Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:31:40 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Belgium Subject: Arab crew The names of the crew members who lost their lives in the Norwich City shipwreck are recorded in "Deaths at Sea 1929-1932" which is kept at the Public Record Office (PRO)in Kew, which is a suburb of London (UK). The names of the "Arabs" are definitely Arab names. I did further research in the records on Merchant Marine sailors kept at the PRO and found no C.R. cards were kept on the Arab crew members of the Norwich City. I did find quite a number of Arab crew members who sailed in British ships in the first half of the 20th century. Many came from Aden. I asked the staff of the PRO,who are all trained historians. The reply was that 1. their records were not complete ; 2. if the names I was looking for were not in the system there was the possibility that the Arab crew members did not sail from Britain. If they sailed from Britain they should have been registered seamen. 3. therefore the PRO historians think there is the possibility the Arabs were hired somewhere outside Britain, perhaps in Aden like so many others. This is of course different from the contends of a contemporary newspaper which published a list of lost Norwich City crew members, stating the lost Arabs all lived at an address in Wales. This problem has not yet been solved but the complete crew list is kept in the St. Johns Library in New Foundland (Canada) for reasons only the British can explain. When that list is found and studied it may reveal more information. In the meantime one should remember that then as now sailors were and are hired for single voyages. They could and can be hired anywhere to sail to anywhere, then find employ on an other ship that gets them to still another place. Today they'd be flown out to relieve a crew abroad or be flown home after a long spell at sea. In 1929 this was not yet the case. LTM (who spent quite some time in the PRO and can now find her way to the drawer where the files are kept eyes closed). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:32:50 EST From: Janet Powell Subject: NC Documents up. Jerry Hamilton wrote: >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. I'm not sure about the rest of the artifacts, but I wouldn't mind taking a stab at the question of the benedictine bottle...? (I'd make a bet that Captain Swindell would have sent some alcohol.... - but even more certain that the survivors would have made it their duty to empty it before they left!) LTM Janet Powell #2225 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:34:31 EST From: Janet Subject: Lincoln Ellsworth and Trongate >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.> Tell us Ric..... - when they make the film of Tighar's quest, (and of course, success!), .... just how long will this film be....??? And I agree with you Dennis... - not sure how 'trivia' advances our knowledge of AE/FN mystery either, but from a family history perspective I've certainly found the assistance of those individuals, such as your good self, of great value and assistance. (And you're postings make me laugh too!) Janet Powell #2225 ************************************************************************** From Ric It will be the first film to include a lunch break. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:35:23 EST From: Tom King Subject: Blucher boots I did a quick search and found a guy who's done a history of boots. I've asked him. His history indicates that Blucher-style BOOTS came into use early in this century, and that boots generally became unpopular by the '30s. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:33:26 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: quicksand Ric, I really think you have to tell them about McKean.... *************************************************************************** From Ric Ahh McKean ... I can smell it now. 1989. We had gone ashore over the reef (no landing channel at McKean Island) riding the surf and slamming onto the beach like we were the 2nd Marine Division. We immediately came under heavy automatic droppings fire from the one million (count 'em) seabirds that are the island's only inhabitants. We divided our forces to recon the island and see if there was any indication of airplane wreckage. While the main group headed off for the far end, I set off alone (sheer genius) to investigate the "lagoon" which is really just huge a shin-deep pool with a bottom composed primarily of guano - Latin name: Bird Shit. Smithsonian ornithologists who had been there had assured me that the lagoon was only about 18 inches deep. True enough, but what they failed to mention and perhaps had been smart enough to avoid finding out for themselves, was that the bottom is made up of a crust of guano beneath which is a seemingly bottomless pit of the most disgusting ooze you can imagine. I was a good hundred yards out into the pool when the crust let go. I suddenly found myself up to my thighs in historic avian manure and every movement I made prompted further descent. At this point I said to myself, "Self, you have a problem." For lack of a better idea I got on the radio and called the rest of the team. "Hey guys, I'm sinking in the guano and I can't get out." "What do you expect us to do about it? We're on the other side of the island." "I guess I just wanted to let you know where to search for the body." "Okay, good luck." "Thanks." By now I'm up to my crotch. The phrase "What a way to go" does not begin to express my disappointment at the prospect of continued sinking. Time to get creative. Sitting or laying down would distribute my weight over a wider area but if my butt broke through I'd be just that much closer to the u nthinkable. I decided to compromise. I leaned way forward and supported some of my weight on my hands and gave a highly motivated heave on one leg. Sssssssmuck! Out it came. Now supporting my weight on two hands and one knee I hauled the other leg out and crawled to what seemed like a firmer spot. There I was able to stand up and make my way to the lagoon shore like a guy walking on eggshells. When I eventually caught up with the team they were ( I told myself) happy to see me but insisted that I keep my distance. They said I smelled bad. I recounted my adventure and then asked Russ Matthews, our video cameraman, to come with me. "Where we going?" "Back to the lagoon." "Are you CRAZY? You just said that you damned near died back there, and now you want to go BACK?" "Yeah, we need to document what that lagoon is like, but it's too dangerous to do alone." "Swell." Russ is a stout-hearted fellow and we succeeded in getting the documentation we needed and by very judicious selection of where we walked we only broke through a couple times and were able to help each other get unstuck. However, I can tell you that if there is airpane wreckage in the bottom of that lagoon, as far as I'm concerned, it can friggin' STAY there. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:36:25 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams For Chris Kennedy The Tridacna run (sic) about 10-17 cm. long and 6-9 cm. across -- the complete valves, that is. We found them in two "clambushes" -- fairly dense linear-oval clusters about 10 meters apart, one right on the crest of the ridge, the other a bit lower on the gentle slope to the SE. We estimated about 15 clams in each, represented by about 30 valves, but in Clambush #1, which we brought home, there were 29 identifiable individual valves representing at least 17 clams. Each clambush was/is about 70-90 cm. wide and 2.5 meters long (that's from memory, without digging out my notes). As for depth of artifacts, I don't think there's anything to be made of it. Except in the sidewall of the "skull hole," where bird and fish bones kept popping up at odd depths, virtually nothing was found more than 10 cm. deep, and in that depth range, in a "soil" matrix as loose as the coral rubble of the Seven Site, there's little point in tryint to sort out stratigraphic relationships. The only place where we were able to do this was in the vicinity of Clambush #1, where we could show that a now-decayed layer of asphalt siding from the nearby roll of the stuff had overlain a deposit of small clams (Anadara sp.) and charcoal, and that the asphalt siding role itself had been overlain by a layer of corrugated iron. One thing to keep in mind in discussing what Gallagher would and would not have seen is that we have no guarantee that the part of the site we recorded in detail was the part he was looking at -- at least when he made his telegraphic reports to the WPHC. We really don't know the full extent of the Seven Site, and what we have is one transect across it. Gallagher probably wasn't much to the northwest of us, because there the site is pretty open and seems to peter out into the bukas, but to the southeast, where it's heavily covered with Scaevola, we really don't know how far the site goes, and therefore (assuming Gallagher was viewing some part of the site) we can't say where he was relative to where we were. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:44:15 EST From: Darrell Houghton Subject: Clams and the mysterious "g" In the photograph of the island taken December 1, 1938, trails are observed, one of which "leads from the part of the Seven Site where the clam shells were found, through the buka forest, to a specific point on the shore of the lagoon, where there was once a clam bed." (The End Of The Trail, TIGHAR Research Bulletin) This photographic evidence narrows the time period in which the source of the clam shells could have been deposited, ie. pre-settlement. Is it possible there is some photographic evidence we can use to help identify when the mysterious "g" first appeared? I recall in the helicopter tour video the "g" was visible. Is this a job for PHOTEK? Darrell #2188 ************************************************************************* From Ric Possibly. The 1938 photo was taken at an oblique angle so we cant see the ground in that area. The earliest direct overhead shot we have was taken in April 1939 but the resolution is pretty crumby. I'll ask Jeff if he thinks there's enough there to work with. The next overhead shot we have was taken in 1985, so that's not much help. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:48:00 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Birds, Easy to cook? Ross D wrote: >Birds would be easy to catch, cook and eat as well as being familiar >(chicken). I agree the island's birds are easy to catch. I have reservations, however, based on my experience butchering chickens and pheasants, about them being easy to first prepare and then cook. I would not characterize the process of a castaway removing the feathers and gutting them, without any conventional tools, as "easy". Taking it to the next step, and considering what you would cook them either in (do not have a pot?) or on (do not have a pan?), and the whole process seems even more difficult. Getting a fire started in the wild is also not easy. After the bird was caught...or for that matter after the castaway caught the turtle, I submit that the next steps are not easy. Yes, you could eat these items raw, but even that is not easily done without tools/knives. Our castaway ate birds and turtles...but I betcha it was not easy. Being a castaway or a lost person, either on a remote island or in say the Alaskan wilderness, is not a romantic venture. Your life will very quickly ebb away without both an intake of calories (food) and water...and depending on where you are...shelter. The critical provisions of food and water are very difficult for an inexperienced person to procure in the wild. Over time, death for the typical person, thrust into this situation, would be almost certain. In my limited experience, clams are not that bad raw. I certainly would prefer them to trying to get the feathers off of a bird, gutting it..and then eating it raw. O-k you could cook bird parts on a stick...but that assumes you have fire starting tools. Has anyone on on the Forum ever killed (shot?) a bird in the wild, prepared it and ate it? (I have only done fish) If so, what tools did you use to prepare the bird? Would it be easy without those tools? Anyway...food for thought (pun intended) as we try to sort out the castway's food situation. LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul, MN *************************************************************************** From Ric The castaway had a fire. That much we know from Gallagher. Some of the bird bones we found were fire-blackened. Booby-on-a-stick? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:55:55 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Arab Christians > From Denise > Are we absolutely certain that these Norwich City surviving "Arabs" were > either Arabs or Muslims? DOH! I forgot to even think about that as a possibility. Now that Denise mentions it, I remember being lectured by some Arab CHRISTIANS that their presence in the Holy Land pre-dates the birth of Islam. The Jews were driven out in 70 AD by the Italians, leaving Philistia in the hands of the Philistines, now known as Palestine and Palestinians, respectively. So, yes, it is a mistake to assume without proof that the Arab firemen were Muslim. Some Arabs are Christians. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:57:21 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Turtle cooking >...the turtle was butchered > elsewhere, and perhaps partly consumed elsewhere (like the beach), with > only the shell being brought to the Seven Site. Assuming you were in our castaway's position, had a fire and managed to find a turtle, how would you propose butchering it and cooking it so that it will be edible? This isn't a trick question, just something I've done in the past without a knife, so I know how it can be done simply. I'm curious as to whether the technique is as obvious as it was to me at the time. I do have to admit that I got the technique after remembering a joke I'd heard. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:05:09 EST From: Ric Subject: Nauticos at sea The word (via Mike Kammerer) is that Nauticos sailed from Seattle yesterday for Howland via Hawaii. They expect to begin searching sometime around March 17th. That's all I know at this time. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:05:10 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Lincoln Ellsworth If you haven't already, you must look at a copy of _At_The_Controls_, by Eric Long and Mark Avino. I picked up a copy from the library today. It's a Smithsonian publication, with cockpit photos of many of the aircraft in their collection. Pictures of Lincoln Ellsworth's Northrop Gamma 2B, the Polar Star, start on page 47. The Gamma has been one of my favorite airplanes for as long as I can remember, and the pictures in this book are great. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:06:44 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: NC documents up Refresh my memory - didn't we find that the heel post-dates the Norwich City wreck? ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric Biltrite said the heel came from a mold that was in use in the "mid-1930s". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:16:33 EST From: Ric Subject: More NC documents up More Norwich City documents are now up at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:19:35 EST From: Mike Z. Subject: Null Hypo #3: Laura & Liz Okay, I was told once I have a vivid imagination. Try this one as a null hypothesis. If you're short of time, just skip to my next post. As teenagers from Massachusetts in the 1920's, Laura and her younger sister Liz became expert sailors, navigators, and surfboat handlers from their summers on Cape Cod and from taking several voyages with their father, a successful sea captain. Their father, alas, died unexpectedly in the summer of 1927 when a sea gull dropped a large clam on his head from high altitude. In the Spring of 1929, Laura married the rich and dashing Luke, an accomplished yachtsman in his own right. Following a romantic honeymoon yacht cruise to Bermuda and the Bahamas, Luke choked to death while enjoying an oyster dinner with Laura. A month after his death, Laura, distrustful of leveraged securities closed all her late husband's margin accounts thus saving most of the estate from the stock market crash that Fall. Liz meanwhile was having a protracted and torrid courtship with Lou. They ultimately broke up in 1933 because they couldn't agree on whether to call their entirely hypothetical first born son Leo or Larry. Two years later Laura married and Lou, and in 1936 they decided to take a cruise across the Pacific, with Liz accompanying them part of the way. Boarding her 41-foot sailing ketch Air Heart in Vancouver BC, Laura brought three bottles of her favorite Benedictine brandy, along with her old fashioned black lacquer sextant she inherited from her father who got it in Europe. Liz, not to be out done, brought her own brand new top-of-the-line brass sextant, which she could ill afford as she lived hand to mouth most of the time. The close quarters of a yacht can strain any relationship, and such was the case between Laura and Lou, and Liz and Laura, especially after a week of repeated cloudy skies and high winds, when no celestial body appeared for long. Lost and running low on fresh water, the adventure nonetheless re-ignited the passions between Lou and Liz, unbeknownst to Laura. Finally coming under clear skies early one morning, Liz draws a tentative line of position just as Laura spots an island off the port side. As Lou brings the Air Heart along the island's leeward reef, Laura and Liz note from the charts that the island may be Niku or up to two others depending on how far off course they've come. Donning her sturdy walking shoes with decidedly single tone Cats-Paw replacement heals, Laura, along with Liz, leave Lou aboard the Air Heart, taking the dinghy ashore with all their empty bottles and casks to search for water. In order to determine which island they're on, Laura also brings her sextant and one of her chronometers so she can get a noon shot of the sun without the hassle of the rocking boat. This she does high on the beach, laying her sextant in its box beside her in the shade between shots. When Liz returns to the dinghy from her futile search for water, Laura walks over to her and says, "It's definitely Gardner." Irritated that her sister couldn't find any water, Laura grabs a small empty cask and Benedictine bottle from the dinghy and heads off behind the scaveola determined to show her how it's done. She's gone a long time. Liz, on sudden evil impulse, pushes the dinghy back into the sea and rows back to the loitering Air Heart. Lou takes her on board, secures the dinghy, and, without a word, they sail away. Knowing their location and water less a problem now they've 33% less crew, they sail for Fiji. They concoct a story to tell the authorities: that Laura was swept overboard by a rogue wave while she was on deck trying to shoot a star. Thus, was born The Air Heart Conspiracy. Laura meanwhile, managed to survive the first few critical days, drinking rainwater wrung from her clothes. Caching her sextant and chronometer as best she can, but keeping the inverting eyepiece for making fires and the sextant box to carry pieces of glass she uses for tools, she makes camp down the coast underneath a ren tree. Using indigenous plant materials, she builds on the lagoon side a crude water catching device that funnels rainwater into her wooden cask. The brass chain having broken off the cask, she keeps the cork in the sextant box in case she ever has to move the cask with water in it. The Benedictine bottle becomes her canteen, rarely far from her side. Eventually she elects to explore the island more thoroughly, walking clockwise around the atoll and making it to south Aukaraime where she spends the night. Having eaten clams for dinner the night before, she ventures out on the reef in the morning foraging for something different when she slips into a crevasse, the jagged coral shredding the upper of her shoe. Back at her bivouac, she bandages several deep gashes in her instep and shin with some of her clothes, then limps back to her original camp, leaving her destroyed shoe behind. Back at her campsite, she has a man's shoe scavenged from the flotsam weeks before; it's marginally wearable. Her wounds soon become seriously infected, and she realizes that she as little time. She gathers some bits of white coral and begins to make a message that was to say "GO TO HELL, LIZ AND LOU," but only gets the "G" done before she's unable to walk to gather food, little alone coral. Weakening rapidly, she dies from blood poisoning back at her camp. In a startling coincidence on that very day, 27 nm NW of Laura's camp, Amelia Earhart's 10E runs out of fuel, having fought a strong southeast wind for the past 15 hours. The 10E cartwheels and breaks up on ditching killing Earhart and Noonan, the floating debris soon dispersed by the waves, although a few interesting bits eventually wash up on Niku. Several days after the crash, eagle-eyed Lieutenant Lambrecht spots Laura's water catcher, recognizing it as a sign of recent habitation, but no one is there to provide an answering wave to his repeated zooms. And Liz and Lou? They stayed in Fiji. In 1938, a rogue band of Japanese operatives, disguised as oyster fishermen, kidnap Liz, convinced she is Amelia Earhart and that the US Government faked her disappearance so she could be America's South Pacific superspy. She dies towards the end of WWII after the operatives move her around randomly throughout the Japanese Empire. While snorkling in 1940, Lou is swallowed by a clam of remarkable proportions. Burp. Did I leave anything out? --Mike Z. from Mass. **************************************************************************** From Ric We seem to have sparked an entire genre of novels. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:22:46 EST From: Mike Z. Subject: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... If we accept the interpretation of Gallagher and the analysis of Jantz and Burns that the castaway was a white female, and if the castaway is not Earhart, then she must be either: 1. The castaway that survived the shipwreck of a to-be-determined vessel, the wreck of which has been lost. 2. The castaway that was left on the island by a to-be-determined vessel. The Laura and Lisa story makes being left on Niku is deliberate criminal act, but I suppose I could dream up something accidental. Or it could be even intended by the castaway under a misguided notion of a tropical paradise. Of course, the point of a null hypothesis is to have something for which you can estimate its likelihood so you can decide to reject it or not. In this case I don't how to effectively test this hypothesis from examining the archaeological or historical record. But given that what we really want to do it determine if the castaway is AE (or FN), I wouldn't feel obligated to disprove every alternative hypothesis imaginable. Short of an Any Reasonable Idiot Artifact, someone is always going to be able to dream up some non-AE story that fits current data. A more profitable approach is to require that any alternative hypothesis be based on some evidence in the archaeological and historical record. For example, a worthy alternative hypothesis would be something like "It could have been castaways from the sloop Stingray which disappeared in the vicinity of Canton in 1933" (worthy, if that event was a matter of historical record). But I think chasing a vague unsupported hypothesis like, "It could have been someone abandoned on the island," will not really help us understand what happened on Niku. I believe the evaluation of the possibility of the castaway being from the Norwich City is an example of a good null hypothesis. Being linked to a specific historic event tends to guide the analysis of the data we are gathering, and, one way or another, leads to better understanding. As for Laura and Liz, I hope it was at least entertaining. --Mike Z. from Mass. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Mike. Well put. I agree entirely. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:25:02 EST From: Denise Subject: Tides and Such! In an earlier forum, which I've only just read, Ric says: "Yes, we collected quite a bit of tidal information but it has not yet been pulled together and analyzed." Look, have you managed to talk yet to June Knox-Mawer? I'm wondering if you aren't just "re-inventing the wheel" here. I think she did all this stuff back in the 50s when she first got to the Pacific ... and that her ditch and drift theory, coupled with the tidal information she put together from informed sources (don't you wish I'd bothered to find out "Coconut Lady's" real name?), also had Earhart, Noonan and the Electra end up at Nikumaroro. LTM (who could ditch the drift like no other!) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Unless she sat on the beach at Niku for several weeks and recorded the time and depth of the tidal cycles she's not going to be much help. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:27:11 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Catching Birds As a kid I was told that catching birds was very easy. All you had to do was sprinkle salt on their tail. I spent a lot of time outside with a salt shaker when I was five years old. I don't recall catching any birds. I guess the birds hadn't heard the story. I have often wondered if that was a common folk story in the 1930s or one just my parents though up. Dick Pingrey 908C *************************************************************************** From ric Common folktale. Any bird stupid enough to let you get that close will be easy to catch. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:32:57 EST From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Turning North Forum,Ric and Pat,hope all are well.I have read that two Army officers had over heard messages from Earhart saying she was turning north on the LOP and the radio messages got fainter and fainter the farther she went till they heard her say she was running out gas.Suppose to be DOCUMENTED ,an inter-office memo written by an Intelligence officer,Colonel H.H.C. Richards an Air Liaison Officer in Australia too the Assistant Chief for Intelligence at the War Department in Washington D.C.I was wondering if you ever followed up on this and what your thoughts are.I've heard you on the Forum say ,you have no idea if they went right or left on the LOP.Sencerly Terry Lee Simpson(#2396) Port Huron Mi.(LTM) **************************************************************************** From Ric Dead horse. There was such a memo but the allegation is entirely unsupported and is contradicted by more contemporaneous sources (i.e. the Itasca radio logs). The memo seems to be nothing more than a early version of the kind of urban legends that now get spread on the internet. An Army rumor? Ever been in the Army? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:44:02 EST From: Suzanne Subject: Re: Nit picking Dennis O. McGee #0149EC wrote: >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. [snip] >LTM, who labours to spell well The whole thing was a JOKE because look how Dennis ended with the UK "labours". Y'all fell for it! How about this idea? A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iears ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld. Mark Twain (1835-1910) American writer ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:51:43 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Strontium 90 <> That is correct. Is this type of turtle the source of "tortoise shell", and does it have any commercial value? Maybe you have a poacher's site. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR# 2263 *********************************************************************** From Ric Dunno, but if so he's a pretty paltry poacher. One lousy turtle. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:53:11 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Rats This site says "carnivores" are haram: It also says that reptiles are Haram (forbidden), and turtles are reptiles. I wonder if you could argue that sea turtles have scales and live in water, so they are really "fish", at least for dietary purposes. I think green sea turtles eat algae, at least the ones I saw in Hawaii were eating it. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:55:28 EST From: Darrell Whitbeck Subject: Intersting scrapbook I was cruising eBay for AE related readings and stumbled across this: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1518267004 It is a sailor's leather-bound handmade scrapbook from the USS Idaho. What makes this interesting is that there is some info and a map detailing the search and ships used in the AE search. It's too expensive for me to bid on, but I thought it might be a good piece of history (and information) for someone with a bigger budget then me. I've cut and pasted the Earhart related part of the description from the auction listing below. There's also some sample pictures in the listing. LTM, Darrell Whitbeck (who wants to become an official TIGHAR member one day) The most interesting is a map: SEARCH FOR EARHART-NOONAN PLANE, JULY 2-16. Obviously taken from the ships charts, is shows the trip from San Francisco to Hawaii to the search area. Listed are the ships: Itasca, Swan, Colorado and the Destroyers Cushing, Lanson and Drayton. Islands are: Howland, Gardner, Canton, Hull, Birnie, Phoenix, Enderbury, Carondlete Reef and perhaps others. Comments include: 0900 -12 July refueling destroyers; catapulted 3 planes 1420-7 July; recovered planes 1700-7 July; Winslow Reef, discovered 1851, charted, not sighted; sighted shacks left by solar eclipse observers June, 1937; zoomed planes, coconut groves, 3 shacks no one there; HULL I. landed planes tropical vegetation, 300 natives, 1 white man and several other comments. An incredible document of contemporary events, while searching for the world's most famous woman pilot. This map maybe published in some book somewhere, but this is a copy right from one of the ships that searched for Amelia Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:56:54 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Blucher boots Cameron Kippen, the Australian (naturally) boot expert, has replied to my inquiry as follows. I had asked if he could tell me when Blucher-style oxford shoes were first manufactured for women. May take me some time to track it down but will have a go. The style was around in Victorian times and the probability is there would have been women's shoes available before 1920. A common custom was to celebrate the heroes of the age and hence Wellington and Blutcher styles were popular from the late 19th century. The former was certainly worn by both sexes. The desire of liberated females to experience outdoor activities would also lend credence to the need for robust footwear. This would include the Blutcher style. Early century liberty would peak in twenties with the flappers and I would surprised if the Blutcher styles were not available for women. I cannot say however with any exactness who made a blutcher style shoe or when it first appeared, but I will try to track this information for you. --- So, preliminarily, it looks like there could have been a Blucher oxford aboard one of the NC rescue ships, or aboard the NC herself, for that matter. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:57:44 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: The Gulf of Guano Ric said: "They said I smelled bad. I recounted my adventure and then asked Russ Matthews, our video cameraman, to come with me." Let's see, we got the Everly Brother, the Blues Brothers, the Christian Brothers, the McKenzie Brothers, and the Isley Brothers. Now we got the Guano Brothers. Oh, brother! LTM, who is brotherless Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:59:38 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: quicksand > However, I can tell you that if there is airpane wreckage in the bottom of > that lagoon, as far as I'm concerned, it can friggin' STAY there. Wow. All that having been said, if one wanted to search for wreckage in the guano, is there any way to do that other than to pump the ... stuff ... out? Just curious. Mike **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know how you'd even do that. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:00:21 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Ludicrous clams Thanks. I agree with you that we shouldn't make conclusions that Gallagher saw something we saw (e.g. the turtle/bird bones) or missed seeing something we saw (the clams/oysters) at least until we know where he was relative to where we were. It's also unfortunate about the problems encountered at the Site with trying to date artifacts based on depth found. We'll need to keep this in mind in future discussions. --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:01:32 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? I haven't killed and prepared a bird in the wild, but I grew up on a chicken ranch where every month or so we'd have major kill-a-thons of the hens who'd gone past their laying prime and were destined for the fricassee pot. The de-feathering was a serious enterprise, involving immersion in boiling water to loosen them (the feathers) up, and then a lot of tedious plucking. I think Kenton's right; the catching would be easy but the preparation would be something else again. Boobie on a stick is a possibility, but I'll bet that Boobies are tough old birds. I know, castaways can't be choosers. It may be worth noting that we really don't have very many bird bones in the Seven Site assemblage. There's the big concentration on the surface near the tank, first observed (by TIGHAR) in 1996 and collected in 2001, but in the excavated burn features bird bones were pretty sparce. I'm hoping to have a report soon on the identification of all the specimens. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:03:23 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? Don't forget, we have the pieces of glass that may have been used as cutting implements - if I was in that situation, I might not bother to pluck the little critter, I might just use my sharp glass shard to skin it. Once skinned, the entrails would be easily removed, and then I'd spit it and cook it over the fire. ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know, all of those birds live on fish. I'll bet they taste NASTY. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:05:59 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: No Subject It would only be significant if the G is NOT present in the 1985 picture. Probably worth at least a look. ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric The shadows in the 1985 photos make it very hard to tell. Now, if the G was present in the 1939 photo that WOULD be interesting because the date (April 30, 1939) predates any known activity on that part of the island. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:07:08 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Turtle cooking >I do have to admit that I got the technique after remembering a joke I'd >heard. OK, Wombat, you've got me hooked. What's the technique? I'll confess that I haven't given the matter much thought at all. I've never tried to butcher a turtle, and now that you mention it don't have much idea how I'd go about it. Stave in its tummy, I suppose, and then hack off the meaty parts as best I could with my broken glass float. But what's the joke? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:10:40 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? Kenton's point is good Ric---extrapolating from what Tom said, I think it's fair to say that until we know where we were relative to Gallagher, we can't say that the bones/fire he found and that we found are the same. Wasn't the fire pit on Aukeraime dated, by the can label, to the 1970s? All fires are charred remnants aren't castaway fires and remnants. --Chris *************************************************************************** From Ric How would you suggest that we decide whether or not we're at the castaway campsite found by Gallagher? What would satisfy you? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:17:42 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Bauareke Passage I was looking at gridded 18X24 color pix of Niku many of us used to follow the Niku IIII expedition and noticed an anomaly down by Bauareke Passage. On either side of the passage there are many large open gray areas, which I assumed to be shale or a shale-like substance, mixed with the green vegetation. The open gray areas are most pronounced on the west side of the passage though they extend for several thousand feet eastward toward the Loran station.. What I found odd was that opposite the gray areas, extending for 300-400 yards out into the ocean, the sea water appears cloudy and brown. This "phenomena" seems most pronounced at Bauareke, though it occurs in lesser degrees elsewhere on the island including the area near the Loran station. I assumed the brown cloudy water was the result of something eroding from the island and washing out to the sea. But if you look at the pattern of the eroded material it doesn't fan out as one might expect it to. Rather the material goes in fairly straight lines, leaving several small pools of undisturbed and clear seawater. Any idea of what is going on around Bauareke Passage? LTM, who's past is cloudy and brown Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric The reef flat does look a bit different there. I suspect that what you're seeing are simply depressions in the reef flat where the water is deeper. The brown areas are only inches deep in water so you're seeing the reef surface. The bluish-green areas are where the water is deeper so you're seeing water. It would probably make more sense to you if you saw the video. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:22:30 EST From: L. Turner Subject: Fixin birds Getting a bird ready to cook is real simple just peel out the breast and throw away skin, feathers and stuff. Small birds such a doves are easy, just put thumb in neck at wish bone and rotate out the breast out leaving all other parts connected together. Put on stick and roast. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:35:33 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Twilight Zone Ric wrote: >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. It is time for a full disclosure on this issue. Perhaps even a link to a page on the website with the full list. So far I count three worm hole connections between Ric/TIGHAR and the Earhart saga. 1. Ric lives just off of Arundel Drive. Arundel planted cocos on Niku. 2. I seem to remember some sort of a Gallagher connection? 3. Ric's middle name is Ellsworth (his mother's maiden name). The Lincoln Ellsworth rescued the Norwich City sailors from Niku. I believe there may even be some Midnight Ghost connections? I demand the full story :). LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric It's worse than you imagine. 1. Yes, I live in a housing development called Arundel. 2. I am related to Joshua Coffin, master of the Nantucket whaler "Ganges", who named Gardner Island in 1825 after the ship's owner Congressman Gideon Gardner who was probably also Joshua's father-in-law (his wife was a Gardner) so I'm probably related to Gardner too. 3. I'm almost certainly related to Dr. Duncan "Jock" MacPherson. All MacPhersons descend from the 13th century Gaelic warlord Gilliechattan Mor Gillespick (or Gillespec or Ghilleaspuig) now Anglicized as Gillespie. MacPherson was from Oban, Scotland. My people originally came from just north of there. 4. I'm related on my mother's side to Lincoln Ellsworth, for whom the Norwegian tanker which helped in the Norwich City rescue was probably named. I know it sounds spooky but, in reality, many forum subscribers probably have as many connections to some of the many personalities associated with this mystery. I am not, as far as I know, related in any way to Amelia Earhart. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:34:54 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: No NC crew left behind > From Ric > > 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. Nope. Ric, it is certainly not my intention to besmirch the name of Daniel Hamer. That would serve no purpose. I'm only interested in knowing if the missing crewmen (who are not mentioned at all by either the Master nor the Second Officer in the documents you present) survived the wreck and could therefore account for our castaway(s). It is NOT clear that all hands were assembled and loaded into the starboard boat. The starboard boat was away when the Captain (in his account), by this time was washed overboard "called out for someone to lower a rope over the side." Not all the survivors had gotten into the starboard boat. But that is not the part that bothers me. In Hamer's account of his actions immediately following the the grounding, he says nothing of ordering the fires under the boilers dampened or the water tight doors closed. I don't think he made those orders, because he didn't think the damage was severe enough to warrant it. He was concerned with the difficulty of abandoning the ship at night in a storm (rightfully so; he was forced to attempt it and lost three lives). So, he left at least one boiler fire going and the auxiliary plant running to provide electricity for lights through the night with the idea to abandon ship in the morning. This would also mean a watch would have to be maintained in the main spaces. I find it very telling that the Master says (after implying all hands were topside): "Shortly after 4a.m. smoke was seen issuing from the engine room and in less time than it takes to tell the engine room, stoke holds and number three hold burst into flames." Who was he telling in the engine room if all hands were topside? I also find the cavalier attitude of Second Officer Lott who claimed to have discovered the smoke, pretty unbelievable. This was not a cruise ship with passengers whom you would not want to unnecessarily alarm. If Lott is to be believed, he QUIETLY (from whom was keeping the secret?) told the engineers there was smoke coming from the main space. The engineers went to investigate, came back and said "yup, we're on fire" [I paraphrased there], so the captain decided to abandon ship. With no attempt to put the fires out? Well, maybe not, because the fire spread so fast, he admits he didn't have time to tell the poor bastards on watch who were down there. I think what the Master and the Second Officer DO NOT say, speaks volumes. Do we have any accounts of the Ordinary Seaman who survived? These documents have not convinced me no NC crewmen were left on board. I stand on my hypothesis that the missing NC crewmen never made it out of the engine room/fire room. LTM **************************************************************************** From Ric I beg to differ. A timeline of events may help clear this up. 23:05 ship strikes reef (Lott) 23:30? Lott has had time to find the Captain and inspect the holds and then "Orders were then given for EVERYBODY (my emphasis) to stay round the galley and not to go forward of the funnell." (Lott) 04:05? Fire breaks out. "Shortly after 4 a.m. smoke was seen issuing from the engine room and in less time than it takes to tell the engine room, stokeholds and number three hold burst into flames." (Hamer) "After a considerable time I noticed smoke coming from the fiddley. I looked down in No. 3 and I could just see flames down below." (Lott) These guys have been assembled around the galley for FOUR HOURS loading the lifeboats, sending distress calls on the wireless, while Hamer and the officers were "sounding around the ship to determine her exact position" (Hamer) and waiting for daylight before abandoning ship. 04:15? At Hamer's order the starboard (lees side) lifeboat is lowered down to the level of the gunwale. 04:30 Captain Hamer, Chief Officer Gibson, (and apparently Lott) go around to the port side to lower the port boat with the intention of towing it around to the starboard (lee) side, but as the boat was being lowered a huge wave hit, bent the davit, and washed the captain overboard. "I was swept out clear of the ship about 50 yards by the backwash from the seas. I called out for someone to lower a rope over the side. They heard me twice and then lost sight of me and gave me up for lost." (Hamer) 05:30 ? "She started exploding down below. Daylight was just about breaking then so the mate gave orders to take to the boats. Everybody got into the boat and when we had all settled down and were ready we let go the lines." (Lott) If daylight was "just about breaking" it couldn't have been much earlier that 05:30, and again, "EVERYBODY got into the boat." Hamer, who was already in the water but certainly received a report later, says, "When the lifeboat WITH ALL HANDS (my emphasis) was leaving the ship it... capsized throwing most of the crew into the sea, eleven of them losing their lives. Four were imprisoned under the boat, one of them was found drowned..." You say that Hamer "... admits he didn't have time to tell the poor bastards on watch who were down there." Where does he say that? By the time the fire is detected everybody has been assembled around the galley for four hours. You say: <> This is conjecture. Nobody says that. Clearly there was electricity for the sending of distress calls so there must have been a power source operating, but the ship was already judged to be a total wreck before the fire was d etected. You also say: <> There's a comma fault there that is leading you astray. Hamer is saying, " In less time than it takes to tell, the engine room, stoke holds and number three hold burst into flames." Given the four hours between the grounding and the detection of fire, during which preparations were made to abandon ship, and the hour or so between the time the captain went over the side and the lowering of the starboard boat, and the repeated statements that clearly imply that everyone was present on deck and later in the boat, I can see no way of supporting any contention that anyone was left aboard. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:36:17 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? > Has anyone on on the Forum ever killed (shot?) a bird in the wild, prepared > it and ate it? (I have only done fish) If so, what tools did you use to > prepare the bird? Would it be easy without those tools? Yeah, as part of a Boy Scout survival trip when I was 15 -- snared a pheasant using twine and a trap constructed of small, thin branches; killed it, gutted it & cleaned it with my Boy Scout knife, and roasted it on a carved wooden spit. Very tasty. I had several things going for me though: * the scoutmaster and his assistant had pre-identified a locale where pheasant (and other game) were plentiful; * pheasant are, apparently, fairly stupid; * there were several of us who, together, were able to conceive of a good snare (don't ask me to remember exactly how it worked -- I don't know if I could replicate it today); * my father was a butcher, and I had seen him clean fowl many, many times, so I was familiar with the process. Cleaning the feathers was a pain in the butt. We pulled out the big feathers by hand and then scraped the skin raw with the knife. Afterward, we seared the outside of the flesh over the fire to remove the little stubs (I had seen my dad do this over an open flame). We were the only group (of four) who trapped a pheasant. Most of the others caught fish or frogs; one group caught a wild rabbit. Overall, an interesting experience, but not one I would like to replicate. David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:41:39 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? > ... Being a castaway or a lost person, either on a remote island or in say the > Alaskan wilderness, is not a romantic venture. Your life will very quickly > ebb away without both an intake of calories (food) and water...and > depending on where you are...shelter. ... I read a very sad book, _Into the Wild_, by Jon Krakauer, about a lad who died alone in the Alaskan wilderness because he failed to preserve the meat from a caribou he shot, because he didn't provide himself with a map (which would have shown him how to cross a swollen river), and (probably) because he ate some plants that are only non-poisonous part of the year. He exiled himself on purpose, but tried to save himself once he started suffering from food poisoning. Another man died in isolation in Alaska because, having failed to make arrangements to be picked up, and after losing some ammo and provisions through a break in the ice, he gave the wrong signal when a bush plane flew low over his dock. He waved, "I'm OK. You don't have to worry about me" instead of "Please land and save me." The proper signals were printed on the reverse of his hunting permit. An Army survival manual for Alaskan service, circa 1910 (if I remember correctly), warns against trying to survive on rabbit meat alone. Rabbits have too little fat to sustain humans over the long run. The castaway on Niku apparently lived long enough to kill birds, clams, and a turtle; but did not have the skills to survive until the PISS colonists could come to the rescue. Something caught up with that person: hunger, thirst, fatigue, despair, infection, exposure or some other catastrophe. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:42:59 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Arab crew > This is of course different from the contents of a contemporary newspaper > which published a list of lost Norwich City crew members, stating the lost > Arabs all lived at an address in Wales. I was brought up in South Wales, between the two main ports, Cardiff and Newport, and both have long-standing minority communities around the docks brought to the area by links to merchant shipping - Somalis in Cardiff in particular, also Yemenis, no doubt others. When I was a teenager I had a Saturday job helping deliver bread from a van, and I well remember a sailors' boarding house in Newport run by a formidable Mrs Nasser, who I believe was a Yemeni. When you stepped through the door you immediately slipped several thousand miles eastwards. This was around 1970-71 and the ports have declined since and the communities have blended more, and no doubt in the 30s they were much larger and held more closely to their own traditions. So no contradiction at all in sailors identifying themselves as Arabs shipping out of a Welsh port. LTM Phil Tanner 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:44:00 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? I have skinned ruffed grouse, instead of plucking them. They are fairly dry, even if roasted with the skin. They can be gutted with a fairly dull pocketknife, and I wouldn't be surprised if you could do this with your bare hands. The certainly can be skinned with your bare hands alone, as I have done it. It shouldn't be much tougher than cleaning fish. I haven't cooked any in the open, but I suppose you could roast them on a spit, or cook them on a stick like hot dogs. I suspect they would be fairly tough to chew. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Who prefers pheasant.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:44:59 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Belgium Subject: Re: Turtle cooking Military pilots today follow a survival course. That includes learning techniques to live off the land after having ejected behind enemy lines, catch and kill animals including chicken, roast, cook or bake them, etc. Amelia Earhart never followed such a course and never had the training. Neither did Fred Noonan. How can one assume today, 64 year after 1937, that living in an other era they succeeded in catching birds, fish and other animals and survive on Gardner Island ? I know how difficult it is to catch a bird, no matter what Ric says. I have a feeling that if the two got marooned on Gardner Island they lacked even elementary knowledge of how to survive and were probably even unable to catch a bird. Even if the did they may not even have known how to cook it. They were complete dudes. If they had been members of the Boy Scout of Girl Scout movement they might have learned the tricks of how to use a map, find the North and try to get to some civilized part of the world, even to light a fire with two sticks of wood, but not how to catch animals, slaughter them and cook them. As far as one knows neither AE or FN ever were boy or girl scouts and if they ever had been, by 1937 would never acquired the skills to survive on Gardner by living off the land. Those who can today are called SAS (Special Air Service) troops. LTM (who believes it takes animal skills to survive) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:46:33 EST From: Mark Cameron Subject: Re: quicksand I grew up watching Mitchner's "Adventures in Paradise". All Pacific Islands are balmy and inhabited by beautiful naked women. Nothing ever mentioned about knee-deep guano. Was I mis-informed? ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm still looking for those islands. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:47:20 EST From: Angus Subject: Off Topic - Lady Mary Bailey A friend has just bought a flying helmet reputed to have belonged to Lady Mary Bailey, the early aviation pioneer (born1910 died 1960) and daughter of Lord Rosslare of county Monaghan. I wondered if anyone on the forum had knowledge of any futher useful sources of information or any photographs of her in her flying helmet. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:56:04 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... > Mike Z said (in part): > > "If we accept the interpretation of Gallagher and the analysis of Jantz and > Burns that the castaway was a white female, and if the castaway is not > Earhart, then she must be either: > > 1. The castaway that survived the shipwreck of a to-be-determined vessel, > the wreck of which has been lost. > > 2. The castaway that was left on the island by a to-be-determined vessel." The weakness in saying that "if the castaway is not Earhart, then SHE must be..." is that a careful reading of the Burns/Jantz analysis does not, in fact, conclude that the bones belonged to a white female. Rather, the report states: "The skull is more likely European than Polynesian, although it cannot be excluded from any population." Burns and Jantz are qualifying their conclusion, as they should in light of the fact that they do not have the actual bones to analyze. The report goes on to say, "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..." Note the premise of the assumption: they are stating that the person was "most likely female" ONLY if their previous assumption (i.e., that the skull is European rather than Polynesian) proves to be correct. They go on to say that "the level of certainty is very low" (and they quantify their level of probability). Because Burns and Jantz have specifically stated that the skull "cannot be excluded from any population" and they opine that it is female ONLY IF one ASSUMES European ancestry, one cannot eliminate the possibility that the bones belonged to some other party -- perhaps a Polynesian or one of the Norwich City crew members. The TIGHAR web site carefully states: "It is, of course, impossible to know whether the bones inspected by Dr. Hoodless in 1941 were in fact those of a white female, and if anything even less possible to be sure that they were those of Amelia Earhart. Only the rediscovery of the bones themselves, or the recovery of more bones from the same skeleton on the island, can bring certainty." By the way, I found the tale of Lou, Liz and Laura to be very entertaining, and I agree with your statement, "But I think chasing a vague unsupported hypothesis like, 'It could have been someone abandoned on the island,' will not really help us understand what happened on Niku." Very true indeed. However, it also does little to help advance what happened on Niku to draw conclusions from highly qualified reports such as the Burns/Jantz analysis. One of the apparent tenets of TIGHAR is to analyze the totality of all the gathered evidence (by "evidence" I include all clues/anecdotal reports, artifacts, etc.) and endeavor to see if they fit the hypothesis that Earhart made it to Gardner Island in 1937. When analyzing such evidence, it is important to examine REASONABLE alternative explanations for the presence of each item. Clearly, as you have so entertainingly pointed out, one can construct any fictional scenario to account for all the evidence; however, one need not to resort to fiction for alternative explanations for the evidence. There remains the possibility that the presence of the Norwich City crewmen on Gardner, the Coast Guard personnel, British administrators and the settlers could account for some (or all) of the evidence. The challenge of TIGHAR is to eliminate these other possibilities conclusively. David Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric I trust that we're not going to have go through this "but Burns and Jantz said..." thing again. Yes, like the good scientists that they are they qualified their statements with many cautions but at the end of the day, based upon the information available, the scales tipped in favor of a white Norse female. We accept that for what it is. An indication. Another itty-bitty clue that we may be on the right track. We're never going to prove that the castaway was Earhart by eliminating all the other people it could be. The Burns/Jantz conclusions about the bones tell us that further investigation on the island is warranted. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:58:16 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Noticing Clams Th' WOMBAT writes: << if there were clam shells there and they were visible I would have thought Gallagher would mention them.>> Keep in mind that the clams were not immediately in the area of the fish, bird, and turtle bones, but were about 10 meters away. Gallagher may not have realized at first glance that they were possibly related. I don't think we did. Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:59:42 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Twilight Zone The truth has, at last, come to light! Ric, you are clearly engaged in a conspiracy to promote real estate development on Gardner Island for the profit of your family. Hence all the trips there (to demonstrate how easy the commute would be). Fess up. David Katz :-) **************************************************************************** From Ric I guess the jig is up. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:57:45 EST From: Ric Subject: News from Ludolph I received a phone call this morning from a senior executive at the Ludolph company in Bremerhaven, Germany. Over a month ago I had written to the company asking if they had any information that might help us identify any of our artifacts but, as it turns out, only three people in upper management speak English so the email floated around for quite a while until it reached someone who could read it. It was worth the wait. Nothing conclusive yet, but there are several new pieces of information which seem to support the hypothesis that the sextant box found by Gallagher was for a Ludolph sextant. 1) The numbers on the box - 3500 (stencilled) and 1542. Most of the Ludolph company records were destroyed when the factory was bombed during the Second World War. Post-war production did not resume until 1952 but the first instrument serial number entered in the new record was 3562. It is not certain that the instrument was a sextant because only the date - November 3, 1952 - and the serial number are recorded. However, it stands to reason that if Ludolph produced an instrument in 1952 with the serial number 3562, then at some earlier date they produced an instrument serialed 3547 (the number written on the Pensacola box once owned by Fred Noonan) and 3500 (the number stencilled on the box found by Galllagher). Of course, the implication would be that only 15 sextants of that particular model had been produced between, at the latest, 1937 (when Noonan acquired 3547) and 1952. I asked if that sounded reasonable and was told. "Yes. Sextants were never produced by Ludolph in great numbers, being very high-end precision instruments; but when Hitler came to power the factory ceased sextant production entirely and turned to making compasses and other instruments for the Luftwaffe under a military serial number system." Very few pre-war records remain, but one book that has drawings of component parts of sextants (for example: inverting eyepieces) shows that they had their own serial numbers - four digits beginning with the numeral 1. 2. Artifact 2-6-S-45, "the knob" The theoretical reconstruction of the artifact shown on the home page of the TIGHAR website bears a strong resemblance to the "adjustment drum" on Ludolph sextants, including the raised figures on the face which designate various setting positions. On early sextants the drum was made of ivory and on post-war sextants they are plastic. What they were made of in the early 20th century is not known. 3. Artifacts 2-6-S-03a & 03b, "the fasteners" These bear a resemblance to fasteners used on some Ludolph sextant boxes. The company has mailed me several photos illustrating the above points. Also, 4. It is common for the serial number of Ludoph sextants to be written on the outside of the box. 5. All Ludolph sextants are painted in black enamel. The Ludolph company will continue to research our questions and help us any way they can, as time permits. Their website is at www.ludolph.de LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:26:10 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Tides and Such! For Denise Murphy No, we haven't been able to contact Knox-Mawer (who, for the uninitiated, wrote "The Shadow of Wings," a novel in which Earhart crashes near Niku, crawls ashore and survives a few days (losing a shoe) but becomes amnesiac, is picked up by a British colonial officer who keeps her as a sex slave...). As you know, she used to work for BBC but has retired. We tracked down the addresses of two women with likely names in Wales (where she'd long lived according to book jacket blurbs), and I wrote them both, but got no response. Efforts have also been made to reach her by phone, but to no avail. The reason we're so interested is not her possible observations on tides, but some cryptic remarks in the introduction to "The Shadow..." about being motivated to write the book not only by TIGHAR's discoveries in '89 and '91, but by some kind of information received from another source. We'd like to know the source, and the nature of the information. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:28:35 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? Remember nuoc mam? Did I spell that right? Anyway, nasty is probably better than starving... ltm, jon ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, I remember. No, I'm not sure know how to spell it. And I'm not at all sure that it's better than starving. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:29:19 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Strontium 90 Re. the type of turtle: we're not entirely sure yet, but DNA analysis is underway and we should have results soon. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:30:05 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: quicksand For Mike: We (not Ric; he didn't wanna talk about it) talked about how we'd "dig" the McKean "lagoon" if we really thought that Earhart was down there, and concluded that it could probably be done only with a very expensive cofferdam arrangement and lots of pumps, and since the island is an environmentally sensitive bird sanctuary, there's really no way. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:33:02 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: Birds, easy to cook I think we are examing the "receipe" for cooked birds from the wrong perspective, the comfort of our homes and full bellies. Captain Bligh, of Bounty fame, sailed 1,000 miles plus to Timor after the mutiny. They had no fires. They ate raw fish & raw birds to survive. Military personel are trained to eat things raw to survive, things you or I would step on. If this castaway was hungry, he or she would eat, whatever and however. It would bash the clams with a rock, beat them against a tree or pry them open with anything at hand, then eat them raw. It would grab the birds, wring their necks, pluck out most of the feathers and eat them raw. If it had a fire, so much the better. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:34:18 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Belgium Subject: Re: Catching Birds For Dick, It wasn't a story your parents thought up. I live across the Atlantic and the same story is told over here. The lesson is that if you can get near enough to a bird to put salt on its tail you are be able to grab it. As we all know the problem with birds is they don't wait for the salt... I heard the story from my father who was born in 1903. He heard it from his father who was born in 1875... As far as I am aware of none of my family ever migrated back from the US to Belgium. So chances are the story was invented in Europe and came to the US with European settlers who continued to tell it to their children. LTM (who was never quick enough to catch a bird with salt) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:36:19 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Turtle cooking Herman: Just because a bunch of city raised boys in the modern era don't know how to skin a rabbit doesn't mean that those raised in other era's or even other parts of the world, don't know how to skin them. In AE's "era" there weren't nearly as many butcher shops as today, and many people, even living in small to midsize towns, raised their own chickens for both the eggs and the meat, and thus knew how to prepare the chicken (being politically correct, I used the term "prepare" rather than describing the process wherein one grabs the chicken by the head and deftly swings them around, breaking their neck, then removes the ... oh, but I am being un-pc again, sorry). But, truly, you didn't have to join the Scouts or take courses to learn such things, unless you were raised by those who didn't know how, or had the means by which they didn't have to do it any longer and didn't bother to pass the skill on to their unfortunate off-spring. LTM - who knows how to prepare a lot of things, Dave Bush >Military pilots today follow a survival course. That includes learning >techniques to live off the land after having ejected behind enemy lines, >catch and kill animals including chicken, roast, cook or bake them, etc. >Amelia Earhart never followed such a course and never had the training. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:43:59 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... > I trust that we're not going to have go through this "but Burns and Jantz > said..." thing again. Yes, like the good scientists that they are they > qualified their statements with many cautions but at the end of the day, > based upon the information available, the scales tipped in favor of a white > Norse female. We accept that for what it is. Actually, you have emphasized my point. My concern is that many postings on the forum seem to take it for granted that the bones were, in fact, those of a European female, when the level of certainty, in Burns's and Jantz's own words, was quite low. I do not interpret their statement to "tip the scales." Rather, it appears to me that the issue is still in doubt. David Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric If Burns and Jantz had decided that no meaningful opinion could be offered given the information available I feel confident that they would have said so. However, they DID offer an opinion, albeit with suitable cautions. Of course the issue is still in doubt, but the scales came down on the side of white norse female. You don't seem to be able to accept any piece of information as useful unless it is smoking gun conclusive. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:54:03 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Time to Howland Do we have any information as to how long (hours) the flight thought it would take to reach Howland from Lae? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************* From Ric The original estimate (prepared back in the States before the trip) was 17 hours and 1 minute. That appears to be simply the distance - 2,556 statute miles - divided by the airplane's economical cruising speed - 150 mph. At the time of departure, Earhart apparently expected the flight to take 18 hours (based upon a message sent from Lae to Itasca annoncing Earhart's takeoff). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:56:05 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Autopsies/Forensics I believe there were some doctors on the Forum who said earlier that they had performed both autopsies on "fleshed" remains and also forensics work on "unfleshed" bones. In other words, notwithstanding different techniques employed, they (one doctor) had performed both. Is this correct? --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:56:54 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Reef.... The reef surrounding Nikumaroro Island and the two passages providing access to the interior lagoon, have been the subject of forum discussion on occasion. One can gain insight into the interaction between the reef, Tatiman and Bauareke Passages, the sea and the lagoon by viewing the Aerial Tour video. However, there are no low altitude, high quality, color aerial photographs of Niku's reef that I'm aware of. While "surfing" for information on Central and South Pacific reef's I discovered a splendid photograph of the reef at Palmyra Island at www.janeresture.com/palmyra/index.htm . There are eleven photographs on this particular web page. The subject photograph is number six from the top. The photograph accurately depicts "canyons" carved from the outer reef, the flow of waters over the reef into the lagoon, and the direction and extent of sand deposits inside the lagoon. Would Niku Expedition members care to comment on the similarities of the Palmyra reef depicted and the reef at Niku? LTM, Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:02:24 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Turtle cooking > From Herman De Wulf in Belgium (#2406) > ... I know how difficult it is > to catch a bird, no matter what Ric says. It is, in my view, not reasonable to doubt Ric's word about bird behavior on Niku. The truth of what he says, even though it is only testimony on the internet, is substantiated by others who have been on Niku and by the story of the dodo, a bird species from Mauritius that went extinct, in part, because they had no innate fear of humans and other predators: . There is also the evidence of the bird bones, seen by Gallagher and (presumably) found again by Niku IIII. Despite what you think about the difficulties of catching birds, the Niku castaway seems to have caught 'em, cooked 'em, and (one supposes) et 'em. I make different assumptions from you about Ric's assessment of bird behavior and about what AE and FN may have been capable of when they got sufficiently hungry. My assumptions, of course, are not evidence; but neither are yours. I am not willing to believe everything Ric says, but I am not willing to doubt everything, either. The alternative to trusting him and his methods (apart from walking on guano & quicksand) is to raise my own funds, train in archeology, and go to Niku myself. Perish the thought. LTM. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric There is actually a photo of me holding a baby booby. I, of course, put it back but his Mom followed me around and gave me hell for about ten minutes. (Lest I get a call from the Attorney General, the above reference is to a juvenile seabird.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:05:44 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing Clams Andrew says: >Gallagher may not >have realized at first glance that they were possibly related. I don't think >we did. That's true. When I first saw them under the scaevola, I wasn't sure whether they were "cultural" shells -- i.e., deposited there by people, or natural, something that had uplifted with the island. It wasn't until we cleared them and looked at them with a degree of care that it became obvious that they hadn't gotten there naturally. It's also notable that they weren't noted in 1996, though the team must have hacked their way right past at least Clambush #1. *************************************************************************** From Ric Absolutely correct. We noticed all kinds of things in '96 - even something as tiny as a button - but never noticed the clams. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:07:11 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? > From Ric > As far as I know, all of those birds live on fish. I'll bet they taste NASTY. All the more reason to skin them. Most of the fishy taste would be in the fat under the skin. Dan Postellon#2263 *************************************************************************** From Ric Ya learn somethin' every day. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:09:24 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Turtle cooking > From Tom King > OK, Wombat, you've got me hooked. What's the technique? I'll confess that > I haven't given the matter much thought at all. I've never tried to > butcher a turtle, and now that you mention it don't have much idea how I'd > go about it. Stave in its tummy, I suppose, and then hack off the meaty > parts as best I could with my broken glass float. But what's the joke? Well actually, the joke was about a drunk, a tortoise and a pie.. I can't admit to actually doing this because the turtles, birds, lizards and frogs were probably protected species - so it never happened. However, had I been cut off by floods in a remote part of the Gulf Country in 1974 I would have been more worried about surviving than about protected species and it would probably have gone something like this.... The method involves building a fire and letting it burn down to coals, as you would to cook a bird or crab, then lay the turtle on its back in the coals. After a while you turn it over and cook the underneath. You keep doing this until you think it's done. I found out a few years later that you can tell he's cooked when the skin shrinks away from the shell at the openings, but at the time I just cooked until it smelled done. Opening the "pie" is interesting. With the turtle upside down you can bash away at the sections between its arm, leg, head and tail holes (with a rock). Lift off the base of the shell and you have turtle soup and meat that looks something like chicken. This technique (would have been) used on freshwater turtles (not tortoises) but the anatomy is similar to the seagoing ones and I imagine it would work on them. I'd have had to be stranded for two weeks and down to a tin of dehydrated onions and some dried macaroni with no idea how long I would have to wait to get out to resort to this. I would have also discovered you can cook birds in their feathers. You peel the skin and remains of the feathers off and pick the meat from the bones. The turtle, however would have tasted more like chicken than birds cooked in their feathers. Th' WOMBAT (I wonder if the NPWS is searching my old campsites...) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:10:55 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Turtle cooking I am still uneasy about Gallagher not including "shellfish" in the remains suggesting the castaway had been alive, however when I asked about the turtle remains I didn't specify a number of turtles. It appears there was only one. That would suggest the same site, especially if it was not a large turtle. I'm interested to see how the shell was opened. Whether the entire underside was smashed in or whether the edges were opened. Was the beast cooked in its shell or was it butchered and the meat prepared? Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:11:57 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Noticing Clams > From Andrew McKenna > Keep in mind that the clams were not immediately in the area of the fish, > bird, and turtle bones, but were about 10 meters away. Gallagher may not > have realized at first glance that they were possibly related. I don't > think we did. Aha! I didn't know that. From the discussion and intense interest in the clams I thought the shells had been found near the fire. In fact from Ric's early posting I initially thought there were oyster bones as well.... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:12:42 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: No NC crew left behind O.K. You convinced me. Thanks for taking the time to explain it all to me, sorting it out more carefully than I did. I was obviously looking for holes in the story that really weren't there. You're, of course, right about the errant comma, the engine room was also on fire. They didn't need ship's power for the radio, by the way, the radio sets would have run on D.C. batteries. Sooo, everybody got off the ship and eight remain unaccounted for. I guess we're back to whether or not circa 1929 Arabs ate clams. Unless, our castaway was one of the missing engineering officers (who may also have known how to open oysters). LTM (who taught me to accept defeat when I'm wrong) Kerry Tiller #2350 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:27:18 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Ludicrous Clams I believe you asked for suggestions on how better to tie the area Gallagher is describing to the Seven Site area we searched, the various bones there, clams/oysters, etc. This was in response to my (and Tom's observation) that before we start making assumptions about what Gallagher saw and missed at "our" Seven Site we need to feel comfortable that he and we are describing the same site. One thing that comes to mind is our discussion on Na'ia, when you and Tom mentioned that there is a huge gap in our knowledge about the later years of the colony that is still in files waiting to be searched at Hanslope. Also, you both wanted to talk to the remaining survivors of the colony in the Solomons. Maybe its time to turn attention to this work. The meticulous work being done presently may be unnecessary if the answer to the mysteries of the Seven Site is sitting on a shelf or in someone's memory. I understand that TIGHAR's financial condition precludes visits to England and the Solomons, but at least as to England Kenton seems to have established a good working relationship with several individuals there. Perhaps a good compromise is to see if these people could help us. Tom may have connections in the Solomons who could help us out as well. Not the best, but better than nothing. The Solomons work is time sensitive---the knob, clams, oysters and bones are all dead and aren't going anywhere. That's not the case with the remaining survivors. Also, do we plan to clear more of the Seven Site area on the next expedition? If so, we need to come up with a plan to clear a much larger area of land. While I understand that we want to be as meticulous as possible, at this rate of land clearing per expedition cycle we are all going to run out of life before we get a truly significant area cleared. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Let me refresh your memory. What I said was, > How would you suggest that we decide whether or not we're at the castaway > campsite found by Gallagher? What would satisfy you? You didn't answer the question. I also don't know where you got the idea that the huge gap in our knowledge about the later years of the colony can be answered by the files at Hanslope. We don't know that. Van and I looked at dozens of files dating from those later years in Tarawa last year. Lots and lots of information, but no reference to the Seven Site except map delineations that identified the area as set aside for or by Gallagher. We're actively trying to establish contact with former residents, not all of whom are in the Solomons. Yes, we'll do more clearing at the Seven Site and I'm open to suggestions about methodologies that are more efficient and archaeologically sound. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:27:56 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Earhart House Hi everyone (and especially those living in or around LA), I have discovered a Hollywood map on the internet (Google) and have been trying to locate where the Putnam's used to live. I found Valley Spring Lane Road in North Hollywood without trouble. Is that where Valley Spring Lane should be ? Can anyone who knows the area tell me where exactly AE's house was situated (between which streets) ? Just curious. (I've been to Hollywood three times in my lifetime, next time (?) I'll make a point of seeing that house. LTM (who wants to know everything) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:29:34 EST From: Mike Z. Subject: Re: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... David Katz writes (edited): "The weakness in saying that 'if the castaway is not Earhart, then SHE must be...' is that a careful reading of the Burns/Jantz analysis does not, in fact, conclude that the bones belonged to a white female.... It ...does little to help advance what happened on Niku to draw conclusions from highly qualified reports such as the Burns/Jantz analysis.... When analyzing such evidence, it is important to examine REASONABLE alternative explanations for the presence of each item." I agree. The conclusion of Burns and Jantz is essentially, "our best guess is that it is a white female." Perhaps I should have used more careful wording, but I did not mean to suggest that we should take it as fact that the castaway is a white female. That is why I chose the phrase "If we accept... the analysis of Jantz and Burns." However, I believe that any reconstruction of the events on Niku, either featuring Earhart or someone else, should start with our best guess interpretation of all the evidence to date, and right now, our best guess is that it is a white female. Starting there, I think it is then perfectly legitimate and beneficial to say, "Okay, but what if this or that is wrong?" and see where it leads us. I certainly have done that in previous posts, and there certainly is a reasonable chance that the Burns and Jantz guess is wrong and that Gallagher misinterpreted the shoe pieces he found. Thus, the Arab crewman reconstruction is worth pursuing further. But any evaluation of the probability of a reconstruction being true must take into account such deviations from the best guess. With the Arab crewman reconstruction not being entirely consistent with the current best guess, it won't take a whole lot of new evidence against it (combined with a lack of new evidence for it) for me to reject it in that null hypothesis kind of way. --Mike Z. from Massachusetts ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:31:45 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: quicksand If NC was under all that stuff, I would suggest that since guano tends to be quite acidic, there would probably be nothing left. Does that sound correct? Regards David **************************************************************************** From Ric No, I don't think so. There were railroad tracks used to haul guano carts in the 1850s that were still there. Guano does not dissolve steel. It just smells like it could. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:34:05 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Just a Thought You have to be careful when trying to determine a persons religion based on their name. Many of you have probably heard of Tariq Aziz (Iraqi foreign minister) he has a muslim name, but is in fact Christian. There are many Christians around the middle east and for the sake of convenience, they often adopt muslim names. *************************************************************************** From Ric Rumor has it that there are even people who don't have any religion at all. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:44:25 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? One source of information on how castaways survive in that part of the world could be taken from William Bligh's journal which he kept after the infamous mutiny on the Bounty. This gentleman, who was in my opinion unjustly maligned by Fletcher Christians brother and later the 1930's movie, effectively kept his crew alive for several months with very little. Admittedly he had some provisions from the Bounty, but they supplemented their food by things they found along the way including, a large bird and, if memory serves me correctly a turtle. They did have tools though, including a cutlass. *************************************************************************** From Ric Probably our best model for how Europeans marooned on Niku react to the environment is in the excellent record of the Norwich City survivors. They weren't there long enough to get really desperate but even so, the place sure shook them up. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:44:18 EST From: Ric Subject: New document up There's new document up on the TIGHAR website that I think you'll find interesting. http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Harvey_Letter/Harvey1.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:53:09 EST From: Denise Subject: Ye Darke and Tragical Historie of Turtle Butchery! Tom King says: "I've never tried to butcher a turtle, and now that you mention it don't have much idea how I'd go about it." I have butchered a turtle and all I can say is DON'T DO IT! DON'T EVER DO IT!I killed one once simply because it swam in front of me while I was diving with a loaded speargun, completely forgetting that turtles mate for life, and without noticing that this particular turtle was swimming as one of a pair. It was a beautiful hit, from underneath, straight into the breastplate. I felt so proud until the second turtle swam into view and circled me desperately. The horror, the horror! I immediately pulled the spear out ... but ... And it gets worse: The Remaining One chased our boat back to shore, and then swam around and around us as we unloaded The Dead One from our dinghy. And then it lurked around the wharf for several weeks, getting progressively weaker until it eventually died. It was horrible, horrible, horrible and the feelings of guilt were almost unbearable. As for hacking up The Dead One, however, well, we did it with a knife through the breastplate. That was also yucky because the flesh continued to pulse for ages (the guilt, the guilt!) even after we'd diced it into little pieces and put it into a pressure cooker in a lolo (coconut milk with a touch of chili). When cooked the flesh was green and it oozed a rather unsavoury-looking green slimy oil. And I'm convinced it continued to pulse and twitch even on the plate - although that could just have been my conscience. Mmmm, yes, well ... recalling this entire episode, it is hardly surprising that the castaway site only shows the remains of one turtle. You'd have to be a completely soul-less bastard to go for a second one! LTM (who strongly believed "you kill it; you eat it!") Denise ************************************************************************** From Ric In 1989 our dive team, with Fijian accomplices, caught a turtle. The butchering process was dutifully videotaped by the dive team leader. I watched it once. Never again. The animal was literally butchered alive - laid on its back and the bottom shell cut away and lifted off exposing the insides. etc. etc. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:55:32 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Bauareke Passage Ric said: "It would probably make more sense to you if you saw the video." Hey, hey, hey! I know a pitchman when I hear one. :-) I'll try to send the money off this week. (Is this the tape of you doing a voice-over of "High Flight" or singing the U. S. Air Force anthem?) LTM, who is easily inspired Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Oh, you want THAT one. It's a lot more expensive. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:57:17 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: No feathers? The discussion on the bird bones left me to wondering why there are no feathers also at the site. If I remember my high school biology correctly, aren't feathers, hair, (finger/toe) nails made of the same basic material? I've seen lots of long-dead animals in the woods and there were often tuffs of hairs or feathers around the site. Similarly with humans -- many of those mummies from ancient Egypt still have hair and finger nails. My point is hair, nails, feathers are very slow to decompose. If I found bird bones I would not be a bit surprised to also find feathers -- but we don't. Just curious. LTM, who's adores feather boas Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric According to one account (Herb Moffit) there were feathers present at the site in 1944. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:59:24 EST From: Gary Fajack Subject: Off Topic - High and Mighty I remember a number of people expressing interest in the video High and the Mighty. I was able to find the video at the following website: http://members.tripod.com/classic-movies/ This is not a studio release of the video. The company copies the movies from various sources and sells only the "video tape and recording service" not the movie. The quality of the movie was good, but not first rate. I also picked up the old classic "Hell Divers"($12). The quality of this film was good, better than High and the Mighty ($15). Gary Fajack ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:19:33 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Earhart search map I was interested to see the search map on E-bay. Is this map already in the public domain? I was also interested to note that it seems to include a (search?) area between the equator and 2S and from 176W - 178W approx. The Lambrecht map does not cover this area. Can you shed any light on this? I was also interested to note that it appears to show a distance from Gardner to the equator, although not for any other island. Was the significance of 281 perhaps appreciated even then? Regards Angus ************************************************************************* From Ric I don't know if it's in the public domain but the area you mention was coverd by Itasca just before she headed for the Gilberts. The noted distance between the equator and Gardner is interesting. There is no mention in the literature of a possible connection with the "281" message. I wonder if the distance noted is merely the point farthest south that the Colorado reached. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:31:15 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: News from Ludolph Ric said, > On early sextants the drum was made of ivory and on > post-war sextants they are plastic. What they were made of in the early > 20th century is not known. Do we consider the pensacola sextant "an early sextant" or will it give an indication of what the drum was made in the early 20th century as it is dated 1919 (from memory)? ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't see anything on the Pensacola Ludolph that looks at all like our knob. We'll have to wait and see what the photos that the company is sending show. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:36:19 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: News from Ludolph Since the records were destroyed in the war, how did they know what number to re-commence production at? Or did that old wizened craftsman Willy Baumwolle remember that the last one he made fifteen years before was 3561? I doubt Willy's memory was that good. Perhaps he just guessed as he knew they were well into the 3000 series. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric The company says, "We obviously have no idea why this number was chosen but we assume 3562 was arrived at from another record book which no longer exists." 1952 was forty years ago and they're just now getting around to trying to reconstruct the company's history. It's certainly possible - even likely - that more records were around then than are available now. They're still going through old boxes. More records could still turn up. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:38:04 EST From: Carol Linn Dow Subject: Re: News from Ludolph I don't know if I'm reading your Email correctly. How can Ludolph stay in business producing such a small number of sextants? They must have been producing something else besides sextants unless it was a "garage" or a basement hobby shop operation (which it could have been). Jahol? Carol Dow *************************************************************************** From Ric Ludolph made, and makes, a wide range of precision instruments. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:38:50 EST From: Alexander Subject: Re: News from Ludolph This is interesting stuff... I too am waiting for a reply from the company who made their parachutes and expect to hear from the spokeswoman in a week or two as she is on vacation (ENG: HOLIDAY !) at the moment. I also hope to have good news... Maybe 2002 is the year RIC ! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:40:57 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: food preparation Dave Bush said: "In AE's "era" there weren't nearly as many butcher shops as today, and many people, even living in small to midsize towns." I would have to disagree with that statement. I was raised in a small town in Iowa in the 50s and 60s and my father was a butcher. Butcher shops were quite common and numerous because the "city" folk had no other way to get meat; zoning and health regulations (and common sense) prevented most people from raising livestock within the city limits. Also, the bigger the city the more butcher shops there were. In fact when my parents later moved to Minneapolis in 1962 my dad was a "circuit butcher," traveling from shop to shop -- not super markets, but butcher shops -- to meet peak demands. He always worked at least 40 hours a week. Granted most of the farm folk did slaughter their own livestock; but if you lived in town you always used the local butcher shop. And as for removing bird feathers, here's how dad did it one Thanksgiving eve in our basement. He suspended the bird up-side-down by its legs from an overhead rafter for about 10 minutes, long enough to let most of the blood flow to the head, neck, and upper torso. Then he put a bucket under the bird's head. (Now it gets ugly -- you may not want to continue reading!) He grabbed the turkey by the head, forced open its mouth and quickly forced a slender knife blade through the top of its mouth into the brain, causing a massive hemorrhage. He held the head over the bucket and let it bird bleed itself out in about five minutes. With the bird still hanging up he stripped off the feathers from the butt and working toward the head. Surprisingly the feathers came out rather easily and there were only a few pinfeathers left to burn off. Once the feathers were off he did the other normal stuff -- decapitation, gutting etc. It was quite education, really. LTM, who eats only white meat Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:42:39 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Turtle cooking For Th' Wombat With the greatest of respect for your sensitivity toward protected species, even when in extremis, your of course hypothetical but carefully thought through scenario is very interesting, because if done on the beach (best place to do it, one would think, with a large turtle), one would wind up after feasting with the leg and head and neck bones, of no particular use, and the carapace, perhaps with a few pieces of stove-in tummy plate -- potentially useful as a water catcher, and light enough to be hauled back to camp. And those are precisely the bones we have at the Seven Site. But what about the JOKE? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:12:38 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... > Of course the issue is still in doubt, but the scales came down on the side of > white norse female. You don't seem to be able to accept any piece of > information as useful unless it is smoking gun conclusive. Was that "Norse" or "Nordic" ? Isn't there a difference? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Norse. My understanding is that the FORDISC program compares measurements to databases of known bones from a wide selection of populations. Of course, it is dependent upon the databases available and it doesn't have databases for every region around the world because you have to have access to a whole bunch of good skeletons from a particular region whose ethnicity, gender and age are known. That's pretty hard to come by. My recollection is that there are good data from a collection in Sweden (I think) which is the basis for the "Norse" category. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:14:53 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Turtle cooking For Th' Wombat Re. how many turtles -- the thing is, we don't really know how many fire-n'-bones features there are along the whole ridge. We were clearing a path between the "Seven" and the tank, to open up enough area to drag stuff out to the former as we cleared around the latter, when we came upon the first of the features. We subsequently found a total of five, scattered along about 30 meters of the ridge-crest and slope. There could be -- probably are -- more. We're particularly ignorant of how far they extend to the southeast -- i.e., we haven't a clue. So, it may be that one or more of the features we found is the one Gallagher saw; that may be reasonably likely, since ours are on a direct line between the (we think) Gallagher-related tank and the beach. If so, then we're probably (see below) talking one turtle, probably observed by both Gallagher and ourselves. But Gallagher could have been 20 meters southeast of us, looking at a whole different feature with a whole different turtle. At this point we can't be sure. The turtle bones we have are all from the carapace and tummy; many more of the former than of the latter. They're all very porous, so they don't preserve evidence of butchery marks; we really can't tell how the critter was opened. As for not seeing the shells, it may be meaningful that the shells are due south of the turtle bones (which were all distributed around two of our five fire features). If Gallagher came to "our" turtle site from the beach, across the Seven, he would have been entirely north of the clams. He says in his wireless message that he and his colleagues did a thorough search of the area, but we don't know how thorough it was or how big the area was. His major clearing, as presumably represented in the 1941 airphoto, almost certainly occurred after he was directed to make a REALLY thorough search. The only documentation we have of his findings during this search is the letter that accompanied the bones, sextant box, etc., which doesn't say anything about clams but also doesn't say anything about the corks on chains, the man's shoe, or two human bones more than he'd reported previously. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:18:40 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing Clams For Th' Wombat Re: kinds of shells. No oysters, but just to clarify, there are: Two deposits of Tridacna sp., probably T. Squamosa, each made up of 15-20 individuals. and One deposit of small bivalves, almost certainly Anadara sp., at least a hundred or so individuals in a quite dense pack mixed with charcoal. and lying between the northernmost "clambush" and the southernmost fire feature with turtle bones. ************************************************************************** From Ric I wonder what the small shells being mixed with charcoal tells us about the way they were probably eaten. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:20:08 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ludicrous Clams Well, let me occupy the (high?) middle ground between Ric and Chris and say that the gap in our knowledge of what happened at the Seven Site in the late '40s and '50s CAN fairly be described as "huge," and I wish I could think of more that we could feasibly (that is, within current nonexistent budget) do to fill it, but doing so is not a simple matter of activating contacts in England and the Solomons. I know one, count'em one person who does research in the Solomons (luckily she's also a shellfish expert; we hope to get together this week for a pleasant lunch with a bunch of dirty molluscs), but thus far she's had no bright ideas about how to get together with the folks in Nikumaroro Village. Kenton and Van are exploring possibilities for contacting them, and their relatives elsewhere. As for Hanslope, there might be something there, but we can't just ask somebody on-site to go poke around; I think we'd really need to have somebody invest the same kind of time that Ric and Kenton did last time around. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:20:49 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: quicksand Re: Guano does not dissolve steel. It just smells like it could. But I wonder what it would do to aluminum. Not that it much matters; I don't think anybody's going to go looking in the McKean "lagoon." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:23:17 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: New document up I'm not trying to be argumentative but after reading the Catalina pilots letter about the really bad weather, wouldn't it make sense for AE to land in the lagoon which would be partially sheltered from the wind and surf rather than a landing on the reef? Just curious. LTM (who still realizes I'm a newbie) *************************************************************************** From Ric The bad weather encountered by the PBY was many hundreds of miles and on the other side of the equator from Niku. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:27:53 EST From: Gail Subject: Slightly off topic- Tonight, I have to be Amelia Eahart for 2 hours After over 2 months of research , I have finally reached presentation day. This is a part of a project called " Images of Greatness" , we had to choose a person and eventually be the person for a couple hours. I probably should add that I'm in the eighth grade. The night has 3 different parts. First , everyone recites a poem that they wrote of that is a first person view of their accomplishments. Then there's a press confrence where various audience members get to ask questions. I assigned one of my friends the job of asking " What happened to you anyway?" That way I'll feel more comfortable answering the question. After that , everyone goes to their displays and answer questions and greet people. Well wish me luck. bye, -Gail *************************************************************************** From Ric Good Luck Gail! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:29:29 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Autopsies/Forensics Chris kennedy asked: <> It is not correct for me. I worked with Mayan skeletal remains as an undergraduate anthropology student, and was required by state law to attend 6 autopsies in order to get my MD degree. There is a "paleopathology" professional group, which includes many anthropologists and a few MD pathologists. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:31:16 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Salting the Birds, etc. I was quite certain that putting salt on the birds tail to catch it was an old story but don't recall ever having hear it outside my own family. It would be interesting to know when and where it started. All of my ancestrail lines came to the U.S. prior to the American Revolution so if it is European it probably dates back into the 1600s or earlier. I recall, at age five, going outside with a salt shaker to try and catch birds. I never caught any but perhaps that was the start of an interest in both birds and flying. When I was a lot younger (teen years)I did a lot of bird watching, especially looking for red-headed, double breasted, bed threshers. Salt didn't work on them either. As a teenager I spent a lot of time in the woods and have stalked and caught wild grouse in the Pacific Northwest forests. I cooked them without any tools other then a knife roasting them over a very low fire. (We have some fairly dumb grouse in the Pacific Northwest and a season for hunting them). Depending on your state of hunger you would eat a bird raw but I suspect with ample birds and fish being available our Gardner surviver would opt to cook a bird, especially one that dines mainly on fish. Except for the need for fresh water and avoiding infections the key to survival on Gardner would probably be common sense, good judgement and controling one's emotions. The last one, controling ones emotions, would be the most difficult had you watch your partner die and determined that no one was looking for you any longer. It had to be a tough way to die and I hope TIGHAR can bring this part of the Amelia Earhart story to the public assuming we can show that is what happened. She deserves to have that part of her story told and the story, at long last, closed. Dick Pingrey 908C, in Selah, WA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:33:36 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: News from Ludolph I looked at the Luden website. Those are CNC (computerized numerically controlled) machines. In the old days everything was done by hand (very slow) and not as accurate. However, the Germans could make parts no one could equal in WW II and part of the reason was their accuracy in machining. They were the world's best. For instance the ME-109 had a fuel injection engine the British were hard pressed to match in the early part of the war. The early Spitfires had carburetor engines which put them at a distinct disadvantage in certain sudden or violent manuvers....the engine would stall. The British were forever engaged in playing catch-up (including superchargers), but the Spitfire with it's elliptical shaped wing could out turn a 109 hands down....no contest. The Spitfire was easier to handle (I never flew one) but the magazine articles described it as being slightly faster than the 109 and easier to land (about the same as a V-tail Bonanza) with good control at low speeds. When the Focke-Wulf came in it was another race with the Spitfire until the P-51s arrived.... then it was all overweigh. Nothing could match the P-51. One of the things that worked in WW II was they took huge "bomber" engines and put them in fighter planes. The result was astounding (Focke Wulf)....and the Corsair, for another one, with its gull wing. You talk about an airplane that made "noise" ...that Corsair....ye gads how those guys didn't go stone deaf is beyond me. Well, airplanes, Luden was evidently an old time machine shop which means they made a little of this and a little of that. That would be my guess. When I lived in Dallas, I sold three machine shops (Business Broker) so as soon as I saw the pictures on the website of Luden, right away the bells started ringing. Carol #2524 *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. I always thought they only made cough drops. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:36:09 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: FORDISC Assumptions Ric wrote in response to David K.: >I trust that we're not going to have go through this "but Burns and Jantz >said..." thing again. Yes, like the good scientists that they are they >qualified their statements with many cautions but at the end of the day, >based upon the information available, the scales tipped in favor of a white >Norse female. We accept that for what it is. An indication. Another >itty-bitty clue that we may be on the right track. Well put. It indeed is an itty-bitty clue....or an indication if you will and an interesting clue to be sure. Some other information, however, is needed if one really wanted to know just how itty-bitty (or large) the clue is. Given that TIGHAR's are prone to applying careful science to their analyses, I would like to discuss an issue that may not be clear to all Forumites. When considering the output from a computer software program (like FORDISC), the user as well as the consumer, has to have a clear understanding of the underlying assumptions that the software is making. In the case of a statiscally-based program like FORDISC, that involves (among other things) grasping the intimate details of the database that the programer has put into the software. For example, the FORDISC 2.0 database has approximately 1,400 skull measurements at its disposal for use in its analyses. In other words, the statistical population from which the computer program bases its analysis contains 1,400 samples (i.e. 1,400 dead people). I suspect that the Georgia creamatory scandal may provide a bunch more samples that can be input...but I digress. Specifically, FORDISC 2.0 uses the Forensic Anthropology Data Bank (which houses the specs on the 1,400 skulls) which was developed by Dr. Jantz at the Univ. of Tennessee at Knoxville. Dr. Jantz developed the database/data bank to provide an altenative to the demographic and biological statistical biases that are contained in the long-standing Terry and Hamman-Todd skeletal collection which consists largely of elderly individuals born during the mid to late 19th century. In any case...cutting to the chase....it would be interesting, and indeed enlightening, to know the statisical makeup of the 1,400 skulls in FORDISC. How many are Europeans? How many are Africans? How many are Arabs, etc.? If, for example, the data bank contains 800 Europeans and only 100 Africans what does that say about the ability of the program to make suggestions related to Africans? This is only an example. For all I know, FORDISC has a very nice distribution of skulls from people of all backgrounds, ethnic groups etc and that 1,400 is enough samples for bones people to draw conclusions regarding skeletons found on Pacific islands. I am not a bones expert so I cannot pretend to know that and Jantz et. al. are certainly careful in their report to not overstate the results given the programs limitations (which all programs/tools have). I am simply pointing out some of the considerations a scholar (e.g. TIGHARs) needs to consider when analyzing the output from computer programs, or for that matter any determination made from a set of data. That includes the Pearson formula for stature that Hoodless used. What statisical population is that formuala based on? Does the Pearson formuala work well for all the earth's ethnic groups? What biases are contained in the Pearson Formula? I am suggesting that we need to investigate all of this. However, it is wise to pay attention to, and carefully consider, these types of database details. LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul, MN ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:37:58 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Ludicrous Clams >Yes, we'll do more clearing at the Seven Site and I'm open to suggestions >about methodologies that are more efficient and archaeologically sound. Clone Jim Morrissey. ************************************************************************* From Ric Excellent suggestion. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:41:39 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Autopsies/Forensics Chris, I hope you're not referring to the post I made about having had experience with both - I'm not a doctor, I'm a cop. Had plenty of dead bodies over the last 25 years, and more autopsies than I can remember. One pile of bones. Pathologists always did the autopsies - the bones were identified by our (then) coroner, who was a forensic odentologist. We suspected we knew who the victim was, and we had recovered the lower jaw, which was compared with dental records we obtained from welfare, resulting in positive ID. Nowhere near enough left to ascertain a cause of death, except that we knew the poor guy was a hopeless alcoholic, and he was found in a culvert that ran from a drainage canal. We surmise that he fell in and drowned. ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:42:37 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Earhart House Herman's post about Hollywood sparked something that I read not too long ago, and intended to pass along at the time, but forgot, or got side tracked, or something. Anyway, what I read (and I can't remember where it was, now), indicated that Fred Noonan and Eugene Pallett became acquainted because both were in residence at the Roosevelt Hotel during the same time frame, prior to one or both of the RTW flights. I don't know how much, if any truth there is to this, but it was interesting, and might well account for their being acquainted. It might even be possible to confirm, if the records are still around. ltm, jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:43:39 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: quicksand I don't know if it relates to this or not, but when we raise obliterated serial numbers from guns (or other articles) made of aluminum (ie, lightweight "alloy" framed weapons) we use nitric acid. When we do the same for steel framed weapons, we use hydrochloric acid. Now, I'm not a chemist, but if I recall correctly, guano (bat guano, that is) was harvested from Mamoth Cave and used in the manufacture of gunpowder during the civil war, as a source of nitrate. If that's the case, it seems reasonable to me that the guano in the lagoon (presuming that birds and bats are sufficiently similar) could have an adverse effect on aluminum, but might have minimal effect on steel. ltm, jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:45:27 EST From: Shirley Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? I have been following the "saga" of bird preparation and eating and have to say this: Having worked with many types of seabirds as wildlife rehabilitator, I can assure you there isn't much meat on any of them, no matter their size and what there is is very dark, for the most part, and I doubt would be "tasty". There is also very little fat under the skin or anywhere else for that matter. I realize that a person in desperation, would eat what they could, but it would take a considerable amount of work to get a meal from from a seabird. Shirley 2299 ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks. I wasn't looking forward to that experiment. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:49:34 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Autopsies/Forensics Chris K wrote: >I believe there were some doctors on the Forum who said earlier that >they had performed both autopsies on "fleshed" remains and also >forensics work on "unfleshed" bones. In other words, notwithstanding >different techniques employed, they (one doctor) had performed both. Is >this correct? This thread started following a post I made in which I simply tried to provide some historical information about the venerable Dr. Isaac in regards to his work in Forensic autopsies. In that post I quoted material from the 1939 WPHC Annual Medical and Health Report. That same report states: "The Pathologist [Dr. Isaac] gave a course of lectures in Forensic Medicine, and Mr. Pery-Johnston lectured in Bacteriology." Other reports, of course, state that Dr. MacPherson also lectured in Forensics. Both Isaac and MacPherson, as well as Hoodless, were players in the Gallagher bones story. LTM Kenton Spading, St. Paul, MN ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:04:10 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: food preparation Dennis: I don't mean to nitpick here, but AE was raised in the 1920's, not the 1950's. There is a BIG difference in what was done in the 20's vs the 50's. But even right now, here in the heart of metropolitan Houston, I can show you people who still raise chickens in their backyard for the eggs and meat. LTM, ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:05:16 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Slightly off topic- Tonight, have to be Amelia Eahart for 2 hours > From Gail > ... Well wish me luck. You bet. Break a leg. And let us know how things went. :o) Love to Mother. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:51:18 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: New document up/Purpose? Was the purpose of this curious posting ("which provides new information about the orders under which the flight was operating") to somehow bolster TIGHAR's overall contention that the U.S. Navy didn't really do much of a search because those orders were to "not to hesitiate to return if any adverse conditions were encountered..."? If that's the case, I think it back-fired. From the letter it seems that, notwithstanding the interpretation one chooses to put on the orders, the flight in fact went far beyond the call of duty to try and get through under appalling conditions to the search area. This issue of the thoroughness of the Navy's search, or lack thereof, reminds me that TIGHAR has also often claimed that the lack of the finding of floating wreckage or an oil slick is good evidence against crashed and sank---of course, the flipside is that if TIGHAR is right that the Navy did a deficient search and was looking in the wrong area, maybe they missed any floating wreckage/slick. Sort of like Gallagher missed the clams and oysters. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric When a new primary source of information comes to light we try to make it publicly available in unedited form. If you find this letter's inclusion "curious" I can only assume that you are not aware that no official report by Sid Harvey or anyone else aboard the aborted PBY flight has ever come to light. Until this letter we did not know any more than is contained in the messages sent to the Itasca and the reports written by Harvey's superiors. Letters like this often provide valuable insight into the attitudes and opinions that never make into the official record. They make the people human. As you point out, this letter makes it clear that the Navy was really not interested in losing one of its newest and most expensive flying boats, not to mention its crew, in searching for Amelia Earhart. It's equally clear, as you also point out, that the aircraft commander went beyond his instructions and took considerable risks to try to get through, even though - as he says himself - it is highly unlikely that anything would have been accomplished except the loss of yet another airplane. The letter also fails to support the anecdotal contention of Page Smith who was, at the time, a young Naval Aviation ensign who did much of the flying on that trip. Page, now in his 80s, tells of how the radio operator aboard the PBY heard "dashes" that were thought to be from the lost Electra. If it really happened it seems odd that Harvey didn't mention it. The story of the Navy's search for Earhart is both complex and fascinating and can not be generalized as either heroic or deficient. The one generalization that can be made is that it failed. By the way, there were no oysters at the Seven Site. (You were THERE, for crying out loud.) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:53:03 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Autopsies/Forensics For Dan Postellon: Thanks, I appreciate the reply and further explanation. For Jon Watson: Thanks. I did not know you were a policeman. In regard to Kenton Spading's new information on Isaac, what I was trying to determine was whether there was some sort of institutional "Chinese Wall", so-to-speak, precluding persons skilled in autopsy from also doing forensics-style analysis. I suppose the ultimate answer is that it depends upon the situation and competency of the person involved. Again, I appreciate everyone's time in helping me on this. --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:54:09 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: News From Ludolph The firm of Cassens & Plath of Germany is still very much in the business of manufacturing sextants (marine only). They make some instruments that carry a guaranteed accuracy of better than 9 seconds of arc-less than a mile! Darn right they make some fine precision products and still do--Jawohl! Not cheap though. They start at about $1500 and go up to around $4000. Der quality do not come cheap, Ja? Doug Brutlag #2335 (whose kraut roots come through at mention of der vaterland) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:04:17 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Since we are all "bringing out our dead" on FORDISC, in addition to Kenton's excellent observations about FORDISC, generally, and issues concerning its constituent population data base, something else Forumites will want to know are the practical implications of the fact that it uses cranial measurements to determine both ancestry and sex. Cranial measurements are not of equal reliability for these two determinations---simply put they are best used to determine ancestry, not sex (pelvic bones are best). The TIGHAR report does not discuss this, yet mentions that a slight measurement error would change the already "very low" certainty that these bones are of a female to those of a male. What's curious about this statement is why the need to discuss measurement variations which change the result when Hoodless' measurements don't also include variations? One can picture someone saying something like "the measurements are what they are---why mention hypothetical variations at all, as all you will do is make the Kennedy's of the world ask questions". Well, yes, and I have two questions: First, why did the authors of the report feel the need to include this seemingly unnecessary qualifier; and second: Since the same sets of measurements are used to determine ancestry and sex, if a small difference in measurement changes the sex determination from female to male, what if anything does it to to the determination that the skull is "Norse"?. Finally, let me add that the standard TIGHAR throw-down response to all these questions has been "Duh, Chris, that's why we need to see the bones--to be sure." That would be an acceptable reply assuming that the FORDISC system were fully explained, it's strength and limitations disclosed, and the qualifiers noted by the authors on the sex determination were also run and disclosed with respect to the ancestry determination. Then, you would have had a complete analysis lacking only physical observation of the bones. That is not the case, here. These questions have nothing to do with physical observation of the bones but with the application of FORDISC, and that is why the questions persist. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Enough! Out with it Kennedy. If you're charging that Kar Burns and Dick Jantz purposely tried to mislead people by withholding information - say so in plain English and I'll give you choice of weapons at dawn. Otherwise, shut up! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:45:41 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: quicksand Guano, I believe, consists mainly of Phosphates and nitogen in the form of ammonia. Ammonia will attack aluminium superficially but soon forms a barrier from the corrosion products which prevent further corrosion. Phosphates are actually used in automotive cooling systems to protect aluminium against corrosion. If the Electra landed or was washed in pieces into the lagoon, its probably still there, although none too sweet. This reminds me of something I read in the paper about a stolen porsche which was found in a pig-farmer's slurry lagoon when he emptied it. The police said that even after three days of washing it down with a fire hose, they couldn't get within 50 yards of it to try to check the Chassis number. You don't want to find it Tom. Believe me! Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:45:22 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Thank you, Ric. Having been the editor of the Burns et al piece, I'll cheerfully take the responsibility for all errors and omissions, and admit that, yup, the whole thing's a lie. You got us, Chris. FORDISC really said it was a chimpanzee. I'm sure that had Drs. Burns and Jantz wanted to provide an encylcopedic explanation of FORDISC, they could have done so. Somehow or other, that didn't seem necessary at the time. *************************************************************************** From Chris Kennedy Actually, I have been wondering the opposite and that Drs. Burns and Jantz were trying to tell us something. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric You don't know Dick Jantz but you've been on two expeditions to Nikumaroro with Kar Burns. How could you possibly think that she was secretly "trying to tell us something" in the report that she would not state plainly to all of us? Back in 1998, before she had ever been to Niku or become particulary engaged in the project, I first asked Kar if she would take a look at the Hoodless bone measurements that had just then come to light. She was very busy but she said, "Sure, sure. Send then down. I'll get to them when I can." By the time she actually got around to analyzing the measurements a couple of months later she had forgotten the story about where they came from. It was just something she had promised me that she would do. When she called me up she said (I'm paraphrasing), " I finally did those bone measurements you sent to me. Of course there are lots of caveats because the information isn't complete and we don't have the bones themselves, but based on what you sent me it looks like a white female of Northern European descent." She was very surprised at my enthusiastic reaction and said something like, "Why? What's the big deal?" When I told her (again) where the measurements had come from she said. "Oh my goodness. I see." It was then that I asked her where she would recommend that we go for a second opinion and she said that the best person would be the guy who developed the FORDISC program, Dr. Richard Jantz. Dick had never heard of TIGHAR and was not especially interested in Amelia Earhart, but he was fascinated by the problem and agreed to look at the measurements. His results agreed with Kar's and eventually we all decided that Tom King would act as lead writer and editor for a paper to be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the American Association of Anthropologists. It was too late to get the paper entered in the regular proceedings but the Association offered to host a press conference where the paper was presented and discussed before a panel of distinguished anthropologists. It was well received. I only go through this whole story to help explain my annoyance at your incessant amateur natterings and my decision to impose the dreaded Substantive Posting Rule upon your future submissions. LTM, Ric ************************************************************************** From David Katz I will assume that your comment to Chris Kennedy was made in jest (after all, dueling has been outlawed in this country for about two centuries). I do not believe that Mr. Kennedy is calling into question the motives or veracity of Drs. Burns and Jantz; my sense is that he is asking legitimate questions about the validity of the FORDISC methodology. This is wholly appropriate for any scientific inquiry such as TIGHAR's. When an individual or a methodology is held out to be expert, it is only reasonable to examine the qualifications of the expertise. In this case, Mr. Kennedy is questioning the FORDISC methodology. Aaron Burr (David Katz) P.S.: I remember reading once that when the late president of Yale, Kingman Brewster, was traveling in Germany in the 1930's, he was challenged to a duel by a Prussian nobleman for defending a Jewish man against the Prussian's insults. As the choice of weapons fell to Dr. Brewster, he chose cream pies at twenty paces. The Prussian nobleman (who wasn't very noble after all), didn't show up for the duel. *************************************************************************** From Ric And the same goes for you. Cream pies at 20 paces sounds about right. (Somehow you don't come across as a swords and pistols guy.) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:50:44 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions > From Ric > Enough ... Otherwise ... ! Before the thread gets buried in TIGHAR's Dead Horse Cemetary, I'd like to explain why I pay no attention to CK's anxieties about FORDISC. The issue is a red herring, perhaps even a whole school of red herrings. Scientific research is based on an indefinite number of assumptions. No one can do anything if they doubt everything all at once, because then they could never trust any of their observations or measurements, let alone the observations or measurements of other scientists. We have to begin by believing in the senses, in measurement (plus or minus a certain amount), and in the testimony of other observers. One person doubting everything--and trying to prove everything in rigid logic--would never make any new contributions to science. To make progress, one has to pick up where others have left off, and that means trusting their previous work until one has GOOD REASONS to doubt some PART of it. It is impossible to prove anything to anybody against their will. All they have to is to cast an assumption into question at each stage of the argument, and the argument can never end. All that can be done is at a certain point, sooner or later, to agree to disagree. For me, the FORDISC analysis is worthwhile to this extent: it does not suggest that the bones found with European shoes and paraphenalia were not European. My unprovable assumption is that with a database a thousand times larger and with measurements ten times more accurate, we will never get beyond that minimalistic conclusion (or its reverse, that to a certain degree of assurance, plus or minus some percent, the bones are probably not those of a European). To put it another way, no FORDISC analysis can ever prove or disprove that the bones are or are not those of AE or FN. Strange things happen. I have a sister with Down Syndrome. I bet that her bones would not look much like those of the rest of the family. Pictures of AE and FN make them look reasably European, but without having their skulls to play with for certain, we can't say how close they would fit the FORDISC stereotypes of European males and females. The FORDISC analysis, therefore, is not now and never can be the artifact that ought to persuade any reasonable person to cease to doubt the TIGHAR hypothesis. If the "any reasonable idiot artifact" (ARIA) is found, then the FORDISC results may help to determine which person died at the Seven site. In the absence of the ARIA, people are justified in taking or leaving the FORDISC results as they see fit. I don't think TIGHAR has done anybody any injustice by saying, "The best analysis we could find of the bone report suggests that the bones may have come from a Nordic female." Maybe they are Amelia's, maybe they're Fred's, maybe they're from some other poor soul who died alone under the Ren tree. It is not logically impossible that another person died on the island before or after AE and FN and quite apart from the NC sinking. If someone could find the bones, then, perhaps, some DNA analysis might identify them more conclusively. Even there, it is still a matter of plus or minus, degrees of probability and improbability, but it is far more persuasive evidence than the FORDISC approach. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:01:56 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: New document up/Purpose? > From Ric > When a new primary source of information comes to light we try to make it > publicly available in unedited form. Just out of curiosity: how did the information "come to light"? Who found it? Where has it been all these years? Not doubting the letter one bit, just interested in a fuller story. LTM. Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric Some months ago I got a phone call from Paula Headley who told me that she is the niece of then-Lieutenant Warren "Sid" Harvey who commanded the PBY that was sent to search for Amelia Earhart but was forced to turn back. She said that she had recently come into possession of old family photos and papers and she wondered if I was aware that her uncle had been involved in the Earhart search. I told her that I was indeed familiar with his role in the drama and I asked her to keep an eye out for any letters, documents, or photos she might come across related to that event. She called back late last week and said that she had found a letter, which she read to me over the phone. I asked her if we could have a copy that we could post on our website and she agreed. She also had some photos of old airplanes that she asked if I could identify. I said that I'd be happy to try. She subsequently sent scans of the letter and the photos. The airplanes were standard late-1920s Navy types which I was able to identify for her. Unfortunately there was no photo of PBY-1 6-P-3, the plane used in the abortive flight to Howland. Time and time again, we find that the publicity surrounding TIGHAR's investigation gives people who have information someplace to contact. Often the information is not particularly valuable ("My father used to say that when he was on Saipan during the war....") but every once in a while we strike paydirt. That is exactly how the Chater letter came to light. One of the things I love about this job is that every time the phone rings or the mail arrives or I open my email, it can be some new gem of information. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:21:30 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Null #3 Laura & Liz: But seriously... > You don't seem to be able to accept any piece of > information as useful unless it is smoking gun conclusive. Not so, Ric. I find it very useful. I just don't believe that it "tips the scales" as you suggest. David Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric My reference to "tipping the scales" does not refer to the reaching of a conclusive identification. Burns and Jantz were asked for their opinion. They looked at and "weighed" the available information and the scales tipped in such a way that they offered the opinion that they did. You are certainly free to say that, based upon your understanding of forensic osteology and the FORDISC program, you do not think that their opinion was warranted. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:25:49 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Noticing Clams Can we not make a good guess from the numbers of turtle, bird bones clams etc as to the likely duration that a castaway could have survived on this fare, bearing in mind he/she would have been eating less than optimum merely because of the difficulty in preparation and likely the unappetising nature of most of it? Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, if we were sure that we have all the meal remains at the site (which we almost certainly do not) and if we were sure which, if any, remains date from later activity at the site, and if we were sure whether or not there was a second castaway at the site for some period of time. That said, it will still be very interesting and informative to learn all we can about the faunal material that we do have. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:30:06 EST From: Denise Subject: Salty Bird Stories Herman De Wulf in Belgium (#2406) says: "So chances are the story was invented in Europe and came to the US with European settlers who continued to tell it to their children." I heard this story from my Australian mother (who had a father from England and a mother from Holland by way of several generations in South Africa.) but I have no idea where this story came from. I also remember seeing an advertisement for a brand of salt (maybe it was in an Australian magazine) that showed a child carrying a salt-shaker running after a bird obviously with the intention of sprinking salt on it's tail. I forget what the caption was, but it clearly indicated that this story was common knowledge. And look, about how hard it is to catch a bird? Everyone who's seen "The Gods Must Be Crazy: Part II" is well aware that the way to tell where you are in the Kalahari Desert is to try to frighten the animals. If they're willing to be frightened, you're in range of civilisation ... but if they show no fear of you - just stare at you like you're a totally demented animal they haven't seen before - then you're wwaaayyy out of range of a populated area. Obviously the level of bird-fearlessness obeys the same principles. LTM (whose Australian upbringing even taught her how to hypnotise birds) Denise *************************************************************************** From David Katz This scenario is also a staple of Warner Brothers cartoons from the '30s, '40's & '50's. Elmer Fudd as the hunter; Puddy Tat going after Tweety Bird, and, of course, Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. David Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric And so endeth this thread. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:33:29 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: butcher shops Dave Bush: said: "Dennis: I don't mean to nitpick here, but AE was raised in the 1920's, not the 1950's. There is a BIG difference in what was done in the 20's vs the50's." And my point is/was that since time immemorial small towns have had one or more butcher shops because the town folk didn't want/need to keep livestock in their homes. The major source of meat for townnies is/was the local butcher shops. Dave Bush also said: "But even right now, here in the heart of metropolitan Houston, I can show you people who still raise chickens in their backyard for the eggs and meat." And it also the headquarters for Enron, but I won't go there. :-) LTM, who prefers cooked meat, like Enron Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric In a desperate attempt to drag this thread back on topic, I think that is is reasonable to say that Amelia Earhart was probably somewhat familar with farm and "outdoor" life from her childhood and from "cowboy" vacations in the 1930s. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:54:32 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions > From Ric > > And the same goes for you. Cream pies at 20 paces sounds about right. > (Somehow you don't come across as a swords and pistols guy.) Shall we say Weehauken at dawn? I'm really not very adept with an epee (I didn't make the college fencing team, though I tried), but I'm a fair shot and, If I keep my glasses clean, twenty paces doesn't sound too far away. If you insist on the cream pies, however, that's fine with me; it's so much more civilized. Shall we name our seconds? David *************************************************************************** From Ric As the challengee, choice of weapons is yours. I'd name NRA Life Member Skeet Gifford as my second. In the interest of full disclosure, I fired "Expert" with the .45 at the Infantry School about thirty years ago but I've never owned a handgun. I do, however, keep my hand in with a pellet pistol. Three dozen TIGHAR expeditions over the past 17 years have given me considerable experience with edged weapons. If you wanted to go the full trial-by-combat route I can also arrange for horses, lances and axes. Cream pies, however, would probably avoid involvement with the court system. I have a hunch that this could be one heck of a fund-raiser. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:31:32 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: FORDISC, The Details >What biases are contained in the Pearson Formula [and other databases]? >I am suggesting that we need to investigate all of this. However, it >is wise to pay attention to, and carefully consider, these types of database >details. What I meant to say was: "I am NOT suggesting that we need to investigate all of this [i.e. databases]." I left out the word "not" in my original message. The bones report authors (Jantz etc.) clearly understand the underlying database and as such used that institutional knowledge in qualifying their results. I was only trying to point out to Forum members some of things the bones report authors considered, and things TIGHARs need to know about when analyzing the results of a computer progrma or forumala that uses or is derived from underlying data. You need to understand something about the data in order to draw conclusions from the output. I am afraid that my original message was not very clear. LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul, MN ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:38:43 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Every time the subject of the bones comes up again, I keep wondering about how they managed to stay out in the open for so long. The experiment on the last expedition with the leg of lamb (I think it was a leg of lamb: please correct me if I am wrong) keeps me wondering. That bone disappeared pretty quickly, courtesy of the crabs, apparently. Also, some of those who have been to Niku have commented that the crabs will have a go at you, even while you are still alive, if you sit or lie still for too long. So is there an explanation as to why the skeleton bones were not taken by the crabs, too? Does anyone know what the crabs actually do with the bones? Do they just remove the flesh and leave the bone, or do they destroy the bone too? It just seems curious that the skeletal remains could have survived out in the open for so long, all together in one place, before being discovered, when those crabs seem to like dragging bones off into the bush. **************************************************************************** From Ric There are 206 bones in an adult human skeleton. Gallagher found 13. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:40:14 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Marty Moleski's explanation is, indeed the most reasonable approach to the FORDISC analysis that I have thus far read on the forum. My sense is that Chris Kennedy's problem with the whole thing is that repeated discussions on the forum appear to give much more weight to FORDISC than what Marty says here; that is, people seem to conclude that the bones were in fact those of a European female of Norse descent, rather than they were POSSIBLY those of a European female of Norse descent. It is worthwhile to point out the difference so that followers of TIGHAR's research do not get the wrong idea. This is not nit-picking. It is merely an attempt to maintain the integrity of the research. Everything that TIGHAR has discovered leads to the reasonable possibility that Earhart may have been on Gardner, therefore that possibility cannot yet be dismissed. On the other hand, there are other possible explanations for the artifacts that also cannot yet be dismissed. David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:40:55 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Marty, DNA evidence would be out of sight. The only trouble is you would need a lock of hair or something that was AE to prove the other side of the evidence. Is there anything like that around? I don't "think" there is, is there? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:45:18 EST From: J Bassett Subject: Keep up the good work iam new at this ive been reading a lot of things in reference to AE and i love history and i do a lot of research about it and i like reading about what all you have found.i have saved some of the e-mail you have put out. i have more question than there is answers. and di have some ideas about this but i've kept them to my self becouse i didnt want to sound silly.and my spelling not the greast. i was born in the 40s. just want to thank you for all that your doing. keep up the good work. ************************************************************************** From Ric Don't be shy. You can't possibly sound as silly as the rest of us. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:47:06 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing Clams Re. duration of camping from quantity of food items -- As Ric says, we can't be sure because we know we don't have all the food debris, but what I am hoping we can do is come to some conclusions shortly about a couple of things: 1. Does each of the features we excavated look like a one-time event, or something used over a period of time? 2. About how much nutriment is represented by each of the features? If, say, it looks like each feature represents a single event, and each might provide about enough nourishment for one person for, say, two days, then the duration of occupation should be twice as many days as there are features. That's VERY crude, and we're not going to be sure of anything, but it could give us something to go on. But we won't really be able to address the duration of occupation question without looking at the whole complex of features, whose number and distribution we don't yet know. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:11:01 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions > In the interest of full disclosure, I fired "Expert" with the .45 at the > Infantry School about thirty years ago. Uh-oh. Say, Ric, those cream pies are sounding pretty good to me. Of course, the only serious risk would be an elevated cholesterol count. David ************************************************************************ From Ric Good point. At our age you can't be too careful. ************************************************************************** From Dennis McGee Ric said: As the challengee, choice of weapons is yours. . . . If you wanted to go the full trial-by-combat route I can also arrange for horses, lances and axes. . . . I have a hunch that this could be one heck of a fund-raiser." Make it a joust and hold it here in Maryland instead of where ever-the-hell Weehauken is (New Jersey?) and let's call in Don King to do the promotion. The state sport of Maryland is jousting -- seriously, look it up -- so everything would be legal. We hold jousting tournaments here a couple of times a year and we could slip the Gillespie-Katz match onto one of the lesser cards. Bring your own horses, lances, armor, shields, and page boys. Wenches are optional. We could have a good old-fashioned joust with royalty (our Lieutenant Governor is from the Kennedy Clan of Massachusetts) with David Duke, Allan King, Rue Paul (the Queen) and The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (Ken Spading, can you pass along the invitation, I think the guy is from Minnesota.) Go with it guys; this is good stuff! LTM, who avoids edged weapons, except for an occasional sharp tongue Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric Dennis, Dennis, have you ever SEEN what Maryland calls "jousting"? No armor, no lances, no shields, no blood - just a bunch of guys with spears trying to hit little hanging rings. (see http://www.geocities.com/marylandjousting/) Back in the 13th century we called this "riding at the ring". Good practice but not "jousting". There are some medeival-style jousting shows associated with various Renaissance Fairs and theme parks, but it's all choreographed entertainment. There is a movement to revive competitive jousting as an "extreme sport" but it tends to get a bit - well - extreme. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:27:29 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Noticing Clams I think it may also be possible to put some more definite bounds on the duration (always admitting the necessary assumptions). For instance it should be possible to say something such as; "Assuming we have discovered most of the food associated remains at this site, and that little was found and consumed elsewhere, and that there was only one castaway, that he/she would certainly have survived on this amount for weeks, but not for over a year" An analysis producing a result of this sort would at least rule out (always assuming that the castaway was AE/FN) that they were both already dead when the air search reached Gardner or make much less likely that, for instance, AE could have survived into a new incarnation as Nei Manganibuka. Of course there are certain sources of food (such as coconuts) which may have left no residues, which may make any meaningful analysis on this basis impossible. Are fallen coconuts fit for eating readily come by on Gardner? How likely is it that a very hungry european could climb a coconut tree regularly and successfully? Would fluid loss associated with eating green coconuts likely lead to dehydration and death where water was a scarce commodity? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:09:47 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Fundraising opportunities > Cream pies, however, would probably avoid involvement with the court > system. > > I have a hunch that this could be one heck of a fund-raiser. I concur. I would cheerfully contribute $500 for a shot at the Head TIGHAR with a cream pie. I would make an additional contribution if I would be allowed to determine the throwing distance. Perhaps this could be the training exercise on the next C/E.......(i.e. what makes this unique, is it a reconstruction...) LTM, (who knows a golden opportunity) MStill #2332 Cleveland, TN *************************************************************************** From Ric Not exactly what I had in mind. The amount of the contribution would have to be inversely proportional to the throwing distnace. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:20:26 EST From: Tom King Subject: Coconuts Angus Those are certainly the kinds of assumptions and possibilities we can kick around as we get more of the data from the Seven Site analyzied. Of course, the more the assumptions, the wider the range of possibilities. As for coconuts, there weren't a whole lot on the island prior to the PISS colonization -- only those remaining from the Arundel plantings in the 1890s, and none of these were near the Seven Site. Seems unlikely that coconuts were a very substantial source of food or fluid, especially for people who weren't real experienced coco tree climbers. **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the Coconut Cwestion is an interesting one. Gallagher writes in his note to the file of July 3, 1941 that: "There was no evidence of any attempt to dig a well and the wretched man presumably died of thirst. Less than two miles away there is a small grove of coconut trees which would have been sufficient to keep him alive if he had only found it. He was separated from those trees, however, by an inpenetrable [sic] belt of bush." In October 1937 Maude and Bevington found 111 coconut trees "in bearing" in five seperate groves, all at the west end of the island. However, between their visit and Gallagher's discovery of the bones at the Seven Site there was the great drought of 1938 during which all of the vegetation on the island withered and nearly died. Whoever the castaway was, he/she/they did not end up on the part of the island where there were coconut trees. Gallagher's "impenetrable belt of bush" is easily avoided by simply walking along the shore. It seems most likely that the castaway(s) did not locate near the coconut trees because the trees were of no use - and that suggests that the establishment of the Seven Site occurred during the drought, i.e. 1938. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:29:05 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Stuart -- We did two basic lamb experiments -- one highly controlled by Kar Burns using a leg of lamb, one less formal by me using lamb chop dinner leavings. With the leg, the large bones were still in place (though stripped of meat) when we left, but the smaller ones had disappeared. In the dinner-leavings experiment everything vanished. We were never able to track down just where all the dinner bones went, but they moved pretty fast (several meters per hour) and were very rapidly reduced in size by chewing on the margins. Almost all the 13 bones reported by Gallagher were large ones. I think it's likely that the smaller ones (ribs, sternum, etc.) and the larger ones that were relatively thin and porous (inominate) got consumed completely, while others may have just been dragged away, but dragged away considerable distances. This raises the question of why the fish, bird, and turtle bones didn't disappear. I did another experiment in which I buried lamb bones in a very crabby area -- one under about half an inch of sand, another an inch down, another two inches. None of them were disturbed at all. I think that if I were a castaway and didn't want my campsite overrun by crabs, I'd make it a point to bury my dinner wastes, but not necessarily very deep. Over time, they'd probably be exposed for questing TIGHARs to find. However, we also have documentation of a fish left on the ground in 99 whose bones were still there to be observed, fully articulated, several months later. There are things about the dietary habits of Birgus latro that we don't begin to understand. ************************************************************************** From Ric From Kar's field notes for Sept. 10, 2001: "decomp. exp. : The lamb bones are all gone. Not a trace is left on site." The experiment was put in place on Aug. 29. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:44:08 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Telegram Typos and Implications A few weeks ago, I mentioned what seemed to be a typographical error in the first of Kelly Johnson's March 11, 1937 telegrams to AE. Further study of the telegram indicates that there are probably two additional typos. The typos occur in KJ's account of the results of a fuel consumption test run at 5000 feet. Results are given for five power settings, and can be summarized as follows (RPM/MP/Cambridge setting): A-1900/29/0.71=51.5 gph B-1800/28/0.71=52.4 gph C-1550/24/0.70=38.6 gph D-1800/26/0.71=43 gph E-1700/22/0.70=36 gph Setting "A" contains the typo I pointed out last month. According to the P&W power control chart (reproduced as page 11 of Lockheed Report 465), 1900 rpm with 29 inches MP gives about 400 hp per engine. Fuel consumption at an sfc of 0.45 lbs/hr would be 60 gph; at an sfc of 0.48 lbs/hr it would be 64 gph. We may therefore safely assume that "51.5" should read "61.5 gph" (an sfc of 0.46+). Settings "B" and "D" seem to be OK. The 52.4 gph consumption given for setting "B" is consistent with the 360 hp per engine produced by such a setting, and the 43 gph figure for "D" closely matches the 300 hp that setting should give, though both are slightly below an sfc of 0.45. Setting C is a bit of a puzzle. It's pretty clear that there is a typo - the question is where? The telegram calls for an RPM of 1550. The P&W chart for the engine does not contain power curves below 1600 RPM, but one can estimate from the chart that this setting would produce about 210 hp per engine, which would give a fuel consumption of 31.5 gph at an sfc of 0.45 lb/hr. Perhaps this means the telegram should read "31.6 gph" rather than "38.6 gph". It is also possible (though, I believe, quite unlikely) that the telegram is accurate, and that operation at 1550 (below the normal operating range of the engines as given by P&W) was inefficient, and resulted in unusually high fuel consumption at this setting (sfc of 0.55+ ). But there is a third possibility (which I think is most probably correct). Suppose the "1550 RPM" to be a typo for "1750 RPM" - at 1750 RPM and 24 inches, the engines should produce a bit over 250 hp each at 5000 feet, according to the P&W chart. At an sfc of 0.45 a 250 hp setting (500 total hp) would consume 37.5 gph. A fuel consumption of "38.6 gph" is thus consistent with a power of slightly over 250 hp per engine and an sfc of 0.45 or slightly higher. I prefer this explanation because changing the "1550" to "1750" also integrates the setting more naturally into the power sequence (note the gradual reduction of both RPM and MP, in step with the reduction of the Cambridge setting): A-1900/29/0.71=61.5 gph B-1800/28/0.71=52.4 gph D-1800/26/0.71=43 gph C-1750/24/0.70=38.6 gph That leaves us with setting E. According to the P&W engine chart, at 5000 feet and standard conditions, a power setting of 1700 RPM and 22 inches should produce between 175 and 180 hp per engine. At 175 hp per engine (350 hp total) an sfc of 0.45 will give a fuel consumption of 26.25 gph - not THIRTY-six, but TWENTY-six gph! So we correct this typo and add: E-1700/22/0.70=26 gph to complete the chart. (The remaining cruise settings given in this and the other March 11, 1937 telegrams - some of which we have discussed before - all are quite consistent with the P&W power control chart - with fuel consumptions slightly under what we might expect with normal leaning techniques - not a surprise given the leaning below the normal range of Cambridge settings. This consistency makes me more certain of my ground in pointing out these 3 oddball entries.) Well, so what? I think the information is interesting in itself, but do we learn anything else from this? Perhaps we do. I think the telegram indicates that AE had a table of power settings QUITE APART FROM KJ'S TELEGRAMS. This assertion perhaps seems a non-sequitur at this point, so let's go back to the first KJ telegram and explain why I believe that.. Why would KJ make a fuel consumption test at 5000 feet, and report the results to AE, when the cruise settings he recommends are at 4000, 6000, 8000 and 10,000 feet? I think the explanation that makes sense is that a table had been prepared for AE giving power settings at various altitudes with estimated fuel consumption, and that the flight was made to spot check the fuel consumption predicted by the table against the actual consumption of the plane. KJ checked the settings given for 5000 feet, and listed the fuel consumption at some of those settings to show that actual consumption was at or below the estimated figures, and stated that he had checked the "other values" (airspeed ?)as well (and, by implication, that the "other values" were also in close agreement with the estimates AE already had). KJ then felt comfortable enought to list his choice of power settings for other altitudes with the observation "Gallons per hour should run little under figures given". The phrase "gph should run ... under" implies that the consumption at 4, 6, 8 and 10 thousand feet was NOT checked on the flight (ie, that those settings were not the "other values"), because there would be no reason to say "should run" if KJ had checked them - he would have simply stated what fuel consumption the settings gave at those altitudes. Let me make clear that when I speak of a "Table" here I am NOT referring to the "Level Cruising Performance" Chart on page 10 of Lockheed Report 465, which presents a great deal of information in graphic form. That chart is a masterpiece, and a thing of beauty. It is endlessly entertaining for the armchair flight engineer. It is not something, however, that the average pilot would care to refer to in flight - most of us want a table that simplifies things. When I say "Table" I also do NOT mean "Plan", in the sense we have used that term. (The plan was in the telegram.) I mean a simple table giving power settings in tabular form for various altitudes, with expected fuel consumption figures (and perhaps speeds and other information). There's a well-known photo of AE with KJ (with vest, chain and key) in front of the Electra looking at a binder that contains perhaps two dozen sheets of paper. (This picture appears in numerous publications, for example, LOCKHEED HORIZONS, May 1988, page 10.) I think that KJ (perhaps with input from Mantz) had in effect prepared a simplified POH for AE. In view of KJ's knowledge that the plane would be operated far above normal gross, I find it easy to believe that the folder also contained data relating to the estimated effect of weight on takeoff and other performance, which would not have been in the issue 10E manual. I realize that we don't have a copy of this "customized streamlined flight manual", but I decline to believe that KJ sent AE off with nothing other than the telegrams. The telegrams, in this scenario, were supplements, confirmations, and specific recommendations for the Honolulu flight, not the whole ball of wax. Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric Oscar, this is an outstanding piece of work. Can anybody shoot holes in Oscar's reasoning here? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:47:06 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Jousting > From Ric > Dennis, Dennis, have you ever SEEN what Maryland calls "jousting"? No > armor, no lances, no shields, no blood - just a bunch of guys with spears > trying to hit little hanging rings. (see > http://www.geocities.com/marylandjousting/) Back in the 13th century we > called this "riding at the ring". Good practice but not "jousting". Then we have jousting Tighar style. Katz and Gillespie at either end of the field, chargers ready and excited, the kerchief drops and they thunder down the lanes. At 20 paces our gallant duo let fly with their cream pies.... I guess there's a certain amount of skill involved! Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric You ever try to get cream pie out of the hinges of your helmet visor? A real pain. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:49:15 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Noticing Clams > From Angus Murray > Would fluid loss associated with eating green > coconuts likely lead to dehydration and death where water was a scarce > commodity? The body adapts fairly readily to some changes of diet. Suddenly changing from water to coconut milk will result in "the trots" for a while, but I've never noticed any long term ill effects from that and it was apparently common practice for ocean going canoes to stock up on coconuts instead of carrying water. From personal experience, while the fallen (brown) nuts have drinkable milk in them and tasty edible flesh, the green nuts have much nicer almost fizzy milk, but the flesh is the consistency of rubber. As for nuts that have fallen on the ground, I often check the coconuts early in the morning (around daylight) and many of them have already been opened by crabs. I can't imagine what it would be like though trying to survive on coconut flesh for a long period without any other dietary supplement. Maybe an experiment for the next Niku trip? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Wombat. You're a real pal. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:57:13 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Noticing Clams > From Ric > Yes, if we were sure that we have all the meal remains at the site ... A message the other day seemed to suggest that there was not just one fire pit, but as many as five fire sites with the possibility that more might be found along a ridge. Is that how things looked? If so, any theory about why the move from one fire place to another? Are all the fires of the same type, so that one can say with some assurance that they were made by the castaway? Or could the seven site have attracted many campers over the years? Could the workers clearing the area during Gallagher's search be responsible for some of the fires and meal remains now on the site? Did Gallagher's workers have to work as hard to clear the site as you do now? Or is the scaevola worse because of their clearing away some other less nasty flora? Marty #2359 ************************************************************************ From Ric Good questions, and we don't have many answers. None of the Coasties we've talked to say that they ever picniced at the site, and when they did have cook-outs they ate hot dogs from the mess hall. Lunches by Gallagher's workers? They almost certainly ate something while they were there but we have no idea at this point whether that involved fires. Later colonist activity at the site? We really have no idea. Prior to Gallagher's clearing operations the inland portion of the site was much more open than it is today. We can see that in the 1938 and 1939 aerial photos. However, the June 1941 aerial photo shows that Gallagher's Gang did a great deal of clearing out nearer the beach where the scaevola was thick even then. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:58:32 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Carol, Some DNA analysis can now be done on bones. Some bones are better than others. I believe teeth would be ideal, especially if not too old and some root material could be retrieved. Cf. the study of the Romanov's bones in Russia: All DNA analysis is probabilistic. It depends on the argument that the odds are against the matches between two samples happening by accident; the more reasonable conclusion, it is argued, is that the matches derive from family relationships and not from chance. But it is a very strong argument in our current culture--the best new tool for identifying human remains. If only somebody could find some bones to use it on. :o( ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:59:27 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: butcher shops >From Dave Bush in Houston, Texas: And it also was the headquarters for Enron, but I won't go there. :-) There is no livestock in the Enron building that I know of and the company does not own any butcher shops that I am aware of. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:07:40 EST From: David Kelly Subject: DNA questions My understanding is that you can match to a close relative also. *************************************************************************** From Ric Mitochondrial DNA is passed in the female line. Yours is the same as your mothers and her mother's, etc. AE's mtDNA was the same as her mother's, her sister's (both now dead) and her great niece (living). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:09:13 EST From: Denise Subject: Cooking clams In my last posting I said: "The very earliest e-mails about clam-eating (they're coming in right now from Fiji friends) have talked about a particular type of clam that is always eaten by being cooked in a lovo (earth oven)." I even mentioned that I didn't think it augured well for the origins of your clams-in- charcoal. Well, I take back that prediction. Just went in mail and checked. "Kai" is the clam always cooked in an earth oven. I haven't yet been sent the Latin name for "Kai" but I have a very distinct memory of them and guess what?? "Kai" is a fresh water clam. Not a sea clam ... but a river clam. And Niku doesn't have rivers. And if it doesn't have rivers, it won't have Kai, so your charcoal-clams, naturally, wouldn't be Kai. This is starting to look good again. Unless there is another type of clam cooked in a lovo - one that I don't know about - your charcoal-clams probably aren't the result of a impromptu islander clam-bake afterall. LTM (who always preferred sea-water clams) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:23:03 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Nauticos friends? Ric, You say Nauticos is going to start underwater searching on March 17th. It will be interesting! Have you discussed your theory with the likes of Nauticos (Jourdan?) If so, does he think it's as plausible as his own theory? Do you two get along? Are there other underwater research organizations that support your theory. Are there reputable organizations that think your off your rocker? Just curious Chris #2511 *************************************************************************** From Ric By definition, there are no reputable organizations involved in Earhart research. Dave Jourdan and I get along in the way that gentlemen competitors do. He has never asked for my opinion about Elgen Long's theory nor has he asked me why I think the airplane ended up at Nikumaroro. Our website is as accessible to him as it is to you. His wife did once ask me why I thought the airplane could have gotten to Nikumaroro and as I explained our reasoing to her it became very apparent that she, at least, had never heard any of it before. In short, as far as I can tell, Nauticos has sought no real peer review of the theory they are spending millions of dollars to test. They have had engineers double-check Elgen's arithmetic and, of course, if you accept his assumptions the numbers all work -but even those studies have not been made public. It's not my job to tell Nauticos or anyone else how to spend their money. The information we develop is free to anyone with a keyboard. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:25:30 EST From: Denise Subject: The Mysteries of Coconuts Angus asks: "Are fallen coconuts fit for eating readily come by on Gardner?" Angus, even if they are, you have to know how to open them. It requires: 1) cutting down a very strong hard-wood stake 2) burying most of that stake into the ground so it remains upright for what is a very vigorous procedure 3) slamming the entire coconut very hard onto it (I know it looks easy but you actually have to be very strong to do it successfully.) 4) wrenching it backwards to pull off a strip of husk 5) repeating the action about five times until the husk is finally off. The actual coconut is actually very easy to get into, but again you have to know how. I know of no one who's been able to figure it out without been shown. There are three "eyes" at the top. One of these eyes gives way immediately it's poked. The other two are impossible to get into without a high-power drill. The easiest way to get to the juice is poking the "easy eye" with the tube from a piece of grass, then using that grass tube as a straw. To get to the "meat", the proper way is to hit it lightly with a sharp object maybe three times in the middle all the while turning it in your hand. About third hit, it miraculously falls apart into two perfect halves. You then scrape out the white flesh and either eat it as is, or shave it into strips and squeeze it (again you have to be very strong) and the result is the milk which is wonderful in cooking and a fibrous substance you feed to your dog or pig. The easiest way to get to the "meat", however, is to smash the bejeezus out of it with a rock. Angus then asks: "How likely is it that a very hungry european could climb a coconut tree regularly and successfully?" Angus, climbing a coconut tree, unless it is tilted well over onto its side, is not something any person can do without a lot of practise and extremely well developed thigh muscles. It requires gripping the sides of the trunk with your thighs and knees and hauling yourself upwards. It's also something that has to be seen before it can be taught - it doesn't naturally suggest itself as a tree-climbing method. Angus finally asks: "Would fluid loss associated with eating green coconuts likely lead to dehydration and death where water was a scarce commodity?" Angus, I don't understand the question. Are you talking about sweating? Or a you suggesting that the juice of green coconuts dehydrates you? If the former, true! If the latter, huh? Never heard of such a thing. All I know about green coconuts is that they aren't worth the supreme effort of opening them. They are so much harder than the ripe ones, I doubt anyone would procede for long in the attempt. Even if they did, since they have practically no juice, and the meat is really only a piece of slime attached to the inside of the nut, I doubt they'd do it more than once. So Angus, I hope that's what you needed to know. My own thoughts on the matter are that unless A.E. had a visit to the Pacific or Pacific Islander in her childhood, I doubt she'd have been able to master the mysteries of this wonderful commodity. LTM (who wishes she'd climbed more coconut trees recently. Her thighs aren't what they used to be) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:26:37 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Please be careful when you are referring to David K. I first thought you were referring to me. ************************************************************************** From Ric We'll exercise extreme caution. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:27:17 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? One way some cultures cook birds is to leave the feathers on and wrap them in clay before cooking them in hot coals. When they break open the clay, the feathers come off with it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:34:46 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: New document up/Purpose? You are in a fortunate position in that whether or not the marooned on Niku... theory is right, wrong or indifferent, you have collected a formable amount of information on this topic. This would have to make you the worlds leading authority on AE and FN's disappearance. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks, but I expect that there are many who would dispute that appellation. Nonetheless, you're right that we have collected an amazing amount of information, and it just keeps on coming. Still, when I was a little boy and grownups would ask, "What do you want to be when you grow up Ricky?" I have no recollection of saying, "Golly, I'd like to the world's leading authority on the disappearance of AE and FN." Then again, I haven't grown up yet. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:23:38 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Castaway site? <> At the risk of being pedantic - all the signs point to this being where they were found (and I accept the evidence), but do we know it for absolute certain? LTM Phil Tanner 2276 *************************************************************************** From Ric "What is truth?' said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer." Francis Bacon, 1624 Same old problem. At what point does a stack of circumstantial evidence get high enough and heavy enough to take the place of a smoking gun - or is that not possible? At this point we have a site which: - Shows evidence of human habitation (trails) in 1938. - Fits Gallagher's general descriptions of the bone discovery location. - Is known to be the scene of clearing operations prior to June 1941. - Appears on later island maps as land set aside for or by Gallagher. - Contains features described by Gallagher (dead birds, turtle, fire). - Has a hole which appears to be an exhumation of a previously buried object (the skull?) - Contains what appear to be beachcombed objects that are useful as tools. I suppose a smoking gun in this case would be something that can be directly linked to something that Gallagher found - for example, something from a sextant box. I strongly suspect that we may have such a link in artifacts -03a and -03b but we're not sure yet. In any event, the stack is already pretty high. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:24:55 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications > Oscar, this is an outstanding piece of work. Can anybody shoot holes in > Oscar's reasoning here? Oscar Boswell's report is very dramatic, and his reasoning appears to be appropriate. What are the potential implications for this with respect to AE's potential flight range? David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll let Oscar address that. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:25:55 EST From: Van T Hunn Subject: Food for Thought During both Niku 1997 & Niku 2001, we saw a few turtles(10" to about 14" in diameter) in the lagoon--usually on a coral head or around the lagoon edge in shallow water. On one occasion last year, Andrew, Walt and I were walking along the lagoon shore when we saw a turtle very near the shoreline busy feeding on seaweed or something. Walt waded out to within a coulpe of feet of the turtle before it fled to deeper water. I believe a person(castaway) with a driftwood club could have bashed it. This small size would easier to manage than the larger, egg-laying turtles. (comments?-Andrew, Walt). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:31:41 EST From: Mark Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Wow. Question: Would these typos have had an effect on AE & FN's decision making during the flight? We can calcluate now that she clearly had more than enough fuel for the trip and possibly the run to Niku or farther, but if they were basing their settings and their in-flight calculations on instructions with typos in them, what effect if any would that have had on their decisions as the fuel began running low... Just wondering... Mark in Horse Country :-) *************************************************************************** Frim Ric I think you need to read the rest of Oscar's posting. The implication is that the typos in the telegrams were, in fact, fairly inconsequential because Earhart probably had much more complete information developed by Johnson than we, or anybody else, has ever seen. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:33:17 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing Clams There's certainly the possibility that some or all of the fire features are from EARLIER than the colonial period or Earhart, products of canoe voyagers from other islands stopping by to fish or hunt birds or turtles. Although there's little to no evidence of prehistoric occupation on Niku (that we've found), there are probable prehistoric ruins on Orona and Manra, as reported by Bishop Museum studies in the '20s and '30s, so there were folks living not too far away. The coral rubble "soil" of the Seven Site doesn't preserve charcoal very well, but we managed to scrape together one sample big enough for radiocarbon age determination, and it's currently being analyzed in New Zealand. A "recent" date won't assure us that NONE of the burn features are prehistoric, but it will indicate that at least SOME of them aren't. And they are all similar enough to suggest a single origin. There's also historic material in some of them, but we can't always be certain that this association isn't fortuitous. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:34:10 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? For David Kelly -- Unfortunately for anyone wanting to try clay-wrapped bird on Niku, clay is in real short supply. Coral rubble, very grainy coral sand, and bird poop. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:38:53 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: DNA questions > From Ric > > Mitochondrial DNA is passed in the female line. Yours is the same as your > mothers and her mother's, etc. AE's mtDNA was the same as her mother's, her > sister's (both now dead) and her niece (living). Would it not then be prudent to try to convince the great niece to allow her DNA to be sampled, just in case the bones ever do turn up? It would be very frustrating to eventually find the bones, and then also find that there are no longer any close relatives of AE, whose DNA could be used for comparison. **************************************************************************** From Ric You don't think we've tried? Unfortunately, she is of the opinion that the airplane crashed and sank at sea. She would probably provide a DNA sample (no big deal; just a cheek swab would suffice) IF we came up with DNA to match it against, but she has declined to do anything at this time. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:39:58 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Cooking Clams For Denise Whoops, need to clarify. The big clams (Tridacna sp.) aren't in charcoal; they're in clusters not far from the fire features, (in one case, adjacent to one) but not IN them. There's a concentration of small clams (probably Anadara sp.) -- the little guys sometimes called butter clams, I believe -- that does have charcoal associated, but it doesn't look at all to me like the remains of an earth oven, some of which I've excavated in Chuuk. More like a simple surface fire, whose charcoal has gotten distributed loosely through the rubble "soil." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:41:59 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions Thanks Tom. So it would seem that the crabs just cannot manage to move the larger bones (or don't want to), which explains why the 13 large bones from the castaway were found in one place, whereas the smaller bones have either been destroyed, buried under more than an inch of sand, or dispersed to places not yet explored. But why is there a discrepancy between what you say about the large lamb bone, and what Ric quotes from the field notes? Was the bone still around when the team left, or was it not? If not, then is there any correlation between the size of that bone, and the sizes of the bones from the castaway that were NOT found? Could it be that the lamb bone was still smaller than the smallest size of human bone that was found? Sorry to be harping on about this point, but I'm still curious as to why the bone(s) form the experiment disappeared (or not) within a few days, while some bones from the skeleton remained around out in the open for a long time. Is there any other creature on Niku that might eat/move bones, apart from the crabs? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:45:14 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: The Ariadne experiment Finding where crabs take bones might be quite instructive. How about repeating the experiment either 1) with day-glo coloured plastic strings say no more than 4 foot long (to avoid undue drag or entanglement with vegetation) attached to the bones or 2) with monofilament fishing line wound into balls with the free ends pulled from the centre and attached to the bones. With either method the crabs might cut the line but with a number of bones there is a good chance that either one could spot enough of the coloured line leading to (say) a burrow or merely follow the fishing line from its pegged original location direct to the remains of at least one bone. A miniature radio receiver and accoustic beeper hidden in the marrow cavity might also be a possibility which could be activated remotely when the search was about to begin but I imagine surf and bird noise might make it difficult to hear. Sources of high frequency noise are also always difficult to locate. Regards Angus **************************************************************************** From Ric Or we could just follow them. On Niku the lower-tech the better. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:48:39 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: Noticing Clams When they cleared an area, what did they do with the debris? Did they burn it? If so, perhaps the fire sites were left from these activities. LTM Ed of PSL #2415 **************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. We don't know if they burned the brush piles but the charcoal we're finding is in small localized deposits (right Tom?) and it's back in the trees. Burning a brush pile there would probably start a forest fire. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:52:36 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: The Mysteries of Coconuts Denise, Thanks for a very interesting and informative answer. The way they could have tried to climb a coconut tree is by making two loops (from salvaged electrical or control cabling or whatever) to encircle the climber and the tree. One is a figure of eight attached round your waist, the other a single loop.Lean back on the fig 8 whilst flipping the other upwards, vice versa holding the upper loop on the shoulders, and gradually and sinuously walk up the tree. You need some inclination on the tree or ideally to make some "spurs" or spiked footwear to get a better grip. I think I'm right in saying that many coconut trees are a good deal off vertical. I've watched tree fellers do this very easily on vertical trees with a single loop but they do have purpose made spurs and so don't need to lean out from the tree (as one does when abseiling) in order to get a grip. I take your point though that the likelihood of AE trying this sort of thing seems a bit remote. However she was something of a tomboy, so perhaps one can't rule it out. If I was hungry enough I'd definitely try it. If you slip, you only drop a few feet due to the fig 8 loop jamming at an angle. You could of course still end up badly bruised or with a broken nose or fingers. My remark about fluid loss was, as th'Wombat realised, associated with the diarrhoea that eating green coconuts brings on in those unused to eating them. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric Or if she had a big ladder she wouldn't need to climb the tree at all. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:14:15 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Flight Range Implications of Telegrams > What are the potential implications for this with respect to > AE's potential flight range? I really don't think this changes anything with regard to our evaluation of the flight range. The only significant typo in that regard is the "36 gph" entry for what should be a "26 gph" 175 hp/engine setting. This would be a very upsetting mistake if I thought that the telegram was the only information AE had about performance at that setting. But I assume her table said "26.25 gph" or "26.5 gph" or "less than 27 gph" and that the typo would have been apparent to her. When I wrote the "Longer Range Flight Plan" I called for the end of the flight to be at a 26 gph setting, and the Longer Range Flight Plan factors the use of such a setting into the calculation of range. The telegram (assuming the correction is correct) merely confirms my hunch that KJ would have given AE some information about lower power settings, including one around 26 gph. Whether she used the setting is another question. Oscar Boswell *************************************************************************** From Ric Based upon your conclusion that AE probably had more/better fuel economy planning information than is contained in the Johnson telegrams, would you consider TIGHAR's previous estimates of her probable fuel situation when last heard from on the Lae/Howland flight (which use a straight application of the figures in the telegram) to be: a) too optimistic (i.e. she had less than about 4 hours of fuel left) b) about right c) too pessimistic (i.e. she had more than about 4 hours of fuel left)? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:28:34 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: The Mysteries of Coconuts > From Ric > Or if she had a big ladder she wouldn't need to climb the tree at all. Now thats a thought..... bore a vertical line of holes in the tree with a red-hot bar salvaged from the NC wreck, insert branches as you go and......Voila! (Did you spot any coconut trees with branches down the trunk, on just one side?) I take it that you think that my suggestion was too high tech for a castaway to make. I really don't think this is true. Rope may even have survived from the NC campsite. It is highly likely that control cable was salvageable from the Electra as evidenced by the fishing line leader. Native tree climbers use only a loop and their bare feet and whilst they are expert, even they had to start somewhere. If you're hungry enough you'll try anything. I remember reading about a vessel which was dismasted and swept hither and thither in the atlantic for weeks on end in, I think, the 19th C. The passengers and crew were reduced to cannibalism and as people died they were consumed by the survivors. One young lady had to make do with the raw brains of one of the deceased. She said it was the most delicious thing she had ever tasted. Hunger puts a new perspective on things, including what you might attempt to allay it. Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric Resisting the temptation to reference my first marriage......I'll agree that there is no telling what a desperate person might be willing to try. I think the main point to be made about the coconut trees, however, is that the castaway(s) clearly did not choose to hang out anywhere near them which, as I offered earlier, seems to argue for the establishment of the camp at the southeast end of the island happened during the drought of 1938 - or perhaps prior to the maturation of the Arundel cocos sometime around the turn of the century? But that seems unlikely given the legilibilty of the numbers on the sextant box - so we're back to a castaway who is alive after the drought has gotten really bad and whose trails are still discernible from the air in December 1938. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:39:20 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Ariadne experiment I had great plans for a "follow-the-crabs" experiment after we found in the earlier ones that the devils were so active, but unfortunately my plans were entirely dependent on Nai'a's serving lamb for dinner, and it didn't happen. Next time.... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:38:45 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Seven Site bones Ric said: "...and that suggests that the establishment of the Seven Site occurred during the drought, i.e. 1938." Ric's statement implies that the castaway who resided at the Seven Site was alive and functioning at least one year after Earhart and Noonan disappeared. Ric's statement also implies that if the castaway was in fact Earhart, she was alive and on Niku during October, 1937 when Maude and Bevington surveyed the island for PISS. (Don't cha just love that acronym?) :-) I'm well aware that exposure to the elements dictate the rate of decomposition and that the environment on Niku is ripe for rapid decay, but the longer the castaway survived the greater the possibility that additional evidence of their ordeal awaits discovery. Based upon the limited description Gallagher and Hoodless gave of the bones in their various reports, what would be an educated guess as to the date of death? How long before discovery and recovery of them bones did the castaway die? LTM, (who has heard the sound of "clicking" all too often) Roger Kelley *************************************************************************** From Ric The short answer is, we don't know. The main reason we don't know is because we don't know what the bones looked like. The only information we have about their appearance is what Hoodless tells us, but all of the damage he describes sounds like the gnawing of crabs and maybe rats. Based upon what we've learned about the island environment, an intact human body could end up looking like what Hoodless describes in what? - two or three months max? The skull wasn't found until - best guess - April 1940. In theory, the castaway could have been alive AFTER the first colonists arrived in 1939. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:39:56 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing Clams For what it's worth, I had sites cleared by local folks in Chuuk, and what they'd do is pile the slash in a cleared area and touch it off. Such a fire could produce a localized deposit of charcoal and ash, but there's no reason I can think of that it would have fish, bird and turtle bones in it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:40:38 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: FORDISC Assumptions The discrepancy between my distinct recollection and what Ric read in the notes puzzles me, too, and we'll just have to resolve it. That is, Kar will; she was entirely in charge of the experiment that included big bones, and what I said about it was based on nothing but memory. Pretty distinct memory, but we all know about memory.... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:42:01 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Charcoal deposits Tom King said: "For what it's worth, I had sites cleared by local folks in Chuuk, and what they'd do is pile the slash in a cleared area and touch it off. Such a fire could produce a localized deposit of charcoal and ash, but there's no reason I can think of that it would have fish, bird and turtle bones in it." Do we have any idea of the diameter of the "charcoal pit/deposit" on Niku? Having chopped and cleared many a field, a good afternoon's work would easily create a pile at least 8-10 feet wide and about 4-5 feet high, and would leave a very nice pile of ash and charcoal. As for the charcoal on Niku, I suspect the smaller the charcoal pit is the less likely it would be from a slash-and-burn clearing operation. LTM, who is now more environmentally friendly Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric Tom can elaborate, but there is no "charcoal pit/deposit" on Niku that I am aware of. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:48:41 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Flight Range Implications of Telegrams > From Ric > > Based upon your conclusion that AE probably had more/better fuel economy > planning information than is contained in the Johnson telegrams, would you > consider TIGHAR's previous estimates of her probable fuel situation when last > heard from on the Lae/Howland flight (which use a straight application of the > figures in the telegram) to be: > a) too optimistic (i.e. she had less than about 4 hours of fuel left) > b) about right > c) too pessimistic (i.e. she had more than about 4 hours of fuel left)? I don't know.There's nothing "wrong" with the KJ "plan" on the Howland flight. If AE followed that plan carefully (and if nothing went wrong) she should have had (say) 150 GALLONS of fuel left after 20 hours (say 226 gallons after 18 hours). How long and far can you fly a 10E on 150 (or 226) gallons ? It depends on how you spend the fuel. As we have all noted, 150 gallons will give you about 4 hours at 38 gph, or 5 hours at 31 gph, or 6 hours at 26 gph. If you go to a lower cruise setting 18 hours into the flight, 226 gallons will keep you going for about 7 1/2 hours at 31 gph and almost 9 hours at 26 gph, rather than 6 hours at 38 gph. The lower settings are more efficient, because the speed reduction is substantially less than the fuel consumption reduction. (Speeds at 10,000 feet at these settings should be around 173/165/158 at normal gross weight - I don't have my tables with me, but that's close - 173 mph on 38 gph = about 4.5 miles per gallon; 158 on 26 = more than 6 miles per gallon.) People keep reminding me that "it's not how much money you make, it's how much you save that counts." Just so. If I had been out of sight of my destination in the middle of the Pacific at the ETA, I would immediately have reduced to a speed that would give me greater range than the 38 gph setting. Had KJ given AE advice to that effect ? I would like to think so. Did she take it ? Who knows. It's hard to do: "I knew I could slow down to best range speed when necessary and make a great deal of distance on my remaining fuel. THE PROBLEM WAS DECIDING WHEN TO DO IT. ... [T]welve hours out of Alaska and a couple short of Japan, longitude uncertain - I never did reduce speed. ..." Peter Garrison, LONG DISTANCE FLYING, page 145. What did the Navy say about the plane ? Wasn't it that it had fuel for 24 hours and the ability to stay aloft "possibly for 30 hours"? I think that's correct. I have been saying over and over that properly flown there was adequate fuel to reach Gardner, or the Gilberts, or the Marshalls. I am in an extravagant mood today, so I'll go a step farther. With the right pilot, 1150 gallons of fuel, and the normal prevailing winds I believe the 10E could have been flown non-stop from Honolulu to Lae. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric My goodness. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:50:42 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Noticing clams How in the world would prehistoric canoe people find Niku/Gardner? They would not have maps, and could only have happened on it by chance. How many pre-historic people would it take, sailing across the wide blue trackless ocean, to accidentally run into one very small, very remote island? Yeah, only one - but what are the odds of the first and only hitting the island dead on? Seems extremely unlikely that someone would end up there at all, unless there were a LOT of people out there sailing around expecting to find an island. LTM, Dave Bush ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm Dr. King will be pleased to adress your concerns. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:12:00 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Seven Site bones Re Time of Death Didn't Kilts story suggest that it was around Dec 1938 based on his sources guess when the skull/bones were found? I can't find that reference. Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric You'll find the Floyd Kilts story at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/KiltsStory.html The reference he makes to the time of discovery is: "It seems that in the latter part of 1938 there were 23 island people, all men, and an Irish magistrate planting coconut trees on Gardner for the government of New Zealand." This is a typical anecdotal jumble of fact and misinformation. The first 10 man work party arrived at Gardner on December 20, 1938. On April 28, 1939 their familes arrived bring the total island population to 23 - but not "all men." There was no "Irish magistrate" but a British colonial officer whose nickname was "Irish" and who did not take up residence on the island until September 1940. And, of course, the coconut trees were being planted for His Britannic Majesty, not the government of New Zealand. Our placement in time of the skull discovery as April 1940 is based upon Gallagher's statement in a telegram to Vaskess on October 17, 1940 that: "Skull discovered by working party six months ago --- report reached me early September. Working party buried skull but made no further search." This is reinforced by his later comment in his letter of December 27, 1940 that: "...skull has been buried in damp ground for nearly a year," See http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bones_Chronology2.html LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:14:01 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Oscar's analysis seems to resonate with Earhart's chart to Honolulu stating that she got about 23 gal/hour while waiting for dawn to break near Hawaii. If Oscar's analysis is correct, then Earhart potentially had a lot more fuel left when near Howland than we possibly could have imagined.... *************************************************************************** From Ric Yup. Nauticos' search area just a got a whole lot bigger. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:18:10 EST From: Michael Hyman Subject: Fiji graveyards Has TIGHAR checked any graveyards on Fiji for the grave of "Unknown, found on Gardner Island". I don't see anything about graveyards in the archive. Thanks for the ride Michael Hyman ,TIGHAR# I forgot *************************************************************************** From Ric Fiji is a big place with an awful lot of graveyards. There's certainly a chance that the bones were buried but there are probably better ways of investigating that possibility. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:24:54 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coconuts > and that suggests > that the establishment of the Seven Site occurred during the drought, i.e. > 1938. Which also implies that if the castaway was Earhart/Noonan, they were on the island at the time of the Bevington/Maude visit and missed them, and that they survived at least a year, in which case there would probably have been some attempt at building a habitable shelter (near the remains of which might be found artifacts, journal etc. - if one only knew where to look). Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, lots of time to do the Robinson Crusoe bit. But if they built a "habitable shelter" why did they, or at least one of them, leave it and take up (final) residence at the Seven Site? Or are the remains of corrugated iron and asphalt roofing material we're finding at the site the remains of a habitable shelter constructed of stuff salvaged from the Arundel buildings on Nutiran - but if that's the case, why didn't Gallagher see it? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:26:16 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Mysteries of Coconuts For Denise, It really depends how green. Immature coconuts are not edible or drinkable, but you have never tasted coconut milk until you've had a mature green "drinking nut". I posted a long time ago on the difficulty of someone unfamiliar with the Pacific opening nuts as a pointer to the likelihood that our castaway was NOT a native. On the other hand, if he/she was a native he/she would have had no trouble opening nuts without conventional tools, even though the Island method of opening green nuts these days is a few swipes with a machete. A polynesian castaway would probably have been familiar with the habit crabs have of emptying the nuts very early. I had not allowed for the possibility of drought killing the trees, which of course could cause even a native to die of thirst. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:27:23 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Ariadne experiment > From Tom King > I had great plans for a "follow-the-crabs" experiment after we found in the > earlier ones that the devils were so active, but unfortunately my plans > were entirely dependent on Nai'a's serving lamb for dinner, and it didn't > happen. Next time.... Of course you could obtain a cadaver and do the experiment properly.... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:28:41 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Camp characteristics << From Tom King Re. duration of camping from quantity of food items >> Tom - Can we assume that it is pretty clear that the 7 site was not an organized camp kitchen for a large number of people, or a small number of people over time? Any organized operation would have had specific spots for specific activities, butchering, cooking, trash disposal. The 7 site shows none of that, and instead looks like a series of small and distinct meals consumed at vairous spots, correct? Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:33:35 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Benedictine Connection From a Google search.... Benedictine College Description: A Catholic, Benedictine, residential liberal arts college in Atchison, Kansas sponsored by the monks... www.benedictine.edu/ I know this is a weird coincidence, but doesn't Atchison Kansas have an Earhart connection? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric It's only her birthplace and where she spent much of her childhood. Every day after school little Meelie would stop by the college and knock back a few with the monks. For the rest of her life she never went anywhere without her bottle of Benedictine. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:52:39 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Some Questions I have just been reading some of the research bulletins from Tighar and have to ask, the carpenters daughter, Emily, when did she get her western name? From the bulletin, it appeared she had an indigenous name when she left the island for nurse training. I just found it interesting that her name, Emily was very similar to Emilia? After going through the bulletins, there are two closely connected ones which I think should be written. These are an analysis of the fuel consumption and also the navigation. Both of these have been thrashed about infinitum, but I thought a bulletin compiling what we know, don't know, surmise etc would be in order. One final question, there were 149 Model 10's built, the A, B, C, E and the XC35 - what happened to the D? Regards David Kelly (who has a very suspicious mind) *************************************************************************** From Ric As I recall Segalo Samuelu got her Western name "Emily" from an English engineer who worked with her father on Funafuti before the family mover to Nikumaroro. She later married a man named Sikuli and thus is now Emily Sikuli. I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need for the two bulletins. I've been working on a navigation (LOP) bulletin for some time. It's almost ready as we speak and should be up within a week. (I didn't mean to rhyme that line but, just the same, it turned out fine. The thought just fell into my lap, we could do this forum as Earhart Rap!) I've also been meaning to tackle the fuel bulletin but the airplane keeps getting more and more range the more we look into the question. It's obvious that anything we say about fuel will need to have very broad parameters. The D series Electra was going to be a military version, but it was never completed. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:59:15 EST From: Troy Subject: Ric's.... voice? got the video today--great job. It's nice to see that place. How come you can't just search the whole island?? (just joking!!) Ok, not to complain or anything but Ric, your pictures and video on the website and tape and just didn't match your voice. After these past couple of years listening to you (via email, voice in my head) and seeing your pictures (bearded guy x years older than I) I had this rough, gruff, Gen. Patton type of image of your voice. Is that for real you narrating??? Anyway, you sounded so calm, collected, and, well, --how do I say it with out sounding offensive (too late!)--nice! Anyway, I still think it is the voice of some 25 year old you pulled off the street and not your voice.... LTM (& 73's to Mike and the other HAM guys) Troy in Pleasanton, CA N4MJO & TIGHAR #two-thousand something *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, you've found me out. I was afraid that if people knew that I'm only 25 my credibilty would be shot. I'm just a paper TIGHAR. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:01:19 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Jousting Ross Devitt wrote: >Katz and Gillespie at either end of the field, chargers ready and excited, >the kerchief drops and they thunder down the lanes. At 20 paces our gallant >duo let fly with their cream pies.... Before Ric ends this thread, and I'm sure he's getting close, I'd like to suggest that you use (for obvious reasons) COCONUT CREAM pies as your flavor of projectile! *************************************************************************** From Ric My horse votes for carrot cake. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:16:45 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits Ric's right; we're not talking clear, distinct "pits" here. But we are talking phenomena that have some measurable extent. What they are -- at least, what the three that we examined in detail are -- are concentrations of very fine-grained charcoal mixed with burned and unburned fishbone, some burned bird and turtle bone, and some burned coral (the coral rubble on which the fire was built). Boundaries are indistinct, and none of the features had a depth significantly exceeding 10 cm. (about 4"). I THINK there's some consistency to their diameters, which I'd put at somewhere between one and 2 meters (3-7 feet), but again, the boundaries are VERY indistinct. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:17:42 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications >> If Oscar's analysis is correct, then Earhart potentially had a lot more fuel left when near Howland than we possibly could have imagined>> I sense a whole lot of "would haves" coming on here, but one big snag for the Gardner hypothesis. If they had much more fuel than we have assumed as they advanced southeast down the line of position, this increases the chances of them realizing they have overshot Howland and turning back northwestwards. LTM Phil Tanner 2276 ************************************************************************** From Ric Very true, but as we've always said, "would haves" are just guesses. Far more useful are "could haves" from among which we can look for evidence that something actually did happen. It now appears that the airplane, at least in theory, could have reached all sorts of islands but there is still no evidence that it did reach any island - except one. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:17:50 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Who is Oscar Boswell? Ever since Oscar Boswell popped up on the EarhartForum a few weeks ago I've been amazed at detail he presents in the on-going his fuel/distance debate. Who is he and what is his background -- I want to send him a fan letter. LTM, who's betrothed to Truth Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Well Oscar, that's the price of celebrity. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:17:56 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing clams For Dave Bush: Hop on Amazon.com and order yourself a copy of "The Last Navigator," by Stephen D. Thomas (Ballantine, 1987), and all will be revealed. Polynesian and Micronesian navigators had and still have incredible ways of finding their way across the open ocean; if they didn't, the islands wouldn't have been settled. Navigation lore is embedded in chants that help the user remember things like the rising and setting points of stars and planets, oceanic currents, the relative saltiness of the water, even animal behavior (I recall one chant-segment that could be crudely translated as "Go to where you see whales spouting and hang a left"). Some of us once spent an evening on a beach on Saipan with two old navigators from different islands in the Carolines and a whole bunch of beer; they exchanged chants and as close as we could reckon it, they had systems for finding their way at least as far east as the Marquesas. Thomas gives an example of a turtle-catching trip that he made by canoe with a group of Satawales to an uninhabited island not unlike Niku, though it was nowhere near as far from everything else as Niku is. LTM (who knows there are lots of ways to navigate through life) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:20:06 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Benedictine Connection > For the rest of her life she never went anywhere without her > bottle of Benedictine. Damn, I'm glad we got that one explained. Was there a convent nearby wherein the nuns made shoes for Cat's Paw? ******************************************************************* From Ric Yes, but that's a very sad story. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:32:23 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Vox Gillespie Troy said: "Ok, not to complain or anything but Ric, your pictures and video on the website and tape and just didn't match your voice. After these past couple of years listening to you (via email, voice in my head) and seeing your pictures (bearded guy x years older than I) I had this rough, gruff, Gen. Patton type of image of your voice." Troy, you forgot Ric's former profession -- aviation insurance investigator. The voice you heard is the result of years of practice learning to speak in calm, modulated, non-threatening tones when you tell a customer the company is paying only $125,000 for his recently totaled Bonanza A36 on which he stills owes $250,000. LTM, who seeks a more Churchillian timbre Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ******************************************************************** From Ric "To tell someone to go to hell and make them look forward to the trip." Comes in handy when recruiting expedition teams. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:15:12 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Charcoal deposits Tom King said; "Boundaries are indistinct, and none of the features had a depth significantly exceeding 10 cm. (about 4"). I THINK there's some consistency to their diameters, which I'd put at somewhere between one and 2 meters (3-7 feet), but again, the boundaries are VERY indistinct." The fact they are roughly the same size and same depth would indicate that they also all served the same purpose for a similar amount of time, whether as cooking fire, brush burning site etc., wouldn't it? As such, it doesn't sound like the work of a castaway to me: what would be the advantage of several widely (?) scattered cooking fires. A signal fire, maybe? Just guessing. LTM, who prefers rouge to charcoal Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric A fire site is probably meal site (as suggested by the presence of burned bones) and you don't have to spend much time at the Seven Site to learn that food scraps are a crab magnet. Crab Control is going to be a major priority for any castaway who has to live and sleep there. Moving your dining area around would be a real good idea. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:15:59 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Camp characteristics For Andrew MeKenna -- I agree with your characterization of the Seven Site -- a lot more like a series of short-duration camps than a single organized camp with multiple activity areas. But one could argue that we've got a couple of clam processing locations, a single turtle cookery, several fish fires -- I think the fish bones will give us a better idea of what we're dealing with. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:18:10 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Who is Oscar Boswell? Dennis O. McGee #0149EC asks: > Who is he and what is his background -- I want to send him a fan > letter. How embarassing! As I think I told everyone 2 years ago, I am a lawyer who used to fly a bit, and I have been looking into this flight since reading an article published on its 20th anniversary. Through the courtesy of a number of the members of this Forum (especially the late Birch Matthews) I have had access to materials on the 10E that are not widely available. A lot of nonsense has been written about the 10E's performance (some of it by me), and there are many conflicts in the sources of information we have. I keep trying to make sense of it, and I appreciate the opportunity the Forum gives me to give structure to my thoughts. As Birch told me once, "I put this stuff out in the hope that people will see the errors and help me correct them." Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:25:39 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Ariadne experiment Ross -- we really looked for a cadaver, but no one would volunteer. ************************************************************************ From Ric There was actually a HUGE kerfluffle during the expedition preparations about how to conduct the decomposition experiment. Our original plan was to use a pig (the most commonly used substitute for humans in such experiments) and there was actually a cage constructed and put aboard Nai'a for the purpose of transporting a live porker to Niku, but Kar's attempts to procure a suitable pig in Pago Pago were frustrated in a series of events which, in retrospect, were hilarious (but I should let Kar tell the story when she can) and the best we could do, in the end, was a leg o' lamb. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:26:43 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Fiji graveyards For Michael Hyman While in Fiji in '99 Kris Tague did some very initial checking into cemetery records which are extensive. As are the cemeteries, as Ric says. Suva is a community of 90,000. We also took a quick look at the log maintained by the Medical School's Anatomy Dept. of their cadavers and what happens to them; saw no reference to bones from Niku and were assured by the keeper of the records that no such existed. There were higher priorities at the time than tracking this any further, but it would be a worthwhile subject for further research. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:32:06 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications > If Oscar's analysis is correct, then Earhart potentially had a lot more > fuel I see nothing wrong with Oscar's analysis and in fact he has done a great job in looking at all the fuel possibilities. If I had any problem with some of the suggested "could haves" being bandied about it would be this. I know of no reason to believe AE and FN did anything other than fly to where they fully expected Howland to be, I see no reason they would have suspected Howland wouldn't be where they thought it was or that they might not be able to find it. Therefore I see no reason for them to have arrived with significantly more or less fuel most think they would have had -- somewhere between 139 and 150 gallons after searching around a bit. I would have to assume they might have throttled back somewhat for at least the latter part of their local search as they began to realize it might be more difficult to find Howland than they thought. Where ever they went from there they had to balance distance, fuel, speed, winds, climb and altitude. I might point out that since they didn't know where they were they may well not have had an adequate handle on the winds. Suggesting they could go a certain direction and a certain distance when they didn't know their starting point or ground speed or what the winds enroute could possibly be seems a bit ambitious. To me the situation would dictate picking the choice that had the best chance of success. It is inconceivable to me that Noonan would have been or believed he was many hundreds of miles away from destination and the known facts show that he thought he "must be right on you." Not seeing the island tells him he is not but it doesn't suggest he was or thought he was hundreds of miles off in any direction. Given that I think he would have selected the course of action that offered the best percentage. Would that have been heading to the Marshalls twice the distance away? Would that have been heading back to the widely scattered Gilberts with the only celestial body behind him and unavailable? OR would that have been heading SE toward a group of islands close by with a real capability of navigating a course? Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric It is apparently impossible to communicate that the decision to proceed southeastward on the LOP was not a decision to seek an alternate destination but was the ONLY reasonable way to search for Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:35:25 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Noticing clams Tom: That is all well and good, but it still doesn't say HOW they could have known there was an existing island at X location in the middle of a totally uncharted and tremendously large ocean. So, to Ric, I say, you mean you don't believe in ESP, 'cause I don't see any other way that they could have found the island unless they trained dolphins to point the way (of course, dolphins are also called "pilot" fish). LTM, Dave Bush *************************************************************************** From Ric Whether it seems incredible to you or not, there is abundant evidence that prehistoric Pacific peoples DID find and, at least for a time, inhabit various islands of the Phoenix Group. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:49:02 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Seven Site bones > The reference he makes to the time of discovery is: > "It seems that in the latter part of 1938 there were 23 island people, all > men, and an Irish magistrate planting coconut trees on Gardner for the > government of New Zealand." > This is a typical anecdotal jumble of fact and misinformation. The first 10 > man work party arrived at Gardner on December 20, 1938. On April 28, 1939 > their familes arrived bring the total island population to 23 - but not "all > men." There was no "Irish magistrate" but a British colonial officer whose > nickname was "Irish" and who did not take up residence on the island until > September 1940. And, of course, the coconut trees were being planted for His > Britannic Majesty, not the government of New Zealand. The interesting thing about this part of the story is that the misinformation seems to be a problem, perhaps, of translation rather than merely being altogether false from the outset. "A native tried to tell me about it. But I couldn't understand all of it so I got an interpreter." All the items mentioned seem to be relevant. One can imagine the difficulty that Kilts would have had in realising that "Irish" was a nickname rather than describing an Irishman and that it was a party of men that were planting coconuts rather than all the islanders being men. If Gallagher's function had been described, one might well interpret that as a magistrate. This makes me wonder the significance of "for the government of New Zealand". Could this have meant "planting coconuts for the government, at Nutiran". Where else would mention of New Zealand, which is what of course "Nutiran" means, have originated? Nutiran wasn't planted till much later. A corrected translation might read as follows: "It seems that sometime after 1938, there were 23 island people. All the men, were working for "Irish" (who was responsible for matters of law) planting coconut trees on Gardner for the Government. They were at Nutiran" They were about through and a native was walking along one end of the island.(Ties in with Nutiran/ Emily Sikuli) There in the brush about five feet (not 100 ft) from the shoreline he saw a skeleton. What attracted him to it was the shoes. Women's shoes, American kind. No native wears shoes. Couldn't if they wanted to---feet too spread out and flat. The shoes were size nine narrow. Beside the body was a cognac bottle with fresh water in it for drinking. A native, who pretended to some medical skills, said the skeleton was that of a woman. And there were no native women on the island when this person must have died. Far away down the beach ( the seven site?) he found a man's skull, but nothing else." This is in fact a story about two sets of bones, one set perhaps found at Nutiran (close to the beach, in the area suggested by Emily Sukuli and of the hypothetical landing site) and one perhaps much further away (at the seven site?). Nutiran bones could of course have been NC bones. With the discovery of bones at the seven site, it would have been natural to tie the two together and confuse the stories. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric The misconception that the settlement on Gardner was under the auspices of New Zealand rather than Great Britian was common among the Coasties. I don't think you can read anything into that. The reference to a "magistrate" is interesting. It's a word that had a very specific meaning and if that term was used by "the native", he was referring to the Native Magistrate, Teng Koata. He may have also referred to "Irish" (who was Officer In Charge) and Kilts may have missed the point that the native was talking about two different people. Juggling folklore and speculating about what the real story was is fun but, in the end, it's still speculation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:51:32 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Niku turtles Van Hunn wrote: >This small size [turtle in the lagoon] would easier to >manage than the larger, egg-laying turtles. (comments?-Andrew, Walt). I also saw turtles in the lagoon during Niku3 in 1997. They were about 18 inches in diameter. The examples I saw were sitting on top of coral heads. I cannot comment on trying to catch one as we did not try to approach them. LTM Kenton Spading ************************************************************************* From Ric My impression is that the Seven Site turtle was quite a bit bigger than that. Tom? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:54:06 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits > I THINK > there's some consistency to their diameters, which I'd put at somewhere > between one and 2 meters (3-7 feet), but again, the boundaries are VERY > indistinct. Sounds a lot like the fires from clearing operations rather than cooking... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric So how do you explain the presence of bird and fish bones, some (but not all) of them burned, in the fire features? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:10:07 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coconuts > From Ric > > Yes, lots of time to do the Robinson Crusoe bit. But if they built a > "habitable shelter" why did they, or at least one of them, leave it and > take up (final) residence at the Seven Site? Or are the remains of > corrugated iron and asphalt roofing material we're finding at the site the > remains of a habitable shelter constructed of stuff salvaged from the > Arundel buildings on Nutiran - but if that's the case, why didn't Gallagher > see it? The post was inspired by the N.C. survivor's documents. Notice the sequence - 1) Salvage whatever washed ashore or could be carried. 2) Set up a temporary camp. 3) Build a habitable shelter. 4) Explore the island for food and water using the camp as a base. Remembering all this was accomplished in a storm and over the first two days, I can't see earhart/Noonan doing any differently. I still feel from the descriptions of the 7 site that it was a "day camp" and that the main shelter would have been somewhere more secluded. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that it's a logical progression of activity for any castaway but if the Seven Site is a castaway campsite at all it is clearly more than a "day camp" (based upon the amount of food consumed there). I dont see the logic in saying that the "main shelter" was somewhere more "secluded". You have to go some to find a place on Niku more secluded than the Seven Site. If Earhart and Noonan wanted a habitable shelter there were the abandoned Arundel buildings on Nutiran and, now that you mention it, it does seem reasonable that they may have taken advantage of those structures until other factors prompted them to seek greener pastures elsewhere on the island. If that's what happened, it's not hard to see why no one later thought that signs of previous habitation around those structures was worth noting. I think we really have to consider the possibility that some of the "construction" materials found at the Seven Site were brought there by the castaway(s) from the Arundel buildings. The fact that Gallagher apparently didn't see them is a problem but it may not be a disqualifier. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:11:11 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Benedictine Connection > From Ric > It's only her birthplace and where she spent much of her childhood. Every > day after school little Meelie would stop by the college and knock back a > few with the monks. For the rest of her life she never went anywhere > without her bottle of Benedictine. I should NEVER have brought it up!!! Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:23:08 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Catching turtles << This small size would easier to manage than the larger, egg-laying turtles. (comments?-Andrew, Walt).>> I think we both had the feeling that if we had really tried, either one of us could have grabbed that turtle and hauled him out of the water. A club would have made it that much easier. Andrew ************************************************************************** From Ric The land team felt much the same way about the divers. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:31:49 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Fuel Oscar: I have not been able to find (on the website) what TIGHAR has assumed regarding power settings, flight altitude, etc, of the leg toward Niku. Ric at one point seemed to confirm the assumption that such a flight would have taken place at low altitude - obviously you have to be in search mode all the way, looking for an island which could pop up at almost any time. An assumption of a higher, possibly more efficient altitude would imply that there was excellent visibility, and it brings the issue of sun-moon fixes back into the picture, which in turn diminish the argument for following the LOP south. So, sticking to the low flight assumption, would this and possibly richer mixture settings (for power and safety) have any significant impact on the fuel problem? Thanks, TOM MM ************************************************************************** From Ric The presence of a scattered (5/10ths) cumulus deck with bases at 2,650 feet at noon in the vicinity of Howland is documented. The weather to the southeast is not known but the conditions described at Howland are also typical at Niku. In the absence of information to the contrary, I think we have to assume that the weather around Howland was very much like the weather between Howland and Niku - and that would keep the flight down low and pretty much preclude any further celestial observations. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:36:10 EST From: Michel Subject: Multiple fire sites. Err, just a quick thought on the multiple fire/meal site issue - any ideas on how a castaway would figure on starting a new fire in a new location every day? Is there some easy way to do this, carrying embers from the earlier one or whatever? In that position I'd hate to run out of matches (if I'd had any to begin with). For that matter, any speculation on how the 'original' fire could have been started? Michel ************************************************************************** From Ric Keeping at least a small fire going at all times would seem like a pretty good idea. There has been some speculation that a lens from the sextant accessory thought to be an "inverting eyepiece" that was found and subsequently "thrown away by the finder" could have been used to start a fire. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:37:21 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Noticing clams > From Dave Bush in Houston, Texas: > Tom: That is all well and good, but it still doesn't say HOW they could > have known there was an existing island at X location in the middle of a > totally uncharted and tremendously large ocean. Like the Noah's Ark story with the dove, or Viking sailors with their ravens. You follow the birds, who have to land somewhere. They can also fly to a high altitude, and thus see much further than you could, even from the top of a mast. The Pacific was populated with great traditional navigators, with an extensive lore of handed-down knowledge. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR #2263 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:43:41 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits > So how do you explain the presence of bird and fish bones, some (but not > all) of them burned, in the fire features? What about burning remains of a meal to cut down on crab traffic? LTM, MStill, #2332CE **************************************************************************** From Ric So why don;t all the bones look burned? You're clearing brush out near the beach and dragging it back under the trees and making very small piles and then burning them individually and throwing your lunch garbage on the fire so as not to attract crabs. I kind of like our hypothesis better. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:48:06 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits > From Ross Devitt > Sounds a lot like the fires from clearing operations rather than cooking... > *************************************************************************** > From Ric > > So how do you explain the presence of bird and fish bones, some (but not all) > of them burned, in the fire features? While the clearing operations were in progress, they ate? LTM (who always leaves time for a good lunch) Mike **************************************************************************** From Ric They probably did, but the small size of the charcoal deposits and their location relative to other vegetation just doesn't make any sense as being the remains of burned brush piles. We cut, hauled and stacked a lot of brush when clearing the little bit of the site that we did. It takes no time at all to have a brush pile many times larger in diameter than the charcoal deposits we found. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:51:29 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Seven Site bones Ric said, > Juggling folklore and speculating about what the real story was is fun but, > in the end, it's still speculation. Absolutely. However speculation can generate new, unthought-of lines of enquiry and of course one learns more about the whole story from the constructive criticism applied by all & sundry to that speculation. Schliemann "juggled folklore" to find Troy and Thompson "juggled folklore" at Chichen-Itza to find the Sacred Well and its amazing treasure. Speculate and accumulate! Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't mean to imply that juggling folklore is a worthless pastime. We do a whole lot of it. But I think that it's important to realize that the best you can come up with is a hypothesis to test, not a conclusion about what "must have" happened. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:00:50 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart US Navy sources disclose that Gardner Island was visited about a month before Earhart's disappearance by a Burns-Philp Ltd copra administrator. Two official US Navy reports show that Capt John William Jones , Royal Navy Reserve, visited Gardner Island sometime in the Spring of 1937 on a routine copra inspection with a crew aboard his boat MAKOA. Capt Jones, the Deputy Commissioner for the Phoenix group assigned to the Burns-Philp Ltd of Apia, recalled seeing the Norwich City and numerous bones strewn on the beach. Capt Jones arrived at Hull Island on 21 May 1937 from Apria, Samoa, on the MAKAO. Unfortunately the MAKAO sunk on 21 June 37 and the crew rescued by the RMS NIAGRA, and returned to Hull Is. As shown below the window of opportunity to have visited Gardner was thus 21 May -21 June 37 aboard the MAKAO. The Earhart Search Cruise report excerpt provided by Kenton Spading includes a section written by a Dept of Interior representative who was aboard the ITASCA, when visiting Hull Is in Nov 1937. According to this report: "Mr Jones told us of the wreck of the Norwich City on Gardner Island. She struck in 1919, and the MAKOA saw her recently and stated there was much good material aboard her such as anchors, winches, etc. The bodies of nine men lost in the wreck=E2=80=A6were buried ashore, but wild pigs dug them up and their skeletons now lie on the beach. The survivors were taken off the island." [emphasis mine] Apparently he is not referring to any aspect of the Earhart disappearance. As Kenton Spading points out it is not absolutely clear if Capt Jones was aboard the MAKAO when she visited Gardner, but it is unlikely he would entrust the ship to a native crew. The date the NC wrecked was wrong and his story about the nine dead buried is not correct. Recall that Capt Jones was formerly at Apia where the surviors from the Norwich City were taken in Dec 1929 by the rescue boat and he is probably blending in part of the anecdotal story from the surviors and his own personal observations to the Dept of Interior representative. The following report is from Donahue's book citing a CONFIDENTIAL CRUISE REPORT 601-64 made by the Captain of the USS TANEY when the ship visited Hull Island in November 1937. The excerpts appear, p. 87, describing a meeting with Capt Jones ( a photo aboard the Taney is included) in which Capt Jones described his job with the Burns-Phip Ltd doing Copra production along with 39 Tokelau natives. Capt Jones had a radio transmitter and receiver and a small sailing vessel in which he could visit the other islands. Capt Jones in this excerpt makes no mention of visiting Gardner and seeing the skeletons near the Norwich City in May-June of 1937, although he was familiar with the Earhart search in the Phoenix Islands based on his conversations with Lt John Lambrecht on 9 July 37. NOTE: I don't have the full Navy reports and it may be possible that there is only one report, the one from the USS TANEY . I doubt that the Itasca and the USS TANEY both visited Hull in Nov 37. Apparently Jones didn't tell Lt Lambrecht about his visit to Gardner even though Lt Lambrecht made it clear he was searching all of the Phoenix Islands. Maybe Jones didn't think it was relevant. Funny that with Jones' highpowered receiver and transmitter, he said he know "nothing" about the missing aviatrix. In any case it seems clear that Capt Jones (presumably)and the crew of the MAKAO in fact visited Gardner Island about a month before Earhart's alleged landing, and several months before Maude,et al arrived in Oct 1937. In view his detailed description of the machinery, winches, and salvageable material inside the Norwich City, as well as seeing the "bones of nine" lying on the beach, the crew more than likely disembarked from the MAKAO to inspect the wreck. This visit might be useful in accounting for the observations of " signs of recent habitation" by Lambrecht on his fly over in July 1937 and Maudes and Beavingtons similar observations, e.g., signs of "bivouack". If the crew did get off and remained for a half a day or a couple of days they may have made fires nearby, erected sun shelters, buried some partial skeletons (?), cooked,whatever,and perhaps may have walked the island for copra potential planting and harvesting. Unless Tighar has the more complete reports of Capt Jones activities at Gardner in May-June 37, this may be a fertile ground of research. Presumably all of the crews activities would be around Nutiran towards the south corner. Another possiblity is that Capt Jones visited Gardner Is AFTER Earhart went down sometime in late summer of 1937 using his motorized sailboat that he used for inter-island travel. At that time he sees the Norwich City, bones,etc., and that is why he is refering to "recently". But his first story was he was aboard the MAKAO and it he could not have used that after the ship went down on 21 June 37. He may have mixed up the boats, who knows? LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, this is pretty interesting stuff and bears some close examination. Maybe Kenton brought it to my attention before and I failed to take notice of it. If so, I apologize. I could have saved you a lot of embarrassment. First let's look at the sources you cite. You say: <> I am not aware of a document entitled "Earhart Search Cruise report". I have copies of numerous and, I believe, all of the U. S. government reports about the Earhart search but there are only two "cruise reports". One is a U.S. Treasury Department report dated 24 July 1937 and titled "Cruise Report 4 June to 24 July 1937 - embracing Earhart flight and Equatorial Island cruise." It is signed by the commanding officer of the Itasca and does not contain anything by a Dept. of Interior representative. It also, obviously, does not contain any reference to events in November 1937. I also have the complete "Report of Tenth Cruise to American Equatorial Islands of Jarvis- Howland - Baker" submitted by Richard B. Black, Field Representative, Division of Territories and Island Possessions, Dept. of Interior. It runs from June 18 to August 1, 1937 and a copy was submitted to William T. Miller of the Bureau of Air Commerce on September 10, 1937 - so it does not describe events in November either. Itasca never went anywhere near Hull Island during the cruise that included the search for Earhart. Your other source, an excerpt from Confidential Cruise Report 601-64 by the captain of the USCG cutter Taney and quoted from Jim Donohue's book "The British Connection", is almost as confusing. Donohue says that the report is dated 11 November 1937 but then he quotes passages from the report that describe events on 13 November. He shows a photo of the Taney with a caption that says the visit to Hull was made during a cruise in "September and October 1937". Another photo on the same page (87) shows Jones visiting aboard the Taney in "October, 1937". Something is screwed up. Here's what I suspect is going on. Itasca was never at Hull. Taney probably visited Hull on October 13, 1937 and Donohue just transcribed the date wrong. I think that the Dept. of Interior quote about Jones visiting Gardner is from the DoI report on the Taney's cruise, certainly not an "Earhart Search Cruise report". Okay, so where are we? Taney calls at Hull in (probably) October of 1937 and Jones tells the DoI rep the story about somedody (perhaps himself) on the Makoa seeing the wreck and the bones on Gardner. As you say, this had to have taken place sometime between Jones' arrival at Hull on 21 May and the loss of the Makoa which you put on 21 June but which, as we'll see, is probably happened much earlier. Let's clear up a few things about Jonesy. Donohue makes a big deal of him being an officer in the Royal Naval Reserve but the fact is that in 1937 he was on Hull as a civilian overseer working for Burns Philp (South Seas) Company of Australia, Ltd who had secured a lease to Sydney, Hull and Gardner from the British government in 1926. They planted coconuts on Sydney and Hull, but not Gardner. By 1937 the trees were ready to be harvested for copra and Jones was sent as supervisor of a small work force of 39 Tokelaus. As jobs in the Pacific go, this is not what you'd call a prestigious position. Apparently Jones came equipped with a radio of sorts, but he soon ran into trouble. As related by Eric Bevington in his book "The Things We Do For England - If Only England Knew" (page 25), Jones was having some trouble getting the Tokelaus to work. Knowing that there would be an eclipse of the sun on Tuesday, June 8, 1937, he warned the laborers on Saturday that unless they turned out for work on Monday he would cause the sun to be blacked out if they did not obey him. According to Bevington, "This threat was met with the derison it apparently deserved." The Sabbath was observed as usual, but on Monday the workers again refused to turn out and Jones repeated his threat. The next morning, to their horror, the prophecy began to come true. The terrified workers rushed to find Jones and found him talking on the radio about the eclipse. So this was how he had done it! In a panic they smashed the radio to pieces. Jones did not get back on the air until 30 August 1937 when HMS Leith called "to install a W/T station." (Report of Proceedings - Island Cruise - Second Part - HMS Leith, dated 18 September 1937). The Leith's captain reports, " I landed the wireless stores and a party to assemble the set. Provisions and stores which we had brought for the Island were also landed and I embarked about two tones of salvaged cases from the wreck of the Burns Philp schooner Makoa." The presence of the wreck of the Makoa at Hull is further supported by Bevington's diary entry of October 24th, "There is a wreck on the reef just by the anchorage; it went up last May yet only the backbone is now left..". This would seem to suggest that the June 21st date for the wreck of Makoa is in error. Bevington spent two days with Jones at Hull and his diary is a primary contemporaneous source. Your reference to rescue of the crew by RMS Niagra also seems odd. Makoa clearly came to grief right there on the reef at Hull and apparently very early in Jones' stay. The visit to Gardner seems to have happened at least a month before Earhart's disappearance. Having gotten all that straightened out as best we can , let's look at this very interesting report. "Mr Jones told us of the wreck of the Norwich City on Gardner Island. She struck in 1919, and the MAKOA saw her recently and stated there was much good material aboard her such as anchors, winches, etc. The bodies of nine men lost in the wreck -- were buried ashore, but wild pigs dug them up and their skeletons now lie on the beach. The survivors were taken off the island." As you have pointed out, the details about the date and circumstances of the wreck are incorrect except that the survivors were, indeed, taken off the island. It is not possible to know from this second, or possibly third-hand report, whether anyone from Makao actually went aboard the wreck or went ashore. All of the information could have been gathered from the deck of the ship with a pair of binoculars and going ashore over the reef is always a hazardous venture. There was nothing of interest to Burns Philp on Gardner. That decision had been made years before, but it's natural that such a large wreck would be a curiosity. Speculation about a shore party from the Makao being responsible for the "signs of recent habitation" seen by Lambrecht five or six weeks later presupposes that someone went ashore and did something that left signs that could be seen from the air and endured that long despite rain, wind and tide. Possible? Yes. A known source of signs of recent habitation? No. We've never heard any report of wild pigs on Gardner and it's hard to imagine where they would have come from, but apparently there were a whole bunch of human bones scattered about on the beach. That directly supports Emily's contention that: "Not far from where the ship was. ... It was around that area were the bones were found. Could be bones from the ship or the airplane. During the westerlies, heavy swells took the rest of the bones away. There were not many that we found. Maybe 10 different people whose bones were found along that area. There were some with leather bottles and a pipe." (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Interviews.html) Emily's account is, of course, entirely anecdotal but now appears to be corroborated by hard documentation. She implies that she herself saw the bones ("There were not many that we found.") which puts them still there when she first arrives on Gardner in January 1940. But even if her "we" means simply "we colonists", it means they were there when the first work party arrived. The really interesting thing here is that there were apparently bones on the beach in May (?) 1937 and sometime after the the first colonists arrived on 20 December 1938, and yet neither Lambrecht's aerial searchers (who flew over that beach on July 9, 1937) or Maude and Bevington (who were on that beach in October 1937) or the New Zealand Survey Party (who were living on that beach from December 1, 1938 to February 5, 1939) mention anything about bones. It's a pretty dramatic illustration of the danger in drawing conclusions based upon what someone "would have" seen and mentioned. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:01:37 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits Please forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't charcoal deposit chunks or pieces slowly erode with the weather into smaller pieces or disappear altogether? When you handle it it rubs or crumbles in your hands. Chris #2511 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:03:47 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Where is the Knife? > From Ric (in the Seven Site thread) > I don't mean to imply that juggling folklore is a worthless pastime. We > do a whole lot of it. But I think that it's importnat to realize that > the best you can come up with is a hypothesis to test, not a conclusion > about what "must have" happened. I am going to juggle some assumptions. I'm not a very good juggler. I've never gotten beyond three items, and I don't handle them very well for very long. :o( Let me preface my remarks by saying that I like TIGHAR and the Niku hypothesis. I worry from time to time about Ric's mental health (clams in grass skirts and the explanation of how Melie came to have a Benedictine bottle next to her bones), but not about his archeological methods nor about his integrity as a researcher. Hypothesis: AE & FN landed on the reef. Evidence: Post-loss signals & some DF hints pointing toward Niku. Argument: There must have been time to take what they wanted from the airplane. ASSUMPTION: There should have been at least one knife on board the airplane. Evidence: When I look inside my head and imagine myself packing for possible airplane-related emergencies, I always pack a knife, and not a small one, neither. You just never know what you're going to have to cut to get out of an accident. My imagination is fed by many stories of early aviators cutting parachute lines while tangled up and falling, Lindbergh's two-chute jump, and the like. Counter-evidence: No knife mentioned by Gallagher. "Cutting tools" found at Seven site. No knife found by TIGHAR. Logical possibilities: No knives on the plane. One knife on the plane. Several knives on the plane. Lost in the landing. Left behind by accident. Left in a cache that has been lost or found by someone and looted. Lost or broken in early days on the island. Hauled off by crabs. Lost in the water while cutting clams off rocks. Not as useful as I imagine it/them to be. Not found yet among the multiple campsites used by the castaway up on the high ground. Not found yet among earlier campsites closer to the landing site. THE BOTTOM LINE: SO WHAT? So I think Ric should go back and look for more stuff. :o) And let's quick call it Niku V before Ric gets carried away with I-I-I-I-It. Heavens, I love armchair archeology! Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric We'll call it "NIKU V - The Search For The Knife". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:05:26 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits > From Ric > So how do you explain the presence of bird and fish bones, some (but not > all) of them burned, in the fire features? Suicidal Wildlife? Fish & birds trying to escape the crabs? ********************************************************************** From Ric Moving right along..... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:06:37 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Alan Caldwell: you missed the point of the fuel consumption problem entirely. If Oscar is right, then AE had access to a much more efficient fuel consumption profile than the small tidbits of info from Kelly Johnson at our disposal. What Oscar indicates is that KJ sent some addendum material to Earhart, (which we use now for our fuel consumption profiles), but there were typographical errors in it. These errors indicate a signficant decrease in fuel consumption. Assuming AE used what KJ gave her, including what we don't have access to, then she would have a lot more fuel to search for Howland, go to the Gilberts, or to go to Niku (take your pick). The point is: we may have been underestimating the amount of fuel AE had when arriving at Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:10:22 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Fuel > From Tom MM > So, sticking to the low flight assumption, would this and possibly richer > mixture settings (for power and safety) have any significant impact on the > fuel problem? The short answer is that running richer at 2000 feet at 175, 200 or 250 hp per engine would INCREASE fuel consumption by about 2 gph (from 26, 30 or 38 gph, respectively, to say 28, 32 or 40 gph), while DECREASING True Airspeed by perhaps 10 to 12 mph from the 10,000 foot performance (to - say - 148 or 154 or 160). ************************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR's original estimate based solely on Johnson's numbers was 38 gph at 130 knots. Later we dropped that to 42 gph and about 110 knots, but it looks like we were being way too pessimistic. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:11:28 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: For Boswell and Caldwell in particular For: Actually for Everyone Let me express an opinion from strictly a pilot's viewpoint (Pilot 500 hrs. flying time mostly Beech V-tail Bonanza). If I was sitting in the left seat of Earhart's plane at the time of the disappearance, the prospects of looking for another remote and isolated island similar to Howland with the sun in my face, glare off the surface of the ocean, scattered CU or whatever there was making shadows that looked like islands but weren't, the prospect of finding a second island such as Gardner (Niku) would have scared me half to death. I would have X'd that project so fast it would have put a NYC taxi cab driver to shame. Earhart just flew over the Gilbert Islands, they knew they were there, and it was a chain or an archipelago making it easier to locate dry land. Further to the North was the Marshall Islands. If they ran into foul weather, what would be wrong with trying for the Marshalls....nothing. The United States wasn't at war (yet). I think Oscar Boswell probably has it right on the fuel consumption especially at higher altitudes. And, yes, the Marshall and the Gilbert Islands were in range. It wouldn't have been any problem for Earhart to dip down to sea level and pick up wind direction and speed estimates. When I was flying there was a procedure that was enumerated in FAA survival manuals for over water flight. In the owner's manual for a Beech Bonanza, there are specific instruction for ditching at sea, which includes, incidentally, detailed instructions on setting down in the water between swells in the sea irrespective of wind direction or speed. The instructions to pilots were to look for a "trough" in the water where the surface would be fairly smooth. I know I keep harping about Earhart being down to 1,000 ft. in her last transmissions, but from a pilot's viewpoint that would have been a nearly ideal altitude to pick up wind direction and speed..i. e.the direction the waves were moving, white caps, swells, whatever evidence that would give off clues. Noonan being the navigator that he was must have been aware of that procedure. There is nothing new about it. Also, I want to comment that the prevailing trade winds in that area were out of the Northwest (towards the Gilberts), and there is another prevailing wind system that would have taken Earhart directly into Mili Atoll....if it happened. Is there anyone who can verify that? Yes, if she turned back it could have created a tailwind, increasing at higher altitudes. Earhart complained in her transmissions of headwinds all the way into Howland Island. If they turned back those headwinds would have translated into tailwinds. Noonan was not the pilot in command of the airplane. It was Earhart. If I had a navigator telling me to try and find another peanut sized island which would have completely exhausted the fuel supply (a guess) and put my airplane in nearly the same situation (or worse) as at Howland (if it wasn't found) would have been a cause for alarm to say the least. So you can make all the up and down the LOP calculations you're in the mood for....in the meantime, I believe the LOP calculations are almost meaningless. So what it if they point to Gardner Island? Is Gardner going to turn out to be another Howland? Would it turn out to be another pea-sized island that would be too hard to see? So it had a blue lagoon? Would you risk you're airplane and your life and your career on an island the size of Gardner they may be just as hard to find as Howland? Pilots and navigators don't think the same way. If I was Amelia Earhart sitting there in her shoes racing through my mind would be...if Noonan couldn't find Howland why would he be any better at finding Gardner? Also consider the factor there would be no radio contacts available at Gardner....none. It compounds the pilot-thinking problem. Also, there is another problem....deteriorating weather conditions. How did anyone, at the time, know what the weather conditions would be at Gardner Island? The truth of the matter is they didn't, and it would add a double risk factor to the equation that Earhart had to face in making the final decisions. The standard procedure in case of emergencies is called the 180 degree turn. Earhart and Noonan did exactly that in the middle of a tropical monsoon in Burma...back they went the other direction. And back in the other direction is exactly what I would have done at Howland Island. I know you can argue that there may have been a plan GP and AE had in mind to select the Phoenix Islands in case of emergency which sent the Battleship Colorado in search of the Electra off to the south, but as I look at the maps, and after reading Boswell's testimony, the Gilbert Islands and the Marshall Islands would have been well in range....AND A MUCH SAFER BET THAN AN ISOLATED SITUATION LIKE GARDNER. They just flew over the Gilberts....Earhart and Noonan must have know exactly where they were. Flying at 1,000 ft. for a normally aspirated (non-turbocharged) engine is prohibitive for max. range and economy. The best cruising altitude for those engines would have been about 8,000 ft. and throttle back on those engines....and how. The end conclusion of all this....widen the Earhart search....include the Marshall Islands. Include everything. And so, that's my thoughts on the situation. Carol #2524 **************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you for your thoughts. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:14:14 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noticing clams Dave, you've got to remember that folks have been sailing around the Pacific for (depending on the area) anywhere between 3,000 and 7,000 years. There's lots of time for islands to be found, and then fit into the navigation lore for people to revisit later. The very reason that Gardner Island got renamed Nikumaroro is that in the traditions of the I Kiribati there was an island of that name, which nobody in living memory had visited, that lay upwind of Samoa and from which the ancestress Nei Manganibuka came. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:15:36 EST From: Denise Subject: Coconut Terminology Note for Angus: Coconut MILK comes from squeezing out the flesh. Coconut water or JUICE comes from the coconut straight. LTM (who loved lolo) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric I didn't know that. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:17:26 EST From: Denise Subject: Re: Speculating on Coconut Trees Angus: You say "You need some inclination on the tree". But any significant inclination allows rats to climb and the resulting nutlessness would surely make climbing such a tree pointless. I suspect you may next suggest there being accessible nuts on the ground. I'll anticipate you and say that is probably out of the question as well. Coconut crabs and rats gnaw through fallen coconuts and eat out the contents. But although I still think they couldn't have got the coconuts, I'm beginning to rethink my former postion and am now not so sure they wouldn't have known what to do with them. Back in the 30s (yeah, yeah, and even today) demonstrations of Islanders coconut-tree climbing and coconut preparations were standard fare for tourists ... which means it's possible A.E. and F.N., with their visits at least to Hawaii (and didn't F.N. plot air routes through the Pacific region?) would have witnessed the whole procedure and thus had an idea of how to go about things. Here's a thought: instead of using that cable you suggest they took off the plane (and wouldn't that still be around? Somewhere in the village perhaps? Tying something together perhaps?) to climb the tree, how about if they just flailed it around in the air until it hit a nut ripe enough to fall. LTM (who is actually starting to see this scenerio as a possibility) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:19:14 EST From: Denise Subject: This too is beginning to make sense. Ric says: "I think the main point to be made about the coconut trees, however, is that the castaway(s) clearly did not choose to hang out anywhere near them ...". Ric, after talking to my dad, who was very briefly "not a castaway" (Ridiculous suggestion!!! The boat was just holed, OK! And if he "wasn't with two such damned useless pillocks" they'd have been off the island within hours instead of days!) the main problem your average caucasian discovers after several days of "not being a castaway" is that your skin is so badly burned - so raw and sore - you can't stand the slightest feeling of sunlight on it, even through clothes. After two days, you go for the densest shade possible for the hours between 10am and 2 pm, then, after three days, you're hiding out from 8.30am to 4.30pm. Four days and your tolerance for any at all, even the shafts coming through trees, is gone. You only move around at dawn and dusk (sure, that's when the sandflies are at their worst, but you can't have everything!) while spending all the daylight hours sheltering in the frond-covered bivouac you've built yourself in the shade of whatever trees are around, being crawled over by creepy-crawlies and buzzed by flies, feeling hot and sticky and getting crosser by the second. (Don't you just love the Pacific!) So here's my suggestion: The castaway spent as much time as possible whereever there was the most shade. Coconut trees didn't come into it. LTM (who has no idea how long it takes for a sun-tolerance to build up.) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:19:48 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Niku turtles I'm sure, from the size of the carapace plates, that the Seven Site turtle(s) was or were larger than 18 inches, but I'll ask our turtle guy when he gets back to me about the results of the DNA analysis. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:22:31 EST From: Lee Boyle Subject: Re: Birds, Easy to cook? The natives on Atafu Island, while I was stationed with the Coast Guard during WW11, would ring a chickens neck and after it died cook it in a pit fire fueled by coconut husks. The chicken would be wrapped in wet coconut leaves before cooking. When the chicken was cooked, the feathers were easily pulled from the body of the chicken. The chicken was then eaten. No, the inters were not eaten. It tasted good to us. No one became sick that I knew of. Could this be a way to cook a bird? ************************************************************************** From Ric As Tom King has said, the "earth oven" method you describe is common to many Pacific islander groups. No evidence so far of that method being used at the Seven Site. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:29:50 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Seven Site bones Just for the record, the "Native" who would have ID the bones as female in Angus' formulation, assuming it was Native Medical Practitioner Tutu, didn't just "pretend" to medical expertise; he had it. The NMPs were apparently quite well trained, and Tutu seems to have been among the best at the time, to judge from the way various people wrote about him. Whether he was trained to sex a skeleton, of course, is another matter. The "Irish" thing has always bothered me, in a way more since we learned that Gallagher's nickname was Irish than before. Why would one of the colonists call him by such a familiar nickname, when he was known to them as "Kela" or "Karaka?" "Irish" seems to have been something he used with his buds. Was Kilts' informant someone who could "pretend" to greater familiarity with Gallagher than most people? If so, who? *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point Tom. Bauro Tikana, who was his clerk and interpreter, referred to him as "Mr. Gallagher." It's, frankly, hard to imagine any Pacific islander referring to him as "Irish." The only possible exception I can think of is Jack Petro. Jack was on the island in April 1940 when we think the skull was first discovered. I wonder if there is any chance that Jack was there after the war when Kilts was there - but Kilts certainly would not have needed to get an interpreter if Jack was the informant. Very puzzling. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:34:45 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Shellfish I caught the end of a programme in the Australian series "Bush Tucker Man" last week. Don't know if it's shown in the States - a survival expert with the Australian military tours the country pointing out how you can live off the land if only you know how to look. I love it. This one was about two Germans who were shipwrecked on the Western Australian coast, possibly during World War Two. They tried to trek out but failed and were rescued after some six weeks by Aboriginal people, after they had literally lain down to die. This was despite plants which could have nourished them being found within a couple of hundred yards of their cave, assuming the mix of vegetation was unchanged in the interval. They had, however, eaten shellfish. Les Hiddins, the Bush Tucker Man, boiled these and they fell open and as far as I understood it this was what the Germans had done. In other words, if you have a fire and a container you don't necessarily need to bash shellfish open to eat them. Might this suggest that the shell debris at the site was left by someone other than whoever built the fire? Or failing that, the castaway was in such straitened circumstances that s/he didn't even have a tin can? LTM Phil Tanner *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point, but where are you going to get a tin can unless you brought it with you? - Or found it at the Norwich City cache? Unless any that were there were rusted away? In the absence of a metal container, heating water is a bit of a problem. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:36:53 EST From: Van T Hunn Subject: Food for Thought I don't recall anyone mentioning, as a food source, the hundreds of juvenile sharks(4" to 20" long) that cruise in the shallow water along the lagoon edge. These, too, would be easy to club. In fact, once while metal detecting in the shallow lagoon water, I used the detector head to trap one, then put it on shore for a moment before returning it to lagoon(it wasn't happy to be on shore). Anyway, these would be a good food source either cooked or raw. Van *************************************************************************** From Ric But wouldn't leave any bones - would they? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:39:29 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Multiple fire sites. It seems to me that multiple fire sites may have arisen from the need to minimise the effort of firewood collection in an exhausting environment. Why always drag the firewood back to the same site with firewood becoming less and less available near that site? Much simpler to start a new fire in a location where fuel is available close at hand. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric Except that these sites are just a few meters away from each other and, at least these days, firewood from deadfall is plentiful. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:40:44 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Where is the Knife? > We'll call it "NIKU V - The Search For The Knife". Not "Niku V - Blade Rummager"? ************************************************************************* From Ric Oh no....I've done it again. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:36:08 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart I have repeatedly brought up this incident to you and the forum, but it seems to always have been ignored. The report is likely from the 11th or 12th Equatorial Cruise Report to the DoI. Jones did in fact visit Gardner just prior to AE's disappearance, according to the available information. In the chronology of visitors to Gardner, this visitation is always missing. ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay. I guess I was just being dense. We certainly should have looked at it closely before. *************************************************************************** From Ron Bright Re: "The Jones report" Your encyclopedic knowledge is showing!! You must have files on every creature that set foot on Niku. Anyway Jones' report is a puzzle. He or the crew it appears did see a lot of bones, whether ashore or thru binoculars, in the Norwich City wreck area. That does support Emily's story, the large number etc., but is contradicted by Maude, et al who I think even tied up to the NC for three days. Since Jones was at Apia in 1929 when the surviors arrived back he may well have added or embellished an innocous visit by the MAKAO in May 37 near the NC into a present tense observation that included the "bones on the beach" He was , said Donahue, really an intelligence agent for the US and the British. The significance of those bones in May 1937 at or near the Norwich City or posssibly not far away on the north reef, if true, may be worth a expanded Bulletin Report. It is hard to figure out. Jones didn't mention that there were three crew buried nearby, but with currents running into the lagoon, some of those exposed bones and skulls could have been swept into the southeast corner of the lagoon. LTM, Ron B. **************************************************************************** From Ric And floated (bones don't float) three miles and get washed way up into the bushes 100 feet above ordinary spring tides along with the shoe parts, sextant box and fire, dead birds and turtle? Jones' report (or rather the report of what he allegedly said) is NOT contradicted by Maude, Bevington or the New Zealand Survey Party - none of which include any statement like "although lives must have been lost in the shipwreck, no bones or ther signs of casualties were seen." That is exactly my point. This "would have" business, along with the acceptance of uncorroborated anecdote as fact, are the biggest pitfalls to historical investigation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:38:32 EST From: Mike Van Holsbeck Subject: Re: Multiple fire sites. Are the fires set up in a circle by chance? Or any pattern like that. I would make 4 to 6 "main" fires and then scatter burning embers between the fire pits to keep the demon crabs out for a while. nothing like a few hours rest while the embers make a barrier. Just a thought. ************************************************************************ From Ric That would make sense, but - no, I don't think a pattern like that is evident, yet anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:42:18 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Shellfish > From Ric > Good point, but where are you going to get a tin can unless you brought it > with you? - Or found it at the Norwich City cache? Unless any that were > there were rusted away? In the absence of a metal container, heating water > is a bit of a problem. Not if you have a turtle shell and an inverting eyepiece. Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric Can you boil water in turtle shell and not burn up the shell? I don't know. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:43:08 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Where is the Knife? Aviation archeology on the cutting edge.... ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:08:46 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications > The point is: we may have been underestimating the amount of fuel AE > had when arriving at Howland. No, I recognized Oscar's point but wasn't sold. It is certainly possible but if true and AE had fuel to do all that including easily getting back to the Gilberts or as Oscar suggested, north to the Marshalls, why would she say she was low on fuel? Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric I think there's real value in determining what the airplane was theoretically capable of and reasoning out that Earhart probably had much better fuel management information avialable to her than just the Johnson telegrams, but I think we also have to acknowledge that Earhart was cleary flight planning the airplane at 150 mph and that she did say "but gas is running low" (whatever that means) at 19 hours and 12 minuets into the flight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:10:19 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: what ever I can tell you how i got coconuts down off my tree at home, I took one of the nuts which had previously fallen by its own desire (a psyciatric term) and hurlled it up into the bunch still remaing in the tree,, Usually I cud knock down an additional 6 more nuts. The ripe ones are easy to knock down. Now that the fuel report has become official, (even tho twice removed from reality by the separation of 60 years) im wondering does anyone have the truth about hard reality. Hard reality is when you are Amelia Earhart and its your trip,, and your the one who was tweaking the throttle,, prop ,, and mixture. Reality will shoot theory in the head every time If anyone has ever been in that position to actually tweek throttle prop and mixture with the use of a digital fuel flow meter,,then you know what I know,, There is a limit of absolute ratios where by nothing you can do will change the outcome,, regardless of what theory is used,,the fuel flow will not decrease and the airspeed will not increase but the cylinder head temps will definatly increase. Air Temperature,, density altitude, aircraft trim, dont seem to be included in the fuel report. Aircraft trim is a really bigge if youve ever had one "on the step" then you know that feel. Aircraft trim is constantly changing and is never the same moment to moment. Maybe you can predict the exact minute of zero fuel or maybe you cant. Was the level of sophistication availabe to Amelia in july of 1937 just as keen and precise as our arm chair commandos in the year 2002?? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:12:54 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Shellfish <> You can steam them like in a New England clam bake. Build a big fire, burn down to embers throw on seaweed, then clams, then more seaweed. Cover with soil (or a tarp) and steam for a few hours. The clams are done and opened! Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM(who enjoyed clambakes) ************************************************************************ From Ric No seaweed at Niku, but that general method may account for the small clam shells mixed in with charcoal. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:14:33 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Physical work! Many recent posts have had our castaway(s) doing an awful lot of physical work such as moving around the island, "clubbing" sharks, catching fish, trapping birds, capturing turtles, climbing coconut tress, bashing coconuts, spinning wires around to get at coconuts and a bunch of other stuff I'm sure I've overlooked. Ric, you've been there, you've frequently mention how exhausting the heat and humidity are and how it simply drains the energy from those who are not in shape to endure such hardships. Now, if I take you at your word (and I do) I try to mix that exhaustion you describe with the added hardships of little to no food and water, and I don't see any one doing a whole heck of a lot of anything except laying on their back in the shade panting like hard-run dog. If after a couple of days in that climate I haven't secured some easy pickin's for food and water (the Norwich City stash?) I just don't see where I'm going to get the energy to do any of the clubbing, running, swinging, fishing etc. mentioned above. Yeah, I know I got to get up and eat or at least try to find some food and water, but buddy, stick a fork in me because I'm done. My point: I think our posters have our heroes do way too much work without considering the environmental, physical, and psychological stresses they are enduring. LTM, who prefers her comforts Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:15:16 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits I've handled 300 year old charcoal. Think of it this way: New charcoal is big black lumps on white coral. Eroded charcoal is very small, very black lumps on white coral. Where is it going to go? Charcoal will survive anything short of burning. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:16:11 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Where is the Knife? > We'll call it "NIKU V - The Search For The Knife". How about: "NIKU V - The Edge of Knife". (Sorry, couldn't resist) Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:17:10 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Charcoal deposits For Chris Yes, charcoal gradually deteriorates, but depending on conditions it can last a really long time -- thousands and thousands of years in some cases. This is one reason it's a favored item for radiocarbon age determination. Unfortunately, Niku is on the whole not a very good environment for charcoal preservation, though there are some firepits in the village where lots has been preserved. At the Seven Site, charcoal does pretty much what you think it would do, which is why we have very little of it even though we can see from the burned coral and bones that there have been fires. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:28:05 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Seven Site bones > Kilts certainly would not have needed to > get an interpreter if Jack was the informant. But maybe Jack was the interpreter. Kilts is, after all, reporting what the interpreter said the informant said. ********************************************************************* From Ric So.....Jack is on Niku in '46 and there is also a colonist present who was on the island in '40 when the bones were found (as was Jack). The colonist is trying to tell Floyd Kilts about the incident but his English isn't very good so Floyd gets Jack to interpret and it's Jack who changes the colonist reference to Gallagher (Karaka or Kela) to "Irish". The point is, we know that Jack was on the island at the time we think the bones were found. This hypothesis is getting pretty complicated if we're saying that Jack couldn't just tell the story himself because - what? - he didn't know about it? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:17:30 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Ric says: "I think we have to acknowledge that Earhart was clearly flight planning the airplane at 150 mph and that she did say 'but gas is running low' (whatever that means) at 19 hours and 12 minuets [sic] into the flight." I thought when this question came up earlier you thought it probably meant she was into what would've been a prudent 20%-25% fuel reserve (hopefully closer to 25%--the math gets ugly the closer to 20% you get)? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric 20% was the "standard" reserve for long flights (according to USAAC Lt. Dan Cooper aboard Itasca). Itasca also thought that she had 24 and possibly as much as 30 hours of fuel aboard. We don't know where they got that number, but they got it from somewhere and it pretty well matches our latest estimates. If she's figuring conservatively that she has 24 hours of fuel, then a 20% reserve is 4.8 hours. At 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight when she says "but gas is running low" she has just crossed that threshold. Coincidence perhaps, and perhaps not. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:18:23 EST From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications > From Ric >" 19 hours and 12 minuets into the flight." Was Noonan as good as Astaire. I admire the fact that Ric makes very few errors in what must be a frantic effort to answer most if not all of the mail. Dale ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:05:38 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Yeah, it's interesting. But, she reports this at 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight, not one hour later. So, if she means that she was actually IN her 20% reserve at 19 hours and 12 minutes when she says gas running low, then 20% means she had about 3.8 hours of fuel left. What's that, about 23 hours total? --Chris ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think we can pin her down. All we can say is that, at 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight she is sufficiently concerned about fuel to say that "gas is running low." If she is on her last dregs and expects the engines to quit at any moment, then her gas is running low. If she has just started to burn into her 20% reserve, or is about to begin burning into her reserve, then her gas is also running low. If, on the other hand, she still has nearly half her endurance remaining it is more difficult to understand her comment that gas is running low. It's sort of an odd thing to say anyway. I mean, what's Itasca supposed to do about it? "Okay guys. Very funny. Now go ahead and answer. My gas is running low." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:07:21 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Coconut Terminology > From Denise > Note for Angus: Coconut MILK comes from squeezing out the flesh. Coconut > water or JUICE comes from the coconut straight. > Denise > *************************************************************************** > From Ric > I didn't know that. Denise is right, but a heck of a lot of people refer to the water (its correct name) as coconut milk. My experience is that it takes about 5 or 6 mature green or mature fallen nuts to produce a litre of water. Coconut oil (used to be the major ingredient in margarine) is made by heating the squeezed milk. It is also possible to get about a litre of sugary juice per day from a coconut tree, and continue this production for months at a time. There is no way a castaway could have done it though. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:09:06 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Speculating on Coconut Trees > From Denise > Angus: I suspect you may next suggest there being accessible nuts on the ground. > I'll anticipate you and say that is probably out of the question as well. > Coconut crabs and rats gnaw through fallen coconuts and eat out the > contents. It is more likely that the rats gnaw their way into the coconuts. I always thought that the cocos on the beach with the ends chewed out had been got at by crabs. I've recently (very recently) discovered that it's rats getting them, in many cases while they are still on the tree. The angle of the trunk seems to make no difference at all to their ability to climb! Big Ass Latro apparently prefers to eat rats to coconuts. Also, regardless of the rats, the castaway would have been able to find drinkable coconuts on the ground if the trees were bearing. The Norwich City survivors certainly did. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:09:59 EST From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Shellfish For boiling clams (or anything else), many Native Americans used rocks heated in a fire, then placed them in a container with the fluid/objects to be heated. This would work with clay pots, an animal skin placed in a hole in the ground, or, say, a turtle shell. I don't know if this is was a common practice in the Pacific. Dr. King will enlighten us. LTM (who doesn't like cooking with hot rocks anymore) Tim Smith 1142 CE Alexandria, VA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:13:09 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: This too is beginning to make sense. As an average caucasian who has over quite a few years, spent weeks at a time on coral rubble beaches with minimal shelter on tropical islands where there is limited or no water I can tell you that this is rubbish. Coconut trees are like huge umbrellas when it comes to shade. You may have to move around a bit, but the shade from any tree from five up to around twenty years old is great. I/we had absolutely no problems moving about exploring and fishing in temperatures well over 100deg F. although morning and late afternoon was indeed more comfortable. During the hot part of the day you tend to prop under a bush (or a coconut tree AWAY from the trunk) and doze. I've read Tighar's accounts and those of the N.C. survivors and I agree that coral rubble is hard on the feet, but by walking barefoot on the stuff for a short period regularly your feet toughen surprisingly. The rubble is relatively smooth and rounded anyway, so it's mostly just discomfort underfoot (things pressing into the soles). Considering the alternative was always confinement in the ovenlike interior of a twenty foot yacht, the islands were always preferential. I subjected visitors from Wales to an uninhabited tropical island a few years ago - and they're coming back for more, so it can't be just me that likes the heat, coral and solitude. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:19:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Shellfish > From Ric > Can you boil water in turtle shell and not burn up the shell? I don't > know. You can boil the whole turtle in the shell and not burn up the shell. You can boil water in a paper cup over a naked flame. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************ From Ric So far, we're seeing no evidence that anything was cooked by boiling at the Seven Site. It could have happened, but we just don't see anything that suggests it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:20:50 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Seven Site bones Perhaps the story teller couldn't remember the name but remembered it sounded Irish? But then I suppose Gallagher sounds more Scottish.. Th' WOMBAT ****************************************************************** From Ric Only to an Aussie. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:21:34 EST From: Larry Turner Subject: Shellfish You can boil water in campfire coals by putting water in a Styrofoam cup and setting the cup on the coals or even in flames. Cup will only melt at water line until all water is boiled to steam. Try it! I have won many a campfire bet. Never tried a turtle shell though. Don't know if it will transfer heat as fast as Styrofoam does in order to protect it from burning. Larry Turner ( you can also use a Paper cup ) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:23:52 EST From: jd bell Subject: Looking for Gardner (Niku) You have the patience of Job. Let me try this for Carol and others (should there be any of this particular mind-set) Nobody in the cockpit of the 10E on that fateful day decided to go look for Gardner (Niku). The decision was made by left seat, right seat or collectively to fly along the LOP looking for Howland. Gardner was not an intended destination until they got there (if they did). As a concept, it really isn't that hard. ************************************************************************* From Ric I need it because I also have his luck. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:28:00 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Ric and Oscar mainly, in my quick reply regarding fuel reserve I realize I was a little too brief. The flu has me down and I haven't had much incentive to post or think even. When I said I wasn't sold what I meant was I wasn't sold that AE flew the Electra as Oscar pointed out so ably that she could have. AS to Oscar's computations I buy every number. I'm a technical person with an engineering background and I eat stuff like that up. I try to run the same computations and for the same reasons. I want to know what the airplane was capable of and what it may have done. I agree whole heartedly that the plane may have been capable of ending up with a far, far greater fuel reserve than the 139 to 150 gallons some of us have sort of settled on. My problem is that I don't think that AE flew the Electra any where near that efficiently. I think that if Oscar had been there to explain how to do it all that would have gone over her head. But that's not my reasoning. I've flown over both oceans countless times and we planned our missions carefully so fuel would not be a problem but never in the most efficient manner. Our altitudes were dictated by other concerns -- weather, ATC and other formation aircraft. We flew a constant true airspeed so our navigator could navigate. There WAS a flight curve for best fuel usage but it was never used. There was no reason. We always had enough fuel for destination plus an alternate. AE couldn't fly by particular power settings. Noonan couldn't navigate under those conditions. Mine couldn't either. Noonan, just like my navigator, needed a constant true airspeed. Without it his DRing, his celestial shots his wind and ground speed computations were meaningless. That is not to say they couldn't have flown different true airspeeds on different parts of the long leg. That means they could have approximated the KJ fuel schedule to some degree but again altitude selection would have been dictated by weather and winds more than an efficient fuel curve. Finally, just guessing of course, I don't think they would have seen a need to fly the absolute most efficient manner possible. I have to agree (reluctantly) with Ric that I don't think there was a planned alternate. I think they saw no reason they couldn't fly to Howland and land. Maybe ditching close to Baker was as far as they planned if even that. But let's say they really DID have an alternate plan. If they thought they would arrive with enough gas to get to their alternate then having more was not that important. Not so important as to fly a very technical flight curve. As to where the alternate was if there was one is anyone's guess but Noonan did not have the capability to navigate to the Gilberts. No celestial. The sun was behind him. No radios. How was he supposed to do that? Only SE could he navigate. Now if someone can tell me how he could navigate west I'll be happy to revise my opinion. Basically, I think they just flew an approximation of KJ suggestions and flew a true airspeed all the way. Changing airspeeds would have been a very serious problem. Even climbs and descents needed to maintain a constant airspeed. Not necessarily the same as cruise but it could not be a varying airspeed. I can tell you from experience that even when they were searching for Howland at the last AE had to fly constant speeds and constant bank turns or Noonan couldn't follow it. We flew half rate standard turns and my nav knew how big of a circle that was at what ever altitude and airspeed we were at and plotted them by time of turn. Noonan would have even been concerned with the rate of rolling into and out of turns. Even at 1,000 feet and searching for Howland he had to maintain his position. Well, that's far more than I had intended to say. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:30:14 EST From: Chris Subject: Earhart flight recreation Didn't someone in the last year or so make a recreated ATW flight in a Lockheed 10? Did anyone keep tabs on her fuel consumption especially from Lae to Howland just to get a ballpark figure on consumption for comparison to our fuel calculations? Seems there would be endless observations to take advantage of. I'm not even sure that's taken place yet. Chris #2511 ************************************************************************** From Ric No. None since the Flight of the Finch in 1997. None likely anytime soon. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:31:07 EST From: Denise Subject: A Rose is a Rose is a Rose About the exchange: "Coconut MILK comes from squeezing out the flesh. Coconut water or JUICE comes from the coconut straight." and "I didn't know that." ... trust me on this! The milk is called milk because it looks exactly like milk. The water or juice is the stuff that looks exactly like water or juice. It used to annoy us all greatly that everyone in the non-coconut parts of the world always seemed to get it wrong. It's really simple: milk is milk; water is water. LTM (who can be annoyingly pedantic at times) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:42:21 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Native boat travel Ric wrote: >> We'll call it "NIKU V - The Search For The Knife". Oh, I thought for sure we were going to call it "NIKU V - The Return of Ric" or, perhaps more romantically, even if less accurately, "NIKU V - The Return to Paradise". Very interesting reading of late, particularly this bit about Jones being on or near the island prior to Earhart. Of course, that does allow that the "signs of recent habitation" seen during the aerial search were from another source, which has always been an open question anyway -- after all, who can document the travels of every native boat in the region during the preceeding year? Thomas Van Hare *************************************************************************** From Ric Ric has returned so many times that he feels like a yo-yo. The British banned inter-island canoe travel in 1930 but there were almost certainly violations of that stricture. Even so, Niku was so far away from any of the settled groups that visits by canoe were unlikely. For one thing, islanders did not venture out over great expanses of open ocean in the dinky little canoes they used in lagoons. Eric Bevington has a photo he took on Tabiteuea in 1938 of "The last of the great Baurua - ocean voyaging canoes." The sucker is HUGE - easily fifty feet long. By 1938 it was a relic of a by-gone era. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:45:13 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Context Carol Dow wrote: >> ...the prospect of finding a second island such as Gardner (Niku) >> would have scared me half to death. I would have X'd that project >> so fast it would have put a NYC taxi cab driver to shame.... And thus is illustrated the primary difference between modern pilots and the great trailblazers of the early days of aviation. Today, pilots are taught discipline, great aversion to risk, careful calculations, use of alternates, a whole pile of emergency procedures, and strict "go-no go" rules. Then, well , things were quite different -- you took a risk every time you took off. So no, it is absolutely wrong to say that Earhart would have also "X'd that project". For our part, we sometimes do not recognize that early aviators like Amelia Earhart had to develop their own rules, often "on the fly" (pun intended and true). Their equipment was far from perfect, their planes were generally more than a bit unreliable, their radios and avionics were always suspect, their charts were often inaccurate, and their weather reports were almost always flawed (even worse than they are today!). We tend to ignore this and place a "I would have done this differently..." sort of thinking into our analysis of historic aviation events -- at the extremes of historic misunderstanding would be a most blatant example would be, "I would never have tried to fly from Lae to Howland without a GPS, what was Earhart thinking?" The bottom line is that we don't say, "would have", "should have", or "could have" in any of our statements about what happened. Secondarily, Earhart and the others like her were used to risk, not averse to taking chances, and, for progress, they were willing to risk their life. They prepared as best they could for the mission, but also knew that they were essentially on their own once aloft. They were, as such, tough, hardened, and naturally assertive. These same characteristics are also those of a survivor -- so let's keep that in mind as we consider how Earhart and Noonan might have fared on Gardner/Niku. Thomas Van Hare PS: Tangentially and as a good quick lesson for all of the other pilots out there, one old friend and former flight instructor once told me, "Unlike everyday life, where the saying is 'Better safe than sorry', in aviation, keep it in mind that the reality is more like 'Better safe than dead.'" This is good advice today, but it is also yet another statement that probably "would have" been shrugged off by the likes of Earhart -- though who knows what she really might have thought? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:56:46 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Telegram Typos and Implication Going through this again I see how you're calculating the 24 hours total. Looks like we're back to square one given the report from the actual flight. Other thoughts? --CNK ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. Not square one. TIGHAR's original premise was that the available evidence argues for the aircraft having more than enough fuel to reach Nikumaroro but not enough to permit the airplane to backtrack to Howland once they got there. Oscar Boswell has shown us that Earhart did not have to perform extraordinarily to reach the vicinity of Howland with the reserves we think she had, and yet her owned expressed concerns about gas running low seem to indicate that she, indeed, had not performed extraordinarily. Net result: The Crashed & Sank Hypothesis is weaker. The Niku Hypothesis is stronger. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:03:02 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Fuel and Driesenstock A big thanks to Oscar for his work on the fuel issue. I'm still digesting the implications, but to me it seems to substantially relax a key constraint in defining what might be viewed as reasonable courses of action for AE/FN (upon not finding Howland immediately). I'm still a little preplexed by the incredible risk that they took at Lae in order to carry that fuel load, and the "gas running low" statement. The latter seems to makes sense if they had designated a threshold at which they would cease to search for Howland and execute a back up plan, and in light of Oscar's work it appears that could include more distant possibilities than was considered reasonable up to now. If that is true, it is incredible that they did not clearly identify and possibly prioritize those alternatives even to those directly supporting the flight (Lae and Itasca). Anyway, on to a semi-on topic issue. I've added a copy of Dreisonstok's tables, 1936 edition to my small set of "historic" sight reduction tables. I've worked several reductions with it, and I must say that I really like it. The only drawback that immediately springs to mind is that it does not cover latitudes higher than 65 degrees. There is a "flow" and smoothness to the solution that I have not seen in other compact, multi-opening tables. My first impression is that this would be quite an asset under stress. Interestingly, it also contains height of eye corrections to 4,000 feet, so back then it must have not been entirely unheard of to use a marine sextant at low to moderate altitudes in aircraft. Does anyone happen to know what became of Lieut. Commander J. Y. Dreisonstok, USN? TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not competent to comment on Dreisenstock, but I'll suggest that Earhart's decision to carry a dangerously heavy fuel load on the Lae/Howland flight is yet another indicator that she was not flying the airplane - in fact, knew that she was not proficient enough to fly the airplane - to its maximum performance. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:05:57 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications > The point is: we may have been underestimating the amount of fuel AE > had when arriving at Howland. Randy, as I tried to make clear in another post I didn't miss Oscars point at all. I thoroughly agree with all of Oscar's data. And I totally agree it was technically possible for AE to have more fuel reserve than we originally thought. Where I differ is that I don't think she did have more fuel left in reality and for the reasons I expressed in my other post. Claude made the same point that sometimes theory is a far cry from reality. I don't dispute the possibility and I am well aware there was additional info from KJ but possibility and probability are two different cats. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:38:16 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Makoa Visits Gardner Ron Bright recently posted some informatino on the Forum that I had shared with him in regards to testimony that someone recorded in 1937 from Jones on Hull Is. There seems to be some confusion about whether Jones's statement was given to someone from the CG cutter Itasca or the USS Taney. Both you and Ron speculate that it might have been someone from the USS Taney when she visited Hull in November 1937. You went on to say: >It [24 July 1937 Cruise Report] is signed by the commanding officer of the Itasca >and does not contain anything by a Dept. of Interior representative. It also, obviously, >does not contain any reference to events in November 1937.......Itasca never went a>nywhere near Hull Island during the cruise that included the search for Earhart." However in an email to me dated 7 April 2001 you wrote: >You never know what you're going to find among the stuff we already have. >As Pat was slogging through Randy's voluminous contributions to the 8th >Edition, editing and adding photos and maps, etc. she came across the >description of a visit Itasca paid to Hull Island in November of 1937. The >following passage is from the Cruise Report written by the Dept. of Interior >representative aboard Itasca: >Mr. Jones told us of the wreck of the Norwich City on Gardner Island. She >struck in 1919, and the Makoa saw her recently and stated there was much >good material aboard her such as anchors, winches, etc. The bodies of nine men >lost in the wreck, drowned or killed by sharks (he said) were buried ashore, >but wild pigs dug them up and their skeletons now lie on the beach. The >survivors were taken off the island." Your statement of April 2001 to me seems pretty clear regarding the source of the information. Did a subsequent review of the document in question, prior to replying to Ron's posting, reveal something else? We have a lot of conflicting statements here. I agree with Ric and Ron that this is interesting stuff and that we need to sort it out. At the present, time color me confused. LTM Kenton Spading **************************************************************************** From Ric Mystery solved. Here's what happened. Last April, as my (forgotten by me) email to you stated, Pat was proof-reading and editing one of Randy Jacobson's chapters in the Eight Edition (Chapter III: The central Pacific. Section 2: The American Equatorial and Phoenix Islands) when she came across the following sentence - "In November, 1937, the Itasca visited Hull, and the official Equatorial Island Cruise Report written by the Department of Interior representatives had this to say: ...Arrived at Hull about 8:30 AM [November 13, 1937]...." He then quotes from the report, including the passage about Jones description of the Norwich City wreck and bones seen at Gardner. Randy footnotes the quote and cites the source as "NARA, RG 126" (National Archives, Record Group 126). I don't have a copy of whatever document that is, and it is not our practice to verify every citation, so I just took his word for it. I can't explain why I didn't take more note of it at the time, just as I can not explain why none of the couple hundred TIGHAR members who have purchased the Eighth Edition have not said, "Hey! What about this?". It wasn't until you passed the quote to Ron Bright who then threw it up to the forum along with the reference to Donohue's book that I took enough notice to really look at it, match it up with other documents, and sort out what was really going on. It is now apparent that Randy's statement that it was Itasca that visited Hull was in error - and we still don't know for sure what month the visit occurred. Plenty of embarrassment to go around here, and there are probably some important lessons about noticing information that is right under our noses. Your only error was in believing what I told you. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:49:40 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > Jones did in fact visit Gardner just prior to AE's disappearance, according > to the available information. Randy, I'm confused. I read your posting and then Ric's response and somehow I missed that it was a fact that Jones visited Gardner. From what I read I understood he MAY have visited Gardner but there were so many errors I think I got lost. Where am I missing Jones actually landing on Gardner? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric We're ALL confused, but it does seem to be the case that Jones' ship "Makoa" did at least stop by Gardner and that visit probably occurred in May 1937. It is not at all clear that Jones himself was aboard Makoa at the time, but it doesn't much matter. The important thing is that we have what appears to be contemporaneous documentation that corroborates Emily's assertion that the Nutiran beach in front of the shipwreck was littered with bones and, amazingly, this situation seems to have existed in May 1937 and after December 1938 and presumably the intervening time period during which Bevington and Maude, and the New Zealnd Survey party were on that same beach and never mentioned the bones. I wish somebody would explain this away in a convincing manner. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:52:01 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Fuel Reserves The two of you (Ric and Chris Kennedy) are talking apples and oranges to a degree. To Ric, a 20 % reserve means "20 % of total endurance as a reserve"; to Chris, it seems to mean "20% of what has already been used" - which is, of course, equal to 16 2/3% of the total. KJ told AE that his recommended fuel loads for the Westbound flight were calculated to give her 25% more range than the still air distance of the flight (except for Hawaii, when he said 40% excess). If the flight is 1000 miles, and you have 1250 miles fuel, the reserve is 20% of the total range of 1250, or 25% in excess of the flight distance of 1000. Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:55:42 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications For the benefit of those who are not well educated in navigation, is there a recommended book that could give a novice like me a working understanding of LOP, sun shots, etc. I work in a technical industry, so the complexities of navigation don't scare me. I would just like to have a better understanding of what you guys are talking about. I enjoy the postings from everyone but would enjoy it even more if I were better informed. LTM (who never gets lost) Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************* From Ric A very cool, exquisitely illustrated, stand-alone FAQ for the TIGHAR website on this very subject is presently being proofed for dumb mistakes and should be up with a few days. I'll give everyone a heads up when that happens. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:57:28 EST From: Marjorie in Montana Subject: Re: Shellfish The technique of putting hot rocks from the fire into the food to be heated (as in a container of water, if you had a container or water) doesn't work well on coral atolls as fire breaks down the hunks of coral. One of the charming tales I heard during my days in Micronesia in the '60s was how the Hawaiians employed on Kwajalein (a coral atoll) would bribe ship and air crews to bring them rocks from Ponape (a volcanic island) so they could prepare proper luau pigs. The hunks of coral would disintegrate if heated in a fire for hours before being stuffed into the pig's belly. Wrapping the coral with tinfoil wasn't quite the answer, either (especially not on Niku in 1937, I suspect). LTM (who loves a good recipe for pork) Marjorie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:48:11 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart It appears that the Jones visit should be added to the potential list of sources for Gallagher's bones discovery, Lambrecht's signs of recent habitation, and, perhaps, other artifacts found on Gardner. David Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric Lambrecht's signs of recent habitation perhaps, but I'd love to hear your description of how the Makoa's visit (we can't call it Jones' visit) could possibly account for the bones Gallagher found or any of the artifacts we have found that we suspect may be attributable to the earhart disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:56:17 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Fuel Reserves Thanks, Mr. Boswell. This information is very interesting. Could you explain it a bit more? What I am trying to do is to better understand the basic process you would go through to calculate a "reserve"--call it "Reserves 101". What are the goals, and what would be the considerations that someone like Kelly Johnson would take into account. It appears from what you are saying that one thing Kelly Johnson would take/took into account was computing the reserve based on "still air" conditions (am I correct that these conditions would be ones where there is no head or tail wind?). Thanks, --CNK ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:44:06 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > but I'd love to hear your > description of how the Makoa's visit (we can't call it Jones' visit) could > possibly account for the bones Gallagher found or any of the artifacts we > have found that we suspect may be attributable to the earhart disappearance. Like many on the forum, I occasionally type before my thoughts are well formed (sorry). What I meant to say was that the visit by Makoa (possibly by Jones as well), occurring in May of 1937 saw bones. Some of these bones may have been re-buried and subsequently found by Gallagher, or they may be part of several sets of bones, some of which were found by Gallagher. In any event, the presence of bones on the island predates Earhart's flight. Ergo, the potential source of the bones found by Gallagher must include those seen by Makoa (and/or Jones) prior to AE's disappearance. Additionally, these visitors may have left behind any number of artifacts that would be contemporaneous with the Earhart flight. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric You just did it again. Are you seriously suggesting that somebody took some of the bones that were scattered about on the Nutiran beach and carted them clear to the other end of the island (you haven't seen the video, have you?) and cleverly arranged them with an old sextant box, some shoe parts, a fire, animal bones, etc. so as to give impression of a castaway? Or that somebody aboard the Makao happened to have an assortment of airplane parts which could easily be mistaken for Electra components and that they brought them ashore and left them there? You're an intelligent, well-educated man (as you're so fond of reminding us). It will save us all a lot of time if you temper your urge to debunk with a little more forethought. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:49:53 EST From: Mark Subject: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 I was digging around the patent office and thought I might see what I could find out about the "knob" ... Unfortunately not much yet, although I have sent out some queries to various places which I will report on if anything more than virtual shrugged shoulders comes back. The only thing I have uncovered so far (which doesn't really help much): First, ASSUME it's a US patent. If the OL in the legible part is really a D1, then that may indicate the patent is a "design patent", and the first digit being a 1 would limit the issue date ranges a little... lessee: #digits date range 6 1936-1965 5 1877-1890 4 1858-1864 3 1846-1848 1-2 1843-1844 Now, that would seem to indicate that if the item landed on Niku in the 1930's, it's either a really new design patent or a really old design patent. Since design patents are issued for ornamental design of things, it would seem more likely that it was a really new item. Speculation #2: The "OL" is "01". In this case, if it is a US patent, that limits the date range to patents issued 1870-1878, 1853-1858, or 1836-1841. Unfortunately, I have been unable to figure out how to keyword-search patents issued before 1971. Still working on that. The OL or UL designation doesn't seem to mean much otherwise, if it's a US patent. If the letters really are "OL" or "UL", I suspect that it is a non-US patent, as all of the US patent number I have seen (at least on modern items) have no alphabetic prefix that matches these characters, and are usually listed simply as a 7-digit number with commas in it. I'll be looking forward (as I'm sure we all will) to further information from the sextant people. I note that British patent numbers issued 1916-1978 all have a "GB" prefix. Perhaps the OL/UL is a country code... but which one?? Can we tell *how many* indistinguishable numbers follow the OL/UL ?? Having written all of this, I realize there is precious little above that is new or even useful info, but perhaps there's one tiny piece of the puzzle in there somewhere. - Mark in Horse Country... *************************************************************************** From Ric No, no, no - this is really interesting stuff and may be a big help in directing our research. Thank you. As further information about the figures on the knob become available I'll post it on the forum. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:50:49 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Shellfish Re: So far, we're seeing no evidence that anything was cooked by boiling at the Seven Site. It could have happened, but we just don't see anything that suggests it. Yeah, but I've been thinking about this, and am not at all sure what we WOULD see. Short of a pot or something. If they were using a turtle shell, that's what we'd see, and obviously we do, albeit broken up and rather scattered. And in response to Brother Tim's request for enlightenment on clamboils in Oceania, I really don't know. I'm trying to get information on all this kind of thing, and will be making a presentation on the project to archeologists in Hawaii early next month, who should be able to enlighten me considerably. I hope. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:56:44 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart Re: I wish somebody would explain this away in a convincing manner. Me too. So we have Makoa reporting skeletons on the beach (more than should be accounted for by the Norwich City) in 1937 pre-Earhart. Then we have Maude, Bevington, and the Kiwis NOT reporting them in late 1937 and 1938. Then we have Emily reporting them in 1940. How could they come and go? Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk around? Naah. Might be that the sand had come and gone, but Emily talked about the skeletons being more or less articulated, and that shouldn't be if they'd been exposed and buried and exposed again. My guess: Emily didn't see these skeletons at all. Recall that she told Barb, Kris and me about them but (unless it's not on the video) she didn't tell you. It really seemed to me, watching the video, that maybe she'd thought about it and become unsure what she'd seen. What if somebody who was aboard Makoa was later on Niku and told the kids scary stories? It's not all that unusual for people to adopt stories they've heard as things they've experienced themselves. As for the number of bodies -- I don't know that we can put much stock in the numbers given, particularly if Jones wasn't aboard Makoa making sturdy British observations. Three skeletons rooted out by crabs (presumably not pigs) and scattered around a bit could easily get translated into a whole bunch, and nine or ten is a good surrogage for a whole bunch. It's kind of like the stories archeologists always hear about ten foot skeletons being found; I'm sure I've heard those stories at least a half-dozen times, and never found one yet myself. But all this is sheerest speculation, and I have no idea how to verify it, though it would be nice to chat with Emily again. *************************************************************************** From Ric I know there was some overlap between Jones' operation on Hull and the PISS settlement there, and there were certainly people from Hull who came to Niku. Your idea about Emily's story being nothing more than an old tale she heard might be the best explanation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:57:52 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Fuel and Driesenstock > From Tom MM > ... If that is true, > it is incredible that they did not clearly identify and possibly > prioritize those alternatives even to those directly supporting the > flight (Lae and Itasca). If I understand TIGHAR's argument correctly, we probably do not have a complete transcript of all radio transmissions from AE and FN. At some points, the Itasca may have been transmitting when it should have been listening (because of the 1/2 hour error between GMT and ship time); and nothing was heard at all from the dynamic duo after AE said they were going to change to their "daytime" frequency (hurt more by the lost antenna? not tuned in correctly? ???). Since there is no evidence that AE and FN ever received a transmission (except for the CW letter "A" on 7500), they may have kept on transmitting for several hours, saying all kinds of things that no one heard. They died because of a failure to communicate. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:59:36 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart When AE and FN arrived at Gardner, they carefully buried the bones out of sight and/or placed them far out on the reef, away from prying eyes and pincing crabs.... ******************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Randy. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:01:48 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Makoa Visits Gardner My humble apologies. I did go back to the original Equatorial cruise report to the Dept. of Interior, and it was the Roger B. Taney that visited Hull Island, and not the Itasca. LTM, who loves eating crow. ************************************************************************* From Ric We all occasionally cook that bird, but what month was it that the Taney was there? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:43:07 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Rats on Niku Th' Wombat wrote: > Also, regardless of the rats, the castaway would have been able to find > drinkable coconuts on the ground if the trees were bearing. The Norwich City > survivors certainly did. Unless the Norwich City was the _source_ of the rats on the island.... ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric No. In fact the Norwich City survivors wrote about the rats on the island and the rumor that they were poisonous. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:50:36 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart For Tighar and Kenton Spading An in-depth review of the various times and dates in Donahue's book, THE EARHART DISAPPEARANCE-THE BRITISH CONNECTION and conflicting dates yields a better idea of the date of the alleged Jones visit to Gardner. Donahue writes that the MAKAO arrived with Jones on 21 May 37 at Hull but within three days the MAKAO flounders on a coral reef there and by 24 May 37 it sinks. Therefore Jones and crew did not visit Gardner between 21 May and 21 June 37 as I originally interpreted Donahues timeline. The HMS Viagra picked up the crew of the MAKAO on 21 June and sailed to Apia. Jones and crew remained at Hull. So when could the MAKAO have been at Gardner? Enroute from Apia to Hull, is a possibility, putting the ship there in mid May 1937. The term Jones used was "recently visited" when describing the event in Nov 37; that is ambigous but could include a 5-6 month old visit. In Donahue's book, citing the Taney Cruise Report of Nov 37, Jones does not mention visiting Gardner. It was in Kenton Spadings reference in the Earhart Cruise Report, that Jones recalled visiting Gardner, "recently" and seeing the bones on the beach and the winches and machinery available for salvage. AS pointed out it is unclear whether Jones was present or how long the crew was there. The logs of the MAKAO are at Apia says Donahue. A review of the logs will probably pinpoint a date that the ship visited/observed the Norwich City. I am not completely convinced the MAKAO did get to Gardner, but it is possible. Jones is not, however, entirely trustworthy,and perhaps a grain of salt should be taken with the alleged MAKAO visit. He says , according to Donahue, that his crew was busy harvesting copra from Gardner Is in July 37 which I think Tighar has sufficient records to disprove. His crew harvesting the copra on Gardner also installed the secret radio beacon for Amelia to home in on, take a left and land at Hull. "The British Connection" theory doesn't seem to stack up against the known evidence. But then again how do we disprove that Jonesy's crew wasn't planting coconut trees ect in May -Sept 37. As far as I know Maude didn't report any such activities. The voyage of the MAKAO, a 100 ft vessel, is certainly worth pursuing. LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Coconut trees take about 10 years to start producing harvestable nuts. By May of 1937 the Burns Philp operation in the Phoenix Group was already a failure and the colonization of the islands by the WPHC was already under active consideration. The planting coconuts by a Burns Philp representative anywhere in the Phoenix Group would make no sense at all. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:54:28 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Fuel and Driesenstock Ric wrote; <<..yet another indicator that she was not flying the airplane - in fact, knew that she was not proficient enough to fly the airplane - to it's maximum performance.>> Are you suggesting that FN was flying? ************************************************************************** From Ric No. You're misreading the sentence. Try this. ...yet another indicator that she was not flying the airplane to its maximum performance. In fact, she knew that she was not proficient enough to fly the airplane to its maximum performance. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:56:51 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Fuel Reserves Chris, the required fuel reserve is not a function of some engineer computing it. It is a requirement of the federal rules. There are many different situations with different reserve requirements. You need to simply know what the rules were in 1937. For example one rule might be to have enough fuel to fly to destination thence to a required alternate and still have :45 minutes flying time left. You would not get into any detailed and technical analysis to figure that. This would presuppose the flyers knew it was not VFR at destination and had picked a suitable alternate. They would then figure their flying time to destination, the amount of fuel that would take, figure time and fuel to their alternate and add :45 minutes worth of fuel. They would do that based on their own knowledge of what their fuel consumption would be. They would be just as close as if they asked KJ to do it for them. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not at all sure that there were statutory fuel reserves that would apply to Earhart's flight in 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:58:05 EST From: TOM MM Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications re celestial nav Not too long ago, I'd have recommended a book for starters, but take a quick look at Omar Reis' web site or search the internet for others. You can get a brief explanation and/or try a shareware package that should be quite helpful. If you decide to purchase a book, you can use this or the US Naval Observatory astronomical applications site to check your work. Reis: http://www.tecepe.com.br/nav/default.htm USNO Data: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/ (select data services) (also find interesting things at the NIMA site, specifically the marine nav calculator, etc) http://164.214.12.145/index/index.html TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:01:56 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > I wish somebody would explain this away in a convincing manner. That's too tall an order with this group. But if the facts of the wreck and bones were well known they might have seen no reason to report it again. Walking along the beach you would not report having seen sand. Each time you guys land at Niku you don't report seeing the wreck. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric What I find most difficult to believe is that fellow Brits would not only not mention the bones but not bury them either. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:03:22 EST From: Denise Subject: SKIN FLICKS! Note to Ross Devitt: OK! I am aware, like you are, that caucasian skin is perfectly capable of building up a sun tolerance - it's called a sun tan - but things are different when you can't wash the salt off your skin. When castaway and with limited fresh water, a sun tan or even a natural deep melanin doesn't make a bit of difference; salt left on skin is going to cause you problems. This is well known; part of the accumulated knowledge of people who have spent millenium living in the region. Throughout the Pacific, all islanders are really big into washing the salt off before sunset. They feel that your skin can't insulate itself properly and thus reacts badly to temperature and sun unless sweat or sea-salt is rinsed off with fresh water at least every twelve hours. Clean skin, especially if liberally coated with coconut oil, copes with whatever comes along; salty skin means trouble. LTM (who always had a suntan) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:04:07 EST From: Subject: ReGary LaPook: Fuel and Driesenstock Latter editions of "Dreisenstock" have an added table "I-A" to cover latitudes between 65 and 90 degrees. An even easier set of tables to use are contained in Weems' "Line Of Position Book." The calculation of Hc is very similar to HO208 but the Zn is found by use of a graph which is fast and easy. gl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:22:37 EST From: Mark Cameron Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications Here's where I'm at on fuel consumption and navigation (and possibly a few other forum subscribers as well) -- Amelia's best approximation of her fuel consumption was based on the numbers she had from Lockheed and Johnson's recommendations, not from what she saw on her gauges (in other words, she would put more trust in the numbers), she probably had no accurate measure of how much fuel she had left after 20 or so hours in the air. Any decisions she made had to be based on what she believed she had left. Her navigator says that his best estimate puts Howland in the vicinity but they can't find the island. What to do? Per the numbers they have possibly 4 hours left, maybe more, maybe less. Did they shoot too far north? South? Which way to turn? I agree that they went north for a while, found nothing, and turned back. Looking for Howland. After 2-3 hours they had to know they missed their intended target. The radio assistance they counted on was no help; "We're on our own" must have crossed someone's mind by that time. They have flown too far south to double back again, there are islands out here somewhere if only we are lucky enough to spot one... LTM (who believes in luck, what else is there) Mark Cameron ************************************************************************** From Ric Try this: Earhart had good fuel ecomomy procedures laid out for her by Kelly Johnson. This was not test pilot stuff intended to wring every possible minute out of every gallon of gas, but good, easy-to-follow guidelines that would allow her to expect at least 24 hours of endurance from a full load of gas, thus providing a comfortable reserve for her longest leg of the world flight - Lae/Howland trip. The flight appeared to be going well until it became apparent that they weren't going to get any navigational asistance via radio and that they had arrived at the advanced LOP at some spot that was not where Howland Island was. At that point they could afford to look northwestward along the line for a short time but very soon had to turn southeastward, knowing that some island - they couldn't be sure which one - was bound to appear. By the time an island that was obviously not Howland DID appear it was too late to backtrack. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:25:24 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Shellfish I wonder if you can get a "Tucker Map" (a topographical map with details of eatable vegetation etc. printed on the reverse) of Nik...? **************************************************************** From Ric Coming soon from TIGHAR.... We'll also include the location of all the fast food franchises. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:26:58 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The Mysteries of Coconuts Another interesting thing about coconut palms is that they grow fronds at the rate of about one in just under a month. That means you can get a fair idea of the age of the tree by counting the scars on the trunk and dividing by twelve. Now, on the next Niku trip, who could be volunteered to count the trunks of all the cocos left within 2 miles of the 7 site? Unfortunately the method is approximate, but you could get an estimate of how old certain trees are. I can just imagine the antics of the coco counter. A coconut palm that was 10 years old in 1937 would have about 900 rings (scars) around its trunk by now. 835, 836, think about something else.. Oops, start again from the bottom.... Of course this is totally useless information, just another snippet for the Coco "Nuts".. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:43:46 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart First of all, Ric, I am not endeavoring to debunk anything. I am merely pointing out something that has not yet been raised in the discussion. That is, there was another landing party on Gardner Island shortly before the Earhart flight took place. They saw bones. Clearly, the presence of this other landing party is a potential source of artifacts. What I am suggesting is that "the old sextant box, some shoe parts, a fire, animal bones, etc." could potentially derive from the same source that as the bones seen by the landing party, or possibly, that other artifacts (buttons, shell casings, etc.) may have been left behind by such a landing party. Clearly, a group of people other than those previously listed in the chronology landed on Gardner prior to the Earhart flight. This landing party has a place in considering the potential source of artifacts. I am not suggesting, as you assert (that I am), that the landing party deliberately arranged things "so as to give impression of a castaway." Why would you interpret my comments that way? As to your other comment, "that somebody aboard the Makao happened to have an assortment of airplane parts which could easily be mistaken for Electra components and that they brought them ashore and left them there..." I made no such suggestion, and I do not believe that any reasonable person would conclude that I had. You, too, claim to be "an intelligent, well-educated man" (as you, also, are so fond of reminding us). It will save us all a lot of time if you temper your urge to put words in the mouths of other people that they neither said nor intended to say. It certainly does not advance the solution to the Earhart mystery. Thank you, David Katz ******************************************************************* From Ric <> I'm quoting your exact words so that I can't be accused of putting words in your mouth. I submit that it is not at all clear that anyone went ashore. As I have pointed out before, there is nothing that was supposedly seen by someone aboard the schooner that could not have been seen from the deck with a pair of binoculars. Going ashore at Gardner over that part of the reef is hazardous and neither Jones nor the Burns Philp company had any known reason to do it. The fact that there is no mention of burying (or reburying) the bones could be seen as an indication that they did NOT go ashore. As for origins of artifacts: Good Lord, there are more possible origins of artifacts on Niku than you can shake a stick at. Some artifacts that have been found in some places are harder to explain than others. The visit of the Makoa has no logical connection with any of the interesting artifacts we have found. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:44:55 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Makoa Visits Gardner October/November 1937 was the time frame was when the Taney visited Samoa and then the Phoenix Islands. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:49:51 EST From: Pat Gaston Subject: Alternates J.D. Bell wrote: "Nobody in the cockpit of the 10E on that fateful day decided to go look for Gardner (Niku). The decision was made by left seat, right seat or collectively to fly along the LOP looking for Howland. Gardner was not an intended destination until they got there (if they did)." [BTW, J.D., I'm fascinated by the concept of "lurker pro tem." You mean you're sitting in for the >real< lurker?] But since we're back into the realm of speculation, allow me to put on my speculators. I cannot buy the concept that Our Heroes were, essentially, still looking for Howland when they stumbled upon Gardner. That's because I can't picture FN believing he was north of Howland by 200-300 miles, which is how long they had to keep flying on the LOP to reach Gardner. >At some point,< I believe, there had to be a conscious decision to head for an alternate. My guess is that they were short of Howland when they turned on the 157/337 line, meaning that the LOP led them nowhere in either direction. This would not have required much of a miscalculation on FN's part -- maybe as little as 15 miles, given the difficulty of spotting tiny Howland (sunrise glare, cloud shadows, etc.) So you run up the line for 50 miles, back down the line for 100 miles -- uh, oh. Now you've been at it for an hour and still no joy. Plus, since your DF isn't working, you don't even know in which direction Howland lies. Maybe this is what happened between 1912 and 2013 GMT. Seems to me that's the point at which you have to make a decision, guided by how much range you think you can squeeze out of the old girl (the Electra, not AE). Perhaps they headed for Gardner; perhaps they headed for someplace else Oscar's calculations certainly indicate that Gardner was not the only feasible landfall. I don't want to belabor this Gilberts business, but as to the alleged impossibility of navigating thereto -- Alan, I don't have to be a navigator to look at a map. Whether you're 200 miles north or 200 miles south of Howland, if you point the nose of the airplane due west (and if you have enough gas) you are eventually going to arrive over the Gilberts. Who knows? Maybe they thought they could pick up a radio signal along the way. But the point here is not to argue Niku v. Gilberts v. Canton v. Marshalls or anywhere else. I just believe that, if AE and FN ended up anywhere except the bottom of the ocean, it was indeed an "intended destination" and not mere serendipity. LTM Pat Gaston Kansas City ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:13:18 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: The Jones Report James Donahue and Randy Jacobsen are citing as a reference a cruise report from a ship, dated 13 Nov 37, describing the SAME event but clearly writtten by two different writers. It may be the Itasca, but more likely the USS TANEY. (Doesn't really matter) Donahue cites as "Item 15", in a Confidential Cruise Report of the USS Taney , using quotes, the description of a 13 Nov 37 interview of Capt William Jones at Hull Is. Jones's general information about Hull, his duties, the 13 Tokelu native workers, and his radio capabilities are written up probably by the Capt of the USS TANEY. [ Donahue,p. 86-87] This interview in Item 15 does not contain a second paragraph relating to the Norwich City. Randy Jacobsen cites as his source the NARA RG 126 [ SEE 8TH EDITION, Earhart Project Book, Chapt.3,Section 2,page 3] using the "Equatorial Island Cruise Report" writtten by a "Dept of Interior" representative., reportedly aboard the "USS ITASCA". The interview report of Jones contains substantially the same information as the Donahue report, obviously the same interview content, but written by a different writer. Compare side by side to see the slightg differences in prose and slight difference in content. Definately two different guys reporting the same interview. However in the Equatorial report there is an added paragraph, not included in Donahues, in which the writer describes how Jones discussed the wreck of the Norwich City seen "recently" by the MAKAO. Jones says that the bodies of nine men lost in the wreck and buried were dug up by "pigs" and that the "skeletons now lie on the beach". Jones does not include a date nor whether he was aboard. Why Donahue didn't include this paragraph may have been that the writer of his source of the Jones interview didn't think the Norwich City wreck was relevant or germaine to the ship's report. So that solves ome mystery: one interview of Jones recorded by two different representatives with two different reports. No big deal. But the important issue here is when did the MAKAO visit Gardner Island. What does Jones mean by "recently". I would guess the Norwich City visit was within six months of the Nov 37 interview, and possiblY when the MAKAO left Apia, Samoa, on 14 May 37 and arriving Hull on 21 May 37, the ship could have passed by Gardner only a hundred or so miles away. My guess is that the log of the MAKAO is still at Apia (based on Donahue) and would contain a more detailed description of the events and observations at Gardner in 1937 as well as the precise date of arrival and departure and what the crew did there. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Let's not further inflate this already inflated affair by referring to a Jones Report. There is no Jones Report. Randy has corrected himself. It was the Taney that visited Hull. There is no question about that. The Cruise Report that Donohue references is clearly a Coast Guard document while the Cruise Report that Randy quotes is just as clearly a Dept. of Interior report. No mystery there. Jones' ship was wrecked in May 1937. There seems to be little doubt about that; so the stop at Gardner could not have happened after that time. I can't see that pinning down the exact date would tell us much. If the logs exist they might tell us more about what was seen and whether anyone went ashore. Maybe there's an archive in Western Samoa. that shouldn't be too hard to find out. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:20:39 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Makoa Visits Gardner Indeed the Makoa/Itasca/Taney quandary points out the importance of examining the information that we already have. It also points to the value of this Forum and peer review. In addition, it also makes you wonder what else is out there in places other than Niku. I look forward to Randy and you resolving the "who quoted Jones when?" question. However, I need to clarify something. You wrote: >I can't explain why I didn't take more note of it [Randy's reference] >at the time, just as I cannot explain why none of the couple hundred >TIGHAR members who have purchased the Eighth Edition have not said, >"Hey! What about this?" >It wasn't until you passed the quote to Ron Bright who then threw it up to >the forum along with the reference to Donohue's book that I took enough >notice ......Your only error was in believing what I told you. A casual reader of the Forum might conclude from all of this that Ric had passed some information to me, that in turn ended up in the 8th Edition, but that was not posted to the Forum. In keeping with the Forum's creed of sharing information I would like to point out that that was not the case here. Shortly after emailing me the alleged quote from Jones, Ric posted the whole story to the Forum. Interested readers can see: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Highlights121_140/highlights133.html#11 I believe Mr. Bright deserves some thanks for being the first to catch the fact that something did not smell right? LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric Mr. Bright deserves credit for illustrating the frailty of human memory - mine. I had completely forgotten that we had gone through all of this nearly a year ago. I had not picked up the error about which ship visited Hull, so at least we now have that straight. Other than that, we've just re-plowed old ground. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:23:28 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart Ric stated: >Your idea about Emily's story being nothing more than an old tale she >heard might be the best explanation. I don't know if I would explain away all of Emily's story. It would be more likely that she saw something, heard other things (from reliable/less reliable sources) and combined them all. She probably does not know which are first hand accounts now and which were anecdotal. *************************************************************************** From Ric There is no way to determine what parts of an anecdote are true by looking only at the anecdote. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:26:11 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 OL is not DL for Deutchland? I don't know how Germany labled their patents. It is just athought. ************************************************************************* From Ric But it's an interesting thought. A Ludolph instrument, if patented, would logically have a German patent number. It should be possible to check on what German patents are held by Ludolph -assuming that German patent records survived the war. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:38:30 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves From > From Chris Kennedy > Could you explain it a bit more? What I am trying to do is to better understand > the basic process you would go through to calculate a "reserve"--call it "Reserves > 101". What are the goals, and what would be the considerations that someone like > Kelly Johnson would take into account. The goal of any fuel reserve is to postpone the death of the airplane's occupants. That is accomplished by providing enough fuel to go to the destination and land with some provision for unforseen contingencies. If the ability to land at the destination is in doubt (IFR conditions) an alternate is provided, and there is fuel to reach the alternate and land (again with some provision for unforseen contingencies). The VFR rules require sufficient fuel to make the flight plus fly 45 minutes "at normal cruise power". (The manufacturers always fudge in doing their range tables by calculating the 45 minute reserve at the lowest "normal cruise power", which complies with the letter of the regulation, if not the spirit. The pilot is likely to be flying at a higher power, burning more fuel, and thus will not have 45 minutes left if he follows the manufacturer's table and forgets to reduce to a lower power setting.) The IFR rules require sufficient fuel to miss the approach at the destination, go to an alternate, and land there with VFR reserves. When you begin to make long overwater flights (especially to isolated islands) these minimums shrink to insignificance. You can think of the reserve at least 3 different ways: A-as a distance that can be flown (always in "still air" - you need to correct for the wind); B-as a time for which one can continue to fly; and C-as a quantity of fuel. All of these are of course interrelated, but I believe that it is fair to say Kelly Johnson TENDED to think in terms of distance ("sufficient for 40% excess range" to Hawaii), and that AE (as a pilot) tended to think in terms of time (landed in Hawaii with "more than 4 hours fuel remaining, a satisfactory reserve"). I believe that the ideal way to think of the reserve is as a quantity of fuel, which is convertible either to time or distance at different rates, depending on what the pilot does to manage it. Let's assume AE set off for Howland with an estimated flight time of 18 hours and fuel (and a plan) for 24 hours. At the 18 hour ETA she therefore had "6 hours" fuel remaining at 38 gph (say 228 gallons). Was that an "adequate" reserve ? If you estimate an 18 hour flight; add an hour for unexpected headwinds or diversions around weather; add another hour to search for Howland, certainly you should be there in no more than 20 hours, and so you will land with 4 hours fuel remaining (be conservative and say "a good 3 hours"). That's plenty, isn't it? Sounds good. But what can you do with that reserve ? Where will it take you? Do you have a realistic "alternate" and can you get near it with enough fuel in the tank to search for it, or cover other contingencies? For the reserve to be of any benefit, you have to have a plan to use it. How long will you search for Howland? Will you then fly this direction or that direction, and will you continue at 38 gph when you start burning the reserve, or will you reduce to 26 gph to gain a 50% increase in endurance in exchange for a 10% reduction in speed ? May I refer you back to my posting of February 7, "Longer Range Flight Plan"? The hypothetical Cessna 210 flight plan addresses these and similar issues which arise in managing any reserve. How much reserve is enough? It's a personal matter. My own answer was that I wanted to be able to miss an approach, go to the alternate, and land with two hours fuel remaining in the tanks after I shut the engine down. Many people would find that somewhat too cautious (or even amusing). That's OK with me. But in the trenchant phrase of Peter Garrison ( a 4 hour reserve man on his ocean flights), I wanted "not only to avoid running out of fuel, but also to avoid even having to think about it." Although KJ was the correct person to calculate what reserve would be left after a flight of "X" miles under "such and such" conditions with "Y gallons" of fuel, he was NOT the person t determine what reserve was "appropriate" on a flight. That's the pilot's job, in conjunction with the navigator. (AE knew that, and twice second-guessed KJ with regard to fuel quantity on the Westbound flight.) AE's reserve (at 38 gph) was adequate so long as she did not strike out for an alternate. If she did leave the vicinity after 2013 - in whatever direction - she really needed more than "a good 3 hours" of fuel. That's not to say that it was impossible to make Gardner at 38 gph, but if AE did it she was very lucky indeed. She was also not flying the airplane as efficiently as it could and should have been flown under the circumstances. I hope this addresses at least some of the issues in which you are interested. Sorry for the delay in responding. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric Again, we come back to this point about "striking out for an alternate" versus "following the only reasonable course of action that might lead her to Howland or some other island". We don't have any specific information about when she began her run to the southeast (assuming that she did) or where she was when she did it. We can say with some assurance that it was some time after 19:12 and that she was not within visual range of Howland. Sounds like 4 hours of reserve on long overwater flights is a fairly common figure and the fact that AE herself considered it to be a satisfactory reserve for a flight of similar duration is interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:56:25 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart << From Tom King Re: I wish somebody would explain this away in a convincing manner. Me too. So we have Makoa reporting skeletons on the beach (more than should be accounted for by the Norwich City) in 1937 pre-Earhart. Then we have Maude, Bevington, and the Kiwis NOT reporting them in late 1937 and 1938. Then we have Emily reporting them in 1940. How could they come and go? Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk around? Naah. >> Andrew McKenna takes a stab at it: How about the boys from the Makoa re-burying Dem Bones, which remain out of sight during late 1937 and 1938, only to be re-exumed by wave action by 1940. An alternate explanation is that they collected up all Dem bones and buried them at sea. No bones visible in 37-38. Wave action later exumes other graves exposing bones in 1940. Seems odd to me that the Makoa crew would just leave them there out on the beach for the pigs to play with. The traditional thing to do would be bury them, either in the sand or at sea. Maybe this is the origin of the story of bones travelling in the ocean going canoe (Jonesey's motor sailer?) and being tossed into the sea in the gunny sack to avoid bad luck. Yeah, Yeah, that's it. Do we know anything about big strorms in 1938 -1940 that might have uncovered graves? What did Jones' other boat look like? Was the Makoa deck log saved from sinking? LTM ( who's bones, they are a shakin') Andrew McKenna *************************************************************************** From Ric Bevington's diary makes it clear that when he saw Jones in October 1937, Jones was not able to go anywhere. Whatever small boat he had was apparently not something you'd use for an open ocean journey of over a hundred miles. There were westerly big weather events involving high surf at Gardner in January 1939 (according to the New Zealand survey party) and in November/December 1940 (according to Gallagher). I can see drowned sailors washing ashore and becoming skeletons on the beach. It's a bit harder to imagine them still being there eight years later. I can see the three casualties who had been buried in the beach being uncovered by a storm some years later, and I can also see the scatttered bones of three men being taken for the remains of nine men if see them only at a distance and you think that nine men were buried there. I have a hard time seeing bones that were dumped in the sea washing back up on the beach. Maybe that happens, but I've never heard of such an incident. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:02:46 EST From: Marjorie in Montana Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > From Ron Bright > The HMS Viagra picked up the > crew of the MAKAO on 21 June and sailed to Apia. Jones and crew remained at > Hull. So who sailed to Apia? Was there really a ship called the HMS Viagra? I think this is the first time sex has shown up on these virtual pages since I've been following the forum. - Marjorie Smith *************************************************************************** From Ric I think it was supposedly the RMS NIAGARA. Ron just made a Freudian slip (which he will, no doubt, claim was intentional). <> We're getting better. Just yesterday Denise posted a message she called SKIN FLICKS! which, although G-rated, most subscribers probably deleted as porn spam. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:04:49 EST From: Dick Reynolds Subject: Patent (?) number on 2-6-S-45 Has it been checked whether the "UL" might refer to Underwriters Laboratories and the number might be some sort of UL approval number rather than a patent number? Dick Reynolds *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, that's a possibility but until we get the number it's hard to check. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:06:13 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications What type of fuel gauges did AE have on the Electra? Like we have in our cars with a flotation device as an indicator or did anyone in that day use weight as a more accurate indicator? Just curious. LTM (who never runs out of gas) Mike Haddock #2438 **************************************************************************** From Ric Float type, as far as I know. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:11:09 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > From Ron Bright, > ... The HMS Viagra picked > up the crew of the MAKAO on 21 June and sailed to Apia. ... This has to be a typo. There does seem to have been an HMS Niagara. Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric The 1937 Berne List has one ship named Niagara and she's of British registry but is not shown as a warship. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:22:43 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Makoa visit? Ric said: "I submit that it is not at all clear that anyone went ashore. As I have pointed out before, there is nothing that was supposedly seen by someone aboard the schooner that could not have been seen from the deck with a pair of binoculars. Going ashore at Gardner over that part of the reef is hazardous and neither Jones nor the Burns Philp company had any known reason to do it." 1. Testimony from the survivors and rescuers of the Norwich City crew documents the difficulty of getting small craft into and out of the rescue area. You've been there five times, how would your experiences there compare with the rescue documentation? 2. The Norwich City is located at WB9 on our official TIGHAR Niku IIII maps. Do we have an approximate location of the second site the crews used for the rescue? 3. Assume when the Macoa visited Niku she stays 250 feet away from the NC wreck, which is on the reef's edge about 600 feet from the beach (using TIGHAR's Niku IIII map as a reference). Would it be possible to see and identify human bones on the beach 850 feet away even using good binoculars? LTM, who looks askance at this issue Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Good questions Dennis. 1. Getting ashore over the reef at Niku depends entirely upon the sea state. The NC rescue was carried out during extreme westerly conditions. Unless you've been there during one of those events, it's impossible to imagine how hairy that would be. 2. No, we don't know exactly where that happened but it was clearly someplace down around the corner on the lee shore in the general vicinity of Bauareke Passage (WV26). 3. Given calm conditions, she could get in a lot closer than 250 feet. She could even tie off to the stern of Norwich City (Maude and Bevington did, and so have we). Putting a party aboard NC would be a lot easier and safer than putting a party ashore. From the deck of NC the beach is only about 600 feet away, and you'd be up high. Might not even need binoculars to see bones on the beach. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:27:25 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: numbers on the knob Regarding the possible "OL" or "UL" marking on the knob-like artifact, might a U and an L followed by some numbers indicate that the thing which this artifact is a piece of was listed by Underwriters Labratories, as in U L listed ##### markings seen on almost every kind of electronic or powered device I can think of? I don't know if Underwriters Labs was around back then, and if so, how they marked things, but if they were, there may be some record of what that number was assigned to. (if you can make out the number) Hmm... If only somebody at TIGHAR was familiar with aircraft related insurance investigations. LTM, Dave Porter, TIGHAR # MMCCLXXXVIII **************************************************************************** From Ric Why don't people send donkeys to college? Surprising as it may seem, identifying UL numbers does not often come up in aircraft accident investigations. Good question about when UL numbers first appeared. We don't know when "back then" was. If it did turn out to be a UL number and if UL numbers didn't start appearing until, say, 1950, we'd know that the knob is no older than that. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:34:04 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: From Gerry Gallagher Hello all on the Earhart Forum. Haven't been in communication for some time. "Karaka Jr." here ... Gerry Gallagher, 2nd cousin of Gallagher of Nikumaroro. I have been busy with business commitments lately and have now had a chance to re-visit the Earhart forum and hope to renew old acquaintances and make some new ones. I sent Ric some family photos of "Irish" as he was affectionately know in the Colonial Services and "Karaka" to the natives of Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro). I am sure he will share those with anyone interested. So, to all the I have met before on this forum and all that are new since my last contribution ... Hello ... Gerry Gallagher in Scotland. **************************************************************************** From Ric Welcome back Gerry! Yes folks, we have several new photos courtesy of Karaka Jr., including a marvelous one one of Irish seated in his hew home on Gardner Island, complete with kanawa wood furniture. We'll put a Gallagher Gallery up on the website as soon as possible. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:39:16 EST From: Andy in Dallas Subject: Re: Rats on Niku It's becoming off topic, but Gardner was noted as having many rats as early as 1859. You can read that and see the entire central pacific group on this historical map that is available for download. www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/polynesien_1859.jpg Any thoughts on the initial source of rats on these isolated islands? Could they have been unwitting passengers on those 50 foot Polynesian canoes? LTM, Andy *************************************************************************** From Ric Yup. Almost certainly. The notation for Gardner on that German map reads: "Beautiful trees, many birds, rats" Still true. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:41:43 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Alternates > but as to the alleged > impossibility of navigating thereto -- Alan, I don't have to be a navigator > to look at a map. Whether you're 200 miles north or 200 miles south of > Howland, if you point the nose of the airplane due west (and if you have > enough gas) you are eventually going to arrive over the Gilberts. Do you mean just the same as pointing the nose East you will eventually arrive over Howland? And explain to me what you will find looking at a map. Looking out the window all you will see is blue stuff from one horizon to another. How are you going to compare any part of that blue stuff to what you see on a map. The Gilbert islands are widely spaced. You have as much chance of arriving over one of the islands as arriving over more blue stuff by simply striking out blindly heading west. Not knowing where the Electra was north or south you could just as easily miss the Gilberts altogether. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:43:22 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Rats on Niku I always thought rats were introduced to deserted atolls by visits from large cargo ships. If the NC did not bring the rodents to Niku, does this suggest a visit from another cargo ship prior to the demise of the NC? And if so, what ship? *************************************************************************** From Ric The S.S. Prehistoric Polynesian Canoe. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:48:38 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > What I find most difficult to believe is that fellow Brits would not only > not mention the bones but not bury them either. The answer to that is that you may be correct in your suggestion that they didn't actually go ashore. I guess I'm confused. I was thinking those folks were not Brits but middle Easterners. Am I mixed up? Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric The guys who did or didn't go ashore were either Brits/New Zealanders/Aussies or Tokelau Islanders. The guys whose bones they saw may have been either Brits or Arabs but unless the shore party was equipped with FORDISC it would be pretty hard to tell the difference. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:54:39 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel Reserves > I'm not at all sure that there were statutory fuel reserves that would apply > to Earhart's flight in 1937. I'm not either as I hope I implied but there might well have been some common sense rule generally accepted. The point I was trying to make is that whatever reserve was decided on was not a product of a great technical process. Perhaps if there had been work done on the fuel problem as expertly as Oscar has done a number of "run out of gas folks" might have lived to tell the tale. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:56:49 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Us non-navigators continue to be baffled. So the LOP is fixed, passing through A to B, with B being Niku, A is Howland. Okay, but if you haven't the foggiest idea of where you are relative to A, flying down 137 is only going to get you to Antarctica for sure. If you KNOW the line you're on passes through B, then flying 337 gets you to A. I must have been dozing off when this was explained. Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric Somebody else wanna try? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:00:47 EST From: Mike in Lakewood CA Subject: Re: Alternates OK I am not gonna lurk on this one. Leaving from a known position, flying for 19 to 20 hrs. You get to the spot you think you should find a dot in the water to land on but it is not there. Now from this unknown point you are going to try to find some other point? I don't think so. Undoubtedly they searched for a while. Then tried the radio. How long would you hang around the area where Howland is not? You know "It's got to be here somewhere". With limited fuel and no radio contact, what would you do? I think once on the LOP given, At some point (hypothetically)saw an island, and I bet the first thought was Howland. That is what they were searching for. I can't imagine from not knowing where you are, to make a turn and hit dead on to an alternate. If you are lost you are lost. So, IMHO, IF they made it to Gardner they were still looking for Howland or Baker when they came upon Gardner. Went and had a look and said "$#!T!" Who knows if Freds map listed Gardner or simply labeled The Pheonix Group. Now at this point, ( I bet still without a clue for sure which island this was) a few things are possible: 1. They know which island they are now at and know where to find Howland but not enough fuel to chance it. So they land. 2. They THINK they know which island they are now at and THINK they know where to find Howland but not enough fuel to chance it. So they land. 3. They do not know which island it is and have no way of finding Howland from this unknown point and are still low on fuel so they choose landing there as opposed to "in the drink". I have speculated WAY TOO much already but my point is, IF they made it to Gardner, it was not because they were looking for Gardner, they got there because they were looking for Howland. I ask only, "If you don't know where you are, what is you reference to to begin the trip?" Anyways no matter if they came to the 157/337 to far north or south the choice is simple. Head north, you may hit Howland/Baker or open ocean Head south, you may hit Howland/Baker or you might hit an alternate (not by choice alternate) You couldnt talk me into heading north that day. I would have used every last drop heading south. OK there you go Flame away at my ignorance if you want. Mike in Lakewood CA. *************************************************************************** From Ric No flames from me. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:07:01 EST From: John Pratt Subject: Beach Bones Concerning the allegation of bones on the beach in 1937, and the issue of Bevington's seeing or not seeing them as he walked around the coast: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html Perhaps it is reasonably certain that the natives didn't see any bones. Let me make an argument like that of "the strange behavior of the dog in the night". They were very excited about living there: "The universal decision was that this island was paradise and ideal for habitation. ... The natives came on board with special woods they can't get on their own islands, crabs, birds, and endless curios. As we sailed away they all talked endlessly; it was paradise to them, and the experience of their lives. They don't want to see any more islands as they are sure there can be none so good." Otherwise, consider Emily's testimony: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Interviews.html "Fishermen found the bones. They were frightened and they brought the story of them to the Onotoa man. ... TK: What did Koata do? ES: He sent people to bring the bones. People were frightened. Only people working for the government received the bones. My father had to look at the bones." If the cultural reaction to bones was "people were frightened", the islanders might not have considered the place to be such a paradise or been so anxious to move in if they saw bones on the beach. LTM (who has no fears of bones or anything else) John Pratt 2373 *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting take on the matter. No doubt about it, bones on the beach would not be seen as a positive attribute of the island. As for Maude not mentioning things; you'll find not a hint in his reports that when he and Gallagher arrived at this untouched paradise with the first Gilbertese work party, a New Zealand survey party was already there. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:08:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart > From Ron Bright > The HMS Viagra picked up the crew of the MAKAO.... We're kidding right? Viagra? Must have been a bigger party on the way home than a trip on the Nai'a ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:10:25 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Fuel Reserves > From Alan > Chris, the required fuel reserve is not a function of some engineer > computing it. It is a requirement of the federal rules. There are many > different situations with different reserve requirements. You need to > simply know what the rules were in 1937. We do know of at least one case where Earhart's plan appears to have included about 40% reserve. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric As I recall, the Oakland/Honoluluy flight ended up with a whopping 40 % reserve, but that was not the plan. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:38:44 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: SKIN FLICKS! > From Denise > When castaway and with limited fresh water, a sun tan or even a natural deep > melanin doesn't make a bit of difference; salt left on skin is going to > cause you problems. ... > Clean skin, especially if > liberally coated with coconut oil, copes with whatever comes along; salty > skin means trouble. This really is getting to be a little ridiculous. Many of the things I write here are from experience - not speculation. I have frequently spent weeks alone on islands in the tropics in temperatures over 95deg F. I used to only have drinking water and thought nothing of using salt water for all my abutions, including cleaning my teeth. I also had to hike over these same islands and walk along the coral rubble beaches, and because I usually swam ashore I walked barefoot much of the time. For the last two months I have been walking on the beach in 100deg F (37-38deg C) temperatures daily. This was the reason for my post on wearing alternative clothing some time ago. I found out early that, while bare skin might chafe a bit, it is nothing compared to the chafing you get from underclothes, swim trunks or even baggy shorts. Before I bought my larger boats I cruised the tropics in a sixteen foot surfcat (like a Hobie, but bigger stronger and heavier). I lived for two to three weeks at a time with only what clothing food and water I could carry. I am quite comfortable with a castaway existence. What the natives do has absolutely no bearing on how a castaway would live, the last thing they would be doing is wasting whatever water they could find on washing, except maybe to dampen a rag and rub it over themselves. Yes, salt on the skin can be a nuisance, but you live with it. A dip in the sea at dusk and first thing in the morning solves a lot of the comfort problems, especially if you can wipe the salt water off with a rag. If not, you just put up with it. BTW. I also grew coconuts as a part of my work. Whilst not an expert on them I am more familiar with the things than I need to be. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:39:30 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart In reply to David Katz I would like to say that the possibility of another party going anshore on Gardner Island shortly before the arrival of AE + FN is something which can be debated at lenght but I find it hard to believe they would leave a piece of plexiglass from an aircraft behind. Nor do I think there was a female crew member among them who lost the cats paw shoesole. LTM (who has her own opinion on matters) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:40:16 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart I certainly don't think we can or should discard Emily's story. I just think we need to recognize, as Ric puts it, the "frailty of human memory." I think David's right; there are probably pieces of her story that are based on actual observations and parts that aren't, but that she now thinks were actual observations. Not an uncommon phenomenon. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:42:12 EST From: Mark Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 Current German patents appear to be country-coded DE ... which still doesn't mean that the top two pointy-out-things on the 'E' are weathered away, making it look like a 'L' (sorry about the "technical jargon" there). One of my lines of inquiry is to the German Patent office and to their Ministry of Education and Technology. No response yet, but since I don't speak German I expect this to be a slow, painful process unless I find a kind bilingual soul over there. In my initial inquiry I had not considered the "OL -> DE" morphing possibility... I'll add that to my inquiries... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:52:06 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: "Plowing up old ground" I think that indeed Kenton raised a point that we often forget. It is never too late to review past references and take a look with '"fresh eyes" as we have done in several instances. However I don't agree that in the end the evaluation of the Jone/Taney/Itasca interviews was only "plowing up old ground". The crucial point was if the MAKAO in fact visited Gardner Is prior to June 1937, reporting the sighting of numerous bones, the MAKAO log would be invaluable in determining whether the crew went across the reef onto the beach, their examination of the Norwich City, how long were they on the island, what they did there, and any other observations which may be quite apart from Jone's recollection to the Taney interviewers. They could have been offshore or they could have camped at Gardner for three or four days. Noone knows. If Kenton Spading had not sent his reference about the Jones interview during an off forum correspondence that contained the second paragraph we wouldn't have pursued this. I had also forgotten the 8th Edition report by Randy Jacobsen. What surprises me is that in view of the critical nature that prior visits to Gardner,particularily in 1937, might have in explaining various artifacts, skeletons, etc., that no effort was made to obtain the MAKAO LOG. Perhaps someone in the Tighar forum has some quick connections at Apia, but in the meantime I did post a request for information to the Samoa Government. I shall report their answers as soon as I get them. LTM, Ron Bright, Bremerton, WA **************************************************************************** From Ric In any investigation there are always innumerable threads that can be followed and, given limited time and resources, judgements must be made about which are worth the effort. In my view, the chance that anything done during the visit described second-hand in the DoI Cruise Report had any bearing on what Gallagher or TIGHAR have found on the island is so remote as to be not worth spending time on. That's why I didn't take much notice of it before. Others may have a different view and are certainly free to follow their own hunches. However, if you're going to chase the logs you would do well to get the ship's name right. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:53:15 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart To Marjorie and Marty, What sharp eyes you have. Actually I did made a typo with HMS" VIAGRA," then rather than change it I thought those British sailors would like sailing in the HMS VIAGRA better than the HMS NIAGRA. I first checked with Bob Dole. But I understand that Montana sheep prefer Niagra, makes them "fall" asleep. (Just joking). The NIAGRA picked up some of the shipwrecked crew of the MAKAO from Hull on 21 Jun 37 and they returned to Apia, as I understand it. Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:55:03 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Bones on the beach? Ric said: "Putting a party aboard NC would be a lot easier and safer than putting a party ashore. From the deck of NC the beach is only about 600 feet away, and you'd be up high. Might not even need binoculars to see bones on the beach." Six hundred feet, that's 200 yards -- the length of two (American) football fields -- I'm visualizing this. Standing on the NC would put you 20 feet perhaps above sea level. Hmmm. I'm not convinced that at that altitude (height?) and that distance one could identify bones as being human. I suspect you may be able to see something, but to identify it as bones, much less human bones, seems a stretch. Perhaps if the skull or jaw bone -- or even a pelvis -- was visible, but other than that, I don't think so. But then again, I don't know what the "average" captain in the South Pacific c.1930 carried for binoculars. Regardless, I can't imagine they were that powerful or optically correct, given the economics of the times and the nature of the Makoa's livelihood. Do we have any optics experts on the forum that could run a few numbers to convince the skeptical? LTM, who wants to see this through Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:07:16 EST From: Mark Subject: Ludolph Patents A quick check of the European patent website reveals only 22 patents for Ludolph. Most of them date back to the 1920's. There are a few of particular possible interest. Unfortunately since I can't read a word of German (unless the word happens to be the same as the corresponding English word), I can't read the patents. Here they are, perhaps someone more linguistically inclined than I can look them up and read them to see if they are pertinent: My description comes from looking at the drawings and guessing what the patent is about, along with possibly understanding a word in the title (like "compassen") Patent # Description -------------------------- DE333225 Sextant box and/or mounting method DE354894 Adjustment mechanism (has a knob) DE371711 2-d adjustment (with knobs) DE414580 DE424386 These two appear to be different patents on the same object - looks like some kind of eyepiece or focusing mechanism. The other patents are variously for compasses or other parts of the sextant that don't involve knobs. I'm going on the assumption that the patent # on the knob relates to the knob itself or to the mechanism it was directly attached to, and that other patents on the device unrelated to the knob would have been printed elsewhere on the device (not on the knob). All of these patents are dated between 1920-1926. The patents themselves can be looked up at: http://gb.espacenet.com/ You should be able to simply type in the patent number and hit go. Keep clicking on the patent number and eventually you'll get a PDF scan of the patent document. Incidentally, to get the full list of Ludolph patents, just type "Ludolph" in the "company" field. It seems odd that there are only 22 (not all are German - some are British and French), and only two postwar, but maybe they started filing in the US or something. Help?? - Mark in Horse Country ************************************************************************* From Ric Verrry interesting. This will take some research. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:09:55 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Call on me! Call on me! Cam Warren said: "Us non-navigators continue to be baffled. So the LOP is fixed, passing through A to B, with B being Niku, A is Howland. Okay, but if you haven't the foggiest idea of where you are relative to A, flying down 137 is only going to get you to Antarctica for sure. If you KNOW the line you're on passes through B, then flying 337 gets you to A. I must have been dozing off when this was explained." Ric said: "Somebody else wanna try?" Well, being as I'm the only one of the Forum who has never posted ANYTHING about the LOP, :-) here's my shot. Cam, first extend both ends of the line about six inches. OK? Now, here we go. Cam said: "Okay, but if you haven't the foggiest idea of where you are relative to A, flying down 137 is only going to get you to Antarctica for sure." Not totally true. If you are on the line northwest of A (Howland) flying 137 will get you to Howland. If you are southeast of A (Howland) on 137 you will eventually hit Niku, kind of. If you are southeast of B (Niku) on 137 you will see God before you see Antarctica. Cam said: "If you KNOW the line you're on passes through B, then flying 337 gets you to A." Not exactly. If you are southeast of B (Niku) and fly 337 you should in theory hit B (Niku). If you are northwest of B (Niku) and fly 337 you might make it to A (Howland). If you are northwest of A (Howland) and fly 337 you'll want God as your co-pilot. That's my best shot. How'd I do? (Just don't let the French judge do the scoring, she's much too fragile!) LTM, who navigates only between the TV (A) and the 'fridge (B) Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:10:34 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: From Gerry Gallagher Fantastic! Welcome back, Gerry. I'm sure Ric will shortly share pictures of the rededication of Karaka Sr.'s plaque -- a notable event. Glad you're back aboard. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:11:10 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Rats on Niku Lawrence, as Ric implies, the Polynesian, Micronesian, and Melanesian voyagers who settled the Pacific in many cases had VERY large canoes, and there's no question that rats could find places to stow away.bbb ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:27:24 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves > From Ric > > Again, we come back to this point about "striking out for an alternate" > versus "following the only reasonable course of action that might lead her to > Howland or some other island". We don't have any specific information about > when she began her run to the southeast (assuming that she did) or where she > was when she did it. We can say with some assurance that it was some time > after 19:12 and that she was not within visual range of Howland. > > Sounds like 4 hours of reserve on long overwater flights is a fairly common > figure and the fact that AE herself considered it to be a satisfactory > reserve for a flight of similar duration is interesting. Ric - on or off forum, as you wish - the similarity of reserve is "interesting" but there is no real similarity between searching for Hawaii (without any possibility of going anywhere else) and following a course of action that involves making a new flight of up to 400 nm at the end of which (assuming that you can determine when you have reached the vicinity of Gardner) you may still have to search for another (slightly larger) island. Flying "along the line" is exactly the same as setting out for Gardner (with the hope, of course, that you will stumble across Howland or Baker on the way). I don't really want to start a navigation discussion, because (1) there are some things that I don't quite understand yet, and (2) I don't have the time to get into another major discussion right now. And perhaps your forthcoming update will clear up the questions for me. But just a couple of points: (1) if you believe the error in your interception of the LOP may be 15 nm + or -, you must search a 60 nm swath for Howland (not a 30) - think about it; since you don't know where you are in the 30 mile zone (you may be at 0 or at 30) to cover the possible 15 mile error you must look from -15 to +45, which equals 60 miles; (2) even assuming perfect navigation in the direction of Gardner, that 60 mile ambiguity remains; (3) you need to add a calculation for DR error on the flight South (10% = 30 nm or more ?); (4) since the course to Gardner is 159 true rather than 157 there is another 10 nm or so of variation. Perhaps some of these things cancel out; perhaps they don't. "Advancing the LOP" and "flying along the line" are both shorthand terms for DEAD RECKONING from where you think you are to where you hope to be - I think many members don't understand that. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric What you're essentially saying is that flying along an advanced LOP to find an island won't work reliably because there are so many variables. Why then does Weems, in Aerial Navigation, say: "Finding a Destination - During the daylight hours it is often impossible to get more than one LP (line of position), viz., that given by the sun. If pilotage cannot be used (as when flying over water) or radio bearings are not available, the single position line may be utilized for finding a destination. The air navigator, having found a position line as he appraoches his destination, continues flying on his course until the position line carried forward by DR passes through the the destination. he then turns right or left and follows the LP. If after a reasonable time, the destination is not sighted, he infers that he has turned the wrong way, and so reverses his track." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:37:14 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Alternates > The Gilbert islands are widely spaced. You have as much chance of arriving > over one of the islands as arriving over more blue stuff by simply striking > out blindly heading west. Not knowing where the Electra was north or south > you could just as easily miss the Gilberts altogether. Just as a matter of curiosity, does any one have an ONC chart of the Gilberts? I ordered one from Sporty's and was told that the chart (it's ONC M-16) has been discontinued (probably part of the coverup). I would be interested in seeing the chart to determine just how wide that spacing is. Although there are 13 (is it ?) atolls, they include 43 or 44 islands large enough to be shown on the tiny map in LOCKHEED HORIZONS May 1988. And I thought there were actually something like 1000 assorted bits and pieces of land, sand and coral in the group. *************************************************************************** From Ric I can tell you this much. A year ago Van Hunn and I had the opportunity to be there and do that. We flew as passengers in an Air Nauru (make that THE Air Nauru) 737 from Fiji to Tarawa. The route took us up right up along and just to the west of the Southern Gilberts chain of islands at about 30,000 feet on a very typical Central Pacific morning (scattered CU at about 2,000 feet, occassional larger buildups). We had a much better view of the world around us than anyone slogging along down low, but we saw very few islands and they were widely spaced. Mostly what we saw was water. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:41:21 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves > How much reserve is enough? It's a personal matter. My own answer was that I > wanted to be able to miss an approach, go to the alternate, and land with two > hours fuel remaining in the tanks after I shut the engine down. Many people would > find that somewhat too cautious (or even amusing). Oscar, I also planned for the largest reserve (timewise) practical. And we're both still alive. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric We probably won't hear from pilots who aren't. My personal rule for filing IFR in light singles is - I go out with full tanks or I don't go. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:59:06 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves/Plan "B" Thanks very much, Mr. Boswell, this is actually very helpful. You seem to be making some pretty practical observations, especially if we're talking 1937. First, that determination of an acceptable reserve can be a pretty complex decision that a pilot makes both on objective realities and subjective factors, too, that are important to that pilot. So, in other words, the sum total of all this is what a particular pilot determines is an acceptable reserve for a flight to a major, inhabited island chain such as the Hawaiian Islands, that same pilot might not consider to be an acceptable reserve for a flight to Howland, even though they are of equal distance. Is this a fair statement? Second, what you say about use and mangement of the "acceptable reserve" leads me to think further that implicit in the idea of an acceptable reserve is the idea that the pilot has a "Plan B", for want of a better word, that the reserve will be able to accomplish. Otherwise, a reserve of "x" is sort of meaningless. If this is a fair statement, wouldn't this be best decided before leaving on the flight? If so, since a "Plan B" involves navigation, did anywhere in your work on the Lae-Howland flight you encounter anything that indicated that Noonan may have been using an offset navigation to the north as part of such a back-up plan to locate Howland? I believe Noonan has been quoted as saying that he was intending to get the flight within a certain range of Howland, and then rely on RDF to take the plane on in . If RDF failed (a distinct possibility in those days), offset navigation could at least be used to solve the the north/south problem. The technique was known at the time, I believe, which means use of the technique could be a part of the flight plan decided upon before leaving Lae if RDF failed---thus providing a way of determining what was an acceptable reserve under the circumstances (presumably the flight would not leave without what it thought was an acceptable reserve). We have been told that the ability to run the LOP southeast to Gardner or other islands could only be determined once the flight was approaching Howland--not the best time to dtermine whether your reserves were adequate. We have always thought of "Plan B" as another destination entirely, whereas it may have been a different way of reaching our primary destination, Howland. Any thoughts? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric << We have been told that the ability to run the LOP southeast to Gardner or other islands could only be determined once the flight was approaching Howland--not the best time to dtermine whether your reserves were adequate. >> Who told you that? The happy coincidence of the sunrise LOP, when advanced through Howland, also falling through Baker and Gardner and even Atafu was knowable as soon as it was known what day the flight would be made. Want a Plan B? Here's your Plan B. If radio navigation fails and Howland does not appear when the advanced LOP is reached, fly northwest along the LOP for a short distance to make sure that Howland is not just out of sight in that direction. If it's not there, turn around and fly southeastward along the LOP until you see land. Maybe it will be Howland and maybe it won't, but unless you have hit the line many hundreds of miles off course, this procedure should bring you to land. How much of a reserve do you need to execute that plan? Four hours will let you cover about 500 nautical miles of the LOP. If you're further off than that you've got bigger problems than any reserve will make up for. If somebody has a better Plan B, I haven't heard it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:07:37 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > From Cam Warren > > Us non-navigators continue to be baffled. So the LOP is fixed, passing > through A to B, with B being Niku, A is Howland. Okay, but if you > haven't the foggiest idea of where you are relative to A, flying down > 137 is only going to get you to Antarctica for sure. If you KNOW the > line you're on passes through B, then flying 337 gets you to A. I must > have been dozing off when this was explained. Sure, I'll give it a try. CAM!!! Wake up! Ready? All in fun, Cam. First we need to get the numbers right. It is 337/157. Those are degrees 180 degrees apart which means it is a straight line. If you will look at a compass rose -- a 360 degree circle and mark a point at 157 degrees and again at 337 degrees and draw a line through those two points you will have the famous LOP we talk about. Yes, Cam I know you know that part. That was for anyone else who might not fully understand this stuff. As The Electra was flying inbound toward Howland and heading in a general Easterly direction, Noonan sighted the sun peeping up over the horizon and noted the exact time on his watch (chronograph). He also noted that from his position the sun was at a 67 degree bearing. So he drew a line on his map angled at 67 degrees. He could have drawn it anywhere but most likely he drew it close to where he thought the plane was. It didn't matter. Then he drew a line at right angles to the line. A line at a right angle to the 67 degree line will be a line going from 337 degrees to 157 degrees. It aims in both directions of course and it doesn't make any difference whether you draw it right to left or left to right. It's still the same line. THIS line must be placed in a particular place crossing the 67 degree line. That particular place is found by the use of Noonans celestial tables and using the precise time the sun came up over the horizon. Noonan now has a line crossing his flight path at roughly a right angle. (we don't know what course the Electra was on.) If you need an explanation of that I will give it later. The Electra was ON THAT line somewhere at the time Noonan computed the sighting. Now let's assume Noonan knows what his ground speed is based on previous positions. Let's assume the ground speed is 120k. Two miles a minute. Now he moves up ahead on his map and puts his ruler on Howland and slants that ruler so he can draw a parallel line -- parallel to the 337/157 line he drew first to cross the 67 degree line. Then he measures the distance between the two parallel lines. Let's assume he finds the two parallel lines are 60 NM apart. Since he knows he is flying at 120k he then knows it will take 30 minutes to fly from the first parallel line to the second one. Let's also assume he crossed the first parallel line at 18:42Z. That means he will cross the second one that he drew through Howland at 19:12Z. Who would have guessed. At 19:12Z he should be over Howland if his course was right on and if not Howland must be off to the left on a track of 337 degrees or off to the right at 157 degrees. You see those parallel lines only told him he was on those lines but not where (north or south) on those lines. Since there are no islands close to the Northwest he turns in that direction first because if he doesn't soon spot Howland he is going to assume Howland was really to the right not the left. He flies to the NW a little way, doesn't see Howland and has AE turn 180 degrees to the SE on a track of 157 degrees. You can see he is staying on that second parallel line he drew. Now let's assume he was correct that Howland was NOT to the NW and he is now heading back down that 157 degree line to the SE. What do all of us know must lay in front of him? First - Howland. Second - Baker. AND if he misses those two what still lays ahead? RIGHT! The PHOENIX ISLAND GROUP. The only islands close by. BUT WAIT! You say the Gilbert's are close by also. True but not in a direction that could possibly allow them to find Howland. Keep in mind Howland was where they were going. AH! But Cam says "WAIT!" again. What now Cam? Oh! I see. You are saying if they missed Howland and Baker couldn't they also miss Niku? The answer is of course they could. But there is a difference. Heading east to Howland all the sun sightings could give Noonan was those "speed" lines at right angles to his course. They told him where he was west to east but not north and south. So it was easy to miss Howland flying to the East. BUT flying SE on 157 degrees the same sun is now telling him what course he is on. Those SE parallel lines are now what he is flying on. He still doesn't know WHERE he is north/south but he doesn't care. He is flying on a line that actually goes somewhere. Does he stay doggedly on that same line we have been calling the 157/337 LOP? Maybe. If it just happens to go directly through one of the Phoenix Islands he stays on it. If it doesn't he just draws another one parallel (Still 157/337) that DOES go through the island. Piece of cake. If there is anyone who still doesn't understand this call me. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:10:09 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > From Cam Warren > Us non-navigators continue to be baffled. I'm a non-navigator, but I've read the book, Longitude, about the development of naval chronometers, which made precise navigation feasible a couple of centuries ago. Imagine, if you will, that there is a "dawn line" that travels around the globe continuously. Someone standing on the earth or walking on the water on the dawn line would see the whole disc of the sun just touching the horizon. If the people making that observation have an accurate watch and a navigator's almanac, they can tell exactly how far east of Greenwich, England, they are. If the sun always rose over the equator, their position would lie on a line of longitude that ran perpendicular to the equator. During the times when the sun is rising and setting north of the equator, the line which describes their location east of Greenwich is perpendicular to the line of sight on the sun at dawn and skewed away from being perpendicular to the equator--it will run from north east to south west. The further north the sun rises, the more the "line of position" gets twisted away from perpendicular to the equator. Because the degree to which the LOP gets twisted away from being perpendicular to the equator is just a function of time of year, Fred could have looked it up any time he wanted to, even before taking off from Lae. When he did his sun-shot at dawn and checked his watch, he would know (plus or minus some percentage) how far east he was of Greenwich and therefore Niku. The single observation would not tell him how far north or south he was on the line, but every fifteen or twenty minute as he charted a new position on his maps he could draw a parallel to his original line based on his calculation of speed over the water and wind drift. When the "advanced LOP" touched Howland, he would know that it was time to see the island dead ahead or search for it by flying north and south along the line. > So the LOP is fixed, passing > through A to B, with B being Niku, A is Howland. Not exactly. The LOP is fixed by the position of the sun's appearance relative to the horizon and the equator. Oh, and by the observer's altitude. An observer at 10,000 feet will observe the sun on the horizon before an observer at sea level, so the difference would have to be taken into account. On a different day of the year, say a month earlier or a month later, the LOP given by the sun shot would be different from the 157/337 line for the morning of the fatal flight. > Okay, but if you > haven't the foggiest idea of where you are relative to A, flying down > 137 is only going to get you to Antarctica for sure. This is what the whole offset argument was about last year or the year before. FN and other navigators sometimes would deliberately aim north or south of their goal so that, all things considered, when they advanced their observed line of position by means of a calculation of their groundspeed and drift, they would have a high probability of turning in the right direction. If I remember correctly, there is no evidence that FN did or did not use an "offset" on the fatal flight. He and AE planned from the very beginning to get their final course corrections from radio direction-finding. Since something went terribly wrong with the radios, we really don't know what kind of search patterns AE and FN may have flown or what kind of realizations may have hit them if they followed the LOP down to Niku. Until Ric stops fooling around and digs up the log which Amelia buried in a waterproof box made of unobtainium in the center of the Norwich City campsite, you'll just have to take my word for what they did: they flew on 337 for as long as they dared (based on an onboard gas calculation), didn't spot Howland, and then flew on 157 until Niku appeared. And everybody knows what happened after that. :o) > If you KNOW the > line you're on passes through B, then flying 337 gets you to A. Only if you know that you are south of A on the line. But you might be north of A, in which case you should fly 157 to reach either A or B. The best evidence that FN did not have an offset is the "flying north and south on 157/337" message. Granted, this may be garbled, but it is a plausible rendering. If FN had used an offset, he would only have had AE turn one way on the line. There are three groups of possibilities if no offset was used: A. They were north of Howland on the LOP when they radioed, "We must be on you but cannot see you." Then they would fly futher north and miss seeing Howland on their return trip en route to Niku. This takes the most gas. B. There were abeam of Howland and missed seeing it TWICE, once when they turned north and again on their return trip. If so, what a bummer! C. They were south of Howland and never got within range of seeing it, even after pressing northward as far as they dared. I think FN would have to be pretty far off for them not to have had at least one shot at seeing Howland. > I must > have been dozing off when this was explained. I looked up some web sites a few months ago to help me visualize how it works. The sad thing is that the Itasca NEVER got a bearing on their transmissions. AE didn't put out the kind of signal they needed--apparently, a long, continuous carrier wave. When she whistled, she couldn't (or didn't) give them a long enough signal to home in on. The search might have been successful if the Itasca had known which way to search--north or south on the LOP. I believe the last words heard on the Itasca were something like, "I'm going to change frequencies and re-transmit." While the signals were strong, it might have been helpful if the Coasties could have said to her, "Please key your mike and hold it for two minutes." That might have made all the difference in figuring out where they were and where they ended up. Marty #2874 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:16:00 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Philosophy of fuel resrves Re: what is a reasonable reserve for an over water flight. The Federal Aviation Regulations spell out the requirements for today's airline operations carrying paying passengers to islands for which an alternate airport is not geographically available. The requirement for non turbine aircraft is a 3 hour reserve and for jets, a 2 hour reserve. 14 CFR Sec. 121.621 Alternate airport for destination: Flag operations. (a) No person may dispatch an airplane under IFR or over the top unless he lists at least one alternate airport for each destination airport in the dispatch release, unless - (2) The flight is over a route approved without an available alternate airport for a particular destination airport and the airplane has enough fuel to meet the requirements of Sec. 121.641(b) or Sec. 121.645(c). Sec. 121.641 Fuel supply: nonturbine and turbopropeller powered airplanes: Flag operations. (a) No person may dispatch or takeoff a nonturbine or turbopropeller powered airplane unless, considering the wind and other weather conditions expected, it has enough fuel - (b) No person may dispatch a nonturbine or turbopropeller powered airplane to an airport for which an alternate is not specified under Sec. 121.621(a)(2), unless it has enough fuel, considering wind and forecast weather conditions, to fly to that airport and thereafter to fly for three hours at normal cruising fuel consumption. Gary LaPook **************************************************************************** From Ric That's all fine, but those regs only tell us something about what is considered reasonalble today. Even if those regs had existed in 1937, there was no requirement that they be followed on a flight over the Central Pacific. The question has to be answered in context. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:23:19 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Jones visits Niku a month before Earhart Try this.....The bones were seen by telescope, binoculars etc. from the ship. They were not bones at all, but something else...lots of cuttle fish? Or perhaps the remains of some sea animal...do whales wash ashore in that part of the world? Anyway, from a distance, all they could make out were the white objects taken as bones. Regards David *************************************************************************** From Ric Whales do wash ashore at Niku, but I suspect that it's a pretty rare event. Bevington saw whale bones down at the southeast end in 1937 and we saw a whale vertebra on the beach down there in (I think it was) 1989. Could be the same whale. I've never seen bones other than maybe some bird bones on the Nutiran beach. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:28:27 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Rats on Niku Thanks Tom for the information, but how would you get one of these Hawaiian voyaging canoes (80 foot monsters) over the reef at Niku? Thanks ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:30:30 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: charts For Oscar Boswell: The DMA publishes GNC charts 7 & 20 which will cover half the pacific including the Gilberts & Marshalls. I'd be glad to make a copy for you for but Xerox machines do a poor job in picking up blue shades which outline numerous unnamed Atolls & rocks. The charts can be ordered from Sporty's I believe or go direct to the DMA (Defense Mapping Agency) which has a website I'm sure. They cost a few bucks a piece. They are generally good charts and suitable for DR navigation showing very good details. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:55:38 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: From Gerry Gallagher To Tom King, Thank you Tom, nice to hear from you again. Great to be back in the loop again with the forum! Gerry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:22:13 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Rats on Niku Lawrence: re: how would you get one of these Hawaiian voyaging canoes (80 foot monsters) over the reef at Niku? On a calm day, I'd think you could ease in over the reef edge and walk the canoe ashore, or into the lagoon, but I have no practical experience in the matter. John Clauss, any thoughts? You're not necessarily talking 80-foot Hawaiian voyaging canoes. The long-range sailing canoes used in the central Carolines run about 25 to 40 feet, and have a pretty shallow draft. But you're right; Niku would not be a real easy place to land. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:23:36 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: From Gerry Gallagher Just a quick note of THANKS to TIGHAR ! I have just received the photos of the re-dedication of the plaque on Gerald's tomb on Nuku. I must say that I was touched by the photos and all the trouble that TIGHAR went to pay respect to Gerald and his memory. One thing that will always live on is that Gerald, "Irish", "Karaka" or whatever you choose to call him, left an very distinguished mark on history albeit from a remote Island in the South Pacific which is his eternal rest place. I know for a fact from family recollections and letters that Gerald loved his job, his environment and the people that he worked with. He also loved Gardner Island, as he called it (now Nikumaroro). AGAIN THANK YOU TIGHAR. It is my intention to visit Niku as soon as possible to pay respect to Gerald as a family member. I now know that I shall be visiting a memorial that has been graced by the efforts and thoughtfulness of the TIGHAR expedition team that visited the site recently. When I look at pictures of Gerald sitting in the house he built on Niku, I can see the happiness and pride that he was feeling at the time.His life was indeed a short 29 years but it is so rewarding, as a family member to see that his name, memory, work, and yes ... his mystery still lives on today! Thanks again TIGHAR EXPEDITION MEMBERS Chris Kennedy, Skeet Gifford, John Clauss, Van Hunn, Kar Burns, Walt Holm, Andrew McKenna, Gary Quigg, Bill Carter, Tom King and Ric Gillespie. Also, thanks to all on the TIGHAR EARHART FORUM for keeping the life and times of Gerald Bernard Gallagher alive into the 21st Century. With great gratitude ... Gerry Gallagher "Karaka Jr." ************************************************************************* From Ric You are most welcome. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:34:26 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves For: Oscar Boswell Oscar I have been reading your postings with a great deal of interest. Regarding the fuel reserves, did you run across anything about "usable" fuel reserves from KJ? The Bonanza I used to fly had rubber bladder fuel cells and some of the fuel would trap and wouldn't pump out and was considered unusable. The drain valves on the tanks were on the side of the bladder. I stuck my hand in one of those things once upon a time. 100 octane makes excellent cleaning fluid by the way. I'll be talking with Ann Pelegreno here shortly and thought I would bring the subject up with her. I would be looking for the location of those valves. If they were under the tank, you could pump the thing dry. Otherwise, I don't think it would empty out. Does anyone know about this? Also, have another question for the forum, what about the characteristics of 80/87 aviation fuel? I never used the stuff. I just assumed its not the same thing as car gas. Anyone on the forum want to flash me a reply? Would like to know especially if it flashes off similar to 100 octane....any pilots around? I know 80/87 leaves a red die marker. Ric...you're a pilot. How fast will 80/87 flash off if its leaking and where were the intake valves on the fuel tanks on an Electra? If the intake valves were on the sides of the tanks, I don't believe Earhart could have run the tanks completely dry. Then again, KJ may have allowed for that possibility in his calculations. I don't know. So, here's a problem for the college of higher learning. Carol #2524 **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure what you mean by "flash off". 80/87 octane was still the norm for most light singles and twins when I started flying (1965). It's just avgas. As I understand it, 100 octane will support higher compression and deliver more horsepower at high manifold pressures. There is no reference to usable fuel as opposed to total fuel on board in any of the NR16020 literature I've seen. Earhart's fuel system had a stripper valve and a separate stripper pump. Given the appropriate music and an appreciative audience, I would imagine that she could get down to almost nothing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:41:57 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Bones on the beach? For Dennis, I'm not an optics expert, but I have had some experience using binoculars. The standard US Navy binocular (since before WW2) is the 7X50 where the "7X" is the optical magnification, and the "50" is the diameter of the objective lens in millimeters. Dividing the second number by the first gives a relative measure of the amount of light gathered. But the optical magnification is the number relevant to your question, and tells you how much closer an object will appear compared to viewing with the unaided eye. A quick web check of binoculars available during the 1930s shows U.S. and foreign manufacturers were making binoculars mostly in magnifications of 6X, 7X, and 8X, with 7X predominating. An object 600 feet away would appear to be at 100 feet, or 87.5 feet, or 75 feet when viewed respectively through binoculars with magnifications of 6X, 7X, or 8X. To use a baseball analogy, the apparent distance for 7X is very close to the distance from home plate to first base or third base, and the apparent distances for 6X and 8X are fairly close - - you might say they're in the ballpark. Sorry, couldn't resist. LTM, who gets baseball fever about this time every year. Bob Brandenburg #2286 *************************************************************************** From Ric So you're standing on a 20 foot tall platform errected over home plate and looking down at first base. Can you recognize the objects there as the bones of the guy who got left on base last season? Okay kids, here's another chance for you to conduct an experiment that will be hard to explain if the cops stop by. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:43:41 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 How odd to have a patent number on a simple knob - I have a couple Leica cameras from this time period. They are marked "DRP" for "Duetches Reich Partie" (forgive any spelling errors!). I don't know what the patent numbers show, but I will look when I get home tonight. LTM, Jon 2266 ************************************************************************ From Ric We don't know for sure that it's a patent number. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:44:25 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Philosophy of fuel resrves Of course those regulations did not exist in 1937 and they only apply to Part 121 operations anyway so I did not mean to imply that they were directly applicable to the flight. My only point is to bring in what the FAA thinks is a perfectly safe fuel requirement based on current information to give food for thaught. Of course today the pilot and dispatcher have much more acurate weather and winds information to make their decisions. Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:46:06 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: LOP >......when the sun is rising and setting north of the >equator, the line which describes their location .....is perpendicular to >the line of sight on the sun >at dawn and skewed away from being perpendicular to the >equator--it will run from north east to south west. Should this last line read "north west to south east"? Mark *********************************************************************** From Ric Yup. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:47:59 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Philosophy of Fuel Reserves Sorry Oscar, but a possible 15 mile error is a possible15 mile error. Which means Noonan (in theory) was always within 15 miles of the LOP. Therefore he didn't have to search more than 15 miles to East or West of his position. Remember, you are not searching a 30 mile zone of uncertainty round Howland added to a 15 mile error in your own position. You know where Howland (and therefore the LOP through Howland) is. (Ignoring mapping errors) You are searching a zone of uncertainty round your own position. If he was (unknown to him) at zero, with Howland at 15, he only had to search from -15 to 15 because he would have then found Howland. If he was actually at 15, searching 0 to 30 would find Howland. If he was at 30, searching from 15 to 45 would find Howland. The 30 mile search zone was round his position, not round a zone of uncertainty in the position of Howland. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:00:45 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Drought on Gardner Some time ago there was mention of a severe drought on Gardner and reference to a castaway perhaps having motive to move to the 7 site because of that. Do you know the approximate dates that the drought was supposed to have lasted? And when it was recorded? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric We, of course, do not have rainfall information for Gardner specifically until well after 1937. We do have rainfall figures for Canton in Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec of 1937 and for Canton and Hull for all of 1938. Even in Sept. of '37 the rainfall at Canton was less than the normal monthly total ( .85 inches versus 1.24) and it only got worse. A year later, in Sept. 1938, Hull got no measurable rain at all. When Maude and Bevington visited Gardner in October 1937 the island seemed lush and inviting. When Maude and Gallagher returned with the first work party in December 1938 they were shocked at how dried up and desolate the place looked. By April of '39 the rains had returned and the island was green again. That pretty much gives us a rough span for the drought. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:13:26 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Great explanation but I would like to add a little detail. The navigator when making a "single LOP landfall procedure" approach to an island uses the island's position as his assumed position for the purpose of making his calculations. He calculates the azimuth to the sun and its altitude as though he were at the destination. The normal procedure was to make these calculations for 20 minute intervals and plot the computed altitudes and azimuths on graph paper and draw a line between the computed points. This was a lot easier than calculating for each minute point since each calculation takes about 3 minutes using HO 208 which are the tables used by Noonan. This allows the navigator to determine the computed altitude of the sun at any time on the graph without having to do the calculations on the spot. He does the calculations for the estimated time of arrival and for maybe an hour earlier and several hours later to allow for delays. Noonan probably extended the graph to the "tanks dry" time. Navigators can do these calculations anytime after the departure time is set since he can then estimate the ETA and he does these calculations while still on the ground and it wouldn't surprise me if Noonan did such pre computations the day before the flight while in Lae. (Is there any information available on Noonan's activities on that day?) Then, while in flight when getting near his destination, he measures the altitude of the sun with his sextant and compares the measured altitude with the pre computed altitudes off the graph for the destination. The difference is the distance that the airplane is from the the LOP that runs through the destination. Every one degree of difference equals sixty nautical miles and every one minute difference of altitude equals one nautical mile. (This is no coincidence but is a result of how the nautical mile was defined on purpose.) He is now on an LOP at that instant that runs parallel to the LOP through the destination and the difference shows the distance between those two LOPs measured perpendicular to the LOPs which happens to be the azimuth to the sun. He then turns the airplane to fly directly towards the sun and continues to measure its altitude until it is equal to the altitude that would be measured at the same time at the destination as determined from his graph. The airplane is then turned 90 degrees and it is now on the LOP that runs through the destination. The sun now moves out to the wing tip as this turn is made. He then continues to measure its altitude. Since the LOP runs perpendicular to the azimuth of the sun it means that the LOP now runs parallel to the new course. (This is called a "course line" LOP.) The navigator continues to measure the sun's altitude and if it continues to equal the pre computed altitudes for the destination (for the time of day) then the plane is staying on the LOP (on course) that should take him to the destination. If he starts measuring higher altitudes he knows he getting off course in the direction of the sun and can change the heading to correct for it. If the altitudes start getting less then the plane is wondering off course away from the sun and corrections can be made. Another detail that has not been discussed relates to the time of the observation of the sun. The discussion seems to assume that Noonan only observed the sun at sun rise, calculated his LOP, advanced it, and dead reckoned to the LOP and started to look for Howland. As was discussed several weeks ago, a navigator prefers to use altitudes above 10 degrees (fewer possibilities for errors that we don't need to discuss here) so he would not rely on just a sun rise measurement which is equal to a zero degree altitude. Since he has a sextant he can measure its altitude at any height. Sun rise at Howland was 1745 Z at almost the exact time that Earhart reported "200 miles out." Assuming that the plane was still west of Howland the sun would not have risen at their location yet. At 1815 Z the time of the "100 mile out" report the sun was 5 degrees 55 minutes high at Howland. At 1912 Z the time of the "must be on you" report the sun was 18 degrees 59 minutes high. Etc.We can expect that Noonan continued to measure the sun during this period. Based on the 157/337 LOP report we can determine the time that Noonan used for his calculation. The LOP is perpendicular to the azimuth of the sun so we know he did his calculation for the time when the sun's azimuth was 67 degrees. This was its azimuth at sunrise at 1745 Z. However the sun moves. Its azimuth remained 67 degrees until 1855 Z (more than an hour) at which point it changed to 66 degrees. So we can be sure that he did his measurement and calculation for some time during the one hour period and not just at the time of sunrise. It is interesting that Earhart reported being on the "157/337" LOP at 2014 Z by which time the azimuth of the sun would have been 63 degrees and the LOP would have been 153/333. What does this mean? Maybe Noonan didn't change its designation for Earhart since it was only a few degrees but we can be sure Noonan knew the difference. This brings me to another point that I have not seen any discussion of on the web site or on the forum. The assumption that they blithely just followed the 157 LOP to Gardner. This however is impossible. Since the sun keeps moving the direction of any LOP derived from it keeps changing its azimuth. This means that even if you could follow the LOP it would no longer take you anywhere near Gardner. By the time of the "we must be on you" report at 1912 Z the LOP would have been 156/336. At the "circling" report time of 1928 Z the LOP was 155/335. At the report of the "157/337" LOP at 2014 Z the LOP was actually 153/333. At the same times the azimuths and any LOPs derived from them would have been even more different at Gardner as it is located south, and more importantly for the calculation, east of Howland. Depending on your assumptions of when NR16020 left the vicinity of Howland and your assumptions about its ground speed you can determine that it would have arrived at Gardner no earlier than 2130 Z and possibly as late 2330 Z. The earlier time is based on assuming it departed Howland at 1912 Z (the time of the "on you" report) and maintained a 150 knot ground speed (which seems high). The latter time assumes departure at 2014 Z ("157/337" report) and a 100 knot GS (probably a little low). By 2130 Z the LOP as measured at Howland would have changed to 144/324 or 13 degrees different from the 157/337 and 15 degrees different from the actual 159 true course to Gardner. Since it is 350 NM to Gardner this would make you miss the island by more that 95 NM. There is an even greater difference as measured at Gardner where the LOP would have been by that time 138/318 or 21 degrees different that the true course to Gardner which would result in a miss of more than 120 NM. The same calculations for 2330Z shows LOPs of 280/100 at Howland and 276/096 at Gardner or about 63 degrees! with a miss distance of 310 NM! Does this mean that they couldn't find Gardner, no. But it takes a lot more than just following the 157 LOP. Noonan would have had to plan on going to Gardner, known its position and then done the "land fall procedure" all over again for this new destination. Would this make any sense since he would have to do this work all over again while in flight with no greater probability of success in finding Gardner than they had had up to that time in finding Howland and a whole lot less fuel available to search for Gardner after using the fuel to fly an additional 350 NM? Wouldn't it make more sense to use all of the fuel remaining in searching for Howland since they knew they were fairly close to it? If necessary he could do the landfall procedure again at Howland using his precomputaions which is a lot easier and less prone to error than doing them all over again in flight while enroute to Gardner. Now don't believe that just aiming for the Phoenix islands guarantees that you will find some island for sure. Those islands are spread out as much as the Gilberts and Ric tells us in a post today that he has flown over the Gilberts and there is so much water between them that you couldn't be sure of finding one of those islands. The Phoenix islands consist of McKean island which is 50 NM to the left of the course to Gardner, Hull is 140 NM, Sydney is 180 NM, Birnie is 190 NM, Canton is 200, Enderbery is 230 and Phoenix island is 250 NM. There are no islands to the right of the course. Most are at greater distances from Howland than Gardner and there is a lot of water in between. It is not a sure thing like turning till the compass says "E for Europe" like Lindberg did. Sorry, the emperor has no clothes. (Flame on) Gary LaPook *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, somebody has no clothes. You really don't understand the method described by Weems and what we're suggesting Noonan did. You also haven't taken into account that from sometime before 19:12Z (probably well before) they're down below a scattered cloud deck that does not allow further sun shots. That's why the LOP given at 20:13 is the sunrise LOP. Perhaps members of the Celestial Choir will take the time to enlighten you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:16:56 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Alternates For Oscar Boswell - I've got a copy of ONC-M16, and the Gilberts (now part of Kiribati) look like a good target to me, especially if you came in on Latitude 1° South. Island (atoll) separations vary of course, and you could be unlucky enough to just miss one. You might try "Bluewater Books & Charts" in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 1-800-942-2583. They've always had anything I asked for. DMA, ONC, JNC, British Admiralty (some of the best!) etc. (They're usually about 3x4' im size) Bluewater advertises as "America's Top Supplier of Nautical Books and Charts". They have dandy navigator's tools as well. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Why didn't I think of that? Just set up the GPS and come into the Gilberts along the 1 degree South latitude line. Piece of cake. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:17:44 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Alternates Oscar, I have ONC L-16 that has the northern Gilberts and southern Marshalls in it. Would that be of any use to you? That's right folks- I'm still lurking out there somewhere! Woody ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:18:54 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) P.S. I realized after I sent my last post that there is still a point of possible confusion to clear up. In the United States we are used to having the sun rise approximately east and then have the direction or azimuth of the sun change in a clockwise manner passing through south-east then to straight south at noon. Then through south-west and then setting approximately due west. On Howland in July the sun passes north of the island as it travels across the sky. So the sun rises approximately east (067) but then the azimuth changes counter clockwise passing through north-east and to straight NORTH at noon. Then it continues through north-west and sets approximately west (293). Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:06:09 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: LOP to Gardner ? > What you're essentially saying is that flying along an advanced LOP to find > an island won't work reliably because there are so many variables. Why then > does Weems ... say: > > If pilotage cannot be used > (as when flying over water) or radio bearings are not available, the single > position line may be utilized for finding a destination. > The air navigator ... continues flying on his course until the position line carried > forward by DR passes through the the destination. he then turns right or > left and follows the LP. If after a reasonable time, the destination is not > sighted, he infers that he has turned the wrong way, and so reverses his > track." I don't quarrel with your characterization of what I am saying, and I don't think Commander Weems would disagree with it. Weems says what he says simply because it is the truth - if you don't have celestial, and you don't have radio bearings, and you don't have pilotage (following landmarks) all you have is dead reckoning ( DR) - exactly the point ! We should recognize that "advancing the LOP" and "running down the line" are merely fancy terms for DR from an ASSUMED position. There is nothing wrong with DR so long as you recognize its limitations. But what I said is also simply the truth - DR over 300 or 400 miles to an island has severe limitations - especially if you don't know exactly where you are when you start (if you know where you are, you know the course to Howland and DR there). Could it work ? Sure. Would it work "reliably" ? Not if you extend it as far as Gardner. It's time for a thought experiment. Assume that a solid overcast covers the State of Texas. The tops are flat and uniform at 5000 feet. (This overcast represents the ocean.) The pilot knows somehow that there are three (and only three) holes relevant to his flight - a hole 2 miles in diameter over Dallas, a hole 1 mile in diameter 38 miles South of Dallas, and a hole 5 miles in diameter over Beaumont.(The holes represent Howland, Baker, and Gardner.) The plane is at 7000 feet (2000 feet over the overcast). The navigator's assumed position is within a box 100 miles long (N to S) and 30 miles wide (W to E) centered on Dallas, but you can't see the 2 mile hole or the 1 mile hole, even though he thinks you "should" have flown over it. Without celestial, radio or pilotage, the chances of finding the hole over Beaumont by flying SE are roughly the same as AE's of finding Gardner. (You can simulate this with a hood and a safety pilot. Prepare a DR flight plan from Dallas to Beaumont. Put on the hood and let the safety pilot fly you around the "box" and then take the control and set course for Beaumont. The safety pilot should be instructed to call "Beaumont airport in sight" when he sees it, and you can take off the hood and land. Reports are welcome.) Three questions: 1-how do you determine when the plane has reached the Latitude of Beaumont (remember you need an LOP passing through Beaumont [Gardner] because all the same island landfall problems exist there as exist at Dallas [Howland] if you don't hit dead on.. 2-How do you decide which way to turn on the line ? 3-How much fuel do you have to search ? The point is this, I think - you have expended your fuel RELOCATING the problem rather than solving it. Maybe they did that. Maybe they finally got lucky that day and made it. I hope so. But it was by no means a certainty as many seem to think. And I question whether that was the proper "Plan B" - but then we all question a lot of their plans and decisions, don't we ? Oscar ************************************************************************** From Ric <> Any position is an assumed position unless you have a solid pinpoint fix. Noonan's sunrise LOP was not a razor-thin line but it wasn't a wide amorphous band either. "We must be on you but cannot see you." conveys confidence that has been shaken by an unexpected result. They have not been able to get a DF fix and yet, using only DR from the sunrise LOP they felt that "we must be on you". If Noonan felt that he could not determine when he had reached a line running through Howland to an accuracy better than 30 miles it's hard to understand the confidence implicit in "we must be on you". Your hole-in-the-overcast thought experiment is deceiving because you imply that you have to hit the hole dead-on when, in fact, an island - especially an island with a lagoon - can be seen for many miles from - what? 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 feet? - probably as high as they could get and still stay under the cloud bases. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps "running on the line" was a dumb thing to do, but that's what she said they were doing. I have great respect for your ability to crunch theoretical numbers but I'm not comfortable saying that Noonan was kidding himself or that he wasn't aware of things that are obvious to you. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:07:09 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Philosophy of fuel reserves There is a Pan American Airways (www.panam.org). It's mainly by and for former employees. It has some interesting stories. I think there must be someone there who knows what the regs were in 1937 when they started routes across the Pacific. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:47:02 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From Chris Kennedy > > [1] what a particular pilot determines is an acceptable reserve for a flight > to a major, inhabited island chain such as the Hawaiian Islands, that same pilot > might not consider to be an acceptable reserve for a flight to Howland, even > though they are of equal distance. Is this a fair statement? > [2] implicit in the idea of an acceptable reserve is the idea > that the pilot has a "Plan B", > [3] wouldn't this be best decided before leaving on the flight? > [4] did ... you encounter anything that indicated that Noonan may have been > using an offset navigation to the north as part of such a back-up plan to locate > Howland? > [5] "Plan B" ... may have been a different way of reaching our primary destination, > Howland. Any thoughts? > > From Ric > > [6] How much of a reserve do you need to execute that plan? Four hours will let > you cover about 500 nautical miles of the LOP. If you're further off than > that you've got bigger problems than any reserve will make up for. Thanks to Chris Kennedy for these questions. The answers to quetions 1, 2 and 3 are all "yes"., especially so in the case of number 3. The time to think about the appropriate response to any emergency is before it happens. An emergency cannot be handled by surprise or denial. The response must be "I thought this would happen; that's why I prepared for it; I know what to do !" (I plagiarize a bit here from the teacher of a different subject, who will not mind, I think.) Questions 4 and 5 refer to the "offset" question. I am not aware of any direct evidence that FN used or intended to use an offset on this flight. I personally ASSUME that he did, that it was to the left (North) and that it consisted of an 11 degree turn to 67 degrees true at 1745. I have my reasons, but I am not ready to talk about them today. (This is by no means an innovative position, and many people have said something similar during the last 60 years.) Such an offset would have caused an interception of the advanced LOP about 33 miles Northwest of Howland (assuming that the original course was dead on for Howland). Even if such an offset were used, we don't know whether the ACTUAL interception of the LOP was North or South of Howland, because we don't know how accurate FN's assumed Latitude was. And thanks to Ric for comment 6, which neatly makes the point that a 4 hour reserve at (or near) Howland is an adequate SEARCH reserve, but not an adequate ALTERNATE reserve - if "Plan B" is to go to an alternate, you still need some amount of reserve at that alternative to have a rational Plan B. Which leads me to the February 2002 of FLYING, which I hadn't had time to look at until Friday. The "AFTERMATH" column by Peter Garrison (page 74) is entitled "Elementary" and contains the story of an ATP with 25,000 [sic] hours, who planned a flight in a Piper Arrow with an estimated time enroute of 3:10 and fuel on board of "4 hours". Because of deteriorating weather, he changed his destination in flight, thus increasing his estimated flying time to about 3:50. He finally arrived in the area of the alternate around 4:10. He then requested a PRACTICE ILS approach, ran out of fuel at 4:20, and crashed. All 3 occupants of the plane died. There are all sorts of implications and lessons here - and I am not going to compete with Peter Garrison in outlining them - but I am going to quote the last sentence of the article "The reserve should be viewed as insurance against unforeseen problems at the destination ... AND NOT AS CAPITAL TO BE EXPENDED ENROUTE." Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric Allow me to offer my own uninvited answers to Chris' questions: <<[1] what a particular pilot determines is an acceptable reserve for a flight to a major, inhabited island chain such as the Hawaiian Islands, that same pilot might not consider to be an acceptable reserve for a flight to Howland, even though they are of equal distance. Is this a fair statement?>> Yes BUT any given airplane will only carry just so much fuel. Earhart went out of Lae with every drop she could carry (without compromising her 100 octane takeoff tank). She had as much reserve as she was going to get. She accepted the risk when she took off whether the reserve was "acceptable" or not. <<[2] implicit in the idea of an acceptable reserve is the idea that the pilot has a "Plan B">> Yes, and many record setting flights in the 1920s and '30s were made with neither an acceptable reserve nor a Plan B. What was Lindbergh's "Plan B" once he passed the point of no return. Or Earhart's on her 1932 crossing? I've made at least one such flight myself, although nothing in their league. <<[3] wouldn't this be best decided before leaving on the flight?>> Of course. And that goes for the recognition that there is no Plan B that is guaranteed to save your bacon. We're not talking about the kind of flying most people ever do. <<[4] did ... you encounter anything that indicated that Noonan may have been using an offset navigation to the north as part of such a back-up plan to locate Howland?>> As you know, I don't see any evidence that Noonan used an offset on this trip and I do see evidence that he did not. <<[5] "Plan B" ... may have been a different way of reaching our primary destination, Howland. >> Yes, the "textbook" method. Run along the line of position. But Oscar says: >...a 4 hour reserve at (or near) Howland is an adequate SEARCH reserve, >but not an adequate ALTERNATE reserve - if "Plan B" is to go to an alternate, >you still need some amount of reserve at that alternative to have a rational Plan B. But running on the line is the only way to SEARCH for Howland and not totally abandon your chances of getting out of this alive if you don't find it. There is no acceptable alternate and there is no such thing as an acceptable reserve on a flight like this. If you don't find Howland you're probably going to lose the airplane, and if you don't find land you're probably going to die. Welcome to the Golden Age of Aviation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:49:49 EST From: Denise Subject: The castaway experience Th' WOMBAT, treasure, when you say "I subjected visitors from Wales to an uninhabited tropical island a few years ago - and they're coming back for more." you clearly have "tuff stuff" friends. Cherish them! Friends of mine subjected a young man from Seattle to the archetypal "desert island experience" by sailing off and leaving him behind on one. (Hey, he kept saying he'd love to be a castaway! They just obliged.) When they came back after a few days to pick him up ... they had to ferry him straight to the nearest hospital to be treated for shock, exposure, dehydration, sunburn, and something akin to a nervous breakdown. Seems that when he realised they'd gone, he just lay down on the beach, curled up in a foetal position, and sucked his thumb until rescued. And the saddest part of this is he was only a few miles offshore, practically in Suva Central, within sight of it, within hailing distance of passing boats, within swimming distance even . But, as I relished telling my stupid friends, considering they left him on an island in the heart of tigershark breeding territory, a less wimpy fellow would have come off a lot worse. LTM (who preferred sunburn to shark attacks anyday) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:51:25 EST From: Denise Subject: Re: Alternates Pat Gaston writes: "I don't want to belabor this Gilberts business, but ..." Look, the way this adds up for me is simply this: turning back to the west gives you the chance to maybe reach ONE group of islands four hours away. Turning north gives you the chance to maybe hit Howland and then not hit the Marshall Islands - since you know you don't have the fuel - seven hours away. But turning south (or whatever that LOP line is) gives you the chance to: 1) hit Howland. 2) see Baker and turn back to Howland. 3) hit Baker 4) hit the Phoenix Group two hours away 5) hit the Tokelau Group four hours away. I know what I'd do. In fact, I definitely know what I'd do since the alternatives are just different degrees of downright stupid. And I'd like to throw in here my previously mentioned formulation that the likely advice given to A.E. by your average Pacific-flying cowboy-type (was there any other kind?) would have been "find the nearest island with a lagoon and land on the reef." Turning south along the LOP line would be the best way to deliver on that! LTM (who didn't like any degree of downright stupid) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:53:04 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 Ref the patent numbers, I looked on both my pre-war Leicas, and neither has a visible patent number anywhere on it, so that's no help. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:55:15 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Belgium Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 To Jon Watson, I think the P in DRP does not stand for Partie but for Patent. I believe DRP stood for "Deutsches Reichs Patent" LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:06:32 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Bones on the Beach To Bob Brandenberg: Thanks for the data on binoculars. I'm generally familiar with 7X35 and 8X50 binoculars from my adventurous days. Ric said: "Okay, so you're standing on a 20 foot tall platform erected over home plate and looking down at first base. Can you recognize the objects there as the bones of the guy who got left on base last season? Under perfect conditions, you bet. A nice white bone against the dark brown infield dirt - piece of cake, ribs, femurs, ulna, all clear as a bell. But of course Niku does not offer perfect conditions. If the "bones" (after all, we're taking Jones' word on this) were from the crew of the NC it would have made them about eight(?) years old. During that time they would undoubtedly have suffered from the sun, erosion, critters and, possibly, be at least partially buried as a result of tide and wind actions. At 600 feet away (90 feet under 7X magnification in our example), and depending on the angle of the sun, I suspect the now-weathered bones would have blended fairly well into the white-gray-pink sand of the beach would not be clear and distinct images. From 90 feet away the viewer may be able to see something but would it be recognizable as bones, much less human bones? The exception, as I said earlier, might be a skull or pelvis, due to their particular and unique shapes. But as for identifying smaller bone such as ribs, femurs, ulna etc., I'm not convinced. And of course the big question is how would Jones know from that distance the bones are human. And by the way, what are his qualifications to reach that decision, assuming he is looking at something other than a human skull? LTM, whose "bone"afides are correct Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll agree that bones could be hard to pick out against a background of coral rubble and/or sand, but if we examine the alternative hypothesis - that somebody went ashore and saw the bones up close and personal - we have to explain why they didn't bury them (too scared, in too much of a hurry) and how they saw the bones of nine people who had been buried and dug up by wild pigs. Eleven men were lost in the wreck. Only three were buried. We're not going to sort this out by debating it. If somebody thinks it's important enough they'll have to find the ship's log. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:21:22 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: LOP > From Mark Prange >> ......when the sun is rising and setting north of the >> equator, the line which describes their location .....is perpendicular to >> the line of sight on the sun >> at dawn and skewed away from being perpendicular to the >> equator--it will run from north east to south west. > > > Should this last line read "north west to south east"? My typo. I had the correct line drawn on my mental compass. I just mislabelled it when I translated from pictures to words. Sorry about that. :o( Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:22:02 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: From Gerry Gallagher TO--Gerry Gallagher--- Thank you for such a lovely letter of appreciation to TIGHAR for the plaque at Mr Gallaghers grave site.... Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:24:43 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Bones on the beach? > Okay, so you're standing on a 20 foot tall platform errected over home plate > and looking down at first base. Can you recognize the objects there as the > bones of the guy who got left on base last season? Hey, I can do this one! My back yard is 75 feet deep, and just across the alley is a cemetery. > Okay kids, here's another chance for you to conduct an experiment that will > be hard to explain if the cops stop by. I suppose a TIGHAR card would be a good thing to have when the cops arrive. Seriously, though, how hard would this be to simulate? I have a feeling that we've all looked at something very similar in distance, size and shape, and it's just not connectiing right now. LTM (who has a neat beach) Mike Holt in Richmond VA *************************************************************************** From Ric If you think this one is good, wait until you see our how-many-clams-can-a-person-eat-in-one-sitting? experiment. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:28:44 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Patent number on artifact 2-6-S-45 Ric, perhaps this has already been answered, but are you able to determine how many numbers there are, even though we can't make out what the exact numbers are yet? This may help narrow down the possibilities of the type of number this could be (U.S. or some other country's patent numbers, etc.). Could these possibly be symbols, rather than numbers? --Chris ************************************************************************ From Ric Not yet. I can tell that the Ludolph patent numbers Mark cited would fit in the available space given the size of the characters we can make out, but we can't yet tell how many characters are present. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:30:02 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: LOP to Gardner/Mapping ERROR In addition to what Mr. Boswell is saying, something to keep in mind is the fact that we have NOT been able to determine that the flight actually knew about the east/west mapping error as to Howland's position. We have tended to concentrate on the problems in determining whether you are north of south of Howland (assuming, as TIGHAR does, that Noonan did not run an offset to eliminate this issue altogether). If the flight did not know of the error, Noonan's navigation to Howland as described by TIGHAR may have been fine but the flight would've effectively navigated to the wrong spot, thus helping to explain the "we must be on you but cannot see you" transmission. This might be the capper to all the other incredible screw-ups on this flight and the one which finally did it in. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:30:46 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Plan "B" Thanks, Mr. Boswell; I appreciate your time in discussing the basics of "reserves" (both in theory and practice) and answering my subsequent questions. Good luck in your continuing work. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:26:53 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner Sounds like that climate change the scientists are telling us about... *********************************************************************** From Ric No, not really. Sporadic drought has been a characteristic of the region for many years. We have, however seen a greater frequency of high surf "westerly" weather events in just the 12 years we've been visiting the place. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:39:11 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Gallagher's House > From Gerry Gallagher > When I look at pictures of Gerald sitting in the house he built on Niku, So some of Gerald Gallagher's effects survived the voyage from Niku. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric You're jumping to conclusions. Perhaps Gerry would like to fill the forum in on what he has discovered about the shipping-of-effects issue. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:41:28 EST From: RC Subject: Re: Philosophy of fuel reserves > From Herman De Wulf >. I think there must be someone there who knows what the regs were in 1937 > when they started routes across the Pacific. Herman .. The guy you want is an old bowling partner that lives near me. I'll ask. RC PS. I will take a guess that the reserves for those operating under the sked. airlines in those days were conservative, but maybe less so for the 'boats. You may recall the air corps 1st. round the world attempt at one point taxiied quite a way. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:47:01 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner If the Island was "lush and inviting" in October 1937, it would have taken some time for the coconuts to feel the effects. For the first few months, the trees would probably show no noticeable difference, then gradually there would be a decline in the number of new nuts. There is an amazing amount of water present in the trunks of palms, so new nuts still form and still contain water. I dug out one of my old textbooks on tropical agriculture and it appears tests in the 1930's showed the effects of severe drought on the coconuts was worst some 13 months after the end of the drought, with the numbers of nuts actually increasing during the term of the drought. The test conditions were not as severe as the conditions on Gardner though as the worst of the drought was only three months. It would suggest that the coconuts may have been still producing nuts, but fewer in quantity until the rains returned in April 1939, so if our castaway was alive and had been collecting nuts for water they would have stayed very close to the coconut trees for most of the drought period. Of course, the rats would have been competing for the nuts also, so most of the fallen nuts might be empty. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric Gallagher found the bones of the castaway far away from the only coconut trees on the island. That's a fact. Are you saying that the castaway moved away from the coconuts after April 1939? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:51:26 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Bones on the Beach > From Dennis McGee > To Bob Brandenberg: Thanks for the data on binoculars. I'm > Under perfect conditions, you bet. A nice white bone against the > dark brown infield dirt - piece of cake, ribs, femurs, ulna, all clear as a > bell. But of course Niku does not offer perfect conditions. "Found " exposed human bones are often various shades of brown or gray. And non-human bones can be confused with human bones, even skulls. There is an extensive forensic literature on the skulls of small breeds of dogs (like pugs) or even hydrocephalic calves being mistaken for human skulls. It can be tougher than it looks, even though there were no cows or odd breeds of dogs on Nikumaroro. Ideally, you would have the bones themselves to examine, or at least a good photograph. Since you do not have either, all that you can say is that someone saw something on the beach that he thought were human bones. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Who has a bone to pick...) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:53:52 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Plan "B" One issue that I have raised once or twice to no avail is the option of climbing again to adequate altitude (8-10 thousand feet?) to take further celestial shots of both sun and moon for a two body fix followed by another run at Howland. This is usually dismissed as suicidal from a fuel standpoint, and for less than ideal sun moon cuts. I have no idea regarding the fuel, but the sun-moon cut issue is easy to explore via the almanac data on the USNO site. I put together a table at one time, and could do so again - but my recollection was that the cuts were adequate to take either another run at Howland or to use as a starting point for a different Plan B, Gilberts or otherwise. Especially considering the options. Any comment on the fuel side of the question? Would you have considered a climb to establish position by fix? TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:52:32 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Philosophy of fuel resrves > From Gary LaPook > My only point is to bring in what the FAA thinks is a > perfectly safe fuel requirement based on current information to give food for > thaught. Of course today the pilot and dispatcher have much more acurate weather > and winds information to make their decisions. Not to mention GPS (or Doppler or INS or whatever). Two hours reserve projected at landing at (say) Paris in a jet covering 500 or 550 miles per hour is different from 2 hours in a plane making 150 (or whatever) in the middle of nowhere. And on many runs you have places to refuel if you need to. I am by no means a frequent foreign traveler, but as a passenger I have made unscheduled stops in Bangor, Guam and Shannon (twice) for fuel. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:00:52 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From Ric > [1] What was Lindbergh's "Plan B" > once he passed the point of no return. > [2]But running on the line is the only way to SEARCH for Howland and not totally > abandon your chances of getting out of this alive if you don't find it. > [3]There is no acceptable alternate and there is no such thing as an acceptable > reserve on a flight like this. If you don't find Howland you're probably > going to lose the airplane, and if you don't find land you're probably going > to die. [1] Lindbergh was over land for most of the last 500 miles of his flight, and landed with enough fuel to go to Rome. [2] Another rational thing to do is to fly back and forth parallel to the line to encompass the possible errors of both Latitude and Longitude. If you decide that 100 miles is the maximum area of error of Latitude, you cover the 100 miles of the line, and fly that 100 miles course at intervals of say 15 miles parallel to the line. One pass(say N to S) = 100 miles, fly East or West (let's say West first) 15 miles, fly the line (S to N100), fly West 15, fly the line (N to S 100), fly East 45 miles, fly the line (S to N 100) fly East another 15 miles and fly the line (N to S 100). The total mileage is 590, at least 100 of which you have already covered on your first pass (necessary in anyone's scenario). Assuming that you have encompassed the proper search area, this will bring you within 7 1/2 miles of Howland TWICE. (And, assuming you can see 7.5 miles, the actual N - S area of the search is 115 miles, and W - E is 75.) The extra 490 miles requires a bit over 3 hours at 40 gph (perhaps 3 1/2 if you drop to 28 gph to increase your endurance). [3] Very true. And that's why you need to find Howland. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric <<[2] Another rational thing to do is to fly back and forth parallel to the line to encompass the possible errors of both Latitude and Longitude. >> Have you used this method or do you know of anyone who has? Why do you suppose that Weems recommended running on the LOP rather than the Boswell Method? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:09:15 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: "Retreating" the LOP ? > From Ric > [1] If Noonan felt that he could not determine when he had reached a line > running through Howland to an accuracy better than 30 miles it's hard to > understand the confidence implicit in "we must be on you". > > [2]Your hole-in-the-overcast thought experiment is deceiving because you imply > that you have to hit the hole dead-on when, in fact, an island - especially > an island with a lagoon - can be seen for many miles from - what? 1,000, > 1,500, 2,000 feet? - probably as high as they could get and still stay under > the cloud bases. > > [3]Perhaps you are right. Perhaps "running on the line" was a dumb thing to do, > but that's what she said they were doing. > [4] I'm not comfortable saying that > Noonan was kidding himself or that he wasn't aware of things that are obvious > to you. [1] I agree with you that FN had confidence in his position, plus or minus some number of miles North and South and East and West. I merely disagree that staying "ON" the line was the only thing to do. See my earlier posting today suggesting a search pattern. [2] I didn't say they had to hit the hole dead on, and (in anticipation of your objection) provided the safety pilot/hood scenario as an alternative experiment. The Safety Pilot can see Beaumont as well as Gardner, once the pilot gets him into range (the hood is to deprive the pilot/navigator of landmarks). [3]Not only is it NOT dumb to "run on the line", it is the right thing to do. But because there is POSSIBLE ERROR both in the original LOP (due to refraction error in observation of Sunrise, which can equal plus or minus 1 minute [of time] or 15 nautical miles) and in the dead reckoning "advance" of that line over (say) 175 to 200 miles (which equals what ? 5 miles or 10 miles or more ?) it might be prudent to consider both "retreating" and further "advancing" the line to a series of parallel lines incorporated into a search pattern, rather than continuing "on the line" This procedure is just as consistent with the radio transmissions as your scenario.. [4] I don't doubt for a minute that FN was quite competent and understood these things better than either of us. I believe your lack of comfort stems from a certainty that you know what the plan was. (I don't.) You may be right - or (I say it without disrespect ) you may be kidding yourself.. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric My confidence that I know what Earhart meant when she said they were "running on the line" is based upon the fact that running on the advanced LOP was an established and recommended procedure. It is also what Noonan's contemporaries believed she meant. I am very much disinclined to think that she meant a procedure that you have just thought up, no matter how reasonable it might seem in this time and place. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:15:40 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) And just why can't you take a sun sight from below a scattered cloud layer? It only takes a few seconds for a single sight and a minute or two to take a number of sights for the purpose of improving the accuracy by averaging them. For anyone who doesn't believe that this is possible I recommend that you read Chichester's book "Seaplane Solo" published in 1934 in which he describes the "offset" method of finding an island which he does twice in his historic first solo flight from New Zealand to Australia. Pages 74 through 78 relate how he was searching for a hole in the overcast (not scattered) to obtain a sun sight so he could determine when to turn on to the LOP to find Norfolk island. And again on pages 159 through 166 he again had to find holes in the overcast to find Lord Howe island. Actually, everyone should read this book, it is a great read. And the way he describes the excitement and relief of finding land after a long overwater flight is exactly in agreement with my experience of overwater flying using a sextant for navigation. And Chichester was using a marine sextant which would have made it more difficult for him than it would have been for Noonan with a bubble sextant. Gary LaPook *************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe it's not as hard as we have thought. I'd like to hear Doug Brutlag's opinion on this. My recollection is that Chichester was flying a very slow, open cockpit airplane. Perhaps you'd like to tell us about your experience in long overwater flights using a sextant for navigation. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:16:28 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Alternates > From Woody > > Oscar, I have ONC L-16 that has the northern Gilberts and southern > Marshalls in it. Would that be of any use to you? That's right folks- I'm > still lurking out there somewhere! Woody Thanks very much, but I have L-16. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:17:31 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Zone of Uncertainty > From Angus Murray > a possible 15 mile error is a possible15 mile error. Which means Noonan > (in theory) was always within 15 miles of the LOP. Therefore he didn't have > to search more than 15 miles to East or West of his position. Remember, you > are not searching a 30 mile zone of uncertainty round Howland added to a > 15 mile error in your own position. You are searching a zone of uncertainty > round your own position. You're right. I should have said a 60 mile search was the prudent thing to do, considering both possible errors in the Sunrise determination of Longitude, and possible DR errors in "advancing the LOP". Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:21:54 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From Ric > <<[2] Another rational thing to do is to fly back and forth parallel to > the line to encompass the possible errors of both Latitude and Longitude. >> > Have you used this method or do you know of anyone who has? I believe that James Lovell got lost on a night training mission. He lost radio, radar, and instrument panel lights. He flew a search box and found the carrier by catching a glimpse of the phosphorence caused by the ship's propellors. If I have the right astronaut, the story is told in _The Lost Moon_. LTM. Marty #2359 *********************************************************************** From Ric There's a technique dating from WWII and possibly somewhat earlier called the "Square Search" which some have speculated Earhart used, but you'd be hard put to describe it as "running on the line". ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:50:46 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Gallagher's House It is my belief that the effects of Gerald were boxed and prepared for shipping back to England. War broke out and there is no evidence that the items were ever shipped ... there is an order to ship, but that was only to consign the shipment to the Company in Suva to ship the items. After 2 years of tracking this ... it is my belief that the items NEVER left Fiji. Ironically the Company is still in business. However, the Company did experience looting and had to move their offices during the war years. Thus, it is my opinion and the facts do lead to the conclussion that the effects were only turned over to the shipping company in Fiji that handled all the shipping for the Colonial Service. I have even talked to a representative of the Company in Fiji who advised me that they did not have a clue what happened to the effects and that paperwork MAY be available in storage. But the indications certainly lean to the probability that nothing ever left Fiji. The photo that I supplied to Ric came to the family through a colleague of Gerald's who passed on the photo. The photo was taken upon completion of the house built by "Irish" on Gardner. (Ric, I am sure will share that and the other photos with you all). However, I am unable to find any proof whatsoever that items of Gerald's personal effects ever made it out of Fiji where they were last traced to, inventoried, boxed and paperwork prepared for dispatch for shipping . In short, there is proof that the move of the items was in "motion", however there is no proof of them actually being placed on a ship or received by family. Delays were common then. The original plaque for Gerald's tomb for example too many years to go from the idea stage to the actual plaque being ordered fro New Zealand I believe it was. A few photos .... YES obtained through third parties that knew Gerald. Personal Effects that made it back .. ABSOLUTELY NONE at all found to date! Anyway, I have not given up and will follow up on the possibility of some ancient records in the vaults of the Shipping Company that may lead torwards another thread of possibilities! Gerry ("Karaka Jr") Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:52:02 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Plan "B" For Marty Moleski The incident of finding a carrier at night was Jim Lovell as was told in the movie Apollo 13 based on Lovell's book "Lost Moon". What does that incident have to do with navigation or flying on the line? He just lucked out by having a visual reference on the water that took him right back to the carrier. Just curious. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:53:38 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Gary LaPook says: > And just why can't you take a sun sight from below a scattered cloud layer? It > only takes a few seconds for a single sight and a minute or two to take a number > of sights for the purpose of improving the accuracy by averaging them. I have a lot of experience shooting and plotting celestial navigation for the Strategic Air Command. Even using a periscopic sextant at 35,000 feet in a fairly stable jet plane a momentary sextant shot is useless for the purpose of finding a single island. The possible and probable error is beyond reasonable use. Using the equipment that Noonan had makes the idea ludicrous. The suggestion that his device could be used for any exacting purpose at 1,000' in an Electra under the cloud cover they had defies logic. FN could have been lucky and miraculously got an instantaneous shot that was perfectly accurate. 99 times out of a hundred his instaneous shot could have put him most anywhere. In either case he would have had no way to know. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:40:10 EST From: Mark Subject: More on Patent Numbers Well, I've found out a bit more information... no earth-shattering breakthroughs, I'm afraid. First, the Germans: The German Patent contact suggested the string could be "NO - U1xxxxxx" in which the "N(?)" indicates Norway, and the U indicates a "utility" class patent (the most likely class). I had been assuming that the "N(?)" was "No" or "Nr", short for "number". They have also provided the (current) definitive document regarding country codes. "OL" and "UL" do not (currently) exist. I am inquiring further elsewhere on when such codes were standardized and what previous conventions (if any) were used. From the British: My contact at the British Library has provided a concise history of British patent numbering conventions dating back to 1617. From this information, I have drawn the following points of note: 1) The "OL" is not likely to be a "01", as neither Britain nor the US tends to use leading zeros except when an alphabetic country code (or other such code) prefixes the number (checking on this to be certain). 2) If the "OL" is a country code, it probably dates from post-1915, which is when Britain adopted the GBxxxxxxx nomenclature. I am checking on when/if this was an international standardization. Further, on inspection of the country code list, and warping things in my mind (a dangerous activity, I admit), I thought about this: The "OL" can be characterized as a "roundish or U-shaped thing" followed by a pair of straight lines at right angles in an L-shaped pattern. I look down the list of valid country codes, and the closest match happens to be "DE", follwed somewhat by "GB" (imagine the upper right portions of the E and B gone, along with the cross-line on the G). Anyway, that's all merely speculation and mind games. One difficulty I am having is that most people involved in patent law are much more involved in the documentation than in labeling of products, which appears to be largely up to the manufacturer. This colors somewhat their interpretations, as they are considering what would appear on a patent *document*, not a patented *item*. On the other hand, since labeling appears to be left largely up to the manufacturer, there may be too much variation involved anyway. For the record, though I have described the object, I have not told any of my contacts anything about the investigation other than that the object was found at an "archaeological site" and that it is "badly weathered". I have done this in order that I not color their opinions in any way on what the inscriptions may mean. Good idea? Bad idea? Is there any possibility of getting higher-resolution images of the knob on the site? Or perhaps images (if any) and data from the SEM tests? Thanks, Mark in Horse Country *************************************************************************** From Ric We can't put higher resolution imagery up on the website. It's 72dpi any way you slice it. I have some photos I shot of the SEM screen but it really wouldn't tell you anything. I think that the key to getting a look at these letters/numbers/runes/whatever is to: 1. Clean the knob of oxidation product don to bre metal WITHOUT further degrading the bare metal. 2. Lighting the knob with high intensity directed light from an 85 degree angle. 3. Taking multiple photographs, rotating the knob slightly each time. 4. Carfully examining the photos. At best, we may not come up with a clear interpretation but we should come up with a range of possibilities among which we can look for a logical match with a known number and ultimately (we hope) confirm it with a photo, drawing, or real life example of the object. I don't see any harm in telling people why this object is of such interest. We can't identify the thing based upon somebody's opinion anyway. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:41:24 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From me: > ... James Lovell got lost on a night training mission. > He lost radio, radar, and instrument panel lights. He flew a > search box and found the carrier by catching a glimpse of the > phosphor[esc]ence caused by the ship's propellors. ... After sending this, I did find internet confirmation that the story comes from Lovell and _Lost Moon_. > From Ric > There's a technique dating from WWII and possibly somewhat earlier called > the "Square Search" which some have speculated Earhart used, but you'd be > hard put to describe it as "running on the line." Agreed. If I remember correctly, Lovell's idea was to start at the most probably location he could calculate for the carrier, then fly ever-larger boxes. He was very lucky that his last lights blew out in time for his eyes to adapt to the dark, making it possible for him to pick up the phos-phor-e-scence (left a syllable out of it the first time) behind the ship. Whatever luck AE and FN had on their final flight, it wasn't good enough to save them. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:43:30 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From Tom MM > > One issue that I have raised once or twice to no avail is the option of > climbing again to adequate altitude (8-10 thousand feet?) to take further > celestial shots of both sun and moon for a two body fix followed by another > run at Howland. This is usually dismissed as suicidal from a fuel > standpoint, > > Any comment on the fuel side of the question? Would you have considered a > climb to establish position by fix? Yes. They were very light at the time. A cruise climb at (say) 140 mph and 60 gph would have taken them from 1000 to 8000 in 14 minutes at a cost of (14/60 times 20 gph = ) about 4 gallons of extra fuel, a loss that would have been recaptured in 2 hours by leaning to 38 gph at altitude, even disregarding the increased speed on the same fuel flow at 8000. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:44:25 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Bones on the Beach I think that believing they saw the bones of 9 people on the beach when only 3 were buried kind of suggests they didn't actually do a head count... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:54:27 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner > From Ric > > Gallagher found the bones of the castaway far away from the only coconut > trees on the island. That's a fact. Are you saying that the castaway > moved away from the coconuts after April 1939? No, I'm suggesting that the bottle should indicate that the castaway had a source of fluids for drinking and that if there was a drought on the only regular source of fluids might be fallen coconuts. Other than the freshwater lake - which dries very quickly - what other water source would they have in a prolonged drought? What other reason to carry a bottle to a place like the 7 site? Depending what size Benedictine bottle was in common use on Gardner around 1930's it could hold enough water for survival. If you keep your activities limited and stay out of the sun you could survive quite a while on 750ml a day. I wonder how much you need to prevent kidney failure? I go through 1500ml a day on average at 35deg C. I suggest that our castaway would have had to be close to the coconut trees early in the morning (like daybreak). Meaning the 7 site possibly had another signifigance - like a daytime rest and eating area. On the other hand, perhaps they hiked from the 7 site to the nearest coconut palms in the dark so as to be able to collect nuts at daybreak. What is often incorrectly called coconut milk and is really coconut "water" (how's that Denise?) might even have a side benefit as it is fairly high in sugar. Unfortunately it has no real nutritional value other than that, but a certain amount of sugar may have helped energy levels a (very) little. I have absolutely no idea what the relatively high potassium content would do over a prolonged period though. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric I'll let anybody who has been there or seen the video comment on the likelihood of someone living at the Seven Site and be relying on Arundel's cocos for water, thus necessitating frequent trips back and forth. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:55:34 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Zone of Uncertainty > From Angus Murray > a possible 15 mile error is a possible15 mile error. Which > means Noonan (in theory) was always within 15 miles of the LOP. Therefore > he didn't have to search more than 15 miles to East or West of his position. Assuming an accuracy of about 15 nm, at 1000ft Noonan could see the horizon for a little over 35 miles all around him, subject of course to any haze and glare. That meant he was looking at about 3800sq miles of ocean through a cone that would seem to be moving that 3800sq miles at up to 2 miles a minute. If he could be confident of a 10 - 20 nm error he should have expected to see Howland. If Howland wasn't in its charted position, it or Baker should have still been visible either side of the line. It's still a lot of water though! (I imagine someone will check my math and correct me if I'm wrong. 35miles squared = 1225m * 3.1412 = 3848 sq miles). Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:02:52 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > From Gary LaPook > > And just why can't you take a sun sight from below a scattered cloud layer? It > only takes a few seconds for a single sight and a minute or two to take a number > of sights for the purpose of improving the accuracy by averaging them. I find this fascinating, and I'm eager to learn more about how FN could have done this. I would appreciate seeing a detailed, step-by-step feasibility analysis, taking into account all of the controlling factors, such as: 1). where in the Electra FN would shoot from; 2). how he would accommodate the physical arrangement of the A-5 bubble octant to his shooting position; 3). how he would acquire a sight line to the sun given the sun's altitude and azimuth, the heights of the cloud tops and bottoms, the amount of cloud cover at the time and the near-grazing incidence of his visual angle to the cloud bottoms; 4). how much time FN would need for a string of, say, 10 shots to average the sight, given that his octant didn't have an averager, and he had to write down the altitude and time for each shot and then reacquire the sun for the next shot; 5). how convective turbulence would affect the accuracy of FN's shots, given that he was flying just below the convective condensation level over the central axis of the tropical Pacific warm pool, which is the warmest patch of ocean on the planet. Bob Brandenburg #2286 **************************************************************************** From Doug Brutlag For Ric & Gary, "And Chichester was using a marine sextant which would have made it more difficult for him than it would have been for Noonan with a bubble sextant". Gary, I will politely disagree with you on that statement. This is why. Some months ago I took my Pioneer A-7 sextant out in a Twin Beech for the purpose of shooting sun shots during the day and collecting data on the accuracy of the shots to be used in another project. The A-7 is basically an A-5 with a pencil scratching averager mod., in other words similar to the A-5 Noonan reportedly borrowed from the Army Air Corp. to use on the flight & in use by Pan Am in that time period. The weather was mostly clear with a wind from the SW at 15 knots or so. The conditions were just so that between the wind & thermals it would generate a ride of occasional light chop. Not a bad ride for you & me, but more than enough to make for laborious shooting with a bubble sextant. I have several sextants in my collection, a few A-10's (my personal favorite), Navy Mk 5, A-12, Kollsman Periscope, and the A-7 which I bought a few years ago when it was offered to me as finding an A-5 was impossible. While most of my experience has been shooting from a usual stable jet platform, I find it more challenging to shoot from a smaller aircraft with a piston engine powerplant, particularly a radial engine powerplant. The problem with a bubble sextant is that the bubble in the viewing chamber is extremely sensitive- if your platform (aircraft) is not in perfectly straight & level 1 G flight it will most definetly cause an error on the alignment of the bubble throwing it out of kilter if you will, introducing error in your Hs. If it's the least bit turbulent-forget it and wait for smooth air to resume your shooting. The piston engine powerplant also brings a level of vibration to the airframe that can also influence your bubble error particularly if you try to steady your hand or arm holding your instrument against any part of the airplane like the way a photographer tries to steady his camera. The point of all this is to say that I believe it to be more difficult to use a bubble sextant in an aircraft given the fact that the bubble artificial horizon is prone to errors from turbulence, vibration, and aircraft accelerations. With Chichester's marine sextant he did not have to depend on a sensitive bubble dancing around in his view-the marine sextant uses the view of the natural horizon which just sits there, although he undoubtedly had a problem trying to hold the airplane steady with the stick between his knees and shooting at the same time. As long as he shot from a low altitude (1000 ft or so) he would not have a major dip to correct for when using the marine sextant, which I believe he did. That day shooting from the Twin Beech, it was one challenge after another trying to hold the sextant still for 2 minute shots just from the occasional light chop and the R-985's rattling the airframe. It was a chore to get decent shots-I think the errors were around 20-25 miles, possibly more, I'd have to look it up again. The A-5/A-7 is also a rather clumsy instrument to use as well. It is like trying to hold an oblong bowling ball of about 5 lbs. next to your eye. The A-10 is much lighter and ergonomically condusive. While both are capable of accurate shots, the A-7 is simply easier to use and less laborious to hold steady. If our duo experienced similar ride & weather conditions that I encountered, Fred would have had great difficulty in calculating an accurate enough LOP from the sun to guide them to Howland. He was also very fatigued and I believe additional errors probably were made as such. He had planned on getting the Electra close enough to pick up the DF steer from the radio operator on the island but as we all know never got it. Just from this experience, it is my opinion that because of difficulties/errors/capabilities/limitations of using celestial navigation at that time along with fatigue, the odds of finding a 1.5 square mile rock in the pacific without DF after 20 hours of flight were slim at the very best. Ability to calculate an accurate enough sun LOP to use as a landfall would be questionable in my mind for even the best ace navigators of any period, especially if fatigued. I do not claim to be any kind of expert on this. I am only an air transport pilot who is self-taught and has practiced this off & on for 14 years in heavy jets & general aviation aircraft. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Gary LaPook Alan, Sure, taking a 2 minute average of sights provides greater accuracy than a single sight but according to Weems it only takes a few sights to average to bring the accuracy up to acceptable levels. Noonan did not have an averaging sextant so it was up to him to take several sights every time himself and figure out the average, all that was required was that Noonan use his normal procedure. Noonan obviously knew how to do this or he would have disappeared long before 1937. And there is no reason to believe that in "scattered" cloud conditions (less than 6/10th cloud coverage, meaning that most of the sky, most of the time, doesn't have any clouds in it) that there would not have been many opportunities to take an entire two minute series of shots and certainly many, many opportunities for taking a least the minimum number to obtain a usable number of sights to average. And we do know that a single sight can work or else Chichester would have drowned in the Tasman Sea, twice. I would expect a navigator in Noonan's position to give it his best shot at taking sights in these less than optimal conditions as if his life depended on it, because it did. And remember your experience was in a jet cruising at 450 knots and you probably did most of your navigation at higher latitudes where the combination of the high ground speeds and high latitudes could produce very large "wander error" and "coriolis error" which would not have presented much of a problem for Noonan at the equator at 130 knots. Another thing you should consider in comparing your navigation experience in a B-52 or KC-135 at 450 knots and 35,000 feet flying over the pole with the navigation in a slow electra at 1000 feet over the equator in that the phugoid oscillation period of your airplane was a lot longer so you required a lot longer shooting period to average out the errors caused by the accelerations caused by the phugoid. Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric You didn't accept my invitation to share with us your flying and navigational experience. I'm beginning to suspect that you have never flown a small aircraft just under the bases of a scattered cloud deck. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:09:12 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: "The Thinking Man's Method" > From Ric > > <<[2] Another rational thing to do is to fly back and forth parallel to the > line to encompass the possible errors of both Latitude and Longitude. >> > > Have you used this method or do you know of anyone who has? Why do you > suppose that Weems recommended running on the LOP rather than the Boswell > Method? I would prefer to call it the "Thinking Man's Method" (hereafter "TMM"), and I didn't "just" think it up - like everything else in this discussion it has been around a long time. (It's a "square search" technique.) Weems certainly did NOT recommend "running on the LOP" FOR 400 or 500 MILES in the hope of reaching another island. (And when you talk about Weems' text, there's a subtle implication that his description of a standard technique was advice to FN on what to do when that technique FAILED to produce the expected landfall ["just continue on, you're sure to hit land sooner or later" - if you think about it, that's a true statement; there's ALWAYS another piece of land somewhere on your course, if you extend the flight far enough]. It's not that at all.) For some reason that I find hard to understand, you feel that FN could not know where he was ON the line within HUNDREDS of miles, while at the same time insisting (and I agree) that he was a competent navigator and had a good idea of his general position. When you write "I know what Earhart meant when she said they were 'running on the line' ..." and then say you are "disinclined to think she meant [the TMM]" you disclose a problem in this discussion. It is twofold: (1) I am NOT sure I know what AE meant in this (or for that matter several other) transmissions - I am still trying to figure it out; and (2) even if she meant what you say at 2013, why do you believe that the situation was static for the next 3 hours ? If you "know", well that's that. Notice that I do not ask if you know anyone who extended an LOP under similar circumstances to reach a small island 400 miles away as a response to your question of whether I knew anyone who had used the "TMM". It's irrelevant. You ask if anyone can offer a "Plan B" that makes sense. When such a Plan is offered, it's perfectly appropriate to point out its flaws and shortcomings. But it's a bit unfair to change the rules of the submission and say (in effect) "that Plan may seem to make sense today, but it's not in Weems' book, and there's no evidence that Clyde Pangborn ever did that." Putting aside rhetoric for a moment, none of us "knows" what they did that morning. We are all (I hope) still thinking about it with an open mind. Some people "know" that she ran out of fuel at 20+15. If she did, that answers all the questions, and we also "know" what happened. But she should have had more fuel than that. Her fuel supply is the sine qua non of the mystery. Although it was certainly possible to fly that airplane our of fuel at 20 hours, it was also possible to keep it in the air for 24 or even 28 or 30 hours. None of us knows enough now to pick a fuel exhaustion time. If she was aloft after 20+15, why wasn't she heard on the radio ? Radio failure ? Frequency change ? Departure from the area ? Crash ? If she flew a "square search", thus remaining within 50 or 60 or 100 miles of Howland, why wasn't she heard on the radio over the next 3 hours or so ? I think that's a GOOD question related to the "square search" proposal, but it's also a good general question ("if she remained aloft another 3 hours or so, why wasn't she heard?") I don't mind the questions, but I am troubled when the answers shift depending on the context. Because of what I think I know about the performance of the plane, I long ago concluded that there was "fuel enough for Gardner". That same amount of fuel (used properly) is fuel enough for the Gilberts. It was fuel enough for a square search. Obviously, even if they still had fuel after 20+13, they couldn't have explored all 3 of these options. But if I conclude that there is fuel enough for one, I must conclude that there is fuel enough for any of the 3 courses of action. (In the law, this is known technically as the "Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" Rule.) Let me try to make my point one other way. A few days ago, I asserted that I had come to believe that the 10E could have been flown non-stop from Hawaii to Lae with the normal prevailing winds. I've thought about that a little more, and I have decided that such flight could probably have been accomplished with an average tailwind of 8 to 10 mph, with a "good hour" of fuel in reserve. NOBODY OBJECTED TO MY SAYING THAT. It's non-controversial, BECAUSE NOBODY THINKS THAT I AM ASSERTING THAT AE ACTUALLY DEPARTED HAWAII WESTBOUND AND FLEW TO LAE. If, on the other hand, I say that there was fuel to go to "X" , or that a rational alternate plan was "B", or that one might have sensibly done "Z" on the flight to Howland, some people assume that I am saying THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED, and seem to feel challenged by it, for one reason or another. I'm just exploring the facts and the possibilities, because I want to understand them. I am not interested in selling a bill of goods to you or to myself. Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric I suggest that we all calm down a little bit - myself included. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:10:50 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From Mike Haddock > The incident of finding a carrier at night was Jim Lovell as was told in > the movie Apollo 13 based on Lovell's book "Lost Moon". What does that > incident have to do with navigation or flying on the line? I saw the video in January. I then checked the book out of the library. The book has more detail than the movie does. In the book, I believe that the author describes how he decided to search in the dark: starting at his best guess for where the ship would be, he kept flying larger and larger boxes around that point. Using this pattern got him in the vicinity of the ship so that he was able to see the green glow trailing behind it. Ric asked for an example of someone using a search pattern. This seemed to me to be one such case. LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************* From Ric Fair enough. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:11:29 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Plan "B" The Navy pilots who searched for Winslow Reef used that "Mowing the Lawn" approach to searching an area. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:13:07 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Plan "B" Alan wrote: >> FN could have been lucky and miraculously got an instantaneous >> shot that was perfectly accurate. 99 times out of a hundred his >> instaneous shot could have put him most anywhere. In either case >> he would have had no way to know. My father sometimes reads in on the progress of the forum, so if he overhears me, perhaps he can chime in. If not, then you'll just have to go by my recollections of his stories from years ago regarding his experience as an Air Force navigator (Korean War era), with the 11th TAC Recon -- http://www.best.com/~k14recon/ During his training, he told me, the method they used was to take three sets of shots, which put three estimated points on the map. Then, after charting the three, they would put a dot in the middle of the triangle that was defined by those three points, and that would be their best estimate of position. Sometimes, you could take four and throw out the one that was farthest away from the other three. I do recall that he said that even in the best of conditions (and this was with a post-WWII sight), the triangle used to be quite larger than he would have preferred -- which is why radio navigation was so welcome. For example, if you were standing on terra firma, immobile at the feet of the Statue of Liberty in New York, on a perfectly blue sky day and with all the time in the world to find out just where you were, it might go something like this: You would take a series of three sunshots to pinpoint your position. You might get a point in Greenwich, Connecticut; another out near MacArthur Airport way out on Long Island; and a third somewhere southwest of Trenton, New Jersey. You'd drop a dot into the center of the triangle and viola! you'd have pegged the position of the grand torch bearing lady as being in the middle of the Bronx -- but that was only if you were really really good. If you were flying in a plane, more than likely, you'd end up with three points that resulted with a best estimated position as being somewhere off the coast of Delaware. Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:16:20 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: LOP to Gardner/Mapping ERROR And what about the mapping error for Gardner? The "American Practical Navigator, H. O. 9, Bowditch" 1938 edition page 360 gives the location of Gardner as 4-40 S, 174-35 W. The 1962 edition of the same book on page 1100 gives its location as 4-40 S, 174-32 W or 3 miles east of the position given in the 1938 edition which is very similar to the error in position reported for Howland. Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric What about it? We don't know whether AE and FN had the correct position for Howland or not. If they had coordinates for Gardner, rather than just a dot on a map, it was probaly about 3 miles off. Are you suggesting that that would make the island impossible to find? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:17:10 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Plan "B" The "cut" of the LOPs derived at Howland Island on July 2, 1937 for the sun and moon lines varied between 59 degrees at 1830 Z to 125 degrees at 2100 Z and back down to 69 degrees at 2400 Z which would provide acceptable "cuts" for accurate celestial fixes at anytime during that period. These cuts were not all the prefect 90 degrees but all are well above the minimum 15 degree cut stated in "Weems" 1938 edition on page 281. There has previously been a concern stated that the moon was too high in the sky to be measured with the sextant as it was above 75 degrees when they arrived in the vicinity of Howland. However, by 1945 Z its altitude was below 70 degrees and got progressively lower as the day progressed while the altitude of the sun got higher. Both of their altitudes stayed below 70 degrees between 1945 Z and 2400 Z (presumably the tanks dry point); both were below 65 degrees 2015 Z through 2300 Z; below 60 Degrees 2030-2230 Z; and below 55 degrees 2100-2200 Z. Wouldn't these altitudes allow Noonan to get a shot of the moon? Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:19:21 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Plan "B" Was the last (or all) the radio messages from Earhart's RTW flight recorded on audio tape? If so, where can we go to listen to them? Chris #2511 ************************************************************************* From Ric There were no audio recordings of any of the transmissions. if you'll look through the forum Highlights you'll find several lengthy treatises on the history of audio recording. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:20:26 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Since we all accept Philip Van Horn Weems as the authority on air celestial navigation perhaps we should see what he has to say about the accuracy of single sextant shots and about the accuracy of the average of just a few sights. In "Air Navigation", 1938 edition, pages 363 and 364 report an experiment done in 1927 using a bubble sextant to take single shots of the sun during a 90 minute flight in which 9 shots were taken, computed and plotted. The errors reported for these single shots were 2 miles, 1.5 miles, 1.5 , 7, 14, 3.5, 15.5, 0, and 5.5 miles. Seven out of the 9 would have been accurate enough to find Howland and possibly any of the 9 would have been good enough depending on visibility. Regarding averaging sights Weems states on page 315: "Experience has shown that the best results can only be obtained by taking five to ten sights as rapidly as possible and averaging the readings. In still air, an error of 5 to 6 miles may be expected when this method is used, and in bumpy air an error of 10 to 12 miles is good work." Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:25:59 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: offset approach Ric challenged me to explain how they would have navigated from the last fix to the island. We all accept Philip Van Horn Weems as the authority on air celestial navigation. In "Air Navigation", 1938 edition he states regarding the accuracy of dead reckoning on page 173: "Reasonably efficient dead reckoning should produce an accuracy well within 5 percent of the distance flown, or within 5 miles in 100, 10 miles in 200, 15 miles in 300." So contrary to what we are constantly reading on the forum that they had "no idea where they were north and south" we can expect that the error would be limited to 5 miles for every 100 miles that they had flown since their last fix. Sunrise at Howland was 1746 Z and civil twilight occurred 22 minutes earlier at 1724 Z at which point the sky would have been too bright to see the stars and to obtain a fix. Sunrise and civil twilight would have occurred even later at their position west of Howland by an additional one minute for each 15 miles that they were west of Howland. We can assume that they had arrived close to Howland at 1912 Z when they reported "must be on you." This is 1 hour and 48 minutes after civil twilight at Howland. and the elector would have flown 235 nautical miles in this time at 130 knots. Civil twilight occurred 16 minutes later 235 west of Howland so they could have obtained a fix slightly later than 1724 Z at 1740 Z but we will ignore that advantage and assume that the latest time to obtain a stellar fix was 1715 Z to allow time for shooting 3 stars. We can assume that Noonan was busy right up to the time of civil twilight so that they would have the latest and most accurate fix to use in locating Howland. In fact, this is probably the reason that they departed Lae at 0000Z so as to arrive at Howland as shortly after sunrise as possible so that the fix obtained at civil twilight would be as fresh as possible. From 1715 Z to 1912 Z NR16020 would have flown 260 nautical miles at 130 knots so the accuracy of their position would only have deteriorated 13 nautical miles based on 5% of the distance flown in that period. If you add this 13 nautical miles to the accuracy of the original fix say 10 nautical miles (based on what Noonan himself reported to Weems in a letter published at page 424 of the same book) they should have known their position within 23 nautical miles. A more modern textbook "Air Navigation" published by the U. S. Navy Oceanographic Office as PUB. No 216, 1967 edition page 184 suggests that a beginner navigator should use a more conservative value for the accuracy of dead reckoning of 20 miles per hour plus 1 percent of the distance covered. Even using this greater error level the accuracy would still be 43 nautical miles plus the 10 mile original fix accuracy for an uncertainty of 53 nautical miles at 1912 Z. Assuming that the error was all in the north-south direction the worst case is a 53 nautical mile north-south error. Noonan would have made the same calculations based on his previous experience, maybe he even rounded this value up to an even 60 nautical miles to be sure. (Or he might have used a value closer to 23 miles since he was an experienced navigator.) Either way they would not have flown hours southward still expecting to find Howland. It is absolutely certain that Noonan would have used the offset method of using a single sun line to find the island as this allows you to turn a "speed line" LOP into a "course line" LOP which you can then follow to the landfall. As they approached the island the sun line would have plotted at almost right angles to their course. The course from Lae to Howland is 78 degrees and the sun line ran 157-337. Since it was not exactly a right angle it would be slightly shorter flying to alter course to intercept the line north-north-west of Howland. If they were going to intercept south-south-east of Howland they would be flying past the island and then having to double back slightly. So why not just head directly for the island? here's why. Using the previous assumptions, that they are right on course with 260 miles to go to Howland, they fly these 260 miles in 2 hours taking sights on the sun until they determine that have reached the sun line LOP that passes through Howland and they don't have the island in sight so they have to turn one way or the other to follow the LOP. Half of the time you guess wrong. If they turn the wrong way they will proceed out along the LOP for a distance equal to the maximum possible error in their dead reckoning, say 60 miles and 28 minutes at 130 knots. Then they have to make a 180 degree turn and come back the other way on the LOP, back to their starting position where they made the first turn. This 60 mile and 28 minute leg is a complete waste of time and fuel because they have already searched this part of the ocean and they know that the island is not there. They arrive back at the starting point 56 minutes and 120 miles after having made the first turn onto the LOP which is 2 hours and 56 minutes since the last fix and 380 flying miles. Only now, finally, do they start searching along the LOP in the right direction and they find the island after flying at most 60 miles further for (worst case) 28 more minutes for a total since the last fix of 440 flying miles and 3 hours and 24 minutes. If at the time of the last fix, however, they had altered course 13 degrees to the left to 65 degrees they would have only had to fly 250 miles until intercepting the LOP 60 miles out from where they had in the first example. (You can work this out on your E6B.) This takes only 1 hour and 55 minutes. They then turn right since they can be certain of which way to turn. They fly inbound for 28 minutes, not seeing anything and arrive at the point where the first turn onto the LOP was made in the first example after flying only 2 hours and 23 minutes and 310 flying miles for a saving of 33 minutes and 70 flying miles. Then, as in the first example, they fly along the LOP and find the island after flying, at most, another 28 minutes and 60 miles for a total since the last fix of 2 hours and 51 minutes and 370 flying miles. Again the saving is 33 minutes and 70 miles. Gary LaPook *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll confess to being incapacitated with an attack of MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over). Anybody want to commment on the above? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:26:43 EST From: Herman De Wulf / Belgium Subject: Re Plan B A friend of mine who used to fly Supermazrine Walrus amphibians with RAF Coastal Command during WW II explained to me that when they got word from a ditched airplane they would take off and fly fly out to the always approxiately)reported position. They would then fly a seach pattern, flying up and down along their LOP, making a 30? (rate 1), turn at the end of each leg and come back. According to cicumstances they dit so letting the airplan drift with the wind. After all this was a search pattern. They contnued to do this until they spotted the guy in his dinghy. LTM (By the way, this guy never fired a shot in anger during the war but was credited with making several dozen Germans prisoner this way) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:28:08 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Plan "B" With this additional new information from Mr. Boswell, let's assume for a moment that the flight did climb above the cloud cover (it seems only even-handed and fair to do this since the working assumption thus far appears to be that the clouds certainly prevented celestial observation from 1000')----could the celestial experts tell us whether, on the day in question, it would have been possible to get the shots necessary to fix a position? --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:38:36 EST From: Jennifer Muenzenberger Subject: CB Paxton All I can say is WOW, all of this is so exciting and fascinating to read and research. I was doing a little reading of the FBI's files on Earhart and saw the letter from Mrs. CB Paxton regarding the radio transmissions supposedly from Earhart. Has your organization or anyone you know tried to contact Mrs. Paxton or any living relatives to confirm the radio transmission? Just wondering. What about all the reports from service men, that she was captured by Japan? Isn't it possible that she landed the plane on some uninhabited island, made distress calls, and the Japanese found her before we did? I am just a stay at home mom with an Internet connection, but what can I (and other mom's like me) do to help with the search for Earhart? I am willing to write letters, e-mail, call people, whatever I can do to solve the mystery of this remarkable woman. Thank you for all you have done and are continuing to do to help solve the mystery. Jennifer Muenzenberger Milwaukee, Wisconsin **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jennifer. In TIGHAR's opinion the Japanese capture stories are just stories. We've seen no reason to think that any of them are related to the Earhart disappearance. I missed the reference to Mrs. Paxton in the FBI files. One of the things we're doing is compiling a list of all of the alleged instances of radio messages from Earhart that were heard after she disappeared. It would be a big help if you gave us the exact reference to Paxton in the file and where to find it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:45:24 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner Ric says: >I'll let anybody who has been there or seen the video comment on the >liklihood of someone living at the Seven Site and be relying on Arundel's >cocos for water, thus necessitating frequent trips back and forth. I'll take a stab. It would take a real major effort, to say the least. It's over two miles however you cut it between the Seven Site and the closest cocos alive on the island in 1938, and getting from one to another involves (1) crossing the lagoon), (2) walking way around the island on the beach (probably more like 3 miles), or (3) bushwhacking through the scaevola (probably 2.5 miles or so). Our experience is that a person in excellent physical shape can pretty much circumnavigate the island in a day, and on our last trip one of our doughty cameramen walked from the landing to the Seven Site around the southeast end of the island in a bit less than half a day, so a single one-way trip seems doable, but there'd have to be an awfully good reason to do it often. I don't see that the bottle means the castaway had a source of water. The castaway might have HAD a source of water wherever he or she started, and brought the bottle along in the hope of finding another, whose use would make a container a nice thing to have. Or, of course, he or she might have brought the bottle full of water (or Benedictine) and nursed it along until The End. I can't see anyone zipping back and forth between the coco stands and the Seven Site. As for other sources -- one could try to fabricate rain water catchers, or use natural ones -- or hope to (the castaway presumably didn't know whether the drought was going to break, or if it did, when). There are a couple of interesting things about the Seven Site, in this respect: 1. It's adjacent to the buka forest, and buka trees have big twisty surface roots that form pockets in which rainwater collects. 2. There's a low swale that crosses the site that gets pretty moist after a rain. I doubt if there's running water in it except immediately after huge rains, but I can imagine someone trying to dam it up and catch some water when a squall passes by, or dig into it to find water at depth. Being in a drought doesn't necessarily mean there's no rain in the neighborhood. Sir Arthur Grimble, if I recall correctly, writes of being on a drought-stricken island in the Gilberts and watching the rain squalls march past, while everybody hung their tongues out and fabricated every kind of water catcher they could think of, in the hope that one of the suckers would pass overhead. Easy to imagine the castaway(s) doing the same. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:46:53 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Mr. LaPook, thanks for the background information on the Weems book (e.g., date of publication, reputation, etc.). Since you have the Weems book could you please see if it has anything to say concerning what we have termed "offset navigation"? It may not use that exact term--but may describe something conceptually similar, if at all. We have had one anecdote earlier that Noonan used offset navigation into Wake, once, when RDF failed, yet TIGHAR discounts this anecdote as being of any reliability. Therefore, I am wondering whether offset navigation was a generally recognized and taught navigation technique around the time of the flight, or is a later invention. Thanks, --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:02:32 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: LOP to Gardner/Mapping ERROR > What about it? We don't know whether AE and FN had the correct position for > Howland or not. If they had coordinates for Gardner, rather than just a dot > on a map, it was probaly about 3 miles off. Are you suggesting that that > would make the island impossible to find? Perhaps he is suggesting that it would make the island MORE DIFFICULT to find, not impossible. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Gary LaPook Only if people are claiming that a similar mapping error made Howland imposible to find. In my opinion either island was findable by Noonan using the "land fall" procedure but Howland was more "findable" as they had 3 more hours of fuel available to conduct a standard expanding square search pattern there than they would have had if they had flown to Gardner. Gary LaPook **************************************************************************** From Ric There are those who see the Howland mapping error as "the key" to the flight's failure. I do not. I think that it may have been a factor IF Earhart and Noonan did not have the coorect coordinates for the island. I also think that it is highly unlikely that they did not have that information - for the reasons we have discussed at length on several occasions. I'm not sure I understand your point about the findability of Howland. Are you saying that when Earhart said she was "we are running on the line" that she meant to say "we are implementing a standard square search"? Or are you saying that "running on the line" was what they were doing but that it was not what you would have done? Or what? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:03:33 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: offset approach > From Gary LaPook > > Sunrise at Howland was 1746 Z and civil twilight occurred 22 minutes > earlier at 1724 Z at which point the sky would have been too bright to > see the stars and to obtain a fix. Sunrise and civil twilight would have > occurred even later at their position west of Howland by an additional > one minute for each 15 miles that they were west of Howland. We can > assume that they had arrived close to Howland at 1912 Z when they > reported "must be on you." > > . The course from Lae to > Howland is 78 degrees and the sun line ran 157-337. Since it was not > exactly a right angle it would be slightly shorter flying to alter > course to intercept the line north-north-west of Howland. If they were > going to intercept south-south-east of Howland they would be flying past > the island and then having to double back slightly. > > If at the time of the last fix, however, they had altered course 13 > degrees to the left to 65 degrees > > From Ric > > I'll confess to being incapacitated with an attack of MEGO (My Eyes Glaze > Over). Anybody want to commment on the above? I believe it's the right approach to analyze the Longitude question and the interception of the line (and also possibly to reconcile the "200 miles out" and "100 miles out" entries in the log). Some things to remember: 1-at any of these positions, at 10,000 feet the navigator will observe Sunrise (upper limb) approximately 8 minutes earlier than at sea level (Table Appendix 13, Air Almanac). 2-Sunrise at 0 Latitude and 180 Longitude was at 1800 at sea level that day, or 1752 at 10,000 feet. 3-The "1 minute per 15 miles" variation in time is for NAUTICAL MILES. 4-Howland sunrise at 10,000 would have been about 1738. 5-200 Statute miles out (c.175 nautical miles) Sunrise at 10,000 feet would have been about 1749 1/2. 6-172 Statute miles (c. 150 Nautical miles) out Sunrise at 10,000 feet would have been about 1748. 7-120 Statute miles (c. 105 Nautical miles) out Sunrise at 10,000 feet would have been about 1745. 8-Assuming the plane was at 10,000 feet at 1744, "about 200 miles out" means "we have not seen the sunrise yet" (if they had, they would be less than 120 statute miles out) "but we are expecting it shortly" (at 200 miles it will rise at 1749 1/2, and since they are shortening the distance, they expect to see it a little before then.) (They are covering about 2.5 miles per minute. If, as an example, they observe Sunrise at 1748, they are 172 miles out at 1748, and were thus about 182 miles out 4 minutes earlier. If they observe Sunrise at 1749 1/2, they were about 214 miles out at 1744.) There's a narrow 5 minute "window" in which they expect to see the Sunrise and confirm their Longitude. Each minute of variation in time is equal to 15 nautical miles in position. It is the moment of Sunrise that fixes the Longitude. 9-I assume the reference to altering course "13 degrees left to 65 degrees" is a typo for "11 degrees left to 67 degrees". The azimuth of the Sun on that morning was 067 degrees, and the logical course(or, we should say, "track") is at right angles to the Sun line (if possible) so that the LOP (as advanced) remains at right angles to the plane's progress. If FN were not sure enough of his Latitude with the 33 statute mile offset this would have given, he could have called for a 20 or 30 degree turn (60 or 90 mile offset) or more. 10-Remember that the azimuth of the Sun at sunrise was the same (within a tenth of a degree) all along the Sunrise line from Gardner to Howland and 400 miles to the NW. It wasn't necessary to "shoot" the line, he knew what it was. (And as a practical matter, according to the books, the azimuth of the Sun near the horizon is not determinable with any greater accuracy than one degree.) 11-The "about 100 miles out" transmission (assuming it was a transmission and not a radioman's estimate) thus means "our estimate as corrected by our observation of the Sunrise, and allowing also for the distance we have flown since then is 100 miles". 12-I imagine FN handing AE a note around 1740 - "Estimate about 200 miles out at 1745. Change heading to [whatever magnetic course he thinks will give a track of 67 true]." She's excited, and goes on the air a minute early with the news. 13-The "100 miles out" message (assuming AE said it) means "we were really about 175 miles out when we said 200, we didn't know because we still hadn't seen the Sunrise yet. And it came a minute or two earlier than we expected." 14-The difference between "200" and "100" is thus be the difference between a rough guess based on the light in the sky and a confirmed Longitude after Sunrise. As we have seen, 1 1/2 minutes difference in observed Sunrise time is all there is between 172 miles and 200 miles. 15-I hope those who know more than I about celestial navigation will comment on the pre Sunrise observations and the possible magnitude of the errors. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Oscar. Extrapolating from your hypothesis: If they were 175 nm out at 1744 and 100 nm out at 1815, they have made an average groundspeed of 145 kts during those 31 minutes. That might not be unreasonable, especially if, as soon as Noonan got his sunrise LOP, they began their descent. Of course, these are ballpark rather than exact figures. Earhart is tramsmitting according to her announced schedule and we don't know how old the information is when she sends it. From 100 nm at 1815 to "we must be on you" at 1912 is 57 minutes - a rather slow 105 knots - but again, AE is transmitting pretty much on schedule and we don't know how long she has been "on you" except to say that she arrived sometime after 1845, her last scheduled transmission time. The question then seems to be, " What things might she have done during those 57 minutes." - Did she fly an offset approach? If so, at what point does she decide "we must be on you"? If she knows the point in space where "we must be on you", why did she fly the offset in the first place? If she flys the 100 miles plus the 33 mile offset - a total of 133 nm in 57 minutes - she has averaged 140 knots. If she has already completed those 133 nm a few minutes before she confesses her frustration, she has made an even higher average groundspeed, down low, against a headwind of at least 10 knots. It's hard for me to imagine why she would carry that much power under those circumstances. - Did she come "straight in" to that disappointing point in space? If so, she has either chopped the power way back and slowed her approach (perhaps to reduce the chance of flying past Howland without seeing it?) or she has actually been on the advanced LOP for some time before she confesses her frustration. If she arrived at, say, 1900, she covered the 100 nm in 45 minutes for an average groundspeed of 133 knots in an airplane they flightplanned at 130 knots. I don't know of any way to know for sure what they did, but if your calculations are reasonable (and they look reasonable to me) then it seems easier to postulate a straight in rather than an offset approach. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:04:41 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: offset approach > From Ric > I'll confess to being incapacitated with an attack of MEGO (My Eyes Glaze > Over). Anybody want to commment on the above? It seems to me that Gary has proven that they landed on Howland and you've been searching the wrong island all along. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************** From Ric I HATE it when that happens. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:06:56 EST From: RC Subject: Re: offset approach To:Gary LaPook > It is absolutely certain that Noonan would have used the offset method >of using a single sun line to find the island Gary: I think it was determined several years ago that Fred and his era navigators flew directly to an island, using DF when in range for any required course correction. And at least that long ago most of us were comfortable in believing that is why AE had a loop, and accounts for her call to the Itasca when close in for a signal on 7500 so she could take a bearing .. And she was heard to say, in effect, we heard your signal on 7500 but could not get a minimum.. Lastly, beyond AE being somewhere near How, NOTHING is "absolutely certain". RC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:09:42 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: offset approach Ric asked if anyone wants to comment on Mr. LaPook's analysis. I would like to touch on a few points. > From Gary LaPook > > We all accept Philip Van Horn Weems as the authority on air celestial > navigation. I, for one, don't recall accepting Weems as THE authority on air celestial navigation. He may have been a leading authority of his day, but to credit him with being THE authority, without time bounds and to the exclusion of modern navigators, seems a bit of a stretch. > In "Air Navigation", 1938 edition he states regarding the > accuracy of dead reckoning on page 173: > > "Reasonably efficient dead reckoning should produce an accuracy well > within 5 percent of the distance flown, or within 5 miles in 100, 10 > miles in 200, 15 miles in 300." The operative phrase here is "reasonably efficient dead reckoning". What exactly does that mean? > So contrary to what we are constantly reading on the forum that they had > "no idea where they were north and south" we can expect that the error > would be limited to 5 miles for every 100 miles that they had flown > since their last fix. This conclusion appears to assume that Noonan used "reasonably efficient dead reckoning", but I don't see any evidence here justifying that assumption. This conclusion also appears to assume that Weems' "should produce" predictions apply to every case. But what about the effects of steering errors, and errors in estimating headwind or crosswind components? > If you add this 13 nautical miles to the accuracy of the original fix say 10 > nautical miles (based on what Noonan himself reported to Weems in a > letter published at page 424 of the same book) they should have known > their position within 23 nautical miles. It is instructive to consider the context of what Noonan said in that letter. He was talking about the Hawaiian flight of the Pan American Clipper, a much larger, heavier, and more stable celestial navigation platform than the Electra. Noonan says: "The accuracy of fixes was very gratifying. By that, an accuracy of approximately ten miles is implied. My experience is that such a degree of accuracy is about the average one may expect in aerial navigation". Later in the same paragraph, Noonan talks about the accuracy of his predicted ETA at Makapuu Point and says "This accuracy was due to smooth flying conditions at the time of the sight, and of course it could not be cited as an example of accuracy consistently possible". In other words, Noonan was citing a best case example of Clipper navigation. At the time he wrote the letter, he had no experience navigating in the Electra. That he failed to find Howland is eloquent testimony to his inability to reproduce those best case Clipper results in the Electra. > Assuming that the error was all in the north-south direction the worst > case is a 53 nautical mile north-south error. The chain of assumptions to this point seems to ignore possible celestial navigation errors by Noonan. For example, what if Noonan incurred a large position error in his final fix due to mis-identifying a star, or misreading an altitude, or making a sight reduction error? > It is absolutely certain that Noonan would have used the offset method > of using a single sun line to find the island Well, I'm relieved to learn that we now know with absolute certainty what Noonan did. But I would like to see the proof. I have this sinking feeling that I have missed something, and I hate when that happens. > If at the time of the last fix, however, they had altered course 13 > degrees to the left to 65 degrees . . . What if FN was, say, 100 nmi south of his intended track when he executed the offset maneuver? And, finally, if Noonan's navigation was as assumed, why didn't he find Howland? Bob Brandenburg #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:14:32 EST From: Steve Subject: Noonan I looked for information on the web site about Fred Noonan. Is his DNA needed for any research or is it available? Steve *************************************************************************** From Ric The most complete biographical run down on Fred Noonan ever compiled is published in the Eighth Edition of the Earhart Project book. You can order your copy at http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR%20store/tigharstore2.html We don't have an immediate need for Noonan's DNA but we're hoping. Got any? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:18:59 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner > From Ric > I'll let anybody who has been there or seen the video comment on the > likelihood of someone living at the Seven Site and be relying on Arundel's > cocos for water, thus necessitating frequent trips back and forth. Probably a good idea, but what about the TIGHARS who have been there, seen that distance? I should think they would have a pretty good idea if it was practical. I don't think it would be logical to make "frequent" trips. One per day on the other hand may not be such a crazy idea. Unless you conduct an experiment with 750ml of water or better, coconut water (I think you'd find coconut water would ration out better) you'll never know. In case you haven't worked it out yet, the entire point of this is that there should have been no water on Gardner. That leaves coconuts or the survivors' cache as the alternatives. We already know the lake dries up almost immediately after rain, and the coconuts are quite a way from the 7 site (2 miles to the nearest according to Gallagher if the 7 site is his discovery site). The castaway needed water of some sort to live. The castaway died, but probably NOT of thirst as the bottle was present, which "suggests" they did have water and did carry it to the site, and also "suggests" to me at least, that they did not live at the site, but camped there during the day. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Trust me on this. One trip a day is a crazy idea. You'd expend more fluid and energy making the trip than you could possibly carry home in the form of coconut water. You sit in the shade and you pray for rain. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:20:53 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Plan "B" Chris: >With this additional new information from Mr. Boswell, let's assume for a moment >that the flight did climb above the cloud cover (it seems only even-handed and >fair to do this since the working assumption thus far appears to be that the >clouds certainly prevented celestial observation from 1000')----could the >celestial experts tell us whether, on the day in question, it would have been >possible to get the shots necessary to fix a position? I dug up what I roughed out on the following sun/moon cuts some time back. I had tabulated the acute angle of the crossing since this is easiest for most people to relate to. Sun/Moon Cuts (Acute angle of the cut rounded to nearest degree) Howland Kanton Niku Nukunau (Gilberts) 2000 GMT 61 65 71 77 2100 GMT 55 62 65 61 2200 GMT 60 71 71 60 2300 GMT 78 89 88 71 2400 GMT 69 60 65 84 All of these should provide useable fix accuracies - some very good. The point is not in perfection - the navigator never has the luxury of perfect shots. It looks to me like both the primary and alternates listed above were workable for most if not all of the time period in question. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:23:09 EST From: Tom MM Subject: offset approach On the offset issue - the debate continues on the offset vs "barge straight in approach", but I have to reluctantly admit that TIGHAR's prior work has raised sufficient doubt about this that I have to repeat it here. Obviously, if one is fully dependent on celestial techniques, an offset approach is usually essential. On the other hand, Bob Brandenburg's work on the Hawaii flight (first leg of the first attempt) has introduced the idea that FN's navigation might not have been always completely rigorous. Hard as it is to believe, there is some evidence supporting the idea that instead of navigating as if no DF would be or was available, FN may have simply seen his mission as placing the aircraft within DF range of the Itasca. Given the appalling level of communication between AE and the USCG, and the failure of their attempt at using DF on the test flight prior to departure from Lae, this seems nuts. On the other hand, it is not out of the realm of possibility that they viewed a DF steer as certain. I have a hard time with this as well, but I have to admit that I can't firmly attack TIGHAR's position that they plowed straight in and then were left to pick up the pieces. As you noted, if an offset was used, the only logical thing was an offset to port to intercept the LOP as that gives the shortest flight distance to the LOP. Then the initial turn would then have been to starboard onto 157, followed by a turn onto the reciprocal after a "reasonable distance". If they came in w/o offset there is no reason for them to believe that Howland would lie on only one leg of the LOP (either was equally probable), but from a human nature perspective there is some argument for initially turning to starboard onto 157. The sun lay about 10 +/- degrees to port of their nose as they approached Howland, and it is not hard to imagine that at that low a sun altitude they would want to turn away from it, even though after the turn onto the LOP the sun would only have been just aft of the port beam. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:28:01 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Plan "B" The sun and moon were available to shoot and the azimuth or "cut" between them was sufficient to allow for an accurate fix. Some on the list seem to think that the moon was too high to shoot but considering the gravity of the situation you would think they would have found a way to accomplish it even if it meant slipping the airplane or opening the door and having Noonan hanging outside. A lot of early celestial navigation was done in open cockpits and through open doors. Noonan also could have taken observations through the co-pilot's wind shield. This may have required him climbing over the fuel tanks but this is no more difficult than sliding over the bomb bay of a B-25 to get from the back of that plane to the cockpit. Wasn't there also a hatch over the cockpit? Does anybody know if this could be opened in flight? If it could then Noonan should have had no problem with the moon at 75 degrees high. Also, if they waited an hour or two the altitude of the moon would have been lower making for an easier observation. Which brings up another point. Either they did not plan to use the moon for obtaining fixes to aid in locating Howland or they did not see its high altitude as a problem or they could have simply departed Lae a couple hours later so that the moon and sun would have been better positioned at the later arrival time. Gary LaPook **************************************************************************** From Ric The cockpit hatch could not be opened in flight. Doug Brutlag has done celestial navigation from a similar aircraft. I'll let him comment on the practicality of the techniques you suggest. I'll also invite you once again to share with us your own experiences using celestial navigation on long over-water flights. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:13:16 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Celestial Nav Ric: Regarding all the talk about celestial navigation and its accuracy & methods. I am very fortunate to have a WWII navigator in my CAP Squadron. He is my adjutant and an excellent navigator. I was at his house last night and brought up the subject of taking sights with a bubble octant. He was a navigator on the bombers and said that the planes shook and bounced so bad that you couldn't get a good reading - they mostly worked by DR. When they had to take readings they started 30 seconds before a predetermined time for a shot and started recording continuously (note - he had the newer recording octant, which Noonan did NOT have) and went 30 seconds past the time, then averaged out the readings. Again, no one knows how Noonan did his readings, but we know it would be difficult. But we also know he was a master at it and knew his craft. Beyond that no one can say much of anything except that you can't compare the newer recording octants against what he could, would, should do with the one he was using. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:05:47 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > From Bob Brandenburg >> From Gary LaPook >> >> And just why can't you take a sun sight from below a scattered cloud layer? It >> only takes a few seconds for a single sight and a minute or two to take a number >> of sights for the purpose of improving the accuracy by averaging them. > > I find this fascinating, and I'm eager to learn more about how FN could have done > this. I would appreciate seeing a detailed, step-by-step feasibility analysis, > taking into account all of the controlling factors, such as: > > 1). where in the Electra FN would shoot from; They had obviously planned for him to be able to shoot the stars or he would have left his sextants (including the sextant box found at Niku) at home so they must have worked it out. We know he found some place to take his observations as AE wrote about him taking sights on the atlantic crossing. They had also used celestial to find Hawaii on the previous attempt. It appears to me he could take "course line" sights through the windows on either side of the plane and a "speed line" shot through the co-pilot's windshield. He might have had to climb over the fuel tanks to get to the cockpit but I am sure he would have managed this since his life depended on it. It is also possible that he could have opened the door while in flight and it may be that the overhead hatch above the cockpit could also be opened in flight providing a way to measure high altitude shots. > 2). how he would accommodate the physical arrangement of the A-5 bubble octant to > his shooting position; See previous answer. > 3). how he would acquire a sight line to the sun given the sun's altitude and > azimuth, the heights of the cloud tops and bottoms, the amount of cloud cover at > the time and the near-grazing incidence of his visual angle to the cloud bottoms; The assumption was that the clouds were "scattered" which means that less than 6/10 of the sky is covered with clouds. This means that most of the time most of the sky is not obstructed. I don't know if you fly but "scattered" means good weather. If you believe that you can't do celestial in "scattered" conditions then you must believe that only "clear" sky, less than 1/10 coverage, allows celestial which would mean that it would be a virtually useless form of navigation. Your concern about the base of the clouds is not relevant as Noonan was using a bubble sextant and did not need to see under the bases to see the horizon to take the shot. > 4). how much time FN would need for a string of, say, 10 shots to average the > sight, given that his octant didn't have an averager, and he had to write down the > altitude and time for each shot and then reacquire the sun for the next shot; Certainly less than two minutes, Weems says that. . Remember you only have to look at your watch at the beginning and at the end so you only have to read the sextant and write down the altitudes not the time of each shot. You use the mid point of the time for the average altitude. You look and see that there no clouds in the way and start shooting. I have taken many, many sights in scattered and broken conditions and didn't have any problem. > 5). how convective turbulence would affect the accuracy of FN's shots, given that > he was flying just below the convective condensation level over the central axis > of the tropical Pacific warm pool, which is the warmest patch of ocean on the > planet. As far as I know there was no reason to think that there was turbulence in the area. But even if there was Weems reports that the accuracy of the fix deteriorates from 5-6 miles in smooth air to 10-12 miles in bumpy conditions which is still acceptable accuracy. If you are familiar with an A-10A sextant you know that there is a circular disk that records a sight every second by making a pencil mark on the disk. I have taken observation where the marks covered more that 1/2 of the circumference of the disk due to turbulence but the average turned out to be completely accurate. No reason to believe that Noonan couldn't accomplish the same by averaging a number of sights. Gary LaPook **************************************************************************** From Ric I hate to appear overly persistent but you keep referring to your own experience without telling us waht that experience is. Then you make statements like: "The assumption was that the clouds were "scattered" which means that less than 6/10 of the sky is covered with clouds. This means that most of the time most of the sky is not obstructed. I don't know if you fly but "scattered" means good weather." and "As far as I know there was no reason to think that there was turbulence in the area." There's something wrong here. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:07:53 EST From: Dean A Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner How do animals survive on Niku if there are long periods of drought? ************************************************************************** From Ric I dunno. The only mammals on Niku are little brown Polynesian rats. Maybe their need for drinkable water is minimal. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:19:15 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: CB Paxton Re:Paxton, Nina Read all about her and those that investigated her claim of hearing AE in Goldstein's book, page262-263. Woody Rogers is sort of an expert on Paxton and has a lot of newspaper clippings,etc that he forwarded to me. Woody thinks that Paxton's geographical location of AE puts her down near Knox Is by Mili or around there. She exchanged corrrespondence with Goerner and Walter Winchell . LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ron. Somehow she got by me. VERY interesting. Goldstein (Safford), of course, dismisses her and she does seem to have gotten carried away with her story as time went on (and as so often happens). But the time of day and the nature of her experience, as originally reported, is remarkably like Betty's; and Mrs. Paxton provides a specific date - July 3rd - which we don't have for Betty's experience. Another data point for the matrix. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:45:01 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Staying on target Gary says with certainty: << It is absolutely certain that Noonan would have used the offset method of using a single sun line to find the island >> Normally, I might agree, but in this case Noonan was expecting DF help at the very end which would make the offset unnecessary. It is not at all clear that he used an offset for "certain". It certainly would have been logical as a back up, or if he was not expecting DF help. By the time he must have realized he wasn't going to get any DF help, it was probably too late to take advantage of the offset method. I believe they were lulled into complacency by the expectation of being led by DF to Howland (but I don't know if for certain). As we've seen so many times in aviation, and during the Earhart Project, logical and certainty are two different things. One thing I can tell you about searching for missing airplanes is that the pilots usually do things that are not logical. "Why did he fly up that box canyon in bad weather?" We'll never know, but it was certainly not a logical flight path. In any case, whatever method Noonan used, offset, expanding square search, creeping line search, sun shots, moon shots, mental telepathy, using The Force, it didn't work. He didn't find Howland, that we do know for certain. However small or large his margin of error was, it was too big that morning. I think we all agree it was possible for them to have followed the LOP and reached Gardner. Given the stuff that has been found there, aircraft skin, plexiglass, bones, artifacts, post loss radio signals, island lore, anecdotes, etc, I believe the evidence/clues/(whatever you want to call them) support the hypothesis that they actually made it to Gardner. Once I believe that, exactly what they did to get there becomes less important, doesn't matter what navigational gymnastics Fred used or what mixture setting Amelia chose. We will never know either for certain, even if the Electra is found. It is possible, however, through research and expeditions for TIGHAR and the Forum to determine for certain IF they made it to Gardner, and if they did, perhaps we can discover what happened after that. May take longer than we all like, but that is the nature of the problem. We're here to investigate the possibility they made it to Gardner because it is within our capabilities. Other solutions either require huge budgets, or there is not enough evidence to justify TIGHAR allocating our meager resources. I'd rather put our efforts into trying to solve mysteries that are possible to solve, like researching the items discovered, finding the bones, interviewing the former inhabitants, and hopefully someday finding the smoking gun. I'd rather not burn up a lot of bandwith playing "what if" games with things we can never know for certain. Ric, maybe you can outline the areas you feel would be most productive for the Forum to work on and get us refocused on those areas? LTM ( who says "stay on target...") Andrew McKenna 1045 CE ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Andrew. You've said it better than I could, but I've come to accept that we can't "direct" what issues the forum wants to address. I can cut off stupid speculation about Japanese conspiracies and suchlike, but when knowledgeable people get their teeth into problems like fuel economy and navigation I feel like I have to let them run with it and try to defend out hypothesis. It can be an awful time sink, but in the end we usually learn something, and more often than not it just ends up reinforcing our original hypothesis with better numbers. Everybody wants to talk about what they know about (or think they know about) and that's a lot better than the alternative. The kind of analytical work that is really going to move the project forward involves expertise that we often don't have even on our august forum. In those cases we seek the expertise we need elsewhere (which, as you know, is going on right now on many different fronts). Steering the forum is like herding cats - there's a lot of hissing and spitting and we don't get anywhere very fast - but that's the nature of the beast. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:53:12 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: More on Patent Numbers Ric wrote: > We can't put higher resolution imagery up on the website. It 72dpi any way > you slice it. While strictly speaking this is true re viewing, I'm sure the question really meant, "Can we have images scanned/photographed at higher resolution so that we can see bigger images at 100 % (and so more detail)". You could perhaps put them on separate pages if long download times or embedding in text is a problem. Incidentally I have had good results even at moderate resolutions on things such as knobs using a flatbed scanner rather than a camera. Can we also have a shot in elevation as well as plan? > I think that the key to getting a look at these > letters/numbers/runes/whatever is to: > 1. Clean the knob of oxidation product don to bare metal WITHOUT further > degrading the bare metal. How about trying that dry-ice cleaning? Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric The Naval Academy lab is going to use ultrasound. Should be a good technique. We've tried the scanner method to no avail. It's not going to do any good to put up pictures that we already know don't show anything. Once we have something to interpret we'll show everyone what we have. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:58:21 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Plan "B" Thank you very much, Tom MM, for this information. You know, all this recent work on fuel, offsets, celestial fixes etc. has really been pretty interesting. To date, we seem to have assumed two things: First, that the cloud cover prevented fixes from 1000', and, second, that a climb to an altitude above the clouds would've been out of the question given the assumed fuel usage. Sort of the worst of all worlds. Now, Mr. Boswell's new fuel information/calculations would, if accurate, seem to indicate that the concern of fuel usage is much less than we have supposed, and is it a fair statement that your information indicates that if you DID get above the clouds you would also likely have been able to get the celestial fixes we have assumed were prevented by the cloud cover? --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:19:25 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: offset approach > From Ric > > If they were 175 nm out at 1744 and 100 nm out at 1815, they have made an > average groundspeed of 145 kts during those 31 minutes. > > >From 100 nm at 1815 to "we must be on you" at 1912 is 57 minutes - a rather > slow 105 knots 57 minutes." When I say "175 miles" I mean STATUTE miles. I don't know whether AE meant statute or nautical, but I assume statute because I believe FN gave her information in statute miles on the South Atlantic flight, and I believe her airspeed indicator was calibrated in mph rather than knots (and her flight planning and writings were in mph). This would make their ground speed in the first half hour about 150 mph. I assume that they then flew 100 miles to the advanced LOP and then 40 or 50 miles on the LOP in the next hour. This brings the speed more in line with what we would expect. We should adopt some convention with regard to speed and distance. When I say "miles" I mean "statute miles", unless I add the word "nautical". ADDITIONAL COMMENT: I spoke of an 11 degree course change giving an offset of "33 miles". This is correct if the course was flown 180 miles to the LOP(which was my working assumption); if 200 miles were flown, the offset would be 36.3; if 150 miles were flown, the offset would 27.5 miles. (A 1 degree course alteration gives 1 mile offset for each 60 miles flown.) I should have explained that better. Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry. I didn't catch that you were talking statute miles. What makes you say that Noonan provided AE with statute miles on the South Atlantic flight? Her airspeed indicator did, indeed, read in mph but Noonan almost certainly worked in nautical miles and knots. The only clue we have to whether her radio transmissions on the Lae/Howland flight referred to statute or nautical is her message back to Lae four hours and eighteen minutes into the flight when she says "Speed 140 knots". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:29:01 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: offset approach Something also to remember (in addition to the mapping error) is the annecdote we came across while back that Noonan had once used offset into Wake when RDF failed. Here, it would appear that as the flight approached Howland that everyone (Itasca and flight) could tell RDF wasn't going as planned, so how long do you hold off before deciding that you need to do something else? --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Earhart first asks for a bearing at 1745 ("about 200 miles out"). She asks again half an hour later at 1815 ("about 100 miles out"). She doesn't try to take a bearing herself until 1930, fully 18 minutes AFTER she says "we must be on you". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:39:00 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: offset approach >>And, finally, if Noonan's navigation was as assumed, why didn't he find >>Howland? This is an oft used retort, but it is not really fair. FN's nav could have been entirely adequate to eventually produce Howland. We do not know that the flight did not go down due to pilot error. Maneuvering that thing around at a mere 1000 feet over water while extremely fatigued and distracted by searching for a distant speck of an island is not my idea of safe fun, and there is no way to rule of a serious system failure or cascading series of more minor problems bringing them down. NR16020 was far from a production run aircraft, and the reliability and safety of its systems is difficult to judge. Unexpected failures happen today in extremely safe aircraft. The fact that FN did not find the island right off does not mean he was out of options - in fact it appears more and more that he had both fuel (ie time) and navigational options. The fact that the aircraft completely vanished points me more and more toward a relatively sudden, accidental end - either near Howland or en route to one of the possible alternates. If Nauticos sticks it out, that may be another hypothesis that gets tested. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric That's some pretty dedicated Crashed & Sank thinking. There's less and less reason to think that they just ran out of fuel, and more and more argument that they may have eventually been able to get a handle on their position, and more and more evidence that something very odd happened about that time on Gardner Island - and you lean more and more toward a catastrophic inflight event. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:39:58 EST From: Christopher Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner > How do animals survive on Niku if there are long periods of drought? > ************************************************************************** > From Ric > I dunno. The only mammals on Niku are little brown Polynesian rats. Maybe > their need for drinkable water is minimal. Probably from whatever they EAT?.. Rats will eat about anything - including other rats. Rats, like people are over 2/3 water. Ew! LTM, who is spinning her wheels in FL, Christopher (still wheeling in Wheeling, WV) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:42:57 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner Dean asked: How do animals survive on Niku if there are long periods of drought? Most likely a lot of them don't. Rat and maybe even crab populations may decrease substantially; they just don't completely die out, and they bounce back when the drought's over. It's just the big animals like us that get really stressed as populations. **************************************************************************** From Ric The New Zealand survey party had a terrible time with the rats. Very aggressive (the rats, not the Kiwis). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:55:11 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: CB Paxton Ric, I already did this one. Spent a day in Ashland, Ky last June looking for relatives or decendants that may have had Nina Paxton's notes. There is a Goerner file on her at the Nimitz Museum. She pounded on doors at Congress, corresponded with Amy Earhart until her death, wrote an article about what she heard on the radio in July 1937 for Argosy magazine in 1964. It's just not TIGHAR'S kind of stuff - she said Earhart stated that she was in Klee Passage on an island of 133 acres. Klee is between Mili and Knox atolls. I have a full copy of the file including her correspondence with Fred Goerner . She wrote that letter in 1943 . Woody ************************************************************************* From Ric Golly, she must have been psychic to boot. In 1943 Fred Goerner would have been still in elementary school. I'm not nearly as interested in what she said in later years as I am in her initial report. Anecdotes usually get better, or at least more elaborate, as time goes on, especially if they involve a famous event. McMenamy's initial claims weren't outlandish but his later tales were lollapaloozers (technical term for embellished anecdote). We're trying not to make judgements about any alleged post-loss reception until we see how they look as a body. **************************************************************************** From Woody again Ric, As Nina got older, her correspondence with Goerner got VERY bizarre. Woody *************************************************************************** From Ric I rest my case. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:01:18 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > From Chris Kennedy > Therefore, I am wondering whether offset navigation was a generally recognized and > taught navigation technique around the time of the flight, or is a later invention. Absolutely, I have more than half a dozen books that describe the procedure. It is variously known as "offset approach", "single LOP landfall procedure" , "landfall procedure" (the term I prefer), "running down the sun line" and some other names. I started drafting a reply to a post last night that includes many of these references and I will complete it tonight and you will have it tomorrow. Since there seems to be an interest in these source documents I am thinking of scanning the relevant pages and posting them on a web site for all to be able to access. I will try to do it this weekend. Gary LaPook *************************************************************************** From Ric You needn't bother. The forum has covered this ground a dozen times. We've traced the history of the offset method and discussed its use and non-use by Noonan. There is no debate about whether the technique was known. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:03:07 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: LOP to Gardner ? > But what > I said is also simply the truth - DR over 300 or 400 miles to an island has > severe limitations Oscar, why do you say FN started his DR 300 to 400 miles away? If his DR was based on a sunrise fix then you need to compute where he was when his position coincided with the sunrise event. Although I have only roughed it in I think you will find they were closer to 150nm out. I will not stand doggedly on this obviously. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:15:18 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: offset approach > Any comment on the fuel side of the question? Would you have considered a > climb to establish position by fix? Tom, I don't think the tops were that high. Ric knows as he mentioned it once. I am thinking somewhere less than 6,000'. Maybe 5,000 plus. At that light of a weight I would have climbed and I don't think it would take much fuel. Oscar knows better than I do. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know where the tops were. I wasn't there. All I can say is that the cu tends to build throughout the morning. By afternoon it's not unusual to see some really big but widely scattered build ups. I don't know if they climbed or not, but what would bother me (a lot) about climbing is that from the time I stuck my nose up into the bases until the time I came back down I would have almost completley abandoned any chance of sighting any island that might otherwise have come into view. I don't know where I am. An island could appear any second and save my life. It's going to be very hard to effectively close my eyes for - what ? - twenty minutes? half an hour? - in the hope that I can get accurate enough cuts on the sun and maybe the moon to figure out where I am. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:28:27 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Plan "B" > <<[2] Another rational thing to do is to fly back and forth parallel to the line to > encompass the possible errors of both Latitude and Longitude. >> Ric and Oscar, they were possibly searching for about an hour. If we game out a short run to the North and then back to the South roughly an equal distance past the first turn point (say 30 nm to the north and then 60 nm south) I think we would just about use up that hour, leaving no time to run parallel line patterns. I thought it would have been a good idea but I don't see there was time to do it. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:30:17 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: offset approach >> I'll confess to being incapacitated with an attack of MEGO (My Eyes Glaze >> Over). Anybody want to commment on the above? > > Sunrise at Howland was 1746 Z and civil twilight occurred 22 minutes > earlier at 1724 Z at which point the sky would have been too bright to > see the stars and to obtain a fix. This is simply not true. Secondly, I have no idea what the exact ground speed of the Electra was nor exactly what direction it approached Howland from. Since I don't know that nor does Gary and neither of us knows where the plane was at 1912Z or at any other time I see no validity in any of the rest of the posting. I can make a batch of assumptions and on their basis tell you most anything you want to know about the flight. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:31:44 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Questions For Mr Gary La Pook--- Enough Already!!!!!!!---Answer Ric's questions about your experience and stop pontificating about Navigation......... Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:35:09 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Gary LaPokk says: > And remember your experience was in a jet cruising at 450 knots and you > probably did most of your navigation at higher latitudes where the combination of > the high ground speeds and high latitudes could produce very large "wander error" > and "coriolis error" which would not have presented much of a problem for Noonan > at the equator at 130 knots. > > Another thing you should consider in comparing your navigation experience in > a B-52 or KC-135 at 450 knots and 35,000 feet flying over the pole with the > navigation in a slow electra at 1000 feet over the equator in that the > phugoid oscillation period of your airplane was a lot longer so you required a > lot longer shooting period to average out the errors caused by the accelerations > caused by the phugoid. I have no clue where you got any of this, Gary. I have never flown over the pole nor did I say I did. I flew B-47s at 35,000' and 430KTAS. That airplane had a very rapid "dutch roll" which was of a tiny magnitude and of no significance. None of the other "facts" existed. Our Standardization check ride CEA was less than three miles during our entire B-47 flying career. None of that or what you wrote about has anything to do with the great difficulties FN may have had at 1,000' trying to shoot the sun which I seriously doubt he was foolish enough to try. 6/10ths cloud coverage is NOT less than half the sky covered half of the time. What it actually was during FN's time in that area no one knows. Nor do we know exactly what the sky coverage was for Mr. Chichester. I fail to see the comparison. I only sound testy when I'm grossly misquoted. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:36:16 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Plan "B" For Tom Van Hare Thomas, the size of the triangle depended on a number of varibles including what the specific platform (aircraft) was. Our platform was extremely stable and the air at high altitude presented a glass like ride barring the jet stream of course. Occasionally we encountered clear air turbulence but of very short duration. Your dad's description of three star fixes is generally what we did. At night of course and the sun during the day. We occasionally used other bodies during the day but for no particular reason other than practice. They were unneccessary. Celestial was unnecessary but required training. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:37:22 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > Since we all accept Philip Van Horn Weems as the authority on air celestial > navigation perhaps we should see what he has to say about the accuracy of > single sextant shots and about the accuracy of the average of just a few sights. Gary, I accept that Weems was probably an authority on celestial navigation IN 1938. That doesn't necessarily mean he was 100% correct in any thing he said nor that he continues to be the only authority to this day. For the experiments you cited tell me the following: 1. In what aircraft was it conducted? 2. What were the weather conditions? 3. What device(s) was/were used? If you make comparisons they need to be valid ones. Maybe these were but I see no way to know. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:42:29 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner > From Ric > Trust me on this. One trip a day is a crazy idea. You'd expend more fluid > and energy making the trip than you could possibly carry home in the form > of coconut water. > You sit in the shade and you pray for rain. Which suggests that the 7 site was not the normal hangout of the castaway, just the place he/she happened to expire. Which would then suggest that wherever was the normal hangout was quite a long way from the 7 site. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Water may not swirl the opposite way Down Under but apparently logic does. We've discussed at length both the drought and the difficulties that uninitiated Europeans have with coconuts and you still can't let go of the idea that a castaway would stay near the coconut trees. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:43:06 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: LOP to Gardner/Mapping ERROR Can someone explain to me what difference it makes if Howland was at one point or 5.x nm away at another point if the accuracy of FN's navigation was 15nm or more? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:44:26 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Plan "B" Gary also fails to notice in determining the sun/moon cuts that the sun was behind the Electra and that the moon was a thirty some percent sliver. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:56:10 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: CB Paxton > From Ric > Thanks Ron. Somehow she got by me. VERY interesting. Goldstein (Safford), > of course, dismisses her and she does seem to have gotten carried away with > her story as time went on (and as so often happens). But the time of day and > the nature of her experience, as originally reported, is remarkably like > Betty's; and Mrs. Paxton provides a specific date - July 3rd - which we don't > have for Betty's experience. > Another data point for the matrix. Whilst the Noonan injury ties in well with Betty's notebook, there are some serious problems with accepting this alleged radio message as authentic. The description of another island close by where a few trees are visible cannot apply to Gardner, even if we allow that AE's attempts at deciding her position made her think she was at Mili. This latter idea seems very unlikely as she would probably be able to see the distance of Mili from Lae on a chart, and it is not "1800-1900 miles". Nor, for that matter is Gardner or anywhere else on the LOP 1800-1900 miles from Lae. Why give a specific name for the island, but an innacurate and uncertain distance from Lae? It would also seem incredible that she could make so large an error, especially as Mili does not even lie on the 337 line. The possibility that Mili was really her landfall, has been well rehearsed and I think most on the forum would consider also very unlikely. Nadikdik (Knox) would not easily be confused with "New York" (although Mili could admittedly be confused with Marie). The description of the aircraft as "drifting" precludes running the engine for charging the battery. If the aircraft was drifting on July 3rd after long transmissions to Betty (assuming the message was one and the same), there seems little likelihood that the battery(ies) would sustain further voice transmissions on subsequent days. If we assume that references to Mili, Knox, Mulgrave etc were elaborations by Paxton or misinterpretations eg " We are somewhere between Mili Atoll and Duke of York", (cf "We are between Howland and Samoa Group, ten hours west" - picked up in Australia), and the aircraft was indeed drifting and subsequently sank, it would explain the aircraft's apparent invisibility a few days later. Gardner as a landfall would then perhaps imply a scenario where one engine was torn off and landed on the reef during the landing, and the aircraft skidded or was subsequently washed into deep water as the tide rose. This scenario would not fit well with the anecdotal recollections of aircraft wreckage on the reef at Nutiran although surf action could conceivably have thrown wreckage back on to the reef. Floating wreckage could of course have drifted a considerable distance from a landing site, explaining the difficulty in finding anything except perhaps an engine in the area many years later. There does however, seem a good chance that this was the same message heard by Betty as there are no real inconsistencies between the two. If this is true, there seems a very real possibility that it was a hoax. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric The story that Mrs. Paxton gave to the Ashland, Kentucky "Daily Independent" is a contemporaneous primary source. Letters that she wrote years later are anecdote. Let's look at the contemporaneous primary source information (as reported in Goldstein's book) and compare it to what we have from Betty's contemporaneous primary source. Paxton: Heard transmissions beginning at 2 p.m. on July 3, 1937 in Ashland, Kentucky. It's not clear how long the signals continued. Betty: Heard transmissions beginning at 4:30 p.m. on an unknown day in St. Petersburg, Florida. They continued until 6:15 p.m. Both cities are in the Eastern Time Zone. I know we determined (but I have forgotten) whether St. Pete was on Daylight Savings Time. I don't know whether Ashland was on Daylight Time. Because of the time discrepancy, it would appear unlikely that Nina and Betty heard the same transmission. However, if they were both hearing a legitimate transmission from Earhart - or the same hoaxer - we might expect that the general situation described would be similar. Paxton: "The message came in on my shortwave set very plain, and Miss Earhart talked for some time." Betty: This is identical to Betty's experience. Paxton: "I didn't understand everything Miss Earhart said because there was some noise." Betty: This is identical to Betty's experience. Paxton: She understood Earhart to say "down in ocean" either on or near "little island at a point near..." Betty: Betty's transcription makes no reference to ocean or an island but does mention "water knee deep" Paxton: She thought Amelia said something like "directly northeast." Betty: No similar phrase. Paxton: Says she heard, "Our plane about out of gas. Water all around. Very dark." Then something about a storm and wind. Betty: No reference to gas but concern shown for "that battery." References to knee deep water. No reference to darkness. 14:00 Eastern Standard Time is 19:00 Z or 7:30 a.m. in the Central Pacific. It should not be "very dark". Paxton: The last thing she hears is, "Will have to get out of here. We can't stay here long." Betty: "Let me out of here." "Water's knee deep - let me out." And on last page, "Let me out....knee deep over....I can't make it." Paxton's reference to "Our plane about out of gas." is interesting. It makes no sense at all unless the airplane is in a situation where it's gas is of some use. Neither Nina's nor Betty's references to getting out of "here" make any sense if they refer to an airplane sinking in the open ocean (from which it would be impossible to send signals anyway). There are some interesting parallels between the two accounts. It is also interesting to note that both accounts have similarities to the "281 message" that wasn't heard until the night of the 4th. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:20:50 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Staying on target Forum dynamics are always most entertaining, and although I'm often in the camp of the insurgents we all know that TIGHAR always wins. Sort of like an old Hollywood war movie. Here is my slightly tongue in cheek hypothesis on how it often seems to work. 1. When things get slow, Ric airbursts one of his arsenal of TIGHARISMs on the forum like "they then execute the only plan which guarantees that they will either find Howland or some other land". 2. Someone new, or a forum veteran who has heard it too many times either proposes an alternative (heaven forbid) or directly attacks the statement. The insurgency begins. 3. The first volleys are fired - often over the bow to test the dedication of the opponent. Fire is returned. If hits are scored, things quickly escalate and can easily get uglier than a messy divorce. 4. TIGHAR opens up with the works - sometimes demanding a higher standard of proof than it applies to its own hypothesis. Soon the insurgents wish that they had swatted a nest of killer bees instead of tangling with TIGHAR. The big guns arrive, often in the form of Bob. A few thunderous broadsides of "cold hard facts" later, the insurgents realize that they while they believe firmly in their cause, they can't sustain this rate of fire and stay on the forum - much less keep their day jobs. 5. One of three things happens - they disengage and run silent for a while, or exit the forum on their own, or are "terminated". 6. Ric chalks up another victory for TIGHAR. Peace returns to TIGHARLAND. 7. A few months later, things get slow.... TOM MM *************************************************************************** From Ric At least you admit that there is a camp of insurgents. Most of your fellow campers insist upon the transparent fiction that they are merely seekers of truth. No doubt about it. The forum is unscripted performance art and often provides some of the best theater around - and you can't beat the price. TIGHAR's investigation of the Earhart epic has, after 14 years, become an epic itself, far beyond anything we ever dreamed it would become when we started. You seem to think that it's all a choreographed show. Contrary to your impression, I never try to get the forum fired up if things get slow. A slow forum is a blessing. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:00:14 EST From: Christian Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner How about the NC camp? Didn't they have a 3 weeks supply -for like a dozen and a half people... Looks like they left it behind. Could most of it have lasted till 1937? As for a trip around the island every few days, why not? If I was stranded there, I know I'd be paranoid about missing visitors to the "other" side of the island, who would not come to the Seven to find me. Remember I had already played "peek a boo" with a bunch of planes in July 37 -and lost!!! Plus: that may be the ONLY way to use the NC water: come over every now and then to fill a couple of canteens etc, as I couldn't transport the heavy water "breakers". Also, the NC survivors found some of Arundel's corrugated iron: the castaway might have visited there once in a while to grab whatever water was being collected by those roofing sheets. By the way, Ric: have we found any remnants of Arundel's at all? In order to compare it to the style of building materials found at the Seven? Cheers. Christian D **************************************************************************** From Ric I can buy the idea of an occasional expedition up to Nutiran for the purposes you describe, but not the daily commute that Wombat suggested. A lot would depend upon how your strength and health held up. If you were able to settle into a hardcore castaway existence and keep your sanity, a weekly trip might be reasonable. I'd be interested to hear how other expedition veterans feel about this. We have located the wreckage of at least one structure that we're pretty sure is an Arundel relic. We have a specimen of the corrugated metal sheeting that is still present there and we have the very rusted remains of corrugated sheeting found at the Seven Site. Haven't yet had time to get into a detailed comparision, but even if they're the same stuff I don't know how we'd establish who brought it there. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:04:11 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Plan B For Gary Lapook, I can't comment on the availability of using the moon for a shot but I can on the following: "slipping the airplane or opening the door & having Noonan hanging outside" The Twin Beech I shot out of vibrates enough just in cruise coordinated flight. I can only imagine the airframe rumble a slip would cause. I also doubt AE could slow the airplane down enough to get a door open without stalling the airplane. Even if she could who would hold the door open while he takes a 2 minute observation? You need 4 hands for that! Slip or shoot through an open cabin door-no way. "Noonan also could have taken observations through the co-pilot's windshield" Yes it's possible, but it's not as easy as you think. When I did the Twin Beech experiment I shot out of the copilot's windshield and a window on the right side of the cabin. Remember now we are not using your A-10. It is the A-7 which is not as ergonomically condusive for hand-held shots as your A-10. Remember it is like holding an oblong bowling ball of about 5-6 lbs up to your eye while trying to keep the bubble from dancing around . When I attempted to shoot from the copilot seat, I was hard pressed to get a steady (bubble in collimation) shot due the occasional chop, normal airframe vibration and the tight squeeze inside the cockpit. You would only sight objects directly in front and up to around 100 degrees to the right. From the cabin window it was again difficult to get a steady shot from the chop & vibration. I had nothing to brace my body against to hold myself upright and twice got the sextant viewfinder slammed into my eye when we hit a particular bump. In 2 minutes I could usually get about 4-7 shots max as I did not use the pencil averager of the A-7 and instead wrote the Hs numbers down by hand as one would have to do when using an A-5. When you are a one-man show you must let go of one hand on the sextant to write down an Hs reading and then aim the instrument all over again & collimate....shoot-write down Hs-shoot-write down Hs....It would be challenging enough just in smooth air. This nav was busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest! We used the Twin Beech as it is very close to Electra 10E in looks, size, lines, and cabin. I also spent a week at the 1996 Oshkosh Airshow with Linda Finch demonstrating celestial technique to the public and got several opportunities to climb into her 10A that was modified to a 10E. Cabin and cockpit space was similar. Besides heavier weights, the main differences was the R-1340 powerplant vs the R-985. Both are same design & cores. The 1340 was simply a growth version of the 985. While I never shot out of the 10E, I have no reason to believe it would have been any different or less difficult. Likely the shots would have had greater accuracy if I did not have the turbulence to deal with. Comparing the A-7 vs the A-10, Fred would have thought he'd died and went to navigator heaven if he'd had an A-10 to use compared to the clumsy A-7. I've used both. Again, to all forumites who peruse this, I am not a rated navigator or expert by any standard. I do hope that the readers of this posting will have a better idea of the trials & tribulations of performing celestial navigation in aircraft. Navigators have my admiration & respect. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:06:00 EST From: Andrew Mckenna Subject: CB Paxton << It would be a big help if you gave us the exact reference to Paxton in the file and where to find it. >> See Jennifer, you're helping already !! Welcome to the Forum Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:07:40 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) >> From Bob Brandenburg >> 4). how much time FN would need for a string of, say, 10 shots to average the >> sight, given that his octant didn't have an averager, and he had to write down the >> altitude and time for each shot and then reacquire the sun for the next shot; Your question made me curious since I had never tried this before so I went outside this morning and shot a series of 10 sun shots writing down the starting time of the first shot, the ten altitudes, and the ending time. It took 1 minute and 55 seconds. Maybe it would take a little longer in the air. I will try it in the plane this weekend. I computed the error of the of the average of these sights and it was 1.9 minutes of arc so the LOP plotted 1.9 nautical miles from my house. By the way, it is pretty easy to reacquire the sun, it is pretty bright. It might take a little longer to do the series with a star which might be harder to reacquire. Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:16:13 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) >From Doug Brutlag >>And Chichester was using a marine sextant which would have made it more >>difficult for him than it would have been for Noonan with a bubble sextant. > >Doug: Gary, I will politely disagree with you on that statement. This is why. > >The point of all this is to say that I believe it to be more difficult to use >a bubble sextant in an aircraft given the fact that the bubble artificial >horizon is prone to errors from turbulence, vibration, and aircraft >accelerations. With Chichester's marine sextant he did not have to depend on >a sensitive bubble dancing around in his view-the marine sextant uses the >view of the natural horizon which just sits there, although he undoubtedly >had a problem trying to hold the airplane steady with the stick between his >knees and shooting at the same time. Response: Ok, so you're right. Then since it is easier to use a marine sextant then Noonan could have used the marine sextant that he brought with him as a "preventer" (Weems, 1938, page 423) in the sextant box that was found on Niku. The problem with using a marine sextant is dealing with dip which changes very rapidly with altitude. A mis-estimate of the altitude can result in a large error in the dip correction applied and an equally large error in the derived LOP. AE did not have a current altimeter setting so her altimeter would not be accurate and they would have to just estimate their altitude. The difference between the dip correction at 500 feet versus 1000 feet is 9 minutes and 8 minutes between 1000 and 1500 feet. If they estimated their altitude wrong by 500 feet then the LOP will be in error by 9 miles. But maybe you are right, I haven't tried using my Tamaya from a plane. But regarding the difficulty of using a sextant in a piston plane my experience with an A-10A sextant (with an averager) was that the fixes would almost always be within 10 miles. In the late '70 and earlier '80s I was working on my flight navigator's certificate which requires logging a lot of fixes in flight and I shot a whole lot more than the minimum for practice, because I enjoyed it and to stave off boredom while flying cargo in a piston airplane. The flight test for the flight navigator certificate requires shooting celestial fixes that are accurate within 10 miles so that was the standard I was shooting for and I found that I could consistently achieve it. In fact, FAR part 63, appendix A still requires the the fixes shot on the navigator's flight test must achieve this accuracy so nobody could have ever gotten a flight navigator certificate if this standard could not be routinely achieved. Admittedly, I was using an averaging sextant but that just makes averaging easier, not more accurate, than averaging by hand. You are familiar with the A-10A. I have taken observations in which more than 1/2 of the averaging disk was covered with pencil marks due to turbulence flying in scattered and broken conditions in the summer in the midwest and yet the average still provided a normally accurate LOP. But my experience, your experience and even Alan's experience are not really really relevant. It is Noonan's experience that is relevant and he reported getting 10 mile accuracy, (Weems, 1938, page 424.) And he got this accuracy flying in airplanes a lot closer to the size of NR16020, with round engines, flying at about the same altitudes and airspeeds as the electra. He was also using exactly the same type of sextant and computing the average of the sights by hand. So there is no reason to believe he could not achieve such accuracy on the flight to Howland. But more importantly there was no reason for NOONAN to think that HE couldn't achieve that level of accuracy. He had navigated 3/4 of the way around the world at that point in that aircraft and using that equipment and had had plenty of opportunity to assess the accuracy of his navigational techniques. >He had planned on getting the Electra close enough to pick up the DF >steer from the radio operator on the island but as we all know never got it. I don't agree with this statement at all, although many seem to believe it on the forum. The DF would provide a nice backup but Noonan planned on being able to find the island without the use of radio. Noonan had pioneered the use of the "landfall" procedure and he certainly knew it was accurate enough for the purpose. Gago Cautinho used it to find St. Paul's rock on the first crossing of the south atlantic in 1922. Chichester used it in 1931 to find Norfolk island and Lord Howe island when making the first solo crossing of the Tasman sea from New Zealand to Australia. There were no radio aids for these flights. Noonan used it to pioneer routes across the pacific mostly to islands without radio aids located at the destinations. If you look on e-bay you will find at least a dozen A-10 sextants on any given day for between $50 and $100. The Reason that you find so many A-10 is because they made zillions of them during WWII and handed them out to zillions of navigators who used them to criss-cross the pacific and the atlantic in every kind of aircraft, B-17s, B-24s, C-47s, C-46s and many other types of aircraft. (If you see one of these aircraft note the astrodome.) Each one of these navigators was taught the "landfall" procedure and utilized it to find their island destinations. As, I write this there is a stack of books behind me on the floor. "Weems", both 1938 and 1943; "Air Navigation", H.O. 216, 1941 and 1967; "The American Flight Navigator", Dohm,1958; "Technical Manual of Celestial Air Navigation", TM 1-206, 1942; "American Air Navigator", Mattingly, 1944; "Air Navigation" AFM 51-40, 1973 and 1984 and copies of pages from and an earlier wartime version of this manual. Each one of these manual were used to train military navigators and civilian navigators. Each one teaches the "landfall" procedure. But not anywhere in any of these manuals is there any statement or warning to the effect that "the landfall procedure will only get you close to an island but you won't actually be able to find the island without the use of radio ." If it were not possible to use just the "landfall" procedure to find island destinations then it would have been criminal to not warn the navigator trainees of this fact. In fact, everyone knew that the "landfall" procedure was and is (it is still in the 1984 version of AFM 51-40) sufficiently accurate, by itself, to enable finding island destinations. It is also still required knowledge on the current flight navigator test. See FAR part 63, appendix A. I also have behind me "Seaplane Solo", Chichester, 1934 in which he describes his use of this technique on the Tasman Sea crossing. This is not a standard reference work like the previous list of books but was well known at the time and it is likely that Noonan had heard of Chichester's achievement. The book "Precision Astrolabe" Rogers, 1971 is a history of aviation navigation and relates the first crossing of the south atlantic in 1922. This was accomplished by two Portuguese airmen with Gago Coutinho navigating the flight using the "landfall" procedure to find St. Paul's Rock which is less than 1/2 mile in size located in the south atlantic The point of all this is that the technique was well known by Noonan's time and was well accepted, I'm not just making this up. Gary LaPook **************************************************************************** From Ric << I don't agree with this statement at all, although many seem to believe it on the forum. The DF would provide a nice backup but Noonan planned on being able to find the island without the use of radio. Noonan had pioneered the use of the "landfall" procedure and he certainly knew it was accurate enough for the purpose.>> Can you support this statement? From what we've read, DF was the very essence of the Pan Am system for finding islands. . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:39:09 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > From Ric > > You didn't accept my invitation to share with us your flying and navigational > experience. I'm beginning to suspect that you have never flown a small > aircraft just under the bases of a scattered cloud deck. Response: I learned celestial navigation in the '60s and started flying in 1970. I have been a CFI AI&M since 1972 and an ATP since 1978 and am typed in the Citation CE-500. I shot lots of celestial LOPs in flight while flying cargo in the midwest and in the summer time turbulence and CU buildups while building experience for the Flight Navigator certificate. In 1978, the heyday of general aviation when they were stamping out cessnas like cookies in Wichita, I worked for a company named Orient Air in Minneapolis who's business was ferrying new airplanes to dealers around the world. Looking in some old papers I found a flight for you. August 30, 1978 departed CYYT, Torbay, Newfoundland at 0309Z in a Cessna 172, N739PY and landed at LPAZ, Santa Maria, Azores at 1655 Z. Shot Rigel at 055530Z, Hs=15-17 and Capella at 060522Z, Hs=51-45 for a 0600Z fix. A 0710Z fix was determined by shooting Sirius at 070800Z at Hs of 08-15 and Pollux at 071130Z with a Hs of 29-36. I shot some sun lines later in the flight and used them to find Flores, the first island in the chain, which, if I remember correctly, is about 1050 nautical miles from Newfoundland, then about another 350 N.M. to LPAZ. Sept. 1, 1978 continued from LPAZ to LPPR, Porto Portugal about 800 N.M. and 7.5 flying hours. That leg was a piece of cake, it's hard to miss Europe. Then eventually delivered that plane to the dealer in Brussels. So, Ric, tell us about your experience. **************************************************************************** From Ric A Skyhawk across the Atlantic? You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I'm C/M/I with something over 4,000 hours in light singles and twins and about 150 glorious hours in DC-3s. I've been flyng since 1965 and I have zero turbine time. I worked my way through college ferrying out-of-license wrecks on ferry permits and later spent 12 years (1973 to 1984) as a flying risk manager and accident investigator for the aviation insurance industry. I've never taken a celestial observation from an airplane in my life, nor have I claimed to. I have, however, spent way too many hours alone in small, badly equipped and poorly maintained airplanes in weather I didn't want to be in, going to places I didn't want to go. I have a doctorate in scud-running and pucker-factor. For advice about celestial navigation I have relied upon people like yourself who have been there and done that. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:20:51 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: offset approach > Your calculations look reasonable to me. > > 9-I assume the reference to altering course "13 degrees left to 65 degrees" > is a typo for "11 degrees left to 67 degrees". The azimuth of the Sun on that > morning was 067 degrees, and the logical course(or, we should say, "track") is > at right angles to the Sun line (if possible) so that the LOP (as advanced) > remains at right angles to the plane's progress. If FN were not sure enough of > his Latitude with the 33 statute mile offset this would have given, he could > have called for a 20 or 30 degree turn (60 or 90 mile offset) or more. No it wasn't a typo it was based on an assumption of being out 260 (nautical) miles on the 078 true course to Howland meaning they were on a bearing from Howland of 258 true. From this position a heading of 065 true will cause them to intercept the LOP 60 miles out according to my E6B. There is no need to fly the heading exactly towards the sun. You can use the time of sun rise to approximate your longitude but it would not get it exactly because the sun is not rising due east so the LOP doesn't run 180/360 but the by now tiresome 157/337. You would actually use this observation to establish an LOP just like any other celestial observation. I just pulled out of my wallet a card that has been in there more than 20 years on which I made a table of observed altitudes of sun at sunrise based on altitude allowing for dip, refraction and semidiameter. The card says for and upper limb observation of the sun on the horizon from 10,000 feet that the observed altitude of the center of the sun is negative 2 degrees and 43 minutes. You would then subtract algebraically this altitude from the computed altitude of the sun at Howland available from your precomputed graph of altitudes to determine how far out on the 247 bearing from Howland you would draw your LOP. You then adjust your heading to get the desired offset and you make an estimate of the ground speed and the ETA on the LOP through Howland. I have used this card to plot LOPs and it is usually pretty accurate however a thousand foot error in your altitude which is certainly possible given a 2000 mile flight without a new altimeter setting would throw you off by 5 miles. And non standard conditions causing abnormal refraction could throw you off by another 10 or 15 miles with such a low observed altitude of the sun. Variation in refraction are greatest and most unpredictable at very low measured altitudes of the celestial body. You like to take sights higher than 10 degrees where it is unlikely to have a problem with non standard refraction so it would be necessary to use the sextant to take additional reading as you approach the LOP to Howland. Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:22:31 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: offset approach > Ric asked if anyone wants to comment on Mr. LaPook's analysis. I would like > to touch on a few points. > All good points Bob. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:36:02 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Polhemus observations? Has anyone had access to or been able to study Bill Polhemus' landfall approach to Howland on the Pellegreno flight? It was my understanding that he used a sun LOP approach under similar time and possibly similar weather conditions as FN would have experienced. His experience and insight might be interesting, if that is correct. TOM MM ************************************************************************* From Ric In 1971 Polhemus wrote a paper entitled "Howland Island: ETA Thirty Years and Thirty Minutes". I have a copy but I don't remember who else has seen it. Bob? Doug? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:53:29 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Thanks, Mr. LaPook, for your reply and I look forward to reading your posting. Ric, you mention that TIGHAR has traced/discussed the history of the offset method and its "use and non-use by Noonan". You conclude (I think) the technique was known at the time, but you don't mention what was determined as to Noonan's use or non-use of the method. What did you find out? --Chris *************************************************************************** From Ric We found out he didn't use it. A paper written by Noonan, dated October 3, 1935 , is titled "Making The Landfall - Trans-Pacific Air Navigation" and describes the navigational procedures used during the Pan American Clipper flights. There is no mention of using an offset. Popular Aviation, May 1938, carried a letter Noonan wrote to P.V.H. Weems describing his navigation of the 1935 China Clipper flight to Hawaii. No offset was used. The charts used for the Earhart Oakand/Honolulu flight are in the Purdue collection. No offset. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:54:24 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: CB Paxton Ric, Fred Goerner was born in 1925 and served as a Seabee in WWII (pre 1945). Thus in 1943 he had had at least some high school if not a graduate. Ron Reuther ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:56:09 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: offset approach > I don't know where the tops were Sorry, Ric. I must have misunderstood. I don't know what the tops were there either. I know generally when I have been in such conditions they were not usually a thin layer. I agree that it is unlikely they would have climbed unless the layer WAS quite thin and by that I mean tops only a few thousand feet higher than the bases. Tops, however, tend to be ragged unlike the bases. It is likely by that time, Noonan had all the celestial (sun) info he was going to get or need. Perhaps further down the SE leg of the LOP it would have been nice to check the sun for course confirmation but otherwise I don't know what else he could learn. He might do just as well staying low and looking for something to take drift readings on. In all these recent postings there has been more use of the word "assume" than I have seen for a while. It is good to use assumptions at times but only if there is at least SOME support for the assumption. THAT seems to be missing lately. If the assumption has some basis then it sometimes can be used to narrow an issue which is sometimes helpful and sometimes not. For example AE's "we must be on you" has become the basis for several issues. Fuel running low is another. Both have helped zero in on what we think may have happened. But we can also see there are varibles to consider that tell us not to be too sure of our theories. Oscar's fine work on fuel now makes us wonder if they really were as low on fuel as we thought. The radio calls inbound to Howland have spawned a number of ideas but as Ric pointed out AE may have made a call at a particular time simply because that was the scheduled time. Speed 140 Knots has been confusing. All we know for certain (sorta) is that it wasn't IAS. We don't know whether it was TAS or GS. The 150.7 degree position report is screwy. It can't be taken at face value is all I can say for certain. Maybe it was really 157.0 but the time it was given tells us they weren't at either position at that time. I make many assumptions and try to have some basis for them but I don't always. I also try to qualify my comments when they are off the top of my head. I don't always succeed. The main point is that the assumptions need to keep coming but they have to have a basis or they don't help. I've rerun the navigation route and tried to work out WHEN that 157 degree LOP was worked out. I'll post what I have when I finish. But I'll tell you now it will be based on my best assumptions and what little fact we have and ALL it will tell is that (if I'm correct so far) their route was pretty much as planned, flying slightly south of course initially because of high terrain on the left and a forecast storm area ahead, south of Nuaru, over or near Tabit....whatever, and in toward Howland on a ENE heading generally. FN may have got his initial LOP from a moon shot but it even could have been from precomping the sun. I'm not sure it matters. I've looked at the celestial bodies available at the time and see nothing to alter our general theory. I still can not see an easy way to navigate to the west after missing Howland. I DO see an easy way to navigate to the Phoenix group. I think the bottom line of all this fuel and celestial discussion is that there is nothing in either issue that shoots down the Niku theory nor is there anything there that directs us elsewhere. Short of finding evidence somewhere else there seems to me no reason to divert our attention from Niku. Alan, off the top of my head #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:57:05 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > There is no debate about whether the technique was known. I'm also not sure it matters whether FN used it coming into Howland. Someone made a comment they knew leaving Lae DF was a problem but I'm not sure of that. I know AE made a test hop to check it out and it didn't work but she thought it was just because she was in too close. It looks to me like they were counting on DF at least to some degree as they tried to use DF. "We must be on you" doesn't tell us if they were coming straight in or had offset and then turned right down the 157 and THEN thought they must be on Howland. The timing seems to me to indicate they came straight in and did not offset. By that I mean from redoing the navigation the times leaving Lae, passing Nuaru and "arriving" at Howland don't leave a lot of room to do much but fly the planned course. Not impossible but not likely. But what if they DID offset? What difference would it make? It would most likely mean they turned right upon reaching the LOP flew until "we must be on you" and then SE for a reasonable distance then back to the NW and finally back to the SE. The fact that they offset to the North, turned SE and didn't spot Howland only meant they didn't see it not that they were dead certain it wasn't somewhere down below along that LOP. They probably would have gone back and looked again....as long as time and fuel permitted. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:01:40 EST From: Mark Subject: Just asking (RE: navigation) Umm, I just wanted to clarify something in my rather befuddled head... It's been established before, has it not, that given the nature of the cloud cover and lighting, etc., Howland Island (being a small, flat, no-lagoon island) would be very difficult to find even if you flew directly over it, no? And barring extreme luck or maybe a time-transported GPS system, you have to see the island to find it, right? SO.... Noonan could have been absolutely perfect in his navigation, to the point that the folks on the Itasca looked up and said "Oh! There she goes, right over our heads!!!" (which we know they didn't), and they STILL could have missed the island, right? Which would mean they would still have to execute a search procedure to find it, right? And theoretically (though increasingly unlikely) they could have criss-crossed the island for 3-1/2 hours, missing it every time due to the cloud shadows, never knowing for sure whether they were on top of it, right? (not likely they'd miss it *that* many times, but...) It appears that the only confirmation that they didn't actually overfly the island is that nobody reported seeing or hearing the plane - and even that isn't a certainty. But it leaves the same problem. Whether they were right on top of the island or 100 miles away, if they can't see it, they have to search for it, and they have to make sure they'll find SOME land before the gas runs out. The problem they face is that Noonan cannot be certain how accurate his navigation is, even if he takes a sun/moon shot while directly over the Itasca, and at some point (even if they've been executing a square search for a while) he has to say, "Well, for whatever reason, we can't see the island. It's either not here (we're off course) or we just can't see it. We'd better start heading (south/north/west/east - pick one) and see if we can find it or at least some land." And it appears that the most logical search direction is SOUTH (well, 137deg), because that both gives you a good chance of finding Howland while still being fairly certain of finding SOMETHING before the fans stop spinning. So what's all the navigational fuss?? Without a visual fix, they have to search. Regardless of their initial search technique (square, offset, parallel lines, spirals, loopdy-loops), at some point they have to figure it's not working and try something else. And still the most bonehead-simple (and therefore best according to KISS) solution this navigational neophyte has heard is: Hit the LOP. Maybe turn left for a little while, but eventually go 137 till you see land, figure out where you are, and if possible DR back to Howland. If you figure out where you are too late to get back to Howland, then land wherever you are and get help. It's just too bad that the radios didn't work. Am I on track here, or should I begin executing one of those search procedures??? Mark in Horse Country :-) *************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry Mark. Your posting does not contain nearly enough numbers and jargon and you have not mentioned the name of a single star. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:03:32 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: DR Limitations on LOP >From Alan > >> But what >> I said is also simply the truth - DR over 300 or 400 miles to an island has >> severe limitations > > Oscar, why do you say FN started his DR 300 to 400 miles away? If his DR was > based on a sunrise fix then you need to compute where he was when his > position coincided with the sunrise event. Although I have only roughed it in > I think you will find they were closer to 150nm out. I will not stand > doggedly on this obviously. I was talking about "flying down the line" to GARDNER, which is DR to Gardner over a 300 to 400 mile distance. I was not referring to Howland. But now that you mention Howland, their assumed Latitude is based on DR since (say) 1700 and their assumed Longitude is DR since observed Sunrise (about 1745). With a turn on the LOP at (say) 1900, these are about 300 and 200 mile DR estimates, respectively. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:05:43 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Plan "B" >less than we have supposed, and is it a fair statement that your information >indicates that if you DID get above the clouds you would also likely have been >able to get the celestial fixes we have assumed were prevented by the cloud >cover? >--Chris Kennedy I believe that to be correct, but the real test is whether the air and other marine navigators on the forum buy it. However, in contrast to many things, this deals with data that can be easily checked. I can say that I've gotten very good results at sea with similar sun moon shots. All altitudes that I looked at are below about 70 deg, which I believe should have been within range of FN's octant. If something pops out of range, it should be relatively brief. Doug and possibly others have firsthand experience with Pioneer octants and can comment on this. I assume that the navigational section is out there making sure I was not dozing off when I put these together a while back. Always a very good idea. These are 2 body fixes, which are indisputably less desirable than a full round of sights, but not necessarily less accurate from a practical standpoint. However, unless the cut is very narrow, they beat a single line of position any day. It is more difficult to detect a blunder. Sights repeated at more frequent intervals would increase FN's confidence in his positioning if his plotting produced a progression of fixes which bore out his expectations (ie, do his plotted fixes more or less match his DR course and speed from fix to fix?). With 2 body fixes, there is always more uncertainty in the directions associated with the acute angle of the cut. You can play with it on paper if you want to get some feel for it. Draw the cut. On each side of each LOP in the cut, lay off a parallel line some distance off, which is representative of an estimate of error on each LOP (maybe 5-15 NM). Shade in the parallelogram, and you have at least a crude estimate of the potential fix error. One potential fly in the ointment which I will freely point out (although there does not seem to be any evidence of it), is that very high and unbroken cloud over a wide area of the Pacific (cirrus or a variant) could make the moon very difficult to find in daylight. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:06:54 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: CB Paxton Could AE's reference to "water knee deep" be construed to mean that maybe they landed on a reef and the water was getting deeper as a result of the tidal action? Just curious. LTM (who is often up to my you know what in alligators) Mike Haddock #2438 *************************************************************************** From Ric That could be one interpretation, yes. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:10:20 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: knots or mph ? > From Ric > > Sorry. I didn't catch that you were talking statute miles. What makes you > say that Noonan provided AE with statute miles on the South Atlantic flight? > Her airspeed indicator did, indeed, read in mph but Noonan almost certainly > worked in nautical miles and knots. The only clue we have to whether her > radio transmissions on the Lae/Howland flight referred to statute or nautical > is her message back to Lae four hours and eighteen minutes into the flight > when she says "Speed 140 knots" We went over the "knots/mph" issue last year, and it is not worth revisiting in any detail, because of the limitations of what we are doing. For the purposes of the Sunrise discussion, it doesn't matter much whether "100" and "200" were Statute or Nautical (but remember please that if we switch back and forth within a posting or discussion it confuses everything). At 10,000 feet sunrise is 1749 1/2 at 200 Statute miles; at 200 Nautical, it is roughly 1 minute and 46 seconds later - since we're rounding to half minutes, say 1751. Sunrise at 100 nautical (and 10,000 feet) is at about 1744 1/2. (say 1743 1/2 at 100 statute miles out). In either case, the 1744 transmission comes BEFORE Sunrise AS OBSERVED BY THE PLANE (because a Sunrise earlier than 1744 would place them around or within 100, not 200, miles) and the 1815 transmission comes AFTER Sunrise (because if they had not seen the Sunrise by 1815, they would know they were nearer 500 miles than 100). This tells us something, but not too much. What it does tell us is that the "100 mile" position report (if genuine) is corrected/confirmed by the Sunrise Longitude information. Note well: We can't determine from this information where they were when they observed the Sunrise without assuming that the "100 mile" report (nautical or statute) is approximately accurate, and working backward by adding the number of miles covered in 31 minutes at the assumed groundspeed of the plane. As you point out, 57 minutes elapse between "100 miles out" and "must be on you", and 100 miles in 57 minutes equals 105 mph or knots as the case may be, which seems slow. There are several alternate explanations. (1) They ran "up, down or on" the line for 12 or 15 minutes before the transmission, after turning on the line around 1900; (2) they flew an offset, which added 10 miles or so to the 100, plus 30 miles or so of flying down the line to the point where "we must be on you", thus flying 140 or 150 knots or miles in the 57 minutes; (3) they slowed down to 115 knots or so at 1000 feet to save fuel. Feel free to invent others. (What makes me say that FN provided information in statute miles is the entry in LAST FLIGHT giving airspeed and ground speed in mph. But maybe he gave her the speed in knots on other occasions. I don't know, and it is No Big Deal. I believe "100" and "200" are statute, because I can fit that in with the known performance of the 10 E better, but I don't want to argue about it.) Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric Good. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:11:52 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Uh-huh. Ric said; "Contrary to your impression, I never try to get the forum fired up if things get slow. A slow forum is a blessing." Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah -- wheeze! wheeze! -- hahahahahahahaha. *Cough!* *Cough!* Excuse, I gotta catch my breath here. Whew! Hahahaha. Wow. That'll get the endorphins flowing. LTM, who's greatly amused Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************* From Ric Excuse me? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:14:14 EST From: Jen Muenzenberger Subject: Paxton FBI reference The FBI files on AE are located at the FBI's Freedom of Information Act website http://foia.fbi.gov/earhart.htm. Within these files is the letter from Mrs. CB Paxton. **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jen. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:17:57 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: offset approach Below is a web link about celestial navigation that might help some folks in the forum get a better handle on the workings of using celestial nav. http://www.celestialnavigation.net/ Im wondering if all the talk about an offset approach is kinda like "DUH". Out of all the thngs you can do getting a fix on longitude is easy,, Lattitude on the other hand is most what you want to have,, but thats hard to get. If FN took a good fix before sunrise and got both lattitude and longitude then thats the point from which he was using DR . If you use a compass heading (what else is there) from this last point, then everything you do from then on introduces error into your ground track,, Ground track is the only God you may worship when your in the middle of the pacific. You can get your longitude and then advance position using your estimated ground speed, and you can figure out easily if you are near the correct longitude for howland, but are you north or south?? It dosent matter if you p lan and offset or not,, your going to get one dealt to you by the ficlke finger of induced error because errors are a given. You only have 3 chances,, your dead right on target using your compass heading, or your left or right of the disired track. The odds are stacked against you by a ratio of 3 to 1 that you will hit Howland dead on. "DUH" So what else is there,, you are almost certainly going to be faced with an offset whether you plan it or just let it happen.. It would even be diffifult to hit Howland dead on with a GPS from 600 miles out if your only adustment is yuor compass heading from that point on If you want to shoot the rising sun and there is a scattered cloud layer,, the clouds will become like a solid overcast at the horizon point where you intend to see the sun. No matter if your above or below the overcast even a scattered layer will make observing the horizon difficult,, From on top on this cloud deck, it would be impossible to see the sunrise at the exact moment of apperance, therefore you must be below the deck if you want to have an even chance. From below the deck its also possible that the cloud deck will form a solid barrier at the horizon and would obscure the exact moment of sunrise. Flying at 1000 feet is just as easy as at 3000 feet if you ask me. This was a difficult situation but it seems like below the cloud deck is the only correct answer if you want to observe the sun at the exact moment of sunrise,, which is what FN wanted to do. You must remeber that all of the components required for DR during the final 4 or 5 hours of flight are all estimates,, or estiamtes of estimates ..The wind is pushing you,, the compass is bouncing,, plus or minus 5 degrees is the very best you will get from your compass. And besides,, what if at around 1800 hours FN gives AE a smile and a high five and thinks to himself "well ol girl,, i did my job i got us where i said i would". And then he breaks out his hidden bottle of "Happy Hour" and kicks back to slurp down that 90 proof golden grain squeezings that was so carefully hidden from AE. By 1930 FN is as happy as a pig in a corn bin and AE is totally on her own. "Whazz at ya say Miellee ol girl,, can ya see Howwwlannd yit,, umm well mebee its ober dere,, yah,, i see it ober dere. Git a new fix?/ huh me??,, im on happy hour , you suppoosed to git uss a DF steer" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:19:04 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: CB Paxton > From Jennifer Muenzenberger > I am just a stay at home mom with an Internet connection, but what can I (and > other mom's like me) do to help with the search for Earhart? I am willing to > write letters, e-mail, call people, whatever I can do to solve the mystery of > this remarkable woman. If you would like to do some research, an area you might consider is to look at sextant boxes for the toothed fasteners found at the seven site and displayed on the Tighar website. A fruitful area to look is on Ebay Inc. If you search all the antique sextants, say every week, there is some chance you may be able to identify a box which uses them. A positive identification would tie the seven site to "the bones site" and confirm that Tighar are barking up the right Ren tree. Of course there is the rest of the internet to search as well. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:28:48 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: CB Paxton Ric said, > Paxton: "The message came in on my shortwave set very plain, and Miss Earhart > talked for some time." > Betty: This is identical to Betty's experience. I would not characterise Betty's description of reception as "very plain". > Paxton: Says she heard, "Our plane about out of gas. Water all around. > Very dark." Then something about a storm and wind. > Betty: No reference to gas but concern shown for "that battery." > References to knee deep water. No reference to darkness. > 14:00 Eastern Standard Time is 19:00 Z or 7:30 a.m. in the Central Pacific. > It should not be "very dark". > Paxton: The last thing she hears is, "Will have to get out of here. We can't > stay here long." > Betty: "Let me out of here." "Water's knee deep - let me out." And on last > page, "Let me out....knee deep over....I can't make it." Do we have any indications of weather in the area on that day ( 3rd July)? Could "very dark" be a relative term describing daylight but at the time of the onset of a tropical storm? In such weather conditions one would indeed be reluctant to stay in an aircraft stranded close to the surf. Betty describes Noonan as being unable to bear the heat. Would this still be such a problem during heavy overcast preceding a tropical storm? If not, a different day for the two messages seems indicated. A storm would certainly help explain the invisibility of the aircraft to the Colorado pilots if it was totally destroyed. Regards Angus **************************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately we don't have any weather information for the Phoenix Group during that period. Storms, per se, are rare in that area at that time of year but periods of overcast weather, rain, and relatively high seas are not uncommon (we arrived at Niku last summer during just such conditions). In overcast conditions it's not nearly as hot on the island, but it would still be plenty warm inside an airplane. As to the "plainness" of what Betty heard, we're forced to rely upon her anecdotal recollections. She says that she could hear what was being said quite clearly but there was just so much being said that she couldn't keep up and could only jot down a few words. Nina, for her part, says it was "plain" but she also said she "couldn't get all of it". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:32:01 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: CB Paxton > Paxton's reference to "Our plane about out of gas." is interesting. It makes > no sense at all unless the airplane is in a situation where it's gas is of > some use. Neither Nina's nor Betty's references to getting out of "here" > make any sense if they refer to an airplane sinking in the open ocean (from > which it would be impossible to send signals anyway). The gas could be of use to keep an engine running for the radios, of course and the water comments could be tide rising around a plane in shallow water. If there is a significant slope to the area where they may have landed and the plane came to rest it could be the rising water was in danger of flooding the cockpit. Possible? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Nah. If the airplane is on the beach slope the water is not going to get anywhere near it under normal conditions. It's it on the reef it's on level ground and the cockpit is high above even high tide. Kneed deep water could refer to the water level out on the reef or possibly in the rear cabin. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:33:07 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > From Gary LaPook > Since there seems to be an interest in these source documents I am thinking > of scanning the relevant pages and posting them on a web site for all to be > able to access. I will try to do it this weekend. You might like to consider the copyright aspects prior to scanning and posting published works... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:38:58 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) For Gary LaPook My little "quiz" was designed to discover whether you had given more than passing consideration to the specific physical operational factors that combined to constrain Noonan's navigation options after sunrise on 2 July 1937. Serious discussion of this topic, like most aspects of the Earhart mystery, requires substantial research and analysis. Your answers suggest that you haven't made that effort . I think most on the forum would agree that your postings show a grasp of the elementary principles of celestial navigation. But getting from there to the level of understanding needed for serious discussion requires more than tossing around generalities and (mis)quotes from Weems. > From Gary LaPook > >> 1). where in the Electra FN would shoot from; > > They had obviously planned for him to be able to shoot the stars or he would > have left his sextants (including the sextant box found at Niku) at home so they > must have worked it out. The context of the question was shooting sun lines from below the cloud deck, not shooting stars. > It appears to me he could take "course line" sights through the windows on > either side of the plane Clearly, on the 337 leg, he could shoot from the copilot's side window by rotating the eyepiece on the A-5. But on the 157 leg, he couldn't shoot from the pilot's side window without changing seats with Earhart, which would seem to be a risky option at 1,000 feet. He might be able to shoot from the window in the cabin door, but doing so would entail some interesting gymnastics, considering the height and dimensions of the cabin door window, Noonan's height, and the requirement for a two-handed grip on the A-5. > and a "speed line" shot through the co-pilot's windshield. That would be interesting, since the windshield limited the vertical field of view to 11 degrees above the horizontal. By 1912Z, in the vicinity of Howland, the sun's elevation had reached 19 degrees. > It is also possible that he could have opened the door while in flight You apparently haven't thought through the mechanics of doing that. The door opened outwards and was hinged on the forward side. That means Noonan would have had to open the door against the pressure of the slipstream. > and it may be that the overhead hatch above the cockpit could also be opened in > flight providing a way to measure high altitude shots. The overhead hatch could not be opened in flight. Even if it could be opened, this is a ludicrous suggestion. In order to use the A-5 octant, Noonan would have to stand in the hatch opening with his upper torso, and the octant, fully exposed to the slipstream. He would be hard put to stay in the aircraft, or to retain a grip on the octant, let alone get any usable sights. >> 2). how he would accommodate the physical arrangement of the A-5 bubble >> octant to his shooting position; > > See previous answer. This question was a hint that the physical characteristics of the A-5 imposed some fairly tight constraints on the shooter's body position. You apparently missed the hint. >> 3). how he would acquire a sight line to the sun given the sun's altitude and >> azimuth, the heights of the cloud tops and bottoms, the amount of cloud cover at >> the time and the near-grazing incidence of his visual angle to the cloud bottoms; > The assumption was that the clouds were "scattered" which means that less than > 6/10 of the sky is covered with clouds. This means that most of the time most of > the sky is not obstructed. I don't know if you fly but "scattered" means good > weather. If you believe that you can't do celestial in "scattered" conditions > then you must believe that only "clear" sky, less than 1/10 coverage, allows > celestial which would mean that it would be a virtually useless form of > navigation. Your concern about the base of the clouds is not relevant as Noonan > was using a bubble sextant and did not need to see under the bases to see the > horizon to take the shot. At 1912Z, the sun's azimuth was 11 degrees to the left of the Electra's heading to Howland. And, as noted above, the sun's elevation was too high for shooting through the cockpit windshield. That leaves the window in the cabin door. In order to make the shot, Noonan would have to get the A-5 closer to the window pane than the left side drum of the instrument would permit. The only other option would be to change course to bring the sun's azimuth closer to the port beam of the aircraft, which raises the question of whether such maneuvers would further and unduly complicate an already difficult situation. The cloud base is very relevant. It has nothing to do with needing to see the horizon to take a shot. It has everything to do with seeing the sun through the gaps between the clouds. Even with 30 percent coverage, which the Itasca was reporting, the bases would appear to merge into solid coverage when viewed from below at a very shallow grazing incidence angle, which was Noonan's situation. The likelihood of seeing the sun long enough to get a usable string of bubble sextant shots as the Electra passed under the gaps between clouds is a dynamic function of a number of factors such as cloud thickness; cloud diameter; cloud spacing; the sun's azimuth and elevation angle; the vertical angle subtended by clouds in the line of sight to sun; the Electra's speed across the gaps between adjacent clouds; and the time required for Noonan to acquire the sun for each shot, settle the bubble, make the shot, record the observed altitude, and reacquire the sun for the next. You can't dismiss the dynamic complexity of the situation with hand-waving generalities. >> 4). how much time FN would need for a string of, say, 10 shots to average the >> sight, given that his octant didn't have an averager, and he had to write down the >> altitude and time for each shot and then reacquire the sun for the next shot; > > Certainly less than two minutes, Weems says that. Weems says (on page 312) "The set of eight observations should be made in less than 2 min . . ." But he is talking specifically about the Thurlow averaging sextant. Noonan did not have an averaging sextant, and Weems clearly is not talking about Noonan's situation. > Remember you only have to look at your watch at the beginning and at the end so > you only have to read the sextant and write down the altitudes not the time of > each shot. You use the mid point of the time for the average altitude. Sound practice requires logging the time for each sight, so that if the shot sequence is interrupted and resumed the navigator knows the correct time to use for the average altitude. Recent empirical data obtained by Doug Brutlag without using an averager suggests that 3 shots per minute is about the best that can be done under conditions similar to those Noonan experienced. This implies that Noonan would have needed to see the sun for at least 9 minutes without interruption to get a string of 10 shots for averaging. A very unlikely proposition. >> 5). how convective turbulence would affect the accuracy of FN's shots, >> given that he was flying just below the convective condensation level over the >> central axis of the tropical Pacific warm pool, which is the warmest patch of >> ocean on the planet. > > As far as I know there was no reason to think that there was turbulence in the > area. If you had bothered to check, you would know that there is vigorous convection in that area, which means strong updrafts extending from the surface to the convective condensation level, i.e., the cloud bases. Since the Electra was flying just under the cloud deck, it was in that updraft area. > But even if there was Weems reports that the accuracy of the fix deteriorates > from 5-6 miles in smooth air to 10-12 miles in bumpy conditions which is still > acceptable accuracy. Weems never took sights over the tropical Pacific warm pool. Furthermore, what Weems says (on page 315) is ". . . in bumpy air an error of 10 to 12 miles is good work". He does not say that 10 to 12 miles is the upper bound on error in bumpy air, just that getting that result would be good work. If you're going to quote Weems, at least do so accurately and within context. You might also note in the immediately preceding paragraph on the same page, Weems talks about some results that were obtained when "weather conditions were good" and goes on to say "On other occasions, errors as much as 15 to 20 miles and even more were obtained". Context! Context! Context! Weems is not a cookbook source of answers for all navigation questions. Furthermore, if you examine the data presented by Weems in that chapter, you will see that his results are based on small statistical samples drawn from a narrow range of operating conditions. Weems is arguing the case for bubble sextants with automatic averagers. He is not attempting to define the performance bounds for bubble sextants for all navigators and operational circumstances. Context! Context! Context! Finally, you may be interested to note that Weems (page 315) says "Handiness is considered to be essential in aircraft sextants because of the difficulties imposed by cramped space, plane vibration, and the fatigue incident to flying." Sounds like a good description of the conditions in the Electra. And the A-5 octant probably would not meet Weems' notion of "handiness". Bob Brandenburg #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:40:50 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: CB Paxton Ric, I didnt think I had to state the obvious. Her letter to Walter Winchell from 1943 is in the FBI file on the internet.Her letters to and from Goerner are at the Nimitiz Museum were written from 1964 to 1968. Paul Briand interviewed her at length in the 1960's.The Argosy article is in the Goerner files too. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric You don't need to state the obvious. You only need to not misstate it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:48:27 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner > From Ric > > Water may not swirl the opposite way Down Under but apparently logic does. > We've discussed at length both the drought and the difficulties that > uninitiated Europeans have with coconuts and you still can't let go of the > idea that a castaway would stay near the coconut trees. Believe me, there's a reason behind all this. There appeared to be a suggestion that the castaway may have lived at the 7 site for some considerable time having possibly moved there because of the drought. I'm trying to point out that if the drought was as bad as the reports suggest, the only water regularly available once the tins left at the N.C. cache had been used up (if they were found - and I think that had to be likely) would be found in coconuts. As we've already discussed, coconuts are difficult to open unless you know their secrets, but if you do, they can preserve life. If I was thirsty and picked up a fallen nut that made sloshing sounds I'd find a way into it eventually. During a prolonged drought, the coconuts could still be producing normally for up to 13 months (Tropical Agriculture Series - Coconuts - 1964/1974 - Reginald Child) before the number of nuts declined. Rainwater on Niku dries up literally before your eyes and there is no likelihood of it being found in catchments such as depressions in rocks and roots of Buka trees. (I already explored this idea and Ric assures me it doesn't happen). In fact, the testimony of the N.C. survivors also supports this. This all seems to suggest that the castaway didn't live very long once the drought started. It may suggest that our castaway only survived a few days at best at the 7 site if the only drinking water they had was in the bottle. Which brings me back to the original suggestion, which is that the 7 site was the site of the castaway's demise - not their long term place of residence, if in fact they survived for a reasonable term at all. From my experience searching for lost people and from my own experience stuck on a tropical island for 2 weeks suffering food poisoning and dehydration I'm suggesting there was a more sheltered camp somewhere. The N.C. survivors' reports just add to the belief. That the castaway was apparently naked and had only a wooden box with a few odd trinkets suggests desperation and that they had shoes suggests they had still been moving about regularly. That they had a bottle suggests they had been drinking something and I don't think it would have been Benedictine. Do you know how quickly walking on rubble and immersing leather soled shoes in slat water destroys the shoes? Either they were very careful about when and where they used the shoes or perhaps they didn't survive long enough to wear them out. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Why would't you say that the castaway's rather obvious non-reliance upon coconuts (which you say must have been available) is a strong indication that he or she lacked the expertise to use them? As for the shoes, Gallagher found only remnants. How much of the shoe may have been present at the time of death is unknown. We also cannot say with any certainty that the castaway was naked just because no clothing was there when Gallagher arrived. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:56:07 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: LOP to Gardner/Mapping ERROR > From Alan > > Can someone explain to me what difference it makes if Howland was at one > point or 5.x nm away at another point if the accuracy of FN's navigation > was 15nm or more? I tried to make that same point in my post a few days ago. FN could see about 35 miles in every driection that wasn't hidden by parts of the Electra, subject to glare etc. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric At last - some one who was actually there. We have a lot of questions for you. For starters, why do you suppose the Pellegrino flight didn't see Howland under similar circumstances until they were within 10 miles? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:00:00 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: CB Paxton > From Ric > > Paxton: Says she heard, "Our plane about out of gas. Water all around. > Very dark." Then something about a storm and wind. > Betty: No reference to gas but concern shown for "that battery." > References to knee deep water. No reference to darkness. > > 14:00 Eastern Standard Time is 19:00 Z or 7:30 a.m. in the Central Pacific. > > It should not be "very dark". Unless there is a tropical storm coming in, in which case it does seem to get "very dark" even in the middle of the day - if only for the duration of the storm. I've sometimes been fooled into thinking it's after 6pm at about 2.30pm if I've woken during the day as a storm is about to start. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, there are "storms" (big, isolated thunderbumpers that can darken the sky for a while) and there are STORMS (real weather events that last for several days. The former would seem like a real possibility. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:01:29 EST From: Ric Subject: Gallagher Gallery up A gallery of photos of Gerald "Irish" Gallagher is now up on the TIGHAR website. Look under Earhart Project "Documents". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:02:13 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Plan B Thanks Doug that was good information. I have a new sextant that I will try in flight this weekend, it is an MA-2 which is basically a Kollsman persicopic without the periscope but with the same averager. It too is considerably heavier and more unbalanced than the A-10 and I will let you know how it works out. Have a good weekend. Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:03:36 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Staying on target For Tom MM You speak some truth Tom, but it's the only game in town and it is a good game. Long live TIGHAR. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:04:39 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) > Can you support this statement? From what we've read, DF was the very > essence of the Pan Am system for finding islands. . No one could support that statement. I was only five and my mom wouldn't let me cross the street let alone the ocean so I was not with Noonan when he "planned" the flight. Collective evidence indicates he was counting on the DF and that makes rational sense. Gary, you may have lots of info at your finger tips but every time you make an unsupportable statement like that you are most likely going to get flamed. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:06:17 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: offset approach >> Sunrise at Howland was 1746 Z and civil twilight occurred 22 minutes >> earlier at 1724 Z at which point the sky would have been too bright to >> see the stars and to obtain a fix. > > From Alan > > This is simply not true. Secondly, I have no idea what the exact ground speed > of the Electra was nor exactly what direction it approached Howland from. > Since I don't know that nor does Gary and neither of us knows where the plane > was at 1912Z or at any other time I see no validity in any of the rest of the > posting. Reply: What "simply is not true"? For the benefit of the non navigators follow me through on the computation from the nautical almanac. If you can't get your hands on the 1937 almanac any year's almanac will do because they put the same table in every edition of the Nautical Almanac as it is accurate enough for any year since it is only supposed to be accurate to 2 minutes. According to the Sunrise table on the July 2nd page of the nautical Almanac, on the equator on July 2 of any year the time of sunrise is 0600 local standard zone time. The standard time zone for Howland island (not the time kept on the Itasca which is different by 30 minutes) is "Zone +12" and is the time on the 180th meridian. The +12 zone description means that you add 12 hours to your standard time to compute Greenwich Mean Time, or Zulu (Z) time. So sunrise at the 180th meridian is 0600 local time plus 12 hours for a Zulu time of 1800. Since Howland island is at longitude 176 degrees-38 minutes west it is east of the 180th meridian. Since the earth rotates towards the east this means that sunrise occurs a little earlier at Howland than it does on the 180th meridian. To find out how much earlier we subtract the longitude of Howland from 180 and find that it is 3 degrees-22 minutes east of the 180th meridian. Since the earth rotates 360 degrees in 24 hours it rotates at a rate of 15 degrees per hour or 1 degree every 4 minutes. So by multiplying the 3 degrees times 4 minutes per degree we get 12 minutes earlier to account for the 3 degree portion of the longitude difference. To account for the 22 minutes of longitude we multiply 4 minutes per degree times 22/60ths for a result of 88/60ths which converts to 1 minute and a remainder of 28 seconds. We add this to the 12 minutes and find a total of 13 minutes and 28 seconds. Or we can look up the answer in the table in the back of the Nautical Almanac entitled "Conversion of Arc to Time." This table show 12 minutes for 3 degrees and 1 minute and 28 seconds for the 22 minute part for a total correction of 13 minutes and 28 seconds which you can round to either 13 or 14 minutes minutes producing sunrise on the equator at 176-38 W of 1747Z or 1746Z. Since Howland is almost on the equator this is probably as close as you would need to get especially since the table is only designed to be accurate to two minutes not to the second. But if you want to get persnickety you can make an additional adjustment for the fact that Howland is actually 48 minutes north of the equator. The same table shows sunrise at 10 degrees north latitude to be 0543 or 17 minutes earlier or 1.7 minutes earlier for each degree of latitude. So multiply 1.7 minutes by 48/60ths and you get 1.36 minutes which you subtract which gets you to approximately 1745Z. Did I do this right Alan? So take your choice 1745 or 1746 or 1747. Reference to the same table shows that civil twilight occurs at 0538 at the 180th meridian or 22 minutes earlier than the 0600 sunrise. You can subtract this 22 minutes from the time of sunrise at Howland to find the time of civil twilight at Howland of 1723 or 1724 or 1725Z which is close enough for government work. So again Alan what "simply is not true"? GL ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:07:16 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Plan "B" > From Alan > > Gary also fails to notice in determining the sun/moon cuts that the sun was > behind the Electra and that the moon was a thirty some percent sliver. Reply: That depends on what heading the Electra was on at any particular moment. If necessary to get an observation they could turn it to any heading for the minute or two it would take to get the sight then correct back onto their desired track. I'm not sure of the phase of the moon since it is not listed on page 85 of the 1937 Nautical Almanac which is the daily page for the moon for July 2, 1937. Referring to page 136 though I see that the time of meridian passage for the moon on July 2, 1937 was 0625. Looking at a modern Nautical Almanac for 2001 for a similar time of meridian passage I find a meridian passage of 0620 on July 14, 2001 and the phase is last quarter with 43% illumination. This should be very close to its phase on July 2, 1937 so I wouldn't call it a "sliver" since just about 1/2 of the moon is illuminated. But I don't know why you even brought this up since even if it were a sliver you can still measure its altitude with a sextant. If Noonan wanted to use his marine sextant he could measure to the upper limb or to the lower limb whichever one was in a better position. If he was using his bubble sextant he could line up the appropriate limb with the center of the bubble or he could estimate the center of the moon and line that up with the center of the bubble. My experience has been that unless the moon is full that you lose a little accuracy when you try to line up a limb or the estimated center but the sight is still usable and the accuracy may be 10-15 miles instead of 5-10 miles which is certainly good enough to assist Noonan to find Howland, GL ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:08:29 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Correction Yesterday, in a post replying to Gary LaPook, I said "Recent empirical data obtained by Doug Brutlag without using an averager suggests that 3 shots per minute is about the best that can be done under conditions similar to those Noonan experienced. " I went on to say "This implies that Noonan would have needed to see the sun for at least 9 minutes without interruption to get a string of 10 shots for averaging". I should have said ". . . for at least 3 minutes . . .". This doesn't change the conclusion that it's very unlikely Noonan could have obtained a 10-shot string shooting from below the cloud deck. Sorry for any confusion. Higher mathematics always has been a problem for me Bob Brandenburg #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:09:50 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: offset approach Gary, I'm missing something. What is the basis for assuming the Electra was 260 miles out on a 078 degree true course? And what is your basis for assuming the track of the aircraft was at right angles to the sun line. Finally, the advanced LOP will remain parallel to the original LOP regardless of ANYTHING. That's just the way it's drawn. FN could have been on most any Easterly heading and using what he thought was his ground speed he would believe he was on the LOP drawn through Howland at his computed time. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:15:54 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Did the flights you mention use RDF? --Chris *************************************************************************** From Ric That's the whole point. The method used by Noonan involved DR and celestial to get the aircraft within range where RDF could be used to guide the final approach. There is no question that this was the intended procedure for the Lae/Howland flight. We know of no occasion where Noonan employed an offset just in case the RDF failed and we know that Earhart was still trying to use RDF after they reached the advanced LOP. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:20:33 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: CB Paxton The letters to Fred Goerner and his correspondence with Paxton are in Jan 1964 and then several in 1968, not in 1943. The letter to Walter Winchell was in Sep 1943. Interestingly, in 1968 she wrote that KHAQQ "was not the letters used" in her SOS msg, but used KHABQ. She insisted this was the true call letters though out her correspondence. She said she heard AE between 9-10 megacycles and near 13 megacycles. (Don't know if that is where Betty heard AE?) LTM, Ron Bright PS. Paxton later heard Adolf Hilter over her shortwave and reports of Benito Mussolini's death on the same shortwave radio. After WW 2, Paxton saw a picture of a displaced women in Germany. "If the person was not Amelia Earhart, she bore an identical twin likeness to the Flyer." [ Ltr to F. Goerner 23 Aug 68] There may have been more than one "lookalike" of AE! *************************************************************************** From Ric Being a nutcase doesn't disqualify you from having legitimate experiences. I could cite examples but it's probably not a good idea. We don't know what frequency Betty was listening to. Bob? How do those frequencies compare with harmonics of AE's frequencies? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:30:33 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Polhemus observations? I have a copy of the Polhemus paper, but I don't have a note in the file reminding me how I got it. Did you send it, Ric? Tom is correct. The paper does describe "the sun line landfall technique utilized by Noonan in his effort to find Howland Island and duplicated 30 years later by the author, navigator on the anniversary flight". The technique involves using an offset approach. The paper is about 30 pages long, of which 10 deal with the sun line approach. Two pages are text, and the remaining 8 are charts and a table illustrating the concept. The document is not in electronic format. I could type the two pages of text for posting on the forum, but I doubt that would be very useful, since most of the detail is in the Polhemus' charts. It might be better to scan the relevant pages and put them on the TIGHAR website. For what it's worth, Polhemus' description of the technique is sound and clearly presented. There is however, a fundamental logical flaw in his premise that Noonan used the technique. Assuming that Noonan used the offset technique requires suspending disbelief and accepting the implicit assumption that Noonan abandoned the standard Pan American straight-in radio-bearing approach method which was the core of his experience, and which he used on the Oakland to Honolulu flight in March 1937. It is clear from the planning for the Lae-Howland leg that Noonan expected a radio DF bearing to steer by in the end game. It's possible to speculate about whether he decided to switch to an offset approach when it became clear that he wasn't going to get the DF steer he was expecting. But it seems to me that the window of opportunity for that decision was quite small. It could be an interesting exercise for someone to work out the go-no-go decision time. Bob #2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, I think I sent you that copy. As to posting it on the website, we'd have to get copyright clearance from Polhemus first. For me, it's a classic example of how a fine navigator (or fine anythingelse) can screw up once he gets outside his field of expertise and delves into the realm of historical investigation. He knows how he would have done it, and in this case, how he actually did it, so he decides that -by golly - that's the way someone else did it. Elgen Long makes exactly the same kind of mistake. If we start putting examples of flawed Earhart research up on the website we're going to need a lot more bandwidth. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:32:26 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: offset approach Claude Stokes wrote: > ... If you want to shoot the rising sun and there is a scattered cloud layer,, > the clouds will become like a solid overcast at the horizon point where > you intend to see the sun. Just to double-check what you're saying: in order to shoot the sun, you need to be able to see BOTH the sun AND the horizon at the same time? I guess the answer is yes. LTM. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric Unless you have a bubble octant or sextant. That's what the bubble does - provides an artifical horizon. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:59:29 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: CB Paxton Ric said: > We don't know what frequency Betty was listening to. Bob? How do those > frequencies compare with harmonics of AE's frequencies? They don't. 15525 KCs (15.525 Megacycles) was the lowest feasible harmonic. Paxton was listening on 9-10 and near 13. ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, but let's remember that we can't say that "Paxton was listening on 9-10 and near 13." We can only say that many years later she said that she had been listening on those frequencies (unless, of course, those frequencies are included in the contemporaneous newspaper article). Does anyone have a copy of that article they'd like to share with us? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:49:07 EST From: Ric Subject: New Forum Procedure Since the Earhart Forum was launched in 1997 if has been my intention and attempt to get all messages reviewed, all questions answered (as best I can), unacceptable or irrelevant messages rejected, and all others posted within 24 hours of their submission. I have, as a rule, taken as much time as needed out of each day to get that done. In other words, the forum has taken priority over just about everything else. That made sense when the forum was the project's primary research resource. Lately, however, it has become increasingly apparent that many on the forum would rather (endlessly) debate questions that can never be conclusively answered - did Noonan use an offset? - how much fuel was left at 20:13? - did Noonan have the correct coordinates for Howland? - how hard is it to DR down the LOP? - did they climb or stay low? - etc., etc. than work on topics that might actually result in answers. I don't want to cut off discussion of those unanswerable questions because interesting information does come out which increases our understanding of the context in which the disappearance happened, but it's simply not worth spending the amount of time it takes to keep all the postings 24 hours current. So I'm going to stop trying. Starting today I will spend one hour each day moderating the Earhart Forum. I'll do as much as I can in that hour and I won't be any stricter than I have been about what goes up and what doesn't. If it takes me an hour to reply to one question there will be one posting that day. If I can get through 49 submissions (as there are backlogged right now since Saturday) in one hour, I'll do it. I will not necessarily take them in first-come order because it may make more sense and be more efficient to "batch" a number of postings about a particular topic. I will, however, begin to put the date submitted on each posting so that everyone knows how much of a backlog we're running. This is the best solution I could think of. We'll see how it goes. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:04:27 EST From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Gallagher Gallery up Ric and any other member of the forum, Does anyone have a contact of any reliability that can followup on some information relating to Gerald's personal effects that were consigned for transit back to the UK after his death? It is my belief that the items never left Suva and I believe some general information needs to be checked out locally (within Suva) to try to get some definitive answers. I would be more than happy to track down the effects (anywhere in the world) and share any and all information with TIGHAR. There are some effects, including a camera and photographs that may reveal some information ... especially relating to the bones. It is my personal opinion that Gerald would have photographed the site and bones if he had a camera handy, as he was VERY particular and methodical. The fact that in his notes he has a "feeling" that they may be the bones of AE, then I am almost sure he would have documented his "find" by all means possible to him. If he had his camera, and film, he would surely have used it to document his find .... "A personal opinion based upon the habits of the man himself". Anyway, if there is a source in Suva that can followup on a few possibilities I would love to confer with them. So, if any forum member knows of anyone that can be trusted ... let me know! Thanks, Gerry Gallagher ("Karaka Jr.") **************************************************************************** From Ric From the one picture you found of Irish in his house on Gardner we can be sure that the capability existed for photos to be taken on the island during the time frame in which the bones were found and that at least one photo taken during that time frame made it back to England. Logically, their could be others (regardless of whether his personal effects ever got shipped or not). I agree entirely that it seems very likely that he may have taken photos of the bones and artifacts, especially given his initial suspicion that they were Earhart's. It also seems possible that they later were not regarded as being anything more than a curiosity after he (apparently) accepted the consensus opinion that they were not Earhart's. One might expect that photos might become part of an official file, but Kenton and I saw no instances of that in any of the files we saw at Hanslope Park, nor did we see anyreference to separate photo files. We have some contacts in Suva but I'll leave it to Tom King, who led our Fiji Bone Search team in 1999, to communicate with you directly as which of them may be most useful in this regard. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:07:00 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: offset approach For: Tom MM Tom, on the 1,000 ft. the only that could have pushed them that low was weather. What else could it have been? Also, an abrupt end to radio transmissions was probably a result of being out of range or stepped on transmissions. However, I am of the opinion (it's my opinion folks) the way Earhart handled the radios there at the end was a "little bit" crazy especially in the predicament they were in. If I personally was out there with that airplane I would have held on to a valid contact for dear life....but she didn't. There's a possibility Earhart was so fatigued she just spaced out. That can happen very easily....disorientation. You raised the specter of what happened from the Elgen Long book. If you will pardon my saying so I thought the Long book was nothing more than a series of contrived circumstances....the plane hit the water, the dump valves collapsed and flooded the fuel tanks, Earhart hit her head on an overhead radio (or whatever it was), the plane sank instantly, and neither pilot had any chance whatsoever of getting out of the airplane and into the life raft. That's okay for some people but some people ain't me. Long made one (only one!) mistake in his book....he admitted that the surface winds were 5-10 mph which is next to zilch. That would have made for a fairly smooth sea and an easy ditching (if it happened). The plane would have hit the water tail first, then pitched forward producing a major impact on the leading edges of the wing. The trailing edge of the wing (the location of the dump valves) would have been the last to go in the water. I e-mailed Lynn Jourdan at Nauticos, and they have nothing to report at this time. Quite a few people are of the opinion the only things they will find is remnants of WW II airplanes and a few scattered shipwrecks. I would guess that is going to be it. To be quite blunt about it, I have no faith in the Nauticos search especially in view of the fuel reserves Earhart had. So, as they say, to each his own. We are about to find out, that's for sure. Carol, #2524 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:14:41 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) What does a conclusion that we know of no occassion where Noonan used offset as a standard "just in case" technique, (regardless of whether RDF was functioning properly) tell us anything about what he would've done if RDF wasn't working? Also, while the fact that Earhart was still trying to make RDF work tells us what SHE was doing, what does it tell us that Noonan did or was trying to do to find a way home? --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Noonan may have used an offset. There is no evidence that he did and there is evidence that can be interpreted as an indication that he didn't, so if we have to express an opinion one way or the other it looks to us like he didn't. But maybe he did. NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW. Either way, the flight could have reached Gardner. For the life of me, I can't understand why this is worth spending so much time on. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:16:44 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: KHAQQ > From Ron Bright > Interestingly, in 1968 she wrote that KHAQQ "was not the letters used" in her > SOS msg, but used KHABQ. She insisted this was the true call letters though > out her correspondence. She said she heard AE between 9-10 megacycles and > near 13 megacycles. (Don't know if that is where Betty heard AE?) This insistence on the fact she did not hear KHAQQ is good evidence she is not inventing the whole story. Moreover it has resonances with other post loss messages. AE's callsign: KHAQQ Subst K=W, Q =B/3 OJ/MJ = HA Paxton P/L msge: KHABQ KHAQQ Post Loss msge: WHAQQ KHAQQ Betty's n b/k 1: WOJ** KHA** Betty's n b/k 2: *MJ3B *HAQQ Betty's n b/k 3: **J3* **AQ* Betty's n b/k 4: ***3Q ***QQ Just why, it is difficult to imagine, but K seems to be mistaken for W, and B or 3 for Q. HA, MJ and OJ are virtually identical on voice. OR Assume WOJ is only part of the string. Look for other strings beginning J.(J3). Assume J3 is only part of string. Look for string beginning 3. (3Q) Add Betty 1 to 3 to 4: WOJ3Q Paxton: KHABQ Post loss message: WHAQQ QED Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:18:07 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Plan "B" Gary LaPook wrote: > This should be very close to its phase on July 2, 1937 so I wouldn't call it > a "sliver" since just about 1/2 of the moon is illuminated. > > But I don't know why you even brought this up since even if it were a sliver > you can still measure its altitude with a sextant. If Noonan wanted to use his > marine sextant he could measure to the upper limb or to the lower limb > whichever one was in a better position. If he was using his bubble sextant > he could line up the appropriate limb with the center of the bubble or he > could estimate the center of the moon and line that up with the center of the bubble. My > experience has been that unless the moon is full that you lose a little > accuracy when you try to line up a limb or the estimated center but the sight is still usable > and the accuracy may be 10-15 miles instead of 5-10 miles which is > certainly good enough to assist Noonan to find Howland, Gary, I brought it up because it is one more problem in the way of Noonan's celestial efforts. We rarely shot the moon as it did not give us the accuracy SAC required. BTW all our celestial examinations by Standeval were verified by radar recorded scans. As a select crew in SAC we didn't have the luxury of playing around. All our nav missions were flown to the very best we could do. The moon wouldn't accomplish that and a partial moon was never used. By the time the Electra arrived in the vicinity of Howland the moon was illuminated at only 36%, hardly "just about half." It also had an Azimuth NNW which would have been nice if it could have been seen under the cloud deck. As to the mythical flight to the Gilberts it is certainly true the aircraft could be turned north or south to shoot the sun if they had climbed above the clouds and this has been discussed a number of times but if their fuel was low as AE reported then I doubt they would do much zig zagging across the Pacific. Also by that time the moon's azimuth would have placed it in front of them so if they could have seen it at all kit would have provided speed lines similar to all they would get out of sun shots. There WAS one planet up at the time but I doubt it could be seen that time of the day. That morning Venus had a Zn of about 22 degrees but was very high in the sky. Saturn would have been behind the aircraft to the West. Generally planets are visible early in the morning but not much after that. If I'm not making the points clearly the bottom line is that inbound to Howland FN had his precomps, the moon at a Zn of about 67 degrees briefly and a little later the sun at about 67 degrees. He possibly had Venus at 22 degrees before descending to 1,000'. Should they have elected to head west to the Gilberts there was little or nothing to shoot until climbing above the clouds. At that time the moon would have provided nearly as much info, though far less accurate, as would the sun so there was hardly any reason to zig zag for shots unless the moon was no longer visible in the bright daylight. By the time they would have been headed west the sun's Zn was around 58 degrees and behind them. The moon if visible was at a decent altitude and at a Zn of 293 degrees and 35% illuminated. Venus was a little high in the sky for good shots but at a nice Zn of 340 degrees. Saturn was fairly low but at 269 degrees. Again going West I don't see how FN would have had anything to shoot as most likely only the sun was visible and it was behind him. Back to the zig zagging. OR as a last resort he could have followed the posthumous advice of Ric and the gang and gone SE. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:19:20 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: offset approach > So again Alan what "simply is not true"? I feel guilty, Gary after you went through all that nice dissertation. I should have made my point clearer. Your statement that at civil twilight it would be too bright to see the stars and no fix could be obtained is not true. I have no argument about sunrise. We have often shot celestial bodies shortly before sunrise. Granted the choice becomes quite limited but that is all. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:20:19 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: CB Paxton > Her letters to and from Goerner are at the Nimitiz Museum Woody, did I understand you to write you had a copy of the Nimitz file or did I misunderstand you while I was too busy being overly critical of Gary? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:21:08 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) What was the range of RDF equipment in 1937 ? LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:22:46 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP) Great job Bob. I don't mean in contrast to Gary's post but in really laying out in detail all the attendant problems FN certainly was facing. I did not realize all the technical difficulties he must have faced. More and more I'm believing that toward the end of the inbound flight Noonan was sitting in the copilot's seat straining his eyes to find Howland rather than practicing for the the Olympics trying to find a place to shoot the sun. I might add that for all I've written about the possibilities of shooting moon shots there was precious little window time to do that.The moon rose at 00:54 Howland time, transited at 7:07 and by 13:21 had set. Ergo -- no moon. Not even a "sliver." Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:24:01 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: CB Paxton > Nah. If the airplane is on the beach slope the water is not going to get > anywhere near it under normal conditions. It's it on the reef it's on level > ground and the cockpit is high above even high tide. Knee deep water could > refer to the water level out on the reef or possibly in the rear cabin. Ratz! I thought I had made an earthshaking observation. Next time I'll skip out there and take a look before I make a dumb comment. OR as a last resort ask someone. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:26:10 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Polhemus observations? > From Ric > In 1971 Polhemus wrote a paper entitled "Howland Island: ETA Thirity Years > and Thirty Minutes". I have a copy but I don't remember who else has seen > it. Bob? Doug? He wrote another for the Institute of Navigation in Summer of 1998 called "Amelia Earhart And Fred Noonan: Navigating The Pacific Circa 1937" which is quite interesting. It starts off with a historical perspective of the 1937 flight, (2 pages) then has about half a page on the 1967 flight, but nothing about the actual navigation in 1967. It appears to have the usual "circling" discussion and makes some other contentious points. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:31:52 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Plan B Your experience with historic octants in Electra like aircraft and your opportunity to closely inspect Finch's Electra puts you in a pretty unique position. Is there any way that you could sketch from memory your recollection of the vertical and horizontal range of "octant vision" from the locations available to what must be assumed to be a desperate navigator. Maybe just mark up photos or plan/elevation/profile drawings of the aircraft? If that range would be markedly different with the A-5 vs A-7 maybe show both? BTW, is it clear which of those FN used - for some reason I recall that it probably was an A-5, but didn't he have to sign a receipt? I realize that Finch's aircraft probably differed somewhat from AE's but there have to be things common to both - differences would have to be filled by your judgement. I'm well aware that such a sketch could never cover all navigators, all circumstances, etc, etc, but right now it is very difficult to get any consistent idea about what was possible from NR16020. Might be a worthy addition on the TIGHAR website. BTW, could you refresh us on the max altitude (scale max and/or "practical max" if subtantially less) of the A-5 and A-7? I assume that there are preferred sight ranges just like a marine sextant. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric Let's be clear about one thing. No one knows what kind of octant/sextant Noonan used on the Lae/Howland flight. All we know is that Manning borrowed a Pioneer Bubble Octant from the Navy immediatley before the March 17 flight to Hawaii and that Noonan signed a receipt for it on March 20 - the day of the accident. Whether Noonan used that same instrument on the second World Flight attempt three months later or found something he liked better in the interim is not known. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:42:17 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Polhemus observations? Ric: Well, I don't think that I said or implied that because Polhemus did it, Noonan would have done it. What I thought would be interesting are the experiences, observations, impressions, difficulties, charts, calcs, etc of someone who actually found Howland using celestial techniques under somewhat analogous conditions in a similar aircraft. I take it from your response to Bob that Polhemus must have stepped outside of pure factual reporting and offered an opinion or two. BTW, did he nail it on the first pass? TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric Polhemus' paper is more of a report of what Noonan must have done than it is a report of his own experiences. He doesn't actually give a blow-by-blow account of his own finding of Howland. Pellegrino's book gives a very interesting account which I will transcribe tomorrow (out of time today). Bottom line: No. They wandered around for about a half hour and almost gave up. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:24:27 EST From: Ric Subject: So much for celestial For today's forum I will make an attempt to put a rational end to the clutter about celestial observations, running down the LOP, and offsets. I'll start by reviewing the experience of Bill Polhemus as described on Ann Pellegreno's book "World Flight." It's important to understand a few basic differences between what AE and FN did (or tried to do) and what the Pellegreno flight did. 1. Pellegreno and company flew from Lae to Nauru (about halfway to Howland) where they landed and refueled. From Nauru they flew to Canton Island. The attempt to duplicate the Earhart flight's attempt to find Howland was done enroute. There was never any intention to land at Howland (the runway is long-since overgrown). Pellegreno gives the distance from Nauru to Howland as 1,145 miles and says it was another 421 miles to Canton. She doesn't specify nautical or statute. She also does not provide any information about fuel load, cruising speeds, or fuel management practices used on the flight. 2. Although the Coast Guard cutter "Blackhaw" was supposedly standing by at Howland, Polhemus made the assumption from the start that Noonan used the "landfall approach" (aka offset) method to find the island solely by means of celestial navigation and DR. 3. Pellegreno's Electra was equipped with a state-of-the-art (for 1967) Kollsman periscopic sextant mounted in the fuselage roof just behind the wing root. Polhemus could stand in the middle of the cabin like a submarine captain and have an unobstructed view of the entire sky. 4. Polhemus had the capability of getting almost instantaneous "time hack" verifications of the accuracy of his chronometer and was using what Pellegreno refers to as "Sight Reduction Tables" for rapid computing of celestial observations. Here's a chronology for the morning of July 2, 1967: 1200Z - estimated position 23 miles west of 170 East Longitude and about 17 miles south of the equator. 1340Z - estimated 100 miles south of Tarawa and 700 miles from Howland. Quotation (time not specified): "When the eastern sky lightened, I looked down upon rows of clouds with ocean between. At 7000 feet we were high enough to see silvery tops in all directions. Had there been islands below which we had intended to use for checkpoints, undoubtedly we would not have been able to see them. To remain at this altitude meant that our true airspeed was greater and less fuel was burned. Also, below the clouds we could not have used celestial navigation." (page 157-158) 1715Z - crossed International Dateline. They attempted to raise the Blackhaw on the assigned HF frequency using voice but received no reply. 1730Z - Polhemus took celestial observation. 1743Z- Polhemus took celestial observation. 1755Z - Polhemus took celestial observation. 1800Z - estimated position 125 miles west of Howland. 1810Z - Polhemus took celestial observation. 1820Z- Polhemus took celestial observation. Blackhaw finally responded and said that they had left Howland and were steaming northeast due to scheduling requirements. 1823Z- estimated position 60 mies west of Howland. Began descent to 1,000 and turned 30 degrees left to heading of 44 degrees. "Following the accepted sun-line-landfall technique, this heading change would allow us to be reasonably assured that when we reached the line of position Holwand would lie to our right on a course of 157 degrees." (page 159) 1855Z - estimated postion about 45 miles north northwest of Howland. Turned to course 157 degrees. Estimating Howland at 1915Z. Numerous rainsqualls hindered visibility. 1912Z - rainsquall dead ahead. Descended to 300 feet to make sure island was not hidden by cloud and rain. No island. "Polhemus said, 'Turn to 270 degrees. we'll fly that way for a while. Maybe we're too far east." 1922Z - Still flying west. 1943Z - contacted Blackhaw and got ADF bearing on the ship which said that it was 37 nautical miles from Howland on a bearing of 042 degrees. "Polhemus caluculated the relative bearing to the Blackhaw. All of us looked for the island. 'Let's fly east again,' Polhemus said, "We can't be that far off. According to my figures on that DF position we're west of the island and slightly north. We have about twenty minutes left to search and then we have to go on." A few minutes later - Pellegreno doesn't say exactly how many - they finally spotted the island about 10 or 12 miles south of their position. Bottom line: With vastly better navigational facilities, twice as many sets of eyes, and slightly worse weather, Polhemus could not find the island without the help of Radio Direction Finding. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:56:53 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Polhemus article Bob Brandenburg wrote, excerpts: >The paper does describe "the sun line landfall technique utilized by Noonan >in his effort to find Howland Island and duplicated 30 years later by the >author, navigator on the anniversary flight". The technique involves using >an offset approach. By coincidence, I saw this information on the web just today. I will paste the information, since web pages come and go, but the TIGHAR forum is here to stay! http://www.ion.org/newsletter/v8n2.html Institute of Navigation ION Newsletter Vol 8, #2, Summer 1998 Amelia Earhart And Fred Noonan: Navigating The Pacific Circa 1937 By Major William L. Polhemus In the summer of 1967, 30 years after Earhart and Noonan vanished on a round-the-world flight, the author flew as navigator on a commemorative flight in a restored Lockheed L-10 over the remote New Guinea area where the famed aviatrix and her navigator were lost. The author retraces highlights of that Earhart-Noonan flight, based on known logs of radio contacts and other data, to produce a fascinating navigational history of a mysterious disappearance. Polhemus served as an aircrewman on Curtis Helldivers and Grumman Avengers in WWII, as a navigator-bombardier on B-26s in the Korean War and with SAC on B-47s. He is a past president (1969-70) of ION. SUMMER 1937 In the early summer of 1937, Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan had successfully completed more than two-thirds of their flight around the earth at or near the Equator, the first flight of its kind. Their geographic position was the relatively undeveloped 3000 ft. airstrip at Lae, New Guinea (see figure 1). Their Lockheed Electra 10-E was loaded to more than 150% of its design maximum gross weight, with extra fuel necessary to travel 2,228 nautical miles eastward to Howland Island.(1) Fifteen hundred miles of their flight would be across an expanse of water where ships were few and far between, and alternate airports were non-existent. The fuel reserve portion of total fuel available would be insufficient for finding islands or atolls suitable for emergency landing and survival. There would be no radionavigation aids available on the flight to Howland Island. Fred Noonan had navigation tools such as a handheld bubble sextant, an unstabilized driftmeter, a pelorus mounted at the side window in the aft cabin, three chronometers, a magnetic compass, an altimeter, and an airspeed meter. Pilotage navigation would be feasible only as far as the Nukumannu Islands, located east of Bouganville in the Solomons (approximately seven hours into the flight). In case of emergency they might have diverted to Nauru Atoll which lay within sixty miles of their intended track (approximately the halfway point between Lae and Howland Island) where they would be shortly after sundown. Noonan would have been severely limited in his field of view and the number of stars observable, and in his ability to work around breaks in cloud overhead (2). Since only celestial navigation would be available to Noonan during the final two-thirds of the flight, it would be essential that cloud cover above the aircraft be minimal. During daylight hours and in the absence of cloud cover between their aircraft and the ocean surface, Noonan could determine aircraft drift angle and ground speed to one degree and 1-2 Kn. These factors integrated with sextant and pelorus observations would have given Noonan a good knowledge of their position so he could maintain an accurate track. In order to see Howland Island clearly from a distance, the plan would have been to arrive during daylight hours. Flight time from Lae to Howland Island was estimated at eighteen hours, so taking off in the early morning would not put the travelers at Howland Island during daylight hours. But taking off during mid-day would have meant a heating of the Lae airport surface and airspace, which would have reduced take-off performance and thus increased required take-off distance. These factors would account for the selection of 10:00 a.m. Local Mean Time (LMT) for take-off. Communications equipment aboard the Lockheed Electra 10-E consisted of a Western Electric supplied HF transmitter and receiver containing three preset frequencies (6210 kHz for daylight communications, 3105 kHz for nighttime communications, and 500 kHz for emergency communications), as well as a tunable crystal. A developmental series, manually operated, direction finding (DF) loop antenna was mounted above the cockpit on the external surface of the aircraft and was controlled by the pilot while she simultaneously flew the aircraft. Apparently, this DF receiver system was only capable of receiving within the band 200-1430 kHz (the radio logs indicate that Earheart requested transmission of reference signals of 7500 kHz as well as 3105 kHz and 6210 kHz, but reported that she could not receive an identifiable signal). Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were to be assisted in homing in on Howland Island (see figure 2) upon arrival in the area. They were to have the assistance of two communication teams, a United States Navy and a United States Coast Guard (USCG) team placed on the beach for that very purpose. The USCG Cutter Itasca stood offshore and served as local Command Post. Other preparations for assistance in landing consisted of two temporary runways that had been bulldozed into the sand by personnel from the Department of the Interior (it is not known if runway lighting was available in the event of a nighttime arrival from Lae). Information such as weather forecasts, winds aloft, and estimated cloud cover were supplied by the United States Navy facilities in Honolulu, and were augmented by observations made by personnel at Lae, Nauru Island, and the Coast Guard Cutter, Itasca. This information said little concerning cloud cover east of Nauru Island, the critical portion of the flight. There were no alternate airports identified in Earhart's flight plan and fuel on board would only be sufficient for the 2200+ nautical mile flight (plus an estimated four-hour reserve at reduced power setting). And thus were the preparations for Earhart and Noonan's landing on Howland Island. But Noonan's Flight Plan estimate of time en route (ETE) of eighteen hours (ETA 2000 GMT or 0600 LMT) was in error by approximately one hour, twelve minutes (1h12m). At 1912 GMT (0712 Local Mean Time Howland)(3), Earhart reported to the USCG Itasca, "Must be on you now but cannot see you. Thirty minutes of gas remaining. Been unable to 'read' you by radio. We are flying at 1,000 feet." One hour later, at 2013 GMT (0813 LMT H.I.) Earhart is reported to have stated, "Line of position 157=C2=BA/337=C2=BA." Two minutes later she reported, "KHAQQ calling Itasca. Position [sic] 157=C2=BA/337=C2=BA. Will repeat this=20message on 6210 kHz. Wait. Listening on 6210 kHz. We are running North and South." The Itasca reported that the amplitude of the Lockheed Electra's five transmissions at 1815 GMT and thereafter were "good" to "very loud," confirming that the Lockheed was close aboard Howland Island and not headed off toward some clandestine activity. The 1930 GMT transmission by Earhart provides the best clue to readers concerning the probable source of failure of the DF procedure that was to have been executed between Earhart and the Howland Island based communication team. Earhart stated, "We received your signals [Itasca had sent a series of the letter A in Morse (CW)] on 7500 kHz but unable to get a minimum. Please take bearing on us and answer 3105 with voice." (Here, long dashes were sent on 3105 kHz for five seconds or so.)(4) Itasca did not receive any further calls, but Nauru Radio later reported that they logged transmissions broadcast on 6210 kHz (the correct daytime frequency) at 2033 and 2054 GMT. Radio logs of navigation activities indicate that, at least initially, the Earhart team was utilizing a sunline landfall procedure. At 1816 GMT, the time of Earhart's 100-mile call, the sun's height above the horizon at Howland Island would have been 07=C2=BA10' true azimuth 067=C2=BA, ETA at Howland Island would then be approximately 1854 GMT. Aircraft true heading would have been 074=C2=BA =C2=B1 drift correction angle. The sun would have been rising slightly to the left of the nose of the aircraft and would not have been observable from the navigator's station, given that he had to use the flat window in the side of the aircraft. (see footnote 2) In order for the navigator to be confident as to which side of the destination he is closing in on, the sunline landfall procedure utilizes an arbitrary turn off-coursesome number of minutes before expiration of the ETA. This, however, is under ideal visibility conditions, and uncertainty can be quite great if cloud cover during the final hours of the flight prevents the accomplishment of a good fix by the navigator. Ordinarily, the navigator would turn towards the approaching "limb" of the sun's line of position (the normal to the sun azimuth). In this case, Noonan would have turned to the north, as the sun would have been in a northerly declination at this time of the year. A maneuver to the left of track would have placed the sun on the right side of the aircraft so that it would not be observable from the navigator's station. According to Earhart's messages recorded in the communications log, no off-course maneuver was employed, only that they were circling at 1928 GMT. At 1955 GMT, Earhart states that they were finally employing the sunline landfall procedure, steering along the 157 /337 LOP. By this time, however, the sun's orientation with respect to Howland Island required the use of a line-oriented, 153 /333. This error could have introduced several miles lateral error at the time aircraft passed (if it did) abeam the island on one of its N/S legs. The Earhart transmissions from 1816 GMT through 2025 GMT were reported as strong and emanating from the northwest quadrant relative to Howland Island. At that time, Earhart and Noonan would have already utilized 2h25m of their estimated four-hour fuel reserve (5). It is difficult to imagine that with knowledge of their position in doubt, and a ship and shore party actively trying to help them, they would have departed for another group of atolls 300 miles away! Itasca logged its last reception from Earhart at 2031 GMT (but the message was uninterpretable). Nauru Radio reported that their last reception occurred at 2054 GMT. SUMMER 1967 Thirty years had passed from the time of Amelia Earhart's and Fred Noonan's "grand sortie." On July 1, 1967, at 0600 local time, in Lae, New Guinea, a new crew advanced the throttles of a restored Lockheed L-10 (see figure 4). The crew consisted of Ann Pellegreno as pilot, William Polhemus as navigator, Bill Payne as co-pilot, and Lee Koepke who was the owner and restorer of the aircraft (see figure 5). This flight would take Pellegreno to Howland Island via Nauru Island, sixty miles north of the direct Great Circle track between Lae and Howland Island. The landing strip on Howland Island prepared in 1937 by the United States Department of the Interior had long since disappeared and there were no facilities for servicing Pellegreno's aircraft. So Pellegreno's flight plan called for a refueling stop at Nauru, then a "flare-pot" take-off to over-fly Howland Island at the time of Earhart's planned arrival. There would be a brief period of maneuvering over and around Howland Island before continuing on to Canton Island some 300 miles to the southeast. Pellegreno's flight was timed to place her aircraft over Howland Island at approximately the same time of day on July 2nd, the expected arrival date of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. Pellegreno's navigator log shows time of arrival as 1936 GMT (Earhart, transmitted at 1928 GMT, "circling, trying to pick up island."). During one of the low passes across the island, Ann Pellegreno turned over control of the aircraft to co-pilot Bill Payne. She went to the rear of the aircraft where Lee Koepke (owner of the Lockheed 10 aircraft) forced the cabin door open against the slipstream enough to allow the release of a wreath commemorating the history-making effort of Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan. FOOTNOTES (1) Howland Island is a barren spit of sand resembling a pumpkin seed approximately 8,000 feet long, 3,000 feet or less in width and at highest elevation eight feet above sea level. (2) Roy Blay, an engineer with the Lockheed Corporation, states that Earhart's aircraft was not equipped with an overhead window or astrodome. After final modifications, the Electra was equipped with only one side window (in the aft cabin) with the "optically-flat" glass suitable for observing stars with a sextant. (3) This, according to a synthesis of the radio logs prepared by the Coast Guard and Navy personnel following the disappearance of the Earhart team. (4) The Lockheed Paper (see Footnote 2) states that the installed DF receiver equipment was limited to the range of frequencies 200-1430 kHz. If this were true, Earhart could not have achieved a null (bearing to transmitter) on 7500 kHz. Furthermore, 3105 kHz was the preferred night time frequency for communication. (5) W.L. Polhemus estimate. ION Newsletter, Vol 8, # 3, Fall 1998 http://www.ion.org/newsletter/v8n3.html Aviator/Author Polhemus Dies at Age 74 Major William L. Polhemus (USAF ret.), award-winning air navigator, engineer, author and former president of ION (1969-70), passed away on September 15, 1998. His fascinating article about the mysterious disappearance in the South Pacific of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan in 1937 appeared in the last issue, Summer 1998 edition, of this newsletter. Polhemus was a winner of ION's Weems, Superior Achievement and Burka Awards, and a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Navigation. He served 22 years on active duty in the military, flying as a Navy aircrewman on Curtis Helldivers and Grumman Avenger torpedo-bombers in WW II. While with the USAF, he served on B-26s as a navigator-bombardier in the Korean War, with the Military Air Transport Service over the North Atlantic, and with SAC as navigator-bombardier on B-47s and the mach 2 B-58 Hustler. He and his crew received the Earnest Harmon Trophy from President Kennedy for completion of the first supersonic crossing of the Atlantic and establishment of a world speed record of 3'19'' between New York and Paris. Polhemus and his crew were awarded the Mckay Trophy in 1961 for establishing three world records over a 2000-kilometer closed course originating at Edwards AFB, California. After his military career in the mid-1960s, he flew with AirCanada on DC-8s, and in 1967 he navigated a commemorative flight on a restored Lockheed L-10 over New Guinea, marking the 30th anniversary of the ill-fated Earhart-Noonan flight. http://www.ion.org/newsletter/v9n2.html Summer 1999 Newsletter RECIPIENTS HONORED AT ION AWARDS CEREMONIES USAF Maj. (Ret.) William L. Polhemus*, 1924-1998 In recognition of his outstanding accomplishments as a practicing navigator in supersonic aircraft and his contributions to the advancement of navigation. He was navigator on Ann Pellegreno's flight in 1967 that retraced the fatal around-the-world flight of Amelia Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:12:46 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Adcock accuracy Herman De Wulf asked: > What was the range of RDF equipment in 1937 ? Pan Am Adcock direction finders had a reported accuracy range of 1800 miles (3600 between 2). Bearing accuracy at 1000 miles was reported to be better than 1.5 degrees-pretty impressive for 1937 technology. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:41:07 EST From: Ric Subject: The Last Post(ings) I've sorted through the many postings submitted on the celestial navigation, running down the LOP, and offset threads and have weeded out those that have nothing new to say or should have been answered by the synopsis of Pohemus' experience that I just posted. Here is what's left: (Those who don't want to wade through it all are welcome to cut to the chase.) ************************************************************************* From Jim Tierney Sat. Mar. 23 For Mr. Gary La Pook-- Re--Noonan finding Pacific Islands-- To my knowledge-Noonan/PanAM never--repeat never --did a survey flight in the Pacific without first sending a construction crew to Midway/Wake/etc AND building a facility to install one of Mr Leuteritz's Adcock DF units.... Then and only then was the survey plane allowed to proceed..... If I am incorrect will somebody please correct me...... Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ************************************************************************* From Marty Moleski Sat. Mar. 23 > Unless you have a bubble octant or sextant. That's what the bubble does - > provides an artifical horizon. OK. And Fred had one with a bubble and a "preventer" without? LTM. Marty #2874 *************************************************************************** From Ric That's what we think. Nobody knows for sure. ************************************************************************** From Woody Sat. Mar. 23 Ric, Mr Polhemus is deceased. Woody ************************************************************************** From Ric May he rest in peace. ************************************************************************* From Gary LaPook >>From Bob Brandenburg > > For Gary LaPook > > Bob: My little "quiz" was designed to discover whether you had given more than > passing consideration to the specific physical operational factors that combined to > constrain Noonan's navigation options after sunrise on 2 July 1937. Serious > discussion of this topic, like most aspects of the Earhart mystery, requires > substantial research and analysis. Your answers suggest that you haven't made > that effort . I think most on the forum would agree that your postings show a > grasp of the elementary principles of celestial navigation. But getting from > there to the level of understanding needed for serious discussion requires more > than tossing around generalities and (mis)quotes from Weems. > >>From Gary LaPook >>and a "speed line" shot through the co-pilot's windshield. Bob: That would be interesting, since the windshield limited the vertical field of view to 11 degrees above the horizontal. Reply: I didn't realize that this information had already been obtained. I have located an electra at a nearby airport and I have been attempting to arrange a time that I could go out there and make this very measurement myself. I will keep trying and report back on what I find. > From Gary > It is also possible that he could have opened the door while in flight > > Bob: You apparently haven't thought through the mechanics of doing that. The > door opened outwards and was hinged on the forward side. That means Noonan would > have had to open the door against the pressure of the slipstream. > Reply: I had heard that he had a drift meter that he pushed out through the > opened door to take drift measurements. Was this information incorect? I flew a > jump plane for many years and I have also jumped out of many planes. Most had > Snohomish doors that pivoted up against the wing but I made several jumps from > unmodified cessna 182 s and had to push the door open against the slipstream, > you have to push hard but it is not that difficult. Noonan could prop it open at > that point. > From Gary > and it may be that the overhead hatch above the cockpit could also be > opened in flight providing a way to measure high altitude shots. > > Bob: The overhead hatch could not be opened in flight. Even if it could be > opened, this is a ludicrous suggestion. In order to use the A-5 octant, Noonan would > have to stand in the hatch opening with his upper torso, and the octant, fully > exposed to the slipstream. He would be hard put to stay in the aircraft, or to > retain a grip on the octant, let alone get any usable sights. Reply: Maybe, but I am looking at a picture of a navigator doing exactly that, taking an observation standing up with his head and shoulders protruding through a hatch in the top of a Fokker Tri-Motor in 1927. This is published on page 154 of "Most Probable Position, A History Of Aerial Navigation To 1941", Monte Wright, 1972. And a lot of early celestial was done from open cockpits including Chichester's flights. I have never taken sights from an open cockpit but when I was young and foolish I did some air to air photography from a Grumman Tiger. I had a another pilot flying the airplane and I slid the canopy back and stood up so I could take photos of the other plane over the top of the canopy and I don't remember ever being blown out of the airplane. I never lost the camera either and the pictures turned out good.. > Bob: The cloud base is very relevant. It has nothing to do with needing to see the > horizon to take a shot. It has everything to do with seeing the sun through the > gaps between the clouds. Even with 30 percent coverage, which the Itasca was > reporting, the bases would appear to merge into solid coverage when viewed from > below at a very shallow grazing incidence angle, which was Noonan's situation. > The likelihood of seeing the sun long enough to get a usable string of bubble > sextant shots as the Electra passed under the gaps between clouds is a dynamic > function of a number of factors such as cloud thickness; cloud diameter; cloud > spacing; the sun's azimuth and elevation angle; the vertical angle subtended by > clouds in the line of sight to sun; the Electra's speed across the gaps between > adjacent clouds; and the time required for Noonan to acquire the sun for each > shot, settle the bubble, make the shot, record the observed altitude, and > reacquire the sun for the next. You can't dismiss the dynamic complexity of the > situation with hand-waving generalities. Reply: To me 30% coverage means 70% uncoverage. I agree with you that the clouds on the horizon could merge to appear continuous which might prevent very low altitude sights but not after the sun had climbed say above 10 degrees. Do the trig. I drove to the airport today in my convertible a distance of 18 miles. The sky was 2200 feet broken, 4500 broken. I was in sunshine the whole drive with no interruptions. I also had no problem taking an observation of the sun with my new MA-2 sextant while flying in these conditions with my student in a cessna 172. The accuracy of the LOP was 6 NM. It was bumpy and the student was ----well, he was a student. > Bob: > 4). how much time FN would need for a string of, say, 10 shots to average the > sight, given that his octant didn't have an averager, and he had to write down the > altitude and time for each shot and then reacquire the sun for the next shot; > From Gary > Remember you only have to look at your watch at the beginning and at the > end so you only have to read the sextant and write down the altitudes not the time > of each shot. You use the mid point of the time for the average altitude. > > Bob: Sound practice requires logging the time for each sight, so that if the shot > sequence is interrupted and resumed the navigator knows the correct time to use > for the average altitude. Reply: Well several of the texts that I referred to said to do it the way I described it. Here are just two examples: "In this method an odd number of sights is taken and the time of the first and last sights averaged." Page 182 of "Aircraft Navigation Manual, H.O. 216, U.S. Navy Department Hydrographic Office, 1941. A table is include for illustration which shows 11 sights with only the time for the first and last sight. "The author's system when using a non-averaging instrument, is as follows....Note the even minute, and when the second hand comes around to it, start shooting. Record the observed altitude once every 15 seconds for two minutes and 15 seconds, each time causing the body to move out of coincidence a distance of several bubble diameters (up or down) and then realigning them. Thus ten sights are obtained...The mean time is obtained by adding one minute, seven seconds to the starting time." Page 109 of "American Air Navigator", Charles Mattingly, Chief Navigator Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 1944. *************************************************************************** From Ric I only included this one to remind everyone why I'm not going to post this stuff anymore. *************************************************************************** From Gary LaPook > From Alan > > Gary, I'm missing something. What is the basis for assuming the Electra was > 260 miles out on a 078 degree true course? And what is your basis for > assuming the track of the aircraft was at right angles to the sun line. > Finally, the advanced LOP will remain parallel to the original LOP regardless > of ANYTHING. That's just the way it's drawn. FN could have been on most any > Easterly heading and using what he thought was his ground speed he would > believe he was on the LOP drawn through Howland at his computed time. > > Alan Reply: My assumptions which I think are reasonable and well within bounds: 1. Noonan did a professional job of navigation realizing that he was playing for all the marbles. 2. He took celestial sights on a frequent basis recording all the data but not necessarily resolving each set of observations into a fix. The recorded data would be available if sights became unavailable later due to weather. 3. That he took course line observations and/or did produce fixes often enough to keep the aircraft an course within 20 miles between fixes. 4. That the accuracy of his fixes was 10 miles. 5. That the departure time from Lae was chosen so that the aircraft would arrive in the vicinity of Howland as soon after sunrise and therefor as soon after civil twilight as possible to allow for the most recent stellar fix possible and therefor the shortest period of dead reckoning to achieve the least possible DR inaccuracy. 6. That THEY thought that they had arrived close to Howland at 1912Z. 7. That civil twilight at Howland was 1724Z. 8. That civil twilight at their location was approximately 1740 since they were west of Howland. 9. That Noonan would continue to shoot stars until they were lost due to the brightening of the sky due to civil twilight. 10. That the last possible time to view stars was civil twilight although it may be possible several minutes later. 11. That if Noonan was able to shoot stars until civil twilight the airplane would only have another 1 hour and 32 minutes to fly before reporting "on you" at 1912Z. 12. That the airplane was making a ground speed of 130 knots which is probably a little high but is a conservative estimate as it leads to an OVER estimation of dead reckoning errors because it causes an overestimation of the distance covered. 13. That based on this the airplane was approximately 200 NM from Howland at the time of the last stellar fix. 14. To be even more conservative I assume that he could not get any sights in the last 25 minutes before civil twilight so his last fix was even earlier at 1715Z. 15. From 1715Z to 1912Z is approximately 2 hours and the aircraft would cover 260 NM in that time. Therefor the aircraft was located 260 NM from Howland at thetime of the last fix. 16. That the rumb line from Lae to Howland is 078 true which is only 1/10 of a NM longer than than the great circle and the great circle course is within 1 degree of the rumb line. Therefor the airplane was approaching on a course of 078 T. 17. That the error due to dead reckoning is the conservative number stated in H.O. 216 (1967) of 20 NM per hour plus 1% of the distance. I actually believe, however, that being an experienced navigator, Noonan's accuracy was much closer to the 5% of distance stated in "Weems." 18. Using the H.O. 216 number, that the inaccuracy of navigating from the last fix 260 NM to Howland was 43 NM being 20 NM per hour times 2 hours plus 2.6 NM (rounded to 3) which is 1% of the distance covered. 19. That the accuracy of the last fix was 10 NM. 20. That combining the fix error of 10 NM with the 43 NM of DR inaccuracy that the inaccuracy of the DR at Howland would be 53 NM. 21. That at the time of the last fix of 1715Z that AE had been unable to obtain any radio bearings form Itasca and that she believed that she should have been able to obtain such bearing prior to that time. 22. That even if they had planned to use radio bearings as the primary way to find the island and that celestial was only to be a backup, that in light of the failure to obtain bearings up to the time of the last fix that Noonan went to the backup and planned an "offset" or "sun line land fall" approach to Howland which could be abandoned if radio bearings were subsequently obtained. 23. That he planned for an even greater and therefor more conservative possible inaccuracy in the DR by plotting a course that would intercept the sun line LOP to Howland 60 NM north-northwest of Howland. From the last fix 260 NM out on the 078T course to Howland that this required a turn to 065T. 24. After sunrise Noonan continued to take sun observations on several occasions to refine his interception of the LOP. 25. That Noonan pre computed the altitudes of the sun using Howland as the assumed position and plotted the results on graph paper for later use with a line connecting the points so that the computed altitudes could be ascertained by reference to this graph for any intermediate time. That he made the graph cover the time period starting at sunrise of 1746Z until 2400Z or what he had calculated to be "tanks dry." That Noonan most likely did this pre computation while still at Lae but, if not, he completed it early in the flight. 26. That Noonan knew that the moon would be available in the vicinity of Howland at their time of arrival so he made a similar graph for the moon while in Lae or early in the flight in case he needed it. 27. That considering that their lives were at stake that Noonan and Earhart would do whatever was necessary to obtain the necessary celestial observations including, but not limited to, standing on his head, slipping the airplane, climbing over the fuel tanks, trading seats in the cockpit, propping the door open, and turning the airplane to any heading. Those are the assumptions so far. I know that there is an inconstancy in assuming a distance from Howland at the time of the last fix of 260 NM then having the plane fly an offset of 60 NM to the left and still arriving at Howland at 1912Z since the track would have to cover 310 NM. This is a conservative set of assumptions since is overestimates the DR error. If in fact the fix were closer to Howland Noonan still could have used the 60 NM offset by flying a different heading. I did not state that the airplane HAD to fly at right angles to the LOP although it could if appropriate. I did use that as a simplified example in an earlier post. The heading chosen would be whatever was necessary to intercept the LOP at the distance chosen to exceed the maximum possible error in the DR. Based on the above assumptions that heading would have been 065T which just by chance happens to be only 2 degrees from the azimuth of the sun. **************************************************************************** From Ric 27 assumptions and an untestable hypothesis. *************************************************************************** From Claude Stokes For Marty Marty,, I think Ric answered your question on the horizon. I dont think FN had a bubble sextant and required a good horizon, but I dont think the horizon was a problem. It seems like that seeing that exact moment of the upper limb on the sun was what FN was interested in most. Clouds could have been a serious problem for that. Question: Didnt FN have a passion for a time window of departure from Lae, and also a passion for getting his clocks timed correctly with GMT?? What Im thinking is this. There was something special about the sunrise for FN and he wanted to be sure he had sunrise just prior to reaching the longitude for Howland. If so,, was the upper limb of sun rise a magic bullet for navigation?? It seems like that when you see that exact upper limb of the sun several things happen. (1) you dont need a sextant to shoot an angle cause the angle is zero. all you need to do is mark the time,, look up the tables for GMT on the same event,,and bingo,, you will know the time difference from where you are, to the prime meridian. (2) At 15 degrees per hour dosent that give you your exact Longitude?? Now if you point the nose of the electra exactly at the same spot of sunrise,, wont that give you a magnetic heading to the point of sunrise, and , if you also know what the magnetic heading from Howland to the sunrise is, will that not tell you if your north or south of the ground track for Howland?? If the exact magnetic heading from Howland to the sunrise is say 78 degrees,, and your heading at the sunrise is 70 degrees,, then wont that tell you your south of your intended track?? In other words if you extend the magnetic heading from the sunrise through Howland and on down range,, isnt that the ground track you want to be on.?? Ha Ha if Im way out in space on this then a size 12 boot fits my butt just fine,,,, The window of departure from Lae provides that all of the night time sky is availble for star shots,, realatively smooth air,, and also that the sunrise event is very close to the intercept of the 176 degree longitude Its kiinda spooky thinking that the rising sun was an important item for AE and FN in light of later events during 1939 until 1945. This same area was under domination by the rising sun clan. The fickle finger of devine interference???? *************************************************************************** From Ric There's a town called Rising Sun, Maryland about 30 minutes from here. Probably has an emperor instead of a mayor. *************************************************************************** From Doug Brutlag For Gary LaPook, Just finished reading your postings on the celestial debates. A few responses: Noonan using the marine sextant: The dip correction problem is the reason why one would not want to use the mariner's sextant in an aircraft and why they added an artificial horizon for the aviator's instrument. Chichester I believe did all his shooting from low altitude (1000 ft or less) in which the dip error would be minimal or acceptable. Above that it tears up accuracy too much. Noonan's use of the landfall technique: No one argues that the landfall technique could not find an island or wasn't part of a nav's training, but why would you even want to do it when DF had already come of age and in regular use? In Bill Grooch's (former Operations Manager for the early Pan Am) book SKYWAY TO ASIA, He comments on page 176 about an S-42 survey/training flight PA made across the pacific before the M-130 passenger runs were started. He writes " What do you think of our radio direction-finders?" I asked. "Do they click?" "They're swell'" he (Capt. Sullivan) he answered. " We gave them a real test on the return flight from Midway to Honolulu and they were 100%. Right after we left Midway we pulled the hood down in the cockpit and flew blind all the way. The direction-finder at Midway gave us our bearings for the first half of the flight and the Honolulu base held us on course the rest of the jump. When we pulled up the hood we were right over Honolulu." "Suppose the radio compass goes haywire?(Grooch)" Sully(Sullivan) grinned "Oh, the navigator (Noonan) wasn't blind. He knew where we were every minute. If we'd got off course he'd have stepped in with the drift indicator and his celestial navigation. But he didn't have to tell us a thing." (DF worked like a charm-my statement) "That was a good workout," I (Grooch) said. "You'll need a direction-finder when you start looking for Wake Island. It's about as big as your hand." BTW, Wake is a 6.5 sq. km atoll-Howland is 1.6 km in area. Do you still think Noonan would want to try to find this place without primary choise being DF steer? Previous to this PA had just finished the pacific bases and installed (you guessed it) DF equipment at San Fran, Honolulu, Midway, Wake, and Guam. The pacific survey flights were purposed to train pilots, navigators, radio operators, and ground pounders handling the aircraft. It is quite evident from Grooch's statement (and other references from his book) that DF was THE primary means of pinpoint navigation to their island destinations. The navy went to a great deal of trouble,time, and expense to give AE & Fred a radio operator on Howland with DF equipment to give them the final steer to the island, but as we all know, it didn't work out that way. POINT: yes you can landfall your way to an island destination, I'll even give Fred credit that he knew how to do it, but the evidence does not support the contention that Fred was planning to do it that way. If I were a rated navigator (and I'm not-I am going to try for it though) I would regard the landfall as a redundant or secondary means of finding a destination if the DF I was counting on failed me for whatever reason. Of course that means the navigator must be prepared to do so in the event circumstances would dictate. That means having all the calculations pre-comped in advance ready to use at the first sign of trouble with the DF--NOT when things have already gone to hell in a handbasket, which in my opinion may have happened given her last words and the time spoken. I question any navigator however a whizbang he may could catchup to that point if one was already behind the curve in accessing a bad (horrible in this case) situation. Noonan's 10 mile accuracy with his sextant was when he was navigating S-42's & M-130 flying boats. They had the means to get good celestial fixes by design & visibility and were large stable aircraft. The Electra was probably a stable aircraft but my experience in the Twin Beech, a similar aircraft proved it to be a challenging platform from which to try and navigate. One question on my mind has always been why they didn't install an astrodome in the top of the fuselage for better shot capability with the vis factor. My Twin Beech (before it's demise) was an AT-7 navigator trainer and had the dome, making taking the shots 200% easier with 100% visibility available for shooting. Without it you are quite limited, so limited in fact that unless you want to turn the airplane around in the air, you will not be able to get 3 line fixes most (90%) of the time. You will be doing good just to get a 2 line shot. 2 line fixes are better than nothing but not that accurate. Absolutely not accurate enough to find a 1.6 sq. km rock in the pacific, again my opinion. And finally, again to harp on the A-7 vs the A-10 sextant. Gary and for that matter all the forumites, you gotta use this thing to know what I am talking about. Both are good accurate instruments, but the A-10 is simply an easier instrument to use because of it's lighter-half the weight of an A-7 ( and A-5) and the fact that the A-10 has the convenience of a built-in averager. You can hold the A-10 as easy as your camera, the A-7 holds like 6 lb fishbowl in your hand and you have to look down into the eyepiece away from the object you are shooting, unlike the A-10 where you are facing horizontal in the direction of your target. Makes a BIG difference, trust me. Ric, here's an idea you can feel free to try or trash. If you ever decide to have a TIGHAR convention and I can swing the time off to get there, I make this offer to all comers: I will bring both the A-7 and A-10 sextants and let you take your best shot- literally! I will give each and everyone who desires to experience taking one LOP with a real aircraft sextant of model and vintage of AE era, a chance to do just that and see for themselves the trials & tribulations of being an air celestial navigator ( this will be done ground level of course). Everyone who participates will agree to make a donation up front to the NIKU V fund of $25 ( my fee being gratis), and in addition to the experience, I will give each donor/participant a copy of a navigator's universal plotting sheet showing the results of your LOP shot, suitable from framing! I did this at the 1996 Oshkosh airshow for Linda Finch and will do the same for TIGHAR to help fund the next expedition, as well for fun & education for all. Ric, waddya say? Any forumites interested? Doug Brutlag #2335 (what may I have gotten myself into-Oh well I am a sucker for good causes) *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Doug. Sounds like fun. *************************************************************************** From Gary LaPook > From Bob Brandenburg > > For Gary LaPook > > My little "quiz" was designed to discover whether you had given more than passing > consideration to the specific physical operational factors that combined to > constrain Noonan's navigation options after sunrise on 2 July 1937. Serious > discussion of this topic, like most aspects of the Earhart mystery, requires > substantial research and analysis. Your answers suggest that you haven't made > that effort . I think most on the forum would agree that your postings show a > grasp of the elementary principles of celestial navigation. But getting from > there to the level of understanding needed for serious discussion requires more > than tossing around generalities and (mis)quotes from Weems. Reply: I am gratified to find that I have finally developed "a grasp of the elementary principles of celestial navigation" since I started shooting celestial fixes in 1967 which is only 35 years ago and I taught a course in celestial navigation at the University Of Illinois in the early '80s.. Just think what the next 35 years will bring! Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. Gary LaPook *************************************************************************** From Ric Stick around and you may learn something about historical investigation. ************************************************************************** From Gary LaPook >> From Doug Brutlag >> >> Doug: He had planned on getting the Electra close enough to pick up the DF >> steer from the radio operator on the island but as we all know never got it. > > Response: I don't agree with this statement at all, although many seem to > believe it on the forum. Additional response: You guys have convinced me that I was wrong. After more thought on this I must admit that it made sense that they had planned to use DF as the primary way to find Howland. It has the advantage of being convenient to use so the pilot could do it herself. But its main advantage was that it gets more accurate the closer you get to the destination as its error is measured by the number of degrees of uncertainly, the closer you get the smaller and smaller the lateral error becomes. It is like flying down an ILS. In contrast, celestial has a fairly constant error of about 10 NM and dead reckoning gets less and less accurate the farther you fly away from the last fix. That said, it seems logical that they planned to have the "landfall" procedure as a backup. Noonan would have known that in the event of a failure of the radio that the landfall procedure was accurate enough and adequate to bring them safely to Howland. If it couldn't it wouldn't be a backup. When you skydive you wear two parachutes so if the primary on fails you can land safely under your backup. The reserve parachute may not have all the high performance of the main but is designed to be able to land you safely. If it wouldn't then it wouldn't be a backup. And you always check your reserve parachute to make that it was properly packed by a licensed parachute rigger, that it was packed in the last 60 days as required by regulations, that the packing card is signed by the rigger and that the seal is not broken before you get in the airplane. You have to know that your backup will work if you need it because if you do need it, you will need it bad. By the same analogy Noonan had to know that his celestial procedures were sufficient to get him to Howland with no doubt in his mind. He checked his chronometer before leaving Lae and in fact the departure was delayed a whole day to allow for this. If he were only planning to use celestial to get close enough to Howland to use DF then the chronometer error would not be nearly so important since it introduces only an error in longitude, not in latitude and if they are sure of their latitude they can be certain that they will pass close enough to Howland, either north or south since their course way mainly east, to pick up the radio signals. If they were a little early or late based on their computed longitude due to the chronometer error it would have little effect. Noonan knew that if he need this backup he would need it bad so you can assume that he was being careful and conscientious in his planning and procedures. Thanks for the input Doug. Gary LaPook **************************************************************************** From Ric <> Just like Polhemus. *************************************************************************** From Gary LaPook Thanks for the information Doug. What are the dimensions of the A-7, do you have an illustration or photo of it. Is it the same as a Pioneer octant with a knob on the top for adjusting the altitude like the Mark III and the Mark V? Is the difference between the A-5 and the A-7 that a recording disk is mounted around this knob onto which you make pencil marks? The reason I am asking is that Bob thinks the design of the A-5 would have prevented Noonan from taking any sights and I would like to be able to evaluate his position. Gary LaPook ************************************************************************* From Daryll Bollinger For Gary LaPook, Tom MM, Chris Kennedy, Oscar Boswell July 6, 1937 FROM: COM SF DIV TO : COLORADO, ITASCA INF : COM 12, COM 14, COMDESRON 2 8006 HELD CONSULTATION THIS DATE WITH PERSONS FAMILIAR WITH NAVIGATION METHODS OF NOONAN AND THEY STATE HE WOULD FOLLOW COURSE CORRECTING COURSES BY INFREQUENT FIXES PLANNING TO TAKE FIX JUST BEFORE DAWN AND THEN CORRECTING COURSE FOR DESTINATION DETERMINING LINE OF POSITION WHEN NEAR END OF ESTIMATED RUN PERIOD THIS PROCEDURE WOULD ALLOW FLIGHT OF ABOUT 300 MILES DURING MORNING WITHOUT GOOD FIX AND PROBABLE ERROR SHOULD NOT BE GREAT HOWEVER IF SHORT OF GAS IT WAS STATED HE PROBABLY WOULD FOLLOW LINE OF POSITION TO NEAREST LAND 2352 My interpretation of what was said in the communication follows; Since this communication originated from San Francisco the information must have came from Pan Am's Alameda station. 1. THEY STATE HE WOULD FOLLOW COURSE CORRECTING COURSES BY INFREQUENT FIXES -- This is normal celestial navigation. 2. PLANNING TO TAKE FIX JUST BEFORE DAWN -- This is logical for Noonan to take the last fix just before dawn. 3. THEN CORRECTING COURSE FOR DESTINATION -- This is where Noonan turns off his course line that he had plotted that would have led straight into Howland _if_ they had radio communication and DF information. At 0614 - 0615 AE asks for DF steers from NRU1 Itasca or (NRU2 Howland) when she thinks she was about 200 miles out. This was SOP for Clippers (Noonan) to make their initial call at 200 - 300 miles out and ask for DF steers to the station from an Adcock HFDF. 4. DETERMINING LINE OF POSITION WHEN NEAR END OF ESTIMATED RUN -- The sunrise was logged at 0610 (1740 Z) on the Itasca. The "estimated run" is another name for the hypotenuse leg of the off-set procedure. It takes the aircraft to an interception point on the LOP. This was NOT part of the flight plan and was not figured in for the ETA of 18 hours to Howland. The hypotenuse leg is non-productive in advancing the aircraft to it's destination but is intended only as a procedure to compensate for nav errors without help from radio communications or DF. This was also the procedure that was used on survey flights for Pan Am. 5. THIS PROCEDURE WOULD ALLOW FLIGHT OF ABOUT 300 MILES DURING MORNING -- Pan Am is saying that the off-set procedure can consist of 300 miles during the morning hours. We see only an additional 60 - 72 mins to the total flying time if the 18 hours expired at 0630 Itasca. The 300 miles could be from Pan Am's nav manual as a general procedure that was tailored by the individual navigator to the circumstances. Since Noonan and Gatty wrote the procedure for Pan Am then Noonan could tailor it to his needs. AE's last position report before the "WE MUST BE ON YOU..." at 0742 (1912 Z) was "...ABOUT ONE HUNDRED MILES OUT" at 0645 (1815 Z). I am assuming the 100 mile figure that AE quoted was spent on the LOP as the final inbound leg to Howland. 100 nm / 130 knots = .76 hrs or 46 min. Her 0742 report was 11 min. beyond the 46 min flight time. The ideal situation to compensate for navigational errors would have been for Howland to show up at the 50 nm mark after AE said "about one hundred miles out". If you use the 300 mile Pan Am figure as gospel, a hard and fast figure for calculation purposes, and if we work backwards from 0742 / 0730. 100 nm final leg + 200 nm hypotenuse leg ("estimated run") means that Noonan started his "estimated run" around 173 nm from Howland near the time he took his final fix before dawn. The calculated time that he would have done this would have been around 0510 Itasca (1640 Z). AE radioed something that was unreadable at 0455 (1625 Z) and missed her 0545 (1715 Z) broadcast time. The most compelling evidence that Noonan flew an off-set is the additional 60 - 72 mins in flying time that was beyond the calculated ETA of the flight plan at 0630. The 60 - 72 mins was the "estimated run" (Hypotenuse leg). If the "estimated run" (hypotenuse leg) was 200 nm, that would produce (200 nm / 130 knots = 1.53 hrs) or 92 mins beyond the ETA. Daryll *************************************************************************** From Ric You were doing great right up until you invented that nonsense about the "estimated run" being another name for the hypotenuse leg of the off-set procedure. **************************************************************************** From Chris Kennedy Ric, in an earlier posting you wondered what the fuss was about concerning whether Noonan used an offset. That's a fair question, and what I think may be the significance is that the use by Noonan of an offset into Howland could mean that Noonan was, first, able to determine a solution to the problem of not knowing whether he was north or south of Howland, and, second, when the flight executed the offset and turned onto the LOP, north or south of Howland, he would also know he was no more than "X" miles north or south. So, if he turned onto the LOP at a point say, 100 miles north of Howland, he would know that Howland was no further than 100 miles away. This being the case, then if the island wasn't seen after running the 100 miles or so, would the flight then continue running south to find other islands, or deploy some sort of search technique for Howland? I'll ask the pilots and navigators on the Forum to comment on that. I think, in all fairness, that you are concerned that use of offset by Noonan pretty much eliminates the LOP to Gardner theory. Actually, I don't think it does (which is one reason I keep mentioning the mapping error, spotting difficulties, etc.), but I think it's also fair to say that use of the offset technique indicates that the flight had a lot more confidence in its position, both east and west AND particularly north and south of Howland, than the current TIGHAR LOP to Gardner hypothesis assumes. I hope this helps---I submit it in good faith. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Chris Kennedy Hmmm, after looking at this posting again my example of "100 miles" confuses rather than helps. Sorry, my fault. Perhaps the best way to think of it is that if Noonan used offset to place the flight at a point which put it clearly, say, to the north of Howland, it might be a fair assumption that he likely had a good idea to begin with as to the boundaries of his original margin of error north/south of the island (e.g., before he offsets he knows that he's no more than up to "X" miles north or south). Otherwise, how would he know how far to offset? He would then plot an offset to accommodate this margin of error and also put the flight clearly north, and then a run down the LOP to find Howland a number of calculated miles based upon both his offset and original margin of error. If the island didn't appear, would the flight continue running down the LOP or do something else? I think it is a fair statement that IF Noonan used an offset it's a good indication that the flight had more confidence in its north/south position than the LOP to Gardner theory assumes. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric A. No one will ever know whether or not Noonan used an offset. B. Whether they found Gardner by clever contingency planning or plain dumb luck doesn't matter. There is more than enough evidence suggesting that they reached the island to justify further investigation. These threads are now dead. If there are any among you who want to continue the debate among yourselves I'll be happy to provide individual email addresses so that you can continue your discussions. If you reach a point where you think that you have learned anything new about the events of July 2nd you can submit it as a posting. If it's just more opinion I won't post it, but if you've actually come up with something in the way of new facts about the Earhart flight I'll be happy to put it out for the forum's review. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:19:12 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: CB Paxton Interesting about Paxton insisting AE's call letters were KHABQ, which, according to Dwiggins, was the call assigned to Amelia's Vega, which she flew from Honolulu to Los Angeles in January, 1935. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Lovell agrees. AE's call sign for the Honlulu/Oakland flight in the Vega was KHABQ. Very interesting indeed, but I have no idea what it means. Was Paxton's hoax research outdated? In her desperation did AE mispeak herself and use her old call sign? In any event, it's not a random misunderstanding. One of the things we learned at a seminar we held at the Smithsonian many years ago (when we were trying to evaluate anecdotal evidence associated with Project Midnight Ghost) is that most folklore tends to evolve to become more logical and accurate to known facts, because people want to be believed. Details in a folktale that seem illogical or are known to be inaccurate, but persist anyway in the story, deserve special attention because they are likely to represent original information from the core event. A good example is the "young Irishman" in the Floyd Kilts story. *************************************************************************** From Cam Warren Angus Murray tells us - > . 15525 KCs (15.525 Megacycles) was the lowest feasible harmonic. Strange indeed! I always thought the first harmonic of 6210 was 12,420, hence "near 13 mc" 9315 kc would be the THIRD harmonic of 3105; "between 9-10 mc." Unlikely reception on those frequencies, in either case, but (theoretically) possible. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg The harmonics of AE's frequencies, in sequence (fundamental, 2nd harmonic, 3rd harmonic, etc), in MHz, are: 3.105, 6.210, 9.315, 12.420, 15.525, etc. 6.210, 12.420, 18.630, etc. If Paxton is correct about the frequencies, and if she actually heard AE, then she heard the signal on 9.315 MHz (the 3rd harmonic of 3.105 MHz) or on 12.420 MHz (which could be interpreted as "near" 13 MHz. The Paxton frequencies aren't near the frequencies on which Betty could have heard AE. Recall that Betty didn't remember what frequency she was listening on, but she did remember approximately where the dial pointer was positioned ("about an inch to the right of dead center"). After we had determined which model receiver Betty was using, we knew that her recollection of the dial pointer position corresponded to the 18MHz to 25 MHz region on the dial. But it's interesting to note that if AE was transmitting on 3.105 MHz, and if her transmitter was splattering harmonics as we suspect, it might be possible for there to have been detectable signals on more than one frequency, with Paxton hearing a signal on 12.420 MHz ("near" 13 MHz?), and Betty hearing a signal on 18.630 MHz. Mike Everette is our resident expert on the design of AE's transmitter, so I'd like to defer to him on the feasibility of a harmonic splatter match that would make this hypothesis work. Mike? Bob Brandenburg #2286 ************************************************************************ From Woody Angus, Where did you get those statements that you attribute to Nina Paxton? Woody ************************************************************************* From Woody Alan, Yes I copied the entire file that resides at the Nimitz Museum. If you would like a copy email with a mailing address and I will send you one. For everyone on the Forum, the documents and tapes that Mr. Goerner left to the Chester Nimitz Museum in Fredricksburg, Texas are readily available to anyone with a legitimate research request. You must call and let them know a week in advance that you would like access to the files. They have to assign a docent to you for security reasons. The docent will do any copying that you need for a minimum charge. All they ask is that you credit the museum for any information from the files that you use . Woody ************************************************************************* From Angus Murray >> Nah. If the airplane is on the beach slope the water is not going to get >> anywhere near it under normal conditions. It's it on the reef it's on level >> ground and the cockpit is high above even high tide. Knee deep water could >> refer to the water level out on the reef or possibly in the rear cabin. Let us suppose a scenario where Noonan gets injured, the plane has a "broken wing" and water is "knee deep". First, you don't tend to talk about water knee deep unless you are knee deep in it. Noonan injured and a broken wing probably means a bad landing. A broken wing means something similar to a ground loop. For the wing to break, it has to touch the ground and it would most likely break at the junction of the outer wing and the main spar just outboard of the engine. Touching the ground would also be consistent with a collapse of the port undercarriage. The aircraft ends up much closer to the reef but the battery is still accessible from underneath and can be transferred to the fuselage. The starboard engine, with gear intact, is still high enough to run to charge the battery.At high tide the water in the aircraft is then knee deep. An alternative scenario is that the gear on both sides collapses but the auxilliary battery is pressed into use by jury rigging,. ("watch that battery"). Once again the water is knee deep. In either scenario, there is plenty of scope for the buoyancy of the aircraft to cause it to be rapidly further damaged by surf action and for taxiing to be out of the question. This latter scenario would, however, be somewhat constrained by the short battery life associated with transmitting without charging. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric It's a possible scenario but unnecessarily complex. Airplane is parked on reef. Tide is rising and the water in the aft cabin is knee deep (as it easily could be approaching high tide at Niku with a little surf running). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:35:55 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner > From Ric > > Why would't you say that the castaway's rather obvious non-reliance upon > coconuts (which you say must have been available) is a strong indication > that he or she lacked the expertise to use them? As for the shoes, > Gallagher found only remnants. How much of the shoe may have been present > at the time of death is unknown. We also cannot say with any certainty > that the castaway was naked just because no clothing was there when > Gallagher arrived. I have already suggested in the past that the castaway may not have had the ability to open coconuts, therefore suggesting he/she was probably not Polynesian. I'm simply pointing out that as you said in an earlier reply - water doesn't hang around on Niku after rain, rather it evaporates pretty much while you watch. Remnants of shoes indicate that at least the shoes were useable by the castaway at the time of death. That doesn't suggest he/she lived very long. Gallagher not only didn't find cloth, he searched for buttons, rings etc and didn't find those either. Both Noonan and Earhart had a considerable number of buttons on their clothes. Maybe the castaway wasn't naked, but it would appear he/she was close. I know what we have at the 7 site, I'm just trying to remind us of what we don't have to balance things out. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric I agree that shoes do not last very long on Gardner, but how long is very long? Days, weeks, months? Does the presence of totally worn out shoes mean that the person died as soon as the shoes wore out? Or could there be remnants of shoes at a campsite long after the castaway had fashioned some other way to protect his/her feet (or been forced to go barefoot)? One of the most puzzling artifacts we found at the Seven site was a piece of black asphalt siding or roofing material (there's a whole unused or partially used roll at the site) that had been folded over and there was (or rather, still is) a dense tangle of little roots between the folds which gives the impression of functioning as padding. This could be simply a folded over piece of material and the "padding" grew there naturally, or it could be the remains of a crudely fashioned sandal. We don't know when the siding arrived at the site or where it came from, but we did find a small piece nailed to the side of the radio shack up in the village. Obviously, the material was known to, and used by, the villagers, but did they salvage it from the old Arundel site (as a castaway might have?) or was it construction material brought by the British or the Coast Guard? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:43:29 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: coconut experiment >> From Ric >> Water may not swirl the opposite way Down Under but apparently logic does. >> We've discussed at length both the drought and the difficulties that >> uninitiated Europeans have with coconuts and you still can't let go of >> the idea that a castaway would stay near the coconut trees. You're desperately thirsty and can't find fresh water. You see coconut palms during your search and investigate. You find a coconut, pick it up and feel/hear water sloshing about inside. Would you throw the thing away, or look at the only tools at hand, rocks, sticks, whatever else is available on Niku in 1937. The N.C. survivors had no trouble finding the things, but they had lifeboat axes to open them. I have an almost unlimited supply of 10-50 year old palms and can collect fallen nuts daily. BTW I hate drinking coconut juice, but I'm interested to know how you'd go about trying to open the things without cutting tools, and never having seen them opened before. Anyone familiar with how a coconut is structured but not familiar with the usual technique for opening them without modern tools is welcome to offer suggestions. If Ric doesn't see any relevance and wants to keep this off forum, suggestions can reach me by email. As tools we have rock(s), shells, bits of broken glass, bits of Norwich City (they may be a bit big to carry) sticks etc. We don't have knives, screwdrivers, hammers etc. As a matter of interest, what is the rock like on Niku? Are there any fairly hard rock ledges or chunks of rock big enough to use as tools? The experiments will be carried out at a local beach using whatever objects people suggest and will be timed. On those days I will try limiting myself to the amount of fluid I managed to get from the nuts to see if it is practical. The method will have to involve as little physical exertion as possible as I will be very weak and tired. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric There is no rock on Niku. Only coral. But there are plenty of ledges and big chunks. I remember being a kid of maybe 13 on a vaction in Florida and deciding that I was going to open a coconut I found on the ground because I could hear the "milk" sloshing inside. I could not get the thing open until I found a hatchet and then, when I did manage to crack it open, all the liquid just ran out on the ground. No harm in experimenting but don't get carried away with the realism and hurt yourself. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:42:52 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Drought on Gardner >> From Ric >> >> We've discussed at length both the drought and the difficulties that >> uninitiated Europeans have with coconuts and you still can't let go of >> the idea that a castaway would stay near the coconut trees. I'm trying for a scenario that allows our castaway to spend long enough at the 7 site to leave obvious signs of life and not die of thirst immediately. Ok, so I started the castaway coconut experiment on my own. I tried to imagine I was thirsty and I had never seen a coconut opened before. To make it fair, the only tools I allowed myself for the first attempt were the rock I was standing on and my fingers. It took 16 minutes, and left me with a pile of coconut fibres that would make a nice, if rather itchy pillow filling. Bearing in mind that the current state of my health means I am probably no fitter than a castaway would be after a couple of days with little food I would say that I'd get the husks off 6 nuts (enough water for a day's drinking in tropical conditions) in a couple of hours, based on the fingers getting tired. Now, I haven't even touched on possible tools, so I'm still interested in suggestions of things the castaway might have used as well as fingers. I'm assuming there is either a sizeable chunk of rock within walking distance of coconut palms, which would allow the removal using fingers. Looks like coconuts might be back on the menu for a European castaway. As they are difficult to carry I'd say if the castaway found nuts (the N.C. survivors did after a very short exploration) he/she would have only carried them far enough to open them and fill the bottle and drink from some of them. This allows for the castaway to have had access to sufficient water to live long enough to make the tracks at the 7 site, and still be a European! It still leaves the source of the castaway's water some distance from the coconut palms (2 miles or so to the closest). After the husks are removed the castaway could carry a few nuts tucked into a shirt (except that our castaway apparently wasn't wearing one and no nuts were found at the bone discovery site). Ric says that walking from Nutiran down to the 7 site and back daily is not practical. I'm suggesting that for the castaway to have lived long enough to cook, eat and make tracks at the 7 site he/she had to get water from somewhere, so it must have been possible. Walking along the coral rubble beach was obviously not the thing to do barefoot, but the castaway had "stoutish walking shoes". What is the ground like away from the beach or even near the lagoon shore? Is there anywhere that there is sand or soil to walk on rather than coral rubble? Remembering of course that there was a belt of impenetrable scrub (scaevola back then?) between them and the nearest coconuts. What is it really like crossig the two passages at low tide? Are the sharks potential maneaters or just reef sharks that come in for a nip? Even a nip from a 4 foot shark can be nasty. Maybe the castaway died as a result of a shark bite becoming infected. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric The juncture of land and water on the ocean beach is by far the best place to walk. The deep, soft sand of the beach is exhausting and, although the open buka forests are shaded and easy to walk in, they are broken by belts of impenetrable scaevola. Walking the lagoon shore means wading through the shallows (tiring) and clambering along coral ledges (dangerous). Fording Bauareke Passage at low tide is a piece of cake. Wading across Tatiman Passage means dealing with at least belly-deep water and curious reef sharks. Let's not forget the castaway's two hypothetical sources of drinking water besides coconuts - rainfall (rare but not necessarily absent) and casks left at the Norwich City provisions cache. Of these three theoretical sources, two require the castaway to periodically visit Nutiran, so that would appear to increase the chances that there was some degree of back and forthing. It is also worth remembering that the Arundel structures were also on Nutiran. It's rather an odd situaton when you think about it. The island's only obvious non-indigenous resources (coconut trees, the shipwreck and provions cache, and the Arundel structures) are on Nutiran and yet the castaway is hanging out, apparently for long enough to leave trails and cosnderable garbage, way down at the Seven Site. There must have something very attractive about that part of the island. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:47:10 EST From: Mike in Richmond Subject: Re: KHAQQ >> Interestingly, in 1968 she wrote that KHAQQ "was not the letters >> used" in her SOS msg, but used KHABQ. She insisted this was the >> true call letters though out her correspondence. What happens if one assumes what they say they heard is exactly what was said? Who belonged to KHABQ, MJ3B, HAQQ and WHAQQ? And whose was WOJ3Q? Mike in Richmond *************************************************************************** From Ric KHABQ was Amelia Earhart in 1935. That can not be coincidence (well, yes, of course it CAN be coincidence, but you know what I mean). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:01:25 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Mili, tanks and Gardner. I was interested to note that Paxton mentions Tarawa and that she said AE believed the island was part of British administered New Guinea. What possible reason might AE have for believing this and for mentioning Tarawa in the context of Mili? I wonder if there was a possibility that the tank ( labelled POLICE TARAWA) at the seven site was actually taken there by AE/FN after finding it on some other part of the island. The seven site then becomes a more survivable site, with rain catchment and/or storage facilities. The benedictine bottle becomes a useful way of removing water from the tank to drink and carrying it on forays. The word "Police" is actually a fairly international word but AE would have recognised it as English since in the languages known to most people of American origins (German, French, Italian) the word is significantly different. Although they would probably have found the English language associated with the Norwich City (including the ship's name) and its campsites, they would most likely have realised that these were a red herring as to the administration of the island. The "tarawa tank" on the other hand, would be seen to be of local origin and the conclusion on British administration known or drawn. They may of course have very well known that Tarawa was in the Gilberts and imagined that they must be in the Gilberts. Tarawa is 1800 statute miles from Lae (cf Paxton: 1800 -1900 miles from Lae). A possible source of this tank is with the Ellice islanders who may have brought it with fresh water to the island to assist the crew of the NC. The tank obviously has origins associated with officialdom and one notes that the rescue was aided by Allen from Apia (not far from Tarawa). (I assume that Apia was not the one in western Samoa). It would be a useful exercise to trace the tank manufacturers and find the earliest date that tanks of this design were made. From memory, this was in London. A Strontium 90 test on the coconut halves found in the tank would also be useful. What about Mili then? There is a simple explanantion here. AE and FN were, according to Betty, on the radio together. If Noonan referred to Amelia as MEELIE, (cf MARIE) the confusion could easily have arisen. Paxton admits to looking at maps and there is every chance that the association with Knox, Klee passage and Mulgrave were her own interpretations based on her certainty that Mili was where AE was. The reference to another island with small trees may be a reference to Gardner as seen from the reef. This would suggest a landing site at the south east of the island where trees cover perhaps was less. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric There are several tanks in the village just like the one at the Seven Site. Although I don't recall that they specifically say Police Tarawa, other markings are similar. I think that getting the Seven Site tank to the island before the colonial settlement is a real stretch, and then you'd have to explain why Gallagher didn't happen to mention a big ol' tank with Police - Tarawa written on it. I don't know any reason to assume that "Allen from Apia" was not from Apia, Western Samoa. Your speculation about Mili and Meelie is interesting, although I've never heard that Noonan called AE by her childhood nickname. In his letters written durng the flight he refers to her as Amelia. In Earhart's original notes on file at Purdue, AE refers to Noonan as "Freddy" early in the World Flight but he soon becomes "Fred". Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:17:05 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Herding cats << Steering the forum is like herding cats >> Well, as long as the cats are out of the bag and the Wild Assed Speculation (WAS) floodgates are opened, I'd like to discuss the hypothesis that the reason they didn't find Howland is because they were in the midst of settling the conflict between Amelia's latent lesbian tendencies and Fred's homophobic attitudes, which after brewing for 40 days and 18000 miles finally came to a head during the critical 20th hour of their overwater flight. It is absolutely certain that the "we're ****ing, but cannot hear you" message refers to joining the mile high club in a final and desperate attempt to settle their differences. No wonder they didn't hear anything.... It's bee so obvious all this time! Where does the WAS stop? Maybe we can't herd cats, but we can erect some fences to contain them. I still don't see that any navigational solution to the approach to Howland gets us anywhere. Offset, direct, DR, Celestial, whatever they used, they still didn't find Howland and whatever we suppose is still just WAS. We will never know unless we find Fred's notes someplace. We're not beating a dead horse, we're beating a phantom horse. I admit that I have no experience shooting sun lines, and while I admire the guys who can do this stuff, I can only follow a small amount of it with any real understanding. My eyes glaze over. Maybe we need to work the navigational approach to Howland out, and maybe something interesting will come of it, but does this have to be done on the Forum with it's resultant thousands of lines of text? OK, to be more constructive, let me suggest that the Celestial Choir Project be initiated and have those who have experience and expertise hash this out off line and come back with some sort of consensus as to the most likely scenario, and some alternates as the official TIGHAR position. Ditto the Time/Distance/Fuel Project. LTM (who's eyes are rolled up in her head) Andrew McKenna ************************************************************************** From Ric I've offered to put people who want to continue to go 'round and 'round about this in touch with each other, but so far, no takers - which makes me suspect that it's all more about performing for an audience than coming up with answers. My offer stands. If somone can come up with new information about what Earhart and Noonan DID do, instead of what somebody believes they MUST have done, I'll be happy to post it. There are probably a thousand hypotheses for how the flight might not have reached Gardner, but I haven't yet heard of one that is realistically testable. The hypothesis that they reached Gardner is testable and that's what we're doing, testing it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:20:14 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Noonan Competence Being a newby to this forum - One question please - Was Fred Noonan capable of the central pacific flight tasking he was asked to perform in July 1937? Tom Strang A new fly on the wall of this forum *************************************************************************** From Ric I guess the answer to that depends upon how you want to define his "tasking". If his job was to get the airplane with RDF range of Howland then, yes, he was clearly up to the task. If his job was to find Howland then it just as clear that he was not up to that task. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:29:50 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: more (?) fuel for the max endurance fire Has the entire 40 gallon contents of the 80 gallon 100 octane takeoff tank (Chater Letter) been accounted for in all the various fuel usage calculations? Do we know, for example, if there was some 100 octane laid in at Howland, or if AE would need to hold some of the 40 gallons that Chater says she left Lae with in reserve for the Howland takeoff? If there was 100 octane waiting at Howland, do we have any way of knowing if AE used up her 40 on the climb out from Lae? Or, if there was some of the Chater-Lae 40/100 held in reserve for a projected Howland takeoff, would it be usable, either by switching tanks in flight to prolong endurance during the LOP run, or to charge batteries for the radio whilst parked on the reef? I think that I've used quite enough numbers above, and I'll try to work in a star name somewhere. LTM, who wonders if Polhemus used a pelorus to see Polaris, Dave Porter, 2288, who hopes that being in such close numerical proximity to the great Bob Brandenburg will increase my understanding of all things navigational. *************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. I've never seen any reference to exactly what kind of fuel was waiting for her at Howland but it could be buried in the message traffic. Perhaps someone who has the CD would have the time to do a search. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:34:59 EST From: Les in Sierra Madre Subject: noonans 3rd class comercial radio telephony license I am afraid that I am just one of the many Lurkers that inhabit the outer fringes, however having read all of the forums notes and discussions for the last year -I have a question --It has been stated in the notes a while back that Mr. Noonan held a 3rd.class commercial radiotelephony certificate,and while employed with Pan Am used to stand in for radio operators now and again If this is true why did they not elect to communicate with the Itasca using Direct wave as this would have assured them of at least reaching someone. It's a possible scenario but unnecessarily complex. Airplane is parked on > reef. Tide is rising and the water in the aft cabin is knee deep (as it > easily could be approaching high tide at Niku with a little surf running). There's another equally simple explanation: Airplane is parked on reef. One of them got out of the plane (many possible reasons for doing so!). The water rises as the tide comes in, and at the time they get back into the plane to make the radio call, the water over the reef just outside the plane is "knee deep". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:49:09 EST From: Stuart in Santiago Subject: Re: coconut experiment I've seen coconuts opened with the modern "machete" technique, and I've drunk the "water" (not very appetizing, I thought!), but I've never tried to open one myself, so I consider myself to be pretty ignorant about the subject. I guess that means I'd be a good prospect for the experiment. In the absence of any tools or rocks, I guess I'd try bashing a couple of coconuts together as hard as I could, to see if I could crack one or both, or maybe try bashing one against a tree, the ground, or anything else hard that I could find close by. But I doubt if this would work, since those things seem pretty tough to me. Probably my next idea would be to try to find something sharp to make a hole in the coconut. Maybe a piece of broken glass, a large shell, a sharp piece of coral, a jagged chunk of metal. Just hack away at the nut, trying to cut through. I guess it would take a while, and unless I was very careful with the sharp object, I'd probably do more damage to my hands than to the coconut! However, we've been told that the rats and/or crabs do open the things regularly, so there would be ample evidence of this, from the number of "open and empty" nuts lying around. Maybe, in the end, I'd notice this, and just stick around to see how these nuts came to be opened. Once I figured that the rats/crabs were doing it, then all I'd need to do is to wait around quietly until a rat/crab had nearly opened one, scare off the creature somehow (throw something at it?), and finish the job myself, with my sharp object. If you are wasting away from lack of food and water, it seems smart to let someone else do most of the hard work for you, then just take over at the last minute, just before the get to drink the reward. Of course, I can think of all these ideas sitting here comfortably in my padded chair, well fed and with a nice cup of coffee in my hand. But I suspect that, out there on the "real" island, with real nuts, and very real thirst and hunger, I might not think so clearly... That's my 5 cents worth. ************************************************************************* From Claude Stokes Wed. Mar. 27 The way I opened coconuts as a Kid was to continuosly bang the pointy end on a hard surface (I used the concrete sidewalk in front of my house) and pretty soon (maybe 5 minutes) the outer husk will peel back and expose the nut.. then by force of muscle you peel off the husk to get at the face end where the holes are. you can also force the husk off by pulling it hard down over some kind of sharp object (maybe coral?) Its interesting to note that you dont attack the stalk (blunt) end,, you attack the pointy end,,Claude Stokes **************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt > ...that I was going to open a coconut I found on the ground because I could > here the "milk" sloshing inside.... Don't call it "milk" Denise'll getcha... (With apologies to Denise, I bet Ric wrote that deliberately..) BTW Suggestions are trickling in.... I might have to sneak out to one of the islands to test using coral, but so far the experiment suggests coconuts were on the available menu for a European, despite my earlier assertions to the contrary. Th' WOMBAT ( I was wrong AGAIN! ) *************************************************************************** From Patrick Robinson I don't understand all the discussion about coconuts...Did Amelia know how to open them ???...Could they have survived on coconut milk or water ??? We do not know the inventory list from the aircraft...They might have had the tools available or they might not...We just don't know... I have a suggestion for the forum...Why doesn't TIGHAR construct (and then sell) a video on how the navigation "might" have been done by Noonan ??? Include a short primer on how a sextant is used in aerial navigation and the how that relates to 157/337... LTM (who always enjoys a good video) Patrick (22xx) *************************************************************************** From Ric Not a bad idea, but first we need to do the Niku IIII documentary. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:55:35 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Amelia's Diary - A Flight Of Fancy... Another day. Awoke before dawn and wandered down to the point looking for fallen coconuts. Found seven and spent the next two hours opening them. Lucky I found that old bottle lying around. It holds the juice from three nuts. One I drink and two I bury for tonight when I return to camp. Getting sick of snacking on coconut but I guess it makes a passable desert. After filling my bottle and burying my spare nuts to keep them from the rats I set off around the point and head for a place I found at the other end of the island. If there were any coconut trees there I'd stay there, but with no water and no coconuts I can only stay during the day. It takes me a couple of hours walking slowly because the beach is all coral chunks and pretty hard to walk on. Once I arrive though it's like another world. There is some open space here and I can easily walk from the lagoon to the ocean and back. Once I found a turtle, and although I agonized over what to do I was starving and killed the poor thing. I have never forgiven myself for that, but the meat gave me strength and the juice was like chicken soup. I've also caught and eaten a few birds. The poor darlings are so tame. They just sit and look as I walk up and pick them up. The first I skinned with a piece of broken glass I found among the old huts near where I landed. I had to eat it raw. Later I found a lens from the sextant and discovered that if I focused it on dry coconut fibres I soon had a fire burning. Now I never go anywhere without the lens. I keep it and a few other little treasures in the sextant box. They remind me of people. People. There have been people living here, but it must have been a long time ago. I wonder if they were from the shipwreck. That can't be right. Where would they have got the building materials for the sheds. Then there's that funny little camp in the woods. The tins of water and milk and biscuits kept me alive for my first few weeks here. I tried to go explore the ship, but the current out near the edge of the reef is just too fast and it almost wrecked my shoes. Now I try to keep them dry because the coral cuts my feet so. There's a lovely shady tree in my special place. Some days I spend nearly all day lying there as a little breeze whispers through the leaves. Mostly though it is just too darned hot. I lie here under the shade so I don't burn, my clothes hanging in a bush because there is only salt water to wash them in and they chafe my skin. There's no-one to see me anyway. It's mid afternoon now and in a couple of hours the sun will hide from me. I shall leave for now and return to the top of the island so I can beat the crabs to the coconuts in the dawn's light. Tomorrow will most likely be a repeat of today. If I have the strength I might explore a little more. I'd like to move my camp to a place far away from the crabs and rats, but they seem to be everywhere. Some nights they wake me from my sleep, nipping me. I worry what will happen to me if one night I don't wake...... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Not bad. We could quibble about details but I think you've captured the tone. In all of our hassling about evidence and interpretations it's easy to lose sight of the fact that we're talking about an intensely human tragedy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:57:52 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: CB Paxton > From Cam Warren > > Angus Murray tells us - > >> . 15525 KCs (15.525 Megacycles) was the lowest feasible harmonic. > > Strange indeed! I always thought the first harmonic of 6210 was 12,420, > hence "near 13 mc" > > 9315 kc would be the THIRD harmonic of 3105; "between 9-10 mc." > > Unlikely reception on those frequencies, in either case, but > (theoretically) possible. My point was that this was the lowest feasible frequency for Betty, not for Nina Paxton. Ric asked how the frequencies compared, not if Nina could have heard the same transmission on a different frequency. I did in fact send an addendum to my original post which I reproduce below, but it hasn't been posted by Ric. Regards Angus. It occurs to me that Paxton may not have heard Earhart on the same harmonics as were feasible for Betty due to the different propagation paths and different antenna gains. 9.315 (3 x 3105) Megacycles and 12.420 (2 x 6210 & 4 x 3105) Megacycles might have a sufficient SNR on Paxton's propagation path but it would need to be computed as the present analysis ignores frequencies below 15525 KCs due to the low gain of AE's antenna in the St Petersburg direction at these frequencies and does not take account of Paxton's different antenna design. Since the latter, I assume, is unknown, we run into rather a problem. Regards Angus. ******************************************************************** From Ric Sorry. I must have somehow missed the addendum. The omission was not intentional. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:04:44 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Call signs Ric said: "KHABQ was Amelia Earhart in 1935. That can not be coincidence (well, yes, of course if CAN be coincidence, but you know what I mean)" Were call signs assigned to aircraft in the 1930s or could an aircraft owner request a specific call sign (kind of like vanity license plates today), assuming the requested series of letters and numbers are within the assigning authority's guidelines (i.e. "KHARG" versus "IMGD2"? LTM, Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric I think I am correct in saying that the call sign was assigned to the aircraft, or more accurately, the aircraft-based radio station - just as ships had call signs assigned to their radios. Itasca was NRUI, Colorado was NECR, etc. I don't think there was any such thing as a "vanity" call sign. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:05:44 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Mili, tanks and Gardner. The Seven Site tank also is (or was, before the top and bottom rusted off) real heavy. I'd guess at least 100 pounds empty. I can't imagine a couple of people schlepping it very far, and that's AFTER you somehow get it to the island before there's anybody there to bring it from Tarawa. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:18:05 EST From: Lawrence Subject: One site vs another I'm by all means no expert in the art of survival. However, if I were a castaway, there would be several necessities I would be looking for in a campsite. They are: A place out of the sun and wind, a source of fuel for a fire, fresh water, and food. Could the Seven Site provide all these luxuries? Thanks *************************************************************************** From Ric Everything but fresh water, but nowhere on the island will provide that. It falls out of the sky (if you're lucky). I would also want a place where I could watch the northern horizon for any sign of a ship. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:32:26 EST From: Mike VanHolsbeck Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner <> I had been thinking about that months ago and should have shared but thought I may be way off so I kept quiet. Yes, there were materials on the North western side of the island, but, only open waters in the distance. I know this is a stretch from watching a recent "castaway" movie, but then the Norwich City documents made me think about it again. The ships that came for NC survivors came from the east right? and there are islands to the southeast. Lets say you are searching the island for water/food/more signs of human activity (there is a bunch by the wreck, so I would look for more) One night off on the horizon, there were lights from a passing ship. Reason enough for a bit of hope and that bit of hope might keep me there as to not miss another sighting. I would have made a huge pile of anything that would burn and kept a fire going as a signal. Just a thought Mike in Lakewood CA ************************************************************************** From Ric Keeping a watch on a likely horizon seems like it would be a big priority. The beach at the Seven Site faces northeast. Samoa is south. Fiji is southwest. The Gilberts are northwest. The castaway is watching the wrong horizon. If someone chose that beach for that reason, then they were apparently expecting (hoping for) help to arrive from the northeast. What is northeast of Gardner? Nothing except Hawaii and the mainland U.S. Keeping a big fire going all the time would be a tremendous and, I would think, impossible job without tools and unlimited drinking water. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:51:24 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Drought on Gardner > From Ric > > The juncture of land and water on the ocean beach is by far the best place > to walk. The deep, soft sand of the beach is exhausting and, although the > open buka forests are shaded and easy to walk in, they are broken by belts > of impenetrable scaevola. Interesting, I walk on the beach for exercise every day. Until the week before last the temperature during my afternoon walks was around 100+deg F in the shade, whick made the going fairly tough in soft sand. Now it's down to 85 - 90 so it's comfortable going and not at all hot. (It's 8am as I write this and 80deg inside - a little chilly) The walk is exactly 2 miles and takes 45-55 minutes in my rather unfit state. The sand is up to ankle deep and coarse, whick means if it gets into shoes it rubs skin off, and if I am barefoot I sometimes have the skin under my big toes shredded from shell cuts. So, I walk as much as possible where wave action has packed the sand a bit... > Walking the lagoon shore means wading through > the shallows (tiring) and clambering along coral ledges (dangerous). > Fording Bauareke Passage at low tide is a piece of cake. Wading across > Tatiman Passage means dealing with at least belly-deep water and curious > reef sharks. I'd think our castaway might try that once - then find out about the sharks. I agree about the lagoon shore - you've been there. > Let's not forget the castaway's two hypothetical sources of drinking water > besides coconuts - rainfall (rare but not necessarily absent) and casks > left at the Norwich City provisions cache. Do we know (other than the suggestion about the corks on chains) that there were casks inthe provisions? The lifeboats had water tanks whick were removed, and may have had corks on chains as stoppers. The provisions seemed to be "tins" of water, "tins" of milk and "tins" of ship's biscuits. Given the descriptions of the N.C. crew's explorations I find it hard to imagine the castaway didn't find the Arundel site , the coconuts and the N.C. survivor's cache. Whether there was water at the cache in tins or casks, it would need to be supplemented. We know the N.C. survivors between them managed to get some water out of the pool, but I wonder how one person would go at teh same exercise. I wonder if the N.C. cache included a lifeboat axe? >Of these three theoretical > sources, two require the castaway to periodically visit Nutiran, so that > would appear to increase the chances that there was some degree of back and > forthing. It is also worth remembering that the Arundel structures were > also on Nutiran. > > It's rather an odd situaton when you think about it. The island's only > obvious non-indigenous resources (coconut trees, the shipwreck and provions > cache, and the Arundel structures) are on Nutiran and yet the castaway is > hanging out, apparently for long enough to leave trails and cosnderable > garbage, way down at the Seven Site. There must have something very > attractive about that part of the island. Maybe a sea breeze? Perhaps just feeling less "trapped" by exercising the freedom to spend the days somewhere a little further away from where they were forced to spend nights? A spirit of adventure? It may have just been a nice spot. Perhaps there was a better source of food there? I do have a very relevant question about the beach. Would I be correct in my belief that the south shore (from the wreck, past the two passages down towards the Loran station) or at least a good part of it, is made up of mostly coral rubble, and the north shore down to the seven site is mostly coarse sand with some coral distributed through it? In other words, if you were on the island and wanted to go for a walk, would you find the going easier on the north side? Reason for question? In the Kilts story, "They were about through and the native was walking along one end of the island. There in the brush about five feet from the shoreline he saw a skeleton...." Of course that in itself begs answers that can only be answered by someone who has been at the 7 site at high tide. Is there a Ren tree close enough to the beach (about five feet) for a skeleton lying under it to be visible to someone walking along the beach? Is such a spot close to 30 - 35 paces from the usual high tide level? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Wombats are obviously very tough but I'd like to know if anyone who has been to Niku disagrees with my opinion that forays from the Seven Site to the stand of cocos on Nutiran (there where we beached the skiff when we were working at the grave) would be an expedition for a castaway. Once a week maybe. Everyday? Forget it. Nobody in their right mind walks out on the beach "just to go for a walk" and the windward side beach is worst of all - steeply sloped and deep sand. In fact, the Gilbertese who have accompanied us are much less inclined to exert themselves than the crazy I-Matang who scurry around in the heat of the day. Photos show that, since 1937, the windward side of the island has "grown" seaward by about fifty feet. There are some old dead trees, possibly Ren, back in the bush which may have been on the edge of the vegetation line back then. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:37:16 EST From: Jen Subject: Off Topic - Boeing 307 loss Just FYI - thought it would be within your area of interest, nothing to do with AE or anything (at least not that I'm aware of) ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32847-2002Mar28.html *************************************************************************** From Ric Like Newton said, "What goes up....". The decision to return any old aircraft to service is a decison to sacrifice a historic property for the sake of having a more marketable replica and, at the same time, greatly increase the risk that the replica will be lost due to accident. The decision to rehabilitate, rather than restore and preserve, a last-of-type aircraft such as the Boeing 307 is a highly questionable call and, in my opinion, exemplifies a regretable further deterioration of the Smithsonian's standards. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:13:00 EST From: Jen Subject: Francis Carroll I was reading past forum postings and came across Francis Carroll. Did Nancy (Francis' daughter) ever find the ham radio logs? ************************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately, no. Terry Linley did get from Nancy copies of Francis' ham license confirming that his call sign was W40K (as written in Betty's notebook). However, Nancy has not been able to locate any of her father's logs. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:34:36 EST From: Bob Bradenburg Subject: Re: more (?) fuel for the max endurance fire I vaguely recollect some message traffic about fuel being prepositioned at Howland, or maybe it was oil, or maybe both. I'll have a look and get back to you. Bob #2286 ************************************************************************** From Ric There was fuel and oil at Howland, brought by Itasca. *************************************************************************** Randy Jacobson No mention of 100 octane fuel for Howland in any of the records. Remember, that the flight distance to Honolulu from Howland was significantly less than from Lae to Howland. Thus, the need for full fuel tanks that cause higher weight and thus higher octane for takeoff, is moot. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:46:34 EST From: Mike E. Subject: Re: Call signs >From Ric > >I think I am correct in saying that the call sign was assigned to the >aircraft, or more accurately, the aircraft-based radio station - just as >ships had call signs assigned to their radios. Itasca was NRUI, Colorado was >NECR, etc. I don't think there was any such thing as a "vanity" call sign. You are quite correct. Land based point-to-point or ship-to-shore or aircraft ground stations were assigned 3-letter call signs (WCC, WLO, KFS, KLC) while ship stations (and AM-band broadcast stations) had 4-letter call signs (NRUI, N being used by Navy/USCG; AAMR, A being used by Army stations; WABC, KGMB, W being used east of the Missisippi with KDKA Pittsburg being the sole exception, and K west of the river); aircraft used 5-letter call signs either W or K depending upon where the a/c was "domiciled." Broadcast stations were able to get "vanity" calls, such as WACO for Waco, TX, by the late 30s at least, if the call was unissued... but there were no vanity provisions for other services, at that time, that I am aware of. It was not till the 1990s that Amateur radio stations were able to get "vanity" calls, in general. And yes, the a/c call sign was assigned to the radio station aboard the a/c. All radio stations in all services are assigned a call sign ID. And supposedly, they are required to use it at least every day at sign on and sign off, but in practice many do not. (Law enforcement being one example, especially mobile stations, but these are often under a blanket "system" license with one call sign for all mobiles). LTM (who never has an identity problem) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Apparently, at some point, the airplane's registration number became its radio station call sign. KHAQQ would have become "Lockheed November Romeo 16020", but I'm not sure when that happened. "Vanity" aircraft registration numbers have been available for a long time. Sometime in the early '60s Paul Mantz changed the registration of his Lockheed 12 Electra Junior to N16020 in memory of Amelia. The airplane was later sold and crashed. The discovery that a Lockheed bearing Earhart's registration number had crashed years after her disappearance got the conspiracy crowd pretty excited. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:47:18 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Great balls of fire. A question for Tom King perhaps: A little while back we were speculating on the reason for several fire sites at the seven site. Could they have been signal fires? I was alerted to this possibility by "LIGHTS TONIGHT" ie more than one light, in one of the post loss messages. Are they at a location (eg the highest point in that area) where they could serve that purpose and do they form any recognisable pattern? Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:03:42 EST From: Mike E. Subject: A number of radio matters A number of questions regarding radio have come up lately. I'll try my best to respond to them. In the matters of: Noonan's radio license, if any: I have read that all crew members of the Clippers were supposedly cross trained sufficiently to be able to stand in for any other. (There was an article in Electronics Magazine in 1936 titled "Flying the Pacific by Radio" which I seem to recall says this). If so, Noonan would have had to have gotten a commercial radiotelegraph ticket, either 3rd or 2nd class. Period. But-- and this is pure speculation!!! -- that does not mean he could nave not HAD SOMEONE TAKE THE TEST FOR HIM. Would have been easy to do in the 30s as positive ID procedures were not nearly as complex as today's. And this was often done, too. Commercial radiotelegraph exams require 16 wpm Morse for the 3rd class, and 20 wpm text, 16 wpm coded groups (5-letters or figures) for the 2nd. Been there/done it/got the shirt (2nd). It ain't so easy that just anybody can do it. And it's not like current ham license exams, because the commercial test requires PERFECT copy. Knee deep water, water in general: If the a/c was in water, it could NOT have transmitted. The antenna feed point (feed thru insulator) was on the LOWER part of the aft fuselage. Had to be clear of water for the radio to work. And if sea water gets to the batteries -- ZAP. Plus they will generate a poisonous gas when salt water gets to them. Harmonics: The two high frequency channels of the transmitter were 3105 and 6210 KHz. The transmitter's design used frequency multiplication -- that is, the actual frequencies of the channel crystals were 1/2 the transmitting frequency. Therefore we must consider not only the actual harmonics of the transmitting frequencies, but also ANY OTHER HARMONICS OF THE CRYSTAL FREQUENCIES. It is entirely possible, and indeed probable, that mistuning of the transmitter's output stage -- again possible and probable, due to "modifications" made to the antenna system by Joseph Gurr -- may have allowed one of these other harmonics to be amplified and radiated. Be assured, the design of this transmitter was not nearly up to modern standards of harmonic suppression. Its final amplifier stage was very closely coupled to the antenna, such that its output was very rich in harmonics unless carefully tuned... and even then, it would be impossible to suppress harmonics completely (that "would be" does not imply speculation; it is a FACT). There was no output filtering of any kind, here. This thing was, as they say in the Trade, "Dirty!" And yes, it is VERY possible for this to have happened, given the nature (rudimentary) of 1930s-era test equipment and the procedures used by radio techs of the time. So go figure all the possible harmonics of 1552.5 KHz (the crystal for 3105) and 3105 KHz (the crystal for 6210). You will find a lot to work with; more than you might first suspect. The 8th Edition of the Project Book contains my analysis of the transmitter and the possibilities for mistuning, etc. Bob Brandenburg has done some great work with propagation analysis in terms of the possible harmonics over the path from Niku to St. Petersburg, FL (Betty). LTM (who always knows who she is, and stays dry) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric <> That's a very interesting point. Although the transmitting antenna was the highest thing on the airplane, as you say, the feed through insulator exited the cabin about 12 inches below the starboard side cabin window. That means that water deeper than about four feet (if the airplane is on its gear in three-point attitude) would reach the insulator and stop any tramsnissions. High tide on the reef at Niku usually runs just over three feet (based upon observations taken last summer) so a calm-water high tide would not be a problem, but any significant surf would not only jostle the machine but would quickly soak the insulator. At that point, the direction that the airplane is facing becomes important. If it's facing north, with the starboard side shoreward, the fuselage is blocking the waves and the splashing. If it's facing south, toward the shipwreck, the starboard side is exposed and any splashing at all could be a big problem. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:11:06 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Tarawa? Can I ask a question? Tom King brought up the subject of Tarawa. What was at Tarawa? Was it a seaplane base or did they have a grass runway or whatever? I know it was under British control and there was aviation fuel available. Am I right? What about the grass runway? Does anyone know? Carol #2524 ************************************************************************* From Ric Tarawa was the adminstrative headquarters for Gilberts part of the British Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony. Lots of activity but no airstrip, no seaplane base and no aviation fuel. There was nothing of that nature anywhere in the Central Pacific except for the little runway at Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:12:54 EST From: Larry Turner Subject: Why the 7 Site? A simple possible answer as to why the 7 site and not the coconut trees. If your stranded on a island you would want to know what's on the island completely. They start out to walk around the island to find any thing that might save them. Made it to the 7 site and no longer able to continue due to poor health, heat, lack of water, etc.... Try to survive at the 7 site for no other reason than they are at not able to continue further. What Ric and Tom say about the island is its a major undertaking when your healthy, have water and good shoes. If your injured, dehydrated, it may not be possible to get back to the starting point. Larry Turner ************************************************************************** From Ric True, but the trails seem to argue that whoever made them was still pretty mobile. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:15:05 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Herding cats > Where does the WAS stop? Not here, thats for sure! After their brief dalliance with only the Sperry Gyrocompass at the controls, they realise they're hopelessly lost. Amelia blames Fred for not concentrating on the navigating. Fred blames Amelia for stripping down to her bare essentials. Amelia blames the heat. ( At 10,000ft ? - Ed) Fred says he could do with a drink. "I'll give you drink, you lousy bum" says Amelia, firewalling the throttles, pushing hard forward on the stick, applying full left aileron and putting the groaning Electra into a spiralling vertical dive. The speed rises, 160, 180, 200, 250 - the airframe begins to vibrate. 300..320. The whole aircraft is shuddering now, the propellers clawing at the air as the doomed plane plummets down...down...down. The altimeter is unwinding, spinning faster and faster, a bead of sweat runs slowly down her temple. She begins to pull back, the cacophany of the Wasps at maximum revolutions roaring in her ears, her slender white hands clenched in fierce determination to impose her iron will on this tortured, thundering mass of metal. The altimeter hands begin to slow. She wrestles with the stick, the tendons on her forearms standing out like whipcords. She pulls out with props screaming in full fine pitch, inches above the water, Fred's head smacks into the radio. "Want some more sucker?" she yells, laughing manically. Pulling up hard she hurls the Electra back into the sky, lazily turning a victory roll as she rockets upward again. Fred is now trying to extricate himself from between Amelia's knees where he has become almost impossibly wedged. Scanning the deep blue of the water far below, broken only by myriad racing whitecaps, Amelia suddenly spots a faint green smudge off to her right on the far horizon. Reaching for the mike, she calmly reports "Land in sight ahead" before executing a heart-stopping stall turn followed by a loop and a couple of barrel rolls. Tune in next week for another thrilling instalment, Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric Could we go back to speculating about navigation? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:16:43 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: call signs < LTM, who wonders if Polhemus used a pelorus to see Polaris, He used a kollsman periscopic sextant to measue altitudes and azimuths so he did not need a polorus. Ps you can buy your very own kollsman sextant on ebay for about a hundred bucks. gl ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:21:50 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: noonans 3rd class comercial radio telephony license > Mr. Noonan held a > 3rd.class commercial radiotelephony certificate We all have them. You used to have to get one to talk on an aircraft radio. Now you only need one to use the radio if flying outside the US. For a while they were free then they went to $18 in the mid '70s then back to free then they eliminated the requiement when flying in the US. Radiotelephony means voice not morse code. gl *************************************************************************** From Ric Context problem again. See Mike Everette's posting on commercial radio licenses in the 1930s. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:23:20 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: CB Paxton Something to keep in mind is that the radio tank circuit attenuated the first harmonic about 40 DB or more and the higher harmonics even more. What this means is that very little power would have been transmitted at the higher frequencies so it is very unlikely that they were heard many thousands of miles away. For those that didn't know, the reason for her choice of frequencies of 3105 and 6210 is that 6210 is the first harmonic of 3105 so that the antenna would work reasonably well on either and it is possible that some of the same tuning circuits were also utilized for both freqs. Does anybody know if the same crystal was used for both with a frequency doubler used for 6210? gl *************************************************************************** From Ric Here we go again. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:31:10 EST From: Les in Sierra Madre Subject: Morse key? My apologies for my previous error in labelling Continous wave as direct wave, but a 13 hour work day was responsible! By hand transmitter I meant to imply a morse code transmitting key pad. If memory serves me the forum article in which it was stated that noonan held a 3rd class commercial radiotelephony license came up about 6 weeks ago-maybe somebody will be able to pin that down. If this turns out to be true don't you find it puzzling that they didn't elect to go with this tried and much safer method of communicating? By the way the standard of investigating the various navigational theories is first rate -you have some truly awe inspiring people taking part. Les *************************************************************************** From Ric It's pretty well documented that no morse key was carried on the second World Flight attempt, just as it is well documented that both Earhart and Noonan represented themselves as being unable to communicate using morse code and emphatically requested that all communication be by voice. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:46:03 EST From: Christian D Subject: Signal fires? > From Ric > > Keeping a watch on a likely horizon seems like it would be a big priority. > The beach at the Seven Site faces northeast. Samoa is south. Fiji is > southwest. The Gilberts are northwest. The castaway is watching the wrong > horizon. If someone chose that beach for that reason, then they were > apparently expecting (hoping for) help to arrive from the northeast. What is > northeast of Gardner? Nothing except Hawaii and the mainland U.S. > > Keeping a big fire going all the time would be a tremendous and, I would > think, impossible job without tools and unlimited drinking water. That reminded me of the several old fires close together at the Seven: would that location have been a good location in 1937 to signal ships to the northeast? If I remember correctly those fire pits were "light", ie little used, so they could have been prepared firewood (drying out as well) ready to start on the shortest notice? It would make sense to have several of them, close together, at the ready... And possibly they were used over several months? Fires are a universal distress signal -the only hope for the Castaway, and worth some major effort! And why not watch to the NE? You are american, so you think Hawaii, of course. Plus which way was Lambert coming from and leaving to? Or just a coincidence: let's say I am the castaway and I ONCE saw a ship on that horizon -I'd sure spend lots of time around that beach. At any rate we have no indication that the castaway didn't share his time between the Seven and another site(S), say the NC camp -or any other places we haven't found yet, that had similar signaling fires ready to use; or that have been eradicated by the colonists over a quarter of a century. Do we have any experts on the shipping lanes in that area/era? I don't remember that topic ever being discussed on the Forum, so I dug out a few charts: the old stand-by, British 5309, gives the "Tracks followed by sailing and auxiliary powered vessels". The scale is tiny but seems to indicate that coming FROM Honolulu to Fiji, they'd pass right down the middle of the Phoenix. Unfortunately I don't have the corresponding chart for fully powered vessels. A more recent "Pilot Chart" gives the great circle route from San Francisco to Sydney passing just East of Niku. Looks like the only traffic at all around the Phoenix is NE-SW. Now, if I was Master and wanted to go trough the Phoenix, I'd be concerned with Carondelet Reef. So I'd favor being closer to tall-treed Niku. Seems to me there could have been a few ships visible from the *East* end of Niku, over a few months time. For all I know the castaway had another set of pyres at the ready on the very southeast end of Niku -which could well have been bulldozed later for the Loran station... As that location might be too exposed to the elements, my fires there would be ready, but I'd stay at the Seven most of the time... Any chance of finding a *pattern* of "light" fire pits at the Southeast Cape? My 2 cents. Christian D *************************************************************************** From Ric The presence of burned bird bones, fish bones, etc. in the burn features at the Seven site argue pretty strongly for their use as cooking fires. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:47:10 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: Call signs > I think I am correct in saying that the call sign was assigned to the > aircraft, or more accurately, the aircraft-based radio station - just as > ships had call signs assigned to their radios. Itasca was NRUI, Colorado was > NECR, etc. I don't think there was any such thing as a "vanity" call sign. Sorry I don't have a reference, but I too feel I am correct in saying that commercial entities were just getting "the next number" in the series. On the other end I don't think call letters started with the advent of radio: they were issued before, to use with old-fashioned signal flags. OR -was it that after the arrival of radio, *registered* vessels were given call letters which could ALSO be used with signal flags? Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:50:35 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Call signs > From Mike E. #2194: > aircraft used 5-letter call > signs either W or K depending upon where the a/c was "domiciled." Mike - can you tell us exactly what the criteria were for the one or other? Regards Angus. ************************************************************************* From Ric I understood Mike to mean that if the aircraft was domiciled east of the Mississippi the call sign started with W. West of the river was K. The Electra was domiciled in Burbank, California.