Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 09:37:11 EDT From: Eric Subject: NORWICH CITY Cache From Ric: All we know is that a cache of provisions was left. We have no information about what it contained. Since the 1929 NORWICH CITY cache plays such an important part in the TIGHAR HYPOTHESIS, I was a little surprised to learn that so little is known about it. Where was it located? Was its location clearly marked so that AE and FN could easily have found it after coming ashore? Was it readily accessible from the beach or, after 8 years, was it surrounded by Scaevola? Considering their probably physical condition when they finally did come ashore, would AE and FN have bothered to conduct a search through the underbrush that would have led them to the cache? (I'm assuming that the Electra's provisions only included enough food and water for their flight to Howland and that, after 2 days on the reef, they came ashore hungry & dehydrated and suffering from possible injuries.) If they didn't find the cache right away, how could they have survived until they did? The 1938 photos show that somebody apparently found and used these supplies and we assume that it was AE and FN. However, this is a little too tidy an explanation, given the many unanswered questions. (I'll be interested to read what other the forumites think.) Eric, NAS North Island, San Diego, CA. ************************************************************************ From Ric I don't know where you got the idea that the Norwich City cache is an important part of TIGHAR's hypothesis. It's an interesting development, but our hypothesis was well-formed and well-supported long before the existence of the cache, or for that matter, the existence of the castaway(s), came to light. The possibility that the castaway found and benefited from the cache is perhaps reinforced by Gallagher's recovery of "corks with brass chains" thought to to be from a "small cask" but I don't think we have enough information to say how essential the cache may have been to the castaway's survival. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 09:41:22 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Kelly Johnson's Headwind Chart Oscar, I knew you would have a lot of fun with that document. I certainly am. I am still troubled about the so called effect of headwind and tailwind. The game is to present the least drag through the air mass and air mass it is. The wind only blows on airplanes when they are on the ground. In the air the craft is flying through an air mass and has no clue what that air mass is doing. The only result of changing airspeed, I can see, is to change the angle of attack from the optimum and I don't know why I would do that. If the theory is that the additional speed gained more than compensates for the increased fuel consumption then that would apply all the time regardless of the wind and the optimum cruise speed would be invalid. There would now be a new optimum cruise speed. Comment? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 09:45:26 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Noonan's rank Some time ago I saw a message questioning the fact that the Naval Museum carried Noonan with the Navy rank of Lt. Commander. I queried their historian, Hill Goodspeed. He said that they had been under the mistaken belief he had such a commission as a Naval navigator and acknowledged it to be untrue. It is his belief that the correct information on Noonan is neatly located on the TIGHAR website. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric Some time ago I emailed the correction to the guys in Pensacola but as Fats Domino used to say, "One never knows. Do one?" I'm glad to hear they got that straightened out. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 09:54:27 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shooting the sun > Angus asked: > How does cloud deck height affect one's decisions on altitude re taking dawn > and speed line shots? Is there a height at which cloud interferes with a > dawn shot whether one is under or above it? Are there any likely scenarios > where Fred was unable to get sun shots on the way in to Howland? Angus, the short answer is that anytime there were clouds between Noonan and whatever celestial body he was shooting he could not shoot. The altitude of the clouds or of Noonan had no bearing. To answer your last question I would have to know what the weather conditions were at the point Noonan was. No one knows that. No one at all. Not even Elgin Long. Alan #2329 *********************************************************************** From Gary LaPook It depends on what type of sextant you are using. The marine sextant is just a device that allows you to measure the angle between two points very accurately. If you are using a marine sextant you must have a clear view of the horizon as that provides the reference point for making the measurement. It is O.K. if there are clouds beyond the horizon but not between you and the horizon. And, obviously, at the same instant, you must be able to see the sun although it is O.K. if the sun is behind thin clouds as long as you can see either the upper edge or the lower edge. You measure the altitude of the sun above the visable horizon by adjusting the sextant until you can see the edge of the sun superimposed on the horizon while looking through he sextant. You then read the angle off of the sextant. When using the marine sextant you must make a correction to the measured altitude to account for "dip" of the horizon since it does not exactly mark the horizontal position because you are looking slightly down towards the horizon. Because of the "dip" any altitude measured in relationship to the visable horizon will be too great since you are measuring from a reference point that is actually below zero. The correction for dip in minutes of altitude (1/60th of a degree) equals .97 times the square root of the height of eye above the sea. At an altitude of 100 feet the correction is approximately 10 minutes of arc; at 400 about 20 minutes; 900 about 30; 1600 about 40 and 10,000 about 97. These corrections are always subtracted from the measured altitude. You can see how a miss-estimate of the altitude of the plane above the sea of only 500 feet would cause you to use a correction that is in error by 10 minutes resulting in a 10 nautical mile error. Remember that an error of one minute of angle of altitude will produce a one nautical mile error in the final line of position. The higher the plane's altitude the farther the horizon is away. At 10,000 feet it is 115 N.M. to the horizon; 1,000 feet it is 36 N.M. and from 100 feet it is only 11. Obviously the higher you are the greater the chance that there will be clouds between you and the horizon. Also, if the visability is less than the distance to the horizon you will not be able to see it clearly enough to use as the refernce point. The other type of sextant uses an internal bubble to establish the instrument in a level position so that you can measure the altitude to the sun from the bubble derived horizontal position. There is no necessity or even ability to see the horizon at the time of measuring the sun's altitude so clouds obstructing the horizon are of no importance. You only have to be able to see the disk of the sun through thin or no clouds. You do not apply the "dip" corection since you are not using the below level visable horizon for your refernce point and so errors in the plane's altitude to not cause a problem. If using a bubble sextant a higher altitude above the clouds is better since you won't have clouds blocking the line of sight to the sun. Noonan had a bubble sextant and may also have carried a mirine sextant as "a preventer." (a backup.) There is a special case when you can abtain an altitude measurement of the sun without any instrument. This is just at sunrise or sunset when you can observe the edge of the sun touch the horizon just like looking through a marine sextant set to "zero." As when using a marine sextant in this case the sextant (or measured) altitude equals zero and since the measurement is made in reference to the visable horizon you must make the same "dip" correction. There is no reason to believe that Noonan would have used this special case as he had a sextant and could measure the altitude of the sun at any elevation. There are other errors and corrections that I left out for simplicity sake but taking them into consideration would make it more likely that Noonan would have used his sextant to mesure the altitude of the sun when higher above the horizon and not at sunrise. There has been a lot of discussion about a "dawn sight" on this forum but there is really no basis to give it much importance as Noonan would have prefered to take sights after dawn when the sun was at a higher altitude allowing for more accurate measurements. A line of position derived from a celestial observation is plotted at right angles to the bearing or azimuth to the sun or star being used. At sunrise at about 1746 Zulu (0616 Itasca time) in the vicinity of Howland Island the azimuth to the rising sun was 067 degrees true so a line of position derived from a "dawn sight" would plot 157-337 degrees at right angles to 067. After sunrise the sun moves accross the sky and its azimuth changes also changing the direction of the line of position. Since Howland is almost on the equator and in July the sun is 23 degrees north of the equator the sun moved counter clockwise around the horizon during the day starting from approximately east-north-east at sunrise and moving through NORTH at noon and eventually setting in the west-north-west. However, as viewed from the vicinity of Howland the sun appeared to climb straight up and did not change its azimuth until 1854 Zulu, one hour and eight minutes after sunrise when the azimuth changed to 066 and at which point it was at a 15 degree altitude. The higher the sun's altitude the more accurate it will be. The radio message that they were on "line of position 157-337" confirms that Noonan was using a sun line of position measured sometime within this one hour and 8 minute window and not just at dawn. It is very likely that he measured the sun's altitude 4 or 5 times or even more during this period. Gary LaPook ***************************************************************** From Ric That's an excellent explanation Gary. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 10:03:50 EDT From: Carol Subject: Re: Maps on the Area The maps I ordered from Sporty's Pilot Shop.com came in (many thanks to Gary LaPook), and Gardner Island looks so small and so isolated I just thought to myself....oh God, she didn't try that....it just seems like such a remote possibility. And Hull Island looks like it might be another 100 miles from Gardner and just a mere pin prick on the maps the same as Gardner. There is no archipelago there, nothing. After that disaster at Howland Island, I can't believe Earhart would head for Gardner irrespective of whether it's on the LOP or the WOP or the POP or whatever it's on. It doesn't compute. I know you have the shoe evidence, which is very good. Would like to ask the question... where was the shoe sole found with the cat's paw heel at Gardner? Was it on the beech or inshore or stuck in a tree or wherever? Is there a possibility it washed up on the shore? Do we know that or do we know that? Would like to comment on the Gilberts....what an enticing target that would have been to Earhart...in trouble, low on fuel, the clock is ticking....no more mistakes.... no more chances on islands that can't be found. The Gilberts in daylight hours from 7-8,000 ft. alt. would have been quite an enticing target and very visible on the maps....repeat a very visible chain of islands that would make a great deal of sense to lost aviators like Carol or anyone else who was nuts enough to try it. Carol ********************************************************************* From Ric Carol, as has been discussed many times here on the forum, we now largely discount the shoe parts we found as having anything to do with the Earhart disappearance. Please feel free to turn back for the Gilberts. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 10:07:24 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Buried Bones Let me quote the source of the idea: "One thing I'm pretty sure about: If the bones were actually sent to an academic department [path or anthro] there MUST have been a paper trail, ...If there is no evidence of a paper trail, I very much doubt any bones were sent anywhere." No trail on the government side, no trail on the scientific side. How about the religious side? Administrator has old bones, no apparent worth, cluttering his office. He "does the decent thing" and calls the padre... The most likely thing for a local curate to do is a decent burial, locally, with a notation in the parish records "Unknown Castaway, May God have Mercy...." and the burial plot. If so, would any records have survived and where? LTM John Pratt 2373 ************************************************************************* From Ric I believe some inquiries were made along those lines by the team in 1999. Tom? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 10:14:14 EDT From: Charlie Sivert Subject: Convincing evidence Of the many artifacts discovered on Niku, I believe that the plexiglas and the Dado are the most convincing evidence of the presence of the Lockheed 10. It is very difficult to assign the articles to other aircraft. At this time, I would like to mention that the past May 8-9 were the 75th anniversary of the flight of l'Oiseau Blanc,(the White Bird) for those not familiar with the French language. LTM from Charlie Sivert, in Olney, IL.(Home of the White Squirrels) ************************************************************************* From Ric I agree with you Charlie, especially with regard to the Dado. And here's to our old friends Charles Nungesser and Francois Coli. Once we've found Amelia to everyone's (or nearly everyone's) satisfaction I hope we can return to our search for them. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 13:12:14 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Shooting the sun > ... There has been a lot of discussion about a "dawn sight" on this > forum but there is really no basis to give it much importance as Noonan would > have prefered to take sights after dawn when the sun was at a higher altitude > allowing for more accurate measurements. For me, the solid basis for thinking about the dawn sight is that Amelia's garbled transmission included numbers that seem to correspond to the LOP that would have been derived from the dawn sight (or from flight preparation the day before, using lookup tables): 157/337. What she and Fred were doing with this course is uncertain; but I have no one questions the numbers (so far). Marty #2359 ********************************************************************* From Ric If I understand Gary correctly, the 157/337 LOP could be obtained from an observation of the sun anytime from sunrise until an hour and eight minutes later. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 13:13:08 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Betty's Radio Re Betty's Radio vs. the E.H. Scott set, the obvious issue is the type of cabinet. According to Ric, Betty is pretty definitive about the cabinet being the sort used in the Zenith Stratosphere. The Scott does not have the recessed speaker. Photos of the Zenith radio show it to be very large, and the "alcove" for the speaker is easily large enough that a person could lie back with his/her head inside it. Indeed some of the ad photos show various sculptures or vases placed there. Another distinctive feature of the Scott set vs. the Zenith is that the Scott radio has TWO tuning-eye tubes. I don't think I have ever seen another radio which uses two of these. Betty would be able to recall that for sure, I would think. LTM (who keeps her head at all times) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 13:14:50 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Why speed up into a headwind ? Alan Caldwell asks why a pilot would mess with his airspeed when faced with a headwind. As a practical matter, that is a very good question, but let's take an extreme circumstance to understand why "the most efficient speed into a headwind is higher than the most efficient speed in still air." Assume a plane in cruise with sufficient fuel to fly one hour at 150 mph, or 40 minutes at 200 mph. In still air, the fuel will carry the plane 150 miles over the ground at 150 mph, but only 100 miles at 200 mph. Assume a headwind of 100 mph is encountered. At 150 mph the plane will cover 50 miles over the ground on its remaining one hour of fuel. If, on the other hand, the pilot increases airspeed to the normally less-efficient 200 mph,. the ground speed will increase from 50 to 100, and the plane will cover 66.66 miles in 40 minutes. So the higher speed becomes the best choice - even though the plane is flying less efficiently in relation to the AIR, it is flying more efficiently in relation to the GROUND. In more realistic scenarios, the technique has problems, the most important of which is that the technique is almost impossible to perform properly in flight, at least without GPS (or other instantaneous information on winds and performance) and interconnected fuel and flight performance computers managing the airplane. It also doesn't matter that much, since the change in efficiency is not great and is not worth the bother. I think that was the point Kelly Johnson was trying to make when he labled his maximum range flight plan in Report 487 as being good for conditions ranging from a tailwind of 20 mph to a headwind of 20 mph - ie, "don't worry about it, it's not a big deal in the real world" - perhaps that also explains the impossible-to-use chart (he didn't expect anyone to use it). Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:50:27 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Kelly Johnson's Headwind Chart Imagine that you are flying at your best long range airspeed and operating the aircraft at its maximum L/D angle of attack that at this particular weight equals an airspeed of 100 K. But, you are flying into a 100 K head wind. Your ground speed is ZERO and your range is ZERO. So you increase the airspeed to, say 125 K. Now you are not operating the aircraft at its most efficient airspeed but at least you are moving forward at 25 K and have some range but not nearly what it would be without the wind. The airspeed for maximum range can be determined from a graph of the power required curve (fuel flow rate) over airspeed for a particular aircraft weight. You draw a line from the origin until it is tangent to the curve. That point is the airspeed for maximum range. To determine the best airspeed for the existing wind condition you draw the line from a point shifted along the airspeed axis by the amount of the wind factor. The line will be tangent to the power required curve at a higher airspeed for a headwind and at a lower airspeed for a tailwind condition. I learned a rule of thumb to change the airspeed by one quarter of the wind component to approximate this correction. " To appreciate the changes in optimum speeds with various winds, refer to the illustration of figure 2.26. When zero wind conditions exist, a straight line from the origin tangent to the curve of fuel flow versus velocity will locate maximum range conditions. When a headwind condition exists, the speed for maximum ground range is located by a line tangent drawn from a velocity offset equal to the headwind velocity. This will locate maximum range at some higher velocity and fuel flow. Of course, the range will be less than at zero wind conditions but the higher velocity and fuel flow will minimize the range loss due to the headwind. In a similar sense, a tailwind will reduce cruise velocity to maximize the benefit of the tailwind." Page 170, Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators, NAVWEPS 00-80T-80, 1965. An airspeed increase to compensate for a headwind only makes sense if you were already operating at the maximum long range speed. If you were flying at a higher speed it might make sense to slow down to achieve the maximum range airspeed given the wind velocity. In the first example if the airplane were being flown at 150 K, not at the optimum range speed, it would make sense to slow down to the 125 K maximum range speed based on the wind, and using the rule of thumb to approximate that number for this illustration. Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:51:27 EDT From: Ron Chambless Subject: Re: Why speed up into a headwind ? Or maybe a simpler way of explaining it.....The less time you spend in a headwind, the better, the less time you are fighting it. Just like if you are with a tailwind, the more time you are in it, the more benefit there is to gain. Now there is a limit to this. You wont go to full power, with full mixture, and watch your fuel flow double, just to get a few extra more knots, compared to a high speed cruise. Ron Chambless ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:52:24 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Buried Bones Actually, we'd like to do more work with cemetery records in Suva. Kris Tague made a start on it in '99, but only a start. While the Fiji School of Medicine Anatomy Department personnel didn't think it likely that a collection of bones entrusted to Dr. Hoodless would have wound up in a cemetery, that IS where some of their cadavers end up after they're through with them, so it's possible. This is an area that needs more research. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:01:20 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Relative bearing Is it fair to say that if Noonan had gone considerably off course in the later part of the flight and before his sight for the 157/337 LOP, that he would have inevitably been alerted to the error by the sun's relative bearing? In other words, although the sight could only give a line of position it could also show if the aircraft was flying the expected heading, allowing for drift. This seems to make one think that either they were little off course on their arrival at Howland or that they had gone off course over a very large distance such that their heading was not noticeably different from what might be expected? Of course their compasses should have shown the heading but one has to take account of gyro drift and the fact that the gyros could have been reset from a malfunctioning compass. Incidentally I seem to remember that you said that Amelia was given magnetic headings. With a Gyro compass why was she not given true headings to fly? Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric True, you can set a gyro compass to any heading, but you need to correct it for precession every 15 minutes or so and you can only do that by referencing a magnetic compass. In theory you could add or subtract the appropriate variation and deviation every time and so fly a "true" heading, but in practice it is never done. If the flight "drifted far off course" it almost certainly was not because Earhart was flying the wrong heading but, rather, because unrecognized crosswinds blew them off course. In that event, the sun would come up at the same relative bearing as if they were dead on course. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:02:41 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Again with the coconuts! Denise wrote: > Note for Wombat: > Since I assume you live in Far North Queensland, I guess you've been > following the story about that guy lost in the Daintree Forest? The one > who's just been found, barely alive, after 33 days? (He would have been in > far better health, only he'd been bitten by a highly toxic snake!) Note, if > you will, from the weekend's newspaper accounts, that the only thing he > said he found to eat were coconuts ... AND HE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO > OPEN THEM!!!! Does that change your thesis somewhat? No, it doesn't. Considering I was the one who originally brought up the coconut discussion by suggesting that the castaway(s) must have been of European origin because a Polynesian (as suggested by the doctor that examined the bones) probably would not have died of thirst with coconuts in the area. I suggested that a European probably would not have known how to open them, therefore the bones were probably NOT those of a Polynesian male! The experiments in trying to open them, and discovering just how easy they are to open were just me trying to shoot down my own theory - which I managed to do by discovering that without tools and in a weakened condition you can open the things in around 15 minutes. Having spent time in the daintree on many occasions I find it interesting that with all the food available there he had trouble finding any. I'll see if I can have a chat with him when he's back home (he lives here). Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:05:21 EDT From: EL Subject: Re: Shooting the sun From Marty Moleski >> ... There has been a lot of discussion about a "dawn sight" on this >> forum but there is really no basis to give it much importance as Noonan would >> have prefered to take sights after dawn when the sun was at a higher altitude >> allowing for more accurate measurements. > > For me, the solid basis for thinking about the dawn sight is that > Amelia's garbled transmission included numbers that seem to > correspond to the LOP that would have been derived from the dawn > sight (or from flight preparation the day before, using lookup > tables): 157/337. What she and Fred were doing with this course > is uncertain; but I have no one questions the numbers (so far). > ********************************************************************* >From Ric > > If I understand Gary correctly, the 157/337 LOP could be obtained from an > observation of the sun anytime from sunrise until an hour and eight minutes > later. Correct but incomplete. This is why I explained LOPs in terms of what it means, geometrically, so that people could answer questions like this relatively independently. An LOP can be taken *at any time* that the celestial body is visible, but the reciprocal values (157 and 337) for it may change as the Earth rotates and tilts on the interval [-23.5deg, 23.5deg]. In the next previous reply, a good point was made about the bubble sextant in that Noonan needed only a clear line of sight to the celestial body, and nothing else. That should be pretty easy to get at any time unless the weather is particularly foul (he was observing the sky from a *moving* airplane - which should have afforded many momentary breaks in any clouds that appeared). It is a relatively simple (and provable) property of trigonometry that an 'exact' fix (with an error of +-15 miles) of both longitude and latitude can be obtained by shooting two or more celestial bodies, provided both are visible at about the same time and the plane doesn't move too far in that time interval. An experienced navigator can time and measure both angles in less than 3 minutes. I've done it in two. For FN, this was probably feasible before sunrise, but we'll never know for certain. This is the same principle by which GPS works, LOPs taken from celestial bodies (satellites) but with radio waves instead of lines of sight. The GPS receiver measures the time delay in the signal, calculates the expected delay if the transmitter is directly overhead, from that it calculates an angle (longitude) of separation, then plugs these values into a tensor. The tensor is then 'diagonalized' to solve for an exact latitude and longitude. After sunrise, Noonan (or anyone depending on line of sight) would have had only one celestial body to shoot, and would thus have to DR from his 'exact' nighttime fix to his new LOP 157-337, enlarging his error somewhat. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:06:17 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Shooting th sun << If I understand Gary correctly, the 157/337 LOP could be obtained from an observation of the sun anytime from sunrise until an hour and eight minutes later. >> or simply pre-computed, yes? Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:08:06 EDT From: Denise Subject: Small Point Note to Lawrence: Gizo is a province, not a town. LTM (who has no idea how she obtains these obscure little facts) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:11:49 EDT From: Denise Subject: Back issue! Reading past issues very late, I came across the letter from Eric, with the reply from Ric "What sort of unauthorized persons would these be? Pacific islanders? From where? Using what mode of transportation? Europeans? Same questions." I would hereby like to volunteer my suspicions about that grumpy colonial administrator from Hull. You know the one? The fellow who told Lambrecht that he'd never heard of A.E.? How likely is that? I mean, all the colonial officers in the area, particularly those within spare-petrol range of Howland would have been put on look-out - even on high alert - so, unless this chap had a broken radio, he's lying through his teeth. And that is very fishy!!!! LTM (who wonders what this was really about) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric What colonial officers in the area? Spare petrol? What are you talking about? As a matter of fact, John William Jones, the Burns Philp overseer at Hull, had been without a working radio since early June. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:18:04 EDT From: Denise Subject: Correction on June Knox-Mawer Herman De Wulf says: "June Knox-Mawer ...was intrigued by Amelia Earhart having had childhood roots in the Pacific. When she grew up she moved to Britain and worked for the BBC as a journalist until around 1990 when she retired." Not so, Mr De Wulf. June came to Fiji with her husband as an adult, when he was shipped out to be Fiji's Chief Justice. She already worked as a BBC journalist and continued to do so in the Pacific, travelling around the entire region, gathering material for her various general interest radio programs she shipped home to Britain for broadcast. We knew her well. She was very slick and chic and my outstanding memory of her is that no one could wear a scarf as well as she could. LTM (who liked June very much) Denise P.S. While on the subject: I know June's British, but since she was a great traveller into "the middle of nowhere" places, she is one of the few women who can be considered as a candidate for "the American woman seen on Nikumaroro". Although it is most likely this mysterious woman was a visiting missionary, it's also possible it was June. The other candidates are "the coconut lady" (that American woman doing her PhD thesis on floatation patterns), and Dame Mary Edgwell-Burke, the Canadian artist who - for over sixty years - always escaped Canadian winters by touring around the Pacific, painting. ************************************************************************** From Ric Your characterization of "the American woman seen on Nikumaroro" makes it sound much more mysterious than it is. Laxton, who spent about three months on the island in early 1949, makes a passing reference to an American woman who visited the island at some point and stayed in the government Rest House. It's not at all clear when this occured but it seems like it had to be sometime after the war but not later than 1949. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:18:54 EDT From: Denise Subject: And furthermore ... Another note to Lawrence: what you all "this plywood craft" was actually made of mahogany. LTM (who read this in the paper) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:25:55 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Convincing evidence I wasn't a member then, but why did we abandon the "White Bird" search? Not enough leads to pursue? Just curious. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 *************************************************************************** From Ric We didn't abandon the White Bird search but we reached a point where further field work was more expensive than we could justify. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:28:27 EDT From: PBS Subject: Re: Buried Bones I think John Pratt's idea is a good one. Any medical official who does pathologic evaluations develops a storage/disposal problem for the human remains. There is usually a policy based on local custom to handle the material. It should be possible to find out what the usual policy was. It may have been to bury such remains in specific plots. Some one would also need to be paid to dispose of the material, and the local authorities [magistrate and/or clergy] would need to assign a long term burial location. There would be discoverable documentation about the policies and procedures, although maybe not about which bones got buried when, or exactly where. PBS ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:32:03 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Relative bearing On the relative bearing situation I am very curious about how Elgen Long decided Earhart was as much as 100 miles (or maybe more) north of Howland Island at the time of the disappearance (The History Channel and "X" marks the spot). Also, the first destination the Itasca took on the Earhart search was to the North and West of Howland Island (confirmation). If we took the maps (I haven't done this yet) and drew straight lines indicating the path of flight of the Electra, I have a suspicion the path would track to the North of Howland Island. Would you all care to comment on the foregoing? I'm not so sure straight lines would be an answer, but, then again, as Earhart called in, the only times during the flight they mentioned changing course and direction was the route up and down the LOP, and the circular search that followed. There would of course have to be changes in headings for magnetic variation and possibly dodging a few thunderstorms, but whatever moving around they did would take them back to the original line of flight. Would I be safe in making the above assumptions? Carol Dow *************************************************************************** From Ric No. Carol, put down the map before you hurt yourself. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:39:56 EDT From: Subject: New Research Bulletin up Now available on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/37_ItascaLogs/Itascalog.html is a research bulletin entitled "The Radio Logs of the USCGC ITASCA". This is the most ambitious and complex bulletin we've ever mounted. We've taken the ship's two radio logs for the morning of July 2, 1937 and translated them into plain English with each entry color-coded to denote whether it's a message sent by ITASCA in code or voice, or a message received from Earhart, etc. In this way, for the first time, the events of that morning can be followed as an intelligible narrative by the general public. We've also provided downloadable PDFs of the original logs; a glossary of radio shorthand (so that you can check our work); copies of all the preflight radio traffic between the Coast Guard and Earhart setting up the communications protocols for the flight; accurate plans of the physical set up of the radio room aboard ITASCA; a narrative description of the personnel and situation aboard the ship that morning; and an analysis of the all-important final message. Much of the information was drawn from Randy Jacobson's outstanding compilation of all the Earhart-related government radio traffic from the National Archives (available on CD at http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR_Store/CDad.html). We're also indebted to Bob Brandenburg for the blueprints of the ITASCA. And I would especially like to publicly recognize TIGHAR's webmaster, Pat Thrasher, who spent weeks organizing and coding the monster to turn it into a a useful tool for research and education. Enjoy. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:44:50 EDT From: Eric Subject: Betty's Radio Mike E. the Radio Historian wrote: > Re Betty's Radio vs. the E.H. Scott set, the obvious issue is the type of > cabinet . . . Another distinctive feature of the Scott set vs. the Zenith is > that the Scott radio has TWO tuning-eye tubes . . . Betty would be able to > recall that for sure, I would think. Scott radios were sold as a chassis, amplifier unit and 1 or more speakers. Many different cabinets were offered to accommodate these components, including special custom installations on board yachts, inside book cases and cupboards, and even inside airplanes. (A custom-built Scott radio was installed in FDR's plane SACRED COW, which I understand is on display in the U.S. Air Force Museum at Dayton, Ohio.) More over, since Scott and Zenith both had their factories in Chicago, Scott artisans would have been aware of Zenith's cabinets and could easily have "borrowed" design features from them. (The Philharmonic's big black round dial was clearly patterned after 1000Z Stratosphere's dial.) As for the two tuning eye tubes, it has now been established that Betty tuned the radio while laying on her back and without looking at the dial, so it is quite possible that this feature didn't make much of an impression on her, just as the specific model radio apparently didn't make enough of an impression on her to remember clearly what it was. In any case, I believe that the story of Betty and her notebook is highly probable. She was obviously listening on a set of a much higher quality than the average stock model radio. The fact that it was a large console set with a big black round dial and an alcove for the speaker and her recollection that it was Zenith tends to indicate that it was a 1000Z Stratosphere. My suggesting the possibility that it MIGHT have been a 1937 Scott Philharmonic was based on the following: (a) the Scott also had a big black round dial and undoubtedly had the sensitivity to pick up AE on a harmonic, (b) the Scott was much more affordable than a Stratosphere (c) more Scott Philharmonics were produced than Stratospheres. Surprisingly, most of the Scott Company records still survive, including information on where and to whom various sets were shipped. It is quite possible that the Zenith archives also contain such information on the 350 or so 1000Z's that were sold. (I'm checking this out and will pass along what I find out.) Stay tuned! Eric, NAS North Island, San Diego, CA. ************************************************************************** From Ric Appropos to nothing, I think you'll find that Sacred Cow was Truman's mount. FDR hated to fly. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:46:31 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Buried Bones PBS says: "Any medical official who does pathologic evaluations develops a storage/disposal problem for the human remains." No doubt that's true, but whether Hoodless did that kind of thing enough to develop such a problem is something we don't know. We also don't know whether he would have handled these particular remains -- given him by the High Commissioner's office for safekeeping -- the same way he would have treated other remains. But in any event, the best we've been able to come up with as a standard operating procedure is the practice of the Fiji School of Medicine (successor to the Central Medical School) of disposing of surplus cadavers through burial in local cemeteries, sometimes but apparently not always after cremation. Hence it WOULD be useful to check more deeply than we have into cemetery records. I have to say, though, that if the bones were disposed of in any sort of standard, orderly way, I'd expect it to be documented in the files we've already looked at surrounding the bones discovery -- unless, of course, it happened long enough after that file was compiled that it had been retired, in which case there might be a record somewhere else. There's definitely a need for more documentary research into all this; all we need is the wherewithal to do it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:48:02 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: And furthermore ... "Mahogany", when used to describe boat construction, generally refers to any wood. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 **************************************** From Ric I didn't know that. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:34:33 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Shooting the sun Re: "After sunrise, Noonan (or anyone depending on line of sight) would have had only one celestial body to shoot, and would thus have to DR from his'exact' nighttime fix to his new LOP 157-337, enlarging his error somewhat." Early PAA navigators shot three celestial bodies, when available, in the daytime - sun, moon, Venus. blue skies, jerry ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:37:27 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Sacred Cow Ric wrote : > Appropos to nothing, I think you'll find that Sacred Cow was Truman's mount. > FDR hated to fly. In fact both presidents used the "Sacred Cow". I don't know whether FDR hated flying but there is at least one picture in which he seems to enjoy it. It was taken on 30 January when on his way back from the Casablanca summit. In January 1943 FDR flew in one of Pan Am's Boeing 314 flying boats to Casablanca and meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to discuss the further conduct of WW II. On the way back he celebrated his anniversary in the air and the picture was taken showing FDR enjoying the flight and toasting with his aides. According to the USAF Museum website, FDR was the first US president to fly when in office. Concerned by the fact that a US president had to rely on commercial airliners the US Army Air Force ordered the conversion of a military aircraft to accommodate the special needs of its Commander in Chief. Encountering difficulties with converting a C-87A transport (a transport version of the B-24 bomber also used by Winston Churchill after the Casablanca summit) the USAAF asked Douglas to build a special transport for presidential use. Derived from the C-54 (the military version of the DC-4) this aircraft became the one and only VC-54C. Nicknamed "Sacred Cow" the aircraft took FDR to the USSR for the Yalta conference in February 1945. Among the differences from a standard C-54 "Sacred Cow" featured an elevator behind the passenger cabin to lift the president in his wheelchair in and out of the aircraft, a conference room and a bullet proof picture window. President Roosevelt used "Sacred Cow" only once. He died in April 1945. The aircraft remained in presidential service during the first 27 months of the Truman Administration. Therefore Ric is right when he says "Sacred Cow" was his mount. But it was FDR's too. By the way, on 26 July 1947 President Truman signed the National Security Act while on board "Sacred Cow", establishing the Air Force as an independent service. Hence "Sacred Cow" is considered the "birthplace" of the USAF. As later presidents used newer aircraft "Sacred Cow" was assigned to other duties and was eventually retired in 1961. In 1985 it was restored to the 1945 configuration as it was when it flew FDR to Yalta. The restoration took 10 years. Today the "Sacred Cow" is on display at the USAF Museum at Dayton, Ohio. LTM (who loves historical aircraft) **************************************************************************** From Eric Here is the link to the USAF Museum web page telling about SACRED COW and who flew on it. https://www.asc.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an27.htm Eric, NAS North Island, San Diego, CA. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:42:21 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Relative bearing Carol, Since I haven't read the book or "seen the film" I can't comment very usefully on how Elgen Long reached this conclusion. He may have merely concluded she flew north from the point at which she intercepted the 157/337 line, which could be anywhere. What do you mean by the "time of her disappearance" - when she was last heard from or where she came to earth/sea? Since we have no idea of her flight path on the 157/337 line, we can't say where she intercepted that line on her flight from the area south of Nauru. The only clues we have are the radio signal strengths which are subjective and the probable time of interception. One message recorded at S4 may have been recorded as an S5 by another operator, or at a different time by the same operator as an S3 due to variation in propagation conditions. Where did AE mention a course or direction change whilst running on the 157/337 line? What circular search? "We are circling was reinterpreted from "we are drifting" but "we are listening" both fits the context and sounds very similar to "we are drifting" and is much more likely the real meaning. I don't believe there was a circular search. Changing magnetic variation would have been incorporated in each course change and there would not have likely been course changes specifically on this account. Having inadvertently or deliberately left the preplanned course, there is nothing to suggest that they would have tried to rejoin their original course. Noonan would have much more likely merely plotted a new shortest course to their objective. So I don't think you are safe in your assumptions. Regards Angus ************************************************************************ From Ric As has been discussed many times, our contention is that the transmission that was recorded as "We are drifting but cannot hear you." and later changed to "We are circling but cannot hear you." was in reality probably "We are listening but cannot hear you." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:45:05 EDT From: Peter Subject: Ring This is probably your first question from Zambia!! Question. Re bones etc did Amelia wear anything like a wedding ring that would make it easily identifiable that you know of? Yours Peter **************************************************************************** From Ric Indeed, it is our first question from Zambia. No, Earhart did not wear any jewelry. Only a wristwatch. Likwise with Noonan. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:50:18 EDT From: PBS Subject: Re: Buried Bones Tom King says: "standard operating procedure is... disposing of surplus cadavers through burial in local cemeteries... Hence it WOULD be useful to check... into cemetery records. I have to say, though, I'd expect it to be documented in the files.... If there is no paper trail, it seems very unlikely Hoodless sent them anywhere. Its also very unlikely Hoodless or anyone else made a practice of tossing human parts in the trash [see the case ruling in: Commonwealth of Transylvania v. Frankenstein and Associates]. So the cemetery burial area seems a pretty good bet. However, I think I may disagree about "expecting it to be documented in the files." Documentation is important for ongoing cases of interest. However, when a case is finished, the goal is usually just to dispose respectfully of the human remains. I therefore wouldn't be surprised if there are scant records documenting exactly what was disposed of, or exactly which spot it was buried in. PBS *************************************************************************** From Ric The case was never officially finished or closed. Once they decided that it wasn't Amelia Earhart the identity of the castaway became less important and the file leaves the impression that other events during the autumn of 1941 pushed the matter into the background. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:01:57 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Shooting th sun > From Andew McKenna > > << If I understand Gary correctly, the 157/337 LOP could be obtained from an > observation of the sun anytime from sunrise until an hour and eight minutes > later. >> > > or simply pre-computed, yes? Either I've missed a finer point in your question, or you may not be clear on what exactly an LOP means. An LOP is an ordered set of longitude-latitude pairs one of which is your coordinate position *at the time and place that you made the observation*. Your location on Earth, that is, the pair that reflects your exact position, will be certain within an error of about +-15 miles from *any one* of the coordinate positions on that line (you don't know which), assuming you have done a decent job of making the angular measurement. For a 'sun line' (defined as an LOP taken from the sun) this means, as a practical matter, that you have a 30 mile wide corridor running generally north and south within which you can be fairly certain you are located. Again, this LOP is meaningful only for the *place and time* at which the angular measurement was made (the 'sun shot'). But because a "sun line" tends to run generally north and south, with a small deviation from any one meridian, you can be fairly sure of your longitude, but your latitude is more variable. I will leave that proof as an exercise for the reader :-) Assume a seasonal tilt on the interval [-23.5deg, 23.5deg]. In the case of FN, if he was able to shoot the Moon (only speaking hypothetically here) then he could have obtained two LOPs, one based on the Sun and one on the Moon. The two 'corridors' produced along these LOPs would intersect at some point. In such a case, FN would know that his position is somewhere within a box 30 miles square. It should be pointed out that in all likelihood, he did not obtain a Moon shot. It is an open question as to whether he could have done this (using two or more stars) the night previous. Even if he had, DR error would have taken over after that. I'll leave it to the reader to assess what that means. To reiterate from my previous post, an LOP is calculated by measuring the angle between the horizon and a celestial body at a specific time, and a specific, presumptively knowable, place on Earth. Translation: the time and place at which you measure the angle are co-dependent and cannot be disentangled. It is an on-site calculation and cannot be pre-computed. It is not possible to 'pre-compute' that, if I understand what you're saying right. For those interesteed in fully understanding the meaning of LOPs (and therefore enabling yourself to answer almost all these questions about FNs navigation enroute to Howland), here's something you can do that will make it's meaning immediately clear. It is truly surprising how such a seemingly complex notion is in fact so elegantly simple, if you just draw it... Get a piece of paper, Draw a circle in the middle. This is the Earth. Now draw a stick man (FN) directly on top of it. Next, higher and to the right draw another circle. This is the Sun. Starting where FNs feet touch the top of the Earth, draw a straight line out to the Sun. This is called the hypotenuse. Next, draw a vertical line down from the Sun. This is called the Opposite side (or 'rise'). Finally, draw a horizontal line from FNs feet to the Opposite side. This is called the Adjacent side (the 'run'). This is a right triangle. Now, it may help to also draw a dotted line running up through FNs feet, through his head and vertically up. The angle between the hypotenuse and the adjacent is called "theta", and it is measured by FN with a bubble octant. The angle between the dotted line and the hypotenuse is called omicron. You may already see what's going on here. Please notice that the sum of meridians of longitude on Earth is 360, the same number of degrees in a circle. Now, draw a line from the center of the Earth to FNs feet (on the same track as the dotted line). Next, draw a straight line from the center of the Earth out to the Sun. Voila, the angle (call it "rho") that separates those last two lines is equal to omicron, but that angle is just the longitudinal, and angular, difference between FN and the point on the Earth where the Sun appears to be directly overhead. For a little rigor, let's point out that omicron does not *exactly* equal rho, but if the difference in the Earths radius and it's distance to the Sun is sufficiently large, then omicron nicely approximates rho. The rest of the puzzle, especially at what longitude the Sun is 'directly' overhead at a given time is obtained from a nautical almanac. Alik ************************************************************************* From Ric Congratulations. You've just managed to re-open a can of worms that we've examined and re-canned about a hundred times. Take a look at the TIGHAR webiste FAQ at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/FAQs/navigation.html and if you have any disagreements with it we can fight them out here with the help of our other celestial navigators. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:06:28 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Kelly Johnson's Headwind Chart Gary, that's interesting but the example is not realistic. In real life conditions the significance is of little practical value. We don't fly at 100mph into 100mph winds. The theory is correct but not of much value. The Electra was supposedly flying at 130K tas but we don't know at what altitude or OAT. Nor do we know what the winds were at any given point in the flight. Nor did they and if they even HAD the Kelly Johnson graph it would have been unusable as a practical matter. We're off on another nonsense trail. To use any figures at all is mere speculation and of no consequence, unless we're just having fun with numbers. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:06:34 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Relative bearing So, Carol, why do you think the plane would veer northerly? Alik ************************************************************* From Ric Look guys, there is absolutely no point in picking on Carol. Let's move on. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:08:15 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Buried Bones Tom were any of his cadavers cremated? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:09:30 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shooting th sun > << If I understand Gary correctly, the 157/337 LOP could be obtained from an > observation of the sun anytime from sunrise until an hour and eight minutes > later. >> > > or simply pre-computed, yes? > > Andrew McKenna Not necessarily, Andrew (as to the hour and eight minutes) I would depend on where the airplane was and at what particular times. As to YOUR question the answer is yes. It could also have come from a moon shot. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:25:57 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Relative bearing > If the flight "drifted far off course" it almost certainly was not because > Earhart was flying the wrong heading but, rather, because unrecognized > crosswinds blew them off course. In that event, the sun would come up at the > same relative bearing as if they were dead on course. > > Ric All this is true, but we should remember that if *at any time* during the flight an 'exact' fix was possible (see my previous posts; e.g. if at least two LOPs could be obtained at any 'one' point in the flight) then two things would be evident: 1.) the unexpected drift that had occured previously would immediately become 'recognized', regardless of the relative bearing of the rising sun. 2.) Any drift afterward would be due only to DR error from the last 'exact' fix. That error is a function of the distance traveled between the last 'exact' fix, the last "sun-line" obtained, and Howland island; among other factors. Doing one's best to obtain the maximum number of 'simultaneous' LOPs is a mathematical no-brainer for any competent navigator. An evidentiary basis for significant drift north or south then, is required if we are to posit a significant course change from the planned route. Foul weather over most or all of the route is a candidate, if there is evidence for it. But this weather would have to be *very* foul, considering the fact that there were not just a few, but numerous celestial bodies FN could have shot that night, in all parts of the sky, if visible (see the Nautical Almanac and the Cambridge Atlas of Astronomy). The only other affections possibly attributed to significant course drift would be navigator incapacitation. I am not aware of any such evidence. It should be noted, however, that this does not speak to the actions of the pilot upon intercepting the last DR advanced LOP 157-337. Alik *************************************************************************** From Ric There is no evidence of foul weather nor is there evidence of navigator incapacitation. There is an anecdotal indication that the airplane may have passed over the island of Tabituea in the Gilberts during the night which would have put it preetty much on course for Howland. The only known limitation on Noonan's ability to take celestial observations during the post-sunrise run in toward Howland was the need to descend below the scattered cloud deck so as to be able to look for the island. Recommended Lockheed procedures for such a descent suggest that it was probably initiated 150 to 100 miles out. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:28:13 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Shooting the sun > or simply pre-computed, yes? Sure, pre computed for any time in that interval. I expect that Noonan did his homework the night before leaving Lae and calculated curves of the sun's altitude and azimuth using Howland as the assumed position and graphed the results for immediate access in flight, that was a normal procedure. Then his observations would be plotted using the pre computed azimuths. If he took an observation after 1854 Zulu he would would have plotted it using 156-336. 1926 to 1949 Zulu it would have been 155-335; 1950-2005 then 154-334; 2006-2021 then 153-333 etc. Based on this it makes sense that AE's report on the LOP was based on a sight or sights taken anytime prior to 1854 Zulu. gl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:38:34 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: And furthermore ... > Another note to Lawrence: what you all "this plywood craft" > was actually made of mahogany. Is this still about PT boats? To be more specific, quoting National Maritime Initiative site entry for PT 796: "Like all American PT boats, 796 (nicknamed "Tailender") was constructed of mahogany and plywood..." http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky1/pt796.htm I've seen 796 several times close up. A great deal of it is definitely plywood. You aren't allowed on or in the boat any more, but back when I was much younger my school class had a field trip, and we did get to go inside. As I recall, the ribs and some other bits which were exposed wereclearly NOT plywood. An interesting bit about the above site is they discuss the condition the various boats and ships they keep track of using the term "integrity" in a manner similar to what I read relative to Historical Preservation on the TIGHAR site. - Bill **************************************************************************** From Ric Historic preservation of marine vessels is way ahead of aviation. In 1990 the National Park Service published "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Vessel Preservation Projects". It's an excellent guide. No such guidelines have been published for historic aircraft preservation projects because, frankly, no one in the historic aviation community wants to hear that thy're doing it wrong. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:40:07 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Shooting the sun Of course, pre computed. The azimuths are not measured at the time of observation but are computed by the navigator using tables or a slide rule or, in the modern era, digital calculators. The rest is for those who are curious as to how this is done. Everyone else stop reading here. You can do the calculation yourself. The formula for altitude is: sin Computed altitude = sin Latitude x sin Declination + cos latitude x cos declination x cos t. ("t" is the difference between Greenwich Hour Angle and longitude) This formula is normally written Sin Hc = sin Lat sin Dec + cos Lat cos Dec cos t. The formula for the azimuth angle is : sin Az =sin t cos Dec /cos Hc. Let's work an example for 18:46 Zulu on July 2, 1937. You can get the sun's data for July 2, 1937 at: http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/almanac-1937-22.JPG Howland is located at 0 degrees 48 minutes north latitude and 176 degrees 38 minutes west longitude. At 18:00 GCT (Zulu) the declination of the sun was 23 degrees 2.3 minutes north and its Greenwich Hour Angle (GHA) was 89 degrees 2.5 minutes. (this is equivalent to its longitude.) The sun moves westward at a rate of 15 degrees per hour so at 46 minutes after 18:00 the sun had moved 11 degrees and 30 minutes further making its GHA 100 degrees 32.5 minutes. Subtracting the GHA from the longitude of Howland to find angle "t"--176 - 38 minus 100 - 32.5 leaving 76 degrees 35.5 min. Using decimal degrees it is 76.5916 in,. the sun's declination is 23.03833, and Howland's latitude is .8 degrees north. You get an altitude, Hc of 12.6408 degrees (12 -38 minutes) and an azimuth of 66.54 degrees which rounds to 67. Noonan didn't have a calculator so he used Hydrographic Office Publication number 208 (H.O. 208) to do his calculations. Since he couldn't interpolate for the exact "minutes" of latitude and angle "t" his calculations would have shown an azimuth at 1 degree north (the closest tabulated to Howland's 48 minutes north) of 067 until 1849 Zulu, one hour and 3 minutes after sunrise. Which is different by a few minutes from the previous calculation and would have been the numbers that he would have been using. gl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:48:27 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: New Research Bulletin up Nicely done but I think you have got the description of the time zones wrong. Itasca was maintaining GMT minus 11.5 hours not plus 11.5. The confusion might have arisen because the "zone description" was "plus 11.5 hours." The zone description is the "number of hours that are added to or subtracted from" the local time to obtain GMT. I think I have noticed this discrepancy in other contexts on the TIGHAR site. "The zones lying in west longitude from the zero zone are numbered in sequence from 1 to 12, and are the plus zones, because, in each of these zones, the zone number must be added to the standard time to obtain Greenwich civil time... "(2) The "zone description" (Z.D.) of the time that is being kept is marked in a conspicuous manner on such of the ship's clocks as may be designated by the commanding officer... "(3) All entries of time in the ship's log books and records are accompanied by the "zone description" of the time being kept.... "(4) In all official correspondence, when time is referred to, the "zone description" is added.... "(5) When a vessel is in a harbor or within the territorial limits of a country where the legal time differs from the standard time zone system, the exact amount in hours, minutes, and seconds which it differs from Greenwich civil time is given with its appropriate sign of plus (+) or minus (-)." ( Bowditch, page 141, 1938 ed.) (Back then G.C.T. was Greenwich Civil Time which is the same as GMT or Zulu, or Universal time.) e.g. you add 11.5 hours to 0616 Itasca time to obtain the GMT of sunrise of 1746. AE took off on July 2nd from Lae at local time 1000 which had zone description of minus 10 hours so the GMT of the take off was 0000 July 2 and the time on Itasca was 1230 July 1st, 11.5 hours behind GMT. Zone descriptions in the western hemisphere are always "plus" and in the eastern are always "minus." gl *************************************************************************** From Ric You're right. We'll fix it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:54:49 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Sacred Cow For: Eric Eric, have I lost my memory or did Harry Truman eventually use a Constellation as his "Air Force One"? LTM Mike Haddock, #2438 ********************************************************************* From Herman De Wulf If you want to see FDR enjoying flight go to www.flyingclippers.com, then click on "Clippers at War". This story tells what Pan Aerican Airways Clippers performed during the war. The picture of FDR is at the bottom end. LTM (who loves flying) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:00:19 EDT From: PBS Subject: Re: Buried Bones Ric says: "The case was never officially finished or closed. Once they decided that it wasn't Amelia Earhart the identity of the castaway became less important and the file leaves the impression that other events during the autumn of 1941 pushed the matter into the background." I think it's a fair guess those 'events' eventually also pushed the bones underground. Unimportant castaway remains would have been disposed of with the local standard procedures for burying human remains. PBS ************************************************************************** From Ric Do you have specific familiarity with wartime Fijian colonial procedures or are you guessing based on your own familiarity with procedures in a completely different context? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:02:35 EDT From: Jdubb Subject: Re: Buried Bones I think PBS is having a little fun with the forum - "see the case ruling in: Commonwealth of Transylvania v. Frankenstein and Associates" ************************************************************************* From Ric Yes. That was joke. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:07:46 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Kelly Johnson's Headwind Chart But they probably did know what the wind was, they even reported it once over the radio. Noonan could calculate the wind between two fixes at night or by temporally flying three headings and measuring the drift on each heading with his drift meter during the day. This was all standard practice. gl ************************************************************************* From Ric They certainly THOUGHT they knew what the wind was or they wouldn't have been able to say "We must be on you..." at 0742 (1912). It seems equally certain that SOMETHING got screwed up because they sure as hell weren't where they thought they were. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:11:10 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Shooting the sun Would the moon and venus have definitely been visible and usable some time between dawn and 19:12 GMT assuming one was above any cloud? Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know about Venus but as I recall the moon was in its last quarter and was awkwardly positioned behind them, and by conicidence would have provided the same 157/337 LOP as the sun - so that's not much help. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:41:43 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Buried Bones Alan asks: "Tom were any of his cadavers cremated?" We were told that the Anatomy Dept. followed the wishes of the next of kin, where known, so some were cremated and some weren't. We were very interested in whether cremation was the option of choice if there WEREN'T any next of kin, and I THINK the answer to that was "no," but I could never get it entirely straight. I expect that a thorough inspection of the Anatomy Dept's records would give us the answer, but we didn't have time for that during the '99 Fiji Bones Search. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:50:58 EDT From: PBS Subject: Re: Buried Bones Ric says: "Do you have specific familiarity with wartime Fijian colonial procedures or are you guessing based on your own familiarity with procedures in a completely different context?" My reference to 'standard procedures' referred to Tom King's comment earlier that "standard operating procedure is... disposing of surplus cadavers through burial in local cemeteries..." My use of that reference may be out of context, however. For what it's worth [usually not too much], I am familiar with the usual US medical and pathology procedures for handling this kind of material, and have some knowledge of how the procedures changed here and in Europe over the past couple centuries. I have NO knowledge of Fiji standards and practices, however. If I sail there on vacation and ask about it, can I deduct the trip on my taxes? [pardon the humor]. PBS ************************************************************************ From Ric If you join TIGHAR and I assign you that research task then, yes, your expenses directly connected with the research should be tax deductible. If you decide to stay on in Fiji for the some sightseeing or scuba diving those expenses would not be deductible. Check with your tax adviser, of course. Oh, and your activites on TIGHAR's behalf must not have "any significant element of personal enjoyment". This is seldom a problem on TIGHAR expeditions. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:55:28 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Buried Bones PBS says: "I think it's a fair guess those 'events' eventually also pushed the bones underground. Unimportant castaway remains would have been disposed of with the local standard procedures for burying human remains." I think it's very likely that the "events" were responsible for whatever happened to the bones, but I don't think it follows that the remains would have been disposed of according to local SOP. Around the time the last entries appear in the bones file, such well-known events as Pearl Harbor and the Japanese invasion of (and British withdrawal from) the Gilberts took place; less well-known is the fact that in Fiji there was the expectation of imminent Japanese invasion, which brought about the mobilization of defense forces, later the stationing of a large New Zealand contingent and awhile later American forces on the island, and the storage of a lot of important stuff in caves. At about the same time, the High Commissioner, Sir Harry Luke, was replaced with a much more warlike Governor/High Commissioner, who let everybody know quite promptly that there was a war going on and that its prosecution was government's highest priority. We don't know (yet) what kinds of shake-ups there were in the WPHC bureaucracy surrounding this replacement, but they may have had much to do with the fact that files like that on the bones discovery end in an unresolved sort of way. Not only were personnel and priorities doubtless shifted around, but the records themselves may well have gotten squirreled away for safekeeping in caves and bombproofs. As for the bones, I'd guess that their disposal would depend on how they were explicitly or implicitly classified, at least in the minds of Hoodless and his colleagues. Were they thought of as (1) the remains of an indigent deceased person, or (2) as archaeological specimens, or (3) as items held in trust for Government, or (4) as something else? Were different things done with each such category? Probably, but we don't know what they were. I'd speculate that items in the (1) class would have been disposed of as PBS suggests, while items in the (2) class would have wound up in caves along with (perhaps) the collections of the Fiji Museum (whose skeletal collections Kar Burns checked, to no avail). Items in class (3), "Being Held For Government," might have wound up in a totally different place. We just don't know, but there are obviously lines of research to be pursued. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:33:40 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Relative bearing Would all and sundry agree then that the upshot of all this seems to be that if there was any large deviation from course by the time they reached Howland, it certainly occurred between the last nighttime fix and Howland. Furthermore, it did not occur between that fix and any shot of the sun whether at dawn or later unless the deviation was due only to uncompensated-for drift rather than flying an incorrect heading? Regards Angus ******************************************************************** From Ric It seems certain that certainly is not a word we can use with certainty when we're talking about events about which we have so little certain information. We do know that Fred's usual practice was not to order numerous mid-course corrections to keep the flight tightly on the planned route but, rather, to make a single big correction toward the end of the trip. In this case, the last opportunity he had to get a multiple-star fix from which to calculate the needed end-of-trip correction would probably be well before dawn and, therefore, before he could get a good handle on the wind using his drift meter. He could easily have been "angling" in toward Howland from either side of the straight-shot Great Circle route from Lae when he got his sun-shot 157/337 LOP. If you think this sounds pretty sloppy and prone to error, you're right - but remember that Fred was counting on DF for fine-tuning the approach to Howland. Fred's hands-off style is one of the more interesting things we've learned from studying charts he used on other long overwater flights. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:36:59 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Sacred Cow For Mike The Constellation you refer to was a VC-121E and was President Eisenhower's mount. President Truman initially used FDR's VC-54C "Sacred Cow" until a new aircraft became available. This was a VC-118, which served from 4 July 1947 until May 1953. The VC-118 was in fact a customized DC-6 (C-118 to the military). This aircraft was named "Independence" after Harry Truman's hometown in Missouri. President Eisenhower's VC-121 was named "Columbine III". As jet aircraft became available US presidents changed to more modern equipment and in October 1962 President J.F.Kennedy began using a VC-137C (customized Boeing 707), named SAM 2600 (SAM stood for Special Air Mission). The aircraft's had a distinctive look designed by Raymond Loewy on President Kennedy's request. The aircraft was used by later presidents until the advent of the VC-25A (Boeing 747). The VC-137 remained in service however, being used as a stand-by aircraft that followed the President wherever he travelled in the VC-25A. It was even replaced by another VC-137 in 1972 but eventually retired in 1990. US presidents occasionally used smaller mounts on short trips, including a U-4B (twin prop Aero Commander) and a VC-6A (twin turboprop Beechcraft King Air). Since the days of President Kennedy presidential aircraft were referred to as "Air Force One" when the president was on board. This is the call sign used for ATC identification when the President is on board. LTM (who never got a ride in one of these magnificent airplanes) ********************************************************* From Ric We now return to our regularly scheduled Earhart Forum. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:39:08 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Kar Burns on TV While channel surfing during the news hour one night last week, I ran across an interview of TIGHAR's own Dr. Kar Burns, who seems to be involved in the investigation of Chandra Levy's remains. It was very nice to get a face and voice to match up with the infrequent, but always interesting forum posts from Dr. Burns. LTM, who thinks it's great that pros like Dr's King and Burns, and Mr Glickman of Photek take time off from their real jobs to help TIGHAR. Dave Porter, 2288 (still the only Detroit TIGHAR) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:40:23 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Moon LOP I gather that the time required to work up a sun sight into an LOP was about 15 minutes. Since a moon sight requires more complex calculation, how long would this take? Since the moon at this time must have been crossing the nodal line at the plane of the ecliptic to give the same LOP as the sun, might this have simplified the calculation, or would one still have to go through all the motions to reach this conclusion and a 157/337 line? Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:43:55 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Relative bearing for Angus from Carol Dow << What do you mean by the "time of her disappearance" - >> Nice answer to the E-mail. I'll have to admit I lost track of what I meant by "time of her disappearance." Also, the item that really started me on this line was how Earhart and Noonan could have seen the mining lights at Nauru Island from a distance of approximately 200 nautical miles (straight line measurements from Lae to Howland). The only answer has to be Earhart swung the airplane slightly north of course and then came back on a new heading. Then again, I have no experience using GNC maps. WACs and Sectionals is all I have ever known. I have never flown international over open water although I have had several offers one of which was to the North Pole and back. Can you imagine flying Dallas-Addison to the North Pole and back? How thrilling. Those guys in Dallas and their Bonanzas....anything goes. Around the world? Nothing to it. Elgen Long does a good job of keeping me off guard with all his assumptions. Carol Dow ******************************************************************* From Ric Could have seen the mining lights at Nauru? Who ever said they saw the mining lights at Nauru? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:45:09 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Relative bearing For Alik There was an E-mail to Angus about veering North. Alik, hope you noticed that one. Also, The History Channel placed a big Red "X" approximately 150 miles north and slightly west of Howland Island as the point where Earhart splashed down. I don't know where that came from, but I suspect Elgen Long had something to do with it. Carol Dow ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:29:26 EDT From: Tom Byer Subject: Re: Betty's Radio I would disagree with Eric, Zenith radios were more prevalent than Scott. Scott radios were purchased only by the very well-to-do. One model sold for about $750, a fortune in the 1930's. By contrast, a Zenith might sell new for $100. Scott's advertising slogan was, "...if you can find a better radio, buy it" Tom ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:39:22 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: New Research Bulletin up I can't get the Itasca PDF files to open. I downloaded the latest Adobe Acrobat and it still didn't work. I'm using a PC with Explorer's latest version. blue skies, jerry *********************************************************************** From Ric I just tried it and it worked fine. I'm running a MAC G3 and using Explorer via AOL and Acrobat Reader 4.0. You may have just gotten a bad download. Anybody else having trouble? Incidentally, we've just changed the introduction section to make it clearer that there are full, page-by-page plain English translations of both logs linked to the Background section. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:41:04 EDT From: Suzanne Subject: Re: New Research Bulletin up >Any url mentioned on the forum has to be manually entered into your browser OOPS that's not true. Most email software these days "recognizes" URLS and automatically turns them into an active hyperlink, thus all the URLS I see in the forum are indeed "clickable." As Gary said, since this posted one had a blank space, it did not "work" in his software. Most of the time it works. It depends on your formatting at the other end. Sometimes forum posts have double spacing, sometimes they don't. ************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. I stand corrected. I didn't realize that. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:42:36 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Shooting the sun I think there is some confusion about what we are talking about here. It may be my confusion. The original question was in response to a prior sentence, which is quoted here: "If I understand Gary correctly, the 157/337 LOP could be obtained from an observation of the sun anytime from sunrise until an hour and eight minutes later." The subject of the sentence is "LOP", so the reader asks, "or simply pre-computed, yes?" referring to pre-computing an LOP, not an "azimuth", or bearing to the Sun. They are not the same thing. Yes, of course you can pre-compute an azimuth, but to "pre-compute" an LOP is non-sensical as an LOP is an ordered set of latitude-longitude pairs of *your* position *at the moment and place* where you measured the angle between the horizon and the celestial body. Obviously, only one of them can be your actual position. But the whole point of an LOP is to narrow down your possible positions to a single line, *at the moment and place* at which the measurement was made. It makes no sense to 'pre-compute' that the night before in Lae, New Guinea. The sextant, or bubble octant, is what calculates the angular separation between the horizon and the celestial body (what you - and most navigators - term "altitude"), and if that could be pre-determined in order to calculate an LOP (in Calculus we say that the function f "depends" on theta) why bring it along on a voyage in the first place? Obviously, the time and place of the measurement are co-dependent. Are we beating the proverbial dead horse now? Preaching to the choir? In like fashion to gl, if you are not interested in the details you can ignore the rest of this: The calculations you outline above are simply the trigonometric properties of an azimuth, taken as a function of the various "errors" that enter into an LOP calculation and the position of the intended destination (and for God's sakes please close your functions' domain with parerenthesis; e.g. sin(x) :-)). In my previous post, "theta" referred to HS, corrected (for dip, IC, etc.) to HA, corrected for "altitude" (read theta, or angular separation of the horizon and the celestial body) HO, and finally HC which corrects for seasonal tilt, in navigator's parlance. Your "altitude" relation is, in my earlier drawing example, the sine of the opposite side of the right triangle. So, yes, I concur that this calculation can be done in advance, I'm just not sure that is what the poster was actually asking about (or if he knew exactly *what* he was asking). Alik ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:43:46 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Shooting the sun > I don't know about Venus but as I recall the moon was in its last quarter and > was awkwardly positioned behind them, and by conicidence would have provided > the same 157/337 LOP as the sun - so that's not much help. Yep, yep. Just verified the location of the moon myself. Opposing celestial bodies do not offer a point of intersection... That actually explains a lot (why didn't AE report a DR adjusted 'exact' fix?). Alik ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:45:07 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Moon LOP I have not personally done a moon-shot, but sun and star shots can be banged out in about 5 minutes, with modern calculators. With pencil and paper, and assuming the fair degree of numeracy that you would think a navigator would possess, it should take no more than 10 minutes to do a single sun-shot, provided any calcs that *can* be done in advance are. The speed of a moon shot is really just a question of numeracy and how fast you can flip the pages of an almanac. It probably would take two or more additional minutes. The angular measurements are about the same in time and complexity. That being said, I have never shot anything in a moving aircraft, but I've 'heard' it isn't that bad with a bubble sextant if the pilot holds the plane steady. As for the LOP with opposed moon and sun, no, there is nothing about the moon that would speed up the sun-based LOP (sun-shot). Alik ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:48:52 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: More Info. for Angus and Ric from Carol Dow The only thing I can do is quote the historians Goldstein and Dillon's book entitled "Amelia" which reads as follows, pgs. 230-231: "Anther bit of information helps place the Electra in this time period. T.H. Gude, director of police on Nauru, had just bought a new 12 valve Atwater Kent Radio set and was following Amelia's flight with great interest. On the evening of July 2, the Gudes were entertaining guests at dinner. Much to his wife's annoyance, Gude kept tuning in to pick up any messages from Amelia. Between 10 and 11 P.M. local time, he heard her calling Harold Barnes, the officer in charge of the Nauru radio station. "She called several times and said she could see the lights on Nauru. The lights she referred to were the lights strung out along the 2/1000 foot cableway situated on top of the mountain to permit mining at night. Barnes was not on duty at this time, but Gude believed one of the operators was. The Nauru radio station was not on the air 24 hours a day, but for specific periods only. Gude's receiver was much more suitable to receiving radio broadcasts than was Radio Nauru's telegraph receiver that cut off the higher modulating frequencies and distorted the speech. Gude was quite sure the Electra went down somewhere between Nauru and the Gilberts. Nauru was not on Amelia's strip map, but they knew about the island and it's lights, thanks to Nauru official's initiative." And so the book goes on about a wire they sent to Lae, New Guinea, before the departure. Then this part cuts in: "Gude picked up Amelia's broadcast between 1100/2 and 1200/2 GCT, about an hour after her ship in sight message. We do not know whether, after passing Ontario, Amelia and Fred continued on their direct course to Howland or detoured to the neighborhood of Nauru to check their position." From there the book goes into doubt as to whether they altered their course because of night time visibility of the Nauru lights. The footnote from the book refers to a Letter, T.H. Gude to Frank Holbrook, 15 December 1969, courtesy of Safford; Flight into Yesterday, p. 35. I personally am not in agreement with the distance between the direct line of flight and Nauru Island. I'm getting approximately 200 nautical miles which means they would have had to have detoured to see the lights. Then again, I'm not accustomed to measurements on GNC charts so I can't verify that figure. However, a direct line of flight would have indeed taken Earhart and Noonan almost directly over the island of Tabiteau in the Gilberts. No question about it. That's all I know about it, and I probably made mistakes. So, over to you. Carol Dow *********************************************************************** From Ric Goldstein and Dillon were just rehashing Safford's work and Safford was never able to provide documentation for his claim that Gude heard Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:54:24 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Shooting th sun > Congratulations. You've just managed to re-open a can of worms that we've > examined and re-canned about a hundred times. Take a look at the TIGHAR > webiste FAQ at http://www.tighar.org/forum/navigation.html and if you have > any disagreements with it we can fight them out here with the help of our > other celestial navigators. > Hmmmm. I'm not sure to what "can of worms" you refer. I have read the web page. Can you be more specific? Alik P.S. thanks for the compliment, but I'm a gravitational physicist (Penn State), not a navigator :-) ********************************************************************* From Ric Over the years, explanations and arguments about LOPs and how they relate to the Earhart disappearance have been a constantly recurring theme on this forum. I finally put together a FAQ that, we hoped, would provide a satisfactory and accurate explanation that the lay reader could understand. If it's not right, we need to know that. If it is, I'd rather discuss topics that actually move the investigation forward. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:02:56 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Relative Bearing Grease? Celestial Navigation Forum: Does anyone have an extra can of relative bearing grease laying around, not being used? The grease would help all this celestial navigation speculation go down easier - word of caution, some of us lay people, our eyes are starting to glaze over on navigation speculation - getting back to dealing with known facts pertaining to the AE/FN flight would keep our interest in this forum and your efforts. Respectfully: Tom Strang ******************************************************************* From Ric Point taken Tom. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:05:57 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Ring Don't almost all pictures of Noonan show what appears to be a metal pen in his pocket? Th' WOMBAT *********************************************************************** From Ric Fred often carried a Parker pen in his shirt pocket. Castaways, unfortunately, often forego the pen - and the shirt. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:14:08 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Radio Log Project - Glossary Hate to be picky, but WGEN is not a "commercial [radio] station in Mariposa, California". As far as I know - as a native Californian - there is NO such town there. If there was, and it had a radio station, it would have a "K" call sign. However, WGEN was the call sign of the S. S. Mariposa, most likely from an eastern U.S. port. Aside from that, kudos to Pat - and whomever - for putting together a nice readable list. Cam Warren ******************************************************************* From Ric You're absolutely right. The 1937 Berne's List shows S.S. Mariposa owned by the Oceanic Steamship Company and having the call sign WGEN. The ship called the Itasca late that morning to ask if Earhart had arrived yet. Itasca replied, "Not yet." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:15:13 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Shooting the sun The only time of the day on July 2, 1937 in the vicinity of Howland that a moon shot would have produced a 157-337 LOP was between 1620 and 1626 Zulu or 0450 and 0456 Itasca time well before the arrival of NR16020 in that vicinity. This makes it very unlikely that AE was refering to a moon LOP. gl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:17:38 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Moon LOP Not at all. It takes about 1 minute to get the data from the almanac including interpolation for values between the tabulated, hourly values for the moon or the sun. Check it out yourself, go to http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/ then go to "resources" and then to the "nautical almanac for 1937." Navigators would schedule their shots to take place on the hour to avoid even this little bit of interpolation. The actual computation of the computed altitude and azimuth takes about 2 minutes using H.O. 208 which was the table used by Noonan. This pre computation could have been done prior to take off and Noonan could have written a table of pre computed altitudes and azimuths or a graph of the same. It was common practice to do the computations at 20 minute intervals and to plot the results on graph paper with straight lines joining the points so that the pre computed altitudes could be determined for intermediate times. Go to http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/ and then to "topics" and then to "pre computed altitude curves." So only about 3 minutes of computation total. The computation was done before taking the shot so as to reduce the time from the shot until the LOP was plotted. Noonan only had to compare his sextant reading with the pre computed altitude and plot the LOP. This takes takes less than a minute after completing the shot. In using the landfall procedure it is not even necessary to plot the resultant LOP as it would have been already plotted through Howland extending 157 and 337 from the island. Noonan only had to compare his sextant reading with the pre computed altitude which would tell him instantly if he was on the LOP and, if not, then how far off he was and which way he needed to correct to get on to the LOP. It is no more difficult working a moon sight than a sun sight. The only additional step, which takes about 15 seconds, is to look up the correction for "Parallax in Altitude" and to apply it to the pre computed altitude. The moon would have been in a position to produce a 157/337 LOP in the vicinity of Howland only between 1620 and 1626 Zulu or 0450 through 0456 Itasca time well before AE reported it. gl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:20:00 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Shooting the sun 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. The only time of the day on July 2, 1937 in the vicinity of Howland that a moon shot would have produced a 157-337 LOP was between 1620 and 1626 Zulu or 0450 and 0456 Itasca time well before the arrival of NR16020 in that vicinity. This makes it very unlikely that AE was refering to a moon LOP. Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:22:46 EDT From: Jeff Lange Subject: Detroit TIGHAR For Dave Porter I'm in Ypsilanti, MI. Only 30 miles from Detroit, so I figure I should count too. I also agree that it is great to have dedicated professionals who give of their time and talent to help us out. Keep up the good work! Jeff Lange ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:30:53 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Shooting the sun > From Ric > Over the years, explanations and arguments about LOPs and how they relate to > the Earhart disappearance have been a constantly recurring theme on this > forum. I finally put together a FAQ that, we hoped, would provide a > satisfactory and accurate explanation that the lay reader could understand. > If it's not right, we need to know that. ... I think I understand Alik's distinction. A "line of position" can be derived from any celestial sighting, not just the sun. The LOPs are blurry (plus or minus some amount, depending on the precision of the instruments and the accuracy of the observations). Three LOPs that cross each other give you a pretty good triangle of probability of where you were when the sightings were taken. Two LOPS that cross each other give you a less accurate estimate of your postion. One LOP gives you a blurry line that you were probably on at the time of the observation. From reading tables, Fred could predict that when he saw the dawn the next day, the azimuth would be more or less 157/337. What he could not predict would be the time at which he would make that observation. Knowing what time it was when he saw the rising sun is the crucial information that would tell him where they were over the face of the earth, and therefore where to draw the LOP on his charts. I argue that (for whatever reason) Fred either did not or could not get a revised fix later in the day, because the last message received reports that he and AE were using 157/337 as their search path. Marty #2359 ***************************************************************** From Ric I think most of us understand those points and thank you for summarizing them without using any Greek words. I agree with your conclusion. I have also learned, in the course of these discussions, that people LOVE to talk about things they know about and have a bit of a tendency to see their area of expertise as the crucial factor in any problem. That's probably understandable, but unfortunately it tends to lead to endless speculation that just burns bandwidth (and patience) without really advancing the investigation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:31:42 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: New Research Bulletin up Jerry's problem may result from the the files been compressed using Stuffit, which accounts for the .sit extension on the file names. The files can be "unstuffed" by using the Aladdin Expander, which is available as freeware from Aladdin Systems at www.aladdinsys.com . LTM, Bob ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:33:06 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: New Research Bulletin up The problem is the *.sit format posted on the forum. To open the files with a PC, you need to get and install the StuffIt Expander, then the files will decompress just fine. Same thing happened to me. Just one of those interesting differences between Planet Mac and Planet PC. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:34:38 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: New Research Bulletin up Ooops! I forgot to mention that the download for the StuffIt Expander is a freebie on the web:) Dave *********************************************************************** From Ric Sounds like we should provide a link in the bulletin. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:42:47 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: New Research Bulletin up Will the Bulletin be coming out in regular Tighar Bulletin mail? I can't get it either. Ron Bright *********************************************************** From Ric No, the plain English translations depend upon color-coding that we can't reproduce in TIGHAR Tracks' black and white format. What about the bulletin can you not get? *********************************************************** From Suzanne Jerry Hamilton said: >I can't get the Itasca PDF files to open. I downloaded the >latest Adobe Acrobat and it still didn't work. I'm using a >PC with Explorer's latest version. Jerry, another way to see the PDF file is to go to the link, and RIGHT click. From the menu that pops up, choose "Save Target As" and the normal "save as" box will open for you to save the file to a directory (folder) on your hard disk. You also might need the free software "Aladdin Stuffit Expander for Windows" to uncompress the file. Maybe your computer does not recognize the ".sit" file extension. You can download that free "lite version" of the software here. It's 4MB. http://www.stuffit.com/expander/ The most current version of Adobe Acrobat Reader is 5.0.5 (8.5 MB) for those who want to upgrade from older versions. Congrats to Ric and Pat for all the hard work on this recent project. Suzanne ********************************************************* From Ric And apologies for any difficulties PC users are experiencing. I guess we should put up some instructions and a link. We MAC-types sometimes forget what life is like PCers. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:45:22 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: New Research Bulletin up << Sometimes forum posts have double spacing, sometimes they don't.>> For what it's worth, I find that if I post to the Forum in HTML it comes back single spaced, if not then double. Phil Tanner 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:48:41 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Moon LOP >From Alik >I have not personally done a moon-shot, You must have had a dull adolescence. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:58:54 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Shooting th sun Ric wrote: >I finally put together a FAQ that, we hoped, would provide a >satisfactory and accurate explanation that the lay reader could understand. >If it's not right, we need to know that. If it is, I'd rather discuss topics >that actually move the investigation forward. Ahh. Well, the page is in the whole correct as far as I can see, but from some of the comments in the forum I suspect it is incomplete. Alik **************************************************** From Ric It's always a compromise. Nothing that most people can read and understand is going to make celestial navigators happy. We never try to dumb anything down but we do try to make the essentials of the case accessible to anyone who has a good general education. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 20:04:49 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Nauru detour It really doesn't make any difference if Earhart detoured to the north to pickup the mining lights at Nauru. Whatever they did they went back on course anyway so it's water over the dam. I had a thought, but it's not checking out. Carol Dow ******************************************************************* From Ric It does make a difference. If Earhart's route to the vicinity of Howland included a huge dogleg it changes all kinds of assumptions about average speeds and winds and fuel consumption. That's why we have to be so careful to accept only well-documented sources of information. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 20:05:15 EDT From: Angus Subject: Re: Moon LOP > As for the LOP with opposed moon and sun, no, there is nothing about the > moon that would speed up the sun-based LOP (sun-shot). > Alik No - this is not what I meant. The reference to 157/337 was to a moon derived LOP not a sun derived LOP. Ric pointed out that the moon coincidentally would produce the same LOP as the sun (157/337). How does this square with Alan's statement some time ago that the moon was at 30 degrees to the sun's azimuth and Ric's that the moon was somewhere behind them? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 20:08:10 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: Shooting the sun >>to "pre-compute" an LOP is non-sensical...<< The statement might have meant precomputing--for some convenient times--the Sun height for an LOP running across the destination. If done for hourly intervals around the time of arrival, then the height at any time in between (except for the time within 30 minutes of culmination) can be interpolated accurately enough. Mark Prange ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:17:57 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Shooting th sun >From Ric > >I think most of us understand those points and thank you for summarizing them >without using any Greek words. I agree with your conclusion. Indeed. It was my hope that by avoiding navigation-specific terminology the meaning of an LOP might be clearer to those not so initiated, but in hindsight I didn't realize just how 'trade-specific' math can be for some people. I should get out more :-) >I have also learned, in the course of these discussions, that people LOVE to >talk about things they know about and have a bit of a tendency to see their >area of expertise as the crucial factor in any problem. That's probably >understandable, but unfortunately it tends to lead to endless speculation >that just burns bandwidth (and patience) without really advancing the >investigation. Agreed, to a point. The reason I initally made the distinction so eruditely characterized by Marty was because of comments in some posts to the effect of "an LOP can be pre-computed", which represents a fundamental lack of understanding of what an LOP *means*. In that case, it most certainly has relevance to your investigation and it most certainly is *not* a waste of time to clarify it. Upon reading the latest reply to this concern I raised, I see that it is conceded that an angular measure must still be made at the time and place of the desired LOP, which entails doing computations for HO, HA and HC, all of which are computed or 'looked up' in tables on site after the angular measure, theta or "altitude", (whichever you prefer) is observed; e.g. an LOP cannot, in it's entirety, be pre-computed. I agree with you that, given that this clarification is now made, it is no longer productive to continue discussing a point with which we are all so violently in agreement. :-) Alik ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:20:06 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Moon LOP >How does this >square with Alan's statement some time ago that the moon was at 30 degrees to >the sun's azimuth and Ric's that the moon was somewhere behind them? > >Regards Angus. Apologies. My Atlas shows that the moon should have been roughly on the "back azimuth" of the Sun's true bearing; at sunrise. I'll double check this calc with some more rigor and get back to you.... Alik ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:24:17 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: New Research Bulletin up In my case it's the stuffit compression that stops me reading them. None of my archiving programs seem to open the compressed file. Unfortunately I don't normally use Windows. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************** From Ric A link to the Stuffit download and instructions for PC users is now included in the bulletin. I should also point out that the plain English translations of the logs - which is kinda the point of the bulletin - are not compressed and should be readily openable by anyone. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:25:15 EDT From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: Detroit TIGHAR For Jeff Lange and Dave Porter,hey fellows can I get in on this? I only live 50 miles from Detroit,I go there twice a month to the Model Airplane Store.All the best. Terry Lee Simpson(#2396) PORT Huron , Mich (LTM........MEANS LOTSOF TIGHAR MEMBERS) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:26:53 EDT From: Lee Boyle Subject: Re: NORWICH CITY Cache There has been discussions about how long canned goods, etc., like the Norwich City left over supplies would last. I have copied parts of a January 1947 Inspection Report the Coast Guard made two years after the closing of the Phoenix Island Coast Guard Loran Stations. I sent you and Tom King copies of this report several years ago which was found in the National Archives in Washington, DC. The report below shows canned good leaking and rusting within two years. This may change the thinking of some that maybe the can good left over from the Norwich did not last as long as they thought. From: Lieutenant (jg) Howard A. Linse, USCG To: Commander, 14th Coast Guard District Subject: Phoenix Island Loran Stations: inspection of 1. The writer departed Honolulu, 10 January, 1947 and arrived at Canton Island 11 January, 1947 The USCGC BUTONWOOD was present and provided transportation for the inspection party to the Loran Stations on Baker, Gardner and Atafu Island. 24. The writer proceeded to Gardner Island and inspected the Loran Radio Station Unit (92) 21 January, 1947. The native magistrate arranged for Transportation ashore and down the lagoon to the Coast Guard Station. The aircraft mooring buoy is still afloat and the runways are indicated by empty oil drums placed on pipe driven into dangerous coral heads. The long runway is somewhat over a mile in length. The native guard Buake was present at the site and was living with his family in a nearby grass hut. The general appearance of the station and grounds is excellent and everything appears as it had been left by the Coast Guard. All huts and storage buildings are well preserved by paint and should provide adequate protection from the elements for approximately four years with only routine maintenance. The joints and stringers under the quonset hut are in excellent condition. 28. The commissary stores are all in one Quonset hut and a large B/S will be necessary and may be expected upon reopening the station. CANNED JAMS AND FRUIT IN PARTICULAR HAVE RUSTED THROUGH OR BURST OPEN AND ARE LEAKING DOWN OVER THE DECK. B/S - Board of Survey. *********************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. Thanks Chuck. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:28:41 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Shooting th sun > From Alik > ... from some of the comments in the forum I suspect it is incomplete. The forum is a one-room schoolhouse. Some of the participants are post-docs. Some of us are in kindergarten. As someone said once upon a time, there's a new TIGHAR born every minute. Old TIGHARs need to be patient when new TIGHARs are born. The alternative would be to create "grades" and separate classrooms, which, in the long run, would be less bothersome for the elders but probably less educational for the newcomers. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:31:12 EDT From: Denise Subject: Paper trails vs the coconut wireless! PBS says: "If there is no paper trail, it seems very unlikely Hoodless sent them anywhere." The Good Ol' Coconut Wireless has it that Hoodless asked that they be placed in storage (he may have instructed Pery-Johnston to do it), and so they were stuck in the basement of the Colonial War Memorial Hospital - on Waimanu Road in Suva - and, thanks to more pressing matters - such as a war - were subsequently forgotten about for over a decade. What happened to them next is a matter of speculation! LTM (who enjoyed the odd speculation or two!) Denise ********************************************************************* From Ric The Good Ol' Coconut Wireless is also pure speculation. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:33:20 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Shooting the sun Gary, > The only time of the day on July 2, 1937 in the vicinity of Howland that a > moon shot would have produced a 157-337 LOP was between 1620 and 1626 Zulu or > 0450 and 0456 Itasca time well before the arrival of NR16020 in that vicinity. > This makes it very unlikely that AE was refering to a moon LOP. There seems no reason why this sight could not have been made 350 miles from Howland and the LOP advanced to Howland especially if no sun shot was available. Regards Angus. ***************************************************************** From Ric But what reason do we have for thinking that a sun shot was not available? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:37:51 EDT From: Denise Subject: Fiji's Dead! PBS says: "There is usually a policy based on local custom to handle the material. It should be possible to find out what the usual policy was." Well, dad used to hold his dead on ice in his morgue until family turned up to collect them. They would then be shipped back, usually on ice, to their own island or area and be buried there. Since this practice was never queried, I'd say it was standard procedure for the entire Fiji Group. As for the actual disposal of the bodies, burial was the usual custom until space became a problem and cremation became more usual. Cemeteries were usually racially separated, not as a racist practice but because everyone had different customs, gods, ways of burial, standards of aesthetics and appropriateness, and ways of consecrating the ground and so it was easier to designate different areas for each. (which means there would have been a problem in knowing where to bury someone who was unidentifed.) In Suva itself, apart from the various cemetaries located on the road between Lami and Suva, there was - and still is - a crematorium down near Laucala Bay, run as an Indian operation, with open air burnings (which sounds romantic until you actually go to one and thereafter you think of as disgusting), although all Fiji's various races were dealt with - as you could tell whenever the wind blew in the right direction. (Were you aware that you can tell what race a burning person is, simply by the smell? Chinese smell of soy sauce, Indians smell of tumeric and other spices, Fijians smell of sugar and starch, and Europeans smell like icecream.) The only standard deviation from these burial and cremation practices was the handling of the Parsee population. Since Fiji lacked the vultures required to tear the bodies apart, Parsees were placed on tall towers on the hills near Deuba and then set alight after a few days. The Health Authorities were rigorous in ensuring the dead were dealt with properly ... as Bill Eric discovered when he buried his wife, Carrie, on an orchid-covered island in his own lake on his own property. That turned into a shoot-out between Bill and the Fiji Army (which all ended well once Bill surrended), which just goes to show that no variations were permissible. There you go. All I know about how Fiji handles its dead. LTM (who preferred the latter days when the morgue was used to store fishing tackle) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:04:25 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: S.S. Mariposa From the comments from Cam Warren and Ric, I would have to believe that the S.S. Mariposa was in the Pacific at the time of Earhart's disappearance as I beleive it was almost all it's service life. Ron Reuther ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:06:46 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Betty's radio Tom Byer wrote: "Zenith radios were more prevalent than Scott. Scott radios were purchased only by the very well-to-do. One model sold for about $750, a fortune in the 1930's. By contrast, a Zenith might sell new for $100." The same website that contains a picture of the Zenith Strat 1000 (lost the url, sorry) says that radio ALSO listed for $750, and only a few hundred were made. I agree that $750 was a small fortune in the 1930s -- probably beyond the means of Betty's dad, a power-company employee. It would have been something like 15 to 20 percent of his annual income. For a guy making $40,000 today, that's an $8,000 radio! If the power company offered Strat 1000's at a discount, it must have been >some< discount. However, I really doubt that utilities were dealing in high-end models like the Scotts and Strat 1000's. If they did have some sort of discount program it makes more sense that they would have offered radios within the reach of the average consumer -- maybe $25 to $100. Also please note the height of the Strat 1000. Illustrations can be deceiving, but if Betty was lying in a semi-reclining position with her head and shoulders propped up against the radio, it appears she would have needed the arms of an orangutan to reach over her head and change frequencies. In any event I think Betty's antenna rig was more important than the specific model of radio she used. Pat Gaston PS My "data" on 1930s wage levels comes from an admittedly-quick internet search. The only specific info I found was the biography of a much-accoladed University of Illinois professor, who was hired in 1930 at a salary of $4,000 but whose pay was reduced to $3,500 in 1936 because of the depression. So, unless Betty's dad was a fairly high executive, I think an estimated annual salary of $3,500 to $4,000 is being generous. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:07:41 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: LOP stuff! MEGO! MEGO! MEGO! Cut some slack! Move on, PAH-LEAZE!! LTM, R.I.P, MEGO'd to death! Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:08:24 EDT From: PBS Subject: Re: Fiji's Dead! Denise says: "There you go. All I know about how Fiji handles its dead." Thanks Denise! PBS ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:12:23 EDT From: Carol Subject: Re: New Research Bulletin up Ross, I have WinZip.com on my computer and there is a free download demonstrator at the site for decompressing files. It works for me. Sending and receiving on an IBM Aptiva Windows 98. WinZip.com probably has a Mac version. Carol Dow ********************************************************************** From Ric There is no Mac version of WinZip. Stuffit does have a PC version and it's a much better compression program than the Microsoft product. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:20:59 EDT From: DAVE Subject: Re: Fiji's Dead! Everyone keeps talking like this is a WHOLE body - it is just a few bones. They don't need to be kept in storage. I don't know why they would cremate just bones, when they would be just as easily interred (especially since they already had their own "coffin"). The question is, to me, wouldn't there be an OFFICIAL investigation into the identity of the individual before they just did away with the bones and dropped the whole thing? You don't just find remains and drop the whole case. Have the police files been checked? Yours, David Bush ************************************************************************ From Ric They tried to identify the body and they didn't just drop the whole thing. They took it as far as they could and left the file open. This was a Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony matter and the colonial police in Fiji would have no jurisdiction or means to conduct an investigation. There was a nominal police force in Tarawa but certainly nothing capable of carrying out this kind of investigation. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:22:48 EDT From: Carol Subject: Afterthoughts I think I'm right, Earhart and Noonan had to detour to the North or to the South going into Howland. Yes? No? So, if they detoured to the North, it would produce a right turn (southbound) on the LOP. Yes? No? That's one of the reasons why I was suspicious of a turn to the North to pick up the Nauru mining lights. Yes? No? Drop the subject? Carol Dow ******************************************************************* From Ric Drop the subject. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:23:58 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Nauru detour I don't know whether AE passed near Nauru or not, but my impression is that the difference in distance Lae-Nauru-Howland versus Lae-Howland is only a matter of about 41 statute miles - no big deal. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:27:13 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Shooting the sun > From Ric > But what reason do we have for thinking that a sun shot was not available? The point I'm making is that we can't jump to the conclusion that the 157/337 line referred to by AE is a sun derived LOP. It could be a moon derived LOP or a precomputed line (in the sense that Fred knew in advance what the altitude of the sun would be at particular times on such a line passing through Howland ). As for evidence that they did not perhaps get a sun shot, - well....... they got lost didn't they? Multiple sun shots would give ground speed, a well confirmed line of position and as an incidental - a check on flying an incorrect heading. From previous argument it seems unlikely that they were substantially off course when star celestial was available and there seems no reason to think that it wasn't available much of the time. From what little we know of their track, the evidence seems to support the idea that they were generally on course until at least Tabiteuea. If, after dawn they got no sun shots they had no ground speed information from them and probably were unable to get drift information until they were sufficiently low and very close to the LOP (advanced to Howland) derived from a moon shot (if they took one). By that time they could be sufficiently off course due to a mistake in heading, incorrect allowance for drift or incorrect idea of ground speed to explain their inability to find Howland. I came across an early sailing ship reference to Gardner which desribed it as visible from 15 miles in good weather. At 1000 ft one might expect Howland to be visible from at least this distance and possibly as much as 20. Carondelet reef (underwater) was visible to the Colorado pilots from ten miles. Bearing in mind Fred's expected margin of error, it seems more likely than not that had they been on course with the correct ETA they would have found Howland. Ergo the 157/337 line referred to may well have not been sun derived. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:45:17 EDT From: Denise Subject: No Subject John Pratt says "Administrator has old bones, no apparent worth, cluttering his office. He "does the decent thing" and calls the padre... The most likely thing for a local curate to do is a decent burial, locally, with a notation in the parish records "Unknown Castaway, May God have Mercy...." and the burial plot." John, this may be very well and true in any country with one main religion, but Fiji equally recognises the validity of all religions. So, with unidentified remains, do you automatically get the local padre or curate or, for that matter, a priest? Or do you call on the local pundit? Or do you get yourself the local brahmin or sadhu or bete or witchdoctor or stomper or imam or mardhi or mullah or, god knows, the resident feng-shui expert? Whatever you chose, without having a rough idea of who the unknown castaway was - and therefore the probability of what their religion was - you'd be making a bloody huge assumption ... and not one I'd personally want to make, especially if I were a person who respected the right of all people to be buried by the rites of their religion of choice. And just say this hypothetical Administrator left with the bones was an atheist - albeit a man of honour who tried to do "the decent thing" - what would he do then? LTM (who also respected the right of all people) Denise ************************************************************** From Ric I think that Gallagher's note to the file of July 3, 1941, written when he visited Fiji that summer, gives us a pretty good idea of what the consensus was around WPHC headquarters: "I have read the contents of this file with great interest. It does look as if the skeleton was that of some unfortunate native castaway and the sextant box and other curious articles found nearby the remains are quite possibly a few of his precious possessions which he managed to save. 2. 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 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." This entry has always struck me as odd. Gallagher seems to be signing on to the "party line" and disregarding the evidence that originally led him to think it might be Earhart. Irish also knows very well that you can go from anywhere on the island to anywhere else on the island by simply walking along the beach. It's as if they all decided, "We can't figure out who this is so we'll just say it's a native and be done with it." If he's a "native" out in the Central Pacific then he's a Christian but there'd be no way to tell if he was Protestant or Catholic. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:46:41 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Earhart talk and book signing In a futile effort to keep pace with Tom King, I will be giving a presentation on the Earhart mystery on Saturday June 15, 2002 at the annual banquet of the St. Paul Radio Club. At the conclusion, I will be signing copies of the Earhart Shoes book that I co-authored with Tom, Kar and Randy J. (will have copies for sale). The banquet will be held at the Cherokee Sirloin Room in St. Paul, Minnesota. Dinner starts at 7 PM with the presentation to follow. The meal/show costs $19.95. They have very good steaks and lots of other food choices. All are welcome. You can reserve a spot by calling Sherm at 651-699-2237. thank you Kenton Spading ps Thank you to forumite Kathi for setting this up and to Tom King for assistance in putting together a Powerpoint show. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:49:01 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shooting th sun > Agreed, to a point. The reason I initally made the distinction so > eruditely characterized by Marty was because of comments in some posts > to the effect of "an LOP can be pre-computed", which represents a > fundamental lack of understanding of what an LOP *means*. In that case, > it most certainly has relevance to your investigation and it most > certainly is *not* a waste of time to clarify it. Upon reading the > latest reply to this concern I raised, I see that it is conceded that an > angular measure must still be made at the time and place of the desired > LOP, which entails doing computations for HO, HA and HC, all of which > are computed or 'looked up' in tables on site after the angular measure, > theta or "altitude", (whichever you prefer) is observed; e.g. an LOP > cannot, in it's entirety, be pre-computed. > I agree with you that, given that this clarification is now made, it is > no longer productive to continue discussing a point with which we are > all so violently in agreement. :-) > > Alik Alik, you have come upon us late in the game and it is nice to see someone who is knowledgeable about celestial navigation. But I'm afraid you are tilting at windmills. What your far too lengthy paragraph above says in a much shorter version is that some folks do not understand celestial navigation. We know that. They know that and it is unlikely they will ever engage in that activity. Celestial navigation was a great part of my military career. It is unlikely I will ever navigate anything via celestial navigation again. We have GPS. Whether some folks have it correct or even if no one has it correct, it has nothing to offer in the way of resolving our mystery. AE and Fred Noonan flew from Lae, New Guinea to the vicinity of Howland Island, couldn't see it and flew off to some place else. That's the whole thing in a nut shell. How they got to near Howland and wherever else they went is a fun exercize but little more. All it does is fill in the cracks but it doesn't tell us where they ended up. Who cares how they got there? You can certainly see it doesn't matter where the 157/337 LOP came from. They might have made it up for all it matters. AE spoke of flying on it and THAT is the only significance. It doesn't matter what the cloud cover was or was not or what the winds were or what the temperture was or whether Noonan could see any particular celestial body or none. We know he got the plane to the vicinity of Howland and there is reasonable evidence he got it to Gardner. What difference does it make how? The celestial/clouds/weather issue is just stuff to keep our little fingers busy but doesn't track down artifacts or bones or Electras. But I have to admit it's fun. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:52:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Moon LOP Angus asks: > How does this > square with Alan's statement some time ago that the moon was at 30 degrees to > the sun's azimuth and Ric's that the moon was somewhere behind them? Alik says: > Apologies. My Atlas shows that the moon should have been roughly on the > "back azimuth" of the Sun's true bearing; at sunrise. I'll double check > this calc with some more rigor and get back to you.... Alik, in spite of my last note decrying lengthy notes which in itself was too long I'll comment on this since my name appeared. Some of us make casual comments about such celestial events not expecting anyone to go out and try to use the information for some particular purpose. They are general comments to try to help unknowledgeable people better understand certain concepts. I should add a warning, "Don't try this at home." Angus is missing two other ingredients -- time and location. On July 2, 1937 there was a time and location where the sun's azimuth was 67 degrees. There was also a time and location when the moon also had a 67 degree azimuth. Those times and locations do not coincide. There was also a time and location wherein the sun and the moon was around 30 degrees apart in azimuth. I did not specify the exact degree of separation because I didn't expect anyone to fly off to Howland this summer and try to use that information. HOWEVER if anyone has the capability of transporting BACK in time to July 2, 1937 and arriving at Howland at exactly 1800Z they will find the sun at 67 degrees ZN with an HC of + 2 degrees 31.7 minutes, a GHA of 89 degrees 02.4 minutes and a declination of N23 degrees 02.3 minutes. The moon had a zn of 34.1 degrees, Venus 66.6 degrees zn, Jupiter 247.8 degrees zn and Saturn 263.5 degrees zn. All this and more can be obtained from the Naval Observatory. All of those celstial bodies will be directly in front of or directly behind or any place along side of the airplane depending on the Electra's direction of flight at any given time. And none of this information will tell us whether the bones are at Fiji or if the Electra is in the water off Gardner or buried up to it's loop antenna somewhere on the island. Now to REALLY answer Angus' question or what I think he wants to know is did Noonan have a choice of celestial bodies to shoot at some point not too far out from Howland that would have given him a good fix. The short answer is yes. Alik can tell you the same thing in 3 pages or less. (Just in good fun, Alik). I can tell you from many years of flying experience that even after the sun pokes up over the horizon the stars are easily visible in the same part of the sky and even more so in the rest of the quadrants. Obviously weather is a factor and we don't know what Noonan's celestial visibility was but then no one else does either. NO ONE, not even Elgin. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:53:17 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Moon LOP Alik, Having looked back at old forum postings, I have to admit that I have wrongly remembered Alan saying the moon was at 30 degrees to the sun's azimuth. So - my apologies Alan for putting words in your mouth and my apologies to you Alik for leading you up the garden path. It shows one shouldn't rely on memory! In fact he said it was at 68 degrees altitude and that Venus might have been available at or near the same altitude and would give a 30 degree cut with the sun line. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:04:17 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Question about Bones I recently completed reading one of the many AE disappearance-related books titled, "Amelia Earhart Returns From Saipan", Second Edition, written by Joe Davidson. (Yeah, some of it was corny and amateurish, and I already know your opinion of these kinds of books based on the "ended up in Saipan theory"). But, if one can accept the story as written about their trips to Saipan in the 1960s is truthful, then we can believe these gentlemen dug up some bones (that they strongly believe to be remains of AE), and brought them back to the United States for examination. After examination by a "professional" anthropologist specializing in identifying bones that have been burned or damaged (Dr. Baby), his conclusion is that the bones are most likely from a white female, and a white male. Unfortunately, that is where the story ends, without any smoking-gun positive identification. This examination of the bones occurred over 30 years ago. Since then, the science of DNA identification has rapidly advanced and is commonly used every day by researchers, law-enforcement, etc. OK....so now for my burning question. Assuming the bones brought from Saipan are still stored somewhere in the U.S. and are accessible, would it not be relatively simple and inexpensive to perform a DNA test to determine if the bones identified as being female could possibly be AE? Has anyone ever thought to do this? OK....so maybe Dr. Baby went to the same school as the doctor that examined the bones found by Gallagher (I'm joking), and could be wrong in his conclusion. Why not let Dr. Karen Burns analyze the Saipan bones and make her professional conclusion? OK...so how can all this support Tighar's theory? Because, if a DNA analysis of the bones comes back negative, then one more theory will be laid to rest, which will lend even more credibility to the more rational theory that she turned LOP 157 degrees and flew to the only island she knew she could reach with remaining fuel. Sincerely, Tom Riggs *********************************************************************** From Ric Proving Davidson wrong would not eliminate the Saipan theory any more than showing that Elgen Long misinterpreted the Lockheed chart eliminates the crashed-and-sank theory. I would encourage Mr. Davidson to pursue DNA testing if he thinks he has a valid hypothesis. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:08:54 EDT From: Troy Subject: Re: Fiji's Dead! For Denise: "(Were you aware that you can tell what race a burning person is, simply by the smell? Chinese smell of soy sauce, Indians smell of tumeric and other spices, Fijians smell of sugar and starch, and Europeans smell like icecream.)" Ok, everything else in your thread was factual, but this REALLY sounds a little like you're pulling someone's leg. As I've never had the pleasure/displeasure of smelling burning bodies, is that for real? --troy-- ********************************************************************* From Ric Unfortunately, my career in aircraft accident investigation made me familiar with the smell of crispy Europeans (white Americans). You never forget it - and it ain't like icecream. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:10:41 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Shooting the sun That's a vveerryy long way to advance an LOP and it would not have sufficient accuracy to assist in finding Howland. The accuracy of an advanced LOP degrades based on the inaccuracies of the DR. There are various published estimates of the accuracy of DR. Weems states 5% of the distance traveled. AFM 51-40 says 10% of distance traveled. HO 216 says a beginning navigator should use 20 NM per hour pus 1 % of the distance traveled. Go to : http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan and click on to "topics" then on to "accuracy of DR." Using the most optimistic estimate of 5% this would reach 17.5 NM after 350 NM. Then you must add the uncertainty of the first LOP, say 7 NM, to this which will make the uncertainty almost 25 NM. Using the middle estimate the uncertainty becomes almost 43 NM. Using the most conservative estimate in HO 216 and assuming a 130 K ground speed, the flight will take 2.7 hours times 20 NM per hour plus 1% which is 3.5 NM for a DR uncertainty of 57.5 NM plus the original 7 NM for a total of 64.5 NM! NOt mush help in looking for an island especially if the visibility might be only 10 NM. gl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:22:19 EDT From: Tom King Subject: June Knox-Mawer I'm happy to report to the Forum that I have a letter from June Knox-Mawer, author of "The Shadow of Wings" (a novelistic account of Earhart's fate, including a crash-landing in the Phoenix Islands). I'd been particularly interested in a mention in her acknowledgements that she'd gotten encouragement to write the book from the late Katherine Tottenham; there was some implication that Ms. Tottenham had had some idea, or even evidence, of what had happened to Earhart, but Ms. Knox-Mawer says that her interest was "purely as an admirer of Earhart." Another clue run to earth. Ms. Knox-Mawer asked a question that I can't readily answer, so I'll put it out to the all-known Forum (and Ric, who will probably give me an instant answer and wonder why I didn't KNOW this): Did Earhart suffer from Sinusitis? Incidentally, Ms. Knox-Mawer advises that "The Shadow of Wings" (1995, Weldenfield & Nicholson, London) is now out as an audio book, put out, she thinks, by a British company called "Isis" and as far as she knows not available in the U.S. Advice on Earhart's sinus condition will be much appreciated, so I can finish my response to Ms. Knox-Mawer and send her a copy of "Shoes." LTM Tom ************************************************************************* From Ric Earhart had chronic sinus trouble that began with her bout of influenza during the Great Epidemic of 1918. At that time she had a surgical procedure performed to drain one of her sinus cavities. It had to be done again in 1925. There are anecdotal accounts of further sinus trouble and a repeat of the procedure circa 1935. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:23:06 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Earhart Talk and Book Signing The Earhart presentation that I will be giving is at 630 PM as opposed to the 7 PM time that I posted yesterday. It is still at the same location.....Cherokee Sirloin Room in St. Paul, MN. Call Sherm at 651-699-2237 to make a reservation. thank you Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:26:13 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Mariposa To Cam Warren Is Mariposa a county or city? According to it's web page, VisitMariposa.net, it has a population of 1,769 and a Zip code, 95338. ************************************************ From Ric It's pretty clear that the radio station WGEN in the Itasca log is the ship SS Mariposa. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:27:42 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Fiji's Dead! Dave -- Good point about burial vs. cremation; the folks at the FSM Anatomy Department didn't seem to think that cremation was very likely, either. As you say, little point in it -- unless, of course, the bones just got tossed in with somebody else who was getting burned. Lots of wierd stuff can happen during the onset of war. As for an official investigation, as Ric says, there was one. And once it's decided that a body isn't the result of a crime, official investigations don't usually go very far. For example, years ago I was called in on the investigation of some bones that turned up at a construction site in downtown LA (I was at UCLA at the time). As soon as I decided they were (probably) prehistoric, all official interest by the coroner's office came to an end. I doubt if there was ever more than a memo to the file somewhere that the bones had been found. Of course, we retained records of the discovery at UCLA. So, around and around we go -- maybe there are more records someplace, but it depends on where the bones went, and at the moment we don't have any very hot leads. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:29:59 EDT From: Mark Prange Subject: Shooting the sun ...comments in some posts to the effect of "an LOP can be pre-computed", which represents a fundamental lack of understanding of what an LOP *means*. I see that it is conceded that an angular measure must still be made at the time and place of the desired LOP, which entails doing computations for HO, HA and HC, all of which are computed or 'looked up' in tables.....after the......"altitude"...... is observed Hc and the various (parallax, instrument, semidiameter, and dip) corrections can be looked up in tables long before the sight is taken. In most cases the refraction correction, too, can be known accurately enough beforehand. The advantage of height precomputation is that by looking up and applying the corrections [not to hs afterward, but to Hc] BEFORE the altitude is observed, the arithmetic can be checked in an unhurried way; with the sight (or average of sights) performed most of the arithmetic is already done and the LOP can be plotted more promptly. Mark Prange ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 14:02:24 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Where's the sextant? Something about this passage has also struck me as odd. What happened to the sextant itself? If someone stumbled upon Noonan's or Amelia's remains and, assuming Noonan had the sextant in the box, why would someone not take the neat box with the sextant. It would seem logical that Noonan would have taken the sextant in the box if he survived the landing. It has always bugged me that there was this nice storage box and no sextant. If I had stumbled across such an item, I would want to keep the sextant in the case it was designed to be stored in. I realize this is very speculative but it is still bothersome to me for some reason. Oh well. I'm sure this has been discussed before. Enlighten me! LTM (who is just a curious guy) Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric Yes, it has been discussed before but it's worth discussing again. The sextant box is one of the more fascinating of Gallagher's finds. The other items reportedly found at the site - the shoe sole part(s), the Benedictine bottle, the corks with brass chains, the remains of dead animals, the fire - provide very few clues about the possible identity of the castaway(s) except to suggest that he/she/they were probably European (despite Gallagher's rather bizarre conclusion about an unfortunate native). It's safe to say that the sextant box got there one of two ways - either it arrived with the castaway(s) or it didn't. If it didn't arrive with the castaway(s) it was either already there or it arrived while he/she/they were there. The structural integrity of the box (it was used to transport the other artifacts back to Fiji) and the presence of legible numbers on the box argue strongly for it not being exposed to the tropical elements for more than a few years at most. This would seem to greatly reduce the liklihood of the box having been associated with the wreck of the Norwich City eleven years earlier. One could postulate that it somehow fell off a ship, washed ashore at Niku, and was found and collected by the castaway(s) all in fairly rapid succession and not very long before the castaway whose bones were found died - but those are a lot of requirements to put on one lonely little sextant box. The simplest explanation would seem to be that the castaway(s) brought the box with them. When examined by Dr. Steenson in Fiji, the box gave him the impression that it had been most recently used not as a sextant box but as general container. How he got that impression is a matter of speculation but the possibility that comes most readily to mind is that the interior fixtures typical of sexant boxes had been removed. Do we have any clue as to whether the box was still being used to hold a navigational instrument when it arrived on the island? Yes. Gallagher reported that an object had been found but was "thown away by the finder" which, apparently from the description given to him, he concluded might be an "inverting eyepiece" for a nautical sextant. It would appear, therefore, that there is a high probablity that whatever instrument the box once held arrived on the island with the box. All this a long-winded way of restating Mike Haddock's question - "Where'd the sextant go?" I can think of a few possibilities: 1. It didn't go anywhere. It's still there someplace where neither Gallgher nor we looked. 2. It was discarded as being heavy and useless somewhere else on the island (but then, why hang on to the inverting eyepiece or whatever it was?) 3. The thing found and "thrown away by the finder" was not an accessory item like an inverting eyepiece but was, in fact, the instrument that had been carried in the box before it was converted into a general container. What if the instrument was an aeronautical bubble octant being carried in a nautical sextant box? A bubble octant looks nothing like a nautical sextant and Gallagher had probably never seen such a device. An inverting eyepiece for a marine sextant may have been the most logical conclusion he could draw from t he Gilbertese description of the discarded object. It's all speculation of course, unless something turns up to support a particular hypothesis. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 14:20:33 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Bones Paper Trial PBS wrote: "If there is no paper trail, it seems very unlikely Hoodless sent them" Expanding on this point a bit........... A very small percentage of the WPHC archives have been mined. A lot more work is needed before we can say that there is no paper trail on the final disposal of the bones. The WPHC filing system is structured such that the final disposal of the bones (perhaps many years later) might not be noted in the file that is focused on the ID..i.e. who was it?...investigation. Kenton Spading St. Paul MN *************************************************************** From Ric For that matter, the Central Medical School at which the bones were held was a Colony of Fiji facility, not part of the Western Pacific High Commission. If, years later, there was some kind of general house cleaning at the school the paperwork would logically be in the archives of the Fiji Colony, not the WPHC. If that's what happened. finding those records would be reminiscent of the final scene in Raiders of The Lost Ark. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 14:22:59 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Question about Bones We went through the Baby (Dr. Raymond, not little kid) bones analysis business some years ago, but I don't recall what we found out -- except, if I'm remembering correctly, that nobody knew anymore where THOSE bones had gone, either. *************************************************************** From Ric You want Baby bones? We can fix you right up. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 14:33:00 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: June Knox-Mawer For Tom King, Tom, for an extensive, in depth analysis of the records relating to AE's long time sinus condtion, and culmininating in July 1935 of a Caldwell-Luc operation (hole drilled into the maxilla), by a LA otolarynogolist, confimed by original letter to Goerner, the doctors son, and a LA Times newsarticle, please contact me. I think I have already sent you much of that material. But I don't want to clog up the Tighar channel with all the details. Ron Bright *************************************************************** From Ric Ron and I disagree on this. There are no known surviving records of a 1935 operation on Earhart. As far as I know, the earliest document is a 1962 letter to Fred Goerner by the doctor who took over the practice of the doctor who allegely performed the procedure. That's anecdote in my book. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 15:07:04 EDT From: Gary Flajack Subject: Re: Where's the sextant? To Ric > 2. It was discarded as being heavy and useless somewhere else on the island > (but then, why hang on to the inverting eyepiece or whatever it was?) I'm not familiar with an inverting eyepiece but could it be used as a lens to start a fire, like a magnifying glass? ************************************************************************ From Ric In theory, yes - but you'd have to break it apart to get at the lens. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:01:17 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: June Knox-Mawer How could I have forgotten Caldwell-Luc? Sorry to have asked; antiquity must be creeping up on me. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:07:47 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Where's the sextant? Ric, > 2. It was discarded as being heavy and useless somewhere else on the island > (but then, why hang on to the inverting eyepiece or whatever it was?) The inverting eyepiece was probably stored vertically in a hole bored in a solid block of wood in the corner of the sextant box as most are. Having decided that the box was more use than the sextant, I can imagine AE breaking out the sextant support blocks but not bothering to remove the block in the corner. The former could be smashed out with a suitable blunt instrument, the latter would require something a little more sophisticated, similar to a screwdriver, to force out of position. Since the eyepiece was taking up little useful space she may have merely left it in position or alternatively kept it as a burning glass. If this is what happened it would seem to support the idea that the castaway was AE rather than FN, who, I imagine, would be loth to risk damage to an instrument which would be of considerable monetary value were they ever rescued. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:09:46 EDT From: PBS Subject: Sinusitis Ron Bright says: "for an extensive, in depth analysis of the records relating to AE's long time sinus condtion (sic), and a Caldwell-Luc operation... contact me." Is there any evidence [surviving evidence] of skull/sinus x-rays from that time? The technology was available... What about any pathology testing [such as a blood smear or examination of material removed at time of operation]? Re-evaluation of this material could be very interesting, although maybe its too much to hope any such material was safely stored this long. PBS ***************************************************** From Ric In a word - no. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:10:20 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Mariposa Mariposa is both a city and a county in California. I live 30 miles from it. A nice history little town in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains, on the way up to Yosemite National Park. Don Jordan Merced, CA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:11:38 EDT From: Dave Porter in Lincoln Park Subject: TIGHAR hunting in Detroit For Jeff Lange and Terry Simpson: Hi guys; I've been signing myself as the "only Detroit TIGHAR" specifically hoping that some more locals might turn up. I'll even count the Grand Rapids den if they want to make the drive. If it wasn't for all the road construction I'd suggest a get together :-) I know that the runways are being re-done at Selfridge, but maybe there'll be a Willow Run Air Show this year(Jeff?) or maybe we could prevail upon the folks at Greenfield Village to bring Tom King in for a talk on Historic Preservation. Please feel free to contact me off forum. LTM, and thanks, Ric, for the bandwidth use. Dave Porter, 2288 (of the highly unofficial Detroit TIGHARs) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:14:47 EDT From: Terry Ann Linley Subject: Decomposition rates This is a little off-topic considering the current threads, BUT in the July 2002 issue of Discover magazine, the following question was asked: "How long does it take for a human body to decompose?" This sort of thing has been tossed around before on the Earhart Forum, and it's interesting, so here's the answer: Jamie Downs, chief medical examiner of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, replied: "The rate depends on the environment and the state of the body at the time of death. As a rule of thumb, a body exposed to open air will decay the same amount in one day as a body in water in one week, and a body buried underground in one month. Heat speeds decay; cold slows it down. Rigor mortis (the stiffening of muscles) and livor mortis (pooling of blood) take place within 12 hours of death. Bacteria in the intestine multiply rapidly as soon as metabolism ceases. Many factors determine how long it takes the body to decompose from there. Is the body in sun or shade? Is it summer or winter? Are there carnivores or insects around? Almost immediately, blowflies can feed on an exposed body and lay eggs in it. Bodies buried deep in the gound are protected from flying insects and warm temperatures, so they tend to decay relatively slowly. A body in a typical casket burial can take decades to decay down to the skeleton if embalmed properly, or as little as a year if not. But such decay can happen in a week if the body is outside, if it is exposed to carnivores, or if it has open wounds. Conversely, bodies can last centuries in a very hot and dry environment, which dries out the body, or in a cold and wet setting, where body fat turns into a form of soap that acts as a protective covering." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:16:13 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: New Research Bulletin up I probably won't be the first to mention this but, WinZip isn't an MS product (see http://www.winzip.com/ ). As to whether it's better or not... I've used both, each on it's native platform. I don't much like StuffIt. Perhaps I missed some parameter or setup option, but didn't I notice that it's compression rate was appreciably different from that of ZIP either. I think we're well into the area of personal preference here. - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 09:04:13 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: TIGHAR hunting in Detroit >Hi guys; I've been signing myself as the "only Detroit TIGHAR" specifically >hoping that some more locals might turn up. I'll even count the Grand >Rapids den if they want to make the drive. If it wasn't for all the road >construction I'd suggest a get together :-) Thanks. I left Detroit 3 years ago for Grand Rapids, so I guess I'm a "former Detroit TIGHAR" I'll be willing to drive in for a weekend, if I'm not on call. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Who is a Redwings fan.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 09:10:03 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Where's the sextant? Was an "inverting eyepiece" standard equipment on the sextant that Noonan had? What the heck is an "inverting eyepiece"? gl ********************************************************** From Ric As I understand it, it's an attachment for a conventional nautical sextant that inverts the image, which is supposedly advantageous under some circumstances. ************************************************************** From: David Kelly (but then, why hang on to the inverting eyepiece or whatever it was?)" An inverted eyepiece has a lense which would be quite useful in starting a fire. *********************************************************** From Ric But wouldn't you have to remove the lens to use it that way? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 09:12:05 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Where's the sextant? > From Ric > > except to suggest that he/she/they were probably European (despite > Gallagher's rather bizarre conclusion about an unfortunate native). Umm I thought it was someone else's rather bizarre conclusion, and that the correspondence suggests Gallagher more or less gave in to it under pressure. Th' WOMBAT ******************************************************************** From Ric Yes, but that's just conjecture on our part. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 09:17:57 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: AE's sinus For Tom King, For Amelia's personal description see Letters from Amelia, by Jean Backus, in which AE writes in June 1937 to Amy ( I think) that she is back for additional treatment at Cedars of Lebanon, LA., and that Dr. Goldstein will be operating. She wrote: "...(sinus) was kicking up and tired of washings out, so Dr. Jospeh Goldstein will go to work tomorrow." As Ric indicated we disagree, but I am convinced that AE had a Caldwell Luc operation in 1934 or 1935 by Dr Joseph Goldstein. Dr. Finerman looked through his medical records after learning that Goerner was bringing back a skull from Saipan as he recalled Dr. Goldstein had operated on a celebrity-AE. Dr. Finerman then wrote Goerner in 1961 that evidence of that procedure (drilling or puncturing a 3/8" hole in the maxilla) would help identify if the skull was AE's. Finerman did not send the actual medical records to Goerner, just the description he had from Goldstein's medical records left in the office. (Efforts to find have been negative). Kenton Spading has the original letter in Dr Finerman's handwriting. Also relating to long term sinus problems, a telegram from Muriel to Goerner in 1961 states that AE had a "sinus operation" at Massachusetts Gen Hospital in 1926 (or 24) and "skull should show a puncture:". A July 6 1935 LA Times article indicates she is "recuperating from effects of her recent nasal operation". Dr Mathew Finerman,who I interviewed, spoke at length a year or so ago to his father Dr. Wilmore Finerman (now deceased). Dr. Finerman recalled Goldstein's medical records and the operation, said Mathew, but had no records. So in a sense Ric is correct, the proof is "anecedotal" as only the original letter by Mathew Finerman citing Goldstein's records is the only documentary evidence that AE had a Caldwell-Luc. No original medical records Efforts to locate Cedar of Lebanon records have b een negative. It may be anectodal, but it is supported by some pretty good witnesses. LTM, Ron Bright ********************************************************* From Ric Just to clarify....I agree that there's a high probability that Goldstein at least re-opened the old Caldwell-Luc hole in 1935. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 09:23:57 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Sinusitis For PBS Ric is right no x-rays or medical records of any of her operations that we know of. Except, one researcher that I have corresponded to claims he does have an x-ray of the skull. So far he has refused to cough it up!! REB ************************************************************ From Ric That kind of ignorance and pettiness is the bain of historical research. *********************************************************** From Dave in Fremont: Not like a skull is available in any way for such examination... Focus, people! ********************************************************** From Ric But one could turn up literally any day. Don't you think it would be kinda nice to be able to tell if it was Amelia's? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:01:07 EDT From: Alik Subject: Alik's questions In deference to Ric's request that we not tangent too deeply on unproductive lines of discussion, I will consolidate my replies here by simply saying the point of the last few posts is taken and appreciated. My concern about a "lack of understanding" was proximately directed at those who have no background in math/physics or navigation proper. In reading old discussions, I see that Ric tends toward a conclusion that the navigation to Howland was probably not in significant error, but rather, that Earhart, calculus unknown for sure, decided to run the DR advanced LOP southward. I am convinced of the first part (beyond any plausible doubt), but I am not totally convinced of the latter part. But I cannot evince an alternative hypothesis, either. Being a late-comer, I am doing lots of reading. However, I may be able to express an opinion, with an attendant evidentiary basis, later. So, I switch lenses... My initial direction for research takes me into two distinct areas: 1.) What "winds aloft" data are available, and how reliable (roughly) are they? This is to address the Long's contention that fuel consumption was 'high' on this flight. I am open-minded on this question. 2.) Can we realistically assess the approximate probability that any or all of the physical evidence found on Nikumaroro is associated with AE? If so, what is it? Apropos, what would be the probability (approximately) of finding similar evidence on another, randomly selected 'Gardner-like' island in the Pacific? I am pretty open-minded on this as well. My starting point has been with the TIGHAR website and the Long's book. That will broaden siginficantly, and I see that some of this has been addressed here already, but if anyone has any comments/pointers on those two topical areas to prep me, it would be greatly appreciated. Alik P.S. Ric, do I have to pay 100 bucks for that wind data? :-) ****************************************************************** From Ric Nah. The wind data aren't worth a nickle. That's the problem. The only sources are the weather reports received in Lae, one cryptic inflight statement by Earhart, and weather balloon observations taken on Howland at noon on July 1st and July 2nd. For the first two see The Chater Report (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Chater_Report.html) The latest information was received at Lae too late to be handed to Amelia. <> Seven hours and eighteen minutes later Lae received the only message it heard from Earhart which made any mention of wind: "POSITION 4.33 SOUTH 159.7 EAST HEIGHT 8000 FEET OVER CUMULUS CLOUDS WIND 23 KNOTS". Unfortunately, she didn't happen to mention a direction for the 23 knot wind. At local noon that day on Howland Island weather balloon observations gave the following results: Surface - ENE 14 knots 1,000 ft. - ENE 18 knots 2,000 ft. - ENE 19 knots 3,000 ft. - ENE 24 knots 4,000 ft. - ENE 25 knots 5,000 ft. - ENE 25 knots 6,000 ft. - ENE 30 knots 7,000 ft. - ENE 31 knots Noon observations at Howland the next day (July 2nd, about four hours after AE had gone missing) were: Surface - ESE 16 knots 1,000 ft. - ESE 15 knots 2,000 ft. - E 17 knots Cloud bases at 2,650 feet prevented higher observations. Summarizing the available winds loft data, I think the Nauru and Howland observations are probably fairly reliable but, unfortunately, are so far removed from the flight in time and space as to be of only general use in estimating what winds may have been encountered by the airplane. Your second question is the biggy, isn't it? <<2.) Can we realistically assess the approximate probability that any or all of the physical evidence found on Nikumaroro is associated with AE? If so, what is it? Apropos, what would be the probability (approximately) of finding similar evidence on another, randomly selected 'Gardner-like' island in the Pacific?>> Physical evidence found on Gardner that might be associated with AE: - Airplane components found in the abandoned village which appear to be consistent with the Lockheed Model 10 and do not appear to be consistent with any other type known or suspected to have been in the region. There's a lot of aluminum scattered around the village. Most of it is in tiny, cut-up scraps that are far too generic to identify as to source. Some of it is clearly from the Coast Guard station at the other end of the island (i.e. metal mess hall trays). We've found perhaps a couple dozen pieces that are clearly from airplanes. All, with one exception, appear to be left-over pieces from items made for local use. Of these, at least four have been conclusively identified as being from a Consolidated Model 32 (B-24D or PB4Y-1). Two pieces - an internal kick-plate structure known as a "dado" and a cut fragment of plexiglas - are consistent with the Lockheed 10. The one piece of aircraft material found on the island which shows no sign of having been used locally is a section of aluminum skin which appears to have been blown outward by a very strong fluid force (such as might be expected from an aircaft torn apart in the surf). The type of aluminum, the thickness of the sheet, and the style and size of the rivets are typical of the Lockheed 10 but the specific pattern of the rivets does not quite match the standard construction of the type, nor any other known type. Earhart's airplane was extensively repaired following the wreck that ended her first World Flight attempt. We have the Lockheed repair orders but it is clear from later photos that the actual repairs differed from the orders (as is usually the case). In short, nobody knows what the underside of Earhart's airplane looked like after it was repaired. Traces of the original manufacturer's markings on the artifact have been identified by Alcoa as being identical to markings the company produced during the mid-1930s on sheet aluminum to be used for repair but not for original construction. - Bones and artifacts found in 1940. Without rehashing this huge and complex body of evidence here, let's just say that it's clear that somebody - probably a man and a woman - were marooned and died on Gardner in the years immediately preceding the British settlement of the island in late 1938. - Bones and artifacts collected by TIGHAR in 1996 and 2001 at the site believed to be where the remains of a castaway were found in 1940. The jury is still out as to whether we found anything that can be logically linked to Earhart. What would be the probability (approximately) of finding similar evidence on another, randomly selected 'Gardner-like' island in the Pacific? It's not hard to find airplane parts on Pacific islands but I imagine it would be pretty hard to find parts that don't seem to fit any WWII type but do seem to fit a Lockheed 10. It is hard to find islands where the bones of castaways have been found (we've come across only two or three in the entire Pacific) and harder still to find occasions where the bones could not be attributed to a known loss. For that matter, the bones on Gardner WERE originally attributed to a known loss - Earhart's. How hard would it been to find another island: - that the Earhart flight could reasonably have reached - that would yield airplane parts uniquely consistent with a Lockheed 10 - that could produce an unidentified castaway consistent in time with the Earhart disappearance. I'd say that would be pretty hard. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:02:34 EDT From: Thomas Van Hare Subject: Inverting eyepiece Ric wrote: > 2. It (the sextant) was discarded as being heavy and > useless somewhere else on the island (but then, why > hang on to the inverting eyepiece or whatever it was?) If I was stranded on the island, I might just hold onto the inverting eyepiece for its optical properties, that it could be used perhaps like a magnifier to focus the sun's light and start a fire. I'm guessing here, and I don't like guessing at all -- as I don't have an inverting eyepiece anywhere nearby. With that said, perhaps someone with more knowledge of inverting eyepieces could shed some light on this (pun intended). Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:03:51 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Nauru detour > From Oscar Boswell > > I don't know whether AE passed near Nauru or not, but my impression is that the > difference in distance Lae-Nauru-Howland versus Lae-Howland is only a matter of > about 41 statute miles - no big deal. Does anyone know just how far off the direct Lae - Howland track Nauru is? Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:32:44 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Alik's questions >Traces of the original manufacturer's markings on the artifact have >been identified by Alcoa as being identical to markings the company >produced during the mid-1930s on sheet aluminum to be used for repair but >not for original construction. Is there anyway to know if this aluminum was used up before the war? If it was, wouldn't the chance of a plane other than Earhart's Lockeed showing up on Niku with this aluminum be extremely small? For that matter, what's the chance of even a military plane using the aluminum and then showing up on Niku? blue skies, jerry ************************************************************************** From Ric We can be quite sure that it was not all used up before the war. We found a repair patch in the nose of a C-47 that participated in the D-Day drops - now at Dover AFB Museum here in Delaware - that has the same markings. We also found that the same stuff was used on a replacement flap actuator rod cover from Lockheed 10A c/n 1052, now at the New England Air Musuem in Windsor Locks, CT. Those are the only two places where we've found aluminum marked in this way (and we've looked at an awful lot of aluminum). What are the chances of aluminum marked in this way ending up on Niku? One hundred percent. It was there. But that's not what you asked. You asked, what's the chance of even a military plane using the aluminum and then showing up on Niku? This metal was used to repair airplanes. At least some airplane repair was done at Canton during the war, so it's not inconceivable that there was metal like this at Canton. But that's not the whole story. This metal was on an airplane that suffered a particular kind of damage so, if it's from a military airplane it has to be from one that was repaired and then ended up in an environment where this kind of damage could occur. That almost has to be a torn-apart-by-waves situation on a reef or beach where the airplane is held immobile and the metal does not end up on the bottom of the ocean. The records show only one airplane known to have been lost in such as situation in the entire region. On 19 July 1944, U.S. Army B-24J serial number 44-41029 crashed on the reef at Canton after an early morning (04:34) takeoff. Nobody at the field knew that the plane had gone down until mail bags and personal baggage was seen washed up on the beach after daylight. The bomber was being ferried to the Fifth Air Force and had refueled at Canton. It was speculated that engine trouble had prompted a turn back to the airport and the airplane had stalled in the turn. It hit about 300 yards out from the beach. All five crewmen were killed. The wreckage was in 30 feet of water and was deemed to difficult to raise. This was a brand new airplane enroute to its first duty station and seems unlikely to have had repaired parts on it. TIGHAR's artifact also does not even come close to fitting anywhere on a B-24. Time and time again, we're presented with the same set of circumstances. We have artifacts and remains that exhibit specific properities and characteristics that we can only explain if they got there the way we suspect they got there. But nothing stands alone as proof so it always comes down to "what are the chances...." . LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:38:50 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: EST I note in Nina Paxton's letter to the FBI she mentions that AE stated the time and (so it seems) it was the same figures as her own time ie EST. Is there any reason that AE could have been using EST or perhaps a time 12hrs different from EST? Lae, Howland and GMT all seem to be way out. Is it possible her wristwatch showed EST, having not been corrected since they left the US? Comments? Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric I suppose anything is possible but it seems pretty bizarre if she kept her watch on EST. Was local time in Lae, by any chance, exactly 12 hours different from EST, and are we sure that Nina was on EST and not EDT? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:41:51 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Alik's questions >>Traces of the original manufacturer's >>markings on the artifact have been identified by Alcoa as being identical to >>markings the company produced during the mid-1930s on sheet aluminum to be >>*****used for repair but *not* for original construction *****. (emphasis mine) Interesting detail - I didn't know that. So we can conclude that that Artifact 2-2-V-1 is almost certainly a REPAIR PATCH of some sort, and not part of an aircraft's original structure ? A point that I was always a little uneasy and dubious about was that TIGHAR just "happened" to find the one part of the skin of AE's L10E that couldn't be accurately matched to plans/photos of this aircraft or to other existing L10's. However, showing that it's definitely a patch of some sort clearly puts a different light on this. LTM Simon Ellwood #2120 ************************************************************************** From Ric That's what Alcoa told us. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:43:41 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: AE's sinus Ron Bright wrote: <> In June of 1937, AE was already on her round-the-world flight, having left Miami on June 1st. She did go to Louisiana prior to that, but it was a one-day lay-over from the west coast. Somehow, if her treatments were in that month, then surely the year is wrong! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:49:56 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: FBI letter Having had another look at the Paxton FBI letter, it makes me wonder if AE & FN had an emergency transmitter. One of the contemporary newspaper accounts states that they had one ( Yes - I know - never believe what you read in the newspapers). The Paxton letter which describes the date of the transmission as 3rd July, describes the aircraft as drifting. In this condition it is unlikely the main set or antenna could be used and only the auxiliary battery. They may have had an emergency antenna with the kite which appears in the Luke Field inventory. Would such a transmitter have been designed only to operate on the distress frequencies? If not, it might explain why she was heard on frequencies other than 3105 and 6210. Paxton states that she heard them up to at least 10th August. By 9th July the aircraft was not visible at Gardner and the only way one can square the circle is to postulate a portable emergency transmitter, with either a hand cranked generator or using the auxiliary battery. A hand-cranked generator would fit in with descriptions of the wavering carrier received if the set was tunable to 3105 or 6210. I agree with Ric's recent comment that the aircraft could have sunk in deeper water at the edge of the reef and then been thrown back on the reef by later storms. This would fit in with a description of the aircraft as drifting. The lack of any items rescued from the aircraft at the seven site might fit in with this scenario. It would explain why the Colorado pilots failed to see the aircraft and it would also explain why Bevington's outfit failed to see anything. I did for a moment wonder if aircraft debris on the reef described by the islanders was merely the remains of the "broken wing" and the aircraft itself had permanently sunk in deep water. However, the engine, plexiglass and dado argue that parts from the main body of the aircraft were available to the islanders. If there is anything of the aircraft in deep water, I think it likely there will only be fragments including, possibly, the second engine. If the aircraft was drifting by 3rd July, that would have to place the Betty's notebook transmission as earlier. An emergency antenna would overcome the objection of the salt spray on the insulator and the low connection to the antenna and improve the chances of a transmission being picked up in the US. Regards Angus ********************************************************************* From Ric I don't know but it's my impression that any portable emergency transmitter available in 1937 would have only morse code capability? Mike Everette? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:52:19 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: AE's sinus From Ron Bright, Ric is correct that in all probability the 1935 was a reopening of the original,earlier procedure. It appears she ended up with a bi-lateral Caldewell-Luc. Dr. Goldstein did remark after the operation it was a "minor" thing, not further clarified. LTm, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric But is there any evidence that the earlier Caldwell-Luc procedures were bilateral? Knocking a new hole in her skull doesn't sound very minor. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:53:51 EDT From: Denise Subject: Smelling the Dead! Troy asks: "Ok, everything else in your thread was factual, but this REALLY sounds a little like you're pulling someone's leg. As I've never had the pleasure/displeasure of smelling burning bodies, is that for real?" Troy, I'm serious about this. All burning humans smell like pork - take that as a given - but those living at Laucala Bay or Vatuwaqa in Suva - suburbs closest to the crematorium - sniff the air when the wind blows in their direction and say things like "Chinese!" or "Indian!" or whatever. At first, on hearing such pronouncements, I used to check the daily newspapers - in the funeral notice section - and dammit if they weren't always right. It seems, once you're used to the general smell of burning humans, you become some sort of connoisseur and are able to identify the smell above-and-beyond the pork-smell and thus are able to tell the racial identity of the person currently on the funeral pyre. If you want an explanation for this, I think its because, somehow, human flesh absorbs the smell of what is most frequently eaten. (And apparently, from what I've heard, Fijians gave up cannibalism less because of the influence of the missionaries or the introduction of other sources of protein, but because tobacco took off in huge way, and human flesh began to taste really, really nasty.) LTM (who never sniffed the dead!) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:55:51 EDT From: Denise Subject: Mariposa Ron Reuther says: "I would have to believe that the S.S. Mariposa was in the Pacific at the time of Earhart's disappearance as I beleive it was almost all it's service life." I remember the Mariposa being frequently in Suva Harbour, and believe it's arrival always caused major rejoicing at Suva's various brothels. Therefore, if you want to know more about the ship, crew etc, you could make enquiries at any one of them. LTM (who knew nothing about any of this) Denise ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay Ron. You have your assignment, and trip will be tax deductible. Just make sure there is no "significant elelment of personal enjoyment". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:04:24 EDT From: Anthony Lealand Subject: Inverting Eyepieces The use of an inverting eyepiece has a number of advantages. (This is the short fat eyepiece as distinct from the long thin eyepiece. Both usually comes with sextants.) It has a bigger objective and so gathers more light. This is very important for star sights when the light level is poor, and as well one needs to see the horizon (if an artificial one is not used.) It is effectively a night vision monocular. As well the non inverted image (or upright image) makes the identification of stars or the pattern of stars you have seen with the naked eye much easier to understand, so you pick the right one. The inverting eyepiece has more magnification but throws away light with its small objective,. Which is just fine when you are viewing the sun. As well it is pretty clear that it is the sun and not an alien space craft that has flown in to the field of view. The point of this (raised by Thomas Van Hare) is that the inverting eyepiece front lens (objective ) would be big enough to start a fire as they are around 40 mm diameter. You would be hard pressed to do this with the 15 to 18 mm diameter lens from an inverting eyepiece. Generally the lenses just about fall off with a twist of the wrist, so there is no problem in getting them apart. The inverting telescope would also make a nice monocular to look for ships or along the beach for useful items. In contradistinction to an inverting telescope, which is the very devil to use on land. Anthony Lealand New Zealand ************************************************************************ From Ric That's very interesting but I think you left a out a couple of "non"s and I'm totally confused. There's an inverting eyepeice and a non-inverting eyepiece. Which one has a big lens that would be useful for starting fires? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:14:28 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Kelly Johnson's Headwind Chart > From Alan Caldwell > > Gary, that's interesting but the example is not realistic. In real life > conditions the significance is of little practical value. We don't fly at > 100mph into 100mph winds. The theory is correct but not of much value. The > Electra was supposedly flying at 130K tas but we don't know at what altitude > or OAT. Nor do we know what the winds were at any given point in the flight. > Nor did they and if they even HAD the Kelly Johnson graph it would have been > unusable as a practical matter. We're off on another nonsense trail. > > To use any figures at all is mere speculation and of no consequence, unless > we're just having fun with numbers. Well I hate to admit when Alan is right on something but this time he is . Alan's comments made me curious so I decided to investigate it further. Civilian aircraft manuals do not show the airspeed to use for maximum range since it is well below the type of speed you want to use for normal cruising. However, my T-34B manual does include this type of information. It has a series of graphs showing specific range (nautical air miles per pound of fuel) as if varies with airspeed and altitude. This provides the information to resolve this issue and should be generally applicable to other aircraft types.. The graphs show that a maximum specific range of 3.08 NM per pound at sea level occurs at 96 knots. Any higher or lower airspeed produces a lower specific range although the curve is very flat between 92 and 98 knots. Using these values with different assumed headwind components revealed that the theory is correct that you must increase your airspeed when flying into a headwind to maximize your range and to minimize the loss of range. No gain is realized until the wind component exceeds 10 knots at which point to get maximum range you must increase your airspeed by 2 knots so you would hold 98 k with a headwind between 11 and 14 k. Similarly you should use 100 k with headwinds of 15-35k; 102 for 36; 104 for 37-40; 106 for 41-48; 110 for 49-59; and 118 for 60. The rule of thumb of increasing your airspeed by one-fourth of the headwind component comes pretty close to predicting this range of airspeed increases. Now for the bad news, the part Alan is correct about. Until the headwind reaches 41 knots, almost 1/2 of the still air best range airspeed, there is very little to be gained by increasing the airspeed. In the range of 11-14 knots increasing the airspeed the 2 knots required results in an increase in the range of only .3% (that's right, only three-tenths of one percent) of the range if the 96 knots had been maintained. Similarly for higher headwind components, 15-35 k of headwind would show a 2% benefit; 37-40 k a 3.3%; 41-48 k a 6.5%; 49-59 a 13.1% and at 60 knots a 15.5% benefit. So at higher headwind speeds it does make sense to make the airspeed adjustment. So generalizing this to the Electra and the maybe 25 knot of headwind there may have been 1% to 2% to be gained by increasing the airspeed to compensate for the headwind. Or to look at it another way, maybe a 1% to 2% penalty if they did not increase their airspeed. On a 2000 mile flight you are only talking about 20 to 40 miles in range reduction by failing to change the airspeed, not enough to make much of a difference to this discussion. Of course, don't confuse the above discussion with the significant reduction in range that is caused by the headwind itself. A 130 knot airplane flying into a 25 knot headwind will have its range reduced by 20%. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:26:04 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: EST Lae was -10 hours GMT, and EST was +5 hours GMT. That is not 12 hours difference. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:33:59 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: AE's sinus Minor in the sense of "no worse than pulling a tooth". The hole is not really in the skull proper (braincase), but in the thin bone above the teeth over the upper back teeth. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:37:41 EDT From: Ric Subject: Re: Smelling the Dead - apologies Before anyone else unsubscribes to the forum in disgust, let me apologize for posting Denise's ridiculous and offensive "Smelling the Dead" message. I should have bounced it. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:23:41 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Kelly Johnson's Headwind Chart I wrote: > On a 2000 mile flight you are only talking about 20 to > 40 miles in range reduction by failing to change the airspeed, not enough to > make much of a difference to this discussion. I add: > I must add that the to someone running out of gas that it might "make a > difference" to them whether they make it to the beach or ditch 20 miles off > shore. gl *************************************************************** From Ric But for this whole issue to have any bearing on the Earhart case one would have to show that headwinds of 25 knots were encountered (which one cannot do) AND that Earhart's employment of the technique would have a material bearing on the possibility that she reached Gardner Island (which 20 miles would not). The real significance of the Headwind Chart analysis is the revelation that Elgen Long's supposed coincidence between Earhart's "speed 140 knots" transmission and Lockheed's headwind recommendations does not exist. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:30:44 EDT From: Ric Subject: Re: Smelling the Dead - apologies Marty Moleski wrote: << Thanks for what you and Pat do for TIGHAR. >> You're very kind. Gerry Gallagher quit the forum because of the posting. He's not mad at us and we'll still exchange information but I was sad to lose him from the forum. Like you say, moderating this thing can be pretty tricky. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:37:10 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Smelling the Dead - apologies > From Ric > > Before anyone else unsubscribes to the forum in disgust, let me apologize for > posting Denise's ridiculous and offensive "Smelling the Dead" message. I > should have bounced it. No problem, Ric; I was not offended. Actually, I've kept those messages, because there's gotta be a use for that information at some point (but not, necessarily, on the Forum). ************************************************************ From Ric Put them with the Japanese capture stories. ******************************************************* From Jon Watson I'm tempted to say something about "smelling a rat" - but I'll restrain myself. Speaking of which, refresh my memory - have any of the bones been ID'd as rat bones? Would a Niku rat be easy to catch? ltm jon ***************************************************** From Ric We might have a stray rat bone in the mix but there's no suggestion that someone was making rataouille. (sorry) I think I might be able to catch a Niku rat using the Teddy Roosevelt method - you have to speak softly and... (sorry). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:39:04 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: June Knox-Mawer >From Tom King > >I'm happy to report to the Forum that I have a letter from June Knox-Mawer Congratulations Tom. Where has she been hiding all the time ? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:41:12 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: FBI letter I don't believe in kites but Angus may have a point there. Early in WW II British bombers had dinghies containing an emergency transmitter which looked like a coffee grinder. To operate it one had to turn the handle as if grinding coffee. This would produce electricity and the transmitter would emit an emergency signal as long as one kept turning the handle. The idea was that the signal be captured by a SAR station on the coast which would then send a seaplane to pick the crew up. I don't know what frequency was used. Did such equipment already exist in 1937 and was it available to AE ? If so this could possibly explain the radio signals Angus refers to. Mike? LTM (who once saw a demonstration with the "coffee grinder") ***************************************************************** From Ric No. It would not produce the voice messages reported by Nina Paxton and others. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:42:12 EDT From: Marjorie Subject: Re: EST I think we're in another inverting and non-inverting conundrum. Isn't Lae (like Guam) GMT plus 10 and EST is GMT minus 5? Which means in Montana, we're GMT minus 7 which explains why it's two hours earlier here than in New York? During my years in Guam we always added SIX hours to our Guam time to figure out what time it was in San FranSIXto. It's important to note this did not tell us what DAY it was there but since the operative slogan was "Guam, Where America's Day Begins" we could always figure it out. Or is my brain turned completely inside out? LTM (who thought she had this all figured out) Marjorie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:43:25 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: EST Shouldn't those signs be reversed? To my knowledge, EST has always been -5 hours GMT/UTC. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:44:19 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: AE's sinus I must have 1937 on my mind; of course we are referring to a July 1935 hospitalization at Cedars of Lebanon (name chg to something else), LA, Ca. Unless Dr Goldstein made house calls in 1937!! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:54:18 EDT From: Angus Subject: Re: EST > From Ric > > I suppose anything is possible but it seems pretty bizarre if she kept her > watch on EST. Was local time in Lae, by any chance, exactly 12 hours > different from EST, and are we sure that Nina was on EST and not EDT? Being on the move, its possible that AE did not bother to continually correct her watch to local time once she had left the east coast of the US. If so, it might seem suprising that she continued to wind it - but of course once one gets in the habit, one may continue to do so even when the time shown means little. It might however have been useful to know what time it was in the US regarding communications with George etc. It is also possible she had a self winding watch. Rolex introduced this feature with the oyster perpetual in about 1931. Do we know if she had a Rolex? There were several other manufacturers from the twenties onwards that also produced self winding wristwatches. We are pretty sure Nina was on EST as she quotes the time as being EST at which she heard the transmission. (although it is possible she was not being very precise, or maybe she didn't appreciate the difference between EDT and EST) Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think we've ever tried to pin down just what kind of watch AE wore. Someone who really knows old watches might be able to tell from some of the hiigh resolution photos on the Purdue website. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:54:59 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: June Knox-Mawer For Herman De Wulf Thanks, Herman. It turns out she has two residences, one in London, the other in Wales. She'd received my earlier missive, but lost it in transit from one place to the other. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:59:37 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: EST P.S. A quick check on the net suggests AE had an Omega Chronogaph wristwatch for the world flight. These watches were manually wound at this time and it was not until the sixties that Omega had an automatic chronograph. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric Wow, that was quick. I don't suppose that Omega Chronographs had a lead nob with a patent num....nah, never mind. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:08:47 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: AE's sinus Re: Bi lateral evidence We can't be sure but here is a very brief summary. Dr.Wilmore Finerman referred to a right maxillary sinus operation of "the Caldwell-Luc type procedure in 1934 " in his letter to 1961 letter to Fred Goerner. He believed this was significant evidence to be on the lookout for during the examination of a skull brought back from Saipan by Goerner. When I interviewed Dr. Mathew Finerman, Dr. Wilmore Finerman's son, he recalled that his father said it was actually a "bi-lateral" Caldwell -Luc done in 1934 by Dr. Goldstein. (Earlier sinus operations may have been of a similiar nature, but no records are extant).) Dr Wilmore was not able to be interviewed, and hence Dr. Mathew's report is hearsay. In July 1935, Dr. Goldstein again operated on AE at Cedars of Lebanon, but as noted there is no report of exactly what that sinus operation entailed. I surmised that since she was "tired of the washings out", that at least one of the Caldwell-Luc holes in the maxilla may have been widened or reopened. Speculating, a second Caldwell Luc procedure could have been done making it collectively a "bi lateral" condition. Dr. Goldstein said it was a "minor" operation to the press, but he may have been minimizing the operation for public consumption. She was hospitialized nine days post-op with other complications. We just don't know. Thus the evidence seems quite strong she had at least one single maxilllary Caldwell-Luc procedure in 1934, by Dr. Goldstein. In 1935, there was some type of procedure that is uncertain, but likely involved at a minimum reopening one of the drainage holes. In any case, our hypothesis is that Dr. Hoodless, just 2 or 3 years after the Caldwell-Luc,.would have noted and recorded that type of procedure, whether single or bilateral, while attempting to identify the a skull that he was told could possibly be of AE. Dr Hoodless makes no mention of a missing, or damaged maxilla, only a right zygoma and malar bones[different terminology today] were missing; no descriptions of advanced deterioration or damage to the maxilla was indicated in his notes. In my opinion, because no anomalies or evidence of a maxilla/sinus procedures were recorded by Dr. Hoodless, I feel that the skull was most likely not AEs. Dr. Hoodless's training, background, methods, etc and the results of his examination and measurments,including the critizisms, have been thorougly reviewed in Tighar Tracks, as well as the reexaminination of the meaurments by DRs Burns and Jantz. I have continued to look for the medical records to support the hypothesis. LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for the recap. As you know, we disagree about how obvious an old Caldwell-Luc procedure would be and any hypothesis about what Hoodless would have or would not have noticed is inherently untestable. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:10:08 EDT From: Andy in Dallas Subject: Re: Nauru detour <>> Just worked it out on the map. Nauru is nearly 150 statute miles to the north of the direct track. This distance would be even greater if AE kept to the south of the mountains on New Britain. LTM, Andy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:10:50 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: EST Marjorie, Take off at Lae was 10:00am local which was midnight Zulu time. Right now it is 3:55pm CST in Austin, Texas, on the 10th, Monday. Tarawa, in the Gilberts is 8:55am on the 11th, Tuesday. In Guam it is 6:55L on the 11th. Sydney, Australia is the same. New York is 4:55pm on the 10th. Montana is 2:55L on the 10th. You are on Mountain time not Pacific. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:17:54 EDT From: Eric Subject: Betty's Radio (I'm writing this while on vacation in Ohio. Thanks to my laptop, which I brought along with me, I'm able to keep up with the Forum.) I have to agree with Patrick Gaston that a Zenith Strat was 'way too expensive a radio for the average working man back in the 1930's. Scott radios sold for about half the cost of the Zenith Strat (and sometimes even less, if you already had a Scott to trade in.) While there seems to be little information on recommended Zenith outdoor antenna configurations, there is loads of information on the antennas recommended for Scott radios. Most of these appeared in the SCOTT NEWS, which was published by the company and sent out to their customers. Both the Scott and the Zenith Strat had special circuitry for long distance reception. (The Scott was especially suited for picking up low power signals.) If Betty did hear AE (and I believe that she did), it was NOT on a stock radio that sold for $100-$150. Eric (on vacation in Ohio) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:22:59 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Smelling the Dead - apologies I thought I was having my chain pulled, no? Anyway I could think of many other reasons to quit the forum (LOP, celestial navigation, etc) but never seriously. I just start deleting the subjects I'm fed up with and move on. I'd never quit the forum unless Ric was offensive. Hey wait a minute..... Chris#2511 ******************************************************************** From Ric You wouldn't believe how many private emails I get from forum subscribers saying that my ... let's call it my occasionally ascerbic style...is what they like most about the forum. Go figure. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:24:06 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: EST Dave in Fremont says: > Shouldn't those signs be reversed? To my knowledge, EST has always been -5 > hours GMT/UTC. Referring to local time as plus or minus the hour depends on whether you are starting from local time or starting from GMT. It has been my experience that most civilian applications start from local time and count the hours to GMT. We did it backwards in the navy. We started with GMT (The Zulu, or "Z" time zone - all zones have letters in the military) and counted the hours to the local time zone. In Japan, we were "-9 India"; India ("I") being the letter of the zone, which was Zulu (GMT) minus nine hours. Civilians would refer to Japan Standard Time as +9. Meaning local time plus nine hours equals GMT. Either way you look at it, Japan is nine hours ahead of England. In the case of EST, it is five hours behind Greenwich. Start with local time and subtract five hours to get GMT, hence, -5. The military system starts with GMT (or UTC, or Zulu) and adds five hours to get New York time. +5. LTM (who has no idea what time it is in London) Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:30:02 EDT From: John Hathaway Subject: Re: Betty's Radio My friend, Betty, has been a bit miffed by the skepticism expressed on the Forum concerning her dad's ability to afford an expensive radio. According to Betty, her father worked "in the office" at Florida Power. Her father also had tool and die making skills, was a talented electrician, and had a love for radio and tools. Then there was Betty's maternal great-uncle, F. E. Cole, living by his motto "Buy land by water", who bought a considerable amount of St. Petersburg real estate in the early days. After F. E. was widowed, Betty's grandfather (F.E.'s brother) and grandmother moved to St. Pete to help F. E.. Betty's parents lived in Tampico, Mexico at the time. Her dad worked in the office for an oil company, which later became Standard Oil. In 1926 they moved to Florida. F. E. , truly appreciative of the help and companionship from his relatives, was generous, giving Betty's mom money for extra items she wanted. Florida Power offered discounts for employees to buy electrical items, and Betty's family had one of the first electric vacuum cleaners in the area. Betty would use the vacuum to chase their maid, terrifying the unfortunate woman. It is my conclusion that Betty's dad could have purchased, with or without discount, a Zenith Stratosphere or any other radio he wanted. LTM, who had a wealthy uncle John Hathaway ************************************************************************** From Ric Although Betty herself is not on the forum, John keeps her up to date on our discussions and I have the following message directly from Betty: <> ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:34:43 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: EST It is just the naming comvention used by navigators and what is standard in navy practice. The time zone is refered to by the Zone Description which is the number to be added to local time to compute GMT. Using this convention EST is the same as ZD +5 meaning you have to add 5 hours to EST to compute GMT. The ZD for Lae is -10 meaning you subtract 10 hours form the local time in Lae to compute GMT. Using this description the time kept on the Itasca wasa +11.5. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:51:12 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Subject guide Ric, Have you ever thought about guiding the forum on what ever subject is most important to YOU? You're the authority here and know what exactly is happening in the background (such as the artifact studies). In others words, what is on your mind right now about the AE research? What puzzles YOU the most? And what could the forum do to help? Maybe by more or less organizing the subjects by priority or importance might be more constructive? Can you point the forum in a certain direction at this time and date? Enough questions? Chris#2511 ************************************************************************** From Ric Over the five years or so that I've been moderating this forum (good Lord!) I've learned a little bit about how it can best serve TIGHAR and the good people who subscribe to it. As Marty Moleski brilliantly put it, the forum is a one-room school house and it has to be friendly to both kindergarteners and post-doctoral scholars. ( I do, however, draw the line at Special Ed.) I try to keep the forum "on-topic" but I also try to let people talk about what they want to talk about - within reason. Not all TIGHAR research happens here on the forum. In fact, I would guess that less than 20 percent of the new information developed by the Earhart Project comes directly via the forum, but that 20 percent can be very important. When research questions come up that I think someone on the forum may be able to answer, I throw the question out there. When a lurker surfaces who has real expertise in a needed field I'll often pursue the subject with him or her in private communications because it's just a whole lot more efficient. Research results, of course, are ultimately always shared with everyone via either the forum of the website. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:56:12 EDT From: DAVE Subject: Re: Insensitive Remark Maybe I missed something, but several people were upset about what was said about the different smells that people were purported to sense during cremations of people from different ethnic backgrounds. We have talked about animal bones, carcasses, crabs hauling them away, time it takes for them to be stripped of all their meat. Now how the H does someone take offense at a remark about the smell from a crematorium? I have read reports from many different sources stating that people from one ethnic group COULD tell a difference in the body "odor" / "scent" whatever, of people from another ethnic group or culture. One that comes to mind is the term "Kraut" used primarily during WWI (The War), because the Germans ate a lot of borscht, er, that was the Russians, sauerkraut (cabbage). People speak of orientals having a "fishy" smell due to their diets being high in seafood, Italians as "garlicy", etc. So what are these people so dagnabbed upset about? Yours, David Bush *************************************************************************** From Ric Don't worry about it Dave. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:57:43 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: AE's sinus I can't find any reference to the presence of a Caldwell-Luc operation being used in any forensic identification of a skull. The Caldwell-Luc procedure involves putting a hole through relatively thin bone, and could easily be mistaken for post-mortem damage to the maxilla. The easiest thing to miss on an examination is something that is supposed to be there, but is missing. Since we don't have the skull, or a photograph of the skull, it is impossible to say what Dr. Hoodless saw. As your brief medical history of AE suggests, the openings from Caldwell-Luc procedures can heal over. There seems to be an assumption the Dr. Hoodless knew that AE had such a procedure, which I find highly unlikely. Daniel Postellon MD TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:59:51 EDT From: PBS Subject: Caldwell-Luc Ron Bright says: "because no anomalies or evidence of a maxilla/sinus procedures [sic] were recorded by Dr. Hoodless, I feel that the skull was most likely not AEs." Just my two cents, for what its worth: I'm not at all convinced Hoodless would have "routinely" noticed evidence of an old Caldwell-Luc procedure, unless he was aware of AE's ENT history and he specifically looked for evidence of the prior operations. PBS ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:01:17 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: EST It is just the naming convention used by navigators and what is standard in navy practice. The time zone is referred to by the Zone Description which is the number to be added to local time to compute GMT. Using this convention EST is the same as ZD +5 meaning you have to add 5 hours to EST to compute GMT. The ZD for Lae is -10 meaning you subtract 10 hours form the local time in Lae to compute GMT. Using this description the time kept on the Itasca was +11.5. There is good reason for this naming convention. The usual calculation that must be done in real life is to calculate GMT when you already know your local time not the other way around and this sign convention facilitates this calculation. This is the need of navigators and radio operators and pilots. It is rare where you would know the GMT and need to calculate the local time. For example, a pilot goes to the airport in New York and plans to take off at 10 am local time. He needs to file a flight plan and specify the departure time in GMT. So all he has to do is use the Zone Description of + 5 for EST and add 5 hours to 10 am and file the proposed departure time as 1500 GMT For some of the background on time zones, they are computed by dividing the 360 degrees that the earth rotates in one day by 24 hours in a day to produce time zones that are 15 degrees of longitude wide. GMT (also called Zulu. GCT, and Universal Time) is based ot the mean solar time at the 0 degree meridian. The next time zone to the west is centered on the 15 Degree west meridian and successive zones are centered on meridians spaced every 15 degrees. EST is based on the 75th meridian west. Although there are only 24 hours in a day there are actually 25 time zones. The time zone centered on the 180th meridian is divided in to two segments, the part to the east is +12 and the portion to the west of the 180th is -12. This is necessary to make the dates work out right because the 180th is the international date line. gl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:02:22 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: EST Kerry, having lived in the UK for a few years, it doesn't take long to figure out that US East Coast time is five hours earlier than London time (Zulu). That's what I meant when I proposed that EST was GMT -5 hours. Also kept more Missile Control Center logs on SSBN-657 than I care to remember -- all on Zulu time:) LTM (who remembers the sun rises in the east and that Tokyo is nine hours ahead of London) Dave ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:05:24 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: EST The definitive answer from our shipmates at the US Naval Observatory: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/world_tzones.html LTM (who is now operating on UNIFORM time) Dave ******************************************************************* From Ric Back when I was flying for a living I had a politically incorrect buddy who had two clocks on his flight dispatch office wall. One was labeled ZULU TIME and the other (set to local time) was labled BANTU TIME. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:06:51 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: EST London is +1 GMT, believe it or not! One hour ahead of GMT. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:08:22 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: EST To Kerry Tiller To confuse people even more, let me tell you that the time in London right now is 19.00. That is 18.00 GMT. That's why it's 20.00 over here in Brussels, which is the time I open the mail every day to enjoy the forum. LTM (who wears a watch showing local time and UTC to know what time it is and where) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:12:31 EDT From: Marjorie in Montana Subject: Re: EST Thanks to Kerry Tiller for the explanation of why some might think Lae was GMT plus ten and others might say minus. It doesn't make any sense to me since the whole point of speaking in Zulu time is so you can quickly figure the time in another place and if they are starting from local time and adding or subtracting to make Zulu time it seems an extra step. Guam being a military-dominated island (particularly when I lived there) I guess it makes sense that we thought in military terms, as being GMT plus ten. However, both Associated Press and UPI wires (with which I worked regularly in my various jobs in island journalism) also used the GMT plus 10 designation for Guam, which is how I became familiar with it. For Alan #2329, of course I know I live in Mountain Time, not Pacific Time. I only mentioned the San FranSIXto example in an attempt to be amusing about some of the mnemonic devices people adopt to keep track of these times. We always adjusted from Pacific Time before calling someone on the East Coast or wherever. Before someone told me about San FranSIXto I had a device that began, "When it's 1 pm in Dallas, it's 5 am in Guam" to commemorate being awakened one morning to learn that JFK had been assassinated. For Ric, the point that makes all this babble relevant, I think, is that I can't see how we (the forum) can discuss times something happened if some people are using the standard system of counting back or forward FROM GMT while other equally confident people are relying on a system that counts from local time TO GMT. Incidentally, according to my trusty old World Book encyclopedia, Daylight Savings Time was not in use in the United States in 1937 except in some selected cities (it doesn't say which). It was adopted in the U.S. in 1918, repealed in 1919, and not used widely again until World War II began. Marjorie *************************************************************************** From Ric You're correct about the sporadic use of Daylight time in 1937. That's one of the things that makes correalating all of the alleged post-loss messages so tricky. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:13:25 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: EST > From Randy Jacobson > > London is +1 GMT, believe it or not! One hour ahead of GMT. Now that you mention it, I seem to remember reading someplace that nobody uses GMT for local time anymore. Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:00:44 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: EST Because in the UK, it's called Summer Time, rather than Daylight Savings Time:) LTM (who never got used to bars closing in the UK at 11pm with the sun still up) Dave ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:53:16 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: AE's sinus For Dan P. Sorry of any inference that Dr. Hoodless would have known about any Caldwell-Luc procedure. Drs. Finerman, and two other expert otolaryngologist have told us that that procedure would undoubtley be visible for many, many years, particularily if the physician is specifically trying to find identification marks, trauma, or other indica of identification in the skull. And within two years. Ric and you are correct that it is only an assumption, I think a reasonable assumption, that Dr. Hoodless and the others would have noticed the entry in the maxilla. It is untestable, just as whether the skull and bones were in fact AEs unless the bones surface. LTM, Ron Bright ******************************************************************** From Marty Moleski How do skulls decay? How do animals feed on skulls? Is the "bone" that would have the holes in it from the operation something that would get damaged or lost by some natural process? Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:56:10 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: EST For Kerry Tiller You're right. Even in Greenwich they don't use GMT but GMT + 1. There has been reference to pilots filing their flight plans, filling out departure and other times in UTC. To make sure they have the right time there is a clock on the wall in each and every ARO all over the world indicating time in UTC, which is the word they use for GMT today. LTM ************************************************************* From Simon Ellwood #2120 Kerry Tiller wrote:- >>Now that you mention it, I seem to remember reading someplace that nobody >>uses GMT for local time anymore. No - not true. We Brits use Zulu as our main time basis. In the summer (now) we advance an hour (called British Summer Time - BST), in a similar manner to your own Daylight Saving Time. Just to add to the plus/minus time zone debate, from our perspective sitting on or near Zulu, those time zones to the East are PLUS - i.e Japan is +9Z, those to the West are MINUS i.e. East Coast -5Z. In other words calculated FROM Zulu to whatever. LTM (who knows the time all the time, but doesn't know where) Simon Ellwood ****************************************************** From Ric I think it has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that time zones are confusing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:49:55 EDT From: Mike Mozingo Subject: No Subject The photo of the wrecked Electra in a tropical setting (Research Bulletin 11/21/97) is an image that is very intriguing and hard to forget. The analysis of the photo is very particular in describing the visible structure and components of the aircraft but is rather general in its description of the surrounding landmarks and vegetation: "The wreckage is surrounded by dense vegetation, some of which has grown up through the structure. The vegetation gradually increases in height with distance from the camera. Several mature but distinctly unhealthy coconut palms are visible in the background. " As I am a Civil Engineering Designer I am use to working with aerial photos and identifying sites by their known topography and features. I was wondering if that had been done with this photo in regard to Niku/Gardner. The propeller provided a scale to the photo and allowed measurements to be made. It seems to me the woods line and palm trees in the background could also be scaled in the photo analysis to provide a plan view of the wreck and foliage. The diameter of the palms could be assumed, if need be, to provide additional depth of field measurements. The shadows, to some degree, could be used to orient the photo to north. The distinctive arrangement of the palms as well as their size and shapes, along with the brush line could be compared to the various photo's of the island which were taken over years. Additional work on the aerial photos may be required to make comparisons. As I understand it there are not many clearings on the island which would narrow the search. When I look at the photo I always think of the north and west side of the main inlet channel. Ric, you've been there...do you have a feel for a particular site? I have wondered about this since I first saw the photo and if this type of analysis had been considered. If any promising sites were found it would provide a clue as to where to look for Electra next. LTM Mike Mozingo ************************************************************************* From Ric Hoo boy...Yes, we've looked into this. There are two possibilites: 1. The photo was not taken on Gardner. 2. There is a massive conspiracy to hide the fact that the Earhart plane was on Gardner. It's very simple. The photo shows a number of mature coconut palms. At any time the photo could reasonable have been taken (up until, say, 1950) there were only five groves of mature cocos on the island. All of the groves were in or near the settled area so, if there was an airplane there, virtually everyone on the island must have known about it. Neither Gallagher or any later administrator seems to have been aware of such a wreck. No one we have talked to or heard about has mentioned such a wreck. We've heard several accounts of "airplane parts" found on the shore and one account of "airplane wreckage" out on the reef but nothing about an airplane on shore. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:57:17 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Ric's style > You wouldn't believe how many private emails > I get from forum subscribers saying that my > ... let's call it my occasionally ascerbic style... > is what they like most about the forum. Go > figure. I can't say I ever _like_ that, but sometimes it does cut a lot of fog in a big hurry. - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:59:18 EDT From: Ric Subject: Florida Power Betty sends the following clarification: "Ric, I think what the Fla. Power discount was for was the light bill, to get their employees to buy electric things so people would see how handy they were and start buying them, therefore use more electricity. When I was talking about discounts the Fla.Power didn't sell the electric things. It was just great not to have a big electric bill. Dad always said he got a discount from the company is why he had so many newest electric things, so my Sister and I always said it that way too...Hope that straightens this out. Lv Betty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:01:19 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Emergency transmitters All the emergency transmitters from the 1930s for which I have seen technical data were designed to transmit Morse (CW) only, on 500 KHz. They were either run on batteries or from a hand crank generator set of some kind, either coffee grinder like the WW2 Gibson Girl or a two-handed affair such as was used with the WW2 BC-1306 or the later AN/GRC-9 radios. It takes a LOT more energy to provide power for an AM voice transmitter, than for a CW unit. Ask anyone who has ever cranked the generator for a GRC-9 about that. Even a Gibson Girl will wear you out (yes, I have actually done both so I speak from experience. Not my idea of fun, or ergonomic exercise; more like torture). The Gibson Girl, by the way, was copied in design from a German WW2 survival radio captured by the RAF, early in the war... the first US model, the BC-778 (I think that is correct) transmitted only on 500 KHz. Later in the war a newer version, the AN/CRT-3, was developed to transmit on 500-4140-8280 KHz. It transmitted a pre-set SOS from a code wheel affixed to the generator, and it could be manually heyed from a "button" atop the case. In the 1930s, the only distress frequency in use was 500 KHz. I am not aware of any radio for emergency use, from that time, with HF capability. But that does not mean one didn't exist. Remember too... radio gear of that era was BIG and HEAVY, even for emergency use. Think "electronic dinosaur." LTM (who in her day was a real "Gibson girl") and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:13:10 EDT From: Anthony Lealand Subject: Inverting Eyepieces Again!!! Sorry RIc about the confusion. And it is a confusing terminology. So I shall rewrite it. An astronomical telescope image is upside down as astronomers dont care if the image is upside down and the early telescopes were best made in a simple manner. The image is inverted, that is upside down. So now the confusion is that an inverting eyepiece now turns an inverted image the right way up to view. An inverting eyepiece now means that the image from a astronomical telescope (which is normally upside down) is now the right way up. Now to further confusion. The long thin telescope with sextants is an astronomical telescope and the image is upside down and magnified about x 6 or so. It is used for sun shots. But it has poor light gathering power and is difficult to use at night as the image is upside down. The short fat telescope also commonly with sextants is a terrestrial telescope. Here the image is right way up, and as it has a big objective lens so the light gathering power is far greater. It can be called an inverting telescope or eyepiece as it inverts the image of the originally upside down image of the astronomical telescope. Not that it is a astronomical telescope! This is very important for star sights when the light level is poor, and as well one needs to see the horizon (if an artificial one is not used.) It is effectively a night vision monocular, with about a magnification of around x3 As well the non inverted image (or upright image) makes the identification of stars or the pattern of stars you have seen with the naked eye much easier to understand, so you pick the right one. To add to the confusion the first telescopes used for astronomy were called Galilean after Galileo and were terrestrial in that they did not invert the image. Well, the inverting telescope or eyepiece on a sextant is a Galilean telescope and is, as Galileo found, quite good enough to see Jupiters Moons The point of this (raised by Thomas Van Hare) is that the inverting ( terrestrial ) telescopes front lens (objective ) would be big enough to start a fire as they are around 40 mm diameter. You would be hard pressed to do this with the 15 to 18 mm diameter lens from the astronomical telescope fitted to a sextant. Generally the lenses just about fall off with a twist of the wrist, so there is no problem in getting them apart. The inverting telescope (upright view) would also make a nice monocular to look for ships or along the beach for useful items. Just for the record I used a sextant on a yacht and found it was easiest to take the telescope off and use the naked eye, as yachts bounce about so much. Never mind the time I tried an integrating bubble sextant. What an act! Anthony Lealand New Zealand ***************************************************** From Ric Thanks Anthony. Much clearer. So.....Mr. or Ms. Castaway, if in possesion of an inverting eyepiece for a mariner's sextant, can simply unscrew the 40 mm lenses (just about the size of a silver dollar) and use it as a handy-dandy fire-starter. I suppose the eyepiece itself could be retained as merely a good way to store and protect this important tool. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:20:18 EDT From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: AE's sinus Dan Postellon wrote: >There seems to be an assumption the >Dr. Hoodless knew that AE had such a >procedure, which I find highly unlikely. Yes, and this is exactly what Kar Burns said back in 2000 when asked the same question by Ron Bright. It's here in the TIGHAR archives: http://www.tighar.org/forum/Highlights81_100/highlights85.html (search the page for: Caldwell-Luc) (That's CTRL + F for Windows) The answer, from Kar: Ric -- you asked on 19-20 April: >You wrote: "Hoodless notes that the "right zygoma and malar bones of the >skull are broken off". Kar? Could this be in any way related to the >operation Earhart had on the right maxillary sinus? First, about the bones: The zygoma is the "cheek bone." "Malar" is an adjective, not a noun, and it refers to the region of the cheek. However, it is common to refer to the zygoma as "the malar." I think I wrote in my original report that Hoodless probably meant the "right zygomatic arch and malar bone." This area is commonly broken in exposed skulls. Second, the operation: The Caldwell-Luc operation is a radical method of removing the contents of the maxillary sinus. A drainage hole is made in the area of the maxilla above the second molar tooth. The bone is thin in that area, and entrance to the maxillary sinus is immediate. The maxilla supports the zygoma from below. When the zygoma breaks off, the upper part of the maxilla often breaks also. That could include the area of the operation. Interesting that the operation and the breaks were on the right side. But, no conclusions. (A small hole in that area would also bear a resemblance to an apical abscess.) Ron Bright wrote: >Would the Caldwell-Luc operation be of such magnitude or >plainly obvious to Dr. Hoodless ...? I don't know what Dr. Hoodless saw or even what he was capable of seeing. It is easy to say, "A doctor would find it obvious." But experience says otherwise. What was Dr. H. looking for? What was his mind set with regard to this find? LTM, Kar More here: http://www.tighar.org/forum/Highlights81_100/highlights84.html (the originating question) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:21:52 EDT From: Denise Subject: "Unfortunate Natives!" Th' WOMBAT says: "Umm I thought it was someone else's rather bizarre conclusion, and that the correspondence suggests Gallagher more or less gave in to it under pressure." Wombat, honey, I'm totally with you on this one. I even think paragraph 2) is there to give himself a future "out" ... as in "How the hell does this "unfortunate native" die of thirst? He's sitting atop an underground water supply and has coconuts galore just a bit down the way, for chrissake!!! What "native" dies this way, you morons!!!!" LTM (who knew her coconuts) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:27:39 EDT From: RC Subject: Re: EST XXVII > From Dave in Fremont: > The definitive answer from our shipmates at the US Naval Observatory: > http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/world_tzones.html > LTM (who is now operating on UNIFORM time) > Dave URL doesn't work. RIC: Please remind all correspondents to review all addresss of any kind before hittting the send button ... Secondly: the line below would have made a great epitaph for EST XXXVIII > One was labeled ZULU TIME and the other (set to local time) was labled BANTU > TIME. RC ********************************************* From Ric I've been watching this thread with morbid curiosity to see how long it would stagger on before dying a natural death. I've often struggled with this cruel streak in my personality. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:29:46 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Dem Bones Although it now appears that those illusive bones may never have left Fiji, I have located Dr Elkins papers which now reside at the Fisher Library. Regards David *************************************************************** From Ric Certainly no harm in checking. It would also be interesting to know if he was ever consulted on other discoveries of unidentified bones. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:33:19 EDT From: Eric Subject: Betty's Radio John Hathaway wrote: > It is my conclusion that Betty's dad could have purchased, with or without a > discount, a Zenith Stratosphere or any other radio he wanted. From this additional information (which was not provided earlier) I can accept that Betty's family was able to afford a Zenith Stratosphere and that they probably had one. Does Betty know what became of the radio? Eric (on vacation in Ohio and who is also a Zenith radio fan) ********************************************************** From Ric I know I've asked her that and I don't recall exactly what she said except that the was no realistic chance of re-locating it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:42:55 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Buttonwood Conspiracy One part you seem to have left out of the Buttonwood Conspiracy hypothesis is the fate of the aircraft. If the USCG wanted to effect a cover-up of their failure to find AE, surely they would have wanted to discreetly dispose of the incriminating aircraft? The aircraft in the wreck photo has missing plexiglass, a missing engine and the cabin is sufficiently destroyed for it to have lost its dado as well. Disposing of the aircraft therefore by no means lessens the likelihood of these parts being found subsequently. How would one do it? Presumably you'd take a photo or two for your superiors - perhaps before and after photos of the site to show that the evidence had really been disposed of ( the wreck photo). The easiest method of disposal would be to hook up a hawser to the aircraft and use the ship to tow the remains of the aircraft across the reef to deep water. The problem with this is that the whole ship's crew would be aware of the exercise and the cat would soon be out of the bag. Perhaps better to leave an individual on the island with suitable cutting gear to pay and supervise the islanders to help with the dismantling. They would be well paid and sworn to secrecy. The ship would then return sometime later ( at the time of the "unusually high tide") to pick up the supervisor when the task was completed. His identity would be protected by means of the false name "Ray Eliott) and a cover story developed about his presence there. Heavier parts would be dragged across the reef (the engine and rusty parts seen near the NC?), lighter parts carried by boat to deep water off the reef. (Perhaps that's why not much of the aircraft has been found). Subsequent storms throw some smaller parts back on the reef from where they are washed into the lagoon and shore vegetation. With the secret agreement of the British authorities, the bones would have been returned and subsequently buried at sea, having been passed to the Niku islanders for this purpose, (since they are already in the know), giving substance to the Kilts' story of the ultimate fate of the bones. The bones paper trail would have been allowed to lapse. So as not to arouse suspicion regarding the period of time for which the ship's logs might later be found to be missing, ALL of the records before October of that year are arranged to mysteriously disappear and with them any record of the movements of the ship or the purpose of Ray's stay on the island. Probably pure fantasy - but it fits the known facts. ******************************************************************* From Ric I'd say that the weakest link in your fantasy is the part about swearing the islanders to secrecy. Remember, Gallagher's discovery of bones was supposed to be kept "strictly secret" and the British authorities did a remarkable job of doing just that. Officials who were sure they would have known about any such incident were flabbergasted by our discovery of the paperwork that proves it happened, but the islanders couldn't keep their mouths shut and it was the persisting body of folklore that kept us looking for the hard evidence. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:54:14 EDT From: PBS Subject: Re: Inverting Eyepieces Again!!! Anthony Lealand says: "I used a sextant on a yacht and found it was easiest to take the telescope off and use the naked eye, as yachts bounce about so much. Never mind the time I tried an integrating bubble sextant." I agree with all AL's comments about optics and eyepieces... the same issues occur with microscopes; image reversals can be confusing. However, regarding Anthony's adventures with the "Integrated bubble sextant"... I thought Ric was going to keep the messages here clean, appropriate, and tasteful... PBS ********************************************************************** From Ric I did my best. His original posting described his adventures with a musical troupe called the Integrated Bubbly Sextet. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:29:54 EDT From: Dan Brown Subject: dental documents search For Ron Bright: A reference librarian at the Bancroft Library of UC-Berkeley this week completed a thorough search of the Theodore McCown collection at Bancroft, plus the UC-Berkeley Anthropology Department records, but did not find any correspondence between anthropologist McCown and Horace Cartee, the oral surgeon reported by Fred Goerner to have written to McCown regarding AE's 1937 dental extraction. Dan Brown #2408 Daniel R. Brown, Ph.D. Assistant Scientist Pathobiology University of Florida Gainesville FL 32611-0880 USA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:22:41 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Emergency transmitters I thought that the Gibson girl also transmitted on 8364 kc the standard lifeboat emergency freq. gl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:24:15 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: AE's sinus From Suzanne Astorino, quoting Kar Burns: > ... I think I wrote in my > original report that Hoodless probably meant the "right zygomatic arch and > malar bone." This area is commonly broken in exposed skulls. > > ... When the zygoma breaks off, the upper part of the > maxilla often breaks also. That could include the area of the operation. These two quotations answer my questions about how skulls deteriorate. Thanks, Suzanne. Idle speculation: It may well be that the thin bone that had the hole from the operation was broken out of the skull. That could account for Hoodless not seeing it. Supposition: TIGHAR would like to find the bones and have them all re-examined. Until then, nothing from the bone report can be used to rule out AE or FN as the Niku castaway. Cue the music: "Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones ..." Marty #2874 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:27:20 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Buttonwood Conspiracy I agree, it would be nearly as difficult to keep the islanders quiet as the Coasties. Anyway, I'm still convinced that the wreck photo is not an Electra, based on the fact that there's no exhaust opening in the firewall. In the photos I've seen of AE's plane with the cowling and / or engine off, there's very clearly an opening - without looking, I'd guess 6 to 8 inches - where the exhaust stack goes through it. ltm, jon ************************************************************************* From Ric Not to reopen this debate (no, no, anything but that!) but it looks to me like the firewall in the photo has been broken off in the area where the hole for the exhaust port should be. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:29:05 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: dental documents search For Dan Brown Excellent research data. We have tried thru several other sources to find the McCowan records. They may be at the Nimitz Museum. Anyway it was Dr. Finerman writing to Goerner about his discovery of the Goldstein operation. McGowan of course found no match with Goerners skull. Thanks much, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:32:34 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Dental records One of the researchers who interviewed Bilermon Amran, who reported treating AE and FN, at Jaluit, said that one particularily interesting fact was that one of the pair had a "false tooth". I have heard that FN knocked his front teeth out prior to the trip. Does anyone have any records of FN's dental history in Cal. Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric My recollection is that Fred fell in a bathroom in Hawaii while he was working for PAA and ended up with a "bridge", but I don't recall the source for that. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:35:38 EDT From: Denise Subject: Sinus Problems Ron Bright says: "She was hospitialized nine days post-op with other complications. We just don't know." According to a letter to her mother, recorded in "Amelia: The Centennial Biography" by Goldstein and Dillion, she contracted pleurisy. LTM (who worried about things like this) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:38:33 EDT From: Denise Subject: Sinus Problems Ric says: "Knocking a new hole in her skull doesn't sound very minor." Again according to Goldstein and Dillion, her nose was broken during this procedure. Doesn't that mean they went in through there, which preclude her from having a hole bored into her skull? LTM Denise ************************************************************************** From Ric Wha???? Can you give me a page number? Goldstein and Dillon were basically re-publishing Saffords work. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:15:38 EDT From: Denise Subject: The wrecked Electra in a tropical setting Mike Mozingo says: "The photo of the wrecked Electra in a tropical setting (Research Bulletin 11/21/97) is an image that is very intriguing and hard to forget ..." Just checking if everyone is aware that, in the 30s, Air New Guinea had an Electra which was a sister-ship of A.E.'s? It flew out of Lae and was seen by A.E. during her brief visit. (as recorded in Goldstein and Dillion's book) Since there has been so much talk of late about an Electra found wrecked in the jungles of PNG, I'm wondering if the Lae Electra isn't the one that features both in those stories and in the photo discussed here. LTM (who knew all about sisters) Denise ************************************************************************* From Ric Air New Guinea did not exist in 1937. Guinea Airways operated two Lockheed 10As - c/n 1060 , registered as VH-UXH and delivered on June 6, 1936; and c/n 1105, registered as VH-UXI and delivered on June 23, 1937. Neither was a "sister-ship" to Earhart's 10E Special. VH-UXH was later sold to Union Airways in New Zealand and was broken up in Hamilton in March 1951. There's no way the photo in question could have been taken in Hamilton, NZ. VH-UXI crashed 20 miles south of Darwin, Australia on December 18, 1939. The aircraft in the photo does not appear to have crashed. There is no impact damage to the nose and the prop is not bent. Also, we've determined that the size of the engines is consistent with the larger engines of the Model 10E and not the 10A. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:20:37 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Aircraft Skin, 2-2-V-1 Ric recently wrote in regards to aircraft skin artifact 2-2-V-1 which has distinctive a markings/font on it. The "AD" in "ALCLAD" is visible on the artifact. I believe the complete stamping would read something like ALCLAD 24S T3 but I digress. Anyway, Ric wrote: >We can be quite sure that it [aforementioned ALCLAD 24S T3] was >not all used up before the war. We found a >repair patch in the nose of a C-47 that participated in the D-Day drops - now >at Dover AFB Museum here in Delaware - that has the same markings. We also >found that the same stuff was used on a replacement flap actuator rod cover >from Lockheed 10A c/n 1052, now at the New England Air Musuem in Windsor >Locks, CT. Those are the only two places where we've found aluminum marked >in this way (and we've looked at an awful lot of aluminum)." The same aluminum with the same ALCLAD markings was found in a Lockheed Electra 10 with serial number 1015 more commonly known now as Linda Finch's airplane. The aluminum appears to be related to some sort of a modification that was made to the cabin windows perhaps during or after the plane was converted to cargo use during the war. I inspected this airplane before Finch purchased it. See TIGHAR Tracks Vol 12, No. 2/3 dated October 1996 (see http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/12_2/obj6.html) In a larger sense, a lot of aluminum has been looked but it constitutes a very small percentage of the total square footage extant. LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric Kenton is absolutely correct. I had forgotten about 1015. Most of the cabin skin of that airplane is marked just like 2-2-V-1 and it's clearly a repair or modification. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:56:13 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: The plaque on Gardner Island The transmission picked up by Nina Paxton describes the island as one under Papua New Guinea British control. This may relate to the Plaque left behind by HMS Leith only five months before. It would be highly instructive to consult the logs of HMS Leith with a view to discovering the wording of that plaque. Alternatively, it may well be that there is a standard wording used for such occasions which might yeild some insight (probably rather rarely used now, although the Brits did plant a flag on Rockall after the discovery of oil in the North Sea not that long ago) However, it would seem unlikely that the name of the island would not be referred to. AE & Co would then have known exactly where they were and all reference to Knox, Tarawa, Mili, Mulgrove etc and no reference to Gardner in any radio message starts to become very difficult to explain. One explanation of no reference to the established name might be that using a name given by an American might lend justification to a claim on the island by his country. I suppose it is also possible that in the week before the Colorado search arrived at Gardner, AE & FN had no opportunity to explore the whole island and never saw the plaque. Just where was the plaque situated? Regards Angus ************************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately neither the log of HMS Leith nor the reports associated with its visit to Gardner contain the actual text of the notice left on the island. To call it a "plaque" is probably an overstatement. The log refers to it as a "notice" and the report describes it as a "board". The log entry is as follows: 15 Feb 37 Gardner Island 10:15 Lay off reef pt. Lowered whaler. Landed party who hoisted Union flag and placed notice proclaiming the island on possession of HM King George VI. 11:00 Party returned. Hoisted whaler. The report describes the location this way: "Flag planted and board erected close to the edge of the scrub about 50 yards south of the landing-place in the centre of the bay between Reef Point and South West point." Reef Point and South West Point are noted on a map of the island that was based upon a 1935 survey by HMS Wellington. The place described above should be just about where the blasted landing channel is now (block WG21 on the TIGHAR grid map). When Maude and Bevington visited the island in October of that year they made no mention of seeing the flag or board left by Leith. Likewise, the New Zealand survey in 1938 mentions the flag and placard left by Maude and Bevington but no reference to one by Leith. The shoreline where Leith put up a flag and board in February gets hammered by westerlies that typically hit between December and March (ask me how I know). It seems most likely that whatever they put up in the 45 minutes they were away from the ship, including transit to and from shore, didn't survive very long. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:57:50 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Betty's radio For Mike Everette: How do you view Betty's recollection that the "recess" in the cabinet of the family radio was for a television screen? Does this match the description of any known radio receiver manufactured in 1937 or before? Betty brought this up sua sponte so she obviously feels pretty certain about it. Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:07:41 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Betty's radio >How do you view Betty's recollection that the "recess" in the cabinet of the >family radio was for a television screen? Does this match the description >of any known radio receiver manufactured in 1937 or before? Not that I am aware of... the first commercial TV station in the US was WNBT, New York, which went on the air in 1940. Despite her bringing this up "sua sponte" I am way more than inclined to say she is mistaken about that one. Besides, it makes no sense to have a TV screen at the bottom of a cabinet, no matter who made it.... LTM (who never looks down, only straight ahead) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:08:53 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Emergency transmitters >From Gary LaPook > >I thought that the Gibson girl also transmitted on 8364 kc the standard >lifeboat emergency freq. You are correct... in that later models of the Gibson Girl were reconfigured for 8364. Originally the MF/HF AN/CRT-3 was set up on 500-4140-8280, and used one crystal for both HF freqs (doubling 4140 etc). but some time in the 50s the higher freq was moved to 8364 which required a mod to the radio. Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:12:17 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Caldwell-Luc Okay, folks, let's just drop it. The evidence -- circumstantial, anecdotal, what have you -- is overwhelming that Earhart had at least one Caldwell-Luc operation, and possibly two. It depends upon what Doc Goldstein did in 1935: Did he just clean out the maxillary sinus through the opening left in 1926 (ref: Telegram from Muriel to Goerner, 11/29/61)? Seems unlikely since AE wrote her mother the day before the surgery that she was tired of just such "washings out." Or did Goldstein perform a second operation on the other side? The only evidence of a second operation is Dr. Wilmore Finerman's repeated statements to his son that Earhart had a "bilateral Caldwell-Luc." (Dr. Finerman eventually took over Goldstein's practice, but we don't know whether he was present in 1935.) Dr. Burns calls the Caldwell-Luc a "radical" procedure. This is true according to current standards, but it was the >standard< procedure for dealing with chronic sinus infections in the days before antibiotics and endoscopic surgery. We are so accustomed to popping antibiotics these days that we forget what wonder drugs they really are -- people used to die from minor cuts. Dr. Burns also says that we don't know what Dr. Hoodless was looking for during his examination of the Niku Bones, or what his mindset was. Also true, but it seems a pretty fair inference that he was looking for clues as to who this person was, where he or she came from, and perhaps how the person died. But no, we can't prove to TIGHAR's rigorous standards that the Niku Skull lacked Caldwell-Luc openings (and thus wasn't Earhart), any more than TIGHAR can prove its theory that the openings had healed over and/or the maxilla(e) were missing and/or Hoodless just plain blew it. So call it a draw -- at least until the bones are found -- and let's bury this thread along with the discussion of Greenwich Coordinated Universal Mean Zulu Time. LTM Pat Gaston ********************************************************************* From Ric Sounds good to me. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:16:31 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Sinus Problems If they went through the nose, it was not a Caldwel-Luc procedure. I suspect that she had a deviated septum, which is common with sinusitis or a nasal polyp. As part of a surgical correction, the nasal septum (the place where you would put a ring) may have been intentionally broken and re-shaped, so that the air passages from either nostril were equal. This would be done in addition to the Caldwell-Luc. A Caldwell-Luc is not a "hole bored in the skull", also known as a trephination. A Caldwel-Luc is a hole made though the bone supporting the back teeth of the upper jaw, connecting the cheek side of the mouth with the maxillary sinus. It is often not a drilled hole, but is chipped out using a small chisel. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM(Who needs this discussion like she needs another hole in her head.) ********************************************************************* From Ric Interesting. Would her nose likely look any different afterward? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:49:38 EDT From: Pat Gaston Subject: Re: Betty's radio For Mike Everette: Sorry about the legalese. Yeah, it sticks in my mind that TV was first demonstrated to the public at the 1939 New York World's Fair. There were experiments going on throughout the '30's but mostly laboratory stuff. Also I seem to recall that in the very early TV receivers, the picture tube pointed >up<. The cabinet had a lid that could be propped open at a 45-degree angle. There was a mirror on the inside of the lid. You didn't watch the TV screen directly, you watched the screen's reflection in the mirror. If this memory is correct then it would seem another indictation that Betty is remembering a unit from the postwar years. LTM Pat Gaston ********************************************************** From Warren Lambing I have a 1940 RCA Console, I have look up the advertising for my model. This receiver has on the Chassis a audio input jack, over this jack it says quote "Television, Records, Frequency Modulator" this is only a standard RCA audio input jack, but it clearly implies it is there to hook a TV to it, however to my knowledge there is no RCA TV for sale in the 1940 public market. TV's appear for sale in the U.S. after World War 2, but my 1940 RCA shows preparation of at least an audio Jack for a TV, it would give the impression that it was at least marketing a future release for a TV before the fact. I can't speak for Betty's radio, but as my radio points out, it could have a "recess" in the cabinet of the family radio was for a television screen Here is a page dealing with Television history http://www.tvhistory.tv/1935-1939.htm Regards. Warren Lambing ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:50:47 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Caldwell-Luc For: Pat Gaston I'm glad TIGHAR's standards are rigorous else we would be forever dealing with every bonehead idea that comes along--including a few of my own. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:57:34 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: The wrecked Electra in a tropical setting Just looking at the photo in question, I was struck by the rectangular dark areas. What are they? I presume they are holes where the metal was torn away from the nose, but I'm open to enlightenment. Also, there appears to be fold line on the photo. There is an odd light marking in line with the palm tree, on the left side of the image; it cuts across the nose section behind the black rectangles. LTM (who keeps her negatives and prints stored flat) Michael Holt (Richmond VA; anyone nearby?) ****************************************************************** From Ric The black rectangles are missing sections of skin with the underlying bulkheads and stringers showing through. The print was not folded. The line you're seeing was apparently caused by a scratch on the negative. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:06:09 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: No Subject Jon Watson wrote:- >>In the photos I've seen of AE's plane with >>the cowling and / or engine off, there's very clearly an >>opening - without looking, I'd guess 6 to 8 inches - >>where the exhaust stack goes through it. As Ric says, the edges of the bulkhead are broken, but I believe you can see an edge of the exhaust opening. I agree it's probably not an L10. I've spent many hours (get a life Simon!) examining this photo, Jon - email me off forum if you'd like to discuss it. LTM Simon Ellwood #2120 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:16:20 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Sinus Problems Regarding the possibility of AE having her nose straightened, I've never noticed any differences in AE's nose, from early to late photos, but then I wasn't really looking for anything like that. I would presume that if she had it straightened, there would be some change in her physical appearance. I did look up Caldwell-Luc on the internet and found a medical site with photos. It doesn't look like much fun. ltm jon ********************************************************** From Dan Postellon Her nose would probably be swollen immediately after the procedure, which might or might not be followed by "black eyes". There might not be any visible difference from her pre-operative appearance a few weeks later. Dan Postellon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:19:35 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: Buttonwood Conspiracy More fodder for theory of USCG bungling and coverup can be found in an interesting Naval History Magazine article published July/August 2000 titled "The Earhart Tragedy, Old Mystery, New Hypothesis". You can read it online at: http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/Articles00/nhriley.htm (I already checked the web address and it worked OK for me) Tom Riggs #2427 ****************************************************************** From Ric We've discussed Riley's article and allegations at length. Bottom line: Shallow research and unfounded speculation. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:33:46 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Earhart's Engines I'm reading Earhart converted to P&W 550 Hp Wasp Super engines at Lockheed in Burbank after the Honolulu crash.. There was also a P&W 550 HP Wasp Junior Engine, but Earhart had the "supers." Supposedly, the "Supers" meant 200 mph (statute) cruise. I'm also reading this same engine later showed up on the Japanese seaplane force a few years after Earhart disappeared. Obviously, they weren't bought from P&W. I started to look on the website, but thought I would ask for the URL if you have it available. I would question the 200 mph cruise...too high. What about the Japanese engines? Is that true the same engine showed up on the Japanese seaplanes? Maybe they bought one from Lockheed. Who knows? Howard Hughes sold them the plans for the Japanese Zero. So, anything goes? Carol Dow ************************************************************************ From Ric Carol, you're beautiful. Never change. There is not now and never was any such thing as a Wasp Super. The 550 hp version of the Wasp (R1340 S3H1) was later upgraded to 600 hp, but that was post-Earhart. The Model 10E had an advertised cruising speed at 9,600 feet of 205 mph and a top speed of 215 mph at 10,500 feet. The Japanese had similar engines and airplanes with better range than the Electra before 1937. Howard Hughes did not sell them the plans for the Zero. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:52:57 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: KHAQQ Calling ? (Don't know if following radio-related question has already been discussed on the Forum in past?) According to Itasca radio logs, AE made numerous transmissions during 20+ hour final flight from Lae to Howland that were clearly received (and documented) by Itasca radio operators at Howland. Based on these radio transmissions logs we know that: a.. AE acknowledged receiving (@ 8:00am) signals from Itasca ("KHAQQ calling Itasca, we received your signals okay...") b.. AE believed she was near Howland ("...we must be on you, but cannot see you...") c.. Increasing radio signal strengths indicated AE was near Howland at the approximate time she should have arrived. Based on the above, we can reasonably believe AE was near Howland Island on the morning of July 2, 1937. Why then after providing continuous radio transmissions for over 20 hours would the radio transmissions suddenly stop? It would seem the simplest explanation is: a.. Ran out of fuel near Howland shortly after making last radio transmission and ditched in ocean ? This would most definately put an end to all radio transmission. She already reported low on gas. Also reported flying at 1000 feet. As a pilot, I know fuel exhaustion at only 1000 feet, and having to prepare complex aircraft for ditch in ocean doesn't allow a pilot much time for fumbling with radios to make a last SOS call. However, let us make these assumptions: a.. After reaching Howland, the Electra had enough fuel remaining to continue flight for several more hours (fuel consumption calculations by some researchers indicate this is very possible) b.. The Electra did continue flying for several more hours (perhaps on a southeastward heading of 157 degrees?) c.. The Electra's radio transmitter remained functional, as it had for the previous 20 hours Based on the above, it is reasonable to believe that in those additional hours of flying, AE most assuredly would have continued her attempts to transmit atleast a few more messages such as "We've been flying 157 degree heading for past hour but still can not find you", or, "Hey, we see something like and island up ahead", or "OK.. we are going to attempt to land on barrier reef on island", or, "Engines are gasping their last fuel, we're going to ditch in the ocean". I find it difficult to believe that if the Electra continued flying for several more hours after reaching Howland, AND the radio remained functional, AE would not have at least attempted a few more transmissions. Especially, if Fred Noonan was encouraging her to fly 157 degree heading because he knew there were islands up ahead. For certain, something caused the transmissions to stop. Perhaps these are some other possibilities: a.. Radio blew a fuse? Some researchers (Long) report (prior to final flight) numerous maintenance problems with her radio blowing fuses?? b.. AE became frustrated and disgusted with her radio and simply quit using it so as to concentrate on finding a place to land? If radio blew a fuse (or became otherwise non-functional) after AE's last transmission near Howland, but, the Electra continued flying until they landed on an island somewhere (Gardner perhaps?), then that could possibly explain why post-disappearance radio transmissions were received by so many different radio operators for several days (ie. AE and Fred fixed the radio and resumed transmitting from the island). Yeah, I know, assumptions, conjecture, hearsay, blah, blah, blah. But, this is my $0.02 Sincerely, Tom Riggs #2427 ********************************************************************** From Ric As you suspected, these issues have been researched at length and are the subject of Bob Bradenburg's treatise "The Radio Riddle" in Chapter IV of the 8th Edition of the Earhart Project Book (available via the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR_store/tigharstore2.html) The bottom line is that, given the frequencies, altitude, and probable distances involved, it is not at all surprising that any transmissions Earhart may have made after 08:43 were not heard by Itasca. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 10:01:03 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: blinding Sun Has anyone brought up that as AE was approaching Howland and couldn't see it, partially because of the sun in their face and reflections off the sea, that they may have over shot Howland on purpose and then turned west so they could see more easily? They apparently had the fuel. Chris#2511 ************************************************************************ From Ric Many, many people have speculated that sun glare was a factor in reducing their ability to see Howland. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I don't think anyone (until now) has suggested that they intentionally overshot and doubled back to put the sun behind them. If there is some evidence to support the idea I'd love to hear it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:09:45 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Earhart's Engines >The 550 hp version of the Wasp (R1340 S3H1) was later upgraded to 600 hp, but that >was post-Earhart. Report 487 (which was prepared before delivery of AE's plane) actually calls for pulling 600 hp on takeoff (page 2): "on a hard [turf] run-way using 600 BHP per engine, the take-off distance is 2100 feet at sea level" at 16,500 pounds with standard air density and 30 degrees of flaps. (See pages 21-22. With no flaps, distance is given as 2590 feet at 16,500 pounds.) Page 6 contains Kelly Johnson's instruction: "Do not draw more than 600 BHP for one minute on take-off. Cut back on the power as soon as it is safe." Page 2 defines a "safe" altitude as 50 to 100 feet, and says "the flaps should be retracted and the engine power reduced to 550 BHP ..." for the climb to 2000 feet. Oscar Boswell ************************************************************************ From Ric Although the S3H1 engine could deliver 600 hp for brief periods it was "advertised" as a 550 hp pwerplant. The later AN1 military version (AT-6/SNJ, etc.) was billed as a true 600 hp engine. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:12:59 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Re: KHAQQ Calling ? Tom Riggs asks: >Why then after providing continuous radio >transmissions for over 20 hours would the radio transmissions suddenly >stop? One possible explanation lies with the transmitter itself and the way it was designed. We know that AE said she was changing frequencies, before contact was lost with her. This equipment changed channels through a "coffee grinder" control head operated by the pilot, connected through a tach-shaft (similar to an automotive speedometer cable) to the transmitter. The control head and cable operated the channel switches in the equipment. These switches, or individaul "decks" of a multi-gang rotary switch, performed the following functions: Changed the frequency control crystal Selected the correct tuned circuits in the oscillator stage and buffer-multiplier stage, for each channel Selected the correct final amplifier "tank" circuit elements for each channel The control circuit contained an interlock switch that prevented the radio from being keyed up if the detents for each channel did not "seat' properly. Backlash in the tach shaft, combined with haste or inattention on the operator's part, could have resulted in the switch not seating. There was a "Signal" light on the control head, that supposedly was lit if the channel was properly selected. Maybe it was too dim to be readily seen in the cockpit, or maybe the bulb was burned out.... Just suppose the detents did not seat. No transmission. Or, that one or more sections of the switch in the transmitter did not exactly line up, so the contacts associated with a crystal or tuned circuit didn't quite "make." In that case the interlock may have enabled the radio to be keyed up, but an open circuit somewhere else prevented transmission... or an improperly-made contact started to arc over and damaged the radio. ssssizzzzlZAP! Of course, if that were the case, this might well have prevented it from working after a landing, which creates problems for the post-loss signals scenarios.... Yes, I know, this is all speculation, but given the equipment we are dealing with, it could easily have happened. LTM (who is always loud and clear) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:15:15 EDT From: Carol Subject: Re: Earhart's Engines Thanks Ric, My trouble is I read too many books. Carol ************************************************************* From Ric Nah. The more the better. Just don't believe everything you read, especially in a book about Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:51:59 EDT From: Frank Wolfe Subject: Re: Why speed up into a headwind ? EARHART SPECULATIONS Now and then, those of us who are interested in the Earhart disappearance advance new theories about known or imagined events. I began my speculations shortly after the Fred Goerner book; it looked like he had fairly good research but rather poor conclusions. I took my conclusions to Smithsonian; the room full of people who met with me asked that I complete the drawings and place the ideas in their museum. My conclusion was that it could not have been a spy flight. The plane would have arrived over the target area at night. Putnam died in 1950 age 63, long after information about a spy flight would have made any difference; he would have written about the flight, given himself prominence in planning such a mission and above all, he would have given AE credit for her part in the collection of information leading up to WW-2. Now about the head wind and early depletion of Gasoline. The plane seems to have had fairly constant fuel system problems. Two hours out of Natal, inroute to Dakar, the fuel meter shaft broke. On June 15, while flying from Assab to Karachi, the mixture control jammed, allowing the right engine to gulp gasoline at an unconscionable rate. From June 24 to June 26 the plane returned to Bandoeng three times, for repairs, my best guess, fuel related; certainly something serious enough to effect the long flight from Lae to Howland. At 5:45 AM she reported being 100 miles, or 44 minutes out; her next position report came one hour and forty five minutes later. This time delay would indicate a navigational switch in methods. I would think she was reporting from the original flight plan, then Fred found, with his octant, that they had a serious error, probably caused by a headwind. If she was still using the original flight plan, they were unaware of winds aloft and made no correction in speed or heading. When I punched the numbers into a GPS unit, the heading was within one degree of 157 degrees less a ninety degree right turn. There appears to have no correction of any kind, speed or heading. The 7:30 AM report would indicate that they had intercepted the sun line. If they had know anything about a twenty six mile per hour headwind, they would never have taken off on a 2556 mile long flight. I still think they are on or near the sun line, in deep water. Fred Noonan was very good with the octant and would have laced his last bet on being able to work this instrument.rom ********************************************************************* From Ric My ascerbic response: I count no fewer than eleven assumptions - pure guesses - upon which you base your conclusion. Some of your facts are just plain wrong while others are news to me. For example, where did you get the bit about the fuel meter shaft breaking two hours out of Natal? Earhart makes no mention of it in Last Flight nor does Noonan say anything about it in his letter to Pallette. Earhart returned to Bandoeng once, not three times. She reported 100 miles out at 06:45 local (Bantu) time, not 05:45. etc., etc. Good conclusions cannot be drawn from bad facts. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:55:03 EDT From: Carol Subject: Re: Earhart's Engines Oscar, thanks for the input on the engines. Some of these things that are "flying" around might show up on the silver screen someday, courtesy Miss Carol. I really appreciate the forum. Where else can I go to get the quality of the replies you all offer. It's great. I know what Ric is going to say.... what are you writing Miss Carol? Uh, well, that's a secret. We could play twenty questions, but, no I don't want to do that either. The project is not quite finished. So, you have to wait. Also, please bear in mind what you see on the silver screen has to be salable or I won't get any offers for the play. Ric is probably gnashing his teeth by now....right Ric? Carol Dow ****************************************************************** From Ric Nah...you couldn't possibly write anything worse than Mendelsohn's "I Was Amelia Earhart"....could you? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:43:21 EDT From: Pete Subject: 2-2-V-1 and war losses I was just looking at http://www.vpnavy.org regarding wartime patrol aircraft losses. VP-71 includes a mishap page that includes a loss at Canton on 12 Feb '43 (starboard engine seems to have departed); and two others that give positions of losses in heavy seas. I seem to recall the Canton loss being discussed before, is it possible a patrol plane is the source of the skin? ltm Pete #2419 *************************************************************************** From Ric Those losses were PBYs. 2-2-V-1 doesn't match any place on a PBY. What's more, because a PBY is a large flying boat, its skins and rivets are thicker and heavier than what we have so it can't even be a nonstandard repair to a PBY. After you look at enough airplanes with an eye to skin thickness, rivet size, and general rivet pattern, you begin to develop a "feel" for different manufacturers and types. 2-2-V-1 very much has the feel of a small Lockheed. There was a PV-1 Ventura (Lockheed Model 18) wrecked at Canton but the Model 18 was all flush-riveted except for a small area back under the tail. The skin and rivets back there have the same "feel" as 2-2-V-1 but pattern isn't even close. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:45:24 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Earhart's Engines >please bear >in mind what you see on the silver screen has to be salable To crack the movie business may be harder than solving the riddles of Niku. "Many are called, but few are chosen." WGA credits are earned with blood, sweat and tears. LTM (who despises "Pearl Harbor") and 73 Mike E. the Radio Historian, aka screenwriting teacher and story editor ********************************************************************* From Ric Or as we used to say while searching for the White Bird in Newfoundland: "Many are cold but few are frozen." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:46:24 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Earhart's Engines "I Might Have Been Fred Noonan" by Carol Dow... ? (Sorry Carol - Ric made me do it) Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:49:58 EDT From: Emmett Subject: Gibson girl Was the "Gibson Girl" transmitter similar to the one featured on the film "Island In The Sky?", a 1950's Ernie Gann film? John Wayne and crew were lost and down of one of Canada's northern frozen lakes and certain to die but for the emergency transmitter. LTM, Emmett *************************************************************************** From Ric I think so, but it has been a long time since I've seen that classic. "Island" is only available on the ebay or yahoo auction "gray" market. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:52:11 EDT From: Patrick Robinson Subject: Lockheed Electra I just returned from Washington, DC and visited the Air & Space Museum... Is the model of Amelia's aircraft in the Museum one of those that was for sale last year ??? LTM Patrick (2239) ************************************************************************* From Ric No. I'm not sure where they got that one. As I recall it's not very accurate. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:52:56 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: KHAQQ Calling ? It's also possible that no one heard her transmissions, simply because they (a) weren't listening on the right frequencies, or (b) transmitting on top of her transmissions. Itasca radiomen probably did both. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:57:20 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: FLIGHT PLAN Reading the FAQ for the umpteenth time I came across the question again whether AE and FN had a contingency plan. You correctly say that any good pilot or navigator would have one. I'm not familiar with pre WWII procedures but today ATC wouldn't let you take off if you hadn't filed a flight plan. They have to approve it before they let you take off. It has to mention two diversion destinations and it must include a list of safety equipment on board when flying over water. I don't know about procedures in the Thirties but I do know that in those days there were diversion airfields along the colonial routes of both Imperial Airways and KLM to the Far Eastern colonies every 40 miles or so. These could be rudimentary airstrips or clearings. Looking at the Purdue documents one can see AE had drawings of many such fields en route. Now here is my question. Did AE as pilot in command file flight plans for each hop ? Did she leave a copy of her last flight plan at Lae ? If this was standard procedure in 1937 chances are it can still be around. That would end on speculation on what their contingency plan was if any. LTM **************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know, Amelia Earhart never filed a flight plan in her life. There was certainly no flight plan filed in Lae. There may have been emergency strips along the KNILM (Royal Netherlands East Indies Airline) routes but she was nowhere near them on her Howland flight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:36:22 EDT From: Frank Wolfe Subject: Re: Why speed up into a headwind ? The broken fuel meter is described on Page 140 of Last Flight. The time used is GCT time and copied from the Fred Goerner Book. The trips back to Bandoeng are described in Last Flight page 210 and 211. I have no intention of writing a book, just tried to help. Would like to see anyone find the plane. Frank Wolfe ************************************************************************** From Ric My paperback copy of Last Flight (republished in 1988) only has 140 pages. I've looked through the entire "South Atlantic" chapter and can find no reference to a broken fuel meter. 06:45 local time in the Central Pacific is 18:15 GCT so I have no idea what Goerner was talking about. (Goerner also said the plane's engines were changed to "Wasp Seniors".) Neither "Last Flight" nor "The Search For Amelia Earhart" are reliable sources. "Last Flight" was heavily edited and embellished after AE's death and contains several errors. Goerner's book should be seen today as an early snapshot that illustrates how little was known and understood by Earhart researchers in the 1960s. Regarding Bandoeng: Earhart arrived on June 21st and, over the next two days, had some scheduled maintenance done by mechanics at Royal Netherlands East Indies Airline. Very early in the moringing on the 24th she prepared to depart Bandoeng, intending to fly all the way to Australia, but a malfunctioning instrument sent her back to the hangar and she didn't get away from Bandoeng until 2 p.m. which only gave her time to fly the 355 miles to Soerabaja, Java before nightfall. However, that short flight was enough to show that the offending instrument still wasn't fixed and the next day she returned to Bandoeng. The way the incident is described in Last Flight is a bit confusing and it's easy to get the impression that there were actually two flights to Soerabaja and two returns to Bandoeng, but there was only one. On June 27, with the problem finally resolved, they left Bandoeng and flew 1,165 miles to Koepang, Timor. The next day they flew the reamining 500 miles to Port Darwin, Australia. LTN, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:37:03 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: Inverting Eyepieces Again!!! To Anthony: is it really necessary to take the eyepiece apart to start a fire? Wouldn't the complete thing still focus the sun to a spot on some dry coconut husk? CD ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:55:54 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Inverting Eyepieces Again!!! > To Anthony: > > is it really necessary to take the eyepiece apart to start a fire? Wouldn't > the complete thing still focus the sun to a spot on some dry coconut husk? No. gl ********************************************************************** From Ric I suspect that you're right but you seem awfully sure for somebody who last week was asking "What the heck is an inverting eyepiece"? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:15:02 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Wreck Photo Simon wrote: >I've spent many hours (get a life Simon!) examining this photo, >Jon - email me off forum if you'd like to discuss it. Frank Lombardo and myself also spent a lot of time examining this photo. Frank did a lot of work on this and wrote an interesting report summarizing his conclusions. Frank and I concluded that it was most likely was not a Lockheed 10. Email me off Forum if you think any of the work Frank and I did might be relevant to this off-Forum item of interest. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:16:41 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Betty's radio For Warren Lambing: Thanks for the link to the fascinating TV history site! Looks like I was partly right (read: partly wrong) about those early receivers. In 1939 there were some "lid" models but also some models with the picture tube facing outwards. It does appear, however, that the first true US televisions were marketed in 1939, with the exception of the Dumont Model 180, which debuted in 1938 (lord knows what there was to receive!) The NY World's Fair does seem to have been the epochal event; the Fair opened on April 30, 1939, and RCA began commercial TV broadcasting the next day. So it's not surprising that a 1940-vintage RCA radio would have an audio input for television. However, I do not see any combo radio-TV units from 1939 or earlier, nor does Zenith appear to have been in the forefront of television research. I did get a kick out of the Victorian-era trading cards predicting what life would be like 100 years hence. Apparently the familiar TV set came very close to being called a "telephotoscope." Thanks again for the link. Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:53:01 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Inverting Eyepieces Again!!! Well, I think what was meant by "inverting eyepiece" was actually an inverting telescope not just the eyepiece for the telescope. Some marine sextants come with inverting, also known as an "astronomical", telescopes in addition to the more usual upright image, also known as "terrestrial", telescopes. Both types of telescopes consist of the front, or objective, lens and the eyepiece. In both types of telescopes the objective lenses are convex lens and when aimed at an astronomical object form an inverted positive image at the focal plane of the lens at a distance back from the lens, inside the telescope, equal to the focal length of the objective lens. In an upright image telescope, the eyepiece also has a lens, of a shorter focal length and smaller diameter, that is also convex and again flips the image over so that now the upside down image at the focal plane of the objective lens is viewed upright and larger. The eyepiece of an inverting telescope is convex and doesn't flip the image over the second time so that the image appears inverted. In either case, the eyepieces themselves are useless for starting a fire because of their small diameter. In addition, a convex lens, such as used in the eyepiece of the inverting telescope ("inverting eyepiece?"), doesn't form a positive image, meaning that it doesn't concentrate the light to a point, so cannot start a fire no matter how big it is. To start a fire with lenses from either type of telescope you must use just the objective lenses which probably means disassembling the telescope to allow the sun to be concentrated on a point that can be ignited. If you remove the eyepiece and point the objective towards the sun the concentrated sun light will be focused on a point within the telescope tube where it would be difficult to place an object to be ignited. If you turn the telescope around so the the sun shines down the tube, backwards if you will, you will be able to form an image on some fuel but it probably won't get very hot because the telescope tube blocks the sun from the entire diameter of the objective lens. You must also think about how a lens can be used to start a fire. The lens concentrates the sun's energy falling on the entire area of the lens onto a spot so that that spot gets hot enough to ignite. A lens of small diameter does not have enough area to grab enough energy to start a fire. I haven't done this experiment with my sextants' telescopes (because I don't want to bust them apart) but I doubt that either of the objective lenses from the inverting or from the non inverting telescopes are large enough to start a fire. You can test this for yourself. Go down to the drug store and buy two magnifying glasses, one of small diameter and one large, a couple of bucks each. Go out and focus the sun on some material and see if you can get it to light. You might get a fire with the large glass but not with the small one. Put you hand at the focus and feel how hot they get. gl ***************************************************************** From Ric Question: Would an aeronautical bubble octant or sextant be likely to have an objective lens big enough to use for starting a fire? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:59:20 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Out of C.G. There is something I would like to bring up on the forum that is bugging me. Elgen Long and a few others are saying if Earhat's plane hit the water, and it stayed intact, the weight of the engines would have pulled it straight down (mucho pronto) nose first. That doesn't figure. If you could pick up a Lockheed Electra on the tips of its wings (down the spar) it would balance; otherwise, it would be out of C.G. (Center of Gravity). I know during the war there were reports of jet fighter planes that, once they used up their ammunition, they went out of C. G. But Earhart's fuselage was loaded with fuel tanks, and, obviously, those tanks would have been the first load of av. gas they would have burned, leaving the fuel in the wings the last to go. If Earhart's plane pancacked on the sea (very little winds), the chances would be good it stayed all in one piece, and it would float all in one piece.....in balance. If the plane hit the water and broke up, where was the debris field (none), the oil slick (none), and nothing (wreckage) ever washed up on the shoes of anybody's islands that pointed to Earhart's plane. As I understand it, there are Electra's that have crashed at sea, and they floated for a considerable length of time off the east coast (U.S.) , and they didn't have long range fuel tanks up and down the fuselage. In fact, somewhere in the archives of air crashes (as I remember) there are instances of commercial airliners that have crashed at sea, and they refused to sink. Consequently, the coast guard had to sink them as hazards to navigation. So, the question is why should Earhart's plane go down nose first and sink immediately (according to Elgen Long). It doesn't compute. So, obviously, the sparks would fly if I ever bumped into that man. Not looking forward to it. Also, Long is saying the dump valves on Earhart's Electra collapsed and flooded the fuel tanks instantly and everyone (Eahart and Noonan both) was knocked out on the instrument panel as soon as the airplane hit the water. Baloney, Carol says. By the way, I thought I would let the "cat out of the bag" and tell you that James Cameron (Titanic) is one of the parties who is behind the Nauticos search. I tried to reach him, but got no replies. Anyone want to comment on the foregoing? Carol Dow ************************************************************** From Ric Just two quick ones: You're wrong about an airplane's (any airplane's) CG. If Cameron is really behind the Nauticos search at least he's consistent. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:04:57 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Inverting Eyepieces Again!!! One type of inverting lens has three convex lenses (actually achromats that act like convex lenses). Binoculars use prisms to achieve the same effect. You are describing the classical Gallilean telescope as an inverting telescope, which it is. We don't know the optics of the inverting lens. I agree that a larger the diameter lens can produce a hotter spot, but Nikumaroro is in the tropics, and there is more solar energy (mainly in ultraviolet). A relatively small lens might still be enough to start a fire. Many pre-World War II binoculars had objective lenses that screwed off, I'm not sure about other optical equipment. It might be relatively easy to remove the objective (convex)lens. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ***************************************************************** From Anthony Lealand Yes Christian, an eyepiece intact would form an image of the sun but it would be a large image and not hot enough. You can try this your self. Take some binoculars and bright sun. With care you can let them (NO NOT YOU) look at the sun and get a focused image on a sheet of paper. Eyepieces towards the paper screen at about 1 metre. It helps to put a flat "hat" around the binocs to stop the sunlight going past washing the screen out. Or poke it through venetian blinds. Any way with fiddling distance and focus it is possible to from an image of the sun good enough to see sunspots. A camera tripod will help here. So it is a big image and does not have enough concentration to start a fire. With the objective lens alone having a diameter of 40 mm and focal length around 60 to100 mm it will form a very small tight image and your coconut husk will burst into flame. Quite timely really, as I nearly set my business on fire with a big 18 kw military searchlight focused on a wooden bench yesterday. Where was all that smoke coming from? Kind Regards Anthony Lealand New Zealand ******************************************************************** From Gary LaPook > Question: > > Would an aeronautical bubble octant or sextant be likely to have an > objective lens big enough to use for starting a fire? I don't think so. In the bubble sextants that I am familiar with the objective lenses are 10 to 15 mm in diameter, much too small to start a fire. The diagram I got from Doug of the A-5 sextant used by Noonan also shows a small lens but I can't determine its exact size. Perhaps Doug might be able to estimate its diameter. Some bubble sextants such as the A-6 and the A-12 don't have a telescope at all but only shows an image at unity. Even in the ones with telescopes, the lenses are buried in the guts of the instrument and are difficult to get at except for the A-10 which has a small two power scope with a 13 mm objective, and the scope can be easily unscrewed from the sextant. The design of these sextants limits the possible size of the telescopes so I don't expect that other models would have significantly larger lenses. I looked at the telescopes on my marine sextants and one had a 40 mm objective and the "inverting telescope" had a 30 mm lens. I know that you can start a fire with a 70 mm magnifying glass but a 40 mm lens will only gather 32 % of the energy of a 70 mm lens and a 30 mm will only produce 18% (it varies with the square of the ratio of the diameters) so I doubt that these lenses could start a fire. Because of the constraint on sextant design, it is hard to see how other marine sextants could have much larger lenses. gl *********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. My question was not idle curiosity. Our not-yet-identified knob, found at the Seven Site, got removed from whatever it was once part of with "extreme prejudice" - i.e. it got beat on and pried at pretty good. That's one reason it's taking so much hi-tech work to decipher the patent number. We don't yet know what the thing is, but it does look like somebody was taking something apart by brute force. The motivation could be malicious mischief (as any little boy knows) or because somebody needed something that was inside. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:24:43 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Out of C.G. >That doesn't figure. If you could pick up a Lockheed Electra on the tips of its >wings (down the spar) it would balance; otherwise, it would be out of C.G. (Center >of Gravity). I know during the war there were reports of jet fighter planes >that, once they used up their ammunition, they went out of C. G. But >Earhart's fuselage was loaded with fuel tanks, and, obviously, those tanks >would have been the first load of av. gas they would have burned, leaving the >fuel in the wings the last to go. ....blah blah etc. For buoyancy purposes, what's important is where the centre of submerged volume is. If you where to submerge A.E.'s L10E in a couple of feet of water (say representative of it floating - tanks empty) you'd see that if it were in a level pitch attitude, the submerged volume behind the CG (i.e. wing mid/trailing edge & mid/rear fuselage) far exceeds the volume ahead (small nose and wing leading edge). The fus. nose is hinged to open like a hatch w hich is unlikely to be water tight, so it'd leak water into the nose, & coupled with this, you have a couple of very heavy 1340's hanging well forward of the CG. She's gonna be very nose down with the submerged part of the nose likely flooded before long. LTM (whose beautifully proportioned body always floats level) Simon Ellwood #2120 **************************************************************** From Frank Wolfe The very little ditching training we had for bombers during WW-2 cautioned us to fly all the way into the water, otherwise we could count on stalling out high and plunging straight into the water. As time went on we gathered much information about ditching, Rickenbacher had a fairly good description. Afterthought: Without intending to, I seem to be able to upset you with my conclusions, it will never be my intent to do anything except pool ideas with others. When Goerner wrote his book, I drew a diagram dropping in various times, messages etc. into the drawing; this was the information requested by Smithsonian. Please be assured, I will never write a book or be in competition to you professional researchers. Anything I can do to help locate and recover the plane is my goal, receiving credit is not in my game plan. Frank Wolfe *********************************************************** From Ric Don't worry about it Frank. Nobody feels threatened and nobody here is a professional Earhart researcher - except me. I'm the only one who gets paid to do this stuff and I need all the help I can get. ****************************************************************** From Gary LaPook You are probably right that the c.g.. was within limits and obviously located somewhere along the MAC. But you are not taking into account the center of buoyancy. Once the airplane is in the water it is possible that the center of buoyancy would be well aft of the cg resulting in a nose down pitching moment. The allowable limits of the airplane's cg is based on aerodynamic forces available in flight. The hydrodynamic forces are entirely different and take a different analysis. gl ******************************************************************* From Ric Based on the work that Oceaneering International did for us prior to our 1991 sonar survey around Niku, the airplane would be roughly 1,100 pounds buoyant PROVIDED that the presumably-empty fuselage tanks remained intact. The fuselage itself would probably leak like a sieve and the airplane would float in a nose-down attitude with most, if not all, of the cockpit submerged. In a sense, much of the weight of the airplane would be suspended from the aluminum straps holding down the fuselage tanks and, of course, those straps were never designed to do more than simply hold the tanks in place. The tanks themselves were, naturally, made as light as possible. How long the thing would hold together and float is anybody's guess but "not long" would be mine. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:16:06 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: KHAQQ Calling ? Ric.... In response to my Saturday, June 15 Earhart Forum posting titled "KHAQQ Calling ?" you wrote: "As you suspected, these issues have been researched at length and are the subject of Bob Bradenburg's treatise "The Radio Riddle" in Chapter IV of the 8th Edition of the Earhart Project Book (available via the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR%_store/tigharstore2.html) The bottom line is that, given the frequencies, altitude, and probable distances involved, it is not at all surprising that any transmissions Earhart may have made after 08:43 were not heard by Itasca." Perhaps I need to cough up $100 to purchase a copy of the Earhart Project Book and read "The Radio Riddle" to learn more about this topic. Unfortunately, I'm still dealing with the pain of sending my $55.00 (ouch!) membership renewal dues just last week. Can you enlighten me as to what you mean by "given the frequencies, altitude, and probable distances involved...."?? Unless I am interpreting your meaning incorrect, it would seem the frequencies, altitude, and distances involved would not be detrimental for any further (post 8:43am) transmissions from AE. Here is my logic: Frequencies : Assuming AE did not change from the pre-agreed frequencies used the previous 20+ hours for transmitting and receiving with Itasca (e.g. 3105 ), she should have still been using those same frequencies after 8:43am. These are the same frequencies which produced her numerous previous loud and clear transmissions received by Itasca. It was also the same frequencies that produced the only positive contact with Itasca (8:00am...."we received your signals OK...") As more rationale not to deviate from pre-agreed frequencies, if I was in same situation as AE (ie. soon to run out of fuel over thousands of square mile of ocean), and knew after hours of trying I had finally made at least one positive contact with Itasca (and knew I was close to Howland), you can be assured I would focus on that one frequency as a beacon of safety and not change. Altitude: Near Howland, AE reported she was flying at 1000 feet. When looking for a small island over open ocean, 1000 feet is not very high. That is, the higher you are, the greater distance you can see. If AE departed Howland with remaining fuel and flew southeastward, lets assume she flew at a reasonable over-ocean minimum altitude 1000 feet or greater to enhance chances for seeing an island. Also, altitude can affect radio performance. That is, the higher your antenna, the greater transmission/reception distance. Distance: I can't remember exact fuel-burn estimate calculations I read by some researchers. But lets assume the Electra had maybe 3 hours fuel remaining after leaving Howland (allowing approx. 23 hours in-flight). Also, lets assume a no-wind airspeed of 136mph. (yeah, I know distance traveled is affected by headwind or tailwind, but I don't exactly know what the winds/direction were that morning, and it won't make that much difference for the point I'm trying to make here). 3 hours at 136mph equals 408 miles. So, all above assumtions together are: a.. frequencies - she remained on the pre-agreed radio frequencies b.. altitudes - flew no lower than 1000 feet altitude c.. distances - flew estimated maximum distance past Howland of approx. 408 miles. I find it difficult to believe the Electra's 50 watt output transmitter (if 50 watts is correct?), that had previously (pre-8:43am) been transmitting loud and clear (signal strength 5), with an antenna positioned 1000 feet (or higher) in the air, transmitting over flat-featureless ocean (ie. no trees, buildings, hills, or other signal-degrading obstructions) would not be capable of sending a clear signal back to Itasca from only of 400 miles away? Also, assuming she did not wait until 400 miles away, but began making repeated transmissions soon after departing Howland at 8:43am when only 50, 100, 200, etc. miles away, the transmission distances would even be less. Perhaps some of the Forum radio-heads can confirm if this is at all feasible?? Don't you just love this Earhart stuff? Sincerely, Tom Riggs #2427 *********************************************************************** From Ric Most of us who fly are accustomed to thinking in terms of the VHF line-of-sight frequencies that we use today. Earhart was using HF frequencies which are a whole 'nother ball game. Before you can begin to make informed guesses about the radio aspects of the Earhart disappearance you have to be familar with the characteristics and idiosyncrasies of HF radio. Bob Brandenburg's paper in the Eighth Edition deals with those in far more detail and with far greater expertise than I can offer here. However, your reasoning has some other problems that I'll address. Again, it wasn't like it is today. Earhart could transmit only three frequencies and one of those - 500 kcs - was essentially useless because it was only good for morse code and neither she not Noonan could communicate in morse code. Besides, because of compromises he had made to her antenna system, hse couldn't put out a signal on 500 kcs for beans anyway. That left her with two possible transmit frequencies, 3105 kcs and 6210 kcs. These were standard aviation frequencies in the U.S. at that time. One several occasions during the first third of the flight to Howland, Earhart sent transmissions on 6210 which were heard in Lae but its not at all clear that she ever heard an acknowledgement of those transmissions and it is entirely possible that she never knew whether that frequency was working or not. During the last hours of the flight, as they approached Howland, all of the transmissions received by the Coast Guard were on 3105. There is no way to know whether she ever tried contact the Itasca on 6210 prior to 08:43, but we do know that they heard her fine on 3105. We also know that the one time she heard something sent by the Coast Guard was the letter A in morse, sent repeatedly on 7500 kcs, at 08:00 local time. Just prior to that time she had asked for "a long count" (counting slowly from one to ten and then back to one) on 7500 kcs, apparently not realizing that the itasca had no voice capability on that frequency. She made the request by voice on 3105 and almost immediately heard the code on 7500. Could she then deduce that her voice message on 3105 had been heard? No, because it was pre-arranged that the Itasca would automatically send "A"s on 7500 on the hour and half hour all that morning, and in fact they had been doing so faithfully since the wee hours. Earhart had no way of knowing whether the signal she heard was in response to her request or just the Itasca following the agreed-upon plan. So - at 08:43 Earhart sends a voice message on 3105 saying that she's going to switch frequencies to 6210. At that point she has no idea whether anybody has heard anything she has said all morning and possibly for the entire flight. Maybe she continued to try, as you suggest, but the situation she faced was a bit different than you describe. If she did keep trying, other problems associated with the HF frequencies, her altitude and distance from Howland, and as Randy Jacobson has pointed out, transmissions by the Coast Guard which could have blocked her signals, could have prevented her from being heard. And yes, I love this Earhart stuff. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:21:23 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Re: Gibson girl >Was the "Gibson Girl" transmitter similar to the one featured on the film >"Island In The Sky?", a 1950's Ernie Gann film? John Wayne and crew were >lost and down of one of Canada's northern frozen lakes and certain to die >but for the emergency transmitter. Correct. In the film the radio operator aboard the a/c jury-rigs his regular key into the Gibson Girl. Otherwise it would be very cumbersome to send, using the little pushbutton "key" built into the thing. And as I recall, he was using a "bug" or mechanical speed key. Would have been correct. Many airborne radio operators used them. And Big Jawn wasn't among the lost... he didn't play the role of Dooley, the pilot of the force-landed C-47. He was flying one of the search planes, as I recall. 73 Mike E. *************************************************************** From Ric Izat right? I coulda sworn Duke played the pilot of the plane on the lake. I remember that Andy Devine played one of the search pilots. ( I am braced for 200 postings with the complete cast, plot line, and script of the movie.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:30:51 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Out of C.G. Ok, so I'm easily confused -- the arthritis meds seem to be really going after the brain cells today. Or maybe it's the Bengay fumes... Anyway, here's the question: Aren't an airplane's CG and its buoyancy, if any, two entirely different things??? I mean, boats and planes look different for a reason, right? Fuselages and hulls are different shapes for a reason, right? Or am I so medicated that I'm hallucinating in email? LTM, who'll be sober for the course in October, she promises Amanda **************************************************************** From Ric Yes, of course, buoyancy and CG are two different things. Buoyancy is how well you float (or not) and CG determines in what attitude you float (if you do). The point that some of the folks were trying to make is that the factors affecting an airplane's attitude in the air are different from those that would determine its attitude if afloat in water. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:40:32 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Inverting Eyepieces Again!!! The most immediate thing that comes to mind is that someone wanted to get the "device" apart to start a fire--both for cooking and/or signalling for searchers. My personal experience has been that the more exhausted one becomes, the more their mechanical skills go downhill, especially when you add in a possible sense of desperation. LTM, (who knows a little about desperation) Mike Haddock #2438 **************************************************** From Ric That's logical speculation if the device had something in it that could be used for starting a fire, but we won't know that until we know what the device was. ***************************************************** From Randy Jacobson What's the latest from Jeff regarding the decoding of the patent number? The buildup was incredible: every day we could anticipate what the next letter was. Last I heard, the number began with "1", but then? No mas! The suspense is killing us all! ******************************************************** From Ric Jeff is doing this as a freebie as his time permits and the tougher the symbol the more time it takes. He has done the next symbol but it's really a hard one to be sure about. I should have his report in the next day or so and I'll pass it along as soon it comes in. ******************************************************* From Gary LaPook Well, as Rosanne Rosannadana would have said, "Never mind." Today I disassembled the two telescopes for a russian marine sextant that I have (I figured I had less to lose) and tried to start a fire with them. One of the objectives was 40 mm and the other for the inverting telescope was 30 mm. I was able to use each to concentrate the sun light enough to start a piece of paper on fire. Goes to show you that one real experiment is worth many "thought experiments." gl ********************************************************************** From Ric Ain't science wonderful? That explains the email from your neighbor saying "Gary has finally lost it." Wasn't it Emily Latitia who said "Never mind."? Or was that Carol Dow? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:46:15 EDT From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Island In the Sky Here is one of the two hundred. http://www.tvguide.com/Movies/database/ShowMovie.asp?MI=1965 *************************************************************** From Ric "Take one down, pass it around, 199 emails to go..." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:16:02 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Never mind > Ric said: > Wasn't it Emily Latitia who said "Never mind."? Or was that Carol Dow? Gilda Radner may have made the expression famous, but I suspect Carl Dow uses it more often. LTM (who has never seen SNL) Kerry Tiller **************************************************** From Ric Who needs SNL when we've got the Earhart Forum? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:26:46 EDT From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Re: Island In the Sky Rick, I'll bet you have this web site in your favorites list. Another one of two hundred. http://www.aerofiles.com/film-i.html ******************************************************************* From Ric It wasn't, but it is now. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:29:40 EDT From: Craig Subject: Re: Earhart's Engines > Nah...you couldn't possibly write anything worse > than Mendelsohn's "I Was Amelia Earhart"....could you? I have taken the liberty of setting up an offshore betting account, and I am now accepting wagers on this very statement. I'll leave it up to you, Ric, to determine the odds... Craig ******************************************************** From Ric We may be missing a fund-raising opportunity here. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:40:11 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Out of C.G >From Amanda Dunham > >Ok, so I'm easily confused -- the arthritis meds seem to be really >going after the brain cells today. Or maybe it's the Bengay fumes... >Anyway, here's the question: > >Aren't an airplane's CG and its buoyancy, if any, two entirely >different things??? The English answer, no triple integrals or algebra... An objects center of gravity is an imaginary point in space at which, if the object were fully supported at that point, and only that point, the object would not sway in any direction, and would be perfectly balanced about that point. The buoyancy of an object is the difference between the gravitational force (weight) of the object and the gravitational force (weight) of the fluid it volumetrically displaces, in this case water. But buoyancy also has a center, called, surprise, the center of buoyancy. The weight of the aircraft acts on the center of gravity of the aircraft, but the weight of the displaced water (upward) acts upon the center of buoyancy. These centers are not necessarily coincident in space: The center of buoyancy of the Electra may have been forward of the planes center of gravity, thus counteracting the tendency to tip forward (and possibly inclining it to tip aft). >I mean, boats and planes look different for a >reason, right? Fuselages and hulls are different shapes for a >reason, right? They are shaped differently more for reasons of fluid dynamics than anything else: a plane, by it's shape, would not flow through water very efficiently, but flows through air relatively well. Hope that was clear...and useful, Alik ************************************************************************* From Chris in Petaluma, Ca. Assuming the Electra eventually sank in deep water, how would she hit bottom? I'd assume she'd be nose down, pickup some speed and level out then do it again as she was descending. Wouldn't she glide under water much like the air only slower? Chris#2511 ************************************************************************** From Ric No. Airplanes do not glide when they sink. They just sink. Try it with a model airplane in a swimming pool. I don't know how an Electra would sink but I would guess nose-first. I don't know how fast its terminal velocity would be under water or what would happen when it hit the bottom, but "nothing good" would be a fair guess. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:43:40 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: The Knob and The Duke Something said about "binoculars" gives me an idea. "The Knob" is about the right size and shape to be the focus control on a pair of binocs. Just a thought, which may be worth the paper it's written on. And Ric is right... John Wayne DID play the role of Dooley, the lost pilot, in "Island in the Sky." I looked it up on IMDb.com, which I should have done in the first place.... oh well. Ispodanodat! LTM (who knows Hollywood never lets the truth stand in the way of a good story) and 73 Mike E. ********************************************************************* From Ric Binoculars works, except we've still got the problem of the knob being made out of lead. Seems very odd. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:49:31 EDT From: Emmett Subject: Re: Island In the Sky "Big Jawn" did play the part of downed Dooley. Other Search pilots (left seat) were: Marshall Dillon/James Arness, Lloyd Nolan, Andy Devine and one other. More info available but way off subject. LTM Emmett (fiction & fact from Emmett's almanac) ************************************************************************ From Chris in Petaluma, Ca. Is "Island in the Sky" the one where one of the crew gets lost and snowblind and dies right next to the airplane not knowing he was so close? My movie book says Wayne was the pilot of the cargo plane. Chris#2511 ********************************************************************* From Ric That's the one. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:58:18 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: The Knob and The Duke > Binoculars works, except we've still got the problem of the knob > being made out of lead. Seems very odd. What tools are made of lead? Could the knob be the foot for something, perhaps a cooking pot? LTM (who has always enjoyed her pot) Mike H. *********************************************************************** From Ric I suppose that once we've deciphered the patent number and made a firm ID we could discover that we have the foot of a patented cooking pot that just happens to have been fashioned to resemble a knurled adjustment knob. Time will tell. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:34:35 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Out of C.G. and other problems Interesting, someone posted (sometime ago) the weight of the engines would pull it down nosefirst....scratch that one off the list. I got the feeling from reading Long's book, he was setting up a situation whereby the whole airplane would be resting all in one piece on the seabed. Thusly, it attracted all kinds of interest for a deep sea search. Quite some time ago I had an E-mail from Nauticos (Dave Jourdan) that unless the airplane was intact and all in one piece it would be very difficult to find. So, Long was "stuck" with the theory of a soft landing on fairly calm seas. There's another problem. Because the propellors would not feather (in those days) a windmilling prop would have just about thrown the plane out of control (especially the left engine) which means the only alternate Earhart had was to reduce power on both engines and head for the sea. Whew...twins are safe? A dropping bomb would be more like it. Also, I question the thickness of the front windshield on that plane. A hard impact could have crushed the windshield and knocked out the occupants and probably destroyed the airplane spraying the remains all over the seabed. In my early days of flying in a Cessna (whatever it was....172 I believe) ) I can remember pushing on the windshield with my hand and the whole thing would flex. Being young and brainless (still am) the significance of the early windshields didn't register on my noodle, i.e., bird strikes and hail can destroy an airplane. Nice case for a product liability lawsuit. Cessna and Beech had their share. I personally knew of an American Airlines pilot who was flying instruments Ft. Worth to Dallas-Addison, hit a thunderstorm with hail, and crashed. The hail crushed the windshield. So what would happen if an Electra 10E smacked the ocean (fairly hard)....the question is did that windshield stay in place? I doubt it. Then again how thick was the windshield on a 10E? Good question. Any comments? Lets assume, the Electra had a soft landing at sea. The tail of the plane would hit first, it would then pitch forward with most of the impact hitting on the nose section, the huge radial engines, and the leading edges of the wing. The dump valves came out the trailing edges of the wing....no impact....and a fatal flaw in the Long book. Elgen Long left me in outer space, but what are you going to do? He fooled everyone including Nauticos and James Cameron. How can things like this happen? Answer...it happened. The play...I might have a chance of selling an option (one-half the purchase price). Whether the film actually gets made is a horse of a different color. One thing would hold water...Nauticos would have to run out of money before anyone would schedule anything in the way of production. Who knows maybe Ric will find an airplane with bones attached on Gardner Island. However, Ric, you're up against statements that were made by Chester Nimitiz in Fred Goerner's book. That is hard to swallow. Has anyone ever disproved those statements..... any replies? To quote Nimitz, "yes, Earhart crashed in the Marshall Islands, and she was taken by the Japanese." Fred Goerner and Chester Nimitz were close friends. Interesting comments? Looking forward to replies. Some of this "stuff" is in the play. So what's the way out of this? I dunno. Just talking. Carol Dow ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:59:16 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: The knob The pot would have to be patented, because it's the only pot that would allow you to cook at such low temperatures...otherwise the foot would melt! ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 20:17:01 EDT From: Phil Subject: Radio Equipment Noticed in a posting yesterday that that there was speculation on the power of the Radio 50 watts? on board the Electra. Can anyone confirm the make model frequencies and power of the radio and the design of the send/recieve arials and whether they were tuned or not? Was there a seperate reciever with the direction finding equipment? Phil ************************************************************************* From Ric Man, oh man....talk about opening Pandora's box......let's just say that those questions have been the subject of much heated debate that I don't want to rekindle here on the forum at this time. TIGHAR's conclusions are laid out in the Eighth Edition of the Earhart Project Book and in several research bulletins on the website. Some people disagree with our conclusions. If you're really interested in the radio aspects of the Earhart disappearance I'd suggest that you buy and read both the Eighth Edition and Elgen Long's book to get both sides of the controversy and then see what you think. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:46:03 EDT From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: The knob > From Jon Watson > > The pot would have to be patented, because it's the only > pot that would allow you to cook at such low > temperatures...otherwise the foot would melt! *deep sigh* I am never going to post any idle speculations ever again. Well, not until next time, anyway. LTM (who speculates only on Lockheed stocks) Mike H. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:48:17 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Out of C.G. and other problems Would someone please send me 500 tabs of whatever Carol is taking? LTM (who always remembered the DuPont slogan) Dave ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:56:39 EDT From: Al Jeffries Subject: Re: Radio Equipment Ric: Did anyone walk the airfield at Lae to look for AE's belly antenna? Al Jeffries ********************************************************* From Ric The loss of the belly antenna apparently went unnoticed by those who watched the takeoff. That's not surprising because the loss seems to have occurred at the beginning of the takeoff run and all of the spectators were down near the departure end of the runway. There's no mention of the antenna loss in Chater's or Collopy's letter so we must assume that they were unaware of it. The only indication we have that anyone at Lae ever knew that anything was lost from the airplane during the takeoff is a second-hand anecdotal account by a U.S. service man who was at Lae during WWII and was told by one of the "old timers" that nobody was surprised when Earhart didn't make it to Howland because she left a big piece of her trailing wire antenna right out there on the runway. Of course, the airplane had no trailing wire antenna at that time, but it's an interesting comment. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:10:53 EDT From: Angus Subject: Re: Out of C.G. and other problems > Would someone please send me 500 tabs of whatever Carol is taking? > > LTM (who always remembered the DuPont slogan) > Dave With anything that powerful one is plenty! Angus. ***************************************************************** From Ric Okay guys, let's back off before we get a lecture. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:34:26 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Radio Equipment But could that antenna wire (or more like cable?) still exist and be out there. What is at the old runway now? Has it been searched? Most people who saw it would think it was rubbish. It would be valuable to at least confirm this, no? Chris#2511 (I'd like the same stuff Dave in Fremont!) *********************************************************** From Ric Review the research bulletin "A Lae Gallery" on the website and then tell me if you think there's a chance it could still be there. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:53:42 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Out of C.G. and other problems >However, Ric, you're up against statements that were made by Chester >Nimitiz in Fred Goerner's book. That is hard to swallow. Has anyone >ever disproved those statements.....any replies? To quote Nimitz, >"yes, Earhart crashed in the Marshall Islands, and she was taken by >the Japanese." Fred Goerner and Chester Nimitz were close friends. > >Interesting comments? Looking forward to replies. > >Carol Dow Ok, I can't stand it, so here's a reply. Carol, what edition of Goerner's book are you quoting??? The statements you attribute to Nimitz sure as heck aren't in mine. In fact, I doubt very much the Admiral would have said any such thing to his GENUINE close friends, much less to a local reporter he had only met a few times, and in a professional capacity at that. LTM, who's old enough to remember Goerner on Bay Area radio broadcasts Amanda Dunham #2418, patron **************************************************************** From Ric On page 315 of the hardcover first edition of Goerner's book he says: <> Now let's think about this for a minute. Goerner would have us believe that Chester Nimitz, a five-star admiral who, at that time, was still on active duty as an advisor for the Secretary of Defense, violated his security clearance and disclosed information to a journalist that - if it was really something he knew for a fact rather than his own personal speculation - had to be one of the best kept secrets in the history of the American military. What's more, he gave the reporter permission to quote him. This one ranks right up there with Love To Mother as one of the most asinine allegations of the entire Earhart saga. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:12:00 EDT From: Emmett Subject: Re: Island In the Sky To Chris in Petaluma The answer to your question is "YES!" I have a terrible copy of the film. LTM Emmett ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:30:38 EDT From: Ric Subject: No Forum 'til Tuesday I'll be away until Tuesday (6/25). Have a great weekend everybody! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:19:12 EDT From: Nick Subject: A lurker protests What? A 32-line Earhartforum? And now Ric leaving for 3 days? I'm not sure I'll make it without my daily dose of Earhart lore... Please, Ric, hurry back Kind regards, Nick in Cali, Colombia *********************************************************** From Ric It's okay. I'm back now. Everything is going to be just fine. That wasn't so bad now, was it? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:28:22 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: GMT and castaways The recent discussion over time zones got me thinking. (uh-oh) In the Disney production of Mary Poppins, Bert, the Dick Van Dyke character says that "the world gets its time from Greenwich, but Greenwich gets its time from Admiral Boom." In another movie, "Lt. Robin Crusoe, USN" Dick Van Dyke plays the part of a naval aviator who is stranded for some time on an island. Just thought I'd tie the time zone and castaway threads together for you. LTM, who told me to never make jokes about Dick Van Dyke's name, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:31:25 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: dental documents search Dr. Theodore McCowan's records are certainly not all contained in the Bancroft Library. Some possibly might be contained in the UC Berkeley Anthropology Department or in other portions of the UC Library or elsewhere. Perhaps his family or the UC Department of Anthropology could tell us more. Ron Reuther ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:32:53 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Coming to LA For TIGHARs in the Los Angeles area who'd like a talk/slide show on The Quest and The Book -- it looks like I'll be in the area on July 11 and part of July 12, for a meeting in Calabasas (far west end of the San Fernando Valley). The evening of the 11th would probably work for me, if someone is in a position to set something up, preferably in the Valley or somewhere between there and LAX. I'm self-contained with laptop, Powerpoint show, and LPD projector, so can do my thing pretty much anyplace that's got power and a screen or blank wall. LTM (a Valley girl) Tom ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:35:41 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Out of C.G. What was the empty weight of the airplane and where was the CG when the airplane left on the flight? gl ************************************************************************** From Ric Empty weight should have been about 7,000 pounds. We've never seen any weight and balance data for the 10E Special so it's hard to say where the CG was. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:49:12 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Shooting the sun The photos of the plane show two windows on the left side, one in the door and one foward of the door. Do we know which one was the special one designed for celestial? Also, what was the reason there was no window on the right side of the airplane? gl *********************************************************************** From Ric The aftmost window on the port side was a nonstandard window mounted in the door and appears to have been flat glass or plexi and was proably intended for use in taking celestial sightings. Modifications for the first World Flight attempt included a large, flat-panel window on the starboard side aft of the standard window. For some reason, that window was replaced with aluminum skin sometime after the departure from Burbank on the second attempt but before the departure from Miami. The work, therefore, was almost certainly done in Miami. Some, including Elgen Long, have alleged that it was removable hatch but I know of no evidence to support that contention. Both the window in the door and the big starboard-side window were installed before Noonan came on the scene. Bo McKneely, Earhart's mechanic, told me that Noonan considered the elaborate "navigator's room" to be unnecessary. He rode up front and took his sightings through the cockpit windows. The best guess I've heard about why the starboard window was skinned over is that, during the trip from Burbank to Miami it was discovered that the afternoon sun coming through that window as the airplane flew eastward made the cabin uncomfortably hot. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:17:38 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Out of C.G. According to figures I found Rene J. Francillon's "Lockheed Aircraft since 19133 empty weight of the Lockheed 10A was 6,454 lb. But that was the model with the standard Pratt & Whitney Was Jr SB engines. AE's 1OE had more powerful Wasp S3H which would have been heavier. In addition AE's 10E had additional fuel tanks giving the aircraft total fuel capacity of 1,200 US gallons. As for CG it is where the wings are. Any additional weight behind it has to be compensated by additional weight forward to keep the airplane in balance. That's why the extra fuel tanks were over the wings and FN's navigator's position in the empty space behind them in the back. Also, with fuselage mounted tanks a pilot would use gas from his tanks to check weight and balance in flight. In Concorde and some other today's planes fuel is stowed sometimes in weird places like the vertical fin to trim the airplane's balance. LTM (who believes life is so much simpler with wing mounted tanks) *************************************************************************** From Ric When I said, "Empty weight should have been about 7,000 pounds." I was basing my estimate upon the last available information that applied specifically to NR16020. A Bureau of Air Commerce License Authorization issued sometime in 1936 (probably August) gives the airplanes empty weight as 7,265 pounds. Many changes were made in the airplane between then and the time it disappeared nearly a year later but we have no hard data about how they may have increased or decreased the empty weight. The airplanes' fuel capacity was not 1,200 U.S. gallons. It was 1,151 U.S. gallons. Gary LaPook ferries small airplanes across oceans. I have a sneaking suspicion that his question about the CG of NR16020 on the last flight was looking for information a little more specific than "where the wings are". Unfortunately, that information is not available either. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:20:56 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Shooting the sun There's an interesting picture of that window in "The Sound of Wings" (yes, I managed to lay hands on a copy). It shows Amelia Earhart and Harry Manning sitting at that port window which at that time was equipped with a pelorous (a sighting device for the compass). The picture is # 56 and next to page 326. The previous picture (# 55) explains why Fred Noonan preferred to sit up front. It was a long and difficult climb over the extra fuel tanks that were fitted in the fuselage for the flight. LTM ************************************************************************** From Ric Wrong window Herman. That photo shows AE and Manning looking out of the standard cabin window. The big window was farther aft and actually was in the lavatory. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:46:54 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Shooting the sun Ric says - > Bo McKneely, Earhart's mechanic, told me > that Noonan considered the elaborate "navigator's room" to be unnecessary. > He rode up front and took his sightings through the cockpit windows. Now THAT'S INTERESTING! In all our previous discussions about Noonan's seat choice, you have never mentioned this gem. Can you provide any details as to when, where and why you were able to elicit this particular quote?? Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric I never mentioned it as evidence that Fred sat up front because its not. It's anecdote. I talked to Bo on the phone back in about 1990 when we were struggling with Artifact 2-1, the "Navigator's bookcase". I wanted to ask him if he remembered Noonan having anything like that mounted in the back of the cabin. At that time he was living with his daughter in Tennessee, was very hard of hearing, and not much inclined to want to talk to yet another Earhart researcher. Negotiating via his daughter, I did eventually get him to agree to answering a few questions on the phone. I kept the conversation short. Bo didn't know Noonan well and I got the feeling that he didn't like him. He referred to him as "that Noonan fella". He said that Noonan considered the elaborate "navigator's station" that Mantz and Manning had created in the cabin to be unnecessary. He didn't remember any bookcase. Bo did not have any papers, or records, or plans for the airplane. He was pretty sick of that one job he held for just a few years defining him for the rest of his life as "Amelia Earhart's mechanic". I only talked to him that one time. Bo McKneely died in 1998. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:47:38 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: AE's Toluca Lake address? If anyone on the Forum has AE's address when she lived in Toluca Lake, CA please e-mail it to me. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:00:46 EDT From: Al Jeffries Subject: Re: Shooting the sun A question has bugged me for a time and although I can answer some of it I'll throw it to the "wolves". 1. Was there some sort of bias in FN's sextant that would have thrown them off course? 2. Would the sightings be affected by shooting through the windshield? What if some sightings were taken through materials of different refractive index e. g., plexiglass and and glass? Would this be enough to cause course variations. LTM...Al Jeffries ******************************************************************* From Ric We'll be able to answer your first question as soon as we find Fred's sextant. As for the second; I would think that any distortion would be a problem but the only windows in the airplane that were not flat were the two standard cabin windows. The cockpit panels and the window in the cabin door were flat. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:04:06 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Out of C.G. Can anyone find out what was the thickness on the windshield (Plexiglas) of Earhart's airplane? I think that's an important point. You need more than 1/4in. Plexiglas up front to withstand the shock of hitting water (I believe). I don't think 1/4in. is enough. It would collapse from the shock, and it could be enough to knock someone for a loop if it didn't tear off their head. Bird strikes have been known to kill people, for instance. Carol Dow ************************************************************************* From Ric There are plenty of Lockheed 10s around. Shouldn't be hard to get that information but I don't think it's important. The windshield, by the way, was not plexiglas but glass. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:05:52 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Out of C.G. This C.G. question is all for naught anyway, even if it could be 'known' at some point in time. The reason is that the C.G. is dynamic and changes all the time. As fuel burns and people and cargo move, so too does the C.G. It would ideally be near the wings, but knowing precisely where at any given moment is not feasible. The same is true of the C.B. Alik ********************************************************************** From Ric Exactly. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:07:04 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Shooting the sun It was not unusual for the PAA navigators to shoot out of the cockpit. There are references by a couple of different people regarding this behavior on the M-130. blue skies, jerry *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. Thanks Jerry. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:47:33 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: A Reef Flat Landing? Ok...here I go again....Even after reading Tighar website FAQs, expedition reports, factual documented information, years of AE theory books, blah blah, I'm still having difficulty with gaps in logic for some disappearance theory stuff. Here is one of my problem areas. Suppose the following assumptions: a.. the Electra made it to Gardner (Niku) and successfully landed on the north shore reef flat. b.. after landing, the Electra was able to run a battery-charging engine and make numerous radio distress calls. c.. in order to run the engine, the airframe would logically had to have been sitting above-water (on a landing gear?), high enough for the propeller arc to be clear of the water. d.. the Electra was relatively intact sitting on the reef flat - with recognizable wings, engines, fuselage, and distinctive twin tail rudders. That is, not a crumpled, busted-up mass of wreckage unrecognizable as an airplane and easily confused with Norwich City debris. e.. at high-tide, the relatively shallow water on the reef flat would have allowed a significant portion of the Electra to be above water revealing its distinctive outline shape. (Note: since Tighar has visited Niku many times and has targeted the most probable zone on the reef flat for a safe landing, has someone determined the depth of water there at high tide and estimated if the Electra would have been totally submerged, or above water. Does 60+ years of coral growth change the depth dimensions, such that it is now shallower? Maybe I missed it in previous expedition reports?) f.. the bright sheet aluminum covering the Electra contrasted distinctively against the dark rust-colored metal debris from the Norwich City. Intense sunlight may have possibly been reflective off the aluminum skin or plexiglas windows? Based on the above, does it not seem reasonable that one of the Colorado pilots flying over Gardner island within a short-time after the disappearance (or even later survey crews) would have been able to recognize something as large and distinctive as a shiny Lockheed Electra? If you look at photos of AE and others standing next to NR16020, you can see the Electra is quite a large airplane. Or, if as some have speculated, AE was able to taxi the Electra across the reef flat and park near the vegetation line, again, wouldn't something as distinctive as a large aluminum airplane in such a small island environment have been easily recognized? I'm willing to bet if one of the remaining Lockheed Electras in the world was placed intact on the Niku reef flat at high, or low tide, it could be easily recognized by a pilot flying overhead at same altitude and weather conditions as the day Lt. Lambrect flew over. Ok, so now lets throw in the theory that after the Electra landed on the reef flat, a storm occurred and swept the airframe over the reef edge, thus hiding it from view when Lt. Lambrect flew over a short time later and reported he did not see anything. The weather on July 2, 1937 near Howland was reported to be relatively normal and calm, that is, no significant weather systems such as typhoons, or other major storms. Were any weather records ever recorded nearby (at Canton perhaps?) documenting weather systems in the Niku area in the days/weeks between July 2, 1937 and when Lt. Lambrect flew over a short time later. Has anyone ever researched weather at and around Niku area during the time AE and FN could have remained alive to determine if any violent storms ever occurred? I know meterology was not as advanced or organized as it is now and such data may not exist. But, I would think a major storm with sufficient force to push the Electra over the reef-edge may have been documented or possibly remembered by native islanders on adjacent islands. Or, perhaps a major storm wasn't even necessary? Maybe just localized thunderstorms is all it took to push the Electra over the reef edge? If you can make the assumption the Electra was intact enough to run an engine to make radio distress transmissions, and was later pushed over the reef edge such that Lt. Lambrect did not see it when he flew over short time later, then that rules out the native islander stories about seeing significant airplane wreckage on the reef flat years later ("I Saw Pieces of an Airplane"). What I mean here is that if the Electra was successfully landed intact, and later pushed over the reef edge by a storm in its entirety (wings, fuselage, tail, engines, everything), then there would be no airframe pieces left behind to be seen later by islanders. Of course, perhaps the storm could have broken the airframe up enough to leave only a few pieces which were later observed by the islanders, but not enough to be recognizable by Lt. Lambrect. Just some food for thought. All this may have already been discussed in previous Forums and I'm sure someone (let me guess who?) will cut my assumptions/speculation to shreds,but hey, thats what a Forum is all about. TR #2427 *************************************************************************** From Ric Those are certainly legitimate questions and, of course, no one yet knows for sure what happened. The question is whether there is a reasonable scenario that could explain a number of apparently contradictory facts: 1. The plane had to be intact and on its gear to send distress calls. 2. Lambrecht and company saw no plane. 3. Later visitors (Maude, Bevington, the NZ survey party, etc.) saw no wreckage on the beach. 4. Island folklore tells of wreckage on the reef edge and airplane parts on the reef flat, beach, and even on the lagoon shore. I think that two factors are key to understanding what COULD have happened. A. The nature of the reef edge. B. The time that passed between when various people saw, or didn't see, wreckage. Let's talk about the nature of the reef edge. It is not a cliff. It is gentle slope cut with canyons that ends in an abrupt drop-off strewn in many places with big chunks of broken-off reef edge. An airplane pulled seaward over the edge would be very likely to get hung up in water maybe ten feet deep. That's exactly where the white water is and with any kind of surf running you can't see anything in that zone from the air (even in the Niku Aerial Tour video which was shot on a very calm day). Now let's talk about time. The alleged post-loss distress calls end well before Lambrecht's overflight on the 9th, so that's not a problem. The next overflight was on Dec. 1, 1938 by a Supermarine Walrus launched from HMS Leander. The next after that was April 30, 1939 by a Grumman Duck serviced by USS Pelican. Photos taken on all three overflights show that surf obscured the reef edge. Note: If you stand up next to a Lockheed 10 it's a big airplane. If you fly over an island and hope to spot it under the surf it's pretty small. Emily, in 1940 or '41, never saw airplane wreckage up close. It was something way out "where the waves break" that her father pointed out to her from shore. The first accounts (stories) we have of airplane parts seen in situ on the reef flat or onshore don't begin until the l950s. By then, airplane wreckage on a Pacific island was no longer remarkable. It would seem, therefore, that the Electra remained more or less intact - or if broken up, the pieces did not move shoreward - until the 1950s. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:50:42 EDT From: Thomas Van Hare Subject: Where the Wings Are... Ric wrote: > I have a sneaking suspicion that his question about the CG of > NR16020 on the last flight was looking for information a little > more specific than "where the wings are". Unfortunately, that > information is not available either. Actually, I think we all have a fairly good guess that the "where the wings are" is somewhere off the end of the reef flat at Nikumaroro, which is why we're focused there on the island.... Oh, all right -- there is simply no way of estimated the CG at the end of the flight without solid data as to fuel on board (which isn't known), solid weight and balance charts for the specific aircraft (which don't exist, in fact were never done), and exact knowledge of which tanks were run dry and which weren't, plus unusable fuel thrown into the mix (ditto on the "Great Ughknown"). We're talking about an absolute impossibility on coming to a final number on the real CG for the aircraft. For the laymen, though, the old rule of thumb is that for an aircraft to be flyable, with a constant chord or tapered, straight (non-swept back) wing, the CG should be approximately 25 to 35 percent back on the wing from the leading edge (leading edge to trailing edge is 100 percent of chord). The farther back the CG, the more maneuverable and less stable. The farther forward, the more stable. Interestingly enough, I recall reading once that the CG can also have a minor, though over a long flight perceptible effect on range (I recall it as forward-most CG gives better range, but only just barely, like a couple of tens of miles at the end or something; but then I start to think about downward force on the tail, higher requirement with forward CG, which would result in more induced drag....) -- at the risk of starting yet another useless thread, does anyone remember that as well? Ultimately, though, I cannot fathom how an understanding of the airborne CG has anything to do with what we're doing. Suddenly, I imagine Noonan crawling backwards from the front cockpit to the navigator's room, "Amelia!", he yells to her, "We've got to get the CG right or we'll miss Howland and have to go to Gardner Island!!" And you thought Elgen Long had all the answers!! OK, just kidding, but I still don't see the relevance of the CG issue. On another issue, depending on the results of the current research into the recovered artifacts, plus budgetary considerations, are we beginning to come to an estimated date for the next Nikumaroro venture (could we call it, "Niku V, 'Paradox, Not Paradise'")? Thomas Van Hare ************************************************************************* From Ric Niku V is scheduled for the summer of 2004. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:00:22 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Shooting the sun Could it be that Noonan sat up front because of CG ? With all that fuel in the fuselage tanks, FN sitting in the back might have negatively influenced Lockheed's weight and balance. Which, as those on the forum who are pilots know, has to remain within certain known limits. These are published. Normally there should have been a document specifying this. 1937 is a long way back and if that document existed it has probably been lost. Perhaps AE even took it with her. Has anyone thought of asking Finch ? She had a Lockheed 10A converted to 10E standard. This conversion should have have been approved by the FAA before granting a C of A for the aircraft. No two aircraft are alike but this could reveal the kind of information Gary LaPook is looking for. LTM **************************************************************************** From Ric On the flight from Oakland to Hawaii the airplane carried 900 gallons and TWO passengers in the cabin (Manning and Noonan) with Mantz riding up front with Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:03:11 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: AE's Toluca Lake address? 10042 Valley Spring Lane, North Hollywood, CA 91602-2928. But I'm told the people who live there do not like their house being stared at and can be very unfriendly. By the way, you can find the location on the Yahoo Map of North Hollywood. ****************************************************************** From Ric Just in case I ever disappear ...... I lived at 837 Oneida Street in Fulton, NY from 1947 until 1970. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:05:00 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Shooting the sun Are you saying Fred Noonan had to sit in the lavatory to shoot the sun ? Or did they move the real lavatory ? LTM ************************************************************************* From Ric I don't know where they'd move it to. But they skinned over that window anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:05:42 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Blowing our horn Forumites may be interested in the review of "Amelia Earhart's Shoes" on about.com at http://archaeology.about.com/library/read/blfprkingetal.htm LTM (who blushes for her children) Tom ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:16:23 EDT From: Pat Reed Subject: Re: Blowing our horn Read it, that's what got me here! Terrific book - a 'gift-giver'. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:18:53 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: AE's Toluca Lake address? For: Herman De Wolf Just for point of information, AE's address is actually in the city of Toluca Lake, CA. Herman, I promise not to stare too long at her house. I'm too old to get beat up. Ric, I just finished reading Robert Ballard's book about the discovery of the Bismarck. Has the Woods Hole Institute or Ballard ever expressed any interest in looking for the Electra? Just curious. He seems to have little difficulty in the area of fundraising and seems to like the spotlight. Nevertheless, I still support the Niku hypothesis. LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************** From Ric Bob is waaaaay too smart to go looking for Amelia. The secret to success is to never look for anything that is truly lost. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:49:44 EDT From: Ric Subject: Knob update Here's where we stand on the knob. Jeff Glickman has identified 19 symbols cast into the face of the knob. So far we can say with considerable certainty that symbols 1 through 9 spell "PATENTED:" and symbols 10, 11 and 19 spell "NO.". These are followed by a seven digit number made up of symbols 12 through 18. Jeff has analysed #12 and feels that it is almost certainly the numeral 1. While we're waiting for him to get to the rest of the numbers I can tell you what I can see from the photos that we have here. Bear in mind that I am not a forensic imaging specialist and can only tell you what I see, but for those who might enjoy jumping the gun and searching the Patent Office website (http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm)for possible matches I'm happy to present my inexpert opinions. #12 as stated above, is almost certainly a 1. #13 is probably an 8 but could be a 3. #14 best guess is a 2 or a 3. Could be a 8 or 9. I don't think it's a 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 0. #15 is a real toughy but I can't make it anything but a 4. #16 is almost gone but it appears to be round on the top and flat across the bottom so 2 seems like the best candidate. #17 is really beat up. Best candidates seem to be 3, 8, and maybe 9. #18 could be a 0 or perhaps a 9. I've already tried and struck out on: 1,824,220 material for battery boxes 1,824,230 spice can rack 1,824,020 method for resin esters 1,824,030 camera/flash device 1,834,220 apparatus for landing dirigibles 1,834,230 brake 1,834,020 cartridge case 1,834,030 hosiery holder Still lots of possibilities. Enjoy. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:53:55 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Fame and fortune . . . Ric said: "Just in case I ever disappear ...... I lived at 837 Oneida Street in Fulton, NY from 1947 until 1970." OK, I know it is tasteless, but the temptation was too great. :-) Aviation Researcher targeted In Bizarre "Fame" Scam Fulton, NY, June 31, 2032 - The New York State Police have arrested a Fulton couple and charged them with conspiracy and attempted murder in a bizarre scheme to turn their home into a tourist attraction. According to authorities, Rodney and Elaine Cliffberger planned to murder famed aviation archeologist Richard Gillespie and then capitalize on the archeologist's popularity by turning their home into a museum dedicated to his memory. The Cliffberger's live at 837 Oneida Street, which was Gillespie's boyhood home from 1947 to 1970. The scheme was discovered when Rodney Cliffberger informed several acquaintances that he was looking for someone to "do the deed" on a "celebrity." When the police learned of the scheme they arranged for Mr. Cliffberger to meet an undercover trooper posing as a New York City gunman. "I guess they figured that because he grew up in their house years ago, that people would pay to visit it," said chief prosecutor Andrew Wright. "But as long as he was alive people wouldn't be too interested, so they planed to kill him." Gillespie gained famed two decades ago when, as executive director of The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), he lead several expeditions to a remote South Pacific island searching for the remains of Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan, who disappeared in an around-the-world flight in 1937. The group found confirming evidence of Earhart presence on the island of Nikumaroro in 2006. Neighbors describe the Cliffbergers as "weird," "off-beat" "crazier 'n hell," pointing to the wood and plastic Lockheed 10E, a replica of Earhart's plane, on the roof of the Oneida Street home. Other idiosyncrasies made the couple an easy target for neighborhood pranksters. "They were just odd, you know man?" said next-door neighbor Gilbert O. Sullivan. "There was always howling and hooting coming from the house, I thought maybe they were devil worshipers or something," Sullivan said. "For sure, my pet dog disappeared in three years ago. I think they did it," said another neighbor who asked his name not be used. The Cliffbergers are being held in the Oswego County Jail, unable to post the $3.7 million bail. Reached at the Pass the Pabulum retirement home, Gillespie was unable to respond coherently to a reporter's question. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:56:34 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: AE's Toluca Lake address? Alright, I'll ask the question. If the secret to success is to never look for anything that is truly lost, then why are we looking for AE? Maybe I'm being a little too escoteric here. Anyhow, I found your comment very interesting. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric You'll notice that it's Bob Ballard doing standups for National Geo and me beating the bushes for funding. I never claimed to be bright....just persistent. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:47:08 EDT From: Al Jeffries Subject: Re: Knob update It's beyond my ken, but it should be easy to generate via computer a list of number candidates and have at it-then one question becomes is it a U. S. or other patent?. Nonetheless, well-done not medium rare. Al Jeffries *********************************************************** From Ric It's beyond my ken too but there seems to be little doubt that it's a U.S. utility patent. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:12:37 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Knob update A cartridge case as in ammunition for weapons? Wouldn't this qualify as a possible Coast Guard artifact? blue skies, jerry **************************************************************** From Ric Yes, if you can imagine a shell casing that has a knurled adjustment knob on it. There is a drawing with the patent. This patent can't have anything to do with our artifact. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:20:17 EDT From: Pat Reed Subject: Re: A Reef Flat Landing? I'm already caught up in this stuff. Some thoughts... Currently, all flight searches are grid searches, with maybe a minimum of one mile width of the grid. It would seem to me that a couple of things could occur that would make it difficult to recognize a downed aircraft (I've done some CAP searches for downed aircraft and it is very difficult to stop one). The slowest possible airspeed that a search grid/pattern could be flown in: For example, An Albatross would fly at an airspeed of about 130Kts (approx. 150 mph). To perform a search a C-130 would fly at the lowest speed of 140Kts or so at 500' if it were searching for a person in the water, but if it were searching a large area for a medium size vessel, it would fly at 240Kts.(approx. 275 mph) That's still plenty fast for the eye to discern an airplane (even mostly intact) obscured by water, trees, etc. Also, even if a glint were spotted, depending on angle, lighting, wispy clouds, etc., it doesn't mean you'll see it again or not mistake it for light glinting off surf, etc. Airplanes tend to almost shatter on impact - that aluminum skin is pretty thin-think of airplane crash photos you've seen, but even if she landed on a reef, I would suppose that razor sharp coral would peel away parts of the airplane. Also, if it were a sandy beach area, couldn't sand actually be 'plowed' over portions of the airplane. Again, think of video footage of ditchings. Another thought, gear down landings on sand, water, etc. oftentimes cause the airplane to nose over once it hits, that could change the recognizable profile. But, I guess that would prevent the prop from turning and running the radios....But, is the Electra like older twins in that ONE engine powers the generator? Couldn't just one engine have been working? Oh well, must get back to work. *************************************************************************** From Ric All of the aircraft involved in the three overflights previously mentioned were probably flying at roughly 90 knots. The action of the surf, rather than the sharpness of the coral, would seem to present a greater hazard to the aircraft retaining its structural integrity. We had speculated earlier that the surf may have torn the aircraft apart before the Navy search on July 9th but the fact that no wreckage seems to have appeared in the shallows or on the beach until perhaps 15 years later argues against that. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:32:07 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Knob update It's obviously an apparatus for landing derigibles. Think of all the problems that solves! ************************************************************************** From Ric How could I have been so stupid (slapping forehead)! Clearly Niku was an unannounced stop on the Graf Zeppelin's epic 'round the world flight in 1929. They were hoping to rescue the Norwich City survivors but got there a few days after they were picked up. The big concrete pad up at the northwest tip of Nutiran, which we have been assuming was laid as a foundation for one of the towers erected for the Bushnell survey in 1939, is actually for a dirigible mooring mast. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:34:14 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: AE's Toluca Lake address? For Mike Haddock I don't live in CA and therefore I hope to have the benefit of the doubt. True, I have been to LA half a dozen times in my lifetime, I even stayed at Hollywood once, but I confess I never visited North Hollywood, which is where Amelia Earhart and her husband George Putnam lived at the time of her world flight in 1937. They lived at the address I mailed to you. In June 1999 Roger Kelley (#2112), who is familiar with the area, wrote to the forum that the area was known as Toluca Lake. It was a residential area governed by the City of Los Angeles until about 1950 and served by the North Hollywood post office. Toluca Lake now has its own post office and therefore its own identity. However, it is still governed by the City of Los Angeles. If you look up the address on Yahoo, click "map and driving directions". You will see that Amelia Earhart and George Putnam actually lived near Toluca Lake, a spring fed lake in North Hollywood, 300 x 40 yards running east and west. It is an expensive residential area bordering the Lakeside Country Club. Across Toluca Lake from AE + GP's house is Toluca Avenue. Could we be talking about the same Toluca Lake ? LTM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:39:16 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: A Reef Flat Landing? We don't want to forget that the observers carried on those search flights from the Colorado were Navy ROTC cadets - not that there was such a thing as a trained observer during that time. My point is, these youngsters were probably as interested/excited about being in a real aeroplane (probably for the first time in their lives) as they were in searching for wreckage. In any event, the wreckage, whatever shape it was in, was probably a lot "smaller" than they were expecting to see, and that could have contributed to their missing it as well (as you pointed out in a recent posting). ltm jon ****************************************************** From Ric While "NavCads" flew as observers on some of the Colorado search flights, all of the back seat guys on the morning flight of July 9 (McKean Island, Gardner Island, and Carondelet Reef) were enlisted seamen. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:42:31 EDT From: Ron Subject: Re: Knob update What is a utility patend? Ron ************************************************* From Ric To oversimplify: There are two kinds of U.S. patents. A patent on an actual thing is a utility patent. A patent on a way of doing something is a design patent. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:20:28 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: A Reef Flat Landing? Ric said, > Now let's talk about time. The alleged post-loss distress calls end well > before Lambrecht's overflight on the 9th, so that's not a problem. What date were the last messages received and were there any messages at all received after the 9th that could be interpreted as deriving from AE? Nina Paxton claims transmissions up to at least10th August. Is there any support whatever for this assertion? Were all 300 messages received before 9th July? What is our best estimate for the demise of the transmitter? Regards Angus ************************************************************************* From Ric At this time I have cataloged only 99 alleged post-loss transmissions mentioned in primary sources. There are probably a few more to be picked up (such as Paxton) but I would guess not more than a dozen. The cataloged transmissions break down as follows: - night of July 2nd/3rd in Central Pacific, 19 transmissions - night of July 3rd/4th in Central Pacific, 33 transmissions - night of July 4th/5th in Central Pacific, 38 transmissions - night of July 5th/6th in Central Pacific, 5 transmissions - night of July 6th/7th in Central Pacific, 2 transmissions - night of July 7th/8th in Central Pacific, 1 transmission Only one transmmission was heard at a time when it was not dark in the Central Pacific. Beginning at 8:30 p.m. on July 6th, a ham in El Paso, Texas heard a "double carrier wave" on 3105 at ten minute intervals. The time would have been 3:30 p.m. in the Central Pacific. Betty's receptions are not included in the above because we don't know what day she heard them. However, the time would have been late morning in the Central Pacific. As for the demise of the transmitter, the messages that are reported after about local midnight on the night of July 4th/5th seem to be less credible than most of the ones that occur prior to that time. Interestingly, the last of the "credible" transmissions is the famous 281 message which ends with "Won't hold with us much longer...above water....shut off". LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:34:07 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Where the Wings Are... Actually a rearward CG provides slightly more range than a forward CG. For the newcomers, the center of gravity, "CG" is the point that the aircraft would balance if placed on a pivot and for engineering computations the entire weight of the airplane can be considered to be concentrated at that one point. For a conventional airplane, one with a tail and not a canard, the CG must be located forward of the center of lift which is a point, similar to the CG, where you can consider all of the lift of the wings to be concentrated. Since the CG is forward of the point where the lift holds the airplane up the nose has a tendency to pivot downward due to gravity. This is a good thing and is a necessary characteristic of a stable airplane. So in order to keep the nose up in the level flight position the tail must be constantly pulling downward. There is an allowable range of locations for the CG but it is always forward of the center of lift. this is known as the CG envelope. So within this range if the CG is located at its furthest allowable aft position, closest to the point where the airplane is supported, (think of it hanging from) the center of lift it will take less downward force from the tail to keep the nose balanced in the level position. It works just like a teeter-totter, the closer one person is to the pivot the less weight that needs to be placed at the other end to keep it balanced. With the CG further forward the tail must pull downward with more force. The downward force acts just like adding weight to the airplane and the wings must make more lift to support the greater load. The more lift a wing makes the more induced drag is created and it takes greater power to overcome the greater drag at the same airspeed. Or if you keep the power fixed the airplane goes slower even though it is using fuel at the same rate. So, fewer miles in an hour with a greater fuel flow produces less range. However, to quantify this effect you need to know where the center of lift is located and that is not generally available. Once you know this you can compute the extra tail down force necessary at the different CG locations (this is just the normal weight and balance problem that all pilots must do to ensure that the CG is within limits) which is not too esoteric. Then since power required varies with the 3/2 power of the weight (the square root of the weight cubed) you can calculate the power required and the fuel flow and then calculate the change in range at different CG locations. gl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:44:37 EDT From: Craig in Kingston Subject: Patent question Pardon me, as this question has almost certainly been brought up before, but in regard to patents, is the patent number for an object commonly put on a small area, such as a knob, or would you rationally expect to find only the patent number for a knob on a knob? Thanks, Craig in Kingston ********************************************************** From Ric My understanding is that there is no hard and fast rule. The patent might refer to the entire device or just the particular mechanism of the knob. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:45:39 EDT From: Craig Subject: Re: Knob update I spent some time looking for the knob, and didn't really come up with much. My method for the numbers was as follows: 1,[8,3][2,3,8,9]4,2[3,8,9][0,9] which results in 48 possibilities, all shown below: Pat Num Description/Comments -------------------------------------------------- 1,324,230 railway signaling system - no 1,324,239 bundle binding and tying machine 1,324,280 driving mechanism for valve grinders 1,324,289 method of producing gun barrels - no, but pic looked close 1,324,290 gun sight 1,324,299 gas saver/primer for automobiles 1,334,230 garment fastener - no 1,334,239 badge or button - no 1,334,280 hydraulic transmission 1,334,289 liquid wave transmission - no 1,334,290 liquid wave transmission of power - no 1,334,299 paper vending machine - no 1,384,230 coin controlled machine - no 1,384,239 box blank machine - no 1,384,280 game board 1,384,289 sleeve puller 1,384,290 process of making colored paper 1,384,299 back brace/support 1,394,230 power shovel 1,394,239 clothesline bracket 1,394,280 coating composition 1,394,289 magneto armature 1,394,290 trousers and like press 1,394,299 attaching for artificial teeth - no 1,824,230 spice can rack 1,824,239 thermostatic control 1,824,280 aircraft - not likely 1,824,289 pedal pad 1,824,290 can punch and cover 1,824,299 device for disposing of small articles 1,834,230 brake 1,834,239 leaning wheel 1,834,280 generator for battery charging 1,834,289 incendescent ignition device 1,834,290 mold 1,834,299 web measuring and cutting device 1,884,230 spring structure 1,884,239 control mechanism for looms 1,884,280 portable loud speaker 1,884,289 artificial silk 1,884,290 picture frame 1,884,299 bearing 1,894,230 age resistor 1,894,239 production of molybendium and tungsten 1,894,280 pressure cooker 1,894,289 purifying phosphoric acid 1,894,290 mechanical movement - maybe 1,894,299 boiler cleaner Although you said #16 was probably a 2, you also searched for a 0 in that position. Here are all the numbers with 0 as #16. Again, nothing obvious but some potentials: 1,324,030 sodum floride preperation 1,324,039 binding machine 1,324,080 buckle 1,324,089 button 1,324,090 bale band tightener 1,324,099 valve spring compressor 1,334,030 casting mold 1,334,039 stove/furnace 1,334,080 impulse sending device 1,334,089 metal alloy 1,334,090 oil wiper 1,334,099 adjustable windowscreen 1,384,030 method of destroying enemy guns 1,384,039 portable building 1,384,080 building blocks 1,384,089 process for solidifying carbon 1,384,090 strip serving device 1,384,099 airplane fabric 1,394,030 harrow 1,394,039 sewing machine 1,394,080 gearing 1,394,089 power driven screwdriver 1,394,090 wireless transmission valve 1,394,099 motor vehicle axel 1,824,030 simultaneous camera exp and flash 1,824,039 variable load brake 1,824,080 pulp bhater, extractor, cleaner 1,824,089 core filler 1,824,090 gear shift lever mechanism 1,824,099 typewriter 1,834,030 hosiery holder 1,834,039 toilet hinge 1,834,080 slide valve construction 1,834,089 vapor phase process 1,834,090 automatic coal cutter 1,834,099 engine 1,884,030 cigarette container 1,884,039 tobacco pipe 1,884,080 heat transfer apparatus 1,884,089 sanitary page 1,884,090 knitting needle 1,884,099 heat exchange device 1,894,030 glass feeding machine 1,894,039 well drilling machine 1,894,080 tobacco pipe stand 1,894,089 pulp molding machine 1,894,090 toll telephone switch 1,894,099 tapered roller bearing Craig ********************************************************************* From Michael Lowery Ric, I can top the apparatus for landing dirigibles - 1,824,280 is for an aircraft! Actually, it's probably less exicting than it sounds, as the patent has something to do with vacuum or partial vacuum tanks. The inventor was a Y.H. Koun of NYC. Others I tried: 1,324,290 gun sight (awarded 1919) 1,394,299 means of attaching artifical teeth (awarded 1921) 1,824,289 pedal pad 1,824,290 can punch and cover 1,824,299 device for disposing of small articles (razor blades etc.) 1,884,030 cigarette container 1,884,039 fife 1,884,080 heat transfer apparatus 1,884,089 sanitary pack 1,884,090 knitting needle 1,884,099 heat exchange device (i.e. radiator for home or office) 1,884,230 spring seats for cars 1,884,239 control mechanism for looms (very long patent - 21 pages) 1,884,280 portable load speaker 1,884,289 artifical silk 1,884,290 picture frame 1,884,299 bearing 1,894,230 age resister for organic materials 1,894,280 pressure cooker 1,894,290 mechanical movement for converting rotary motion to oscillatory motion 1,894,299 boiler cleaner (awarded January 17, 1933) The dates are kind of interesting. If the second digit really is a "3" or an "8", it creates a definite date issue. 1,3xx,xxx patents, as far as I can tell that are consistent with the other constraints Ric listed seem to date to about 1919 to 1921. It's hard for me to think of a what could relate to this case that dates to then. The 1,8xx,xxx (with appropriate other constraints as per Ric) date from Sept. 1931 to January 1933 which seems a bit more reasonable for something that might be avaition or radio related. LTM, Michael Lowrey ************************************************************** From Mary Moleski Ric, You gave the following as the likely readings of the 7 digits: likenum[1] := ['1']; likenum[2] := ['3','8']; likenum[3] := ['2','3','8','9']; likenum[4] := ['4']; likenum[5] := ['2']; likenum[6] := ['3','8','9']; likenum[7] := ['0','9']; The permutations of these guesses are: 1324230 1324239 1324280 1324289 1324290 1324299 1334230 1334239 1334280 1334289 1334290 1334299 1384230 1384239 1384280 1384289 1384290 1384299 1394230 1394239 1394280 1394289 1394290 1394299 1824230 -- spice can rack 1824239 1824280 1824289 1824290 1824299 1834230 brake 1834239 1834280 1834289 1834290 1834299 1884230 1884239 1884280 1884289 1884290 1884299 These numbers do not match your guesses: 1,824,220 material for battery boxes 1,824,020 method for resin esters 1,824,030 camera/flash device 1,834,220 apparatus for landing dirigibles 1,834,020 cartridge case 1,834,030 hosiery holder I used the patent number search at and came up with the following: 1324230: 1919 Railway Signalling System 1324239: 1919 Bundle Tying Machine 1324280: 1919 Driving Mechanism for Valve Grinders 1324289: 1919 Method of Producing Gun Barrels 1324290: 1919 Gun Sight 1324299: 1919 Gas Saver and Primer for Automobiles 1334230: 1920 Garment Fastener 1334239: 1920 Badge or Button 1334280: 1920 Hydraulic Transmission 1334289: 1920 Liquid Wave Transmission 1334290: 1920 Liquid Wave Transmission of Power 1334299: 1920 Paper Vending Machine 1384230: 1921 Coin Controlled Machine 1384239: 1921 Box Blank Machine 1384280: 1921 Game Board 1384289: 1921 Sleeve Puller 1384290: 1921 Process of Making Colored Paper 1384299: 1921 Brace or Support 1394230: 1921 Power Shovel 1394239: 1921 Clothesline Bracket 1394280: 1921 Coating Composition 1394289: 1921 Magneto Armature 1394290: 1921 Trousers and Like Press 1394299: 1921 Attaching Means for Artificial Teeth 1824230: 1931 Spice Can Rack--it has a knob ... 1824239: 1931 Thermostatic Control 1824280: 1931 "Aircraft"--looks like lunacy at first glance 1824289: 1931 Pedal Pad 1824290: 1931 Can Punch and Cover 1824299: 1931 Device for Disposing of Small Articles 1834230: 1931 Brake 1834239: 1931 Leaning Wheel 1834280: 1931 Generator Control for Charging [Railroad] Batteries (Schematic) 1834289: 1931 Incandescent Ignition Device (for lighting furnaces) 1834290: 1931 Mold 1834299: 1931 Web Measuring and Cutting Mechanism 1884230: 1932 Spring Structure 1884239: 1932 Control Mechanism for Locks and the Like 1884280: 1932 Portable Loud Speaker 1884289: 1932 Artificial Silk 1884290: 1932 Picture Frame 1884299: 1932 Bearing Marty #2359 *********************************************************** From Ric Thanks guys. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:50:27 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Shooting the sun > What if some sightings were taken through materials of different > refractive index e. g., plexiglass and and glass? Would this be enough to > cause course variations. The short answer is "yes" but the effect should be too small to worry about. I thought that refraction would be a problem when I first started shooting stars through uncalibrated aircraft windows and windshields based on what I had read concerning astrodomes, etc. I started shooting fixes over land and would get a VOR radial and a DME reading in the middle of the two minute observation period so that I had a fix to compare with the celestial fix so that I could figure the accuracy of the celestial. I was pleasantly surprised to find that there was no problem. The fix accuracy was well within the 10 nm standard required on the Flight Navigators flight test. That's just my experience and I did lots and lots of fixes this way. . Flying up to the symposium I was shooting sun lines through the uncalibrated windshield of the Cessna 182 starting with the sun about 60 degrees left of the nose and about 35 degrees high, then some straight ahead and finally out on the left wing tip and down to about 32 degrees. The landfall procedure worked perfectly and took us within a couple of miles of OAK. Since this is now the 21st century I was also getting GPS fixes to compare with the sun lines and the worst one was within 8 miles. Maybe with an astrodome or a calibrated flat window the accuracy would have been 3 miles but nevertheless it was certainly accurate enough to find OAK or Howland. This is especially so regarding a moon line since Noonan would have had a maximum accuracy sun line through the flat plate window on the left side of the airplane to ensure that he was on the sun line through Howland. He only needed the moon line to backstop him to keep him from going too far north or south on the sun line so even if the accuracy of the moon line was real bad and produced a 30 mile error it would still have been accurate enough to keep them in the vicinity of Howland and not flying off to Gardner or to the Marshalls. The table of "standard dome refraction" in the American Air Almanac calls for 8' at 10 degrees altitude; 7' at 20; 6' at 30; 5' at 40; 4' at 50 and 60; and 3' at 70 and 80 degrees which shows refraction getting less at higher angles. This table also has a warning that it "must not be used if a flat glass plate is provided." The greatest error listed is only 8' which is where the dome is most strongly curved and which should give us a ball park value for an estimate of the maximum error possible shooting through the uncalibrated windows of the Electra which were not curved any where near as much as much as an astrodome. Any refraction introduced by shooting through the electra's windows should be much less than this 8 minutes. We're not talking about errors in the range of degrees but only of minutes. An 8 minute error in the measured altitude creates an 8 nautical mile error in the derived Line Of Position. The reason that there is even this table of refraction for a standard astrodome is because the dome is curved. The purpose of having a curved dome was to allow the navigator to shoot stars at lower altitudes (elevation as measured with the sextant above the horizontal and not the height of the airplane above sea level) ) than would be possible with a flat plate glass window in the roof of the plane. Curving the dome allows the sextant to be positioned above the top of the airplane allowing the taking of low altitude shots but also causes refraction. Using a dome is what causes the refraction problem in the first place. There would be no refraction with an optically flat glass plate no matter what the angle that you shoot through it. You can consult any text on optics or telescope making to confirm this fact. Optically flat glass is glass that has both surfaces parallel and flat to within 1/8 of the wavelength of light which is the same standard used for grinding lenses and telescope mirrors. Regular plate glass comes very close to this level of precision and can be used except for very precise purposes at high magnifications and is perfectly fine for astro navigation purposes. Regular airplane windows are also perfectly adequate if you avoid shooting through the highly curved sections up near the wing root in high wing cessnas for example. The only requirement is that the two surfaces be parallel then any refraction of the light ray as it enters the window is canceled out by an equal and opposite refraction as it leaves the window on its way to the sextant. For those not familiar with this topic, an astrodome is a clear plastic hemispheric bubble that was installed on the top of aircraft to allow the navigator a view of the sky. Next time there is an air show with W.W.II aircraft look for these domes on the tops of B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, C-46s, C-47s, etc., they all have them. If you have seen them before, now you know what they are. gl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:52:33 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Shooting the sun > Was there some sort of bias in FN's sextant that would have thrown them > off course? It is possible but unlikely. Most sextants have such a bias which is called "sextant error" or "index error." It means that the sextant reads high or low by a constant amount on each observation. Navigators expect this and measure the amount of this error and allow for it in all of their calculations. Using a marine sextant at sea the navigator measures the angle between the horizon and the adjacent horizon which should be, obviously, zero but usually isn't. The amount of the difference from zero is the amount of the index error which the navigator then applies to each of his sights. It is almost as easy to find the error of a bubble sextant if you are on the ground with a view of the sea horizon. You measure the altitude of the horizon and it should read a little below zero due to the height of eye of the observer looking down towards the horizon. The amount of this correction below zero is called the "dip correction" and is found in a table in the Nautical Almanac as the correction must always be applied when using a marine sextant. It can also be computed as it equals .97 times the square root of the height of eye measured in feet or, close enough for government work, equal to the square root of the height of eye. So, for example, if Noonan was standing at the end of the runway at Lae and he figured his height of eye was 16 feet above the water he would find the dip correction to be 4 minutes of arc. He then measures the altitude of the horizon and if the sextant were perfect he should measure minus 4 minutes of arc. He compares what he did measure with the expected minus 4 minutes and the difference is the sextant error which he writes down and then applies to all of his subsequent altitude measurements. I would expect that Noonan did exactly this the day before they left Lae since he took his navigation seriously as shown by their delay of a whole day so that he could get an accurate radio time signal to ensure that his chronometer was accurate which is necessary for accurate celestial navigation. I expect that he had been using his sextant regularly on the previous legs and would know his accuracy using that sextant and the windows in the electra. If a sea horizon is not available the navigator takes some celestial sights from a known location and then calculates what the readings should have been from that location. This is the normal computation that a navigator does with every sight. Since he knows his location and knows what the reading should be he can compare his actual reading and any difference is the sextant error which he will use to correct future sights. In addition, navigators like to shoot three stars approximately spaced 120 degrees around the horizon. As long as all three stars do not lie in only 180 degrees around the horizon any unknown constant error will cancel out and the position found will be accurate. gl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:09:07 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Shooting the sun The tv show about Linda Finch's flight also had a lot of footage inside NR16020. Several shots showed the right side window with a drift meter (it resembles a pelorus) mounted next to it. These was also the same kind of drift meter mounted next to the left side window, With all the concern about possible errors shooting stars through the uncorrected side window it is interesting to note that there was also some footage of Manning shooting through that right side uncalibrated window with his sextant. Apparently he was not too concerned with uncorrected refraction. We have discussed in the past that Manning had a Navy issued Bendix A-5 sextant and that Noonan signed a receipt for it when Manning left the project and maybe Noonan used this A-5 sextant on the world flight. It is interesting, however, that the footage of Manning using a sextant shows him using a Bausch and Lomb A-6 sextant that doesn't look anything like the Bendix model. Ric, do you have any information about this? gl *************************************************************** From Ric Here's what we know: The footage you're referring to was shot during a "photo op" sometime in early March before Noonan arrived on the scene. We have other still photos of Harry Manning with the Bausch & Lomb A6 taken that same day. (We hadn't identified it except to say that it was not the Pioneer instrument that was borrowed later. Thank you.) Noonan showed up on the 13th or 14th and the flight was scheduled to depart on the 16th, so he was really a last-minute addition to the crew. A TIME magazine article published after the disappearance and failed search alleged that Noonan had been appalled to discover that Manning intended to navigate using a conventional mariner's sextant and had insisted upon the flight acquiring a proper aeronautical bubble octant. That is clearly not what happened, but there WAS a last minute scramble to borrow the Pioneer from the Navy and it seems likely that it was at Noonan's recommedation (thus giving rise to the inaccurate comment in TIME). I don't know why a Pioneer would be more desirable than a Bausch & Lomb. I will point out that we have no photos of the Pioneer and all we know about it is that its serial number was 12-36. Saying that it was an "A-5" is an assumption. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:12:17 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Floating Electra I was interested in how the plane would float. If the airplane weighed about 7,000 pounds, and using the simplifying assumption that it was all aluminum, then there was about 44 cubic feet of aluminum in it as aluminum weighs 160 pounds per cubic foot. Bouncy is equal to the weight of the amount of water displaced so there would be 44 cubic feet of water displaced by the airplane. 44 cubic feet of sea water weighs 2816 pounds (64 lbs./ft ^3; 8.6 lb./gallon) so the airplane would be buoyed up by this amount. So the 7000 pound airplane would only weigh 4184 pounds if weighed submerged in sea water. In order to make it float you would only need this amount of additional bouncy which is equal to 486 gallons of sea water. As long as there were fuel tanks with this much air in them the plane should float. Since the tankage was 1151 gallons the tanks could provide 9,900 pounds af buoyancy twice what was needed to float the plane. Of course if the tanks were breached then the plane would sink. The other question is in what attitude would the plane float. This would depend on the position of the center of buoyancy vis-a-vis the CG. Without getting too technical and getting into metacentric height and righting moments, it would appear at first that the CB would be aft of the CG causing the plane to float nose low. Then when the wings filled with water, except for the fuel tanks, the CB would move further aft causing a more nose low position. Then as the cabin started to fill the CB would move forward since it would be based only on the empty fuel tanks possibly causing the nose to come back to a more horizontal position. But it would not be very stable in the pitch axis in this position as the stability of the aircraft floating with the cabin and wings full of water, except for the fuel tanks, is based only on the buoyancy in the fuel tanks and they are very narrow in the fore and aft direction though the airplane would be very stable on its roll axis due to the air in the outboard fuel tanks. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the the plane upended with either the nose or the tail pointing straight up depending where the CG was located in relationship with the fuel tanks. This attitude wouldn't make it sink but it would be awkward floating around like this for a long time. If one or more of the wing fuel tanks were damaged then the airplane would take up an attitude based on the remaining empty fuel tanks and if not enough undamaged tanks remained the plane would sink. There were many military planes ditched during WW2 and it seemed they all sank very rapidly but they probably did not have sufficient fuel tank capacity to make them float. gl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:17:24 EDT From: Denise Subject: Sitting Where? Herman De Wulf asks: "Could it be that Noonan sat up front because of CG ?" Well, Herman, for what it's worth: according to Goldstein and Dillon, Fred sat up the front because he didn't annoy her ... so she let him. On the flight to Hawaii on the first attempt, Manning sat up the front and was a constant source of irritation to her with his continual movements and shifting and reaching over her head so she kept trying to get him to go down the back. Fred, on the other hand, was a more peaceful soul so she didn't mind him sitting there. I think this suggests that it was PC (pleasant company) rather than CG that made the difference where a navigator sat. LTM (also a peaceful sort) Denise ****************************************************************** From Ric Harry Manning did not sit in the right seat during the Oakland/Hono flight. Paul Mantz sat there. Harry rode in the back with Noonan except when he was trying to work the loop antenna to take radio bearings. To do that he had to stand in the companionway or lay on top of the fuel tanks and reach over AE's head. That would make for a very crowded cockpit. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:18:26 EDT From: Denise Subject: Wrong Again! Just checked, Herman. Sorry. It was Mantz not Manning who Amelia found too irritating to sit next to. My mistake. LTM (who was never wrong herself) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:42:53 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: AE's Toluca Lake address? For Herman De Wulf, Yes it's the same Toluca Lake. It's a confusing area because Lakeside Country Club is in North Hollywood and I've seen AE's address listed as Toluca Lake. Oh well. I work at 5th & Flower (the Arco Tower) and I travel very close to AE's home on business trips. The home is very close to Burbank Airport which is where she flew out of. That entire area is very interesting. I've played golf several times at Lakeside CC. Many years ago I played in a tournament there and my caddy was W.C. Field's caddy. A bit off topic I know, Ric, but I just couldn't help myself. LTM (who loves a good story) Mike Haddock #2438 ********************************************************************* From Dusty Having been there, let me say that the Amelia and George house indeed sits on Lakeside Golfcourse. It is at the end of a street. It is a quiet residential street and the people there are not very friendly. You cannot see the lake from the house. It is located in Toluca Lake. It's not too far from the Burbank Airport. LTKM - Dusty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:46:19 EDT From: David Subject: Re: A Reef Flat Landing? ric, regarding the post -loss messages---I'm sure you have answered this ad nauseum but did Amelia ever mention seeing any search planes or ships in any of them? david ************************************************ From Ric No. Very few of the transmissions contained any kind of information. Most were merely "carrier wave" signals on AE's frequencies. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:48:37 EDT From: David Subject: Re: Knob update ric--sounds like someone needs to come up with a computer program to determine all the number possibilities using your knowns and unknowns and match them with only radio or airplane patents from a certain time frame--1925-1937 say. or is this only possible in the movies!!? david ********************************************** From ric I'm sure it's possible but hardly worth doing in this instance. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:51:21 EDT From: Eric Subject: Frank Buck on coconut crabs Following is an account by Earhart contemporary Frank "Bring 'em Back Alive" Buck, about an encounter he had with land (i.e. coconut) crabs while working in the jungles of southeast Asia during the early 1930's: "When we got there [a temporary river camp in the jungle] we found we'd been dispossessed by an army of land crabs. These repulsive creatures travel in huge droves and literally eat their way through the jungle. They had destroyed all the food we had in camp. We handled them carefully because their claws were as powerful as hedge clippers and we could easily have lost a couple of fingers by being careless. We threw them into the river, where the swift current would carry them off down stream. They've been known to attack a wounded native, unable to get out of their way, and leave nothing but a skeleton in a few hours. So you can see why we didn't want to share our camp with them." Eric (NAS North Island, San Diego, CA) ************************************************************************ From Ric There are many species of land crabs. I doubt that Frank was talking about Birgus Latro. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:53:33 EDT From: Gary Fajack Subject: Cabin cooling out of curiosity, how was the cabin cooled? I assume there was no HVAC, just vented outside air? ************************************************** From Ric That's right. There was a big scoop on the top of the fuselage that fed air vents in the cabin. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:59:24 EDT From: Pete Subject: Patent number I'm kind of curious why one of the patent numbers was ruled out. 1,824,030 as in the camera and flash. Luke Field inventory shows two cameras onboard. Might our mystery knob be from one of those cameras? Would the lens from one of those be better for starting fires than a sextant? Love To Mother Pete #2419 **************************************************************** From Ric If you'll look at the actual patent you'll see that it's for a device that makes the flash fire at the time the shutter of the camera is tripped. There is nothing on the device that resembles the knob. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:48:54 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: AE's Toluca Lake address? I don't think this is off topic. This forum is mainly about Amelia Earhart, right ? It is true that knowing where she lived is of little help in finding her Electra but it's still interesting to know. After all those patent numbers and speculation on whether the Electra sank nose first or not, it is something different. And the house has a charm of its own. I've never seen it but I've seen pictures of it. It is representative of the art-deco style that was prevalent at the time it was built. If it were standing in Europe it would be a protected site. In at least two European cities they claim to have the house where Columbus was born and they are proud of it. In Hollywood they sell city tours to tourists and show them where the famous film stars live or used to live. There are even people who want to see the house where Elvis Presley used to live. What's wrong with that ? The only difference seems to be that the present occupants of AE's house love their privacy and do not appreciate having their house stared at. Which is something I can understand although I think there is nothing to be ashamed of. On the other hand, where I live people don't trust people unknown to them staring at their house either and you can bet that if you do they'll probably phone the police because they think you are a burglar inspecting the site. The world isn't the place it used to be. Perhaps one day people will travel to Wilmington, Delaware, to see the house where famous Ric Gillespie lived, the man who will always be remembered as the guy who discovered the wreck of AE's Lockheed Electra sometime in 2006... LTM *************************************************************** From Ric I'd like to think we can do better than that. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:53:51 EDT From: Ron Subject: Re: Knob update Ric does the "knob" have rounded edges? What I mean is do they look like they have been pressed back to give the "Knob rounded edges? It took me awhile to figure out what this thing is, or was. The patent numbers that were brought to the forum confirmed my guess. In the forties when I was a little boy with a hammer and a active mind I did a lot of exploring. I can remember wondering what was inside of a girdle snap the ones that hold the hosiery up. They snap thru a wire loop with the silk stocking in between. When the hammer was finished whacking away on this button it looked very much like the "knob". I had a whole collection of them that I carried around in my pocket because they looked like money. I caught a lot of hell when my mother found out what I did, but I was loaded. All of my money had patent numbers on it, that is what made it look real except for the hole in the middle. When the rivet would pop out of the center of the button it would leave a hole like the one on the "knob. I hope this helps Ron ***************************************************** From Ric Yeah, that's a big help. A lead girdle snap. Awesome. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:58:39 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Frank Buck on coconut crabs >There are many species of land crabs. I doubt that Frank was talking about >Birgus Latro. Maybe not, but the behavior doesn't sound atypical. We've never seen the herds chewing their way through the forest, but there's some stuff in the literature about lady B. latros moving in considerable numbers from the forest to the shore to release eggs into the surf. I wouldn't want to be lying around in their path. *************************************************************** From Ric I know what you mean. Trip over one of those skeletonized natives and it's all over. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:02:16 EDT From: PBS Subject: Re: Frank Buck's crabs Ric said "I doubt that Frank was talking about Birgus Latro." I thought Fred Goerner interviewed Birgus Latro during his third trip to Saipan... or maybe that was Chester Nimitz... PBS ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:03:28 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Knob update Come on, Ric; she was trying to girdle the earth, wasn't she? Seriously, Ron, were the things made of lead? Or are you -- er -- pulling our legs? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:51:11 EDT From: Ron Subject: Re: Knob update I believe that the science of grave robbing, (archaeology) is to prove or disprove the past isn't it? If this is so then wouldn't all information have to be considered, no matter how unimportant it seems when it is first received? For that reason I brought up the information that I have experienced about the "knob". Those "knobs" use to be use in clothing a lot more than now. If you ever owned a pair of old style Levi jeans that button up the fly all of the buttons that guard the jewels are this type of button. All you have to do to make it look like artifact is knock the center out of it and bury it in the dirt or toss it in a fire and the chemical reaction might be very interesting. Now I am not saying that its a Levi button, but it looks to me like the same type of button that i use to play with. The girdle is where I got my first ones, I don't remember saying that they were lead. This is how rumors get started. AE was on a world tour and I am sure that she brought a change of clothes along just in case she had she had to put on the dog at some special dinner or reception. In which case she may have dressed in the fashion of the time which would have included an garter belt or a girdle. Even thin women wore those things, don't ask me why but they did. Fred may even have dressed on the trip so there is a chance to have to have more buttons on the plane. There were different styles of buttons so I think you have your head buried in the sand of the beach on Gardener island if you don't look at all the possibilities. Not everything that was on the Electra has to belong to the airplane. I want to solve this mystery as much as anyone on your team so just take me seriously. Ron ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't doubt your sincerity and I will be happy to take you seriously as soon as you show me that you're serious enough about helping to actually read the available material and make intelligent suggestions. The artifact is a knob that is made of lead with a steel insert. It is not a button or a girdle fastener. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:54:20 EDT From: Ron Subject: Re: Frank Buck's crabs PBS, Have you ever read Fred Goerner's book? He was following clues just like everyone that has ever tried to solve a problem. His big problem was his his radio show, it was a talk show and people were always giving him false leads and he being a good detective checked a lot of them out. We don't know if he was right or wrong because the mystery has not been solved yet. Ron ********************************************************************* From Ric Fred Goerner's problem was not his radio show. Goerner's problem was that he was a journalist with no training in historical investigation. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:01:56 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Knob update In order to identify the knob, we definitely need a side elevation photo of it. At the moment all we have are opposite end elevations. If the knob were some sort of micrometer knob it might be possible to find on the perimeter some part of the scale or perhaps a pointer (if alternatively the scale was engraved on the mating part). Regards Angus. *********************************************************************** From Ric We'll put up a Research Bulletin with the latest information and we'll include a side elevation photo. However, identification, I'm convinced, will come from the patent number rather than physical recognition. Meanwhile, Jeff Glickman has submitted his analysis of the second symbol in the patent number and feels quite sure that it is an 8, so that helps narrow the field. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:31:08 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Knob update Ric said, > However, identification, I'm convinced, will > come from the patent number rather than physical recognition. I think you're right - but to be able to compare the item to patent drawings, one needs to be able to see it in 3D. Keen patent searchers might consider looking at patents for rifle sights for the appropriate period. I did try investigating the sights most commonly fitted to the Springfield carbine but found nothing convincing. Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:46:16 EDT From: Marjorie in Montana Subject: Re: Fred Goerner's problem > Fred Goerner's problem was not his radio show. Goerner's problem was that he > was a journalist with no training in historical investigation. Fred Goerner's problem as a journalist/author WAS his radio show, in that (before their stories were posted on the internet) radio reporters never worried about spelling names as long as they recorded the pronounciation. When his book first came out and I reviewed it for a Guam newspaper, it was full of mis-spellings of Mariana Islands place and people names. I sent him a list so they could be corrected in the next edition and received no acknowledgement. I've never checked to see if there were reprints and if the spelling errors were corrected. LTM (who always looks words up) Marjorie ****************************************************** From Ric Fred's problems went way beyond misspellings. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:53:24 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Knob update We know there was a survey party on the island in 1939? What are those instruments they use, you know that sit on a tripod and have a plum-bob hanging at the end of a length of string? The knob is diffinetly some sort of an adjustment knob. Did anybody else have this surveyor's tool who visited the island? ************************************************************************ From Ric You're talking about a transit. Yes, there were several opportunities for surveyor's transits to be on the island and transits have little adjustment knobs. This could be a knob from a transit. Find me a transit with a knob that looks like this and has a 7 digit patent number that begins with 18. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:37:42 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Amelia Earhart Festival Atchison, Kansas, is having their annual Amelia Earhart Festival on July 19th and July 20th. On Sat. July 20th is "Breakfast with Books," 8:00AM to 11:00PM at the public library. I don't know who the speakers are going to be. Will try and find out since Atchison is right up the Missouri from here. Following "Breakfast with Books" is a $15.00 luncheon that is very nice. Haven't decided if I'm going yet. Last year I met some really nice people and listened to some with some really crazy ideas, to put it bluntly, but the trip was worth it. I learned a lot and am still learning. Last year, someone had a pamphlet there from the Tighar Group lying on the library tables about the LTM letter. The Tighar LTM pamphlet was the best thing at the conference. LTM Carol Dow ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:46:53 EDT From: Michael Lowery Subject: Re: Knob update I was thinking about the patent number and it occurred to me that the fifth digit could possible be a "3." The options you listed were a "2" and by implication, a"0." Take a look at patent number 1,834,399 - an automatic control for aircraft (I believe this is what would commonly be called an auotpilot). Don't know if this could be what the knob was to, but thought it might be of interest to you and the forum. LTM, Michael Lowrey *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, I've looked at that one. Nothing there that looks like our knob. *************************************************************************** From Tom Riggs, If the knob is in fact lead, don't you think it is a poor selection of material with which to create an adjustment knob for anything. I mean lead is relatively soft as compared to steel, aluminum, brass, or other metals. Lead would too easily strip threads or become easily deformed if banged against something hard. Of course it could be some alloy combined with lead to make it harder. Bottom line is: there are much more durable metals with which to manufacture adjustment knobs for survey instruments, binoculars, navigations sextants, etc. *************************************************************************** From Ric No argument. Lead seems to be an odd metal to use but Scanning Electron Microscopes don't lie. The thing is lead. It has a steel "collar" on the inside, probably for just the reason you mention. There needed to be a hard interface between the exterior knob and the shaft that it turned. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:04:19 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: The "Knob" or "Girdle Snap?" You'll probably have a zillion similar Forum responses from folks that went back just as I did and searched the patent search information provided by others on last night's forum. Looks like Ron's suggestion about the knob being a girdle snap that holds hosiery up created some potential "hits" 1,834,030 hosiery holder? 1,334,230 garment fastener? *********************************************************************** From Ric Except they don't look anything like the artifact. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:02:18 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Disappearing artefacts I found this in an article about coconut crabs. I think the question of an attraction to shiny objects has been raised before but perhaps without a definitive confirmation. It may explain where Fred's Parker pen, Amelia's watch and belt buckle, coins, keys etc disappeared to. One kleptomaniac crab - a few things go missing. A hundred - nothing left worth stealing. I quote: "The coconut crab apparently got its name from its favourite food, the coconut. It will pry open any split coconuts, crack them open and drill the eye of the coconut with its powerful claws. Its other common name, which is the robber crab, explains an interesting habit possessed by this crab. The crab has been known to be attracted to shiny items and has the habit of stealing them!" Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric I've never heard that explanation for the name Robber Crab before. I don't think we noted any behavior like that, did we Tom? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:21:33 EDT From: Tom Riggs Subject: A Reef -Flat Landing? Ric....thanks for your analysis of my assumptions/speculations about a possible reef-flat landing. I now have a better understanding of the Tighar theory, especially the part about the Electra finally becoming visible at the reef edge 15 years later. However, even after your explanations, I am still left about wondering about some previous questions I asked. a.. Previous Question 1 - "since Tighar has visited Niku many times and has targeted the most probable zone on the reef flat for a safe landing, has someone determined the depth of water there at high tide and estimated if the Electra would have been totally submerged, or above water. Does 60+ years of coral growth change the depth dimensions, such that it is now shallower?" Assuming the Electra landed in the zone on the reef flat identified by Tighar in previous expeditions, I'm trying to envision if at high tide the weight of the airframe would be supported on the landing gear, or if the water was deep enough to make it bouyant and float. If it could float, it lends more credibility to the theory of how a 7000 pound (estimated?) airplane moved a considerable distance across the reef flat out to the reef edge. But if at high tide there was not enough water to make it float, and all 7000 pounds was supported by the landing gear, what force could have moved something that heavy across the reef flat and push it over the reef edge? The only thing I can think of is a violent storm. This leads to my other previous question: a.. Previous Question 2 - "The weather on July 2, 1937 near Howland was reported to be relatively normal and calm, that is, no significant weather systems such as typhoons, or other major storms. Were any weather records ever recorded nearby (at Canton perhaps?) documenting weather systems in the Niku area in the days/weeks between July 2, 1937 and when Lt. Lambrect flew over a short time later. Has anyone ever researched weather at and around Niku area during the time AE and FN could have remained alive to determine if any violent storms ever occurred? I know meterology was not as advanced or organized as it is now and such data may not exist. But, I would think a major storm with sufficient force to push the Electra over the reef-edge may have been documented or possibly remembered by native islanders on adjacent islands. Or, perhaps a major storm wasn't even necessary? Maybe just localized thunderstorms is all it took to push the Electra over the reef edge? We know that weather on July 2, 1937 near Howland was reported to be relatively normal and calm (ie. lots of sunshine). We also know that 7 days later on July 9, 1937 when Lt. Lambrecht flew over, it was also relatively normal and calm. Looking at the photograph of Gardner Lt. Lambrecht took that day, the weather appears to be OK to me (again: lots of sunshine). So the question I have to ask is: during that 7 day period, were there any violent storms documented that occurred in the Gardner island area that could be attributed to carrying the Electra across the reef flat and depositing it over the reef edge such that Lt. Lambrecht did not see it days later? I would think if there was any severe weather occurring during those 7 days, the Colorado ship logs and pilots logs, as well as other ships in the area would have reported and documented something? I don't recall any mention in Colorado or Itasca reports of severe weather except the thing about the PBY(or whatever?) near Hawaii (or wherever?) that attempted to fly to Howland (or wherever?) to help in the search but had to turn back due to poor weather. In fact, I don't recall reading anything about weather impeding any of the search progress for the entire time (several weeks?) the official search was conducted. Thanks in advance for any info, insight, or discussion you, or other Forum members can share on this subject to help me fill-in the gaps. T.R. #2427 ************************************************************************ From Ric We can easily see from the Norwich City debris that there has been no noticable coral growth on the reef flat since 1929. At high tide the water is about one meter deep on the part of the reef where we think the landing was made. That's not enough to float the Electra and as long as the sea remained calm the airplane should have been okay. However, any significant surf running across the reef would be a problem and it does not take a major storm, or even a minor storm, to do that. All it takes is a swell that can be generated by weather events hundreds of miles and many days away. We don't have any information about the sea state in the area of Gardner for the week immediatley following the disappearance because there were no ships there. We do know from the deck log of the Colorado that the sea state on July 9th was "1" (moderate swell - calm or slight sea) and yet the photo taken by Lambrecht shows a strong surf running across the reef at Gardner. In other words, the difference between conditions where the airplane can reamain on the reef relatively undisturbed and conditions that would cause the airplane to be lifted up and washed about is the difference between a very calm day and a not so calm day. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:27:35 EDT From: Monty Fowler Subject: Watch what you wear! I suppose it was bound to happen eventually ... I was out of town awhile ago, browsing through a store, (proudly) wearing my TIGHAR Earhart Project T-shirt, when a total stranger came up to me and started talking about her. He had a theory, and was quite sure of it, although he was apparently an avid reader of TIGHAR's web site. It was an interesting conversation. Because according to him, we're completely on the wrong track. There wasn't one Electra 10-E, there were FIVE. Four of them were flown by Amelia and Fred "doubles," and each one was tasked to fly over a different part of Japan's embryonic Pacific empire and snap as many pictures as possible before going on to secret landing fields. You could tell this, he said, because in different photos of the "supposed" Electra, the registration number was the same, but windows would be in different places, or antenna masts would be switched around, or there would be some subtle little detail that somehow thousands of us has missed over the years. So to all of you "the Japanese shot them" theorists, you're wrong, the Japanese executed one of the stunt double couples. The "real" 10-E is still around, hidden in a government bunker somewhere until the day when "they" think we can handle the truth. And Amelia? Why heck, she died at the ripe old age of 80-something in the little mountain town of Clinton, S.C., comfortable with her obscurity. I guess we can all go home now. Either that, or I need a different T-shirt. LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 ************************************************************************* From Ric As I recall, the Five Electras Theory is the brainchild of the inimitable Joe Klaas (Amelia Earhart Lives! , 1970). Of course, what's going on is the misdating of the numerous photos that were taken of the airplane between its delivery in July 1936 and its disappearance a year later. During that time there were many, many modifications plus some major repairs done to the airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:43:23 EDT From: Ric Subject: Another Knob update Okay, Knob Sleuths (Knobbers?) We have another number. Jeff Glickman has completed his analysis of the third symbol in the sequence and has concluded that it is probably a 9. The most likely alternative, if it's not a 9, is a 2. So, the number so far appears to be 1,89?,???. If true, that confines the patent date to sometime between Dec. 6, 1932 (when 1,890,000 was granted) and March 7, 1933 (when 1,899,999 was filed). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:58:54 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Floating Electra Gary LaPook wrote: >I was interested in how the plane would float. There is a fairly detailed report on the float characteristics of Earhart's Lockheed out there some where. I seem to recall a group of engineers worked this out some time ago (in the pre-Forum days). I have a reference to the report somewhere. LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric As I mentioned in an earlier posting, Oceaneering International worked up some numbers back in 1991 when we had then do a sonar search around the island, but all they did was calculate weight versus buoyancy. The bottom line, of course, is that with all those empty tanks the airplane should float like a cork. The big question is for how long? Nobody has a handle on the dynamics of how those tanks would hold up as flotation devices. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 12:39:02 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: "double carrier wave"? Perhaps this will head off a flurry of questions about what a "double carrier wave" might be. Admittedly this borders upon speculation, but be assured I am using the SWAG-method with the emphasis on the "S": "SCIENTIFIC Wild A** Guess." To an experienced radio operator (of which I am indeed one) this sounds like a way of describing (in "plain" language) the phenomenon known as a "heterodyne," which is the "squeal" or "beat note" produced when two signals very close to the same frequency are on the air at the same time. For example, if one transmission is dead on frequency at 3105 KHz, and the other is on 3106 KHz, and they are therefore 1000 HZ (1 KHz) apart, a "beat note" will be heard when they "mix" in a receiver... it will sound like a 1000-Hz tone. A "double carrier wave," therefore, most probably signifies two signals more-or-less on the same frequency simultaneously. These signals would have to be from different transmitters. Unless of course, some really off-the-wall problem with a transmitter -- i.e. a defective crystal oscillating on a number of closely adjacent frequencies, at the same time (yes, I have seen this happen, but it is really rare) -- could produce the effect; but this is hardly the most likely explanation. The "double carrier wave" can best be explained by "QRM," a radio-jargon term for simple interference. LTM (who has been known to talk all over everyone else) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for the explanation Mike. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 12:45:25 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Knob update > Lead seems to be an odd metal to use but Scanning Electron > Microscopes don't lie. The thing is lead. It has a steel "collar" > on the inside, probably for just the reason you mention. There > needed to be a hard interface between the exterior knob and > the shaft that it turned. Back when I had my second job (late 1970's) I worked with an "instrument" guy. We were using a microscope to examining a printed circuit board, and I mentioned that the adjustment knobs felt "heavy." He said something like "Well, on expensive, precision instruments, they used to make them out of lead so they'd resist moving just a bit due to mass." I'd assumed all along that your lead knob with a steel insert was this sort of thing. - Bill #2229 **************************************************************************** From Ric It's the only reason I've been able to come up with for a lead adjustment knob. Nice to hear that it was actually done. I do think that we have an adjustment knob from a precision instrument of some kind, which makes it all the more odd that it should be found where it was, all by itself, and in a damaged - even perhaps intentionally damaged - condition. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 12:40:26 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Floating Electr(a)city In the wake of (pun intended) the speculation on how the Electra might float, please remember: If we buy the post loss signals -- any of them -- as genuine, they almost certainly had to have come from a high and dry aircraft -- or at least dry enough to keep the fuselage more or less above water. If the a/c were floating, the fuselage would be wet... and probably partially water-filled. The cockpit would almost certainly have a good bit of water. The batteries would have been submerged in salt water. NOT good. The radio receiver was underneath the copilot's seat. Radio receivers do not function well when immersed in salt water. The dynamotor power supply for the transmitter was located at the cabin floor level. Most likely this would be below water level in a floating a/c. NOT good. The antenna feed through insulator was located well-down on the lower right aft fuselage and would certainly have been under water... impossible to transmit, even if the radio equipment itself remained dry. The next is a bit off topic, but.... Regarding instances of floating WW2 aircraft... seems like I have read a reference to one or more downed B-29s which were great "floaters" -- to the extreme that one may have been sunk by gunfire to avoid a chance for it to fall into enemy hands by drifting into Japanese territory... anybody else recall this? LTM (who is always dry but never dull) and 73 Mike E.