth and nutrition of Fijian children." LTM Kenton Spading ************************************************************************** From Ric At the time of the "bones incident", Isaac was the Acting Medical Officer on Tarawa because Steenson was away on leave. The bit about "..but also miscellaneous exhibits sent from all districts of the colony" could be a reference to his unauthorized hijacking of the bones aboard Nimanoa, which landed him in all kinds of hot water. I'll also point out that performing autopsies is nothing at all like evaluating partial damaged skeletons. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:49:44 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Landing and Go Around Comments For Angus, I watched the video and didn't consider the Norwich City to he a hazzard. I, for one, would certainly have landed into what ever wind was present which would probably be the direction the video was shot, to the east. To me the most important factor would be to find an area that looked like it had the best landing surface and sufficient length. I certainly wouldn't want to damage the airplane if I could be avoided. I don't think the ship wreck entered into the picture in any significant way. It appeared to me to be relatively easy to fly around, over, or adjacent to the ship in order to use that patch of reef flat. I would admit, however, that it is a bit hard to judge from the simulated approach on the video. Dick Pingrey, in Selah 908C **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, I'll throw my two cents in here. Take it for what it's worth (two cents). I'll preface my comments by saying that I hold a Commercial Cert- ificate with Instrument and Multi-engine ratings and have logged something over 4,000 hours pilot-in-command, mostly in light single and multi-engine types. I have never been a "bush pilot" but as a traveling aviation insurance rep for many years, I was frequently faced with decisions about landing at small, questionable airstrips I had never before seen. Here is how I would handle the situation we imagine that Earhart may have faced. The first and biggest question is, do I have time (enough fuel) to consider my options? If I spot the island when I'm flying on fumes and expecting to lose the engines at any second, I'm going to go for the first place that looks decent - period. However, chances are that although the fuel is low it's not THAT low and I have time to check the place out before I commit to a landing. I'll fly around the perimeter looking for the best place to set down and also looking for signs of life. The shipwreck is obvious, but it's also clearly an old rusty wreck. Maybe I see the flagpole near where the landing channel is now . It was put up by HMS Leith in February (if it's still standing). I probably see the abandoned, partially collapsed, corrugated steel buildings left by the Arundel workers in 1892. They're on Nutiran not far from the shipwreck. I don't see any sign that people are here now but everything man-made is on ths end of the island. The beach is too narrow and sloped to be inviting, but there's a long smooth area on the dry reef just north of the shipwreck. There's plenty of room to set down there regardless of whether I come over the ship or from the other direction. Just depends on which way the wind favors. I'm not going to land though until I've "dragged the field." I lower the gear, run out about half flaps, and make a low, slow pass over the proposed landing area taking a good close look at the surface. Looks okay, so I set up my landing approach. I want to touch down, full stall, three point. If the available "runway" is really tight I might come in carrying power, very slow, with full flaps, "behind the power curve", but that's pretty dicey and I doubt if AE was up to the task. More likely the flaps are full down and the power is off. If I don't like the way it looks, I'll go around and try again. This is a one shot deal and it has to be done right. No need to conserve fuel now. The important thing is to get the airplane down undamaged. That's how I'd do it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:51:46 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: 'The Folly of it all' > Or I could simply persuade Bill Gates to fund it and then I wouldn't have > to deal with Kammerer. Might have to start using a real computer instead of a Mac though...... Th' WOMBAT (I don't use Windows either) **************************************************************************** From Ric Never! Bill will just have to get over it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:54:31 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Searching and funding > 5 The only expense Tighar would incur is to provide a meager supply of > food rations for the prevention of malnutrition and guarantee that food and > rescue is available if required, and any other implement or device deemed > by Tighar to assist or aid in the search for information. Hmmm. might not be a lot of fun lying in Niku suffering from man-eating coconut crab bites and waiting for a rescue..... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR's main expense in the Neumann Method would be settling the wrongful death lawsuits. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:55:44 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Other Castaway, Null > From Herman De Wulf in Brussels (#2406) > > Their guess is that the Arabs were not in the file system because they did > not sail from England. That leaves open the question how the Welsh > newspaper knew they all lived in 132, Commercial Road, South Fields. Was > this a boarding house or was it an address of convenience, the address of > some agency perhaps ? It is very possible if they were all listed at the one address that it was a "Seaman's Mission" accommodation house. We have one here that is basically a home away from home for seamen ashore from the bulk coal and sugar carriers that call at local ports. I think it is called "Stella Maris" (Star of the Sea probably, my Latin is a bit rusty.) I believe these types of establishment were popular in Britain and many other countries - much more then than now. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:59:28 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory Am I seeing things? You mean to say the vaulted Nauticos Deep Sea Exploration doesn't have the money or the ship? Ye gads. Can you confirm that for sure? Referring to David Jourdan. The last time I heard he just landed a fiber optic cable for searching purposes. A fiber optic cable....what's wrong with using searchlights? Carol ************************************************************************** From Ric I think you mean vaunted. That's right. Not enough money and no ship (at last report). A fiber optic cable is a way of sending command signals. It's not a little light. (sigh) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:47:55 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters - the point But could this mean that the coasties had a clambake? Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 *************************************************************************** From Ric Could be, but if the Coasties had clambakes they were unknown to two guys who, between them, were there from the staions construction to its deactivation. Today I phoned my old buddy Dick Evans, who was a Loran operator at Gardner from the unit's construction in July 1944 until December 1945, and I also spoke - for the first time - with Leroy Nielsen who was Dick's relief and was there until the station was shut down in May of 1946. Neither could recall anyone ever eating clams - cooked, raw, or microwaved. They did occasionally have picnics, but the food was always hot dogs from the mess hall and the beverage of choice was beer in brown bottles (we have some broken brown glass, some of it fire-damaged) and sick-bay alcohol. Leroy remembers fishig for tuna with hand grenades and shooting at eels and fish and birds out on the reef. He also remembers a short length of barbed-wire fence running lengthwise along the windward side beach about 200 yards up from the Loran station. He never knew who put it there but birds you to sit on it and they'd shoot them off. Leroy is not familiar with the Seven Site and was apparently never there. Dick doesn't remember the barbed wire but he says that the Coasties had a regular target range set up about halfway between the station and the Seven Site. They had targets set up with a pulley mechanism for checking scores. Should be lots of shell casings there. Neither Dick nor Leroy remembers anyone ever bringing anything from the station to use as a target. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:07:36 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Norwich City missing crewmen This has been bothering me since I joined the forum, and since the missing crewmen thread has surfaced again I have to comment. Maybe I'm missing a critical part here; help my memory, I just turned fifty a couple weeks ago (I think). The basic scenario is the NC ran aground during a storm and the captain ordered the crew to abandon ship because of an out of control fire on board. The captain (who survived) claimed at the inquiry that all crewmen got off the NC during the storm, but due to the perils of trying to make it ashore during typhoon conditions, not everybody made it. Have I got that part right? Because I don't buy it. I find it very telling that all of the unaccounted for crew except one (Sumner, the OS who's duty station could have been anywhere, but probably on deck) were engineers and firemen. They work in the engine room and fire room down in the bowels of the ship. I don't think the 3rd and 4th Engineer or the Arab firemen ever made it out of the "hole". I think they died on station, taken by surprise by the fire; had their escape route blocked by the fire and/or got caught behind water tight doors closed to contain the fire and flooding from the grounding. So why would the captain lie about everybody getting off the ship? Because maritime tradition says the captain should go down with his ship in time of disaster (implying he is responsible for the disaster). The Norwich City didn't go down, but there was loss of life and one of those lives was NOT the captain's. Only after everybody else was off the ship could the captain justify saving himself. Due to his implied responsibility for the grounding, saying "Those guys caught down in the main space were dead anyway" wouldn't pass muster. The only way the captain could save himself from a serious breach of maritime chivalry would be to claim he personally made sure everyone got off the ship before taking his own chances with them in an attempt to get ashore. I don't think Niku's castaway is a Norwich City crewmen, because I don't believe the missing ones ever left the ship. Unless, as I said, I'm missing something critical, upon which case I owe the forum a big NEVER MIND. LTM (who could never fathom what I did at sea for all those years) Kerry Tiller #2350 ************************************************************************** From Ric You may have something here, but the story concerning the captain is not quite like that. According to his own and other statements, he was washed overboard fairly early in the abandon ship process and never had a chance to supervise the evacuation. However, it is certainly true that there were a disproportionate number of firemen lost and it does seem likely that some, if not all, of them died from the flooding and the fire and never got topside at all. It's apparent that we need to take a close look at the whole NC episode to make a reasonable assessment of the chances that the castaway was an unknown survivor of that wreck. Pat has begun the task of rendering the various documents we have describing that occurrence in readable format for mounting on the website. Once they're up we can all take a look at what the original sources say. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:39:38 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Colonial Dr's Experience Ric says: "I'll also point out that performing autopsies is nothing at all like evaluating partial damaged skeletons". For those Forum members interested in an objective discussion of how the roles and work of a medical examiner and a forensic anthropologist often may overlap, I would refer you to Dr. Kar Burns' "Forensic Anthropology Training Manual", which contains an excellent discussion of the subject on pages 2 through 5. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure that all forum members are interested in objective discussions. For those who may not have immediate access to Kar's book, allow me to quote the pertinent paragraphs under the heading: How Is the Work of an Anthropologist Different From the Work of a Pathologist or Medical Examiner? "Typically, a medical doctor is called upon to examine a fleshed body, whereas an anthropoligist is called upon to examine a skeleton. The medical doctor focuses on information from soft tissues, and the anthropologist focuses on information from hard tissues. However, since decompostion is a continuous process, the work of these specialists tends to overlap. An anthropologist is useful when decomposition is advanced or when bone trauma is a major element in the death. "A medical doctor may be useful when mummified tissues are present on the skeleton. simple visual identification is usually impossible in an anthropological investigation...." As I said, doing autopsies on fleshed bodies is not at all like evaluating remains that are completely skeletonized. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:41:02 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters - the point Interesting. Don't forget that Fred was a sea-faring man, and certainly could have been exposed to the finer points of mollusk dining as well. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Are sea-faring men automatically mollusk diners? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:42:27 EST From: Anthony Lealand Subject: Antenna Insulators High frequency transmitters as used in aircraft suffer from the fact that the antenna is very short compared to the wavelength transmitted, especially at the lower end of the high frequency band used on the Electra One result of this is that the antenna is sharply tuned and the wire has quite high voltages on it which are easily tracked out by leakage over insulators. This de tunes the antenna and wastes power This is a very different kettle of fish from a low Q 1/4 wave whip on a hand held transmitter. These are much broader in response and nowhere near as easily upset by leakage. Having been shipmates with HF transmitters on sail boats over 20,000 miles of sea I can say that salt water is the very devil on insulators, and had caused more grief than all other electronic faults combined. Kind Regards Anthony Lealand New Zealand ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:47:32 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Searching and funding If someone were to go to Niku on vacation, had ALL the necessary provisions for 2 weeks, brought umbrellas, a hammock to keep the crabs at bay, sunscreen, etc, would it not be such an unpleasant place to kick back in the shade, have a cold one, and convalesce? Maybe a little searching on the side? It couldn't be worse than say Death Valley, right? Chris in Petaluma, Ca. (who loves Death Valley) #2511 **************************************************************************** From Ric I've never done Death Valley but I suppose there are people who go there on vacation. Niku is a wonderful place if you enjoy solitude, clean air, nature the way it's supposed to be - and blistering heat. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:49:19 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters - the point Clamshells might make good informal targets as well. Is there any way to tell if the shells were shot, instead of being smashed? Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll let Tom King handle that one. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:51:08 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Oysters etc. Let me clarify something about the Tridacna clams at Niku and oysters elsewhere. The two kinds of critters are built quite differently, so what works for an oyster isn't necessarily going to work very well for a Tridacna clam. I'm pretty sure (though I'm still researching this) that once a Tridacna closed up you virtually wouldn't be able to open it by prying on the hinge. With an oyster it's relatively easy; I saw Martha Stewart do it on TV yesterday and it was obviously a GOOD thing. So a person trying to open a Tridacna from the hinge end would probably get pretty frustrated. The first fall-back would probably be to try to hammer something into the hinge, which would tend to break out the area around the byssal oriface (the "foot" hole). If that didn't work one would probably try to pry on the siphon end (the pointy end). If that didn't work you'd probably smack the sucker with a rock. Many of our clams have massive damage around the byssal oriface; others have a siphon end snapped off, and others have had one valve pounded to pieces. So it LOOKs a lot like somebody who knew how to open oysters but didn't know how to open Tridacna trying to apply an oyster technique and getting frustrated in the attempt. But more research is needed..... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:51:50 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters - the point > We can certainly ask the vets if they ever ate clams on the island. We did ask the vets if they ever cooked and ate anything at the site, and the answer we got was "no." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:52:28 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Other Castaway, Null Re: Nothing (at Aukaraime South), except a grave and some coconut plantings that we know are associated with the colonists. --- and, for what it's worth, the recollections of Maude and Bevington of seeing evidence of camping there in late 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:53:33 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Stuff from the Norwich City. Is there any reason why the Norwich City would be carrying women's shoes? No, it was not suggested, but in the spirit of other sources for artifacts, I thought I'd ask. Mike ************************************************************************* From Ric Not that we know of. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:56:11 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: More oysters Ric said: "But that's not the technique. Somebody at the Seven Site was opening clams - some of them anyway - by jabbing a sharp tool into the base of the shell. It's a technique that is usually used only on oysters but can also sort of work on clams - and it is not intuitive. " My point was that at some point in history someone figured out the "correct" (or at least the most efficient way) way to get into an oyster was to force a sharp tool into the base of the shell. And while it may not be entirely "intuitive" (such as threading a nut onto a bolt) the learning curve (trial and error) was very steep, but short. If somebody in pre-history figured it out why couldn't the castaway? The scenario is the castaway knows oysters etc. are edible and starts crushing them on rocks. He/she then figures "There's got to be a better way," trys a couple of different techniques before hitting on the non-intuitive "correct" way. Thus you end up with a pile of crushed/broken shells and whole shells mixed together. LTM, who ate a dozen oysters once, but only seven of them worked Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric And my point is that somebody is trying a technique that DOESN'T work. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:59:57 EST From: Mark Subject: Re: Oysters etc. I think what Dennis is saying is that the castaway could have *learned* the correct technique. This is clearly possible because SOMEBODY INVENTED the technique. And what else does a castaway have to do besides toy with ways to open an oyster. Another distinct possibility (and I think the one Ric is hinting at) is that the castaway learned long ago how to open oysters properly, but lacked the TOOL to open it for some initial period (accounting for the smashed shells). At some point the castaway was able to find or fashion an acceptable tool, after which he/she was able to shuck in the proper fashion. As for the clams, I don't know. LTM, Mark in Horse Country. *************************************************************************** From Ric Funny you should mention having the right tool. Perhaps Tom King would like to describe another little coincidence we have noticed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:03:45 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters > It's a technique that is usually used only on oysters but can also sort of > work on clams - and it is not intuitive. You have to be taught. This entire line of inquiry is ludicrous. Examining a bunch of clam and oyster detritus is hardly likely to lead to any reasonable conclusions about AE and FN, unless of course their fingerprints are on them. No one had to teach me how to open clams and oysters. I figured it out myself. Trust me --- it wasn't difficult. I think anyone with an IQ over 80, from any part of the world, could deduce from simple observation how to do it. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric So you're saying that you figured out the Julia Child/Martha Stewart technique of going in at the base all by yourself? Our little forum survey seems to suggest that not all people are as clever as you are. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:54:35 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Landing site Can you give some indication of the suitability of the reef flat for landing the electra between the blasted channel and bauareke passage? Perhaps any pilots could comment on whether this might be an attractive area to choose. I think there are a number of reasons why this area rather than north of the NC is likely. Landing in the area of the NC is unnecessarily hazardous due to the presence of the NC. AE was a very cautious pilot. Emily Sukuli certainly got her story wrong regarding the bones. She therefore makes an unreliable witness as to where the weckage was. Early settlers tying up to the NC wreck did not as far as we know report such wreckage, only a short distance away. The wreckage Emily saw was rusty and contained no aluminium. That no visible aluminium remained attached to any steel parts of the electra seems unlikely. A large chunk of steelwork unconnected with the electra was recently recovered from just this area. The survey photographs have now been shown to likely show only plating from the NC rather than anomalous wreckage. Bruce Yoho does not remember a ship in the area where he recovered the engine. Similar engines on Tarawa seem to remain in position on the reef for many years.The dive team turned up nothing in the NC area. Ok so you say what about the evidence of the aerial photos and anecdotal accounts of wreckage near Tatiman passage and at the north of the lagoon. A possible scenario is that the landing took place somewhere close to Baukareke. The wreckage could have been washed into the lagoon through this passage and out through Tatiman, explaining the wreckage on the reef in this area and the lack of wreckage to be discovered in the lagoon today.It could also have been washed north along the reef towards Tatiman. Now I know that we are led to believe that the weather tends to wash debris into the lagoon through Tatiman from the north. However, is this invariably the case and can not weather from the south cause an outflow from the lagoon in this area during storms or push wreckage north along the reef? If the Canton engine was recovered from the "Blasted channel to Baukareke" area it would explain why no ship was visible and yet be sufficiently to the west to qualify for the "west end of the island" as described by Bruce. Similarly it would qualify for a south east label if Gallagher was misled by the curve of the lagoon shore into believing he was at the south east extremity of the island when viewing the bones site. Re the bones box, Kanawa point is in the immediate vicinity. Baukareke area would qualify according to the "under two miles" description of the cocoanut groves. Apart from Kanawa point, this area has not been thoroughly searched either on shore on on and around the reef. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric I have not walked the outer reef in the area you mention, so I can't say with any certainty what the reef surface is like. I would imagine, however, that there are "landable" places there, as there are all around the island. As to Emily's reliablilty as a witness - like most people, events to which she was personally a witness and which we can check from the documented record, are accurate. Her rendering of the bones story differs from that documented by Gallagher but she does not claim to have been a party to those events herself and, as Tom King has pointed out, it's possible that there is more to the bones story than Gallagher knew. I think that those who were present for the interview, or have seen the videotape of it, will vouch for the fact that Emily's description of her father pointing out the wreckage to her is very convincing. But, even so, it's only anecdote. Descriptions of airplane parts on the Nutiran reef and shoreline by Tapania Taeke are completely independent of Emily's recollections and yet are entirely supportive of the premise that an airplane broke up on the reef north of the shipwreck. But this too is anecdote. Indications in a 1953 aerial photo of aluminum (shards of light colored metal) debris on the reef in the same area indicated by Tapania provide non-anecdotal corroboration. I can't dismiss all that based upon speculation about what the wreckage would have looked like and what people would have seen. Yes, a landing could have been made at many points around the island but what clues we have point to the stretch of reef north of the shipwreck. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:57:18 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Landing site I'm not a pilot but wouldn't the prudent thing to do on approach to the reef for a landing be to note the direction of the wind by observing the surf break? (hope that's not absurd) LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************** From Ric You would certainly want to know which way the wind was blowing. but I know of no way to detemine wind direction by observing the surf break. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:05:43 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Landing site Angus says: <> Point well taken Angus. I'd be wondering if I had the 5 minutes. We had to have been there. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric I would guess that not many pilots have found themselves in the position of being VERY low on fuel (and you never know just exactly how low) and been faced with the decision whether to accept an immediate landing with some undesirable features (bad or short surface, or strong crosswind or tailwind) or take a chance and line up a much better approach. I've had it happen twice and both times I gritted my teeth and took the extra time to set up the better approach. But I'm not Amelia Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:07:19 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Fatigue Factor For John Clauss: Excellent point John & little discussed. I know how I feel after a 10 hour trip across the pond-like death warmed over. I at least have the luxury of a fully type rated relief pilot along and can take a break in a sleeper seat for a couple hours. It's enough to get refreshed and your wits recharged so one can prepare for & execute an approach & landing, which is sometimes in challenging weather. I have long suspected fatigue played a major part in their demise, be it navigation errors, judgement calls. The human body can only do so much, particularly when it has been abused by time zone changes, sleep pattern disorders, and just plain inadequate rest. Not withstanding all the other issues that contributed to our duo's demise, I have no doubt that fatigue sealed their fate. And on that note I must be off to complete a certain mission to Brussels for my employer and demonstrate on my own body what I just pontificated. Talk to you all next week. Doug Brutlag #2335 (who appreciates his relief pilot) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:21:09 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Funding >from Ric >As for your funding suggestions, to put it bluntly, you don't know >what you're talking about. Kammerer did not "fund" anything. He >purchased commercial exploitation rights. I have no interest in further >dealings with the gentleman. Shall we assume then that you were misquoted by Stephen Titus, in his article in the January 2002 issue of Outside magazine, when he quoted you as saying: "The phrase 'loose cannon on a rolling deck' comes to mind," Gillespie said of Kammerer. "But we took his money. All of this years research happened because of Mike's participation, bless his heart." Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric The quote is accurate and the statement is true. Kammerer purchased something from TIGHAR - commercial rights. The income from that transaction gave us a huge leg up in the fund raising for Niku IIII, but I say again, Kammerer did not "fund" anything. This may be a semantics problem. When nonprofits speak of "funding" we are usually referring to charitable contributions rather than income from business deals. My point is that I am not interested in either charitable contributions or further business income from Mr. Kammerer. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:23:01 EST From: Mark Subject: Re: Landing Site Angus said: > You raise a few interesting points. > > It seems to me that as AE was a very cautious pilot, > the idea of an approach > over the Norwich City or towards it would definitely > not appeal. Good argument Angus. I seem to recall a diagram on the TIGHAR website (though of course I am unable to find it now) showing the size and location of the likely landing site north of the Norwich City relative to the shipwreck. It was, I believe, intended to show how far away the landing site was and why someone nosing around the NC wreck might not notice the airplane wreckage. Judging from the map and photo of Niku on the website, it appears there is 1/2 mile or more of reef flat north of the NC that may (or may not) be suitable to land upon (this would be the area identified in the diagram I can't find, by the way). Given that the AE FAQ points out that she may have blown her main tires on landing, and the 10E is, while certainly not a Maule, a short/rough-field capable plane (by modern transport plane standards anyway), how much room did she need? I have not seen the video (twin toddlers leave me too broke for the fun stuff right now), nor am I a pilot - yet (see above comment about twins), but given the choice based on my "ground school" studies so far, I would much rather risk a low-speed impact with NC debris by landing from the north and "overrunning the landing strip" vs. misjudging the glideslope and pancaking into the ship from above. Of course, that's my opinion, I wasn't there, and I certainly hadn't been sniffing avgas fumes for 20+ hours with my life on the line. I'm sure the video shows a more realistic perspective, but from the photo it looks like she would have to *try* to hit the ship... PS: the photo I mention is: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/MapsandPhotos/Photo_Gallery/EPPhotopage1.html And the map I *could* find is: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/MapsandPhotos/maps/Nikumap.html LTM Mark in Horse Country ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:25:39 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory I went to the Nauticos (Nauticos.com) website and under Nomad 6000 they have a fiber optic date telemetry system w/side scan sonar modified for deep search (6,000 meters). They say they can search an area up to 2000 meters wide w/high resolution for target identification and classification. There's a picture of the Nomad 6000 sitting on a dock at their website. It's designed to be towed behind a boat. I sent an Email to Lynn at Nauticos and asked them what the reason was for all their delays. As soon as it comes in I'll send it on to you. I specifically asked her (David Jourdan's wife) what the problems were. I also went on to say The Kansas City Star also wants to know (in addition to Ms. Carol). I'll send the reply onto Donna Mcguire if it's newsworthy. Of course, it would be par for the course if the Nomad 6000 doesn't work and/or fails to perform (as usual...more lawsuits). So Kammerer's "gismo" didn't work, par for the course. Hope I didn't make any "misteaks" in this Email. All for now, Carol ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:38:44 EST From: Ric Subject: In Search of Amelia - Not Well, Mike Kammerer's "In Search of Amelia" website is gone. In its place at http://www.insearchofamelia.com/ is this press release: (February 20, 2002) In Search of Amelia Earhart, LLC (ISAE) announced today that the scheduled deep-sea search for Amelia Earhart's lost airplane in the vicinity of Howland Island has been postponed pending the outcome of two competing expeditions that are setting sail early next month. This past weekend ISAE learned with reasonable certainty that Dana Timmer's Howland Island Ltd and Dave Jordan's Nauticos would be searching the same area at the same time. The competition between three search teams is an unattractive scenario when you consider that overall success of any one team as being moderate at best. We wish Howland Landing LTD and Nauticos a safe voyage and the best of luck. Future ISAE plans will depend on the outcome of these two expeditions. ----------------------------------------------------- There is no mention in the above about In Search Of Amelia suing OceanWorkers because the technology doesn't perform as advertised. I don't know where the information about the Nauticos and Howland Landing comes from, but as of two weeks ago when I talked to both outfits, neither had a ship chartered or the money to charter one. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:41:23 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio queries etc > From Angus Murray > Re leakage via salt water I would query your conclusion that water/salt was > not an issue. I'm familiar with the design of Carlin's amphibious jeep "Half Safe". His situation was quite different from that of the Electra on the reef at Niku. Carlin's jeep was modified by addition of a boat-type hull with about one foot of freeboard and a chisel-shaped unflared bow. In any sea condition other than flat calm, that type of bow will pitch into (rather than ride over) even the smallest waves or swells, throwing up sheets of water (not just spray) and keeping everything topside, including the antenna insulator, thoroughly wet. Sea water is a good conductor. But dry salt is an ionic solid in which the electrons are tightly bound in closed-shell ions. The resistivity of dry salt is high, in the same range as that of Mica. It is only when salt undergoes dissolution in water that it becomes a good electrolyte. We know from the weather logs of ships in the general area during the period of interest, that the sea state was very low and that there were low to moderate swells in the vicinity of Niku. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Electra's insulators were kept wet by heavy spray from continuous high surf. It is more likely that salt reaching the insulators was transported by wind as an aerosol. Rapid drying on contact would tend to convert the salt to its dry crystalline form, thus impeding adhesion to the surfaces. But even if buildup did occur, it wouldn't be a serious problem since the salt would be in crystalline form. Moreover, such a buildup would tend to be self-limiting. If the salt became wet from spray, it would dissolve and slough off. If the salt was not wetted by spray, it would hygroscopically absorb moisture from the highly humid air until enough moisture was absorbed for the salt to dissolve and slough off. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:45:56 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters > "So you're saying that you figured out the Julia Child/Martha Stewart > technique of going in at the base all by yourself? Our little forum survey > seems to suggest that not that people are as clever as you are." Yes, I am saying that I figured it out all by myself. It's not rocket science. I have opened oysters, clams, quahogs, mussels and other bivalves, usually with a knife, but when a knife wasn't available, giving the muscle end a good smack on a rock would do the trick. Occasionally, one or two stubborn little cusses wouldn't open, so I just tossed them away, much in the same way one does with stubborn pistachio nuts. David Katz (who spent many hours of his misspent youth on the Cape) ************************************************************************** From Ric Have you ever been marooned on Nikumaroro? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:47:21 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Hey, it's not my fault! David Katz said: "This entire line of inquiry is ludicrous. Examining a bunch of clam and oyster detritus is hardly likely to lead to any reasonable conclusions about AE and FN, unless of course their fingerprints are on them." Tooth prints! Tooth prints! Yeah, that's the trick Yeah! Ted Bundy, the serial murder in Florida was convicted on tooth prints, remember! He kept biting his victims and the tooth marks matched his jaw/tooth/bite lines. Cool! Thanks for the tip, David. David Katz said: "No one had to teach me how to open clams and oysters. I figured it out myself. Trust me it wasn't difficult. I think anyone with an IQ over 80, from any part of the world, could deduce from simple observation how to do it." Now David, I'm sure your mother told you to never make fun of a person with a handicap. The fact some of us may not have an IQ of 80 is not our fault. We were born this way, and need help and guidance. You will be rewarded for your kindness. Rejoice in the knowledge we've learned to type. LTM, who rejoices often Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:50:12 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Norwich City Castaway, Null Ric wrote: >I don't know any way to prove that the scenario you describe, or one similar >to it, did not happen. For the castaway to be a Norwich City survivor you >have to: >1) Explain why he was not rescued with his shipmates. >2) Explain how he came by what Steenson took to be part of a woman's shoe and >part of a man's shoe. >3) Dismiss the fact that the bone measurements taken by Hoodless are >interpreted by Fordisc II as being a female of Northern European descent >rather than an English or Arab male. >You have done all three. Stating that "...the bone measurements taken by Hoodless are interpreted by Fordisc II as being a female of Northern European descent" is overstating the case a bit. Jantz et. al., to their credit, make it very clear in their FORDISC analysis/report that the "female of Northern European descent" assumption is by no means a slam dunk. Quoting the report: "Ancestry: The skull is more likely European than Polynesian, although it cannot be excluded from any population. Comparing the skull measurements to European, Polynesian and Micronesian populations, it is most similar to Norse females (see Figure 1)." "Sex: Assuming the skull represents a person of European ancestry, the FORDISC analysis indicates that the individual represented was most likely female. Unfortunately the level of certainty is very low; the female/male probability is ca. .65/.35. If Hoodless measured orbit breadth in a different way, such that the orbits were in fact a couple of milimeters greater as measured today, this would change the classification to male, with male/female probabilities of .53/.47." I will summarized two key points made by the authors: 1. The skull cannot be excluded from any population. 2. After you negotiate the murky waters above of No. 1 (without the actualskull in hand) ...and....as the report states..." Assuming the skull represents a person of European ancestry...", Jantz et. al. are very clear that "the level of certainty is very low; the female/male probability is ca. .65/.35." Further more, if Hoodless's orbit measurement were off by a couple of millimeters......it becomes basically 50/50 male/female. So...there is clearly lots and lots of room here for the specimen that Gallagher/Hoodless/Isaac examined to be not only non-European but also to be male.....and for the bones and other artifacts to fit into a Norwich City castaway scenario. Although FORDISC is a very good program for many types of forensics analyses, it is not always a reliable indicator for determining the racial affinity of some populations (see S. Fukuzawa and A. Maish, 1997). >The eight Norwich City crewmembers are people known >to be missing in the area and must therefore be considered as castaway >candidates." Thank you. >Of course, there are two other people known to be missing in the >area who seem to fit the evidence better. Spading replies: Whether or not the castway evidence fits Earhart or the Norwich City better is clearly a judgement call that you and I will not agree on. I have to give the nod to the Norwich City due to the fact that it is a known event, within the history of island, that can account for a large majority, if not all, of the things Gallagher found. On the other hand, I agree that the Earhart flight also must be considered as a source of the castaway related items. My mind is open to both possibilities. My main point is that, any discussion of the castaway issue....must include the Norwich City as an alternative. LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul, MN ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:06:34 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Colonial Dr's Experience/"On Fleshed Bodies" First, let's get on the table that in responding to my earlier message you have added the language "on fleshed bodies" to what you quoted to Kenton and what I originally commented on, yet have not told this to the Forum. That was a change you made to try and bootstrap your statement onto what you quote from Dr. Burns' manual, yet you didn't tell us. I had to flush it out by comparing the messages. The observations Kenton made about Dr. Isaac are worthwhile and deserving of better treatment. Second, with this bit of business now on the table, let's look at more of "the pertinent paragraphs" of what Dr. Burns says to see if your attempt to quietly change what you said accomplished your goal. Quoting: "WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION? The objectives of anthropological investigation are the same as those of a medical-legal investigation of a recently deceased person: identification, determination of cause and manner of death, estimation of time of death, and collection of any physical evidence supporting the conclusions or leading to further information. ..." So, it's clear that both our medical examiner and forensic anthropologist start out having the same goal. As Dr. Burns says "identification". That's what Isaac, Hoodless and TIGHAR are trying to do here. Further, as Dr. Burns points out in the section you quote, that since decomposition is a continuous process, the work of these specialists often overlaps. At what point is the medical examiner useless or irrelevant? Wisely, I think, Dr. Burns doesn't draw the type of "hey, I'm outta here" type of distinction you are trying to peddle, but seems to adopt a more pragmatic approach of the value of each based on the particular situation (this "valuation" comprises much of the remainder of the discussion in the Manual pages quoted) . Now, it was interesting that you stopped the quotation of "the pertinent paragraphs" of Dr. Burns where you did, as in the next section she discusses a particular example of where there is overlap that is relevant to the bones found on Gardner: skeletal traits or anomalies that could serve to provide a tentative or positive identification (presumably these traits would include all manner of physical characteristics, traumas, etc.). This is hard tissue, not "fleshed", yet is something where the observations of the medical examiner and forensic anthropologist overlap and are helpful in identification. You would have the medical examiner leave the room at this point, yet Dr. Burns sees a valuable role where the two professionals work overlap and are helpful to identification.. Had Dr. Isaac found a bullet hole through the skull, something that would be within the competence of a doctor who does autopsies, would Dr. Burns have rejected this observation because it was made by a "soft tissue" guy on "hard tissue"? I doubt it, but you would. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Let's get something else on the table. I resent your implication that I'm trying to fool anyone by "bootstrapping" language. My only interest here is in an objective, informed discussion of the available facts. My point, which I think is supported by Kar's book, is that a medical examiner who does autopsies is usually confronted by a body whose bones are, for the most part, hidden from view by flesh or decaying flesh. Damaged, disarticulated bones devoid of flesh are not the sort of things that often show up on the autopsy table, and when they do it's time to call in someone who knows "hard tissue." As far as we know, that did not happen in the case of either Isaac's or Hoodless's examination. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:08:48 EST From: Tom King Subject: Shooting Shellfish Re. shooting the shellfish. It's possible, of course, that some shells were shot and completely blown to pieces -- there are several cases in which we have only a single valve representing a clam. In most cases, however, we have both valves and one's undamaged while the other is damaged -- sometimes a little bit, sometimes a whole lot. There are a few cases where pieces are broken out that I suppose could be the result of being shot, but in most cases what we have is massive damage of the outer surface of the shell coupled with lots of spalling and cracking of the inner, "mother of pearl" layer, and some piece of the shell, usually toward the "foot," broken away with lots of damage along the edge of the break. In two cases we have what looks like chipping along the hinge margin near the "foot," and in one of these cases there's a scar that's a pretty good match for the tip of artifact # 2-6-S-12, which Ric sent down and I compared with the shell today. It doesn't look to me like they were shot; it looks to me like somebody tried to pry their way into the hinge and, failing that and getting in through the siphon end, set each clam down on one valve and bashed the bejeebers out of the other valve with something heavy. Another thing that argues against use as targets is that all the valves were lying together in a sort of elongated cluster -- not set in line as they would be if you lined 'em up to shoot, nor scattered around as they would be if you tossed 'em up in the air. Earlier in the analysis some of us kicked around the target idea and concluded that the only way gunfire could create a distribution like the one we see would be through the ambush of a group of clams engaged in a migration between the lagoon and the shore. Hence we've come to call the clusters "clambushes." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:10:06 EST From: Tom King Subject: Ludicrous clams Re. David Katz comment that: <> I presume you're in some line of work other than archaeology, David, and for that matter other than any other science. It's from precisely this kind of line of inquiry that archeologists typically figure things out, and many other observational (as opposed to experimental) sciences work the same way. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:11:28 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Colonial Dr's Experience > Ric says: "I'll also point out that performing autopsies is nothing at all > like evaluating partial damaged skeletons". I've done both, and I agree with Ric. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:13:39 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Norwich City Research Ric wrote: >St. John's, Newfoundland? That's our old stomping ground. I know that >Memorial University there has a big nautical department. Maybe we can get >them to look up the records for us - but if we knew the height of every >missing [Norwich City] crew member, what good would it do us? The Earhart Project Investigation has evolved dramtically in the last 15 years. It has gone from a belief that the Electra was sitting in the bush waiting to be discovered (as many thought during Niku I) to the more recent realization that the case might have to be built through careful archaeology and diligent archival research. The case for the Niku hypothesis very likely will have to built based on a preponderance of the evidence...as many archaeological cases are...as illustrated by the Drake's Cove work. The investigation may not produce the Any Idiot Artifact (AIA). It is in this light that it is important to know as much as we can about the entire history of the island, in particular, any history that provides a convenienct source for a piece of evidence/artifact. The bones and artifacts found by Gallagher play a key role in the construction of what I call the Drake's Cove Case (DCC)(sorry Tom!). In the process of putting together the DCC, the bones evidence cannot be properly weighed without knowing as much as we can about the other souls who have been lost at Niku. So far we know the heights of 2 of the lost sailors and neither fit the Hoodlees/Jantz et. al. range estimates. The research continues. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:16:02 EST From: Dan Brown Subject: oyster shucking I guessed wrong about the oyster shucking question. To pry open Apalachicola Bay oysters down here in Dixie, we usually use a little (about 0.1 oz) disk-shaped, non-magnetic silver-colored metal plate that has a few teeth on one side. Sometimes to get a good grip we put a non-magnetic copper-colored screw through it. You have to be careful about the kind of plate you use, though, because if you try to use a 0.2 oz rectangular non-magnetic silver-colored plate, with a non-magnetic copper-colored screw, it's liable to bend when you try to open your bigger oysters. Dan Brown #2408 ************************************************************************** From Ric We'll keep an eye out far anything that looks like that. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:29:58 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Target practice The fact that vacuum tube parts were found at the seven site makes on wonder if the target practice (plates, glass, tubes) took place after the closure of the station and tubes, plates etc were taken from the abandoned station. This ties in with none of the coasties remembering using the seven site for target practice or bringing frangibles to shoot at. Its possible that damaged tubes & plates were used of course but its worth bearing in mind that it could have been someone other than the coasties who were involved in the target practice. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric We have (so far) a total of 20 rounds of M1 carbine ammunition fired at the Seven Site. It seemed like a lot more when we were finding them, but it's only 20 rounds. The shell casings and shot-up objects could easily be the result of a single occurence/visit. The Coasties had M1 carbines. I suppose it's possible that the British colonists had American military carbines in the postwar years, but it doesn't seem very likely. We also have three .22 caliber shell casings. None of the Coast Guard veterans recall anyone having a .22. Gallagher had a Colt .22 pistol but it did not stay on the island after he died. The most likely explanation for the evidence of firearm history at the Seven Site would seem to be a few rounds fired by Gallagher and later one or two episodes of Coast Guard mischief. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:40:16 EST From: Joe Subject: Re: Landing and Go Around Comments Ric Your great! Id follow you down a gun barrel if I had to! Joe *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Joe, but if we're ever in that situation please grab me by the seat of the pants and pull me out of there. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:42:34 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters - the point I learned how to open oysters by watching a tiny little bird on the discovery chanell. This little bird had a tiny sharp pointy beak and it just stuck it into the muscle end and did a little "wiggle wiggle wiggle" and "pop" ate the oyster. All of this took the bird only about 10 or 15 seconds. So I made a knife from an old blade I found in the dirt, it had a very sharp point and was so dull it will never cut butter. Now I can open oysters like the tiny little bird with just a few wiggles and a pop. It takes me just a few seconds and requires almost no force cause the tiny point goes right into the hinge slot.. Except,, that there are some really huge oysters that are mean and tough and it takes more effort to do this kind... mmmmmmm thier so good,,, the Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:45:02 EST From: Mike E. Subject: Re: Antenna Insulators >From Anthony Lealand > >One result of this is that the antenna is sharply tuned and the wire has >quite high voltages on it which are easily tracked out by leakage over >insulators. This de tunes the antenna and wastes power This is quite true indeed. >This is a very different kettle of fish from a low Q 1/4 wave whip on a >hand held transmitter. These are much broader in response and nowhere near >as easily upset by leakage. Slightly off topic, but I'll disagree depending upon the particulars of the radio and the frequency band concerned. With VHF (150-170 MHz) hand helds the short 1/4 wave antennas are much physically shorter than an actual quarter wave length because they are helically wound... these are commonly called "rubber duckies" and electrically they exhibit a typical NINE DB LOSS (huge!) over a 1/4 wave full size whip. We are not really concerned with VHF in our context, but Anthony's next is quite true as well.... >I can say that salt water is the very devil on insulators, and had >caused more grief than all other electronic faults combined. I believe it... This would be especially true with regard to aircraft antennas, because the usual insulator employed for a/c antennas is a smooth type, to reduce aerodynamic drag. Shipboard, and land based antennas use insulators which are ribbed. The ribs reduce the possibility of leakage or arc-over due to lightning, static chatge, or corona buildup. (Corona is a phenomenon associated with the high voltages found in shortened antennas.) Salt air also causes lots of problems on all kinds of insulators, such as on power lines, in coastal areas.... But salt air and moisture-related corrosion inside the equipment itself are also quite formidable problems, especially in older gear which uses high-voltage power supplies... such as the Western Electric gear aboard NR16020. Solid-state technology has made life easier by a long shot, but it's still not perfect. Military equipment underwent moisture- and fungus-proofing procedures (MFP) during manufacture, wherein the entire inside of the radio was covered in a lacquer coating. Such a coating often appears yellow on bare metal. (Those familiar with WW2-vintage gear know it has a distinctive -- diSTINKtive -- odor, and makes it "hell" to repair solder joints!) I do not know if the WE gear was MFP treated. My strong suspicion is, that it wasn't, because prior to WW2 when environmental problems were widely in evidence especially in the tropics, the practice was not widespread at all. LTM (who always keeps things dry) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:46:17 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Coastie Clambakes << Maybe some of the coasties got hungry during an extended practice session, and went to the lagoon side to scavange some of these tasty morsels. >> Doesn't explain why there were trails to the clam bed in 1938 before the coasties got there. Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:48:49 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters Now I eat clams and oysters from time to time, but where do you really find them. I find my behind the butcher's glass cabinet. I understand people dig for clams on the beach. Does Niku have that many clams on such a short and steep beach? Oysters I'm told, cling to rocks below the surface of the sea. Walking out on the sharp/slippery coral flat and then diving in the rough surf has got to be a chore. Could dainty AE and not so buffed FN have done that? Thanks, Lawrence *************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know, there are no oysters in the Central Pacific. Clams at Niku can be found in the lagoon shallows. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:50:18 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Fiberoptics > A fiber optic cable is a way of sending command signals. It's not a little > light. (sigh) Thank goodness. Time Warner is supposed to wire fiber optics to my apartment and I was afraid there would be little lights coming out of all my electric receptacles all night. Alan *************************************************************************** From Ric See the stuff you can learn on the forum? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:57:01 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Neumann Method >TIGHAR's main expense in the Neumann Method would be settling the >wrongful death lawsuits'... Really don't mind taking the 'lumps' for the things I _do_ say, however the quote Ross referred to was _not_ mine ! Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric My apologies. You are correct. Should be the Stokes Method. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:12:59 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Landing and Go Around Comments If the NC area was all there was for a landing -fine. But was this really the only area on Niku smooth enough for a wheels down landing? Could one in any case tell sufficiently well from the air what the surface was like? It would be much easier to fly low and slow along the reef to see its condition where it was uninterrupted by a shipwreck If there was a surface as good or better where no hazard existed, why not use that? It seems to me that you want to stay with the idea of a NC area landing because it fits the hypothesis, not because it has a lot of merit in itself. If you can tell me that there was no other area nearly as smooth, and that that was apparent from the air, I will change my mind. Was the video approach filmed with the helicopter flying at a speed safely (for the electra) above the electra's stalling speed or was it filmed at a much lower airspeed commensurate with making a good video? If the latter, especially with the chopper's excellent field of view, it may convey little of the difficulty in seeing the reef at close quarters from the electra's cockpit. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric You've got it backward. I don't stick with the reef landing north of the NC because it fits the hypothesis. I stick with it because it's a hypothesis that fits the evidence. We've hypothesized (guessed at) landings all over the island based on the same kind of guessing you've been doing. She would have this that and the other thing and maybe she did this or that. The Nutiran mudflat, the reef in front of the Seven Site, the reef in front of Aukeraime, the east shore of Bauareke Passage - we've tested all those, including the reef north of NC, with on-the-ground searches and come up dry. What the reef north of NC has going for it are the anecdotal and photographic clues mentioned in my earlier posting. None of the other guesses have that support. The helicopter approach was flown, at my request, at 65 knots which seemed to me like a reasonable "dirty, short final" approach speed for a light Lockheed 10. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:14:39 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams In re: Tom King's observation about my impatience with the clam/oyster digression: > "I presume you're in some line of work other than archaeology, David, and for > that matter other than any other science. It's from precisely this kind of > line of inquiry that archeologists typically figure things out, and many > other observational (as opposed to experimental) sciences work the same way." Yes, I am sufficiently well educated to understand how the science of archaeology works; however, I presumed that TIGHAR was engaged in trying to discover evidence linking Amelia Earhart's alleged presence on Gardner Island circa 1937. I fail to see how the observation of clam and oyster shell detritus can reasonably establish such a link, given the fact that the ability to open clams and oysters (by a variety of means) is available to just about anyone with the power of observation and the patience of trial and error. Hell, birds do it without much difficulty; I believe that any human being of even minimal intelligence could accomplish it. Ergo, trying to establish Earhart's presence through the coincidence of having found broken bivalve shells in situ stretches the bonds of credulity. The clamshell detritus could have been left by anyone. David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:17:11 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Target practice >From Ric > > We have (so far) a total of 20 rounds of M1 carbine ammunition fired at the > Seven Site. I'd love to see a photo of their headstamps. It might be possible to date them. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ************************************************************************* From Ric Piece of cake. They're all 1943 issue. The Loran station was built in July-September 1944. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:19:37 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: Clams and Oysters I noted Mr. Kings comment today about possible tool marks on the hinge of one of the shells "matching" Artifact #2-6-S-12. I believe there is a class of "experts" that are capable of matching/identifying tool marks with tools. ************************************************************************* From Ric I dunno. That would take an experienced and highly-regarded archaeologist - like, for example - Dr. Tom King. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:43:17 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters > Ric asked: > "Have you ever been marooned on Nikumaroro?" No, I have never been marooned on Nikumaroro or anywhere else. Nonetheless, I believe that I am capable of opening clams and oysters. However, that was not my point. My point was that the clam and oyster shells you discovered on the island cannot reasonably be connected to Earhart. Instead of addressing my point, you have chosen to steer the discussion toward my ability to open clamshells. I do not believe that you can draw a connection between where people were raised in the world and their ability to open clamshells. I repeat: it does not take a great deal of skill nor intelligence to figure it out. If I had been marooned on Nikumaroro, or even just visiting, I'm confident that I could have figured it out. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric And my point is that we conducted an informal and not very scientific survey of forum members and found that, although quite few people had experience opening clams, very few knew the oyster technique of going in at the base. I am one of those who have opened and eaten clams from time to time and have struggled to slip a thin-bladed knife in the top end. I don't like oysters so I've never paid any attention to how people who do like them get then open. If I was marooned on an island I don't think that it's very likely that I'd learn a technique that doesn't work well on clams and that I didn't know beforehand - but then, my IQ is 79. Nobody is saying that the way the Niku clams were opened is going to prove who opened them. We're merely looking at the objects we have collected and asking, "Why does this look the way it does? How did it get here? What does it tell us about the person who was here? " Nobody would think that was remarkable if we were investigating a crime scene or excavating a Neolithic site, but somehow because we're looking for Amelia Earhart it's "ludicrous". Maybe we'll find that the clues point to the castaway being a hapless Polynesian or a forlorn Arab but so far that's not the way it's looking. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:44:36 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Colonial Dr's Experience/"On Fleshed Bodies" O.K., Ric, that's fine. It's time to move on. Thanks, --Chris *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 13:06:12 EST From: Subject: Tool marks This is what I was talking about. The are expert witness who are tool mark examiners who testify as forensic witness connecting marks on evidence to specific tools. http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query1?p=tool*+and+mark+and+witness&hq=site:www. forensicservice.com *************************************************************************** From Ric What do you think Tom? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 13:10:51 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams David Katz writes: > Yes, I am sufficiently well educated to understand how the science of > archaeology works; however, Perhaps. It's an interesting science with a fascinating, and in some cases counter-intuitive, methodology. > I presumed that TIGHAR was engaged in trying to > discover evidence linking Amelia Earhart's alleged presence on Gardner > Island circa 1937. If that's all we wanted we could say that this evidence applies right now. The trick is to figure out what the evidence is saying ON IT'S OWN, then decide if it supports or detracts from the primary objective. You can't just accept or dismiss a bit of evidence until you know what it means. > I fail to see how the observation of clam and oyster > shell detritus can reasonably establish such a link, given the fact that the > ability to open clams and oysters (by a variety of means) is available to > just about anyone with the power of observation and the patience of trial > and error. Hell, birds do it without much difficulty; I believe that any > human being of even minimal intelligence could accomplish it. Ergo, trying > to establish Earhart's presence through the coincidence of having found > broken bivalve shells in situ stretches the bonds of credulity. The > clamshell detritus could have been left by anyone. And in order to decide if it applies or doesn't, you need to establish who the list of anyone is. It really can't be just "anyone." There are limits on who it could be bounded by time and space. A given technique of opening may indicate a particular group of people or may indicate someone who is clueless about how to do it easily, had to learn, and ultimately ended up with a less than perfect technique. The evidence is that someone (one or more) opened these with a set of techniques which may help indicate who they were. The current process here is to establish, as best we can, who those individuals may have been. This inevitably leads to a discussion on who could have been there and a examination of the other evidence. Sometimes just changing the perspective of the discussion reveals things. This discussion has been one of the better ones on spinning the perspective a little. For a similar examination, go back on the forum and read up on the extensive research into the "wreck photo." A lot of work with an ultimately negative result, but also work which showed well the technique being applied and how to keep from reading into something more than is there but also not read less than is there either. - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 13:13:34 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Brussels Subject: Re: Landing site "I would guess that not many pilots have found themselves in the position of being VERY low on fuel (and you never know just exactly how low) and been faced with the decision whether to accept an immediate landing with some undesirable features (bad or short surface, or strong crosswind or tailwind) or take a chance and line up a much better approach. I've had it happen twice and both times I gritted my teeth and took the extra time to set up the better approach. But I'm not Amelia Earhart". Herman thinks : I'm not Amelia Earhart either. But I was taught and later experienced repeatedly that a perfect approach is the secret to a good landing. A poorly flown approach will almost certainly result in a poor landing. I am convinced Amelia Earhart knew that too. Given the situation she was in I bet that, realizing she was making the landing of her lifetime, she would go for THE BEST APPROACH POSSIBLE to GET DOWN SAFELY on that beach. If we believe there was fuel left to keep one engine running later and send post landing signals, it follows she made the landing with enough fuel to make a normal "precautionary landing". That includes making at least one low pass over the beach to see what it looks like, then fly an extended downwind and position herself comfortably on final and make sure she has all chances on her side for a safe short field landing. That meant coming in just above stalling speed with full flaps and props in fine pitch, then flare out for a three point landing for one cannot take any chances with beaches and land on the main wheels although that offers better directional control. Then hit the brakes. I have never been to Niku. But looking at the map there seems to be at least half a mile of beach available. An Electra needs only half that distance to come to a stop. There was plenty of room to make a safe approach regardless the Norwich City. I understand wind was 15 kts from the SE, right ? Let's stick to the "worst possible case", meaning it came from 90?. The approach speed of an Electra is 100 mph. With a "runway" heading of approximately 160? she would come in at some 85 mph with about 8? drift. That is not too much too handle. She would stabilize on the "centerline" dipping the port wing, then hit the right rudder pedal while leveling wings during the flare out and Bob's your uncle. Most of us have been doing that most of our lives. What happened next depended on the state of the "runway". That might have given the airplane a bumpy ride during the landing roll and could even have caused AE to lose control, with the twin rudders in the shadow of the main wings. But she had differential brakes. Anyway, the fact she was able to use her radio after the landing is an indication that the Electra was still in one piece. I agree with Ric that she may have gritted her teeth. But I don't think she was that low on fuel to throw the airplane down on that beach on the fumes of the last drop of gas left. LTM (who always said that what goes up must come down) Herman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:36:56 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fatigue Factor Doug, makes a good point about long flights. I've made many across both oceans, some lasting over 20 hours with two mid air refuelings. We flew mostly on autopilot except for the obvious times but we couldn't get out of our seats and walk around in B-47s. Were we tired when we landed? sure but I've not known of a case where that caused any kind of serious problems. You might say a planned flight ending up at the selected destination could be much different from having to find an alternate. I did not find that to be the case. Rather my attention and alertness was heightened to the new situation. I arrived over Fairford England with all of England and Europe socked in. I went to Madrid which was not planned. Of course I had no problems finding places. I'm sure that would have moved the adrenaline around even more. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:57:35 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: landing site Ric said, > Nutiran mudflat, the reef in front of the Seven Site, the reef in front of > Aukeraime, the east shore of Bauareke Passage - we've tested all those, > including the reef north of NC, with on-the-ground searches and come up dry. Just my point - nothing north of the NC and the reef south of the Blasted passage and west of Bauareke has not been searched thoroughly. > What the reef north of NC has going for it are the anecdotal and photographic > clues mentioned in my earlier posting. > >The reef north of NC has only the anecdotal clue. > >The photographic clues and other anecdotal clue were in the Tatiman >passage area. One then has to make guesses (albeit informed) about the movement >of wreckage to decide that it got there from north of the NC. >None of the other guesses have that support. So what about the post-loss message " we are on reef southwest of unknown island" ? Thats as good as any anecdotal evidence in my book. We may never find out of course, but if any substantial parts of the electra are ever found, I'll bet you a bottle of benedictine its south of Tatiman passage. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric I have three post-loss messages containing the word reef. On July 4th, 16 year old Dana Randolph of Rock Springs, WY reportedly heard "WE ARE ON A REEF SOUTHEAST OF HOWLAND ISLAND" I suspect that this is the message that you're referring to. (Source: Official Coast Guard messages on July 4th) On July 8th a ham operator in Oakland claimed to have heard "WE ARE ON A CORAL REEF" (Source: NY Herald Tribune, July 8, 1937, Early ed., Page 1) On July 9th, Frank Freitas who lived 20 miles east of Yreka, CA said he recognized the voice of Amelia Earhart (having heard it before) saying that the plane was "ON A REEF 200 MILES DIRECTLY SOUTH OF HOWLAND AND THAT BOTH WERE OK AND PLANE HAD ONE WING BROKEN." (Source: Message from Coast Guard ,San Francisco to Coast Guard, Hawaii on July 11th) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:04:40 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > The > clamshell detritus could have been left by anyone. Just a thought. Do Arabs and other Muslims eat shellfish? *************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. Observant Jews don't. Many of Judaism's dietary prohibitions are common to other Semitic groups. This shouldn't be hard to find out. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:45:22 EST From: David Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams I would have to agree with mr. katz--after a certain point this business of examining clam shells is preposterous...and I would like to see a "list" someone could come up with! Impossible! as you have said yourself you have left things on the island only to find them deteriorated or missing upon return. who knows how many people have been there or when. next thing we will be trying to prove Darwins origin of species from clam shells. all of this dialogue is entertaining but quite fruitless. for this mystery to be finally solved is going to just take more physical exams of the area till something concrete shows up.well, i hope not concrete or we will be debating how that got there. ric is to be congratulated for all his years of hard work and diligence to this end. i regret to say i am not a member yet altho i have followed his work from the very beginning and if anyone can solve this he is the man. david **************************************************************************** From Ric Me? Find Amelia Earhart? Hell, I can't find the mustard in the refrigerator. Ask Pat. All I can do is recruit the best minds I can find for TIGHAR's effort and try to keep them more or less pointed in the same direction. One thing I've learned in working with these fine people over the years is that the real trick to solving mysteries is not in coming up with the right answers; it's coming up with the right questions. The real test of an investigator's talent is how good he or she is at maintaining a heightened sense of curiosity - looking at something most people wouldn't look twice at and asking "Why is it like that?" In 1996 we were poking around what was once a house site in the village. All kinds of bits and pieces of junk littered the ground. I was looking for airplane parts, or fragments of airplane parts. Veryl Fenlason pointed at a rectangular piece of translucent material about the size of a deck of playing cards and said, "What's that?" I said, "Just a hunk of plastic. Could be anything." Veryl said, "S'pose it could be plexiglas?" Duh! If it had been up to me we would have missed one of our most interesting artifacts. The clams are just the first step. We're also looking at the bird, fish and turtle remains we recovered. I can guarantee that none of them has Amelia's name written on it, but we're going to learn all we can from them anyway. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:49:24 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Gardner Is Clam Population/1937 For "what it's worth", a review of the extensive Gardner Is report by Laxton and by Bevington in 1937 makes no mention of clams. They describe in detail some of the feasts put on by the natives. The food mentioned was fish, turtles, birds, crabs and homemade rice, bread etc. No clams which might have been a "delicacy" at one of the many ceremonial dinners. It could be Beavington and Laxton didn't mention the entire menu. A second point. If the clam population at Gardner is like those in the Pacific Northwest, it can vary tremendously year by year. One year, lots of clams, the next, hardly any. So the basic question is were there plentiful clams off the beach in the summer of 1937. Maybe there are resources that could address that issue. The clams may have been intoduced years later. You may have other records from the original natives 1938-40 if clams were in fact available. A second question. If the clams (variety?) at Niku are similar to the razor clams ( I don't know the name) on the Pacific Beach areas, one needs a "clam gun" ( a cylindrical barrel) to dig some 2-3 feet down to catch them. It is a very difficult job requiring stamina, and fast digging ability, or the clams are gone. Without a shovel or clam gun, you will not get any clams. The inland type, "manilla " and rock clams, much smaller variety, lie just about 2-3" under the surface and one can use a rake, a spoon, or any digging tool and uncover them. A piece of cake to get. Very plentiful here in the inland waters on the sandy tidy flats. I can dig a couple of dozen in 20 minutes. If the clams you found on Niku are similar to our Pacific razor clam, the castaway would have had to have a long sleeved digging shovel. LTM, Ron Bright ( who lives next to the most famous northwest clam digger, "Ivar" , from Seattle) *************************************************************************** From Ric The clams on Niku grow in beds in the lagoon shallows and are right on the surface - no need to dig at all. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:53:27 EST From: Nicolas Uribe Subject: NC wreck The Norwich City didn't go down, but there was loss of life and one of those lives was NOT the captain's. Only after everybody else was off the ship could the captain justify saving himself. Due to his implied responsibility for the grounding, saying "Those guys caught down in the main space were dead anyway" wouldn't pass muster. The only way the captain could save himself from a serious breach of maritime chivalry would be to claim he personally made sure everyone got off the ship before taking his own chances with them in an attempt to get ashore. Regarding the above, has the NC wreck been thoroughly searched to see if there might be skeletons behind water-tight doors - thus accounting for the missing crew members? Nicolas Uribe Cali, Colombia *************************************************************************** From Ric The captain was washed overboard early in the evacuation process and can not be faulted for anything that happened after that. The Norwich City wreckage has no water-tight doors anymore. If there are bones down in that jumble of steel we're not going to find them. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:54:07 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Tool marks I've been otherwise engaged today but had meant, Ric, to thank you for the vote of confidence but say that I think Mike makes a good point. There are indeed people in the forensics game who are far, far more experienced than I at matching tools/weapons and wounds in hard tissue. I doubt if there are many who've examined clamicide cases, but I imagine there are similarities between the way a sharp instrument marks a clam and the way it marks, say, a skull. I'm sure that Kar Burns is currently shoulder-deep in crematory sites in her home state of Georgia, but I figured that as soon as she returns to the land of the living we can see if she knows someone who could give our clam and tool a close look. The URL that Mike sent didn't work for me, by the way, but I get the point (as it were). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:55:31 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams Thank you, Bill Leary, for eliminating the need for me to undertake the doubtless fruitless task of rebutting David Katz. Needless to say, I agree with you completely. It continues to astound me that people still think that the only relevant evidence is the smoking gun. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:57:10 EST From: Troy Subject: Clam targets Using mollusks for targets would leave round holes, not broken fragments. The speed of a .22 or .30 carbine and its associated energy would not be enough to "break up" a shell. This is coming from my non-professional opinion of someone who has thousands of rounds of both types of ammunition and various hard- and soft- tissue/inanimate targets. Once you graduate to the higher energy .300's and magnum .400's, you should see enough energy for fracturing. Again, a non-professional opinion and speaking only from experience. LTM (who thinks shooting guns is a blast, but takes a person of high caliber) troy Tighar #something ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:59:35 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Fiberoptics There are fiber optic lights, BTW, Ric. They're used in police, military, medical, and other operations...... *************************************************************************** From Ric But not deep sea searching. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:00:40 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams David, it is not that this one piece of evidence points to AE/FN. It is that this one piece of evidence, added to others such as the skeleton, sextant box, Plexiglas, etc, etc, all add up to a strong indication that someone was there and who are the known people to go missing before 1939'ish in that are..... It all adds up to a very strong indication that AE/FN have a high probability of having made it to Niku..... LTM (inch by inch, its a cinch... mile by 600,000miles, its a trial) troy Tighar #something ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:09:40 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams >It's from precisely this kind of >line of inquiry that archeologists typically figure things out, > As Tom King tells us, for justification of the Great Clam Debate and Scientific Investigation. For some insight, I suggest reading the archeological classic "Motel of the Mysteries", in which a group of scientists (in 2100 AD, or thereabouts) unearth a Holiday Inn, and arrive at all sorts of absurd conclusions about the artifacts found (such as those white porcelain altars found in every cubicle). Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric I see. So archaeology is a crock. Thank you for your insight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:11:48 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Comic relief http://www.appac.org/amelia2.jpg http://www.appac.org/amelia1a.jpg ************************************************************************** From Ric These are supermarket tabloid headlines about AE being alive and well and living on a Pacific island. Worth seeing if you haven't already. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:13:06 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Landing site Some of the pilots from WW II tell stories about dipping down low over the ocean and reading the waves for wind direction and speed. I believe that was taught in navigation classes. Alan Caldwell could verify that I'm sure. Once the water hit the beaches, it was impossible to tell anything. Also, have an Email from David Jourdan at Nauticos I would like to post. He sounds upbeat, but doesn't give any reasons for all the delays. Subj: Your email Date: 2/23/02 11:32:35 AM Central Standard Time From: dave@nauticos.com (David Jourdan) To: Beardov@aol.com CC: lynn@nauticos.com (Lynn Jourdan) Hi Carol, Thanks for your continued interest and support. I'm sorry we are still being a bit quiet, but at this point, and having been trying to get this going for some time, I'd rather wait until I have definite details to report before passing out info and then having to delay further. Please be a bit more patient. I hope there will be more specific news soon, and you are on Lynn's update list. We're making progress! Dave ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:16:45 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Fiberoptics You know (pardon me for laughing) but I thought Nauticos was going to be searching for Earhart with fiber optic cables such as a surgeon would use while performing surgery on someone's knee. There's a name for it...authroscopic surgery (however you spell it if I have the name right). I thought, ye gads you talk about about a detailed search, what is this thing? Is he planning on using authroscopic surgery on the sea bed? I thought, now I've heard everything. It's good for a laugh anyway. But am thinking what was wrong with Kammerer's machine? Does anyone know? There's a possibility of asking....does Nauticos have the same search machine as the Kammerer machine that broke down that started a lawsuit? Am wondering. Nauticos.com has a picture of his machine on his website. Carol #2524 **************************************************************************** From Ric Kammerer was going to use a free-diving robot submarine (no connection to the mother ship). It turned out to be less efficient than advertised which would have greatly increased the time and therefore the cost of the search. Nauticos plans to use a more conventional towed sonar device. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:18:42 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Colonial Dr's Experience Having had a certain amount of professional experience in both scenarios (autopsies vs just bones) I can tell you there is no similarity in the exams performed. (In our case, we thought we knew who the bones were, and dental records proved we were right). ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:20:10 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Fiber Optics While, in this case you are probably right, anyone who has had a colonoscopy knows you can use fiberoptics for viewing and lighting as well . ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric That certainly sheds a new light on Nauticos' plans. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:22:15 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters AE was a founding member of a group - the ninty-nines. I see a great potential here, the Seventy-Nines - mark me down as a charter member - I didn't know how to go for the hinge side. It's all I can do to get them into the little cup of sauce... ltm jon **************************************************************************** From Ric I love it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:25:47 EST From: Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho Subject: curios Historical note; The Swan which was mentioned as being in the area July 1937 was decommissioned in 1945 and bought, I believe, by General Motors to be used on an acoustic range off Goleta, CA as the R/V Swan. I did some work with it in the 70's. I haven't been able to find out if it is still in use. The David Taylor Research and Development Center was mentioned in "Amelia Earhart's Shoes". I worked there for 42.5 years and was wondering what part they may have played in the research. In Bevington/Oct 15th, the sentence,"The natives came on board with special woods they can't get on their own islands, crabs, birds, and endless curios." appears. Iwas wondering of what the "curios" may have been comprised. On an island such as Nikumaroro, what could have appealed to the natives that would not have been on their own island(s)? Watches? Jewelry?...??? Glass floats are possibile. Dale *************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. Beachcombed objects would be my guess. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:26:37 EST From: Anthony Lealand Subject: Salt and Antennas. Mike E. wonders why I made comment about VHF and salt. It was in relation to an earlier comment that UHF hand held radios worked well on the island. Kind Regards Anthony Lealand New Zealand ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:30:23 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Clamfest? This may have been asked before so I apologize in advance, but . . . are the clams at Niku edible? And has anyone on any of the expeditions eaten them? How about the natives, what is there take on this things? LTM, who's behind the curse as usual Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric The divers in 1989 ate clams they found in the deep water off the reef but none of us (to my knowledge) have eaten lagoon clams. (There's an experiment for Niku V.) Our Kiribati reps and Fijian crew have not expressed any interest in eating clams either. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:31:55 EST From: Christopher Ferro Subject: Re: Oysters and Clams Mr. Katz is missing the point that whoever opened these clams was familiar with opening oysters and NOT clams. That makes it unlikely that a "native" Gilbertese or Kiribati or whatever (!!) was responsible. It makes a case for a European or North American person, who ate oysters being on that island, who had no provisions and was darn hungry! So you would figure out how to open oysters or clams fast? GOOD FOR YOU! That wasn't the point. The point was to show that someone tried to open the clams in a specific "non-clam" way. SHEESH! Christopher (ready and Wheeling, WV) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:36:20 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > Observant Jews don't. Many of Judaism's dietary prohibitions > are common to other Semitic groups. This shouldn't be hard to find out. One should note, however, that the Talmud expressly permits the eating of non-kosher food when it is necessary to preserve life. The preservation of life is the first imperative. I don't know what the Koran says about this. David Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric I would imagine that the same exception probably applies. However, if shellfish are normally forbidden to Muslims it would tend to reduce the chance that an Arab castaway would be familar with the way to open an oyster. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:40:57 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: landing site It should have read "on coral southwest of unknown island" not "on reef southwest of unknown island" but I think it amounts to much the same thing. See last line of screed below. From Ric [Gillespie, top spokesman for TIGHAR, the aircraft recovery group which has found powerful evidence of Earhart's plane on Gardner Island, also known as Nikumaroro Atoll]: "I've done some digging and this is the best I've come up with. "In 1986 a man named John Luttrell put a monograph he had done entitled 'Winslow Reef - Amelia Earhart's Crash Site?' on file at the National Air & Space Museum library. Luttrell says that when he was in the Air Force he was "taught the fine art of deciphering transmissions" which he describes as "tear(ing) apart a seemingly insignificant message into many parts and then analyzing each part to help give a 'bigger picture' so to speak." (Same sort of thing we've been doing with the 281 message.) Luttrell picked 12 alleged Earhart post-loss messages and filled in the blanks with his guesses. Unfortunately, he doesn't provide sources for the messages or what times they were supposedly heard. Here is what he came up with. I have put his insertions in parentheses July 2 Msg. No. 1"Land in sight ahead" Msg. No. 2 "Plane on reef (200) miles directly south of Howland - both are O.K. Plane has one wing broken" (This message came from a short wave listener in Eureka, CA. U.S. Coast Guard said it thought it was 200 miles directly etc....). Msg. No. 3 "Earhart calling.....NRUI-NRUI- calling from KHAQQ. On coral southwest of unknown island. Do not know how long we will..." **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure where that came from but it's old stuff. We've since tracked the message to its source and Luttrell's version is not accurate. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:45:10 EST From: Russ Plehinger Subject: Re: Fatigue Factor In talking about fatigue has anyone considered that in aircraft of that era fuel tanks within the fuselage confines would have surely meant gas fumes that may or may not have deadened the senses toward decision making? Russ Plehinger Orchard Park NY **************************************************************************** From Ric Who says there would have been gas fumes in the cabin? AE complained of gas fumes on the South Atlantic crossing but that was due to spillage when the tanks were overfilled by mistake. I don't think we can make the assumption that there were gas fumes in the cabin on the Lae/Howland leg. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:11:50 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Reefs, et. al. Ric said: "I have three post-loss messages containing the word reef." That's all? My impression is that most of the post-loss radio messages reported to the Coast Guard et al. are believed to be fakes, stuff conjured up by mischievous hams for the sake of a few minutes of fame. Part of TIGHAR's hypothesis is based on the belief that a small number of the messages apparently were authentic as AE was tried to contact the outside world. I know my numbers are off here but I seem to remember that only about 3 or 4 of the messages are thought to be authentic, this from a total of about 125 (?) messages received. This would mean that about 97 percent of the stuff was fake. The fact the word "reef" appears in only three of them is intriguing. If I was going to concoct a fake message allegedly from a person missing in the Pacific Ocean, the one word that would come immediately to mind would be the word "island" followed closely by the word "reef." These two words (maybe coupled with "atoll") would seems to be naturals for any hoax. After all, where else would a living missing person in the Pacific Ocean most likely be found -- an island, an atoll or a reef. How many of the messages contain the word "island?" LTM, who has perfect deniability Dennis O. McGee #0194EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting approach. At present, I have 69 post-loss transmissions logged. 26 include at least some intelligible voice. The word "reef" occurs in three. The word "island" occurs in only two of the 26. The word "atoll" does not occur. "KHAQQ" occurs in ten messages. The word "Earhart" occurs in 4 and in three of those the full name "Amelia Earhart" was heard. The word "help" occurs in 4 messages. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:13:12 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > Thank you, Bill Leary, for eliminating the need for me to undertake the > doubtless fruitless task of rebutting David Katz. Needless to say, I agree > with you completely. It continues to astound me that people still think that > the only relevant evidence is the smoking gun. For Tom King in re the above comment: Please do not misconstrue my point. I do not believe that the only relevant evidence is what you have termed the "smoking gun." It's just that I fail to see the potential relevance of the clamshells. David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:14:54 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Ship on reef? Isn't there an alleged post-loss message that says something like "ship on reef South of equator" ? ************************************************************************** From Ric Alleged, but I haven't been able to find it in a primary source. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:22:39 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > Ric said: > > I see. So archaeology is a crock. Thank you for your insight. I don't believe that Cam Warren was alleging that archaeology is a "crock." Rather, I believe that he was pointing out that the science of archaeology can misinterpret things do to the fallibility of subjective observation and the potential for bias induced by analyzing artifacts through the prism of the observer's own experience. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think any of us would dispute that. We try not to make those mistakes. You and Cam seem to feel that we shouldn't even try. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:25:34 EST From: Alexander Subject: Clamfest? A good place to start to discover if the clams are edible would be to print their species name (if thats the correct words !) or genus (!)... and then those among us who have a bit of time on our hands could go see what we could dig up off the net... good idea ? ************************************************************************** From Ric Tom King can help with the Latin names of the species in question, but we already know that they're edible. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:26:55 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters For Mr. Ferro: The point that Ric and others was trying to make was not lost on me; quite the contrary. I am afraid that you have missed my point, which is that opening bi-valves requires neither high intelligence nor significant previous experience. If one has never done it (whether clams or oysters), simple trial and error should suffice for just about anyone. Ergo, I believe that it would be difficult to draw any reasonable conclusions concerning Amelia Earhart's presence on Nikumororo from the examination of broken clamshells, which could have been left there just about by any visitor at any time. David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:35:34 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams OK. I found a fatwah on the internet, saying that shrimp and fish with scales are Hallal (the Muslim equivalent of Kosher), but other sea creatures are not. Specifically, clams and mussels are not hallal (permitted). I agree that necessity, starvation, or degree of religious belief might modify this, but it seem unlikely to me that the Arab firemen would not ordinarily even try to eat clams, particularly if other food was available. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 **************************************************************************** From Ric And food is not a problem on Niku. Fresh water is the big concern. Once we have all the faunal material identified we'll have a better idea of just what proportion of the food consumed, by volume, the clams represent. I suspect that we'll find that they are a fairly minor item. This may turn out to be the best argument against an Arab castaway. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:37:01 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams "Motel of the Mysteries," and other pieces like it, are commonly used in archaeology classes to warn us of the dangers of snap interpretations. Archaeology CAN be a crock, no question about it. That doesn't make any particular piece of archaeological analysis a crock, particularly in the context of others. As has been pointed out, the clams by themselves won't prove anything. The clams added to other pieces of evidence may. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:37:30 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams The clams are definitely edible, and we're trying to get a fix on how they're traditionally harvested and prepared. It varies somewhat from area to area, and of course from species to species, and the literature on the subject doesn't seem to be very thick. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:38:31 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Oysters and Clams Thanks, Christopher. Precisely the point. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:39:41 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams David -- I trust that by now you've seen Christopher's post, which I think explains the relevance of the clams very succinctly. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:49:16 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > I don't think any of us would dispute that. We try not to make those > mistakes. You and Cam seem to feel that we shouldn't even try. No, I do not feel that TIGHAR "shouldn't even try." I simply believe that, with limited time and resources available, one should not focus on something that is very unlikely to yield reasonable results. I think that it would be very, very difficult (if not impossible) to connect broken clamshells to Amelia Earhart, unless her fingerprints or other traceable evidence (such as DNA) were on them. Conducting scientific dating experiments on the clamshells might be feasible, but I don't know how accurately one could narrow the time-frame, even with the most sophisticated dating technology currently available; moreover, any such scientific dating would likely be very expensive. My belief that it makes far more sense to focus on pursuits more likely to yield results is a legitimate point of view. I sincerely believe that the pursuit of the clamshell evidence is ludicrous. I am not trying to belittle anyone, nor am I am being narrow-minded, as Mr. King apparently believes (forgive me, Tom, if I misinterpreted your earlier comment); I am merely endeavoring to be practical. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric I understand that you believe your point of view to be legitimate and that you believe ours to be ludicrous. Fair enough. You conduct your investigation your way and we'll conduct ours our way. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:56:07 EST From: Stuart, in Santaigo, Chile Subject: Celestial navigation and post-loss messages. A question out of ignorance of celestial navigation: I think I understand the LOP issue, and why it would have not been possible to get an accurate north-south fix. But assuming that they did actually land somewhere, were able to survive until the next day, and had a working sextant: How accurately could Noonan have determined his position, given several hours of total darkness and a clear view of the entire Southern sky? Should he not have been able to determine his position fairly precisely, to within at least a few tens of miles? How bad would that fix be, if there was no sextant, and Noonan had to rely on rough "guesstimates" of star position? The reason I ask is that, if Noonan really was OK (as claimed by some of the post-loss messages), then he should have been able to figure their position reasonably well, close enough to determine which island he was really on. So why would a post-loss message be so vague about "unidentified" islands "south of the equator"? Surely, someone with Noonans expertise at celestial navigation should be able to do much better than a best-guess of "south of the equator"! I guess that this has probably been though of before, and I'm probably just going to annoy someone by bringing it up again, but it occured to me that this would be one possible tool for deciding on the relative worth of post-loss messages. Any source that claims both "we are both OK" and also "we don't know what island we are on" would seem to be highly suspect! FWIW. *************************************************************************** From Ric I can't fault your logic but there is no consensus in the post-loss messages that both Earhart and Noonan were okay. In fact, there are several references to Noonan being injured and, as you know, Betty's notebook describes Noonan's behavior as irrational. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:16:11 EST From: Christopher Ferro Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters >From David Katz > >For Mr. Ferro: > >...I am afraid that you have missed my point, which is that >opening bi-valves requires neither high intelligence nor significant >previous experience. If one has never done it (whether clams or oysters), >simple trial and error should suffice for just about anyone.... OK, I may be missing your point, but you seem to be saying that anyone could have figured out how to open the clams by simple trial and error - BUT, the way the clams were opened is NOT correct! The method for opening oysters doesn't work very well for clams. The clams were "attacked" from the base - the incorrect method for opening clams. Am I incorrect in this statement (Ric, forumites?)? So, this person (or people) did NOT find the proper method for opening clams by trial and error. >...Ergo, I >believe that it would be difficult to draw any reasonable conclusions >concerning Amelia Earhart's presence on Nikumororo from the examination of >broken clamshells, which could have been left there just about by any >visitor at any time. Yes, but we need to establish who could or could not have been on the island. If there is evidence that a person that knew how to open oysters was there who didn't know how to open clams, that narrows the field of possibilities a bit. I'll go way out on a limb here and ask, "would it be unusual for a society person (or one raised in such circumstances) to know how to open oysters and not clams?" or another way "were/are oysters considered food for the high society?" Wasn't AE a "social climber?" Christopher (wincing in Wheeling) *************************************************************************** From Ric Here's an excerpt from Tom King's Preliminary Report in which he describes the dimensions and damage apparent on each of the 17 recovered clam shells. "In most cases one valve is relatively undamaged while the other is badly beaten up. It may be that in the cases of the valves without mates, their mates were completely broken up; there are many small fragments that can't be fit to any particular specimen, and we undoubtedly missed others. Whoever did the damage apparently tried two methods of opening the shells -- prying at the siphon end (and in one case, perhaps, near the byssal oriface) and bashing the hell out of the bottom part of one valve near the byssal oriface. Generally speaking but not universally, it's the larger, heavier shells that are the most damaged, suggesting, perhaps, that the smaller ones were easier to open." As to who is more likely to be a raw oyster eater, I think that it's safe to say that in communities other than seaside fishing villages, it's an upscale thing. Was Earhart a "social climber"? I'd say yes but I'm sure that Ameliaphiles would take offense at that characterization. In any event, it is certainly true that once she came under Putnam's wing she became part of an American aristocracy that she could not have aspired to previously. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:16:56 EST From: Tom King Subject: Latin clams The clams are of genus Tridacna, most likely species squamosa. Tridacna includes the "Giant Clam" T. gigas, but these are smaller -- 6-8 inches long, generally. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:27:55 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Muslims & clams YMMV (Your mullah may vary). I guess clams are a gray area, but you shouldn't eat crabs. The reference is toward the bottom of this link. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 http://www.binoria.org/q&a/restricted.html <> *************************************************************************** From Ric It's probably a bad idea to eat a gray clam whatever your religion. Apparently the Qu'ran is silent on whether it's okay for crabs to eat people. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:32:36 EST From: Marty Subject: Tridacna Ric, one of the Forum called the clams "tridacna." That's a genus, not a species. Do you know the species? At least some of the tridacnas are eaten as delicacies elsewhere in the Pacific, but my web search shows quite a variety of sizes and colors. None of the tridacnas look like what I think of as a clam (i.e., a little tiny thing I could hold in the palm of my hand). These things are big and have real wavy, curvy shells. I don't remember clam photos on the web site (living or deceased), but I'd love to see what everyone is talking about. LTM. Marty #2874 *************************************************************************** From Ric As Tom says, we think we're dealing with Tridacna squamosa. I can see a Research Bulletin coming, much as it may annoy some - or perhaps just to annoy some. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:36:42 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > Observant Jews don't. Many of Judaism's dietary prohibitions > are common to other Semitic groups. This shouldn't be hard to find out. Muslim dietary laws about what is halal (kosher) and haram (tref) have varied over the centuries. A page on Azabaijan mentions that shellfish & caviar were haram at one time: http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/83_folder/83_articles/83_isla mic.html Here is a contemporary student guide. No shellfish mentioned. http://www.uh.edu/campus/msa/articles/halal.html The problem is to determine halal rules for the Muslim sailors from particular countries in 1937. That information is probably not available on the web. > One should note, however, that the Talmud expressly permits the eating of > non-kosher food when it is necessary to preserve life. The preservation > of life is the first imperative. I don't know what the Koran says about > this. The same. The Azarbaijan page has the relevant quotiation from the Koran (Qur'an). >************************************************************************* > From Ric > > I would imagine that the same exception probably applies. However, if > shellfish are normally forbidden to Muslims it would tend to reduce the > chance that an Arab castaway would be familar with the way to open an > oyster. It doesn't reduce the chance to zero. Pork is forbidden to Jews and to Muslims. But ***SOME*** people who are ethnically Jewish or Muslim eat pork. The existence of a rule does not imply obedience to the rule (e.g., speed limits and speeding). LTM. Marty #2874 *************************************************************************** From Ric Agreed. (Notice: No smartass comments about priests will be posted.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:47:20 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Clams at Niku/1937 My main question asks if there are any native stories, or any evidence from other sources or from other expeditons in 1937-38 (Maude et al), that confirm the presence of clams at Niku in 1937. I think you interviewed Emily and others from the 1937 era. Would they recollect if any of the first colonists harvested clams, if there. A second question. Were any other sites found on your expeditons showing the discarded clam shells other than the 7 site? Or were the clam shells at 7 a unique find. Tom King might know some of these answers. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Tom may want to elaborate but, as far as I know, we've neither read any references to clams in the literature nor heard stories about clams from any former residents. We do find the occasional clam shell in or near the village but nothing like the two concentrated deposits we see at the Seven Site. The only other place on the island we've seen a concentration of clam shells is on the lagoon shore just east of Kanawa Point. There's a large deposit there - much bigger than what we see at the Seven Site - and some of the shells have been stacked together. They're on the bare coral right at the edge of the lagoon and they've been there long enough to have gotten cemented right into the coral. Clams tending to be non-migratory (like African swallows), I think we're safe in saying that there were clams there in 1937. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:49:25 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > From David Katz > Please do not misconstrue my point. I do not believe that the only > relevant evidence is what you have termed the "smoking gun." It's just > that I fail to see the potential relevance of the clamshells. And no one can make you see the evidential value, either, just as the prosecutors in the OJ case failed to make the jury see the meaning of the blood trail and a hundred other clues. Seeing the bearing that the clamshell evidence has on the case is a matter of interpretation. Those who know more about oysters & Niku clams than I do see an interesting pattern in the clam shells found on the site. Their interpretation that the clumsy attempts at opening the clams resembles oyster techniques can neither be proven nor disproven. It adds a few more scenes to the castaway movie running in my mind. It strengthens the case that the castaway was not native to the Pacific. By itself, separated from all other clues, it says nothing about AE and FN. But nobody is claiming that it proves more than it does. I do deny the proposition that there is no meaning in the shell evidence--something interesting was going on there, even if it does not amount to the any-reasonable-idiot-artifact (ARIA). LTM. Marty #2874 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:53:48 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > From Dan Postellon > OK. I found a fatwah on the internet, saying that shrimp and fish with > scales are Hallal (the Muslim equivalent of Kosher), but other sea > creatures are not. Specifically, clams and mussels are not hallal >(permitted). When you say "fatwah," you are saying "some imam's interpretation of the Koran." Islam has no Pope. Islam has no councils that define doctrine or discipline. Islam has no leader who can compel all Muslims to follow his interpretation. Islam has various families of intepretation. Two big branches are Suni and Shi'ite; there is also the Sufi mystical movement which is a later development. So it is very difficult to reason from one part of Islam to another part: the self-understanding of the Arab firemen on the Norwich City in 1937. > From Ric > ... This may turn out to be the best argument against an Arab castaway. It may be the best argument, but it may not be a very strong argument. IF there was an Arab fatwah against clams and IF all Arab castaways were observant of the fatwah and IF other food sources were abundant THEN the eating of clams MAY indicate a non-Arab castaway. I personally wouldn't put too much weight on this line of argument, even though, in fact, it may have some validity (strange things do happen). LTM. Marty #2874 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:54:55 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams David, please don't get too worried about TIGHAR wasting its precious resources on the study of clams. What's been invested thus far is a certain amount of my personal and uncompensated time, which I'd spend anyhow in the interests of preparing a report on the archaeology of the site -- a fundamental professional obligation -- and such time as Ric and participants in the Forum have spent kicking ideas around. I don't think there are any expensive tests to be performed (certainly no dating methods). So it's not like we're busting the budget. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:02:06 EST From: David Carmack Subject: clams and claims Ric, off the subject of clams....regarding the post-loss messages--weren't there many supposed messages received? and most of them rejected as hoaxes? looks like it would be as hard as validating a UFO sighting. were there clues that made some claims more likely to be real? also, did any of these people claim to have heard any of amelias pre-loss transmissions? david *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, there were many alleged post-loss messages and yes, they were all eventually dismissed as hoaxes or misunderstandings. Validating any one message is, as you say, as futile as validating a UFO sighting, but taken as a group, certain patterns emerge that are hard to dismiss. We're presently completing a comprehensive study of the post-loss radio signals. I'm hoping to have it ready for the website within a couple of weeks. I can guarantee that we'll have LOTS to talk about. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:12:57 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: A fine wine, indeed . . . . I kind of agree with David Katz's complaint of talking too much about the clam shells. Of course that could be said of just about any topic on the Earhart Forum. We chew on things here until they are almost unrecognizable. But it is from this continuous mastication that the clues arise. Continually sifting the sands with an ever finer screen helps us gain a clearer picture of our treasure. On the other hand, a friend of mine likened our process to drinking a fine wine. 1. As you bring the glass to your lips, swirling the wine in the goblet to release its bouquet, the aroma and anticipation stimulate your taste buds. 2. Sipping from the glass, the wine lingers briefly at your lips before flowing slowly onto your tongue and you inhale the many and varied aromas imparted by the grape, its cask, and the vintner. 3. Finally the bouquet has reached it maximum, the taste buds are alive with delight, and the true essence of the wine is revealed. Such fragility and delicacy wrapped in robust earthy vapors etc. etc. etc. (Been there, done that!) 4. Now, having experienced the beauty of the wine we slowly let it wash over our tongue, allowing it to surf our palate and find the nooks and crannies of our taste receptors to pull out the last lingering precious vapors of ecstasy. 5. We swallow, and emit a low sigh of satisfaction over our recent pleasure -- Ahhhhhhh. But, my friend believes, at TIGHAR we repeat step 4 over and over and over and over until whatever substance has formed in our mouth we're not too sure we want to swallow it. And we certainly are in no position to spit it out, manners and all that. It is not a pleasant situation to think about, is it? Any way, perhaps my allegory is a bit strained, but I sympathize with those who think we beat too many horses to death here (LOP anyone?), but I also see great value in continually inspecting and reviewing our evidence. I am, in the trendiest of terms, "conflicted." The daily give-and-take is a great education, and the diversity of personalities is -- well, they're swell people, I'm sure. Perhaps we should change the TIGHAR slogan to "Mastication forever!" Onward! LTM, a former Ripple fan Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:22:22 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Reefs, et. al. (Post loss messages) Okay, everybody - TIGHARettes, AES, casual readers, serious researchers and Joe Klaas.. There is a BIG difference between a "report" and a "confirmed report". Ask any fireman, policeman, ambulance driver, the CIA, the FBI, the Coast Guard, ad infinitum. SOME of the post-loss messages were faked. Unfortunately, there are a few "sickies" out there that have their warped motives. Many of the reports were by legitimate, well meaning sources, be they hams in Wyoming, Pan Am DF operators, or the ACHILLES, et al. Often, the same "possible" messages were heard by several listeners, but multi-receptions are NOT CONFIRMATION. Example: I, with the best of intentions, recently called the Dept. of Fish & Game to tell them I suspected a bear or mountain lion in our neighborhood, since my dog was acting VERY strangely, and didn't want to go outdoors. I was thanked for my efforts, and told that many similar reports came in during the year, actual sightings were not uncommon, and they (F&G) would keep an eye out. End of story, no large animal appeared. No hoax was perpetrated, no confirmation obtained. Result: let's say NEUTRAL. There WERE a couple of likely possibilities re Earhart; the Nauru report, for one. It could never be confirmed. One man, alone, working late by himself. Result: NEUTRAL. 'Nuff said. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Calm down Cam. Nobody is saying that any of the messages were confirmed. The only way to confirm an alleged post-loss message from Earhart would have been to go ask her if she sent it. What we're doing is taking the entire body of messages - good, bad, and indifferent - and looking for patterns. A body of messages that are all hoaxes and misunderstandings from a variety of sources; or hoaxes from a single hoaxster should have the same pattern as genuine post-loss transmissions from the missing plane. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:13:45 EST From: Kerry Subject: Re: Comic relief > These are supermarket tabloid headlines about AE being alive and well and > living on a Pacific island. Worth seeing if you haven't already. 103 years old, huh? Maybe I should start eating clams, birds and turtles. (I'd also like to know what she used to keep those goggles in such good shape.) LTM (who has about 20 years to go). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:24:41 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re. clams -- duh Well, it just occurred to me that for SOME guidance about how SOME Pacific islanders use Tridacna, I might look at the extensive shellfish analysis in "Pisekin Noomw Noon Tonaachaw: Archaeology in the Tonaachaw Historic District, Moen Island," by -- uh -- my wife and me (T.F. King and P.L. Parker, Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 18, Saipan and Carbondale, IL, 1984). Here I find that among traditional Chuukese on Moen (now Wene) Island in Chuuk (then Truk) Lagoon, T. Squamosa were used for food, with their fluid drunk, and the shell used as a place to heat medicine with hot rocks. The shell was also sometimes used to make adze bits. It was regarded as easy to collect, and was found on the reef flat, reef face, and sand at the reef base (Wene is a high island with no lagoon). Other Tridacna species were used in more or less similar ways, found in more or less similar places. No information on how they were opened. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:25:38 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Celestial navigation and post-loss messages. If Noonan had both a working sextant and a working, accurate, chronometer, he could determine his position the night after arrival on Niku. Note the three ifs: 1. Arrival safely on Niku 2. Working sextant 3. Working accurate chronometer. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:29:40 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Clams at Niku/1937 I seem to remember that the concretion was, at least initially, assumed to be an indicator of age well over that applicable to clams perhaps consumed by the hapless duo. What is current thinking on this? What level of exploration has been done on shore at this point? (no pun intended). If the seven site is, as may be supposed from the single set of bones, perhaps a No.2 encampment, where the survivor moved after the death of the other party, could Kanawa point be No.1? Certainly if AE & Co were feeding on clams at the seven site, we should be looking for clam residues as indicators of any other sites they may have used. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, at first we thought that cementing to the coral would take a looooong time but, as i recall, Tom King came across information that indicates that it only takes a few decades. (Right Tom?) No, we have not done much poking around in the bush near that site. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:07:31 EST From: Hal Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters > >...Ergo, I > >believe that it would be difficult to draw any reasonable conclusions > >concerning Amelia Earhart's presence on Nikumororo from the examination > of > >broken clamshells, which could have been left there just about by any > >visitor at any time. [Banks, James H.] It seems to me we could rule out "any visitor" by thinking about the motivation for someone on an island in the middle of nowhere to expend the energy to bash clamshells, particularly when they know how to efficiently open the oysters. If I'm just picnicing, know how to open oysters and not clams, then I'd concentrate on the oysters and maybe try one or two clams with the technique I'm familiar and give up when that proves too difficult. If I'm starving to death, I'd try to eat anything that I could catch, bash, or didn't eat me first. Maybe we can't draw a reasonable conclusion but it looks like the evidence points to someone very hungry...like a castaway. LTM (who taught me how to eat 'em but not how to open 'em), Hal *************************************************************************** From Ric No oysters at Niku. Clams are not really all that plentiful either, at least not now. Food should not be the biggest problem for a castaway. Fish on the reef and in the lagoon are plentiful and the Red-Tailed Tropic birds nest on the ground under the scaevola. You can walk right up to them. Masked Boobies nest right out in the open and you can walk up and have a chat with them too. Kia Kia birds (Fairey Terns) hover in front of your face. Lesser Frigates (wingspan up to about six feet) will follow you along the beach just inches over your head. Care for a little roasted rat? Lots of them around too. No reason to mess with clams unless you just like them and want to vary your diet. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:09:15 EST From: Stuart, in Santiago, Chile Subject: Re: Celestial navigation and post-loss messages. > From Randy Jacobson > > If Noonan had both a working sextant and a working, accurate, chronometer, > he could determine his position the night after arrival on Niku. Note the > three ifs: > > 1. Arrival safely on Niku > 2. Working sextant > 3. Working accurate chronometer. Thanks Randy. That's what I suspected. Assuming the above, how accurately could he have determined his location? With a few hundred yards? A few miles? A few tens of miles? Also, in the worst possible case (no working sextant, no working chronometer), and just going by sheer guess work and experience, is there any chance that he could come up with a very rough location? What I mean is, assuming that Noonan was as good as everyone says, he would have been aware of the approximate times of sunrise/sunset for his general location, and could have estimated angles for the positions of stars. Under those conditions, how accuarately could he have determined his location? A few tens of miles? Hundreds of miles? Thousands of miles? Not at all? What I'm trying to figure out is whether or not, even in the worst case, he would have been able to determine that his only possible location was Niku, or on the contrary, if the imprecision of his "guesstimate" methods might have been so great as to give him two or even more possible locations. Once again, maybe this is old ground for some, and I apologize in advance if I am annoying anyone by going over it again. But I'm just trying to satisfy my own curiosity as to whether or not Noonan could have determined that he could not be on any other island than Niku, assuming both extremes (working instruments on the one hand, and no instruments on the other). It's probably not an important point at all. Stuart ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:10:27 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Celestial navigation and post-loss messages. > From Randy Jacobson > If Noonan had both a working sextant and a working, accurate, chronometer, > he could determine his position the night after arrival on Niku. Note the > three ifs: > 1. Arrival safely on Niku > 2. Working sextant > 3. Working accurate chronometer. If I'm not mistaken, you also need the published almanac tables, yeah? I remember when the Quarter Masters took celestial fixes (in the navy) they always had to consult these tables full of numbers and do some math before they came up with a fix. I offered to loan them a hand full of chicken bones to scatter on the chart to determine a fix, but they failed to see the humor in it. LTM (who doesn't believe in star charts) Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:14:05 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > From David Katz > >> I don't think any of us would dispute that. We try not to make those >> mistakes. You and Cam seem to feel that we shouldn't even try. I don't think the logical appeal of the clamshells has been pointed out in simple terms. We know there was an unidentified (partial) skeleton found on the Island - it is documented. We know there was some confusion as to whether it was the remains of a European or a Polynesian and whether it was Male or female - that seems to be documented. We also know the remains of "fire, turtle and dead birds" were found near the skeleton, suggesting the person had been well enough to cook and eat. We know the person had a bottle - suggesting a source of fluid for drinking (maybe water - maybe coconut milk) probably water, and probably walking distance away. We also know that as well as Amelia & Fred, there were other missing people (N.C. crew) who must also be considered as skeletal candidates. We don't know the person ate clams as there was no mention of clam shells at the site where the skeleton was found BUT, aerial photographs just happen to show trails that appear to predate the time of the skeleton's discovery that just happen to lead to the clam beds. We now know that it may be possible the Missing Arab seamen preferred NOT to eat clams. We know that a Polynesian would have eaten clams - but would probably have had more access to fluids (coconut milk) for survivial if water was scarce. A polynesian would probably have carried a couple of coconuts, rather than a bottle of water, on a picnic. A European would possibly have been less familiar with the technique for opening reef clams than with the technique for opening oysters? (I suspect this is one point of the clam thingy). A European would probably not be familiar with the easy techniques for opening coconuts without tools, or for that matter may not have even considered drinking from them. There should have been brown nuts (good drinking, but not as nice) on the ground, provided the crabs hadn't got to them. We know it is possible any clams found at the seven site are not related to the our skeletal friend as clam shells are not mentioned in the report that mentions remains of One turtle and MULTIPLE birds. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:14:59 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Clams at Niku/1937 Re: Tom King came across information that indicates that it only takes a few decades. (Right Tom?) According to Dr. Charles Streck, archeologist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who has done extensive work in the Marshalls (esp. Bikini and Eniwetok, lucky fellow), it's common for World War II material to be cemented into the surfaces of coral reefs. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:18:39 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Clams at Niku/1937 I was the one who came up with beach rock and concretation in my background reading. It depends upon the situation: sometimes it takes an awfully long time; others very quickly. There is a report of a coca cola bottle firmly embedded into beach rock concretation, which indicates a term of only a few years. This is not a reliable source of dating when the clams were eaten, except that it must have been done sometime in the past. Don't forget Arundel workers were on Gardner prior to 1900, and perhaps they ate the clams on Kawana Point. **************************************************************************** From Ric Agreed. I think that, absent other evidence at or near the site, the Kanawa Klams are going to be awfully hard to pin down as to who et 'em. It would, however, be very interesting to know whether any had been assaulted oyster-fashion. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:25:56 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Fatigue Factor < Apparently the Qu'ran is silent on whether it's okay for crabs to eat people. It's only a concern if the crabs are Muslim..... ************************************************************************** From Ric and then it's probably okay as long as the people are infidels. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:51:47 EST From: Michel Subject: Another use for clams? OK, it's a nasty cold night here in the Midwest and I have a little too much time on my hands so I shall momentarily 'de-lurk' - In following this "who-opened-the-clams" discussion, has anyone really established that the purpose of bashing the critters open was for some person unknown to eat them? That seems to be an assumption from the beginning; are there any signs on the inside of the shells that suggest the former residents were scooped out or anything like that? (My experience of east coast US shellfish is that there is often a tasty but stubbornly attached muscle inside that shell that takes some work to get loose.) Could there have been an altogether different purpose for these broken shells if, as has been said, other food was available? Like who knows what, maybe you can strike them together like flints to start a fire, use them for cutting, digging, or even pounding tools, building material or similar raw material (can't remember what the stuff was called, but if I recall correctly ground shells, sand and other ingredients made a quite durable sort of mortar used in coastal Georgia, Florida, Carolinas), money (also documented though not much use for a castaway unless there were 2 and they had saved a deck of cards), or maybe 2 castaways got so bored they took to playing the easter egg game and smashing them together to see whose broke first. OK, some of those ideas are nonsense, point is, is it valid to just assume the clams were intended to be eaten and not being used in some other way? Any indications one way or the other? I'll clam up again now... Michel **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, let's think about this. I'm a castaway. Food is not a big problem. Water is. The only way I can get drinking water is to catch rainwater from the occasional passing shower. Catch rainwater in what? What do have that I can use as a water catcher? Not much, if I'm marooned with very few assets. What can I find naturally-occurring on the island that I can use? Turtle shell? That would be good, but they're hard to catch. Clam shells? Well, they're small, but if I lay out a whole bunch of them it's better than nothing. Tom, do we know if a more-than-random number of the shells in each clambush were found open-side-up? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:52:16 EST From: Terry Ann Linley Subject: Re: Tridacna <> You won't be annoying ME with a Research Bulletin on Tridacna squamosa -- we Zoologists in TIGHAR LOVE this stuff! Terry ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:23:34 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Celestial navigation and post-loss messages. But, since they were following their plan to go to the Phoenix islands, they didn't need to fix their position after they arrived, all they had to say is "we on one of the Phoenix islands, probably Gardner, come and get us." gl ************************************************************************** From Ric Their plan was not to go to the Phoenix Islands. Their plan was to run southeastward on the LOP in hopes of hitting one of the islands known to be on that line - namely - Howland, Baker, Gardner, and as we've only recently realized, Atafu (Duke of York). So here you are, running down the LOP, watching and hoping for an island, and it's taking FOREVER, and you're wondering, " God, maybe we hit the line WAY north and we'll come to Howland, or maybe we were south of course and we'll come to Gardner, or maybe we were WAY south and we'll come to Atafu." And then - bingo - there's an island up ahead, but which one is it? Big atoll, big lagoon, lots of trees - it's sure not Howland. Damn! Can't be Baker either. So you pull out your charts that show the shape of islands (if you're clever enough to have such charts with you) and now you're really confused because this place doesn't look like either Gardner or Atafu. According to your charts, the two islands look pretty much alike but Gardner has a small lagoon surrounded by lots of land while Duke of York is just a thin ribbon of land around a big lagoon. Anyway, once your'e on the ground Fred should be able to figure it out (unless, of course, he gets hurt in the landing). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:24:37 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Comment on Clams All in all, I find the talk on clams to be intriguing, though I also recognize that it will not likely go very far. But then, one should take every possible road into consideration, because you never know what will develop over time and with the input of so many people here. The only input: Let's not spend too many clams researching clams. Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:28:50 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: TIGHAR tracks I've just now finished (behind the curve, as usual) reading the February 2002 edition of TIGHAR Tracks and wanted to take a minute to express my appreciation to Ric and Pat for the great work on this issue. The comparison of the amount of work needed to find the Titanic vs. NR16020 was impressive. The graphic on page 6 really put the issue into perspective. Perhaps Mr. Kammerer also saw that graphic, leading him to postpone his own adventure? Good work, and thanks. LTM, who admires graphic feats Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Dennis. I'm sure that Kammerers kancellation is kompletely koincidental. (Maybe we should have sent a copy to Nauticos.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:33:16 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > We know it is possible any clams found at the seven site are not related to > the our skeletal friend as clam shells are not mentioned in the report that > mentions remains of One turtle and MULTIPLE birds. > Th' WOMBAT This gentleman makes an excellent point that no mention of clams/oysters at the castaway site was made in the Gallagher reports. Yet, the reports do mention remains of turtles and animal bones. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric Gallagher also makes no mention of fish bones, but his point in context was not to catalog what the castway had been eating but to illustrate that this was not a washed up body but someone who had apparently survived for a time. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:42:05 EST From: Pete in Jacksonville Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters You have me thinking about the rat roasting issue. NC Brits may be willing to eat them, the Muslims may not. Do the Gilbertese mind barbecued rodent? The Seven site seems to be bird bones and turtles bone with the clams. If the Gilbertese go for rat, yet no rat bones at the site, could we rule out the natives as a source? Any restrictions in the Koran about eating turtles or birds? As far as the null castaway being one of the missing fireman, would not a seaman be more likely to fish and eat the crabs than bother with the birds? LTM Pete #2419 **************************************************************************** From Ric I was not aware that the British eat rats (??????). In fact, the NC crew believed the rats on the island to be poisonous. I've never heard of the Gilbertese (or anybody else for that matter) eating rats. I saw no indication that anyone at the Seven Site was eating rats (although I'll admit that Kennedy was not directly in my field of vision at all times). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:49:16 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Gas Fumes Was the fuel from the aux tanks in the cabin fed by pressure pump or gravity? Either way they would have needed to be vented and thus the fumes I mentioned. Unless of course the cabin was vented enough as well. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric The fuel system schematic shows a "hand fuel pump" and also a "stripping valve" and a separate "strip wobble pump." The standard Electra cabin had a pretty good sized scoop on top of the fuselage and individual air vents for the passengers. I'd guess that the cabin of NR16020 was well ventilated. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:50:41 EST From: Doc Holloway Subject: Re: Fatigue Factor >I don't think we can make the assumption >that there were gas fumes in the cabin on the Lae/Howland leg. I agree. I spent a fair amount of time during the 1960's ferrying U.S. Navy airplanes across the Atlantic and the Pacific. Even when we had fuselage ferry tanks installed, there was never any fuel odor. With all of the old types of radios and electrical relays, having avgas fumes present would not be very wise. LTM (Who used to smoke cigars when flying.) Doc ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:56:46 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Clams at Niku/1937 Received the Aerial Tour Video last night & watched it with my daughter. Very well done. It really gives a brand new perspective to the size of the atoll--much much bigger than I had imagined. It also illustrates how many places AE's Electra could be hidden. I thoroughly enjoyed the video. Bet the others were jealous! By the way, did you get stuck in the quicksand you kept mentioning? I grew up in Florida, and I had an almost fatal encounter with quicksand on a duck hunting trip! Scared the hell out of me. Keep up the good work Ric! LTM (who doesn't hunt anymore) Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************** From Ric My own near-death experience with quicksand in the inlet near Kanawa Point was the subject of great mirth among my kind and devoted companions (Matthews, Burns and Clauss). I don't wanna talk about it. However, I will add that dying in quicksand is preferable to dying in guano. But that's another story. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:58:51 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Clams at Niku/1937 > Hmmm....so non-strontium 90 clams would have to be from > - the castaway > - Gallagher's workers > - Coasties prior to August 1945 What about those hungry 19thC cocoanut planters? Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric You mean those Pacific islander 19thC coconut planters? Yeah, could be them too. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:08:17 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Gallagher's stuff I was surfing through the list of Gallagher's effects and noticed the inventory included various containers marked with his initials G.B.G. I also noticed a suitcase marked with the initials E.A.G. Do we know who EAG is? A relative, perhaps. The list of effects also speaks volume regarding Mr. Gallagher's station in life as well as his times. He was what, about 25 years old when he died? Yet within his wardrobe were no fewer than 21 neck ties, 87 shirts (with 55 hard or soft collars), 53 pairs of socks, 9 suits, 19 pairs of footwear and at least a dozen pieces of headwear. Gerald, as I remember, came from rather modest means. How could one so young amass such a wardrobe -- not to mention dragging it in its entirety to a remote island in the south pacific? (I would have hated to seen my wardrobe at age 25 made public -- 4 pair slacks, 3 neck ties, 7 short-sleeved white dress shirts, one plastic pocket protector, etc.) LTM, who was never a clothes horse Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric E.A.G. is probably mom - Edith Annie Gallagher. Our Gerald was by no means of modest means. Educated in the best schools, pilot's license, may have ridden to hounds, entirely the right sort of chap - except, of course, for being Catholic and (well, there's no polite way to say it) Irish. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:11:13 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Celestial navigation and post-loss messages. Randy Jacobson: <> 4. Add that he would also need to have a good idea of his location. When you run the sight reduction of your object sighted (Ho) you are calculating from an assumed position of Lat/long based on your dead reckoning information-not your actual position. The sight reduction method does the spherical trig that shows the navigator where along the object's azimuth (Zn) or true direction from his assumed position based on the numerical difference between what was calculated from an assumed position (Hc) & actual height of the object sighted (Ho). The difference becomes mileage and is measured towards or away from the assumed position along the azimuth of the object shot for the sight in degrees true. Yeah, I know that's a complicated explanation but it's the best I can come up with without having you standing right next to me so I can draw a graphic that makes it more clear. Bottom line: The procedure for calculating a celestial fix depends on a reasonable degree of good dead reckoning information, namely a decent DR position from which to calculate the assumed position for sight reduction purposes. Celestial is not designed or intended to tell you where you are if don't already have an idea where you are at. It is possible to get latitude from a noonshot of the sun at it's highest position on the sky and also longitude based on sunrise & sunset. If one was marooned on an island in the pacific, assuming Fred had the almanac data, watch accurately set to GMT, sight reduction tables, sextant, he could have done just that. There are also some lifeboat methods of improvisation without some or all of the above mentioned items, but that's another story-too long a thread. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:20:02 EST From: Angus Subject: Artefacts - where are they? When one looks at the extraordinary list of gubbins that are listed in the Luke Field inventory, it really makes one wonder why, if the castaway was AE or FN, they apparently rescued nothing durable at all from the aircraft, except perhaps for a sextant & bottle, since nothing from the aircraft has been found at the seven site. Of course the islanders might have collected the lot and not informed Gallagher about anything but a few items but in that case, why reveal anything at all? I suppose its possible that if Noonan was injured, AE had no opportunity to return to the aircraft before it was reduced to wreckage by the surf and was only able to carry the sextant at the time they moved ashore. More likely perhaps, such rescued durables were left at another site than the seven site, perhaps the initial landing place (Kanawa Point??? or the NC provision stash??). A further search for another AE/FN campsite or the NC camp might be productive. The NC camp should not be too hard to find as it should be very close to the NC since this would minimise the distance to transport material from the ship. I very much doubt the NC provisions would be of any use to them after so many years in a tropical climate. Even tin cans would likely have rusted and allowed air to reach the food. Anything less well preserved would be quite inedible. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric I guess you know a lot more than I do. You know that the Luke Field inventory is representative of what was aboard the airplane over three months later. You know that the NC camp isn't hard to find. You know that provisons left in 1929 would not have survived for eight years. I don't know any of that stuff. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:22:36 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: Another use for clams? Ric wrote : >What can I find naturally-occurring on the island that I can use? Turtle >shell? That would be good, but they're hard to catch. Do you suggest they can run away too fast ? *************************************************************************** From Ric No, but you have to catch them onshore when they're laying eggs and that only happens at night and not all that frequently. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:27:47 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters > From Ric > I was not aware that the British eat rats (??????). In fact, the NC crew > believed the rats on the island to be poisonous. I've never heard of the > Gilbertese (or anybody else for that matter) eating rats. I saw no > indication that anyone at the Seven Site was eating rats (although I'll admit > that Kennedy was not directly in my field of vision at all times). Waddyamean?? We Brits love rats - roasted, baked, boiled or raw. (Depending how hungry we are). I tell you those NC guys just weren't HUNGRY. (The SAS eat them all the time). Re Kennedy, this was an unfair jibe. Rats never eat their own. (Except as babies) Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric New forum subscribers need not be concerned about these viscious ad hominum attacks. We only hurt the ones we love. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:31:00 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Clams at Niku/1937 The strontium 90 also applies to bones and skeletons, according to forensic pathologists. After 1945 or so all humans on the planet have detectable traces of that element, but not so for pre WW II. So the easy way to determine when the castaway died is to find the bones!! Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, since the castaway's bones were first found in 1940 it's probably safe to say that he/she died prior to 1945. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:38:31 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters I'm not sure the Brits eat rats. They don't eat horsemeat either. The Chinese are known to eat rats. They also eat dogs. Where I live rats are abundant in waterlogged areas. They are sometimes referred to as "water rabbit" because they are prepared like rabbit. They are said to be very tasty (I've never eaten them). So are cats. I'm told they taste like rabbit. During WW II many people had cat on the menu because they were easier to find than meat which was rationed. I guess if you are hungry enough you'll catch rats and roast them. Even if you are British. Horses would be different of course. By the way, the latest in European cuisine is buffalo. The animals are reared for consumption at some specialized farms here. You'll find buffalo meat in restaurants specializing in exotic food. Do Americans eat buffalo ? LTM ************************************************************************ From Ric Heck, we invented eating buffalo. You just gallop along beside them and POW! buffalo burger. (You Europeans probably have to buy the meat in a store.) You are correct. Brits (and Americans) don't eat horses. Never eat a life form more highly evolved than your own. How did the Clams and Oysters thread become the Do Brits Eat Rats? thread. Now THAT'S ludicrous. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:41:32 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Fatigue Factor For Doc Holloway Why was the C-109 (tanker version of the B-24 bomber) then called the "One-o-Boom" ? I was told it was because of their tendency to explode in the air. By the Sixties this problem might have been solved but back in 1937 ? I think it might still have been a bit of a problem. LTM *************************************************************************** From Ric Inflight fuel leaks were a problem in some aircraft - Sikorsky S-42B, Martin PBM, Consolidated C-109. It was easy tell which ones had the problem. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:43:16 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Celestial navigation and post-loss messages. Stuart writes: > But I'm just > trying to satisfy my own curiosity as to whether or not Noonan could > have determined that he could not be on any other island than Niku, > assuming both extremes (working instruments on the one hand, and no > instruments on the other).>> Without chronometer, FN may be able to get latitude. Without sextant, but with detailed logs of sunrise/sunset, he might get longitude. Without either, he'll end up like you and me...lost! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:50:00 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Artefacts - where are they? > From Ric > I guess you know a lot more than I do. You know that the Luke Field > inventory is representative of what was aboard the airplane over three months > later. You know that the NC camp isn't hard to find. You know that > provisons left in 1929 would not have survived for eight years. I don't know > any of that stuff. I take your point on what was aboard the aircraft. Perhaps AE threw out everything that wasn't nailed down to save weight. I did say the NC camp "should not be too hard to find", not that it "would not be too hard to find". Where would one make such a camp? Above high water immediately opposite the ship would seem like the logical place to look. Why should they take provisions any further than necessary? It would need to be close to the beach for other castaways to be able to spot it. There is no way that anything not canned could survive in edible condition in a tropical environment for eight years unless it was alive. Perhaps you could drop off a can of spam on the next expedition to see how long it would last. I will contribute the experimental material if required. Regards Angus ************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that the NC camp should be right there but it was a long time ago and a lot has happened on Nutiran since them. We've been all through that area and there's a bunch of stuff back in there but we've never seen any place that we can say, "This must be the NC campsite. I don't know what provisions were left or how they were preserved. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:49:06 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Artefacts - where are they? >I don't know any of that stuff. In fairness to this gentleman's comment on possible Electra salvage, weren't you and Dr. King hypothecating a week ago that the knob might be related to the canteens that were listed in the Luke Field Inventory as being aboard the Electra? Frankly, his comment on possible salvage from the aircraft deserves a professionally responsible reply from you, especially when one considers the volume of useful items aboard the Electra that would be valuable to a castaway, even if only a portion of the stuff listed in the Luke Field inventory was aboard.. I also gather from what you have been saying about the post-loss radio report that the aircraft apparently was transmitting for several days, stopping just before the Lambrecht flyover. Since Earhart made it to the opposite side of the island at the Seven Site, this indicates the possibility that she was ambulatory and there was time to move some stuff to the beach, where, presumably she squirreled it all away before the Lambrecht flyover. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric There is a big difference between trying to account for an existing artifact and drawing conclusions based on upon what is not there. None of us knows the circumstances surrounding Earhart's and Noonan's stranding on the island - if it happened. We can only look at what information we have found and try to decipher the story it tells. We can't decide what the story is and then see if the information fits it. I think that it is perfectly legitimate to ask "If the Seven Site castaway is Amelia Earhart, why isn't there stuff from the airplane all over the place?" I do not think that it is reasonable to say, ""If the Seven Site castaway is Amelia Earhart, there should be stuff from the airplane all over the place." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:08:37 EST From: David A. Kosower Subject: When did the clams die? How precisely is it possible to date the clams? Radioisotope methods are mostly intended for much older artifacts, and hence wouldn't be terribly precise for such recent ones. It might, I suppose, be possible to use an isotope with much shorter half-life, something in the neighborhood of a few years to a few decades. However, establishing and calibrating such a method would be neither easy nor swift. It should be relatively easy to establish that the clams died before the mid-1940s -- measuring the concentration of fallout-associated isotopes (Sr90, plutonium, etc) from a sample well inside the clam shell should demonstrate that -- but I assume that's not in doubt. Isotopic ratios could be useful, however. Isotopic ratios in clam shells should be correlated with water temperature. Such ratios -- primarily O18/O16, perhaps D/H, and possibly others as well -- have been used to establish ocean (as well as ice-core) temperature records over geological timescales, so the technique is well-understood and well-established. The water temperature in the lagoon varies presumably not only in an annual cycle, but also in an erratic decade-long ENSO cycle ("El Nino"). Measuring the isotopic ratios should give an idea of what time during the cycle the clams lived and died. The cycle is also correlated with dramatic changes in rainfall on many Pacific islands, and indeed we know that periods of rainfall alternated with periods of drought on Nikumaroro. Cutting down a sufficiently old tree (are there any 70-year old trees on the island?), dating it by counting growth rings, and then assessing the climate in the years of interest (1929-1940) may allow a determination of which year the clams died. Given that there's still a rainy and a dry season there, trees should still exhibit annual growth rings just as they do in temperate climes. Clams themselves also, IIRC, have growth rings which could be presumably be used to match with the tree growth rings, to cross-check periods of lean vs. healthy growth. (The tree rings could also be cross-checked with contemporary British colonial rainfall records (if any) for other Phoenix islands.) I realize TIGHAR itself does not have the resources to conduct such studies, but you have contacts at the NIST; while they're probably not expert in these techniques, they can presumably introduce you to university-based folk (most likely in geosciences, climatology, or oceanography) who are. Another more speculative thought along the same lines relies on chemical or isotopic ratios of other elements, in particular those that would be present in volcanic eruptions (perhaps strontium or magnesium?). Each volcano, and each volcanic eruption, will likely have a unique "fingerprint" of such ratios. Since ash and fine particulates from an eruption can travel thousands of miles, some particulates from volcanic eruptions around the Pacific rim will have ended up on Nikumaroro, sunk into the lagoon, been eaten by clams, and ended up in their shells. While the resulting chemical ratios will be affected by the local chemistry and by the biochemistry of clam food uptake, they will in any event deviate from the "baseline" ratios established by examining other layers of the clam shells. (Isotopic ratios should be affected by little other than temperature, which can be determined from the O18/O16 ratio.) It should be possible to correlate these ratios with characteristics of various eruptions that occurred in the 1930s; those at Anak Krakatau and Vulcan & Tuvurvur at Rabaul, both in May 1937, are presumably of particular interest. Sincerely David A. Kosower **************************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately, the annular tree ring trick doesn't work in the Phoenix Islands. The wet and dry seasons are sporadic and there are huge variations in rainfall from year to year. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:11:24 EST From: RC Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters Ric: I think the following was completely uncalled for and I hope in retrospect it is something you wish you had not said. > I saw no indication that anyone at the Seven Site was eating rats >(although I'll admit that Kennedy was not directly in my field of vision > at all times). *************************************************************************** From Ric I only regret it if Chris was offended. I hope he knows it was intended in the same good humor that characterized our mutual abuse during the expedition. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:12:24 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Celestial navigation and post-loss messages. Well, actually he only has to know his position to to the extent that he knows that he is still on earth. He can assume any position he wants to and work out a position based on it. Then he can use the new derived fix as a new assumed position and go through the calculations again. You only have to do this about three times to get a completely accurate fix. Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:15:19 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Rats Easter Islanders ate rats, at least the smaller Polynesian rat, but their environment was very limited. It can't be much different than eating squirrel! I can't find any references to turtles being hallal or not. Some birds, like chicken, are hallal, and some, like crows, are not. I'm not sure why, but I think kosher laws are similar. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ************************************************************************** From Ric The rats on Niku are the smaller Polynesian variety (grass skirts and all), but I don't think the Gilbertese ate them. The crabs do though. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:19:29 EST From: Angus Subject: Re: Celestial navigation and post-loss messages. > Without chronometer, FN may be able to get latitude. Without sextant, but > with detailed logs of sunrise/sunset, he might get longitude. Without > either, he'll end up like you and me...lost! Assuming his DR to and down the LOP was reasonably accurate, either latitude or (less accurately so) longitude would give him a cut on the LOP and hence both coordinates. Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:18:40 EST From: Mark Subject: Re: Celestial navigation and post-loss messages. > Celestial is not designed or intended to > tell you where you are if > don't already have an idea where you are at. But he DID have an idea where he was at... He knew pretty reasonably that he was on a 157/337 line, on an island, X hours southeast of his last DR position, which was X hours east of his sunrise position. The fact that he was on an atoll narrows it down to basically two places: Gardner or Atafu. Couldn't be Howland or Baker or McKean... Of course, since he didn't find Howland he had to figure in the possibility that his DR positions were WAY off... I guess what I'm getting at is that his problem wasn't "take the blindfold off and figure out where on earth you are", it was "assume you are in either spot G or spot A. Do your Celestial and see if you can rule out either or both locations." He does his sights, then assuming he's on Gardner, checks to see if the numbers work out. If they don't, he's not on Gardner. Then, he sees if the numbers work for Atafu. IF they don't, either he's made an error or he's on an uncharted isle. In which case, it's time to start casing the joint for signs of the Professor and Mary Ann. Of course, all of this assumes he's conscious and coherent, and that he has the tools necessary to do the Celestial - AND that he has the correct coordinates for the islands - AND that he has a radio with which to tell somebody about his results ... - Mark in Horse Country ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:20:41 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Buffalo > From Ric > >Heck, we invented eating buffalo. You just gallop along beside them and POW! >buffalo burger. (You Europeans probably have to buy the meat in a store.) Those in the Denver, Colorado, area are familiar with a local restaurant, The Fort, that specializes in buffalo. A U. S. President (I can't remember his name) even dined there. www.thefort.com It tastes like very lean beef. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:17:17 EST From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Ludicrous clams In order to test the "Arabs don't eat clams" theory, I walked 20 feet to the office of Haitham, our in-house computer guy. Haitham is an Arab and an observant Muslim who immigrated to the US from Palestine about 25 years ago. Haitham confirmed that lots of Arabs eat shellfish, especially in coastal areas (duh). He personally eats clams and oysters. He is aware of nothing in the Koran forbidding the consumption of same. He tells me that devout Muslims are forbidden to eat four things: (1) carrion; (2) birds of prey; (3) pork and (4) food sacrificed to an idol. These rules do not apply in life-and-death situations. He also suspects I am losing my mind. As a Kansas boy I have never come face-to-face (if that's the term) with a clam in its native habitat. If I did, my first approach would be to locate the main mussel muscle and try to cut or prod or poke it in hopes that the thing would spring open. I have no idea if this is the "oyster method" or not, since I have never tried to open one of those guys either. It just seems intuitive. Failing that, I would spend a few minutes cussing my adversary, then look for the nearest large rock. My guess is that, if AE ever ate oysters, they were served on the half-shell by a guy in a white jacket and washed down with a nice glass of sauvignon blanc. If she ever went on a clambake, it was George or Gene or Sam Chapman who did the shucking. As a native midwesterner, her first choice of "survival food" probably would have been birds and fish -- not to say that she wouldn't have tried her hand at clams and turtles if the former were unavailable. Far as I'm concerned, Marty Moleski said it best: "[TIGHAR's] interpretation that the clumsy attempts at opening the clams resembles oyster techniques can neither be proven nor disproven." Time to move on. LTM (who eats nothing that didn't once have legs) Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:44:21 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Artefacts - where are they? Ric says: "We can't decide what the story is and then see if the information fits it." Does this mean we can't decide that the story is that Earhart lived and ate at the Seven Site and that the situation of the shellfish there, as described by Dr. King, fits the story? I think you're busted. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Uh uh. We haven't decided what the story is. We're letting the clues - in this case, the clams - tell their own story. If their story fits our hypothesis that's nice. If it doesn't we may have to change our hypothesis but we can't change the clams. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:46:02 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Artefacts - where are they? > From Ric > I agree that the NC camp should be right there but it was a long time ago > and a lot has happened on Nutiran since them. We've been all through > that area and there's a bunch of stuff back in there but we've never seen > any place that we can say, "This must be the NC campsite. Making up hypotheses is part of the process of investigation. Not all guesses are equally valuable or worthy of discussion. To get anything done, researchers have to make choices. Here are some of my guesses and bets: H1: What if the NC camp was easy to locate in 1937? Bet: then it was easy to locate when the settlers arrived and got cleaned out of all useful stuff. H2: What if AE and FN found the camp? Bet: they took what was good and left the rest. H3: What if they put their salvage from the plane with the NC gear? Bet: People who found the stuff after 1937 attributed it all to NC. H4: What if AE found she didn't need much to survive down at the 7 site? Bet: Not many more big airplane artifacts will turn up at the 7 site. Just little things that would be easy to carry and useful for survival. Now I'm not going to place much money on any of my bets. Strange things do happen. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:47:20 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Rats > From Dan Postellon > I can't find any references to turtles being hallal or not. > Some birds, like chicken, are hallal, and some, like crows, are not. I'm not > sure why, but I think kosher laws are similar. This site says "carnivores" are haram: Crows are omnivorous, I think. That might rule out turtles, which I imagine to be carnivorous. But all of this is based on assumptions (guesses) about how devoted the Arab firemen may have been to their version of Islam in the year that the NC foundered. > The rats on Niku are the smaller Polynesian variety (grass skirts and > all) ... I hear that voice from "I Love Lucy" saying "Uh-ooooh." :-O Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:54:20 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > From Ric > Gallagher also makes no mention of fish bones, I suspect that may be because there were no fish bones. Galagher mentioned remians of fire, he mentioned turtle (singular), he mentioned dead birds (plural). He did not mention clams, he did not mention fish bones. Chances are they were there, but there is also a good chance that if they were there he would have mentioned them. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric He also never mentioned the man's shoe part or the corks with brass chains, but we know they were there. Gallagher made two searches - his initial search which prompted his telegrams in late September/early October 1940, and a "thorough" search later that fall. He clearly found things that were not described in any of his correspondence. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:55:31 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Buffalo For Skeet Gifford, Besides Buffalo the Fort also serves very delightful Mountain Oysters. I guess they didn't have may of those on Gardner either. Dick Pingrey at Selah, 908C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:57:57 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > From Patrick Gaston > As a native midwesterner, her first choice of "survival food" probably > would have been birds and fish -- not to say that she wouldn't have tried her > hand at clams and turtles if the former were unavailable. Birds would be easy to catch, cook and eat as well as being familiar (chicken). Turtle, the only other food mentioned at the site, would be easy to catch if one was seen on land. They are however tricky to "open" without tools unless you know the technique. On the other hand, if you are familiar with the method for cooking and opening them there are pleasant surprises in store. Fish remains were not mentioned, and are difficult to catch (assuming no fishing tackle - something else that Gallagher didn't mention). What was the state of the turtle remains at the site where the fire, bird bones and clams were found? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric The turtle turns out to be pretty interesting. I'll let Tom King describe what was there. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:01:38 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Artefacts - where are they? > I agree that the NC camp should be right there but it was a long time ago > and a lot has happened on Nutiran since them. We've been all through that > area and there's a bunch of stuff back in there but we've never seen any > place that we can say, "This must be the NC campsite. > I don't know what provisions were left or how they were preserved. The photos and caption from the N.Z. expedition should give a pretty good idea where it is. Should be just around the corner of the inlet (lagoon side). I wonder if the remains of the lifeboat are still there somewhere, or perhaps some metal that could be detected. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric What makes you say that location? We did find what may have been a lifeboat oarlock in 1999 just a little ways back in the bush down near the point where the main passage begins. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:03:54 EST From: Ric Subject: NC documents up Some of the Norwich City documents are now up on the website. See http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html More will follow shortly. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:04:54 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross > Oops, sorry, didn't mean to step on any toes. I didn't know who the players > were. > > Gary LaPook Gary, as you recall I was one of those who responded to you and please rest assured you did not step on my toes. Your message and some of the response served a good purpose in reminding all of us a little bit about one of the important issues in this quest, albeit not one that moves the ball very far. The side issues help fill in the total picture of a few days back in 1937 even if they don't go very far toward a solution. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:07:58 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Landing Site > I wonder if pilots on the forum could comment on choice of the reef flat > adjacent to the Norwich City as a preferred landing site? Angus, if memory serves me correctly there WAS at least one pilot in the group on every expedition and I believe he has already commented on where it was rational for the aircraft to have landed. I think I would accept those views before mine as I have not been to Niku. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Our expedition teams are DIRTY with pilots. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:09:20 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Searching and funding > Why not select 5 volunteers from Tighar > membership and let them live as castaways on Niku for 6 months and explore, > explore , explore while living the true life as a castaway.. That's a great idea Stoker. I have just been compiling my list of who I think should be marooned on Niku. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Me too. We're gonna need a bigger island. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:10:25 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Scratch > On Thursday, February 14, Mike Kammerer's company "In Search Of Amelia LLC" > filed suit in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, NM demanding a partial > refund from OceanWorkers Discovery Inc. of San Diego - the deep sea search > company it had hired to conduct a search for the Earhart plane. Without even knowing the details I predict Kammerer loses although there MIGHT be a small settlement. Tough case to prove up. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:11:14 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: No tree rings on Niku I don't think equatorial trees have "rings". Some tropical trees might, if there is a distinct wet and dry season. As Ric said, you are out of luck on Nikumaroro. There is also a technique called amino acid racemization, but I'm not sure of the time scale for which it is useful. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:13:53 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Another use for clams? Re. clams as water catchers. We talked about this while looking at the clambush, and concluded (at least, I concluded) that it was unlikely. The clams weren't laid out in any organized fashion, and many weren't either definitively upside-down or downside-up, but piled and overlapping. It's possible, I suppose, but I'd expect more organization. As for other, other-than-food and other-than-fluid-container uses, Tridacna valves were used prehistorically for making adze bits, and they can be used as scrapers and such. We don't have any that show edge-wear consistent with scraper use, and we certainly have no adze bits (other than a basalt one from the village, but that's another matter). They could be used for digging, but I don't see any evidence of that kind of use either. They weren't ground up, and there's no evidence that anybody was making tabby mortar like they did in Florida and Georgia. The easter egg game is a possibility; let's see, how would we test that.....? I don't think I entirely agree about clams being something one would eat only to vary one's diet. Particularly as one gets weaker, clams might be a lot easier to snag than other fare. They may be a pain to open, but they're real slow. By the way, I talked today with an experienced catcher and shucker of quohog clams in New England -- quohogs not being a whole lot smaller than our T. squamosa; she said you open quohogs from the hinge edge with an oyster knife. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:15:25 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Clams at Niku/1937 Another pre-strontium possibility would be prehistoric visitors. There's lots of time in prehistory. ************************************************************************ From Ric Doesn't sound like Strontium research is going to narrow the field very much. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:18:26 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Another use for clams? Re: No, but you have to catch them onshore when they're laying eggs and that only happens at night and not all that frequently. Actually, the best ethnographic account I've seen says that islanders typically catch them just off the reef face while they (the turtles) are engaged in amorous activity, or afterwards when they tend to collapse on the reef flat. What a way to go. **************************************************************************** From Ric I somehow have a hard time envisioning our castaway swimming out past the reef edge and accosting amorous turtles. The times I've tried it haven't worked out well at all. I don't wanna talk about it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:21:01 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Celestial navigation and post-loss messages. Yes, but he knew that his LOP was already bad, since he didn't see Howland or Baker Islands. He would try and use something else, IMHO. A good navigator in FN's position would use all available resources at his disposal to get a good fix. If he had an almanac, he just needs a clear sky (or portion thereof), and knowledge of what star to take a sight on. A couple of these fixes would give him a position good to within a couple of miles, provided he was on fixed land (instead of on the plane in the air). If no almanac, his accuracy would be on the order of 30-60 miles or so at best, relying upon sun shots at noon. Sunrise/sunset shot could not be used without an almanac. Star sights similarly would be useless without the almanac, even with a good chronometer. ************************************************************************ From Ric <...he knew that his LOP was already bad, since he didn't see Howland or Baker Islands.>> The LOP may have been just fine. He was just in the wrong place on it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:24:26 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Clams at Niku/1937 Inadvertently I left off the main point re the strontium 90.( The castaway of course died before 1940 and would not have any traces). But apply the same analysis to the bird and turtle bones you collected in 2001 at the 7 site. If the bird bones have strontium 90, they were killed after WW 2 and could not be linked to the castaway's eating habits. If not, they may be similiar to the ones that Gallagher found near the skull site, whereever that may be, and support the castaway-bird bone connection. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric A strontium 90 test on all the faunals would, therefore, be most useful as a disqualifier or, if you will a "sorting" mechanism for eliminating remains that arrived after 1945. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:25:09 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams "Haitham confirmed that lots of Arabs eat shellfish," Pat, Catholics eat steak on Friday now too. What did Arabs eat in 1937? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:29:50 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams Patrick Gaston writes: >Far as I'm concerned, Marty Moleski said it best: "[TIGHAR's] >interpretation that the clumsy attempts at opening >the clams resembles oyster techniques can neither be proven nor >disproven." I would agree. My wife is a Muslim (we have a very multi-cultural family - she's Muslim, I am anglican, our daughters are being raised as muslims, but go to an anglican school) and she tells me that basically they cannot eat pork or dogs as they are considered dirty. It all goes back to when these types of animals were thought to carry diseases, it started out as a practical consideration, but now is traditionally part of the religion (a bit like wearing a scarf, it started out as a method of keeping sand out of your hair, but has now taken on other meanings also). Regards David ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:33:34 EST From: Denise Subject: Castaways eat anything! Am I being redundant in pointing out that starving castaways of whatever faith very likely wouldn't really care about their dietary prohibitions. After all, doesn't evidence suggest the Donerail survivors ate each other ... and I can think of no more strigent a dietary prohibition than the tabu against cannibalism. LTM (who never ate anyone her entire life) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, at least we now know what happened to Fred. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:34:56 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Evidence > I didn't use a map for my numbers. I use an aviation version of >celesticomp. > Doug Brutlag #2335 I didn't know that there was an aviation version, what does it do and where can I get one? Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:35:48 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Clams and Oysters Just as a matter of interest, the Brits may not eat rats, but there is a famous case in the UK (I think it was Stevenson v Smith???) where a goup of sailors floating about after a shipwreck did not start to eat rat, but cabin boys. Regards David ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:37:01 EST From: Denise Subject: Gotta Love those Clams! Ric says: "Our Kiribati reps and Fijian crew have not expressed any interest in eating clams either." Ric, considering that in most of the Pacific all clams are called Kai Koso ("kai" being the word used almost throughout the region for "food".) you can be pretty sure that Islanders do eat them, especially the really large ones which they call "Vasui", which I suspect is the type you're talking about here. However, since they usually eat them as a kokoda - which requires approximately a 24 hour marinade in lime juice and then a 12 hour soak in coconut milk - the most likely reason they weren't interested in eating them on your expedition is simply because they would have taken too long and too much effort to prepare. LTM (who loved a good kokoda) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:55:49 EST From: Marty Joy Subject: Off topic - horsemeat "You are correct. Brits (and Americans) don't eat horses. Never eat a life form more highly evolved than your own." Actually, Ric, during WW11, horsemeat was very common. It took the place of beef, which was scarce, I have eaten it many times, not as good as beef, but not bad. LTM (If we aren't to eat animals, why are they made of meat?) Marty 0724C *************************************************************************** From Ric Wartime extremes notwithstanding, Americans today will not even buy dogfood that is known to have horsemeat in it. Back in the '50s KennelRation advertised that it contained horsemeat but soon discovered that it was bad for business. Today there are only two slaughterhouses in the U.S. that are approved to process horse meat for human consumption and 100 percent of their product is shipped overseas - mostly to Belgium, France and Japan. (The march of civilization is slow indeed.) Still, they're kept very busy. An estimated 80 percent of retired racehorses - the ones who are not successful enough to be breeding material - are sold at what are known as "killer auctions." The actual butchering is fairly humane but the transportation of stock from the auctions to the few approved slaughterhouses has been the subject of intense controversy for its barbarity. Stallions, mares and foals crammed together into low-ceilinged double-decker trucks designed for cattle, for days on end, without food or water - an equine holocaust right there on the Interstate. Some good legislation has been passed in recent years but enforcement remains very spotty. Off topic, but as you can probably tell, a sore point for a horseman. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:53:20 EST From: DAVE BUSH Subject: NC Camp >From Ric - I agree that the NC camp should be right there but it was a long >time ago and a lot has happened on Nutiran since them. We've been all >through that area and there's a bunch of stuff back in there but we've never >seen any place that we can say, "This must be the NC campsite. I don't know >what provisions were left or how they were preserved. Ric: "bunch of stuff" Is this a new scientific term? Would you please elaborate on what constitutes "stuff" or refer me to the location of a listing (providing any has been done). LTM - who is into "stuff" Dave Bush *************************************************************************** From Ric "Stuff" is a time-honored TIGHAR term - as in the archaeological axiom "Stuff is hard to find." We've made no listing of the stuff back in the Nutiran bush in the vicinity of the Norwich City wreck. There are the remains of what we think were the old 19th century Arundel shelters (tumble-down timbers, rusted sheets of co rrugated metal, nails, pipe, etc.) which also show signs of later use by the colonists (empty booze bottles and even a small piece of non-Electra aircraft aluminum that was probably a fishing lure). There are foot-high sections of telephone poles that were typically used to support Gilbertese houses and generic junk like rusted our washpans and buckets. Remember, a lot has happened on Nutiran since the Norwich City went aground. Maude and Bevington camped there in October 1937. The New Zealand survey party camped there in 1938/39. Most of the district was cleared and planted in 1949 and the land was subsequently allotted to families. A few people seem to have had houses there. Just before the Battle of the Brandywine, the Continental Army camped on a hilltop less than a mile from my office. It's now a public park and recreation area but I've never come across a musket barrel or even a belt buckle - so I wonder if they were really there. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:00:06 EST From: Anugs Subject: Re: Artefacts - where are they? Marty wrote > Bet: Not many more big airplane artifacts will > turn up at the 7 site. Just little things > that would be easy to carry and useful for > survival. Makes you wonder if the sextant box was indeed merely used latterly as a container as was suggested (in Fiji?) to carry stuff from the north and that's why the sextant hasn't turned up at the seven site. An indication that the seven site was not the first camp. There's every chance as Marty says that salvage from the electra was abandoned at the NC camp and was subsequently removed by the villagers. Further search of the village site could be productive. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric I've always felt that the Seven Site represents the last stage (duh) in the castaway's stay on the island, by which time he/she had only those few possessions necessary for survival, light enough to carry, and durable enough to have survived what was probably at least several months of hardship. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:03:30 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Another use for clams? Is this another "quicksand" experience that you're not willing to share with the forum? Come on Ric, I need a good laugh! LTM (who doesn't swim in the surf at all) Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************** From Ric Russ Matthews, John Clauss, or Kar Burns can tell the quicksand story better than I can. The guano story is even better. I was just kidding about the turtles. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:06:12 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams Coincidentally, I know two Arab scholars were lived and explored extensively throughout the Middle East in the 1930s and 1940s. I have sent one a message asking for information on this point. I suspect that if any Arabs eat or did eat shellfish, they might be found along the Hejaz coast of what is now modern Saudi Arabia. This coast borders the eastern coast of the Red Sea, which has underwater features that I think support some sort of shellfishing industry. It's also the waterway linked with the Suez Canal and Port Said, which is where I suspect the Norwich City's Arab crew may have shipped from. The other gentleman, Sir Wilfred Thesiger, lived a much more primitive existence with the Arabs, which often has its own interesting insights. I'll call him this weekend and ask. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:08:13 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: NC documents up > Some of the Norwich City documents are now up on the website. See >http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html Many thanks to you and the indefatigable Pat for the documents. Sounds like the boats were abandoned in one place and that the camp site was 100 yards inland. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:09:58 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: Another use for clams? Wouldn't the turtle shell be a better water catcher? Of course, the clams may have happened first, then the turtle became available. LTM Ed of PSL #2415 *************************************************************************** From Ric The turtle shell does seem like a natural, but as Tom King says, the clam shells do not look like they were used that way. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:12:03 EST From: Christopher Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > From Alan > > Pat, Catholics eat steak on Friday now too. Point of fact - This Catholic doesn't CJSF in Wheeling ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:43:08 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Nit picking OK, gang, this is the good old U S of A, so let's stick to American English spellings if you're from the USA. It is "artifacts", not "artefacts." It's color, not colour etc. etc. etc. Here's a proposed rule of thumb: if a posting is from a "foreign" land and the word is spelled differently than ours, it is OK for THEM to use it, but not us. If you're posting from the U S of A use our spellings. Sheesh. LTM, who labours to spell well Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric No Dennis, I'm am not going to try to police whether a particular poster is entitled to stick extra letters in words. TIGHAR is an international organization. There are no foreign lands here. All I ask is that the words be decipherable as more-or-less English and relatively free of obscenities. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:48:51 EST From: Mike Horak Subject: Lurking Some recent messages here included comments questioning why many folks lurk on these busy threads without contributing. I thought you might be interesting in one explanation. Like so many folks, I feel like I've been fascinated with the AE saga my entire life (I'm 51). Finding this list was a pleasant surprise, and I was happy to sign up. But for many reasons (job, family, other responsibilities and interests), I only get around to skimming through the messages every few days, by which time any comments from me would be somewhat untimely (like this message), not to mention still too ignorant of all the prior discussions and information available on the TIGHAR website. Letting the TIGHAR messages collect has not been an issue because my email client (Netscape Messenger), like most email clients, supports rules which, among other things, move all the TIGHAR messages into a separate folder as they are downloaded. I usually download messages once or twice a day, but I only open the TIGHAR folder and peruse those messages every few days. Nevertheless, the message volume here has picked up considerably of late (clams!), and this is getting to be something of an issue. When travelling, I often check my email via a PALM VII or on borrowed workstations via various web sites that support access to POP3 email accounts, such as hotmail.com and mail2web.com. These products and web sites typically only retrieve 10 or 20 messages at a time, and are sometimes painfully slow. It is beginning to test my patience to wade through 30 TIGHAR messages when sitting in an airport and pulling up email on a PALM VII. Consequently, I've just established a second email address with my ISP (I'm permitted several), and am about to resubscribe to this list under that address. I'll then download the TIGHAR messages separately from my regular messages, and that should be the end of that. (It will also be informative to see if I start receiving any spam at the new address.) I would probably switch to a digest-type subscription, should TIGHAR ever decide to create such an option. -mh **************************************************************************** From Ric There has always been a daily digest option. From the email address at which you receive the forum, just send: set earhartforum digest to this address: LISTSERV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:51:34 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Quicksand Not to dig up bad memories for you, but have you wondered if possibly AE, Fred, or both could have met their fate in the quicksand? Any record of unfortunate deaths attributed during the colonization or NC shipwreck? Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, I see that I need to tell this story. It's really no big deal. 1999. We were in the skiff, appoaching the lagoon shore just east of Kanawa Point. The skiff ran aground about fifty feet out from shore on what looked like a regular old sandbar. I decided to just hop out in what looked like maybe knee-deep water and pull the boat forward. I jumped over the side and went right out of sight in ooze that was about the consistency of soupy oatmeal. Fortunately, I had kept one hand on the gunwale of the skiff and was able to haul myself - soaked, filthy, and sputtering - back to the surface. My companions thought it was about the funniest thing they had ever seen. I've never heard of anybody else having a problem with "quicksand" on the island and the only reason I got in trouble was because I jumped out of the boat well away from the shore. Apparently the silt builds up to very deep levels in that little cove. It's the consistency of the silt that makes it dangerous - not firm enough to support you but too thick to swim in. Closer to shore the hard bottom is not far enough down to pose a threat. The best advice at Niku is a line from Apocalypse Now, " Never get out of the boat." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:55:42 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Lincoln Ellsworth The papers from the NC made a good read. One thing popped out at me; one of the rescue ships was named the Lincoln Ellsworth. I wonder if there was any connection between the naming of the ship and the polar explorer of c.1920 with the same name. Just a coincidence? Probably. LTM, who avoids deserted islands Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric The ship was a Norwegian tanker so I think that it's a pretty safe bet that its namesake was the same guy who flew with Byrd on his polar flights. If so it's another Twilight Zone connection for me. Ellsworth, my mother's maiden name, is my middle name. I'm supposedly related to Lincoln Ellsworth. Cue the music. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:58:56 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Brussels Subject: Catching birds Birds easy to catch ? Show me how you do that. I know how to catch birds with a net and the larger species by hooking a metal hook around their leg (that's how the guys in the building industry catch pigeons over here and eat them). Tell me how you catch birds when getting off an airplane that doesn't carry any hunting nets, metal hooks or hunting equipment ? LTM **************************************************************************** From Ric Never been to Niku Herman? Here's how you catch birds on Niku. 1. See bird sitting on ground. 2. Walk up to bird. 3. Grab bird by neck. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:09:18 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: NC documents up Re: Norwich City crew rescue. I didn't realize, until reading Captain Hamer's account, that the surviving crew camped in two places on the island. There was the initial main camp ( "Small trees were cut down, trimmed and lashed between four large trees in the form of a square. A trellis of smaller trees and branches was formed on top and over this the two sails were spread. Around three sides a barricade was made to keep out the crabs, leaving the lee side open for the fire, which was soon got under way. The ground was cleared of twigs etc., and then covered with leaves over which was placed a couple of blankets and old canvas which had been washed ashore."). However, the surviving crew moved further south, leaving their provisions in the main camp, looking for a better place to breach the surf after attempting the rescue at the original location ("The two vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable place, the surf near the wreck being far too dangerous. A place was found about 1 1/2 miles south of the wreck, the breakers being not quite so bad, but bad enough to make it anything but a joy ride to get over."). They could not get all their men off the island the day they moved south and ended up having to stay the night and, thanks to the native boatmen, had food and fire ("The natives set off in search of coconuts with several of us in their wake, hoping we should find plenty of green ones, so that we could have a drink. About half a dozen were obtained but as there were about eight in the company, the drinking didn't amount to much. The tramp back to the beach seemed endless, two were asleep as soon as they hit the sand. The natives, however, were just beginning to get warmed up; they came back with what they considered a sumptuous meal, a few crabs as big as a plate and a sea bird or two, well pleased with themselves --- in fact they were enjoying the outing."). The next day more provisions were brought to this second camp ("I sent a message with them to Capt. Swindell asking him for water, biscuits and tobacco in case some were stranded for another night. I must say that he was very liberal with the rations, sending enough for month. About noon the boat returned with stores which were taken to the beach. Each man had a tin of water and some biscuits."). Interestingly, Swindell says Hamer asked for shoes in addition to the other supplies ("...any old boots (on pair size tens) and any old hats and tobacco."). It appears that some of the supplies brought to this second encampment were left behind as well ("As the numbers on the shore were getting less, the work of launching the boat was getting harder. Finally there remained but three, the Second Officer, Senior Apprentice and myself and we decided to rest awhile, then if possible to take what we could of the stores etc., off with us."). So...does it seem probable that this second encampment matches the location where the shoes were found by TIGHAR? There is no specific mention of shoes being sent to Captain Hamer's men on the island. However, Captain Swindell was apparently generous with everything else. Could this be a source of the shoe parts, or other artifacts? I'm also wondering what happened to all the tins they used. Interesting things to speculate about. blue skies, jerry **************************************************************************** From Ric Not a bad hypothesis. The second camp was clearly somewhere down around Bauareke Passage, which puts any "extra" shoes in the right general neighborhood. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:14:16 EST From: Ric Subject: No NC crew left behind I hope that the Norwich city documents will satisfy everyone that Captain Hamer fulfilled his responsibilities to the fullest and, in fact, put himself at risk in trying to launch the port side lifeboat only to be swept overboard. It's a wonder he survived. It's also clear that all hands were assembled and loaded into the starboard boat. I don't see that a case can be made for anyone being left aboard the ship. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:16:36 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Brussels Subject: Re: Nit picking To Dennis McGee Should be no problem. Most computers over here offer a choice of English or American spelling control. Mine also offers Dutch and several varieties of French, Canadian, African etc. and French French. All we foreign folks have to do is push the right button. I've learned a lot about American English since I read TIGHAR messages on a daily basis. Which is a hidden aspect of TIGHAR's activity. LTM (who wonders why the Brits never got to spelling FISH as GHOTI : GH as in LAUGH, O as in WOMEN, TI as in NATION) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:24:24 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Artefacts - where are they? > From Ric > What makes you say that location? > We did find what may have been a lifeboat oarlock in 1999 just a little > ways back in the bush down near the point where the main passage begins. A description I read of where the N.C. survivors' camp was in relation to the N.Z. survey camp, plus photos of the N.Z. survey camp and photographs taken of the lifeboat that show part of the beach apparently looking across the passage to the opposite shore. I mentioned this before the Niku IIII expedition in the hope that it might be useful, but it was not taken seriously so I didn't pursue it further. I had a whole collection of clues and lined up photos with similar skylines, but I deleted them in disgust. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric I've looked at the photos from the NZ survey expedition. The location of the survey party camp is easily discernible, but I can see no way to place the photos of the lifeboat or the NC survivors' camp. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:27:14 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Lurking > From Ric > There has always been a daily digest option. > From the email address at whihc you recieve the forum, just send: > set earhartforum digest > to this address: LISTSERV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM It is great to have the option. I for one would miss the (almost) daily dose of warped humour should the Earhart Forum become staid and stuffy... Th' WOMBAT ********************************************************************* From Ric Does warped humor in digest form cause ......indigestion? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:29:47 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: Nit picking > From Dennis McGee > > OK, gang, this is the good old U S of A, so > let's stick to American > > English spellings if you're from the USA. > blah blah blah (yawn) As most people will no doubt know the english language was taken to the good ol' U s of A by us 'ENGLISH' a few centuries ago and just so you never got knicked for copyright i read that you changed a few spellings of certain words...but alas we are wise to your tricks matey and from now on proper queens english will be the norm... of course i am only joking here but i wonder what would happen to the few that do have trouble even spelling words on the forum or the proper use of grammer... so as rick says as long as its legible it should surfice... thank you alex ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:30:49 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams One reason Gallagher didn't mention fish bones might be that the fish bones are mostly very small; you've really got to be looking for them to see them. The first one to see them on our team, as I recall, was Andrew McKenna, who spent most of his youth finding tiny little critter bones on his father's paleontological expeditions, and therefore has an eye for such things. Another reason, as Ric indicates, might be that he didn't find them, or the clams, until he made the "intensive search," which he was directed to make and apparently did make, but didn't report in any document we've found -- his wireless being out of commission at the time. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:31:55 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams We'll soon know how easy the fish might have been to catch; I'm told that the results of the fishbone analysis will be in within a few days. As to the turtle, it turns out the bones we have don't indicate (necessarily) more than one -- that is, all the bones we have could have come from a single turtle. Moreover, they're all from the carapace and the belly plate -- no head bones, no neck bones, no thigh bones or knee bones or toe bones.... you get the point. Those bones might be elsewhere on the site, or their absence may indicate that the turtle was butchered elsewhere, and perhaps partly consumed elsewhere (like the beach), with only the shell being brought to the Seven Site. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:33:52 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams > From Ric > He also never mentioned the man's shoe part or the corks with brass chains, > but we know they were there. Gallagher made two searches - his initial > search which prompted his telegrams in late September/early October 1940, > and a "thorough" search later that fall. He clearly found things that were > not described in any of his correspondence. Which would infer that the clam shells were well enough hidden that he didn't see them when he pointed out the things that suggested "signs of life". I'm only pointing out that we KNOW there were remains of a number of dead birds and the wording suggests remains of ONE turtle and signs of a fire, but if there were clam shells there and they were visible I would have thought Gallagher would mention them. It's the difference between documented evidence and speculation. Like my speculation as to the position of the N.C. camp. After reading the Captain's report I'm even more certain as to the location, but it is still speculation... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:36:25 EST From: Pat Gaston Subject: Re: Dem Clams Alan Caldwell wrote: "Pat, Catholics eat steak on Friday now too. What did Arabs eat in 1937?" Actually, I was expecting that one from Ric. The Koran was written between 612 and 632 A.D. and has not changed markedly since then, to the best of my knowledge. Of course there are different schools of thought and I suppose we can never know which fatwa each and every individual Arab crewman of the NC followed. My point was that nothing in the Koran proscribed the consumption of shellfish. If it helps I will ask Haitham whether his >parents< ate clams. BTW, Catholics could eat meat on Fridays in 1937, 1804, or 1066 under appropriate circumstances -- among them injury, illness and imminent starvation. LTM Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't see that the question of Islamic clam eating is going to take us anywhere. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:39:24 EST From: Denise Subject: Just a Thought Are we absolutely certain that these Norwich City surviving "Arabs" were either Arabs or Muslims? There's something ticking over in my head that HMSS recruited for sailor-types not in Arab countries, but in Goa - and Goa, as we all know, is the former-Portuguese India, and those wily Portuguese Jesuits converted almost the entire state, Hindus and Muslims alike, to Christianity. So, are we just assuming that these guys are Arabs and/or Muslims because of their names, or do we actually know for certain they are actually Arabs? And does this actually change anything? LTM (who always loved the Cathedrals of Goa) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, all the paperwork CALLED them Arabs and their names certainly sound like Arabs, in some cases from specific regions. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:42:09 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Rescue ships trivia As we all now know, the Norwich City ran aground at Gardner Island in November 1929. Her crew was rescued several days later by the Norwegian ship MV Lincoln Ellsworth (Oslo) and the British ship SS Trongate (London). Here is some trivia regarding the Ellsworth and Trongate I found on the web. I don't know for sure if these are "our" rescue ships, but they generally fit the description. 1. M/T Lincoln Ellsworth -- T. Dannevig & Co., Oslo -- 5580 gt -- Built in Gothenburg 1927: Torpedoed and sunk by U-94 (Kuppisch) on April 6-1941, while on a voyage alone from Reykjavik to Trinidad in ballast, position 62 37N 27 06W. All 29 survived and were rescued from their two lifeboats two days According to a related website, 16 sailors from Lincoln Ellsworth were rescued on Apr. 8 by several small fishing boats out of Hellissandur. Click on "History", then "Iceland and WW II". Several other ships are also mentioned, in chronological order. Go here http://www.warsailors.com/materials/norfleetl.html and scroll down to Lincoln Ellsworth. 2. Could this be "our" Trongate http://agcwww.bio.ns.ca/pubprod/of3154/html_bm1411/p13.html ? I know this doesn't advance our knowledge very much of the AE/FN mystery, but out of curiosity . . . . LTM, who seldom goes to sea Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:49:58 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Scratch Ric, does anyone on the forum have more information on Nauticos? Here are some questions I have in mind (which incidentally the Kansas City Star is after). I am planning on copying this Email off and sending it to David Jourdan at Nauticos and see what he says. Does anyone have anything they want to add to the following? RSVP attn:Carol. Would appreciate your comments in case I left something out or etc. or made any "misteaks." 1. Is it true Nauticos does not have it's own ocean-going ship necessary for the Earhart search? 2. Nauticos has to rent (the same as Tighar rented a sailboat on their expeditions to Gardner Island)....yes? 3. Next question is how much is the rent....dollar amount per day on a rented ship? 4. Assumption....if the rent is $25,000 or $50,000 per day which it could be because of the size of the ship necessary to tow the search fiber-optic vehicle (which looks as if it is fairly large). 5. How much has Nauticos raised in dollar amounts for the Earhart search? 6. How much is needed to complete the search? 7. How long does Nauticos intend to be at sea to complete their search? Carol #2524 *************************************************************************** From Ric Carol, I like to respectfully suggest that you leave the poor man alone. I can tell you that there appears to be a high probability that Nauticos will conduct search operations this spring. I'm that Dave Jourdan will release details when he's ready to. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:01:52 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: NC documents up Interesting connection between the NC rescue and shoes. What do we know about how EARLY women's blucher-style oxfords were made? *************************************************************************** From Ric Dunno. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:07:03 EST From: Skeet Subject: Re: quicksand During the early days of Niku IIII, we commuted across the lagoon to the Seven Site in one of the Niads. A shallow sandbar necessitated anchoring the skiff about 50 feet from shore. We had yet to determine a path which afforded firm footing when I ventured into guano ooze, not as deep as Ric's, but deep enough to remove both of my shoes. Much to the amusement of those already in the Naiad, I retrieved my shoes and continued the trek barefoot. Once settled onboard, someone (Chris, I think) whispered, "I didn't realize that you even KNEW those words." The moral of the story is: Absent a gunwale to hang on to, a few seldom-used words may retain sufficient potency to extract one from certain situations. **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think we mentioned how this stuff smells - probably because the smell is indescribable. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:08:50 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams Thanks, Tom, for suggesting size as a possible reason Gallagher missed the fish bones. They are, indeed, very small. Could you also remind us of the size of the clams and oysters we found and that he also missed? Also the number of each, and their proximity to each other? I remember you mentioning this and giving measurements in an earlier e-mail. Something which you might also want to discuss is the depth where some of the artifacts were discovered, and observations concerning dating them based on this. For example, as I recall, the items we've identified as comming from the time of the Coast Guard and Loran Staton (e.g., the pieces of vacumn tube, cabling) were found buried, whereas the oysters and clams were found on the surface. Ordinarily, wouldn't this suggest that the the oysters and clams came later? Perhaps this is another reason why Gallagher missed the clams and oysters, assuming, of course, that we are even talking about the same site that Gallagher describes. --Chris Kennedy