Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:01:28 EDT From: Christopher Ferro Subject: Re: Artifact S-45 I can see the can being used for target practice...? LTM, who'd like to target my can for shooting my mouth off at times... Christopher, reeling in Wheeling ******************************************************************* From Ric Maybe....but none of the rusted flakes of metal are bent as you'd expect from bullet holes in the can and you'd have to be pretty good to shoot the spout off that cap. ******************************************************************* From Mike Muenich I tend to run in streaks, bear with me. If we have the patent number, do we know who the patent was registered to and when? What is the patent description? If a person has a patent registered to them, I would think they might know who purchased the rights to manufacture or use or to whom and for what purpose they might have sold the object patented. ********************************************************************* From Ric The patent was granted on December 20, 1932 to Edward McGinnis, assignor to Consolidated Fruit Jar Company of New Brunswick, New Jersey. If it eventually ended up being used on something as unfruity as gun oil I would guess that it was licensed by a wide variety of companies. ********************************************************************* From Mike Muenich I didn't mean to say that Gallagher lived at the 7 site. It is my understanding that this may be the real estate he elected to "own". He may have put up a shelter, he may have stayed overnight, he may have moved things there for future use. he may have stayed there repeatedly while the post bones search was conducted in ?October?. You did raise a point I had not previously noted. Why do you think there was a spout on the cap? **************************************************** From Ric - That's what the patent is on, a "spout and closure" - The example we've seen of a cap with the same writing and patent number on it has a spout coming up through the middle of the cap. - The artifact shows pretty clear signs that there was once something sticking up through the middle. ***************************************************** From Marty Moleski > 2. Why is the can/cap here? Lost out of a carpenter's toolbox? Gun oil might be helpful for preserving tools as well as guns. The same toolbox and carpenter--both brought there to build "Gallagher's house"--could be the source of the crude aluminum fasteners (2-6-03a and 2-6-03b). They seem to me to be more consistent with islander technology than with something Fred would do to one of his sextant boxes. I can't see the castaway unscrewing those from the sextant box. My guess is that the wood they were in rotted away from them. > 6. Is it possible that a cap on an item left with the cache of supplies > from the Norwich City could have met the criteria of S-45? Not if it is a U.S. utility patent number on it. All of the seven-digit numbers of the form 18xxxxx are from after the NC wreck. > ... If AE did find the Norwich > supplies, wouldn't she have raided it for all it was worth? She, Fred, other tourists, and all of the natives, too. I wonder whether the "cruciform" area seen by Jeff Glickman might have been the last trace of the NC cache. An oar lock was found there when TIGHAR searched that area. From Ric's reply: > I'll betcha that a further search of > the area will turn up the lead spout that was apparently intentionally broken > off, most logically to get at the last dregs of whatever was in the can. Having worked with lots of spouted containers, oil, glue, and solvent, I would never rip a spout off to get the last few drops. Shaking the can or bottle gets the last of the fluid into the spout. Answering the question of why S-45 was found with the damaged hole and without its spout probably won't help find the Any Reasonable Idiot Artifact (ARIA). > So Watson, what could somebody have in a can designed to dispense its > contents in drops or a thin stream that would logically be present at such a > remote location and was so important that somebody tore the spout off to get > at the last drops (or because the spout became clogged)? I don't know. People do strange things. We don't have to answer all questions to get an answer to some. ;o) LTM. Marty #2359 *********************************************************** From Ric A point of clarification - the debacle of the "cruciform object" was completely my folly, not Jeff's. Having watched him perform miracles in Photoshop I tried it myself and, in my ignorance, drew unwarranted conclusions. The "cruciform object" turned out to be just a cross-shaped bush. There is probably great symbolism in all of this that I won't touch wth a ten foot spear. ****************************************************************** From Angus Murray Ric said, > So Watson, what could somebody have in a can designed to dispense its > contents in drops or a thin stream that would logically be present at such a > remote location and was so important that somebody tore the spout off to get > at the last drops (or because the spout became clogged)? Now lets not jump to conclusions! The spout could have been broken off accidentally by someone standing on it. If the site was used for target practice at short range, the spout on an empty can would make a nice (difficult) target. Alternatively the empty can itself might have been the target and the spout broken off when the can hit the ground after being hit by a round. If the can rusted away, the cap should be undistorted in the area of the clenching which secured it to the top of the can. If on the other hand the cap was mechanically separated from the can, it should show signs of stretching, straightening or distortion in that area. Incidentally, sewing machine oil was also supplied with this type of closure. It would not suprise me if almost any type of oil you can think is also a candidate. The only one I can think of that fits all the criteria you mention above is suntan oil! Regards Angus. ********************************************************* From Ric There's no obvious distortion to suggest that the cap was pried off the can but there is some indication that the spout was rocked back and forth in the process of its removal. If that's true then the stepped-on and shot-off scenarios don't work. ************************************************************* From Tom King I think you're reaching, but it's fun. Obviously the gun oil would be useful as an assist in starting fires, but could it in fact have come from the Norwich City, and if not, how would you associate it with our Famous Friends? The ferrous metal something near S-45 was about 40 cm. on a side. Isn't that rather large for a gun oil container? To me, its rusted fragments looked like either a sheet of metal (non-corrugated), or a collapsed rectangular ferrous metal box. For whatever that's worth. And we really have no idea how many more shell casings there may be on the Seven Site, because we don't know what the boundaries of the "site" are, and therefore don't know how much of it we've looked at. And of course, what you define as the "site" depends on what variables you use to distinguish between it and "not-site." If you use the distribution of fire features and say that represents the "site," then the shell casings may be distributed over a larger (or smaller) area than the site, and the number of shell casings on the site may be less than (it couldn't very well be greater than) the total number of casings in the area.. If you use the shell casings as your defining criteria, then you get a different figure, but for all we know there could be shell casings scattered all the way from the Loran station up to the north end of the island. ****************************************************************** From Ric That's an awfully big can. Forty centimeters is almost 16 inches. That's enough gun oil for a field artillery battery. It also seem like way too big a can for this dinky little cap and spout. Whatever liquid you put in the c an it's gonna end up weighing a ton. The spout is designed for dispensing small amounts of liquid with some precision. Doesn't make any sense. I seem to recall that Herb Moffit, the Coastie who was there with Dick Evans, described seeing a rusty can with a wire handle that he assumed had been used to boil water. We have that interview on videotape but it's on one of those old cassettes where you have a full-sized VHS tape on a small cassette that requires an adaptor - and I dont have an adaptor. I'll have to see if I can find one. ********************************************************************** From Tim Smith Don't assume it was a gun oil can. The same type of spout was also used for sewing machine oil, lighter fluid, and other "3-in-1" type oil cans. If FN carried a Zippo lighter, he may have had lighter fluid. The last drops of that might have been useful to get a fire going (with an inverting eyepiece?). Tim Smith 1142 CE ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:03:11 EDT From: Mark Subject: Re: Artifact S-45 > So Watson, what could somebody have in a can > designed to dispense its > contents in drops or a thin stream that would > logically be present at such a > remote location and was so important that somebody > tore the spout off to get > at the last drops (or because the spout became > clogged)? > > LTM, > Ric How about anything flammable enough for the castaway to use as a fire starter? My WAG is that with the heat on Niku, finding dry kindling would be pretty easy (how well does scaevola burn?), but that doesn't mean our fearless castaway knew how to build a fire... perhaps he/she used the lighter fluid or gun oil or whatever it was to get his/her fires started. If so, there would be little incentive to practice one's "proper" firestarting skills until ... ... darn it ... almost out of fluid ... maybe I could get a little more out if i just ... [snap] there! the spout's off! Just a thought... LTM, Mark in Horse Country ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:13:46 EDT From: Denise Subject: Authentic L10s Herman de Wulf says; "The other alternative, Ric, is that you travel around the world to go and inspect the supposedly authentic L10s left. There is one in New Zealand ..." Look, does this supposedly authentic L10 have another name that we mere-mortals-unconnected-with-flying would know it by? Some regular name that doesn't have those technical-thingy-type numbers in it? If it does, let me know what it is, because there's a chance I could get you some photos of its cockpit ... which means no one will have to travel around the world or climb up tall ladders. LTM (who never liked technical-thingy-type numbers) Denise ************************************************************** From Ric "L10" is just an abbreviation of Lockheed 10. Earhart's plane was a Lockheed Model 10 "Electra". Specifically, hers was a "10E Special" meaning that it was one of the "E" series airplanes that had the larger 550 h.p. engines and it was "special" in that it was modified with extra fuel tanks for long dis tance flying. There are two Electras at the Museum of Transport in New Zealand and they've both been looked at by one of our researchers. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:39:08 EDT From: Richard Young Subject: Why clean the guns at the Seven Site? An answer! First, a little firearms history - the modern primers used in most, (unfortunately, not all), small-arms ammunition encountered today, (usually trade-named somthing like KLEEN-BORE, or some alternative, and based on lead stephenate compounds),did not exist until well after World War Two. This means ALL small arms cartridges in use then, (and, unfortunately, in some counterfeit U.S. government rounds made in Mainland China recently...) blew potassium chloride salts down the bore with each shot. Pottasium Chloride and related compounds are so close to table salt chemically that they are used in salt substitutes. Like table salt, they are very corrosive. (This is why many military arms dating from this period have "chrome lined" bores - to try to slow down the corrosion from what are known as "corrosive" primers.) In an environment where ferrus metal rusts "as you wait", I can see why it would be SOP for the Coast Guard, or anyone, to immediately at least swab out the bore with bore cleaner, to try to get the worst of the salts out. Even in normal environments, with modern primers and solvents, it's still a recommended practice to at least swab out the bore immediately upon finishing the shooting, as the fouling becomes harder to remove as it cools and oxidizes. Most bore cleaners have a kerosene or naptha base, possibly explaing the lead spout? Anyway, if I had just cranked off 20 rounds, I would darn sure want to at least run a damp patch down the bore before heading back - even if I had to tear up the can. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 08:54:13 EDT From: Ric Subject: Forum traffic Just so you know, I'm not asleep at the switch. There just haven't been any postings submitted for the past couple of days. Must be summer or something. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:39:06 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: Artifact S-45 > So Watson, what could somebody have in a can designed to dispense its > contents in drops or a thin stream that would logically be present at such a > remote location and was so important that somebody tore the spout off to get > at the last drops (or because the spout became clogged)? I don't know much about round engines: any reason they'd require a very specific US type of oil in routine maintenance? Something may be not always available on a voyage to the end of the world? A few drops on the magneto shafts? Dynamotors bearings? Whatever? Starting fluid? Any technical reason for that artifact to have been carried on the plane? Just part of the plane kit, as delivered from the manufacturer (and hence not inventoried as a separate item)? We are talking precious little weight: with a 18mm diam cap... Was that cap removable? Could AE/FN have used the can to carry petrol to the campsite, salvaged from the plane or the cache? Or just a convenient way to dispense it sparingly on kindling; using a supply from a big can of kerosene found at the cache... If it was a Coastie's can there is a great potential for it to be at the 7-site: the colonists -and their kids, had a quarter century to canibalize the Loran station and drag anything to anywhere on the island... Let's never forget Tom K's warning about multiuse archeological sites! Or when the Coasties took stoneware and radio tubes to the seven-site for target practice, they also brought along empty cans and etc... Lots of likely logical possibilities. Niku was not "mothballed" between the time the Coasties left and the time Tighar arrived. If I remember correctly, the Patent is too recent for S-45 to have been on the NC ship? How about the Kiwi survey team? I'd say they were likely to have firearms. One good reason for the castaways to have kept the can at their campsite is in helping to start fires -ALONG WITH the inverting eyepiece. And what are the chances that there was some firearm on the Electra? At the time it was common for travellers/adventurers to take them along on long voyages; a small 22 perhaps? Mariners, like Noonan, always had guns, in lockers, on ships; may be he had one, un-officially, on board the Electra? Could the bird/fish bones show specific traces of bullets? Christian D ************************************************************************** From Ric The control surface hinges on the Model 10 were of the piano-hinge type and required periodic oiling. You can bet they had the proper lubricant with them in some kind of container. My understanding of the patented cap is that it is not intended to be removable. The Kiwi survey might be less than likely to have something with an American patent on the cap. They did have .303 rifles with them and, in fact, the Niku IIII team found a .303 shell casing on the shore of the main passage that might well be one of theirs. The chances of AE and Fred having a firearm with them are remote. There is official correspondence about various customs restrictions governing what they could have aboard the airplane and firearms are a definite no no. AE did have a flare gun which she apparently left behind in New Guinea. The only logical origin we've found for the .22 shell casings is Gallagher's known .22 Colt automatic. Among his effects were 3 "and a half" boxes of ammunition, perhaps suggesting that the weapon was used to some extent. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:06:56 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: G.V. Berger's visit to Gardner Is 1939 Retired Navy Chief Gerald V. Berger described his visit to Gardner Island on 30 April 1939 aboard the USS PELICAN and his eyewitness account of Amelia Earhart's groundloop at Luke Field, Honolulu, on 23 March 1923. He enlisted in the Navy in 1936 and was assigned as an Aviation Mechanic Third Class to VJ6 Squadron at Ford Island, Hawaii, in 1937, and later aboard numerous ships including the USS PELICAN. Berger, now 86, eventually retired from Boeing Aircraft Company and lives in Seattle, Washington. His memory now, he admits, is faulty and he cannot clearly recall some of the dates, details, and the sequence of events. He has several photo albums of his personal photos that show the Electra at Luke Field and of the Norwich City on the reef at Gardner Island. Most of the photos do not have dates or in the case of the Phoenix group identify the island or the people. He made a good faith attempt to affix dates to events and clarify the activity. His documents contain written accounts in places but are undated which of course take away the value of a contemporaneous description. He has also corresponded to or talked with Elgin Long. Berger's interest grew out of Tigar's early expeditions and he has corresponded with Ric Gillespie about his observations at Gardner Island. He continues to received TIGHAR TRACKS. On 15 March 00, Ric posted his take on Berger's recollections and photographs when Ric provided a Gardner Is timeline that included the 30 April 1939 visit by the USS PELICAN. Ric notes that Berger's photos of the Norwich City and Gardner Island were taken from the ship and the Deck Log does not specifically identify if anyone in fact went ashore; natives and Jack Pedro did row out to the PELICAN and Berger's photos document that visit. The PELICAN did launch the seaplane and photographed the Island. Thus there are two parts to Berger's story: the Electra groundloop crash and his claim that he went ashore at Gardner island, talked with natives and Gallagher . In this post, I shall relate his recollections of the Gardner Is visit and in part two the Luke Field incident. Gardner Island. Part One For orientation purposes, the USS PELICAN Deck Log of 30 April 1939 (which Berger has a copy) shows the following;' 0922 arrives of Gardner Island 0925 hoisted out the motor whaleboat 0938 hoisted out plane 1120 Jack Pedro and two natives came aboard 1136 Two natives leave the ship 1240 Hoisted in plane 1241 Three natives came aboard 1405 Two natives left 1405 Hoisted in motor whale boat 1448 One native left the ship 1513 Jack Pedro left the ship 1516 Got underway. Berger recalled that he lead a party of nine men ashore in a "motorized whaleboat" to Gardner.[It is possible that he left with the motorboat at 0925 although the Log doesn't specifically identify the crew or the purpose.] The crew got out somewhere near the lagoon entrance and they went into the village. "We saw lean twos, and copra", Berger said as they walked in the village. "We also saw hogs and oil drums" , he continued, and saw the coconuts drying on racks. Berger said that a Cadet Simonsen, an intelligence officer, accompanied him when they talked with Gallagher. Note: Try as I might, I couldn't be sure if they really talked with Gallagher or whether he was simply aware of the name as the British head of the colonization. He couldn't recall the nature of the conversation, a description of Gallagher, or any other details. Additionally, Gallagher may not have been on Gardner on 30 Arpil 39 but one of the other Phoenix Is (Mantra?). I just couldn't establish the facts of that alleged meeting. Berger said he took a photo of nine natives on Gardner, which he showed me, but the photo was undated and not labled Gardner. [ Again this may have been natives on one of the other Islands that the USS PELICAN visited during that cruise into the Phoenix, spring 1939. The Pelican was sailing from Canton when it arrived at Gardner. Berger said he learned that a native (unidentified) on Gardner has been banished to the southern end of the Island, he believed, for "molesting" someone. He thought that was a common practice if a native broke one of the "taboos". He couldn't provide any additional details . Berger also had a photo of Pedro coming aboard the PELICAN from an outrigger canoe and also a photo of the NORWICH CITY aground on the reef. ( I would estimate the photo about mile away taken from the deck of the PELICAN). The distance made it impossible to determine any significant features of the ship. One of the most interesting observations, although of doubtful reliability, was his report of seeing an ALCLAD aluminum piece of aircraft skin maybe 3' by 4' sticking up from the reef some short distance from the NC. He said it was definitely aluminum but because of the rivets and spacing (?) he was positive it didn't come from the Electra. I reminded him of the Tighar theory and anectodal evidence of aircraft parts in and around the NC, but he remained non-commital regarding a connection with the Electra. [ The more I questioned him for details the more vague he became about the description of the artifact. He could not really describe any exploration in or around the Norwich City. ] Berger estimated his total time at Gardner City at "eight" hours, but the log shows the whaleboat was gone for about 4 hours. If he did walk into the village, his visit was certainly not a search for Amelia Earhart or the Electra or if so it was cursory at most and nothing of value was found relating to the fate of AE. Berger also thought he visited Gardner twice, once on the PELICAN and a second time later on the SWAN or another ship. He was not certain. He couldn't differentiate between visits. When the PELICAN left Pearl Harbor in the Spring he believed the ship was on a survey "mission" of some sort but never clarified to the crew. They visited Christmas Island, Palymrya, line islands then down into the Phoenix visiting Hull,Sydney, Swains,Canton, and others, he recalled. He recollected that the crew was aware of the possibility the AE went down in the Phoenix and that he himself had a special interest in her fate as he saw the first crash at Luke Field in March of 1937. Nothing surfaced regarding the Electra or AE, Berger said, that developed during the voyage of the PELICAN. I shall report in a separate post his recollections of the Luke Field groundloop which he personally witnesses and claims to be one of the first to the Electra after it came to rest. INTERVIEWERS NOTE: The 63 years between Berger's visit to Gardner Island have taken their toll on his memory try as hard as he could to provide answers. Many times he simply couldn't focus on a specific response to questions. In the end, he provided no clues to her possible landing at Gardner. Whether the Navy had secret orders to continue looking for her in the Phoenix is another aspect of the PELICAN that should be looked into. Bergers mention that the ship had two or three National Geographic personnel aboard for the Eclipse might help in fixing the date and the ship Berger was on. He didn't have his navy record to check out the duty stations. I shall eventually reinterview him. Ron Bright ******************************************************************** From Ric Jerry Burger is a very nice guy and entirely well-meaning. He really was where he says he was but his recollections point up classic problems of anecdotal testimony, especially when it involves events which later take on great perceived historical significance. I think our various naval authorities will bear me out when I say that if anyone left the ship to go ashore at Gardner, that event would appear in the deck log. Gallagher was definitely not on Gardner during Pelican's visit. In fact, the deck log records his visit to the ship when it had called at Sydney Island two days earlier. Jerry's recollection of seeing piece of aluminum on the reef near the shipwreck is a new addition to his story since he talked with me two years ago. If he remembers Nat'l Geo people aboard to look at an eclipse he has to be talking about the June 1937 visit of USS Avocet (another seaplane tender and sister to the Pelican) to Canton Island. The ship did not go to Gardner. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:07:41 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Berger's Visit to Gardner Is 1939 Correction , first paragraph, line 3, should be 23 March 1937, not 1923!! Ron B. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:09:49 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: G.V. Berger's visit to Gardner Is 1939 Ron -- Very interesting. His description of the village seems consistent with what we've seen, but is probably also consistent with the villages on Manra and Orona, and indeed on many other islands. Gallagher certainly wasn't on Niku at the time, but it's easy enough to imagine his name coming up in conversation with Jack Pietro or others. Anyhow, a very good stone not to leave unturned. Thanks. Tom ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:25:08 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Berger visit So Berger claims to have seen a 3' by 4' piece of aluminum on the reef next to the Norwich City, but the rivet patterns were not the same as an Electra. Is Berger qualified to make such a statement? ********************************************************************** From Ric It seems pretty clear from the log that nobody from the PELICAN went ashore, so if Berger saw anything it had to be from shipboard. That means he could not have been closer than about 50 yards at the very least. Even with binoculars and assuming an intimate familiarity with the Lockheed 10 (which, as far as we know, he had seen only once two years previously) it's hard to see how such a judgement could be warranted. In fact, you can make a pretty good argument that ANY airplane aluminum seen at Gardner Island in April 1939 could ONLY have been from NR16020. That said, I think Mr. Berger's recollection - coming, as it does, after much familiarity with TIGHAR's work - must be regarded with considerable skepticism. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:29:57 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Equipment In an attempt to identify the various radio components from the electra, have you tried studying old manuals from the period? I recently purchased a WWII manula on instrument flying and it has a lot of photos of the fronts of different radios and peripheral equipment. Among the different equipment listed are: * Pilots bearing indicator * Automatic radio compass (and a larger photo entitled tuning the ARC) * Radio Compass * Rotatable loop radio compass * Anti-static, secondary receiver operation * Three boxes side beside with labels: - Transmitter & receiver "on", Filter switch on "both" - Improve tower reception switch to "voice" - Switch to "range" tune desired frequency - Tune few kcs across freq for best reception * loop antenna (fixed loop installation and rotatable loop installation) * Filter box (marked range, voice, both) I realize that these may be more advanced and refined than what AE carried in the electra, however, many times components are only updated and still have some resemblance to the earlier models. Also, I purchased an instrument made by Weston Electrical Instrument Corp. Still new, unused, in the original box (cardboard), marked Box No. 37. On the side on a paper tag is: WESTON Mod. 500 MA Flush Bakelite Range 200 MA. Spec. Red Blocks, "Voice" Scale Navy Spec 17-I-12 and it has further info on the company and its home offices in Newark NJ USA F1226-150M-4-12 Made in USA Box is 3" w x 2-7/8" d x 3" h The instrument is marked: MILLIAMPERES D.C. the arc is calibrated from 0 to 200 with red marks labelled voice (160 - ?) and C.W. (175 - ?) At the bottom it says Model 506 Patents: 1,579,849 1,635,595 1,661,214 The instrument is round with two brass (?) lugs on the back (one of which has a + sign) and two brass screws (inset in back) that look like they might be adjustments. The back of the instrument is stamped with a series of numbers and letters that are slightly distorted but appear to read: 458N0710 but, the 5 is distorted and could be a six or o or 0 and the last number is also distorted, but looks most like a 0 - however, the outside of the box, on the label is plainly stamped 458N0710 and thus I ascertain that the two should be identical.The outside of the instrument has three brass "set" screws. In the box is an unopened envelope with what sound like more screws. The front of the instrument is wider than the base indicating that it most likely fitted into the panel from the front rather than the rear. The face is 2 - 11/16" with three small mounting holes. The back section is 1/4" narrower all the way around (1/2" small dia). Anyway, I know that AE probably didn't have this exact equipment, but since many of these items changed only in small ways at times, I thought it might be helpful in identifying any artifacts if we had items from or near the period. Anyway, I'm a pilot and aviation buff of sorts and even if they are of no avail to TIGHAR, I was interested in them. I have managed to pickup some wings from time to time and place to place. I think some of them are rather unusual and even unique. The most interesting to me is a small metal set marked: Flying Dodo Bird Disc Jockey No one that I have met in the radio business has the slightest idea who this was or where they come from. Rather art deco in appearance. I picked them up at an auction in Galveston (if memory serves me correctly - but I never made notes about where I purchased these items). If you want more infor or need to see the originals on either of these items, let me know and I will make arrangments to get them to you. Yours, Dave Bush ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Dave. If a question comes up it's good to know that you have those resources. I'm not familar with the Flying Dodo Bird Disc Jockey wings either but I've flown with some guys who should have had them. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:42:48 EDT From: Tom Cook Subject: rifle bore cleaner A few comments .30 carbines: 1. All G.I carbine ammo (not rifle) has had non corosive primers, not to say that a thurogh cleaning was not required after fireing. 2. I found 2 cans of G.I. rifle bore cleaner, appeared to be WW2 vintage: no spout, no knob, just plain course thread stamped sheatmetal cap. 3. The only country that I know of who chrome plated their rifle bores during WW2 was Japan. ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:45:52 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: G.V. Berger's visit to Gardner Is 1939 > I think our various naval authorities will bear me out when I say that if > anyone left the ship to go ashore at Gardner, that event would appear in the > deck log. Absolutely, Ric. The Navy does not look kindly on failure to account for the whereabouts of crew members. Bob Brandenburg #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:49:59 EDT From: Jim W. Subject: Wave Action and Memory First, G. V. Berger's memory lapses reminds me that this research project has prompted me to reevaluate my memory of things I read and later try to remember in a conversation. I go back to the source to verify what I said is actually what I had read. Good mental practice inspired by the rigors of TIGHAR. In the March 2002 issue of National Geographic there is an article about exploring ancient ships off the Turkish coast. When the excavation season ended in 1999 the researchers moved their two electric generators, each about three thousand pounds, inland about thirty feet and above the water line about twenty-five feet. As the article states, it took six men to lift the metal covers alone. The first storm of the winter picked them up like corks and one had to be retrieved from the sea floor in one hundred and forty feet of water. This is a pretty fair example of the power of water upon a fairly compact concentration of metal and weight. Reminds me of what the water could have done to an airplane and its engines. Jim W. ********************************************************* From Ric So the waves pulled the generators off the shore and out to sea? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:12:49 EDT From: Tom King Subject: OK, LA TIGHARs At last I have an actual engagement to talk about The Quest in the LA area. On November 15, a Friday afternoon, I'll be the speaker in the Seminar Series on Archaeology Theory and Research at the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA,. The Institute says that off-campus visitors are welcome. If you're interested, send me your addresses and I'll make sure the Institute sends you an invitation with directions, etc. I'll also be in the area in late August, but time is getting pretty squeezed. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:06:30 EDT From: Gary Fajack Subject: Re: G.V. Berger's visit to Gardner Is 1939 I'm not too sure about this. From my Navy days some 38 years ago I do not recall logging individuals on and off the ship. With work parties, liberty, base errands a deck log would fill up in no time. Usually deck logs noted significant and regularly occuring events of the day. A log might indicate that a party was sent ashore to explore the island but I doubt if a detail list of the individuals would be included. But after 38 years what do I know? my memory may have been affected by the 60's cultural movement. ************************************************************************* From Ric I imagine that Bob Brandenburg's memory of Navy regs from his days as captain of a destroyer is pretty good, but the best measure of how the PELICAN's log was kept is other entries made during the same cruise. On occasions when people went ashore or came aboard their names were entered in the log along with the time of departure or arrival. In the Phoenix Islands however, it seems quite clear that no one left the ship. Ownership of the Phoenix Group was a point of contention between the U.S. and Britain and a visit to Canton by a solar eclipse expedition aboard PELICAN's sister ship USS AVOCET in June 1937 had resulted in an international incident when they ran into a similar British expedition. PELICAN's job was to take aerial photos of the islands and when they stopped at Hull on April 29 British Lands commissioner Harry Maude happened to be there inspecting the new colony. PELICAN's log shows that Maude came aboard and lodged a formal protest against the ship's presence and the taking of aerial photos. I see no support for the idea that anyone from PELICAN went ashore at Gardner. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:07:56 EDT From: James Kelly Subject: Carbine ammo For what its worth on the carbine thing, the ammunition for the .30 caliber carbine was non-corrosive; that is to say immediate cleaning might not have been immediatly necessary. All .30-06 ammo was corrosive which led to the rebarreling of almost all M1s used overseas. While it might not have been immediatly necessary, it would be if there was a Chief Petty Officer handy! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:18:15 EDT From: Denise Subject: Connection? Ron Bright says: "Berger said he learned that a native (unidentified) on Gardner has been banished to the southern end of the Island, he believed, for "molesting" someone." Isn't there another story buried deep within this saga about someone from an island someplace who "molested" someone? A "molester" who got ill and required treatment at the hospital in Tarawa? I think Tom will recall the story I mean. Since "molesting" isn't a common practise in the Pacific among Islanders, I wonder if there's a connection between these two men? LTM (who believed banishment too good for these sorts) Denise ************************************************************************** From Ric You may be thinking of allegations made against your friend Dr. Isaac (Verrier). I don't think there's a connection. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:26:06 EDT From: Denise Subject: Well, at least it makes sense to me! Ron Bright says of Berger: "his visit was certainly not a search for Amelia Earhart or the Electra or if so it was cursory at most and nothing of value was found relating to the fate of AE." But then again, Ron, there's that story in "Shoes" from the former Niku. colonist who talked about Americans visiting the island in this timeframe and taking photographs over the reef edge where the plane was. If this is the only American visit in this period, then this must be the occasion the story refers to. Remember the First Rule of the Pacific: "someone sees everything you do"! The Americans would definitely have been watched the whole time they were there, and that story is pretty specific. So, that whaleboat was gone four hours. What was it doing in that time? And why unload the plane at all? What was it doing there? And here's another thought: if you're going to send someone out to the Phoenix Islands to check on a report or rumour (and I will always continue to believe these reports were made, even if it were just a word across the bar at a particular club), who better to send than someone already familiar with this authentic L10.? LTM (who loved a good "conspiracy theory") Denise ********************************************************************** From Ric Dear heart, I'm afraid that your nose for a good story is getting the better of you. The plane was there to take aerial photos for the U.S. survey of the Phoenix Group being conducted by USS BUSHNELL. The motor whaleboat was always launched and standing by whenever the airplane was being used. The story repeated in "Shoes" was told to me and Kenton Spading by Tapania Taeke on Funafuti in 1997 and her statement that men in a "goverment ship" took photographs of the airplane wreckage was not tied to any particular time period. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:19:36 EDT From: Richard Young Subject: .30 carbine Mr. Cook is correct - after further review, all carbine ammo WAS non-corrosive. The fact that the M2, (full auto version of the M1 carbine), as well as all M1 carbines built or re-built after the developement of the M2, had chrome-lined barrels threw me, I guess. The cleaning methods taught in boot camp, however, may have been based on the corrosive nature of all of the rest of the arms and ammo available at that time. Any old Coast Guardsmen out there remember boot camp? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:37:01 EDT From: Hal Subject: Berger's Visit I've probably missed something, but how can we be sure that the PELICAN sent no one to the island? Why would the ship hoist out the whaleboat at 0925 and hoist it in 4 1/2 hours later at 1405? Was it to send a party ashore or to facilitate Jack Pedro and natives in boarding the PELICAN or what? Thanks, Hal *************************************************************************** From Ric PELICAN was a "bird" class seaplane tender. She and her sisters SWAN and AVOCET were converted minesweepers that carried one Grumman J2F "Duck" on the afterdeck. To launch the plane a derrick hoisted it up and plopped it over the side where it took off, performed its mission, and landed back on the water. The derrick then hoisted the plane back up on deck. The PELICAN's log shows that it was standard procedure to launch one of the ship's two "motor whaleboats" before the commencement of aviation operations and recover the boat a couple of hours after the plane was safely back aboard. In any event, nothing about the deployment of the motor whaleboat on April 30 looks at all unusual. In fact, the fact that the second whaleboat was NOT launched further reinforces the argument that no one went ashore. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 14:23:17 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: G.V. Berger's visit to Gardner Is 1939 The only support that a shore party was dispatched for a short time is that the whale boat was lowered at 0925 and hoisted back at 1405. Is there another purpose for lowering the boat? Guard for the seaplane taking photos? But someone had to be in the motorized whaleboat. Believe me not all navy logs are complete and accurate! What did they do for 4 1/2 hours? This is independent of Berger's memory. R.Bright ********************************************************************** From Ric A closer look at the log raises some questions. Although the comings and goings of passengers are carefully recorded by name, the same does not seem to be true of regular crew. Even when the ship is in port in Pago Pago from May 5 to 12, there is no mention in the log of officers or crew going ashore - which they almost certainly did. The motor whaleboat was clearly used as a plane guard but there is consistently a significant amount of time after the plane is safely back aboard before the whaleboat comes back aboard. From the PELICAN deck log: April 25, 1939 Off Canton Island. 0700 - hoisted out motor whaleboat 0851 - hoisted out plane 1730 - hoisted in plane 1820 - hoisted in motor whaleboat (50 minutes later) April 28, 1939 Off Sydney Island 0939 - hoisted out motor whaleboat 0954 - hoisted out plane 1604 - hoisted in plane 1905 - hoisted in motor whaleboat (3 hours later) April 29, 1939 Off Hull Island 0806 - hoisted out motor whaleboat 0847 - hoisted out plane 1221 - hoisted in plane 1840 - hoisted in motor whaleboat (6 hours later) April 30, 1939 Off Gardner Island 0925 - hoisted out motor whaleboat 0938 - hoisted out plane 1240 - hoisted in plane 1405 - hoisted in motor whaleboat (1 hour 25 minutes later) May 2, 1939 Off Swain's Island 1253 - hoisted out motor whaleboat 1314 - hoisted out plane 1452 - hoisted in plane 2048 - hoisted in motor whaleboat (6 hours later) May 4, 1939 Off Rose Island 0640 - hoisted out motor whaleboat 0651 - hoisted out motor launch #2 0755 - hoisted out plane 1146 - hoisted in plane 1445 - hoisted in motor whaleboat (3 hours later) 1455 - hoisted in motor launch #2 They had to be doing something for all that time and Berger must have taken his onshore photos somewhere. However, it doesn't look there was enough time at Gardner for anything more than a quick visit. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 14:24:56 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Well, at least it makes sense to me! For Denise, For an even better story line: I didn't add this to Berger's recollections but he beleived that the PELICAN was on some sort of "secret " mission receiving orders by radio at 4PM everyday. He added that the PELICAN visited many islands, including the Gilberts and Marshalls taking photos,etc. As I say he has read a lot of books now on AE and I don't know where his memory ends and the other theories start. Like Ric, I found him quite competent and helpfull, but unable to fill in a lot of g aps in the Gardner Island story. His eyewitness account of the Electra crash, however, was full of details and his photos tend to back up his account as he raced alongside of the Electra on takeoff in a pickup fire truck with his CO2 extinquisher in hand!!! ltm, Ron Bright ============================================================================ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:35:51 EDT From: Jim W. Subject: Wave Action Source of the article about the electric generators: National Geographic, March 2002, page 116; Article title: Golden Age Treasures, by George E. Bass with photographs by Courtney Platt. Referenced also is the web site for National Geographic for more information about the expeditions. The author states that he was involved in the recovery from 140 feet down in January, 2000. We can accept what he has published as fact, be skeptical that it may have elements of theatrics or disbelieve his statements as fiction. A legitimate question could be why the author would make a false claim such as this? Like any other article in a respected magazine, you hope they are not pulling someone's leg. Could wave action have moved an engine from a 10E from shore to over the reef edge? And I am not advocating searching underwater around Niku to find one, just a question of the physical capabilities of tropical wave action. Jim W. ******************************************************************* From Ric We know that objects off shore can be swept ashore by weather events that involve big waves. There are coral blocks as big as a garden shed and must weigh several thousand pounds that were broken off the reef face and flung up onto the reef flat at some time in the distant past. We see pieces of Norwich City hull plating that must weigh tons lying up against the beach a good quarter mile downstream of the wreck. If it is also the case that objects weighing several thousand pounds can be removed from the shore and taken out to sea then we have to consider an interesting new range of possibilities. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:39:07 EDT From: Russ Matthews Subject: Pelican Whaleboat << They had to be doing something for all that time >> Not necessarily. All we know is that the Pelican's whaleboat was "hoisted out" and "hoisted in." Nothing says that it went anywhere. Isn't it possible that the thing was simply tied up alongside the ship when not assisting the plane? LTM, Russ ******************************************************************* From Ric Sure. Good point. I wonder how we can figure this out. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:47:25 EDT From: Art Carty Subject: Re: G.V. Berger's visit to Gardner Is 1939 There was a tradition in the Navy called Officers' Admin Ashore (basically, the officers not on watch would go ashore and knock back a few; munchies provided by the officers' wardroom mess). When I was the junior officer on a Navy ship, I had the job of getting the booze ashore (from the nuclear weapons locker, no less!). I guarantee you that the launching of the motor launch was in the log but not the names of the officers and civilians on board who went ashore. Any possible relevance here? Was the PELICAN at anchor or underway? Art from Maine ********************************************************************* From Ric Neither really. She was "lying-to". There is no anchorage at most of these islands. the pattern seems to be that the ship arrives in the morning, hoists out the whaleboat and plane, and sometime during the day whatever administrators live on the island come out and visit the ship. It's possible (but not mentioned in the log) that an invitation to visit ashore is extended which is subsequently honored after the plane's mission has been accomplished and the aircraft is safely back aboard. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:58:08 EDT From: Denise Subject: OK! Maybe I could be wrong! If the Pelican visit was in 1939 and "the bones" were in 1941, I think I may have to take it back. There couldn't possibly have been a quiet word at the bar at any club anywhere - well, there may well have been, but not on this subject. (So annoying! Why'd there have to be such a serious flaw in what was shaping up into a very fine conspiracy theory?) But I'm still not backing down from my stand that reports would have been made. It may not be in the paper trail but I can't see it happening any other way. Thus the club scenerio is back on, (or, alternatively, a quiet little "this is what's happened; what shall we do about it" chat over an after-dinner cognac and cigars at someone's house.), but it's just happening at a later date ... and wouldn't have involved the Pelican visit. But you must admit, there are grounds for suspicion in those serious inconsistencies in the Berger Report; like not getting off the boat yet still being able to sprout that stuff about the spacing in the wing-thing or whatever it was. There is something definitely happening in there that we're not being told about. LTM (who didn't like flaws in her conspiracy theories) Denise ********************************************************************** From Ric Discrepancies in recollections do not a conspiracy make. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:19:24 EDT From: Emmett J. & Mary Lou Hoolihan Subject: Re: OK, LA TIGHARs Tom King; We'd be interested in being at your seminar Nov. 15. Keep us posted! Emmett J. & Mary Lou Hoolihan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:31:53 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: .30 carbine oilers, Gallagher's effects, and S-45 First off, every .30 carbine I've ever seen has it's own oiler. This is a small ( approx. 3/8" diameter x 3" long ) metal tube which fits into a recess in the side of the wood buttstock, and also serves as a "keeper" for the shoulder sling, a loop of which came through a hole in the stock from the side opposite the oiler. So, even if the tube had no oil in it, it had to be present if a sling was attached to the carbine. One might argue that the sling retaining oilers were empty, causing the Coasties to carry along oil in S-45's container, but anyone who's ever had to lug around military equipment on foot will tell you that the less stuff carried, the better, and why would you carry an extra oil can around if you had an empty oiler in the stock of your carbine. Transfer the oil from the can to the oiler in your stock, and voila, less stuff to carry. Even the "paratrooper" models of the .30 carbine, which had a metal frame folding buttstock had a slot in them for the oiler, though in that case, the sling was secured elsewhere. Angus tentatively ID'd S-45 as a lead sealing top for a can of Revelation Gun Oil yes? The .22 shell casings you found at the 7 site were marked with a letter F headstamp? Earlier this evening (Thursday, 08 August)at the gun shop where I work part time, I looked through a crate of old ammunition that someone found in grampa's basement and brought in for disposal. Among other not very interesting stuff, I came across a 1/2 full box of Revelation .22 ammo, which was marked with an F headstamp. Production by the Federal Cartridge Co. is likely, since the Revelation ammo was a product of the Western Auto Supply Co. of Kansas City, Mo. Any connection between Angus' discovery of a Revelation Gun Oil lead cap resembling S-45, and my find of Revelation .22 shells which appear to match those you found at the 7 site? I copied lot and product #'s off the box if needed. (even noted the Massachusetts ammunition tax stamp) Incidentally, we also recently took in (from a different source than the Revelation .22's) a nice old Colt Woodsman .22 semi-auto pistol, the serial # of which indicates that it was produced in 1940, which probably makes it too new to be Gallagher's. Do we have a serial # for Gallagher's Colt .22? Imagine my initial excitement at going to work and finding a Gallagher vintage Colt .22 and some Revelation (possibly same brand name as S-45) .22 ammo marked with the same F headstamp as the .22 cases you found on Niku. Before I got the story straight, I had visions of Gallagher's personal effects marooned on Tarawa at the outset of WW2, later liberated as war trophies by some G.I. whose hoplophobic baby-boomer offspring later brings it into the very shop where I work! I doubt that even Carol could come up with a more exciting script. LTM, who warned me about an over-active imagination Dave Porter, 2288 **************************************************************************** From Ric Not to spoil the plot but there were three .22 casings found on Niku. Two were marked with a P and the other was marked with a U. No Fs. We don't have a serial number for Gallagher's Colt. Angus Murray identified S-45 as a spout/closure of a particular type. He found a collector who had a can of Revelation gun oil that used that type of spout/closure with the same words and patent number cast into the closure that we see on S-45. However, the particular shape of the closure does not appear to be just like S-45 so it would seem that whatever type of product S-45 came from it was NOT that type of Revelation gun oil. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 09:54:38 EDT From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: OK, LA TIGHARs TOM KING--OK--Please put me on that list of people to keep advised of your speech/show in LA on Nov 15th... Looking forward to seeing the presentation at UCLA... Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 10:08:43 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Pelican Whaleboat I reinterviewed Gerald Berger again. He again reiterates he was in charge of the whaleboat that went into Gardner along with Cadet Officer Simonsen. Seven or eight others were with him; he also confirmed that the boat was a guard for the seaplane. He couldn't recall other names of the crew. He again "recalls" seeing natives, women, perhaps "30" or so. He had the impression they were waiting for a British supply ship to arrive. He said the Pelican didn;t anchor, but layed to off the Island during this time. Berger added that he went to the southern part of the atoll (unable to fix the point using Tighars Niku map) and he launched ping pong balls in order to see the speed and direction of the current for future AE searches. He describes "heavy scavola" underbrush that impeded the path. He said he would send me the photo of a native going up a coconut tree at Gardner and the photo of the natives at Gardner. I suppose we could authenticate them . Whether he went ashore or not doesn't seem that important now. No evidence of AE or the Electra was reported in what could have been a very cursory visit. His photo of Pedro aboard is confirmation that he was at least close by Gardner as confirmed by the log. Berger said that after the Pelican left Gardner they ended up at Rose Is. Note: Berger's memory is at best fragmentary and incomplete, and he readily admits those limitations of that voyage. I think that this is about as close as we can get to mining his recollections of Gardner. LTM Ron B ************************************************************************** From Ric The PELICAN's log lists an Aviation Cadet USNR C.D. Simonsen as being aboard. There was also another Aviation Cadet, W.D. Gaboury. The pilot of the Duck seems to have been Lieutenant C.H.B. Morrison of VP-4. The "Intelligence" officer aboard was the captain, Lieutenant H. J. Dyson, who was also the "Navigator". Those four seem to have been the only commissioned people aboard. On April 30, 1939 there were 23 people living on Gardner. The wives and children of the initial work party had just arrived two days before. I was not aware that ping pong balls were standard issue on seaplane tenders. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:37:03 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: OK, LA TIGHARs I appreciate the interest in my talk at UCLA. If everybody would just send me snail mail addresses, I'll make sure UCLA notifies you and not mess up the Forum with bipartite communications. LTM Tom King =============================================================================== Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:53:06 EDT From: Ric Subject: Forum doldrums The forum has been uncharacteristically quiet for the past week or so, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot going on. Numerous TIGHAR researchers are working on a variety of fascinating new leads and developments that simply aren't yet far enough along to "go public" with. In the meantime, we've put the entire Forum Archives on the website as downloadable text files that can then be searched with any conventional word processor. You'll find them at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Forum_Archives/archiveindex.html Everything is there all the way back to November 1997 when the forum began. The old Highlights are still up but the press of other work has made it impossible to keep them current so we've made the raw (on occasion very raw) files available. Because they're all now on-line you can, in theory, search for postings on any given subject using an internet search engine (such as Google) although it will take a while for the various search engines to get them indexed. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:25:57 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Forum doldrums I'm glad to be back! Glade to be anywhere!! Since the conclave meeting you had in Delaware, were any decisions made regarding a deep-water search? If this has already been discussed, blame it on my medication! Hope all is well with you & Pat. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ****************************************************************** From Ric Yes, we decided that it doesn't make any sense to spend a lot of money looking for a few things in a nightmare environment (the deep water) when, if our hypothesis is correct, there should be lots of stuff in a relatively cheap and easy to search environment (on land) if we can just identify the right place to look. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:27:38 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Forum doldrums > In the meantime, we've put the entire Forum Archives on the website as > downloadable text files that can then be searched with any conventional word > processor. You'll find them at > http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Forum_Archives/archiveindex.html Many thanks to you and Pat for the great work you've done with TIGHAR and the Forum. > ... we've made the raw (on occasion very raw) > files available. ... Let the reader beware! :o) Marty #2359 ======================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:31:09 EDT From: Pete Subject: Re: Forum doldrums Sounds like a perfect time for Ric and Pat to get in a little horseback riding. Winter is coming, take advantage of the slow forum and go relax a little. Pete #2419 ***************************************************************** From Ric It's a nice thought but we're actually busier than ever. Besides, with Delaware doing a pretty good impression of the Nefud desert right now there's precious little riding to be done. ======================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:33:30 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Forum doldrums Would the forum be interested in Gerald Berger's eyewitness account of the Luke field crash on 23 Mar 37 or in view of the Army investigation, it may be "OBE'd", that is overcome by events? His only contribution may be his speculation that when AE turned at the North end of the field on the grass, wet, that the right landing gear was damaged/weakened; and his speculation that the right propeller's problems later contributed to excessive fuel consumption in the second flight. As you know Berger's memory is somewhat suspect. Ron B. ********************************************************************* From Ric I'm sure the forum would like to hear what he had to say. We all understand (well, most of us anyway) that anecdote is anecdote. ======================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:40:33 EDT From: Warren Thomas Subject: Re: Forum doldrums Maybe I can help liven up the forum. If we still believe that one of AE's engines may of ended up on Canton (courtesy of Bruce Yoho)-I think that attempting to recover and identify the engine is the next logical step. While it does not conclusively connect AE to Gardner, it is a pretty convincing argument against a water landing. Perhaps it would also help direct money toward additional searching on Niku, since in many ways it aligns with the TIGHAR theory. Richard, your comments were instrumental in convincing me that this is a good direction-namely via. the Bob Ballard argument of only searing for items that are not really lost. It seems that in some respects-if we believe Bruce Yoho-this artifact is not really lost. It also seems that a delivery ship, a skidsteer (or backhoe) and a few archeological folks is not a tremendous financial undertaking. Maybe this has been discussed, beaten to death then dropped. If it has-well excuuuse meeee! Regards, Warren ********************************************************************** From Ric We'd feel better about expending further resources looking for the Canton Engine if we could find someone, anyone, who was on Canton at the time and remembers an engine being slung in from somewhere under a helicopter. Getting any kind of heavy digging equipment to Canton is a tremendous financial undertaking. For the same money we can put people on Niku where, we remain convinced, the conclusive answers are. ======================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:15:10 EDT From: Matt Mondro Subject: Re: Forum doldrums I know this has been all hashed over before. Whats the official stance on the crash photo? I was looking back on the tighar site at old research bulletins and it seems that there were a few positive things about the plane in that pic that were exciting. Like the circular hole in the wing metal on the crash photo that looks like the other pic of a 10a/e circular hole. Also the curved windshield bottom. Its missing an engine, bruce found one (supposedly). Id really like to see Tighar go look for that radial engine...... Matt Mondro Canton, MI *************************************************************************** From Ric The official stance on the Wreck Photo is that it looks a whole lot like a Lockheed 10 and if it's a Lockheed 10 we know that it's a big-engined Lockheed 10 which makes it either a C or an E. We also know that it was never involved in a crash (unbent prop) so - bottom line - if it's a 10 it almost has to be one of only ten possible airplanes (including NR16020). Based upon expert analysis of the vegetation, the photo could have been taken on Niku, but there is sure as heck no such wreck, or major remnants of such a wreck, on the island today (as far as we have been able to determine). If this picture was taken on Niku you have to say that the airplane was washed up on shore, photographed by somebody, and then washed BACK out to sea. That can happen, but as hypotheses go it's pretty complicated. LTM, Ric ======================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:16:40 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: USS Swan radio reception? Did the USS Swan AVP 7 receive any of AE's radio transmissions of 2 July 1937? Respectfully: Tom Strang *************************************************************************** From Ric Not that's mentioned in any of the reports. Swan was way up north. ======================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:22:29 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Wreck Photo If the Electra was dismantled on Gardner Island by natives, there should lots of rivets and debris for metal detectors to find. In the wreck photo there is a lot of things such a cables,and frame work half buried in the weeds and what ever is there for the plant life to grow in. Once plants have grown over an area it is much harder for anything that is embedded in them and the soil around them to wash off. Ron Berry ======================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:24:07 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Brown Spots Here and There I have something for the group. I'm watching the Travel Channel on the tube several weeks ago and Elgen Long is blasting away. It's been bugging me ever since. Here's the pitch: If Earhart and Noonan were south of Howland Island and Baker Island, they could have looked to the north and seen Howland and Baker as brown spots on a silver sea. Brown spots! Maybe someone needs a trip to the eye doctor. But the travel channel went to unusual lengths to show Howland and Baker as brown spots on a silver sea. So, according to Elgen Long, this proves they were north of Howland Island otherwise they would have seen the two brown spots and turned back. I thought, oh brother, this can't be. Would anyone like to comment? It's been bugging me for quite some time. Did anyone ever see brown spots in the middle of the blue Pacific with the hot tropical sun staring you in the face and a silver sea and haze off the ocean floating by underneath the plane? Alan and a few others, hope you're there. The only thing I ever heard about was dark shadows. I assume this is more Elgen Long imaginations. Carol Dow #2524 ======================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:28:22 EDT From: Ric Subject: OFF TOPIC - Bill Mauldin TIGHAR member Roger Kelley has asked that I post this to the forum. It is totally off-topic and we've never posted anything like this before and I certainly don't want to make a habit of it, but just this once.... >For those of you too young to >recognize the name: Bill Mauldin, who is now 80 years old, was the >finest and most beloved editorial cartoonist of World War II. An >enlisted man who drew for Stars and Stripes, he was the one who gave >the soldiers hope and sardonic smiles on the battlefields; Mauldin >knew their hearts because he was one of them. Using his dirty, >unshaven, bone-weary infantrymen characters Willie and Joe as his >vehicle, Mauldin let all those troops know there was someone who >understood. A Mauldin classic from World War II: an exhausted >infantryman standing in front of a table where medals were being >given out, saying: "Just gimme th' aspirin. I already got a Purple >Heart." > >Baby-faced and absolutely brilliant, Mauldin became a national >phenomenon. Talk about a boy wonder: By the time he was 23 years old >he had won a Pulitzer Prize, been featured on the cover of Time >magazine, and had the country's No. 1 best-selling book, "Up Front." >Yet he remained the unaffected, bedrock genuine, decent and open >guy ... his fellow soldiers loved him. > >And he stayed that way - right down to the baby face - all the way >into his 50s and beyond. I was brand-new in Chicago, 22 years old >and a beginning reporter, when I walked by the old Riccardo's >restaurant one night, and there was Mauldin having a drink at one of >the outside tables with his friend Mike Royko. Mauldin had seen me >around the hallways; he motioned me over and invited me to join >them. I sat down and tried to act as if this was nothing exceptional >at all, as I looked around me at the table and thought to myself: >You're six weeks out of Bexley, Ohio. That's Bill Mauldin. That's >Mike Royko. This is a dream. > >He was always so nice to me; he volunteered to write the foreword to >one of my first books. We sort of lost touch after he moved to the >Western part of the U.S. full time, and I guess that when I thought >of him it was still as the eternally boyish, eternally grinning, >eternally upbeat Mauldin. > >And then the message came the other day from the 3rd Infantry man. > >Bill Mauldin needs help. > >He suffered terrible burns in a household accident a while back; his >health has deteriorated grievously, and his cognitive functions are >barely working. He lives in a room in a nursing home in Orange >County, Calif., and sometimes days at a time go by without him >saying a word. He was married three times, but the last one ended in >divorce, and at 80 in the nursing home Mauldin is a single man. > >I spoke with members of his family; they said that, even though Bill >hardly communicates, the one thing that cheers him up is hearing >from World War II guys - the men for whom he drew those magnificent >cartoons. > >Which is not what you might expect. Mauldin was not one to hold on >to the past - he did not want to be categorized by the work he did >on the battlefields when he was in his 20s. He went on to have a >stellar career in journalism after the war, winning another Pulitzer >in 1959. Many Americans, and I'm one of them, consider the drawing >he did on deadline on the afternoon John F. Kennedy was >assassinated - the drawing of the Lincoln Memorial, head in hands, >weeping - to be the single greatest editorial cartoon in the history >of newspapers. > >But it's his World War II contemporaries he seems to need now. The >guys for whom - in the words of Mauldin's son David - Mauldin's >cartoons "were like water for men dying of thirst." David Mauldin >said his dad needs to hear that he meant something to those men. > >He needs visitors, and he needs cards of encouragement. I'm not >going to print the name of the nursing home, so that this can be >done in a disciplined and scheduled way. A newspaper colleague in >Southern California - Gordon Dillow - has done a wonderful job >organizing this, and he will take your cards to the nursing home. >You may send them to Bill Mauldin in care of Dillow at the Orange >County Register, 625 N. Grand Ave., Santa Ana, CA 92701. > >What would be even better, for those of you World War II veterans >who are reading these words in California, or who plan on traveling >there soon, would be if you could pay a visit to Mauldin just to sit >with him a while. You can let me know if you are willing to do this, >or you can let Gordon Dillow know. > >Bill Mauldin brought hope, and smiles in terrible hours, to millions >of his fellow soldiers. If you were one of them, and you'd like to >repay the favor, this would be the time. ======================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:05:52 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Kanton logistics!!! > We'd feel better about expending further resources looking for the Canton > Engine if we could find someone, anyone, who was on Canton at the time and > remembers an engine being slung in from somewhere under a helicopter. Agreed... > Getting any kind of heavy digging equipment to Canton is a tremendous > financial undertaking. For the same money we can put people on Niku where, I still quite disagree with this: it has to be much cheaper -even if a slow process. To begin with, the container-carrying Govt ship stops at the Kanton dock up to twice a month nowadays, on its twice a month round trip to Xmas Is. Cheers Christian D *************************************************************************** From Ric Whether or not it's twice a month, the Kiribati gov't ship does call at Kanton. So let's look at what would be involved in getting heavy digging equipment out there that way. 1. We'd have to decide what we mean by heavy digging equipment. When we were there in '98 they had a Kubota tractor that should accept a backhoe. That would seem the cheapest way to go. But does the Kubota still run, and how sure can we be that a backhoe can be installed? Communication with anybody on Kanton is next to impossible, but let's say we answered those questions and satisfied ourselves that a backhoe would work. 2. Next we'd have to buy the right backhoe and get it to where the gov't ship could pick it up - presumably Tarawa. I don't know what the expense would be but we're certainly talking several thousand dollars. 3. Next question - whose gonna do the dig? If we're going to send a crew - even if it's just one person - it means somebody who knows both how to install and operate a backhoe AND understands archeological and artifact preservation concerns and can be away from gainful employment for ( I would guess) at least a month, probably more, by the time you get to Tarawa (one flight from Fiji per week), hook up with the government ship, and make whatever rounds it makes before reaching Kanton. Is the ship going to wait while you get the backhoe working and do the dig? If not, you're stuck on Kanton until the next visit. There are no hotels or stores on Kanton. Maybe we just have the backhoe delivered and fly a team out later, as in '98. That trip cost $50,000 and we stayed for two nights. The inescapable bottom line is that for the money and hassle it would cost to further investigate a, so far, uncorroborated anecdote we're much better off focusing on the place where we have much more reason to believe consclusive evidnce is to be found. Ric ======================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:21:36 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Canton or Not Ric wrote: >We'd feel better about expending further resources looking >for the Canton Engine if we could find someone, anyone, who was on Canton >at the time and remembers an engine being slung in from somewhere under >a helicopter. I would like to expand on this thought a little bit as folks seem to be confused about this. We have spoke to former Canton workers who remember seeing the engine Bruce was working on sitting next to the shop. What we need is someone who remembers the slinging operation from an outer island to Canton. Without that further confirmation...the very real possibility exists that the engine was slung from somewhere on Canton's reef. Lots of airplanes crashed on, around and near Canton. The dump, which is now buried, where the engine was allegedly discarded, covers a large area. Digging it would take lots and lots of time and money. We need a lot more evidence before we pursue an object that, at this point, only exists as anecdote. LTM Kenton Spading ======================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:22:40 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Kanton logistics!!! I've always been intrigued by the so-called Canton engine too. I sort of agree with Christian that it is something that could be pursued but I can't find holes in your response to him. That kind of expense could not be justified even if the money was there. Sooooo, I'm anxious to read the next email from Christian telling you in detail how his theory could be accomplished for a tiny fraction of that and where the money would come from. Alan #2329 ======================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:25:21 EDT From: Denise Subject: A New Thread Since things seem to have quietened recently, perhaps it's time for a new thread to jazz things up a bit ... and may I offer those cryptic initials "B.U." in the "Bones File" as that thread. Someone who wasn't one of people known to have handled the file went through it and listed beside their "B.U." initials a possibly deliberately-obscured date. You must admit it's mysterious and is certainly something requiring more discussion. So, any suggestions who "B.U." could have been? Does it point to any name in this epic's vast list of characters? And if it doesn't, what other possibilities are suggested? Since Vaskass was known to be "The Prince of Bureaucrats" and a stickler for "things being done right", it has to be someone above-board. And since the bones discovery was being kept secret it had to be someone with a need-to-know status. Thus, whoever "B.U." is s/he would have to be someone who logically should have been allowed to see the files or it wouldn't have happened. Vaskass wouldn't have allowed it. So, those are the guidelines: it had to be someone with a need-to-know and, in addition, someone who logic dictates had to be told about it. So, who? what? when? why? As to the obscuring the actual date "B.U." handled the file, what was the point? Was it deliberate? Accidental? Just someone forgetful? Done at the time? Done later? In one handwriting? Two? Several different handwriting? Same pen? Different pens? This is the only part of this that stops me thinking we can rule out any shady dealings. It's a little too odd to be dismissed. I, for one, would love to find out more about those curious alterations and also to hear people's thoughts on the subject. LMT (who loved a good mystery) Denise ======================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:13:41 EDT From: Ed Subject: Re: A New Thread Perhaps, the letters "B.U." were not initials but rather were abbreviations for "Buried Unknown". LTM Ed of PSL #2415 ======================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:59:09 EDT From: Ric Subject: Research needed I'm writing the much-needed and long-awaited treatise on fuel. We'll publish it in a special issue of TIGHAR Tracks and, of course, put it on the website. Here's an excerpt from the introduction: -------------------------- Unless and until conclusively identifiable wreckage is found there is no way for anyone to know whether the airplane ran out of fuel near its intended destination or continued on for some period of time to some other location. However, sufficient technical and historical documentation exists to reliably establish the performance potential of the airplane for that particular flight within reasonable parameters. This paper will show that the documented capabilities of the Lockheed 10E Special and the known factors influencing the flight from Lae, New Guinea to the vicinity of Howland Island indicate that the aircraft should have had more than enough fuel to reach Gardner Island. We will also show that published calculations purporting to explain how and why the aircraft ran out fuel soon after the 08:43 transmission are mathematically incorrect. To know what could be expected of the Earhart Electra on that fateful flight we need four types of information: 1. We need to know the theoretical and demonstrated long range flight capabilities of the Lockheed Model 10E Special. 2. We need to have some idea of how skilled Amelia Earhart was at attaining the performance of which the machine was capable. 3. We need to know the airplane's fuel load and total weight when it began the journey. 4. We need to know what human and environmental factors influenced the progress of the flight. Some of the answers are known to a high degree of certainty and precision. Others are known only in broad outline which, necessarily, prevents us from reaching a specific conclusion about how long the airplane could have remained aloft. We do, however, have enough reliable information to draw an informed box around the problem. --------------------------------------------- An important part of the paper will, of course, be Lockheed Report 487 (recently brought to light by Alan Caldwell) and the excellent computational work done by Oscar Boswell. In addition to the theoretical maximum range performance calculations presented in the report, there were a number of practical demonstrations of the type's performance which should be instructive IF we can pin down the details. The flights in question are: - Earhart's March 17/18, 1937 flight from Oakland to Honolulu. - Dick Merrill's May 9/10, 1937 flight from New York to London in the other 10E Special, NR16059 "Daily Express". - Merrill's return flight on May13/14, 1937. The flight's of the Daily Express are especially interesting because each exceeded the distance from Lae to Howland to Gardner. Indeed, the return flight was made almost entirely in instrument conditions, against headwinds, and took 24 hours and 3 minutes. However, to understand just what happened on all three of these flights we need reliable details such as how much fuel they started with and how much they had left when they arrived. Pinning down those numbers for Earhart's Oakland/Hono flight is tough enough. Getting them for the Daily Express flights is proving even more difficult and I'm hoping that our historians on the forum can help me find sources that have so far eluded me. A Google search will quickly take you to Jack King's 1981 biography of Dick Merrill, but I've found that King's book is fairly unreliable and, in places, self-contradictory. TIME magazine articles from May 17 and May 24 are helpful but not detailed enough. I also have a photocopy of a short article from Aero Digest which appears to be from the June 1937 issue. There are also a couple of good paragraphs in the wonderful article about the Model 10 by Tom Emmert and Bill Larkins which appeared in the summer 1978 issue of the Journal of the American Aviation Historical Association. But we need more. Any help would be appreciated. LTM, Ric ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:05:08 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: A New Thread Ed of PSL wondered: <> If this is the case, then the poor old bones must have been dug up a bunch. I counted five entries for "B.U.". ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************* From Angus or Boston University or BaggeredUp? Laikim Long Mama Angus ****************************************************************** From Denise Ed of PSL #2415 says: "Perhaps, the letters "B.U." were not initials but rather were abbreviations for "Buried Unknown"." No, Ed, they wouldn't have been. The Prince of Bureaucrats liked people to put their initials on any file they went through, so they'd definitely be someone's initials. And I don't see him letting anyone out of his sight while they read this "so-secret" file, so he'd be looming and ensuring things were done right. As to who this could be, the deepest recesses of my mind are throwing up a name from childhood, a Brian Underwood, but I can't attach any information to it. Is there a Brian Underwood somewhere in this saga? If so, who is he? Would he be someone with a need-to-know? Or was he merely some childhood playmate who has been thankfully forgotten? The only two other possibilities my more logical mental recesses are throwing up must be rejected: 1) "P.U." bunked off to Britian when war clouds loomed in order to sign up to do his bit by joining the British Navy, so he wasn't around in this timeframe. 2) "L.U." said he knew nothing about the bones and he's a gentleman of unassailable integrity, so it's the truth and definitely not him. So, that's it. If it's not the forgettable Brian Underwood, then I'm stumped. I have to leave it to you guys! LTM (a "B.K." these days) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric We've never run across the name. This is really very silly. Note that all of the entries by "B.U." are purely administrative, never commentary. When I asked Foua Tofiga about it he explained that "B.U." are merely the initials of some minor functionary whose job it was to periodically review the "minutes" of the file and make sure things were properly logged in. We have plenty of mysteries to solve without manufacturing more. LTM, Ric ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:09:18 EDT From: Herman Subject: Re: Research needed You may remember that as a (retired) journalist I'm still working as a European correspondent for FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL (the British counterpart of Aviation Week). I've asked for assistance and they will have somebody dig into their 1937 archives and see what they published on those flights. With a bit of luck they may come up with something more technical than TIME or any other general information publication at that time. I'll keep you posted. Herman *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Herman. That's great. ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:18:27 EDT From: Ric Subject: Quantifying competence While we're looking for good data on the Daily Express flights, I'd like run some logic past the Forum about another aspect of the study. Does this make sense? --------------------------------- In recent years there has been much discussion about whether or not Amelia Earhart was a "good pilot," but debating the applicability of qualitative labels does not help discover her fate. To quantify Earhart's ability to derive from the aircraft the long-range performance of which it was capable we have to look at the available records of long distance flights she made in the 10E Special. And to be sure that it is AE's ability that we are quantifying, we can use only those flights on which she was the only pilot, which pretty much limits us to the second World Flight attempt. We must also make a necessarily arbitrary decision about what should be considered a long distance flight in a Model 10E Special. A fair measure of where "normal" flight operations leave off and special "long range" skills are needed is the point at which the airplane's takeoff weight exceeds the maximum allowed for operations in the "Standard" category. Any takeoff above that weight requires that the airplane be licensed to operate in the "Restricted" or "Experimental" category. In the case of the Standard Category Lockheed Model 10E, the Bureau of Air Commerce had set the maximum gross takeoff weight at 10,500 pounds. This was broken down as 7,100 pounds for the empty weight of the airplane (including radios) and 3,400 pounds of "useful load" (crew, passengers, baggage and gas). To permit higher takeoff weights the two Model 10E Specials - Earhart's NR16020 and the Daily Express NR16059 - were licensed in the Restricted Category as indicated by the "R" in their registration numbers. Unfortunately, we have no empty weight figure for the Daily Express and the latest actual empty weight figure we have for NR16020 - 7,265 pounds - dates from the fall of 1936 before many of the modifications were made to prepare the airplane for the World Flight. During the extensive repairs that followed the accident which ended the first World Flight attempt some of the aircraft's internal structure was strengthened and several equipment changes were made. The net effect of these changes on the aircraft's empty=20weight is not known so, rather than guess, we'll use the 1936 figure as a "ballpark", giving Earhart's Electra an estimated useful load of 3,235 pounds within the Standard category. If we allow a very conservative 400 pounds for two crew plus spares and baggage, we can say that any time the airplane was carrying more than 2, 835 pounds of fuel (about 473 gallons) it was "over-gross" and was engaged in a "long-distance" flight. For the Standard Category 10E, Lockheed advertised a rate of fuel consumption at 65% power of 56 gallons per hour (gph). At that rate 473 gallons would be adequate for a flight of about 8 and a half hours with no reserve. If we assume that Earhart planned at least a 20% reserve we can say that those legs of the World Flight that exceeded, say, seven hours duration required special long-distance flying skills. --------------------------------------------- LTM, Ric ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:09:51 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Brown Spots Here and There Carol, actually islands often show up as very light blue or bluish green. That's the shallow water around them but I've never seen a "brown spot" in the ocean - not to say no island could look that way. Don't get upset over anything Long says. He has created a scenerio designed to reach a predetermined conclusion and so everything must be bent to that order. Most folks find the conclusion last after all the evidence leads to it. Elgin's way is a lot better and quicker. It saves all that nasty scientific analysis, time and expense. Alan #2329 ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:17:25 EDT From: David Carmack Subject: Re: Research needed <<4. We need to know what human and environmental factors influenced the progress of the flight.>> Does environmental include mechanical factors? These would be impossible to know to without the aircraft or unless she alluded to problems in her transmissions, which I assume she did not? but, given the mechanical troubles she had at times with the plane I guess its possible there was something wrong mechanically at some point in the flight that she was unaware of or incapable of knowing while flying? also,I'm sure you addressed this before and I missed it ,but what about Longs contention in his book that the charts of the day were off by a few miles as to Howlands location? Is this true and how much bearing did it have? I think you are exactly right when you say there should be evidence on the island--you just have to find the right place to look for it. sounds like you have decided upon a good location for your next trip. good luck! david *********************************************************** From Ric We can't know the unknowable. The only known equipment problem during the Lae/Howland flight was with the radio but that would not effect fuel consumption. Similarly, whether or not they had the correct coordinates for Howland Island has no bearing on the question addressed by the paper. ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:35:12 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Research needed Ric postulated: "A fair measure of where "normal" flight operations leave off and special "long range" skills are needed is the point at which the airplane's takeoff weight exceeds the maximum allowed for operations in the "Standard" category. " Is it really that cut-and-dried? Weren't there some legs of the flight that were shorter and did not demand "long range" skills, and where she took-off under gross? If so, it would be hard to argue that AE was engaged in "normal" flight operations at those times. Ric further postulated: "If we assume that Earhart planned at least a 20% reserve we can say that those legs of the World Flight that exceeded, say, seven hours duration required special long-distance flying skills." Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but technically aren't long-distance flying skills limited to knowing how to stay on course, at altitude, and management of the fuel? The actual "flying skill" needed is not too great. What she needed was skill in navigation, skill in communications, skill in planning, and skill in survival, none of which were her forte it appears. She also needed stamina, physical conditioning, emotional strength, and mental acuity and agility -- none of which relate directly to flying skills-- all of which she demonstrated on various occasions. I thought the fuel starvation horse was pummeled beyond all recognition, cremated, and scattered to the four winds several months ago. Obviously I've missed something during my hiatus because I'm not too sure what we're trying to prove with this thread. We know how much gas she had on take-off; we know the general performance characteristics of the plane, we have vague reports of her enroute weather, we know the capabilities of the crew, and we have a fair estimation of the crew's attitudes and conditioning. So where are we headed here? LTM, who appears to be lost Dennis O. McGee #0149 *********************************************************************** From Ric I'm not flogging a dead horse, I'm building the monument over the tomb so that everyone - even Elgen Long and Nauticos - will have an opportunity to see who is buried there. This paper has been needed for a long time and I think we've finally reached a point where we have, or can find, sufficient documentation to write it and make it stick. As to your question about long-distance flying: The objective is to reach a supportable conclusion about how good Earhart was at flying the airplane under circumstances requiring special power/fuel management skills. We're not addressing her physical or emotional competence. I don't know any way to quantify those things. All I'm trying to do is figure out which legs of the World Flight we need to look at to see how well the airplane performed under her management. The fact of the matter is, most of the legs flown by Earhart and Noonan required no special fuel management. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:11:46 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Research needed Could you clarify exactly which piece of radio equipment that AE found to be inoperable before she took off from Lae? Thank you. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ******************************************************************** From Ric That's not what I said. I said: <> The problem is known to us. It wasn't known to AE until she got close to Howland. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:15:03 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Research needed In AE's last transmission, she was reported to have said "Wait" and nothing more is reported. Was that a transcription from Itasca's log or was it a voice recording? The reason I ask I have known two pilots who ran out of fuel. One successfully landed the aircraft and the other crash landed in the Mexican desert. Both pilots said it was a heart-stopping experience to see the prop stop. If AE's transmission of "Wait" was audio, was there any note of panic in her voice or was there any mention of panic in the Itasca log? Just curious as usual. LTM, (who only panics in the ER) Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************ From Ric It was heard in a voice transmission and written down in the Itasca radio log. Her voice was later characterized as rushed but not panicked. ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:17:15 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Research needed I think it's important to mention to the Forum as you indicated to me some time ago when I questioned AE's flying skills, that she is most accurately classified as a "stunt" pilot. Nothing more--nothing less, with no disrespect to her memory. LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************ From Ric Earhart made long flights for the publicity value. ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:23:03 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Static and Other Problems You raised a question about radio problems Lae to Howland, I can't remember any reports about radio problems with Earhart's Electra on any other portion of their trip. All of a sudden they arrive on the Howland scene, and the radio problems startup. I looked at the CD from the Navy reports, and they Navy remarked there was a lot of static in the area supposedly at the time Earhart was lost. So all the Japanese spy theories start buzzing around (all they need is one excuse), but that doesn't explain anything. In fact, it makes it worse. What about thunderstorms coming through as static on 3105 and 6210? There are some real radio experts on the Tighar network. What would thunderstorms do to 3105 and 6210? Maybe I had better copy off the Navy remarks about static in the area and post the results. My thinking is that Earhart would have had to have been fairly close to those storms before she would experience static on the airways. I don't know if I'm right or wrong (probably wrong). It bugs me, you might say. Possibly some of that switching around between frequencies was an attempt to get away from the static. I know, there was a scheduled change between daylight and nighttime hours. Also, I am finding (in somebody's book - I believe it was Goldstein & Dillon)) Earhart knew about counting 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 etc. which is standard procedure for establishing radio contacts. Where did all this whistling into the mike come from? It's crazy what was going on, especially the part where she broke a valid radio contact....and in the fix she was in. My God. So all the spy guru's are barking back....well, Earhart didn't want anyone to know where she was. I can't accept spy arguments. The Navy could have sent a PBY seaplane over the Marshall Islands anytime they were in the mood (refueled at sea) and the same thing applies to Saipan which is exceptionally close to Wake Island. By rights, you could apply the same line of thought to the Island of Truk (Fred Goerner's book). But lets go back to the first question. What would thunderstorm static do on 3105 and 6210? The Navy report is saying the Itasca could hear her but she couldn't hear them. Do I have a valid point? Hello to Alan Caldwell, thanks for the reply on the brown sports here and there. Carol Dow #2524 ******************************************************** From Ric I'd still like to hear from anyone who can provide a good source for data on the Merrill/Lambie flight. ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:40:49 EDT From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Research needed I was referring to an account of AE taking a short test-hop the morning of the Lae-Howland flight and it mentioned that AE noted some piece of radio equipment was inoperable & she elected to ignore it. LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************* From Ric She couldn't get the Radio Direction Finder (RDF) to work but she assumed it was because she was too close to the station. ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:59:47 EDT From: Pat Subject: Re: Static and Other Problems Wouldn't an ADF act as a thunderstorm detector? If she was flying towards an ADF type signal, if there were thunderstorms, wouldn't the needle swing towards the storm and the static could be heard over the speakers. I don't remember if there were actual thunderstorms... Just wanting to throw in two cents so that I can -- tah dah - sign off Pat #2538 (a new mother lover!) *************************************************************** From Ric She wasn't using an ADF and there was no needle to swing. She was using an RDF and had to manually turn the loop antenna to get an "aural null" or "minimum" to take a bearing. She was unable to do that. There is no indication that there were thunderstorms in the area and, at that hour of the morning, thunderstorms would be very unusual unless associated with a weather system, which does not seem to have been the case. ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:06:43 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Research needed Something else to think about - As you know, I postulate - based on exhaustive research - that Bendix provided RDF-1 HF/DF equipment for the Electra, most likely installed at Miami. "Conventional Wisdom" doesn't accept this; some experts even denying the Navy & Coast Guard ever used the high frequencies for direction finding. (WRONG, as I've proved emphatically). Still, such usage by Earhart serves to answer a series of nagging questions. They are: 1) Despite Putnam's attempts to convince the world of the enormous asset "The Flying Laboratory" was, why did a cloud of secrecy descend in Miami with regard to the radio/df gear installed? 2) Why did Amelia refuse the assistance of Pan Am and their well-established trans-ocean DF system? 3) Why did she knowingly jettison her 500 kc capability? 4) Why was she so vague (and misleading) when she described her DF equipment (and her available frequencies) to the ITASCA via an insecure radio circuit? 5) Why did she specifically request ITASCA transmit a homing signal on 7500 kc (which happened to coincide with the frequency range of the RDF-1)? 6) If that request was made in error, why did she so quickly acknowledge reception on that frequency? True, Amelia's technical knowledge was inadequate, but she was NOT an "air head". I think the best answer is that she was counting on her "wizard" still-classified RDF-1 to lead her straight to Howland. Unfortunately, she couldn't make it work. Cam Warren ******************************************************************** From Ric That's the great thing about the Earhart mystery. Everybody's got a theory. ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:08:45 EDT From: Dave Chase Subject: Re: Research needed You said "Earhart made long flights for the publicity value" I believe that is an accurate statement, but not complete picture of her flying skills. I had the opportunity a couple years ago to read alot of old newspaper clippings, both at the Purdue Earhart collection and elsewhere. We should not forget that over the years Earhart flew many hours all over the country both to her many speaking engagements (yes, she drove as well) as well as for pleasure and competition. This included landing at both airports and many a farmer's field. It was recognized by many of the 99's that Earhart was a bit of a PR hog but with her heart in the right place. And none of her female peers would have put in her the top ten list of best pilots. During the 30's (and apparently today!), there were those who characterized her as a stunt pilot because of the high profile "PR flights" she got lot's of $$$ and publicity for. What they really meant, of course, was that the flights were stunts or commercial enterprises. In NO WAY was Earhart a real 'stunt pilot'!!! (as you clearly know). Nonetheless, Earhart had many, many flight hours and to characterize her as a neophyte would hardly be accurate either. Not saying you do this, but others do have that impression. Her real problem as a pilot, IMHO, was that she clearly lacked discipline and had no patience for studying her trade. To her, it was a fun hobby that was dangerous enough to end her life at some point, which she acknowledged in her writings. But she was too busy raising $$$ to be the best at what she did, so she settled for 'just getting by'. Dave ======================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:13:50 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: New Thread (B.U.) Maybe we need to find out who B.U. might be. It has been my experience, personally--my secretary does NOT allow me to retrieve file or calendar appointments, that management generally has administrative assistants that are responsible for files (no--I will not call my secretary, or any other secretary, a "minor functionary"). If, as Foua Tofiga recalls, B.U. was a minor functionary who periodically reviewed the file, he, the functionary, might know how and where it was filed since he would have to retrieve and re-file. He might also know what happened to it. Do they have records of employment? ************************************************************** From Ric We saw, and copied, the Service List of WPHC officers but I don't recall seeing general employment records at Hanslope Park. In any event, there is no mystery about where the file is. We have it right here (copies anyway) and it's all on the website. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:50:00 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: New Thread (B.U.) I think Mike raises an interesting point. True, we know where the file is, but we don't know where its subjects went, and it's just conceivable (sure, a long shot, but we've had a few of those before) that B.U. just happens to know. Minor functionaries do sometimes keep track of odd things, and even wind up with odd things in their possession as government offices close down and move. That said, I don't have any hot ideas about how to find B.U., and although I wouldn't dismiss his relevance out of hand, I don't know how much effort it's worth investing in him. ************************************************************************** From Mike Muenich <> Sorry--mis-understood which file you were talking about. What about the "bones" file and the artifacts themselves? ************************************************************************ From Ric There are two "bones" files - one in Tarawa and one in England. We have them both and they're combined as the "Bones Chronology" on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html We don't know where the artifacts are. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:19:20 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Research needed > The fact of the matter > is, most of the legs flown by Earhart and Noonan required no special fuel > management. Special fuel management may have been necessary and/or have occured on many of those legs depending on how much fuel was aboard on each take off. If less than a full fuel load was taken on then it might have still been necessary to fly a good fuel management protocol. Secondly it might have been a good idea to practice such knowing the long leg would eventually come up. They certainly needed to know what fuel consumption they could get out of the plane before tackling Lae to Howland. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric A full fuel load on NR16020 was 1,151 gallons. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know the airplane never in its short lifetime took off with a full fuel load. The closest it ever came was on the Lae takeoff with 1,100 gallons. The second World Flight attempt was made up of 33 individual flights of which 24 were of less than 7 hours duration (18 were under 4 hours long). We don't know how much fuel was carried on each leg and it's possible that Earhart intentionally or accidentally shorted herself at some point, but there's no mention of such an event. It's also possible, and indeed likely, that she practiced good fuel economy on even the short legs. What we're looking for though are occasions where she had to demonstrate the kind of skills she would need on the Pacific flight. I would suggest that those occasions are the South Atlantic crossing from Dakar to St. Louis on June 7th (13 hrs 22 min.) and the flight from Assab to Karachi on June 15th (13 hours 20 min.). The next longest leg was the trip from Paramaribo to Fortaleza on June 4 (9 hours 20 min.). ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:28:16 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Research needed So that's your answer to the questions? "Everbody's got a theory"? If I didn't know you religiously followed the Scientific Method (somewhat like the Rhythm Method, I assume), I'd say your reply was a cop-out. Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric I feel no obligation to spend a lot of time refuting your speculations. We've been down this road several times and it's a dead end. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:30:03 EDT From: Tom King Subject: For Seattle-area TIGHARs If any Seattle-area TIGHARs are interested in setting up an illustrated lecture on The Quest, I'll be in the neighborhood September 12-24, teaching during the days but for the weekends and September 16-17, and evenings free. I've put this word out to our publisher, Rowman and Littlefield, to see if there's a bookstore that might want a signing of "Amelia Earhart's Shoes," but I'm afraid the book's getting a bit long in the tooth to be attractive for such events. I'll be spending a good deal of time with my kids in Redmond, but will be able to travel. If anyone's interested in setting up a talk, please contact me. LTM Tom ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:55:34 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Research needed > We've been down this road several times and it's a dead end. I know your time is exceptionably valuable, but could you briefly summarize just why you feel it's a dead end? True, I haven't found the smoking gun yet, but have accumulated a great deal of significant data supporting the theory. Remember, just because a suspect can't account for his whereabouts the night of the crime, doesn't mean he's off the hook. Cam Warren ******************************************************************** From Ric And absence of evidence is not proof of a cover-up, and correlation is not causation. <<1) Despite Putnam's attempts to convince the world of the enormous asset "The Flying Laboratory" was, why did a cloud of secrecy descend in Miami with regard to the radio/df gear installed?>> Cloud of secrecy? What cloud of secrecy? You think something happened but you can't find any evidence that it happened so a cloud of secrecy must have descended. <<2) Why did Amelia refuse the assistance of Pan Am and their well-established trans-ocean DF system?>> Assuming you can prove that it was offered, I can think of any nmber of reasons that the Putnam/Earhart Celebrity Machine would not want to use the PAA system. <<3) Why did she knowingly jettison her 500 kc capability?>> Because 500 Kcs was code-only and neither she nor Noonan was competent in morse. <<4) Why was she so vague (and misleading) when she described her DF equipment (and her available frequencies) to the ITASCA via an insecure radio circuit?>> Never ascribe to malice (or subterfuge) that which can be explained by mere incompetence. Insecure radio circuit? Of course it was an inseure radio circuit. It was a civilian stunt flight. <<5) Why did she specifically request ITASCA transmit a homing signal on 7500 kc (which happened to coincide with the frequency range of the RDF-1)?>> I don't know and neither do you, but the coincidence does not put an RDF-1 aboard the airplane. <<6) If that request was made in error, why did she so quickly acknowledge reception on that frequency?>> That frequency was also within the range of her Western Electric 20B receiver via her Bendix loop. She would be able to hear the signal but not home on it. Like I said, speculation about some mysterious second receiver is just a time waster. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:01:40 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Research needed Is it reasonable to presume that it wasn't that the RDF wasn't receiving, just that she couldn't get a null? My guess is, if it wasn't working at all, she would have gotten it fixed. After all, there is a documented history of numerous repairs that were made during the flight. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Ric That seems like a safe assumption. According to Chater: "At 6.35 a.m., July 1st, Miss Earhart carried out a 30 minute air test of the machine when two way telephone communication was established between the ground station at Lae and the plane. The Operator was requested to send a long dash while Miss Earhart endeavoured to get a minimum on her direction finder. On landing Miss Earhart informed us that she had been unable to obtain a minimum and that she considered this was because the Lae station was too powerful and too close." ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:09:50 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Artifact 2-6-S-45 I have observed a number of oil can cap/spouts since Angus's excellent work toward identifying artifact 2-6-S-45 (formerly called "The Knob"). There is no shortage of small oil cans with combination cap/spouts that are made of a lead-like material. I have found them on oil cans containing household oil, light machinery oil, gun oil and rust disolving oil to name a few. Some of the lead caps/spouts have patent numbers stamped or cast into them, some do not. I have run across two exammples with patent numbers as follows: 1. Brand Name: Varcon, Part No. 4-3990, Light Machinery Oil, 4 oz. The lead cap/spout has Patent No. 1,478,035. This can has an oval cross section. 2. Brand Name: Permatex, Part No. 68B, Solvo Rust, 3 oz. The lead cap/spout has Patent No. 1,891,826 which I note is one of the possible number combinations Glickman came up with as well as it matches the number Angus found on the Revelation Gun Oil cap/spout. This can has a rectangular cross section and the numbers are raised as opposed to stamped/recessed (on the lead cap). Clearly these types of oil cans contained many different types of oil. The empty cans make excellent targets for practicing with a rifle. For what it is worth, as was noted many years ago on this Forum, the existence of a patent number on an object does not disqualify it from being military/government issue. LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric The cap of the Solvo Rust can in particular sounds like it might be a good match to 2-6-S-45. We would very much like to get our hands on such a cap if only to document the identity of -45 as a cap of that type. At this point all we have is a very poor photo from a collector who has since sold the Revelation Gun Oil can. We'd be happy to pay whatever is reasonable. Could you put us in touch with the owner of the Permatex Solvo Rust can? ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:18:03 EDT From: Ric Subject: De-gibberishing I've been told that some of the recent posts have come through with a lot of corruption. I suspect that this is because I have cut and pasted text from Microsoft Word directly into my AOL email program. By the time is goes through the forum's Listserve distribution system it's garbage. I think I know how to fix it but I can't tell on this end how it will look on your screen, so we'll try a test. Please let me know if the following paragraph is garbled. -------------------------------------------- Millions of dollars have been spent, and there are plans to spend millions more, on hi-tech searches of the ocean floor near Howland. These efforts are based upon calculations that show how and why the aircraft ran out of fuel within moments of that last message. If the hypothesis and the numbers are correct, then finding the aircraft is a matter of defining and searching the area where it must have ditched and sank. Other millions have been spent searching Nikumaroro (formerly Gardner Island) some 350 nautical miles to the southeast. The obvious underlying assumption is that the airplane had enough gas to get there. Who is right? --------------------------------------------- Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:13:56 EDT From: Ric Subject: Re: De-gibberishing Sincere thanks to the 6,541 forum subscribers who confirmed that the de-gibberishing experiment was successful, but I'm just not sure there's much we can do for Cam Warren. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:30:30 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: oil can For those who may be unfamiliar with hunting, guns etc. there is a photo of what we think 2-6-S-45 looks like on ebay at http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1852076655. As I interpret this thread, 2-6-S-45 is the rounded piece between the spout and the can itself. LTM, who has too much time on her hands today Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *********************************************************************** From Ric In general, yes. The pictured item is similar. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:55:07 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Research needed As the old homily says; "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". For the record - not for your closed mind - I can just as easily pick apart your smug answers to the legitimate questions raised. A couple of examples: You deny any "cloud of secrecy" about electronic work performed at Miami. Are we to assume that you somehow possess documents detailing this work, and also have a verifiable list of the onboard equipment? (A pity you've never made this public). Maybe "a cloud of secrecy" bothers you - so I'll rephrase that as "a serious dearth of information". Even Amelia's close buddy, the highly respected Aviation Editor of the New York Herald Tribune, Carl Allen, was kept in the dark. You reply that Amelia jettisoned her 500 kc equipment because "neither she nor Noonan was competent in morse." Their lack of proficiency in Morse message sending/receiving may be true, but the principle reason for 500 kc was direction-finding. Both crew members were capable of identifying a long dash, or the letters "A" (dot-dash) or "N" (dash-dot). You get a "False" on that one. As for "speculation about some mysterious second receiver" we have the testimony of Joe Gurr, Capt. Al Gray (contemporary of Noonan), and the quite thorough report by Elgen Long, who had direct contact with the Bendix Project Engineer and other Bendix personnel, all of whom confirm the presence of an RA-1. (Of course you publicly deride Long, despite the fact he's been researching AE a great deal longer than you have, and has much better credentials for the job). You already have my synopsis of the HF/DF situation and, if you'll bother to take the time to read it, you'll find adequate source citations for all the facts stated. Cam Warren ********************************************************************* From Ric >>Even Amelia's close buddy, the highly respected Aviation Editor of the New York Herald Tribune, Carl Allen, was kept in the dark.<< Everybody who ever met Amelia became her "close buddy" after she disappeared. Did Carl Allen ever say that he tried to get information but was thwarted by a cloud of secrecy? When did the press ever publish detailed technical reports about the equipment aboard the airplane? I'm sure you've seen the interview that Amelia herself gave in Karachi during which she described each piece of radio equiment and where it was located. No mention of your mythical second receiver. No mention of such a thing in the check-out of radio equipment made in Lae and described in the Chater letter. <<..the principle reason for 500 kc was direction-finding.>> Where does AE say that? 500 kc was the international maritime distress frequency. If the plane sent a signal on 500 kc it would set off an alarm aboard any ship that could hear the signal. If someone then took a DF bearing on the transmission the only way they could communicate that bearing to the plane on 500 kc was in code - which AE and FN couldn't understand. I have seen your synopsis and your citations, and I understand the standards you use to draw conclusions. That's why I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:03:00 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: De-gibberishing for Cam Warren I really enjoy hearing everyone's opinion on the forum. I'm hoping Cam Warren stays on board, and he doesn't get discouraged. Sometime this weekend, I would like to type up that Navy report for everyone to see. It baffles me. At one point in the Navy report, they thought Earhart was as much as 281 miles north of Howland Island. Holy smokes. Now, don't you look at me, I didn't write the Navy report. Well, maybe we need something to talk about and pull us out of the summer doldrums. Carol Dow #2524 *********************************************************************** From Ric I don't know which Navy report you're referring to but the idea that the airplane was 281 miles north of Howland was the result of a message received by a Navy radio station in Hawaii. They heard fragments of poorly keyed code: "281 north Howland....call KHAQQ...beyond north....don't hold with us much longer....above water...shut off" This was interpreted as meaning that the plane was floating 281 north of Howland until Lockheed replied that if the plane was sending radio signals it had to be on land and able to operate the right-hand engine. Don't worry about Cam Warren getting discouraged. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:15:01 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: British press report In the Daily Telegraph Saturday 24th Aug: -------------------------------------- By Timothy Carroll (Filed: 24/08/2002) The mysterious disappearance of Amelia Earhart, the American aviator who vanished 65 years ago while trying to circumnavigate the globe, may soon be solved, thanks to new research carried out by a British historian. Roy Nesbit believes a simple navigational error may have been responsible for Earhart's disappearance over the Pacific on July 3, 1937 during the final stages of her pioneering flight. His calculations are being used by an American expedition that intends to complete its search for Earhart's twin-engined Lockheed Electra by the end of the year. Mr Nesbit, who also carried out research into the disappearance of the British pilot Amy Johnson, has concluded that Earhart failed to make landfall at Howland Island, her intended stopping-off point, because of an error made by her navigator, Fred Noonan. The last heard of her was a "broken and frenzied" radio transmission picked up around dawn by a US Coast Guard cutter sent to monitor her flight. Earhart had complained that she could not see Howland Island, even though she was sure it was nearby. She was 39 years old. American researchers have tended to conclude that Earhart was very close to the island when contact was lost, but Mr Nesbit believes she must have ditched or crashed 35 miles to the north west. The clue lies in two radio messages giving her position. In the first, at 6.14am, she placed herself 200 miles from Howland Island, but in a second, sent 31 minutes later, she was only 100 miles out. Mr Nesbit said: "What many American researchers have overlooked or not realised is the significance of the two messages that were recorded around about sunrise. "This revision of position provides a very important clue to the ultimate fate of the machine and its occupants. The aircraft could not possibly have covered 100 miles in 31 minutes, even allowing for rounding up of distances." Noonan, he explained, would have plotted his position by the stars until dawn, when he would have had to use the sun as a reference point. Marine navigators are trained to pinpoint the exact point at which the top, or upper limb, of the sun appears on the horizon. Mr Nesbit believes Noonan, who was trained as a marine navigator, miscalculated his position by forgetting to make a crucial adjustment for the "dip", the difference between a reading taken from the surface, and that taken from an altitude of 2,000ft. "I think he [Noonan] was exhausted after 18 hours of flying, and simply forgot,' said Mr Nesbit. "They were probably flying up and down a line looking for the island 35 miles west of where they thought they were." The American team considers his evidence so compelling that it is investing more than $2 million in searching the likely crash zone, a 30-mile-long and 17,000ft deep strip of ocean 35 miles north west of Howland Island. Dana Timmer, leader of the expedition, has completed the first half of his search with deep water sonar, at a cost of about $1.2 million. He has now raised the bulk of the $1.2 million needed to complete the second half. "We are confident that we have identified a narrow strip where Amelia's plane will be," said Mr Timmer. "It will be at the bottom of the ocean but the conditions there are such that it may be well preserved." Mr Nesbit, who has also investigated the disappearance of the aircraft carrying Glenn Miller, has little time for conspiracy theories of the kind that surrounded Earhart, relying instead on meticulous research. To aid him in his calculations, he used data from the Meteorological Office archive at Bracknell, Berks, and the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. Like Johnson, Earhart was a huge celebrity in her home country, the holder of numerous flying records. With her short, tousled hair she was regarded as something of a tomboy. Her last flight began on May 20, 1937 at Oakland, California, and took her around the world to New Guinea. On July 2 she took off for Howland Island, a tiny atoll more than 2,500 miles to the west. It was the longest and most dangerous leg of the journey. Following the Electra's disappearance the US Navy mounted a huge search operation, but to no effect. Conspiracy theories started almost as soon as her disappearance was announced, One had it that she had been killed or captured by the Japanese after using her flight to spy on their naval installations in the Pacific at the request of the US government. A second theory had it that Earhart and Noonan had ditched close to one of the Phoenix Islands and died as castaways. Earhart was born in Kansas in 1897, the daughter of a lawyer. She made her first flight in 1920 and eight years later became the first woman to fly the Atlantic, as a passenger on a flight organised by her future husband, the publisher George Putnam. The journey took 20 hours, 40 minutes to complete. She had completed two thirds of the circumnavigation, 22,000 miles, before going missing. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for that Phil. Noonan had been doing celestial navigation from airplanes for seven years and he "forgot" to correct for dip? And all of it is predicated upon the assumption that the must have gone down at sea. Well....all you can say is that shoveling millions of dollars into the Pacific helps stimulate the economy, and anything that keeps Amelia's name i n the spotlight is good for us. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:17:39 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Artifact 2-6-S-45 Kenton Spading writes: > The lead cap/spout has Patent No. 1,891,826 which I note is one of the > possible number combinations Glickman came up with as well as it matches > the number Angus found on the Revelation Gun Oil cap/spout. Is this actually as it appears or does it read "PATENTED : NO 1891826? If it is the latter, that is rather more significant. Regards Angus ***************************************************************** From Ric Good point. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 16:30:23 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Research needed > From Cam Warren > For the record - not for your closed mind - I can just as easily pick > apart your smug answers to the legitimate questions raised. Easily, yes. Convincingly, no. > You deny any "cloud of secrecy" about electronic work performed at Why, exactly, is it that conspiracy theorists are so easily convinced that a lack of information is equivalent to information being concealed? > Maybe "a cloud of secrecy" bothers you - so I'll rephrase that > as "a serious dearth of information". This is NOT "rephrased." This is an entirely different statement and illustrates the (retorical) question I asked above. The simple fact that you THINK it's just a different way to say the same thing shows the bias you're applying in interpreting the facts. LTM (who knows the difference between a fact and an opinion) Bill #2229 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:30:41 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: British press report No-one will find anything NW of Howland. Of that I am quite sure. It is astonishing that with all the research and information available from Tighar alone that anyone could come to that conclusion. It is even more astonishing that anyone could base a theory on a postulated error for which there is no evidence. Any error due to failing to account for dip would have to be calculated by Mr Nesbit knowing the height of the aircraft, which no-one does as we don't know when they started to descend or the rate of descent. Why suggest the error of failing to take dip into account when there are plenty of other navigational errors one can make? We don't know the actual speed of the aircraft or the drift. It would be necessary therefore for Mr Nesbit to invent some figures for these parameters to be able claim they tied in with the reports of approximate distances from Howland. I'd love to know where the figure of 2,000ft mentioned comes from. As has been discussed on the Forum, there are several possible reasons for the distance discrepancies, viz that the "100 miles out" was a comment by the Itasca radio operator, that the first (200 mile) estimate was based on incorrect DR from a much earlier fix due to varying wind vector, subsequently corrected, that one or both sights (if thats what the distances represented) were in error due to poor weather conditions etc. However tired Noonan was, I don't believe he would have failed to notice that they had apparently travelled 100 nm in 1/2 hr. The platen misalignment makes an added comment the most likely explanation. It is also astonishing that anyone would be prepared to spend $2,000,000 to check this totally unsubstantiated idea out. I do however think that there is a real possibilty that a substantial navigational error of some sort was made but I don't mean in relation to the 200m/100m discrepancy. Experienced navigators have made such errors on plenty of occasions. Perhaps those aerial navigators on the forum could list the more commonly made errors in navigation in descending order of likelihood. Regards Angus ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:53:26 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Research needed I'm in the dark here. Was there an atmosphere of secrecy regarding Earhart's radio equipment? Did she intentionally choose not to talk about the electronics or it wasn't a big deal to the reporters who were present? *************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I can tell Earhart talked freely about her radios and the newspaper articles from her time in Miami do describe work being done by Pan American. There's no talk about a new Bendix HF/DF and I've seen no press from the time decribing any secrecy about her radios. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:54:19 EDT From: Suzanne Subject: Re: Artifact 2-6-S-45 Kenton Spading wrote: >There is no shortage of small oil cans with combination cap/spouts that are >made of a lead-like material. Yes, here's more: vintage HOUSEHOLD OIL tin LEAD TOP OUTERS GUN http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2132583106 Rare WINCHESTER GUN Oil Can OLD Nice 3 oz http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1851752652 these photos show a raised patent number 47 items found for; Gun Oil -painting -paintball (to filter an item OUT of an eBay search, you put a minus sign in front of the word) http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&query=Gun+O il+-painting+-paintball&ht=1&itemtimedisp=1&st=2&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&BasicSearch ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:01:15 EDT From: Suzanne Subject: Re: De-gibberishing It's not "gibberish" that comes thru, but it's a font incompatibility between Apple and PC. It's not corruption from the listserve. It happens when you use quotation marks. On PCs, your quotation marks show up as 3 strange characters. It's always consistently those same 3 characters, but I don't have that particular post anymore. The PCs substitute the keystrokes, which on the Apple are the quotation mark. So, if it looked like "Earhart" to you, it looked like something like @&3Earhart@&3 to PC users. It does not happen on other text. It might be the "smart quotes" or "curly quotes" in Microsoft. If you use "straight quotes" all is fine. Your test paragraph did not contain quotation marks. I think there is an option in Word to disable the "smart" quotes. Suzanne ********************************************************************** From Ric We're really talking about two separate problems. I find that if I cut and paste directly from Word at least some people get a lot of extraneous stuff where formating and apostrophes and quotes are translated as various characters. To solve that problem I simply convert the Word document to Simple Text before I cut and paste. There may well be a "smart quotes" incompatibility between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates but the quotation marks I just used above appear to be straight ones. How do they look on your end? Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:03:17 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Research needed (ongoing) I haven't the slightest intention nor desire to engage in a fruitless argument with you, nor do I wish to encourage you to "waste any more time arguing" with me. I have attempted to encourage you to rethink your apparent refusal to consider some valid information that differs from conventional Earhart wisdom. You say: "Everybody who ever met Amelia became her 'close buddy' . . ." which obviously reveals your lack of research into the life and times of Mr. Allen, for whom Earhart got the job at the Herald-Trib. No doubt Mr. Allen was aware of - or had reason to suspect - that there was secrecy involved when it came to the DF installation. Post-crash, he also wrote a long article primarily blaming her choice to jettison the trailing wire antenna (and therefore 500 kc direction finding and communication) for the failure of the flight. I seem to recall several articles in the press describing the equipment aboard the Electra, ALL before Miami. As for her description (in LAST FLIGHT) she mentions "the receiver for the Western Electric radio" AND her "Bendix Direction Finder", which - if that was the RDF-1 equipment as I suspect - included the RA-1 receiver. You would like to believe the "Bendix Direction Finder" was merely a Bendix loop and coupler, used with the WE radio. This is theoretically possible, but why mix the two brands, when WE made a perfectly good DF loop attachment which didn't even require the coupler? Since I don't have the time I can't go into all the technical ramifications, but suffice to say an RDF-1/RA-1 installation would make more sense AND IT COULD RECEIVE ON 7500 kc! (Which of course it did, although an inadequately trained Amelia couldn't get a null). I'm well aware of the usage of 500 kc as an international distress frequency, and the employment of Auto-Alarm equipment. Apparently this is a weak point in your education, as indicated by your remark that "If someone then took a bearing on the [500 kc] transmission the only way they could communicate that bearing to the plane on 500 kc was in code . . . ." Do you really want to go on record in making that obviously incorrect statement? Certainly you should know that "someone" (like the ITASCA) could transmit the bearing information back to Amelia on a voice channel. Like, say, 3105. All of this information exists at one place or another in the various archives; you could look it up. But if you wish to maintain a closed mind, please feel free to do so. I provide this information, and correct your misinformation, for the benefit of the 6451 (?) Forum subscribers, who often have demonstrated an ability to think for themselves. My best to mother, who wishes her son had paid more attention in school. Sincerely, Cam Warren ************************************************************************ From Ric Thank you. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:05:06 EDT From: Don Robinson Subject: AE's piloting skills Mike Haddock recently questioned AE's flying skills. I too have wondered about that, and wonder if someone can give me some light on the subject. We all know she was out to set records and make long flights. GP had a lot to do with that I think. I remember seeing a documentary on TV that showed her landing the Vega and porpoised halfway down the runway before gaining control.We all make bad landings sometimes, But really! Don Robinson ******************************************************************* From Ric I think the record speaks for itself. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:13:25 EDT From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Research needed Cam Warren wrote: << Of course you [Ric Gillespie] publicly deride Long, despite the fact he's been researching AE a great deal longer than you have, and has much better credentials for the job. >> These are two of the most common complaints leveled by TIGHAR's critics -- insisting that we should all accord greater respect to a someone's conclusions simply based on how long they've been at it and what they did before they started. You know, my brother has been playing golf a great deal longer than Tiger Woods, but for some reason they still gave that other guy the Green Jacket at the Masters. And what about poor Zsa Zsa Gabor? She's been acting longer than Julia Roberts and Halle Berry combined, but those two young upstarts both have Oscars and Zsa Zsa has none! I could dig a hole in my backyard looking for Blackbeard's treasure and I won't be any more right fifty years from now than I was when I started. The point is, it doesn't matter how long you've been doing something -- what matters is doing it WELL. Don't get me wrong. I (and many others here) have great respect for Elgen Long's accomplishments in aviation and his dedication to solving the Earhart mystery. However, his pilot's license does not qualify him to be a historian any more than my History degree qualifies me to fly a plane. Ric Gillespie, I should like to point out, holds both (and was an aircraft accident investigator to boot). Regardless, the TIGHAR Earhart Forum encourages, even welcomes, well reasoned debate about the research presented here -- but, it has to stand on its own merits. LTM, Russ ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:16:04 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: The DF that didn't You'd think she would try it again while flying away from Lae and if she still couldn't get a null that she would return to have it checked out. Is there any evidence that she attempted to test it again after leaving Lae? gl ************************************************************ From Ric Yeah, the next morning as she approached Howland. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:21:08 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Research needed I've read that the development of HF/DF, high frequency direction finding, also called "huff duff", was a major secret development during WW 2 which allowed us to hunt down U-boats. I didn't believe that it was developed before the war and so would not have been available to AE in 1937. Any info about this? gl ************************************************************************* From Ric There was apparently some work being done on an experimental basis as early as 1937. There was a high-frequency DF borrowed from the Navy that was set up on Howland. It seems to have been experimental but there is no indication that it was classified. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:25:24 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Records of fuel Isn't there some record of the fuel taken aboard at the different stops? somebody must have been paying for the fuel so you would think there would be some records. With that info we could determine a range of fuel consumption rates flown by NR16020. gl ************************************************************************* From Ric That information is, unfortunately, very spotty and limited to comments AE made in her press releases and the very occasional fuel receipt sent home with other papers during the trip. For all the talk about a Flying Laboratory and research into long distance flying, Earhart's World Flight was basically a sight-seeing tour. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:44:18 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: AE's skills Some of the better known hazards of early aviation included marginally safe aircraft, poor engine reliability, inadequate landing strips, few, if any, navigation aides, questionable quality of available fuels, lack of standardized safe-flying procedures, and minimum oversight of the entire aviation field. Earlier TIGHAR research showed that AE pranged several perfectly good airplanes during her career. Consequently the general accepted verdict is that she lacked good flying skills. In the context of her times (1920s and 30s) and the nature of her work (record-setting) how would she compare to other pilots of that era? LTM, who is prangless -- so far Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Poor. Airplanes and flying have always been very expensive and that was especially true during the Depression. The reason Earhart was able to keep flying despite her mishaps was her ability to generate money as a celebrity - and that's the key, in my opinion, to understanding Earhart's career. She was not an "aviation pioneer", she was a professional aviation celebrity. The flights she made and the records she set did not break new ground. They were chosen purely for their publicity value. Earhart does not even seem to have been particularly interested in becoming a better pilot. Mantz complained that she wouldn't take time away from her personal appearance schedule to practice her flying skills. She barely passed the Instrument Flying test the Bureau of Air Commerce insisted that she take before trying the World Flight but she ducked the Radio Navigation test, saying it would put too much time on her engines. Ironically, it was her failure of a later radio navigation test that killed her. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:48:13 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Research needed In his excellent comment, with which I agree entirely, Russ Mathews says (regarding pilot's licenses and such): "Ric Gillespie, I should like to point out, holds both (and was an aircraft accident investigator to boot)." I'd just like to add that despite efforts by many of TIGHAR's critics (and implicitly, sometimes, by Ric) to portray TIGHAR's AE search as a match-up between Ric Gillespie and his detractors, TIGHAR does have a few other minds involved in the work, with a rather wide variety of credentials -- including the ability, gained through education in critical thinking in any of a number of non-piloting disciplines, to distinguish among fact, plausible deduction, and speculation. Collectively, I think we've got a leg up (in both the ladder-climbing and canine senses) on Mr. Long and his supporters. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:04:22 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: Kanton logistics (and "curve balls") Kenton writes: > The dump, which is now buried, where the engine > was allegedly discarded, covers a large area. Digging it would take lots > and lots of time and money. The "large" area is relative: when we discussed this same topic a couple years ago on the forum, Ric had estimated a number for the size of that one bulldozed trench... I suppose it is somewhere on my hard drive... I vaguely recall it was in the order of 50 ft long. I had guessed we might be talking about 30-50 cu.yards. Not really that huge when you have lotsa time. By the way: what is wrong with "lots and lots of time"? How old is this project -so far? I-Kiribati still dig their garden pits by hand -slowly! They do it in ground which has been compacted for milleniums. The dump on Kanton is "fresh", and I'd guess less hard to dig than the garden pits. The steel junk might slow things down a bit, but at the same time, with come-along's and winches, big chunks can be cleared at one shot. Truck frames and such could even cover voids, which would speed things along. How about some hard number? For lack of volunteers, I'll be the first one to come up with a wild guess: 5 man-days per cu.yd???? A starting point anyways... Any very old timer on the Forum with first hand experience in pick and shovel work? (This being the 3rd millennium of the very advanced First-World.........) >From Alan Caldwell >Ric, I've always been intrigued by the so-called Canton engine too. I sort of >agree with Christian that it is something that could be pursued but I can't >find holes in your response to him. That kind of expense could not be >justified even if the money was there. Sooooo, I'm anxious to read the next >email from Christian telling you in detail how his theory could be> >accomplished for a tiny fraction of that and where the money would come from. No, Alan, I do not have any "theory", fully cooked, and ready to eat. Just trying to see what other options there is, given the few things I know about the area. There is always more than one way to skin a beast. Again: who is going to venture and put a hard number on "that kind of expense"????? When commenting on my post, Ric threw the 50kilobucks figure of the 1998 "let's have a quick look-see" expedition: but that illustrates the perfect opposite of my point!!!! Instead of spending piles of funds that Tighar hardly has, let trade in time. Not everybody wants to be always tied to a hard-scheduled job... There is this thing I'm not sure how to spell: "sabbatical"... Also volunteers, and students (of archeology?). And non-first-world labor. So, using public transportion to Kanton would be quite cheap, and quite slow. A different trade off. Not better or worse per se. The ship cost would be insignificant; flying from HNL would be in between. My understanding is that the ship stops at Kanton when outbound, so going to Kanton one would face the trouble of flying to Tarawa. Coming back would be easy: the ship now docks at the brand new Xmas pier; with a weekly flight to HNL. There is a possibility of getting the ship to stop at Kanton a second time, when on its way home, but not sure of the conditions and cost. And Ric is optimistic: I'd plan on 2 months or more! So 2 months of time per head plus -say 4 grands return trip from HNL? Ocean freight for the small Kubota implement should cost more time and headaches than cash to Tighar. The impatient forumites can line up at the plate with more cash and use the all-freight Boeing 737 to Xmas: off the top of my head, it takes up to 4x4x10feet, at $1 a kg or whatever. Saves on ocean shipping to Tarawa via Oz and Mars (Ok, ok, not sure about Mars!) Here too one would be wise to weigh the trade offs between the overall cost of heavy equipment and the overall cost of elbow grease. So let's try another curve ball: the forum needs awakening, I understand! What if some local I-Kiribati entrepreneur was willing to contract the digging of that trench???? No sweat off Tighar's back. Just "some" cost... Again who is first in throwing some hard figures??? Any volunteer? Labor on Xmas is approx U$10 a day. Not much labor to be had on Kanton. The contractor would have to come over with say 3 men. Throw in food and lodging, hand tools, hand winches and chain saws with the cutting bar replaced with a logger winch, transportion, shade tarps, bicycles, etc... And what do we arrive at??????? Another wild, semi-educated guess: total 10 grands? 20 grands??? Seems in the ballpark to me. Now for the part I do not know: is this at last affordable to Tighar? I don't have 1st hand knowledge of the engine story, so I won't step on this... By the way, having seen the widespread ground disturbance on Kanton, and knowing a few years had passed between when Bruce saw his engine for the last time, and the time when everything got bulldozed under, I always thought there was "some" chance the engine had been moved in the meantime, and could have ended some other place... Why was the 1998 expedition rather positive they had the right trench? So, Alan: do you have better estimates for the "tiny fraction"? Is my estimated cost worth the gamble in your opinion? So: for where the money would come from: not a clue... Just: same as always, I reckon? My personnal background is electronics and surveying; I firmly believe Ric is much better than I at fund raising! There is other questions of course: for ex, is supervising required? Tom had said that in the case of that engine, not too much archeological skill is a real must; I don't know... That engine is certainly quite different from what it was like, in the Niku waters, in AE's era. Put up with Bruce's proding. Spent years in the sun, years in the ground; suffered the assaults of a dozer blade... Tom: is a few fresh pick marks a major impediment? Let's put in the contract a small bonus, if the engine is left half-buried, undisturbed, once identified -whatever... As they say: tirez les premiers, messieurs les anglais! Have fun Christian D *********************************************************************** From Ric 10 grand? 20 grand? No big deal, right? After all, good ol' Ric has raised - what? - something over 2 million over the past 14 years. Let me explain something to you about fund raising. I don't know how it works for others, but I know that I can't raise a nickle for something I don't believe is worth doing and, based on the information available right now, I don't think that digging holes in the ground on Kanton is worth doing. I'm not opposed to the idea of somebody doing it and TIGHAR would help support such an effort so long as it didn't require expending much time or money, but I do not believe that it is the direction TIGHAR's investigation should be going at this time. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:21:34 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Research needed Attention Gary LaPook and "Lawrence" A couple of years back, I submitted a summary of my findings re HF/DF to the Forum, where it met the usual reaction. (Derision by a faithful few, and "put downs" in Ric's inimitable style). I doubt that it was included in the Forum archives, but you might find it buried somewhere. It would answer the questions raised by both of you. But very briefly, HF/DF experiments and installations began in the early thirties, primarily by the U.S. Coast Guard, as an effective weapon against "rum-runners" (the popular name for liquor smugglers during Prohibition, who used speedy power boats for transport). On October 1, 1936, the Navy Department issued a requisition (#770) to Radio Research Labs (which later became a part of Bendix Radio) for 150 RDF-1A HF/DF systems for installation in PBY patrol aircraft. The contract was RESTRICTED (changed to "Confidential" November 1, 1937, AFTER the Earhart flight). I have ample reason to believe that one of Earhart's loyal supporters, Vincent Bendix, made a production model (or a prototype) RDF system available to her, "bending the rules" in her behalf. This alone would "seal Amelia's lips" in conversations with the press at Miami. Not surprisingly, there was NO publicity about any radio and/or DF equipment aboard the Electra at that point, except Amelia's vague reference to her "Bendix Direction Finder" in her posthumously published book, LAST FLIGHT. Much later, L. A. Hyland, at the time president of Radio Research. and later with Hughes Aircraft, denied there was ANY Bendix gear aboard the Electra. (Makes you wonder, he probably would have crowed loudly had she made it to Howland using his DF!) The National Archives, the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum and similar sources, claim they have no files on HF/DF. Since I had acquired - thanks to Elgen Long - one of the Navy Contract Numbers, I was able to track down a voluminous (350+ pages) correspondence file in Record Group 42 in the Archives, which provided the facts quoted above. There were NO technical details, but much later, via the Forum, Hue Miller turned up a copy of an 1936 instruction book, covering - among other equipment - the RDF-1. As I suspected, the frequency range of the loop and coupler extended to 8 megacycles. So Earhart's request for a homing signal on 7.5 megacycles (7,500 kc) was no coincidence. Additional verification re the Navy's pre-war interest in HF/DF can be found in the lengthy document "Special Report History" (SRH-355) covering the years 1936-1937. It was originally stamped SECRET. Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric I'll be happy to forward Cam's study entitled Hypothesis - Earhart's "Secret Mission" to anybody who wants to see it. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:22:51 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Artifact 2-6-S-45 I wrote: >The lead cap/spout [Permatex Solvo Rust] has Patent No. 1,891,826 which I note >is one of the possible number combinations Glickman came up with as well >as it matches the number Angus found on the Revelation Gun Oil cap/spout. Angus Murray asked: >Is this actually as it appears or does it read >"PATENTED : NO 1891826? If it is the latter, that is rather more significant. I am not able to comment on these details or whether or not it is the correct size, shape etc. I will dig out my source for the oil can in question and pass it on to Ric off-Forum (the can is for sale). LTM Kenton Spading ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:32:03 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: The DF that didn't Somehow I've missed or forgotten the significance of the radio equipment on the Electra when AE left Miami. Is it just curiosity? If a radio failed what difference is it who made it? There are too many unknown factors to use brand names to guess what a radio's range was in 1937 for whatever significance that would be. I hope no one is still trying to claim the Electra was a thousand miles off what we know was her course and transmitting as though she was somewhere else. No one has ever been able to rationally support that ridiculous contention with reasonable support. Alan #2329 ********************************************************************* From Ric Of course, knowing what radio equipment was aboard the airplane does not help find it. There is, however, a natural desire to try to understand what went wrong and, particularly, why AE asked for signals on 7500 kcs - a frequency far too high for DFing on the equipment she said she had. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:38:33 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Record of the fuel taken aboard > From Ric > > For all the talk about a Flying > Laboratory and research into long distance flying, Earhart's World Flight > was basically a sight-seeing tour. I think I recall that Earhart herself referred to it as "Around The World - Just For Fun" in last Flight or another source I read... or some words very similar to that. Th' WOMBAT *********************************************************************** From Ric You may be confusing it with her 1932 book "The Fun Of It". Amelia often downplayed her accomplishments as adding nothing to the advancement of aviation. She was right, but her self-effacing persona only enhanced her image. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:47:44 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Research needed I confess I have skimmed through some of these postings and so the difficulty I'm having in understanding them should not be construed as an opposition to anyone's point of view. Perhaps because of my current vocation and past flying experience I'm used to more specific support than I'm seeing. For example I can't understand the suggestion of some conspiracy in the installation of radio equipment. I see none nor do I see a possible reason. The fact that we may not know now what was done in 1937 doesn't suggest secrecy. If two different brands of equipment was used it could have easily been because that's what they had on hand or any number of other reasons. What would be the significance anyway? Only in 2002 is there some curiosity. Who would have cared in 1937? I've missed Elgin Long's great credentials and accomplishments. I thought he was just an ex airline pilot. I apologize to Elgin. I certainly would not malign someone or their credentials and accomplishments. I just don't know what they are. Someone fill me in. Just those that are relevant to aircraft accident, search and recovery, however. Hopefully we aren't suggesting passage of time, years of flying and a lengthy interest in AE are credentials. My only problem with Elgin was his apparent attempt to support an arbitrary conclusion based on almost completely erroneous, misinterpreted and unknown data. If there is specific information on the Electra's radios that someone knows we can just "look up" I, for one, would certainly appreciate that person or any person telling us what it is. Tacky comments don't move the ball forward. Alan #2329 **************************************************************** From Ric Sometime back in the late '60s ( I think) Elgen flew a Piper Navajo around the world solo over both poles. He is the only person to have done so and, as far as I know, the only person to have tried. The Western Electric radios installed in NR16020 can be looked up in original paperwork reproduced in "Amelia My Courageous Sister" by Muriel Morrissey and Carol Osborne. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:59:34 EDT From: Alan Subject: "Wait" > In AE's last transmission, she was reported to have said "Wait" and nothing > more is reported. When I started in the service we used "wait" like a period at the end of a transmission. Sort of like saying "I'm done and waiting or standing by on freq for your response." Does no one remember that? **************************************************************** From Ric "Wait" is not the last thing she is reported to have said anyway. Her 08:43 transmission consisted of: "KHAQQ TO ITASCA. WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337. WILL REPEAT MESSAGE. WE WILL REPEAT THIS ON 6210 KILOCYCLES. WAIT." There were apparently a few seconds of silence and then something that was written down as: "WE ARE RUNNING ON NORTH AND SOUTH LINE." If I had to guess, my interpretation of "wait" would be - I know I just told you that I'm changing frequencies but wait just a second because Fred is trying to tell me something. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:00:33 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Static and Other Problems > My thinking is that > Earhart would have had to have been fairly close to those storms before she > would experience static on the airways. Carol How do you know she experienced static? It was the Navy that remarked about static you say. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:17:12 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Kanton logistics (and "curve balls") > ... I can't raise a nickle for something I don't believe is worth > doing and, based on the information available right now, I don't think that > digging holes in the ground on Kanton is worth doing. I agree. To my mind, even if there is a radial engine buried on Kanton, I don't see that it is necessarily from N16020. It could be American or Japanese. Even if it were AE and FN's engine, it wouldn't help solve the riddle of where they landed because the guy who says he found it really doesn't have a definitive memory of where he got it from. LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************* From Ric Of course, an Earhart engine on Kanton would kill the Crashed & Sank theory but that would require that a serial number be present and legible. Bruce Yoho saw no data plate so that means trying to retrieve a serial number from the crankshaft and then trying to find P&W records for what cranks were in Earhart's engines, if such records even exist. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:35:45 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Pole-to-Pole > Sometime back in the late '60s ( I think) Elgen flew a Piper Navajo around > the world solo over both poles. He is the only person to have done so and, > as far as I know, the only person to have tried. As I recall, Max Conrad also tried. Oscar ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:48:07 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: "Wait" > "Wait" is not the last thing she is reported to have said anyway. Her 08:43 > transmission consisted of: > > "KHAQQ TO ITASCA. WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337. WILL REPEAT MESSAGE. WE WILL > REPEAT THIS ON 6210 KILOCYCLES. WAIT." > > There were apparently a few seconds of silence and then something that was > written down as: > > "WE ARE RUNNING ON NORTH AND SOUTH LINE." > > If I had to guess, my interpretation of "wait" would be - I know I just told > you that I'm changing frequencies but wait just a second because Fred is > trying to tell me something. Now I'm confused. What about "Listening on 6210"? Do you interpret that as spurious, as part of AE's message, or as a radioman's note? And if it is a radioman's note, wouldn't "wait" be part of it - "Wait. Listening on 6210[on which we heard] We are running North and South"? Oscar Boswell ********************************************************************** From Ric "LSNIN 6210 KCS" (Listening on 6210 kilocycles) appears on the next line down and is (at least in my opinion) clearly the radio operator's note. Exactly the same notation occurs many other places and always with that meaning. Don't take my word for it. You can download PDFs of the original logs at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/37_ItascaLogs/Itascalog.html ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:51:27 EDT From: Oscar Subject: Re: The DF that didn't > From Ric > > There is, however, a natural desire to try to understand what went wrong Of course, though with this flight, the list of things that went wrong is a bit lengthy. Oscar ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:53:09 EDT From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Research needed Could it be that this supposed experimental radio secretly aboard AE's aircraft was secret because Bendix didn"t want to take the wrap if it failed and would get the glory if it worked? If so, it failed miserably. Chris#2511 ************************************************************** From Ric Now you're thinking like a real conspiracy buff. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:56:00 EDT From: Alan Subject: ample reason > I have ample reason to believe that one of Earhart's loyal supporters, > Vincent Bendix, made a production model (or a prototype) RDF system > available to her, "bending the rules" in her behalf. Cam, that is excellent information. I'll reread the information you submitted to the forum if I have not seen it I'll read it carefully anew. I appreciate the trouble you have obviously gone to and the thoroughness of your efforts. There is so much to all this that it is sometimes difficult to comprehend and understand the implications of it the various issues. As you know I like to see "hard" facts where possible but speculation is a good tool to help in gaming out a number of knotty issues. I'm not clear what your "ample reason" is to believe the referenced radio equipment was made available to AE. If you explained that I missed it. Could you help me out a little there. This could be quite important as you've pointed out. Alan #2329 ************************************************************ From Ric Alan has requested, and I have sent to him, a copy of Cam's paper Hypothesis- Earhart's "Secret Mission" ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:57:47 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Research needed Alan says > For > example I can't understand the suggestion of some conspiracy in the > installation of radio equipment. I see none nor do I see a possible reason. > The fact that we may not know now what was done in 1937 doesn't suggest > secrecy. If two different brands of equipment was used it could have easily > been because that's what they had on hand or any number of other reasons. > What would be the significance anyway? To which Cam Warren replies - Take two aspirin and call me in the morning. Cam Warren ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:01:52 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem Alan, Here's a copy of a page of the Navy Report off a CD also with the FBI files available from Ebay for $9-$10 or whatever (whoever wins the bid). I have to retype the report because I can't transfer off a CD without making an attachment. Here's the report: _____________________________________________________________________ Subject: Report of Earhart Search, 2-18 July, 1937 FROM: ITASCA TO: COMSANFRANCISCO DIVN INFO: COMHAWN SECTION 6002.......EARHART ONLY ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIVING ITASCA SIGNALS ONCE AND DID NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS AS TO POSITION COURSE SPEED OR EXPECTED TIME ARRIVAL PERIOD EARHART USED VOICE ENTIRELY STATIC INTERFERENCE HEAVY AND ITASCA RECEPTION FRAGMENTARY IN EARLY HOURS .1045 The ITASCA was covering an area along the probable Earhart track when apparently reliable radio intercepts indicated that the Earhart plane was 281 miles north of Howland. The SWAN was approaching that vicinity enroute to Howland and was directed to conduct coordinated search with the ITASCA. The steamshIp MOORSBY also joined in the fruitless search of the area. 10. On 6 July, the Commandant, Fourteenth Naval District, was directed to take charge of all naval forces engaged in the search. The ITASCA was also directed by coast Guard Headquarters to operate under the Commandant's authority. Accordingly, the Commanding Officer, USS Colorado, then approaching the area, was directed to take charge of all vessels in the area and conduct a coordinated search until the arrival of Commander, Destroyer Squadron Two, when the later would take over command. 11. The details of the search were left to the discretion of the Commanding Officer, USS COLORADO. The decision to search the quadrant southeast from Howland and the Phoneix Islands still appeared to be sound. The search was conducted as shown in the Commanding Officer, USS COLORADO, report, Enclosure (D). No evidence of the flyers or their plane was found. However, by eliminating that quadrant, the LEXINGTON Group was later enabled to plan and execute a more practicable and more extensive search of the western semicircle from Howland. 12. In order to release the COLORADO at the earliest practicable date, it was decided that she should complete the search of the Phoneix Island and vicinity, then proceed to rendezvous with and fuel the LEXINGTON group destroyers. This was done on 12 July and the COLORADO released from further duty in connection with the search. The result of her operation was definitely to establish that neither the plane nor its passengers were ashore in the Phoenix group and therefore that they were not on any known land within 450 miles of Howland and that they were not afloat in the extensive areas searched by the ship and her three seaplanes. ___________________________________________________________________ End of this page of the Navy report. Alan, I have seen comments (Goldstein and Dillon) about static in the area. The only conclusions I can come to is thunderstorms in the area of Earhart's plane. Also, I know Ric isn't going to like this, but the Japanese Survey or Salvage Ship (whatever it was) KOSHU was in the immediate area (how convenient), and I can't help but think the Japanese Sandman (a song from WW II) may have been cranking out interference in the form of static. Well, you know how it goes, everybody thinks something else. However, the best bet seems to be thunderstorms because the ITASCA did very definitely complain about heavy static. And, the above is an official Navy communication that is in the record books. Over to you, Carol Dow #2524 ******************************************************** From Ric The Koshu was not in the area. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:10:54 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: Good point In his latest posting, Cam makes a good point on why L.A. Hyland denied Earhart used any Bendix equipment during her last flight. If I were trying to sell something to the military and a celebrity civilian was killed/lost using it, I'd be tight-lipped too. On the other hand, if she succeeded, I'd be facing towards Washington while shouting from the roof tops. Cam's as well as postings from other members and subscribers, bring up several important questions. These documents Cam refers to, Requisition #770, 1936 instruction book on RDF-1, and SRA-355, do they exist? Why did Earhart ask for signals on 7500 kcs? Where did Muriel and Carol get their information from? *********************************************************************** From Ric There is nothing, zero, nada, zilch that connects anything to do with the RDF-1 to Earhart or her airplane. Carol Osborne worked for Lockheed for years. When she left she took a great many Earhart related records and documents with her, apperently with the company's permission. She reproduced some of them in her book. She has not made her collection available to researchers and has, at times, demanded great sums of money for access to it which, as far as I know, no one has paid. A sad situation. I don't know why Earhart asked for signals on 7500. Neither does Cam. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:15:52 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Good point? > From Ric > I don't know why Earhart asked for signals on 7500. Neither does Cam. Well, at least Cam has a theory; but what I'm confused about, is who cares? I remember going over this business about the navy RDF unit a couple years ago on this forum, and I was confused then as to its significance. Am I missing Cam's point? We all agree that AE and Noonan expected to fine tune Fred's navigation with RDF when they got close to Howland (as was the practice with the PANAM flights). Obviously, this failed. What IS significant in the search for AE, is what did the doomed duo do when they realized the DF didn't FD?. Trying to figure out whether the failure was due to equipment or human error, and, even less important, who made the equipment involved in the error, seems like just so much academic masturbation to me. Have I missed something critical here? Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************ From Ric I think you have the analogy nailed. It doesn't hurt anything but it actually accomplishes nothing but the illusion of relieving frustration. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:19:55 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem Carol, you're missing the point. Your statement was the "Navy remarked there was a lot of static in the area supposedly at the time Earhart was lost." That ONLY means static was heard (if at all) in the NAVY receivers. That has nothing to do with Earhart or the Electra. The source of the static could have been from anywhere. If there were thunderstorms and NONE were reported they could have been in the close vicinity of the navy receivers and far away from Earhart. No one will ever know. And as much as you want to move the Japanese ship into the Howland area or the Phoenix area it simply was not there. Sorry. The Japanese would have no motive to block AE's transmissions. Unless of course she kicked an Asian kid at day nursery when she was 5 and they're finally getting even. AE made very few transmissions and those had little substance. Hardly worth while to block. I would also like to point out that AE's problems did not suddenly appear upon arrival in the Howland area. Reread the history. Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric It's not worth the bandwidth but I'll also point out that they weren't Navy receivers. The Navy report was talking about receptions by the Coast Guard. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:30:12 EDT From: Carol Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem Where is a good place to look for the location of the Koshu? I can't remember where I saw it, but one of the books on the subject had the Koshu half way between Howland and the Marshall Islands. Carol Dow #2524 ******************************************************************* From Ric Never use a book about Earhart as a source without checking the footnote and verifying where the information came from. If the book isn't footnoted treat it as a novel. I'd check the forum highlights or archives for discussions of the Koshu. I recall there was some good work done a while back. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:31:57 EDT From: Dave in Houston, Texas Subject: Re: Good point >From Lawrence: > >In his latest posting, Cam makes a good point on why L.A. Hyland >denied Earhart used any Bendix equipment during her last flight. >If I were trying to sell something to the military and a celebrity >civilian was killed/lost using it, I'd be tight-lipped too. On the >other hand, if she succeeded, I'd be facing towards Washington >while shouting from the roof tops. If I was sending a piece of new technology out with my hopes of the successful completion of the "trial", I'd darn sure insist that the pilot and crew knew HOW to use it and that it had been well field tested PRIOR to such a critical flight. Anything short of that is - well, incompetence or down right - er, "lack of ingenuity" - to be polite about it. Yours, Dave Bush ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:33:41 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Re: "Wait" "WAIT" is a radiotelephone "proword" (procedural signal) which effectively means, "Stand By" or "wait a moment." Its use would be quite proper in the context of AE requesting Itasca to stand by while Fred told her something. What it indicates in that context is, "No need to reply, I'll be back in a minute." LTM (whose patience is legendary) and 73 Mike E. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:34:32 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem Tell Carol to save her money - I don't know who's selling the things on Ebay, but you can go to the FBI's website, and download their files on all sorts of famous and infamous people (including Earhart) - in PDF format - for free. ltm, jon ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:56:00 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Research needed Chris forgets that it was no secret that the loop itself was Bendix, and as far as I know Bendix didn't take the rap (that's cop talk) for the loss. Neither did Western Electric. Or anybody else. ltm jon *************************************************************** From Ric Good point. What everyone seems to forget is that Earhart's decision to replace the Hooven/Bendix Radio Compass (which used a separate receiver in the cabin and a small loop antenna housed under a streamlined dome) with the big clunky loop over the cockpit was a giant step BACKWARD in technology. The Bendix MN-5 loop and the little adaptor that hooked it to her Western Electric receiver saved her the weight of the separate receiver but inflicted a huge cost in drag, not to mention the loss of "automatic" direction finding capability. The Hooven Radio Compass had been successfully used on Dick Merrill's round-trip transatlantic flight in the Vultee "Lady Peace" in September 1936 and a similar unit was installed in NR16020 that October. In February, Earhart had it yanked out and the Bendix loop and adaptor installed. By the time she left on the second World Flight attempt, the now-familar "football" ADF's were in use by the airlines. In fact, Merrill's second round-trip Atlantic flight in May of 1937 in the Lockheed 10E Special "Daily Express" had such a unit installed. You're going to be hearing a LOT more about the "Daily Express" in the near future. She was the one and only sister-ship to NR16020 and her exploits provide dramatic demonstrations of the capabilites of the type that have never been explored by Earhart researchers. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:36:12 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Was AE Competent? Would you say Amelia Earhart was a competent pilot? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************** From Ric Competency is always relative to the particular task. I'm competent to drive a car on public roads. I'm not competent to drive in a Formula One race. Competency is obviously also not constant. In February 1937 Earhart was competent to fly the Lockheed 10E Special across the U.S. and back in a series of hops. In March she was clearly not competent to make a takeoff in the same airplane at a very high gross weight. At the time of her disappearance, Earhart was apparently competent to operate the Lockheed 10E Special under the conditions she had experienced on her World Flight. The Lae/Howland flight, however, was a very different animal and it's successful completion under the circumstances she encountered required a level of competence that she did not possess. There are limits to any pilot's competence. The trick is to understand where your limits are. Earhart did not die of incompetence. She died of hubris. She made the fatal error of believing her own press releases. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:33:27 EDT From: Clayton Subject: Why Was Amelia Doing The Flight? It is my considered opinion that Amelia's flight in the Lockheed was for publicity to boost sales in competition with the Beech Model 18. She had the entire Lockheed company helping her with technical planning. Beech Model 18 went on to be come widly successful. I hauled freight in N62TP (a modified Beech 18) for a number of years and found it a satisfying piece of aviation equipment. Last time I checked it is still working daily. BTW, I remember flying charters into Greenbrier West Virginia some 30 years ago when they had three Lockheed Model 10's based there. They looked like a puny airplanes to me. CLAYTON ************************************************************************ From Ric Amelia didn't work for Lockheed and the ten-passenger Model 10 was not in competition with the six-passenger Beech. The six-passenger Lockheed Model 12 "Electra Junior" was introduced at just about the same time as the Beech 18 and had similar performance. Lockheed cooperated with Earhart because headlines helped sell airplanes, but Earhart's motivations for doing the World Flight were purely personal. Aviation was growing up and long-distance "stunt" flights of the type that Earhart's career had been based upon were being prohibited by the Bureau of Commerce. She had to show that her flight was something other than just another headline grabber - hence all the hype about the Flying Laboratory. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:36:52 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem for Alan Caldwell & Ric Many thank you's. The static was a long shot, but I thought it might be possible. The Navy reports look so official it's mind boggling. Have Cam Warren's report on Earhart's Secret Mission. Interesting. Also, wanted to comment I would guess one of the reasons why Earhart had so much trouble with the trailing antenna in Miami was probably (guessing) is that it wasn't grounded properly. But there is no way of proving a statement such as that. You really need an avionics expert to pass judgment. Wouldn't it be nice if we could cross examine whoever it was that installed the trailing antenna in Earhart's plane? I would love to hear those results. Carol Dow ************************************************************************ From Ric Where did you get the idea that Earhart had trouble with the trailing wire in Miami? Photos show that the trailing wire was gone before she ever got to Miami. It was probably never reinstalled after the wreck in Hawaii. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:27:01 EDT From: Craig Subject: Re: Good point? > From Ric > > I think you have the analogy nailed. It doesn't > hurt anything but it > actually accomplishes nothing but the illusion of > relieving frustration. That, and I've heard it could make a person go blind... ****************************************************** From Ric If debating Earhart's radio gear has that effect we're all going to be in the market for white canes. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:30:16 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem There were two ships reported in the US press to have searched for AE by the Japanese: the Kamoi, and the Koshu. I have the bridge logs for the Kamoi, and it was in China at the time. The Koshu was an oceanographic vessel, and I have the oceanographic measurements (places, time) before and after AE went down. Based upon speed between stations, the Koshu would have arrived in the Marshall Islands about July 9, and left there about July 17, and went back to taking oceanographic measurements. No bridge logs exist (or have come to light as yet). ***************************************************************** From Ric Do we have any idea where Koshu was prior to July 9? ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:37:55 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Good point? To Kerry Tiller, and all the others of like mind - "Who cares?" Well, apparently a lot of people do, or there wouldn't be all those TV shows, books, CDs, movies and the beloved TIGHAR Forum. Good Lord, Ric would be out of a job! We could extend your thinking to the point of saying: "Hey, they tried to fly around the world and fell in the ocean. To hell with all this idle chatter - let's go get a beer!" Or you could consider the fact that attempted use of HF/DF casts AE and the Final Flight in a somewhat more favorable light. I.e.; she was doing something potentially more useful than just having a joy ride. And for the "Aviation Archeologists" and us curious bookworms, the theory DOES answer a lot of heretofore puzzling questions. IF they choose to accept the theory. (Bearing in mind that archeologists and historians are always bickering among themselves. It's a time-honored tradition!) Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric You make an excellent argument against the presence of such a device aboard the airplane. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, at this time the Bureau of Air Commerce was cracking down on stunt flights. A big New York to Paris Air Race scheduled for August of 1937 was squashed in May. Testing new navigational equipment would have been a real plus for getting permission to do the flight and yet Earhart ducked taking the Radio Navigation test that the Bureau wanted her to complete before the flight and there is no mention whatsoever of testing any new radios in all of the official government message traffic that preceded the flight. There IS, however, open discussion in the post-loss reports about the experimental HF/DF on Howland. In trying to make a case for the presence of an HF/DF aboard the airplane you're faced with the problem of explaining why there is no evidence for your assertion. Your only refuge is in the age-old mantra of the conspiracy buff - it was so secret that no records are available. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:45:11 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Research needed Ric says - > What everyone seems to forget is that Earhart's decision to > replace the Hooven/Bendix Radio Compass (which used a separate receiver in > the cabin and a small loop antenna housed under a streamlined dome) with the > big clunky loop over the cockpit was a giant step BACKWARD in technology. Depends how you look at it. Perhaps you should reconsider that it wasn't a backward step at all, but a step forward to promising new technology, i.e., HF/DF. I'm the first to admit that - for various technical reasons - that new technology had bugs in it (even as our wondrous state-of-the-art WINDOWS computer operating system), and development soon stopped with the invention of radar. Speaking of airlines, you'll be interested to know that TWA (then known as Transcontinental & Western Air) requested a (then classified) Bendix RDF-1 system from the government for evaluation purposes. (See letter dated 9/21/36 from TWA to Radio Research Co., forwarded to the Sec'y of the Navy, 9/28/36. Nat'l Archives, Record Group 72). Cam Warren *********************************************************************** From Ric Earhart could barely talk on the radio and you're suggesting that she was given new, classified technology to test?. I don't have time right now to run down to the National Archives but I have a hard time seeing the relevance of the letter to the discussion. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:50:17 EDT From: Carol Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem Ric and Randy Johnson, Sometime ago someone established the seaplane carrier Kamoi was at Jaluit in the Marshall Islands at the time of the disappearance. Somebody's carrier was there if I remember what was going on. The carrier that was in dry-dock was one of the Japanese fleet carriers that was sunk at the battle of Midway. Can't remember which one. Have I got this all mixed up? Also, Ric, on the radios there was a rhubarb going on in Miami with the radios not working before the trip started (Goldstein and Dillon). Earhart was testing the radios with Maimi Tower or Miami Radio (whichever one it was). I was under the impression that was when the antenna was discarded. I'll have to go back and look it up. Carol Dow #2524 ************************************************************************ From Ric Please let me know what it will take to get it through your head that you cannot trust what Goldstein and Dillon say in their book. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:51:37 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem for Alan Caldwell & Ric > Have Cam > Warren's report on Earhart's Secret Mission. Interesting. Carol, read Cam's report very, very carefully. Cam makes a number of very good contentions. He ran into a lot of flak when he posted it because he did not foot note or support any of the points. You would have to merely take Cam's word or do your own research to verify what he wrote. I have no doubt Cam has all the verifiable support for everything he wrote so it really is no problem. If you have a question on anything in his paper I'm sure he would be happy to answer it for you. Cam is a very hard working and thorough researcher. I wish I had that time and energy. Alan #2329 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:55:59 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem This is from Goldstein and Dillon with references bearing the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The New York Times, and Flight into Yesterday, pg. 89. Carol Dow _________________________________________________________________ As follows: On July 6, two Japanese ships joined the search. Prime Minister Koki Hirota had instructed Hirose Saito, Japanese ambassador to the United States, to offer the services of his country's navy. Hirota also instructed all Japanese ships in the South Seas to keep watch. The U.S. government gratefully accepted the offer, and the Japanese furnished the seaplane carrier Kamoi and the survey ship Koshu. The latter was no more suitable for the duty than was Ontario, but Kamoi, which carried sixteen long-range seaplanes, was much better equipped to search than was Colorado with her "three short range float planes." According to a report from Tokyo, Koshu was already "in the area around How- land Island," but Kamoi was in the Marshall Islands waters, far from the scene of action. ************************************************************************ From Ric Flight Into Yesterday is Safford's manuscript that Goldstein and Dillon used as the basis for their book. It is not a primary source. Whatever the Japanese embassy said I think you'll agree that the actual records of the ships' wherabouts is more accurate. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:57:16 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem >From Ric >Do we have any idea where Koshu was prior to July 9? Yes. Koshu was west of Truk and in the general area of the Caroline Islands. ========================================================================== Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:28:34 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Cam's HF/DF paper > From Alan Caldwell > > Cam is a very hard working and thorough > researcher. I wish I had that time and energy. For Cam Warren: I too have read your report, and I agree with Alan's observation that you are a hard working and thorough researcher. I note, in the credits section of your report, that you verified Goerner's contributions and "uncovered certain other rare government documents never before introduced". You can make an enormous contribution to the body of research on the Earhart mystery by providing the details of how you verified Goerner's contributions, and by providing copies of those government documents never before introduced. I'm sure Ric would be glad to post everything on the TIGHAR web site, giving you full credit. Bob #2286 ********************************************************************* From Ric Absolutely. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:31:29 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Koshu movements Here is a summary of the Koshu movements: 26 June 37 at Palau on routine stuff, and homeported there. (Rather a very notorious Capt was then the CO 6 July 37 At Ponape 7 July 37 Received orders to search for Earhart from Japanese command 7-12 July Sailed towards the Marshalls, searching, and reportedly entered US waters, then turned back north 13 July arrived at Jaluit 19 July Departed Jaluit for Truk, Saipan and Japan. (note: I have not found any documentary evidence that the Koshu left Jaluit for Mili, and interviews by a Japanese researcher Aoki of the radio officer Yukinao failed to confirm any such trip, a trip that is central the Marshall Island pickup of AE. Aoki claims she reviewed the logs, but I haven't seen them translated yet. Reineck suggests the logs may have been "cooked". The above is based on the New York Times AP release of 6 July 37, Tom Kings research with the US Army Intelligence report of 1949, and other researchers and sources. Bollinger and Prymak disagree and beleive that the testimony of a witness, a Japanese coaler, aboard the Koshu confirms the Koshu left for the Mili area after the 12th and returned several days later. I think everyone is familliar with the Amram story of him treating AE and FN aboard the Koshu. The earliest the Koshu could get to Mili was about 14 or 15 July and the question is what was AE doing on Mili from 2 July to 14 July? Some beleive she was held by the Japanese until the Koshu arrived, picked AE and FN up, and the Electra, then returned to Jaluit. The Koshu's movements are critical in the search for Earhart in the Marshalls and Saipan. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:32:44 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Competency vs Proficency? Thank you for your response to my last post ( Was AE Competent? ) -Interpreting your response - Are we confusing competency with proficency? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************* From Ric How would you define the difference? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:41:21 EDT From: Carol Dow Subject: Goldstein & Dillon Ric said: <> So yourself with Goldstein and Dillon. It's all footnoted. Bug off. Carol Dow **************************************************************************** From Ric This may come as a shock but a little number at the end of a sentence does not necessarilly make it true. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:42:33 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem > Flight Into Yesterday is Safford's manuscript that Goldstein and Dillon used > as the basis for their book. It is not a primary source. Whatever the > Japanese embassy said I think you'll agree that the actual records of the > ships' wherabouts is more accurate. Do you mean the media is not an accurate, reliable primary source? Egads! Then Thomas Dewey DIDN'T beat Truman. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:45:59 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Static and Other Problem Carol, there are three things that will get any one of us in flamed on the Forum - not just from Ric but from a bunch of Forumites. 1. Errors in a posting that would not have been made if the poster took the time to check the archives or a reliable research source. 2. Not giving support for issues in the posting. It's OK to give opinions or speculate but making unsupported claims is not. The difference should be made clear. 3. Using Earhart books as sources. (With the exception of "shoes" of course.) Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric No exception for "Shoes". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:56:01 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Good point? Ric speaks - > In trying to make a case for the presence of an HF/DF aboard the airplane > you're faced with the problem of explaining why there is no evidence for your > assertion. Your only refuge is in the age-old mantra of the conspiracy buff > - it was so secret that no records are available. And the age-old TIGHAR mantra is that anyone that suggests something that Ric hasn't thought of is a "conspiracy buff". I have equal contempt for that school of thought, which is why I've gone to extraordinary lengths to build a case with documentary and rather convincing circumstantial evidence. Meantime, you have artfully dodged answering the original six questions I posted. Your position seems to be that Amelia was a bubble-headed stunt flier that did everything wrong - except of course land on Nikumaroro and totally disappear, together with Noonan and the Electra, but leaving you with a sorry handful of dubious trinkets. You should read that classic "The Motel of the Mysteries" for some insight into the fine art of creating an earth shaking archeological discovery out of a pile of trash. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Others on the forum have requested, received and read your paper and have asked you to produce the documentation that you cite but do not supply. If you do so, and if the documentation (in the opinion of the forum, not me) supports your conclusions, I will put your paper and sources on the TIGHAR website with full credit. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:02:54 EDT From: John B. Subject: Off-topic (Japanese Sub Find) Maybe some of the "more wealthy" forumites should get in touch with the University of Hawaii to get them to do a deep water search for AE and FN. It appears that if they could find something as small as a Japanese midget submarine, then maybe they could find NR16020 easier than some of the "other" deep water diving/search teams. Probably a lot cheaper too! John B. *************************************************************************** From Ric If there are any "more wealthy" forumites out there I'd like them to get in touch with ME! The midget sub find is actually quite interesting. One of the reasons it wasn't found before is that it was "hiding" amidst a lot of other junk. If Electra wreckage is mixed in with Norwich City debris deep on the reef slope we'd be faced with the same problem. What makes any search operation at Niku so expensive is the remoteness of the location. That wasn't a problem with the japanese sub. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:13:24 EDT From: Gary F. Subject: Basic Question This may have been mentioned before, how many around the world flights had been made prior to the attempt by Amelia and Fred? What was it that made the A&M flight so special-other than having been lost along the way? Gary *************************************************************************** From Ric Gosh, let's see....the Army did it first in 1924. Wiley Post did it with Harold Gatty in 1931 and again solo in 1933. By the time Earhart made her World Flight it was possible to fly around the world as commercial airline passenger. What made Earhart's flight newsworthy was: - She was a woman. - She was taking the long way around - near the equator. Previous flights had taken a more northerly, and hence much shorter, route. On the other hand, Earhart was not trying to beat any time records. Post did it solo in under eight days. Earhart was on the 43rd day of her trip when she disappeared. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:18:10 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Why Was Amelia Doing The Flight? Do you or anyone else on the forum have a handle on the maximum distance at which Gardner could be seen from the air, from say 1000ft, in good weather, and assuming one was looking in the right direction? Regards Angus ************************************************************************ From Ric In theory, you can see 40 miles from 1,000 feet but I don't know anybody who thinks that you can see an atoll from that far out. In my experience, the first thing you're going to see is the turquoise color of the lagoon against the dark blue ocean. My guess would be that you'de be doing good to pick that out from 20 miles out. 15 miles is probably more like it - but that's just my guess. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:48:31 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Good point? The HF/DF equipment at Howland has been referenced a couple times recently. That implies to me that the DF equipment being tested was on the ground at Howland, not on the airplane. To use the DF equipment in the Electra, AE wouldn't need DF equipment at Howland, would she? Just somebody to send a radio signal. Or am I missing something in this? BTW, wasn't that the Pan Am system? Signal from the plane picked up by DF equipment at the destination and course corrections provided? OH - WAIT! Now I've got it - there were direction finding receivers at both ends, and nobody was sending. Ric, you should have seen this a long time ago! ltm, jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the PanAm system was for the plane to transmit and the ground station take a bearing which they would then give (by morse code) to the radio operator aboard the airplane. In that system the plane is "passive" and the ground station is doing the work of determining the bearing. Itasca expected the reverse, where they would be passive and simply provide a signal upon which the airplane would take a bearing with an onboard DF. The experimental HF/DF on Howland was apparently an afterthought that was arranged by Dick Black, the Dept. of Interior representative. Thompson, the captain of the Itasca, was very begrudging about even taking it along. We've found no direct evidence that Earhart even knew it was there. As Earhart approached Howland she turned the tables and asked the ship to take a bearing on her, but for various reasons they were unsuccessful. It was only after she had reached where she thought Howland should be and din't she it that she tried to use her own DF, again without success. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:01:58 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Good point? Ric says: >Testing new navigational equipment would have been a real plus for >getting permission to do the [round-the-world] flight and yet . . . . >there is no mention whatsoever of testing any new radios in all of the >official government message traffic that preceded the flight. There >IS, however, open discussion in the post-loss reports about the >experimental HF/DF on Howland. No mention in official government messages? Well, DUH! The HF/DF gear was, after all, CLASSIFIED. As for "open discussion in the post-loss reports" of the Howland DF; you make it sound like everything was revealed, which certainly was NOT the case. It took me (and other researchers like Goerner and Dick Strippel) a great deal of digging to find out ANYTHING. Even Safford could only guess about it. Cmdr.(formerly Radio Electrician) Anthony first said it came from the Navy Intel radio intercept station on Oahu; this was later confirmed by Rear Adm. Joseph Wenger, who was in charge of the OP20-GX branch in Honolulu, and Capt. August Detzer, who was head of OP20-G in Washington, DC. This information certainly wasn't common knowledge then, nor is it even today. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't doubt that it was hard to track down specifically where it was borrowed from. That kind of detail is always hard to find. But there was certainly nothing secret about its existence. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:02:36 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Bendix HF Not that this is of any great importance but as a kid out of high school I worked for Bendix building HF radio equipment for the Navy. This was in 1950. And before anyone thinks up a bunch of questions let me tell you I don't have a clue what the bloody machines were other than what I just wrote. I didn't test them I just put them together. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:04:08 EDT From: Jack Clark Subject: New subscriber I would like to introduce myself. I am a 77 yr old retired Aircraft Maintenance Planner living in Melbourne Victoria Australia. I have one posting to my credit already dated 9/May/02 which Ric kindly posted for me although I was not a subscriber at that time. With regard to that posting I would be interested to hear if anyone disagrees/agrees with my contention that the ambiguous position report AE made at 0518 Z is in fact a noon sun transit sighting placing them at that spot at 1200 noon local 0200 Z. and the rainfall figures I have given show a reason for this detour and climb to 10000ft. AE was doing exactly as she had been advised to do in the pre flight forcasts she received ie. dodging the storm clouds. I think this position report has been discussed previously on the forum but with no definite conclutsion being arrived at. Elgin Long mentions the same possibility in his book P17 but offers no proof. I think on this one occasion at least he was on the right track. According to my calculations the detour would only ammount to some 15 nm (17.2 statute) extra on the distance, assuming Fred then went straight to the Nikumanu position. I do my plotting on a Nautical Chart (mercator) INT 604 which only goes to the 180 Meridian and so does not show Howland Is. I have drafted the extra bit and stuck it on having been unable to obtain a decent chart showing Howland. Jack Clark. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:08:48 EDT From: Ric Subject: Off Topic but worthwhile There a new aviation archaeology website in Australia that seems to be very well done and aimed at promoting true historic preservation. We're going to exchange links with them and probably contribute some material. Check out http://www.eyeinthesky.com.au/esp/fallenangels.html In the "Conservation" section here's an especally good paper by TIGHAR's old friend Christian Degrigny. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:10:36 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Shoes Ric said: "No exception for "Shoes". You're a hard man, Ric Gillespie. Pat must be a saint. LTM, who is still "Shoe"-less Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric I am and she is. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:12:55 EDT From: Ed Subject: Re: Off-topic (Glenn Miller) PBS in Florida aired a special on Glenn Miller's plane's disappearance. Have you seen it? They determined that a squadron of Lanacaster bombers inadvertently bombed it whilie jettisoning their loads following a scrubbed mission. Following studies, they confirmed an eyewitness (Engineer on one of the Lancasters) account and did a underwater search for the Norseman engine. They did find a radial engine but it had 18 cylinders (too many). Magnetic anaomalies prevented other possible targets from being identified in the suspect zone. LTM Ed of PSL #2415 ************************************************************************** From Ric I didn't see the show but I'm familar with the theory. It seems plausible but remains unproven (like some others I can think of). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:14:06 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: Koshu movements > The Koshu's movements are critical in the search for Earhart in the > Marshalls and Saipan. It's been so long, Ron. I've forgot how AE got to Milli. It could not have been via the Electra. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:50:07 EDT From: Alan Subject: Re: New subscriber Jack, welcome aboard. One of the things that make analyzing FN's navigation from Lae to Howland difficult is that they gave a position report but didn't say when they were at that point. Probably they didn't see it was important to anyone. So you can't take those position point coordinates and marry them to the message time. Maybe that's where they were but it isn't certain. Today we do that. We say "Over Wilmington VOR at 57, Baltimore at 23." And such as that. AE gave a position report and I don't know where the time came from. It was a scheduled time and could have just been noted by the receiving radio operator. But I see no incident in which she said she was at a certain point at a certain time. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************ From Carol Dow Jack, Try Sporty's Pilot Shop.com for charts. You want GNC 27, GNC 20, GNC 7 Carol Dow #2524 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:15:16 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Goldstein & Dillon Ric, commenting on the use of citations in the literature, says: > This may come as a shock but a little number at the end of a sentence > does not necessarilly make it true. This may come as a shock to Ric, but such references are a common - and respected - occurrence in every sort of non-fiction book. They provide a legitimate reference for the reader, if so inclined, to look up and verify the quote or statement of fact, and they are generally accepted by the scientific and academic community. One gets the impression, as a result of the above remark and similar "challenges" by Mr. Gillespie on the Forum, that he'd prefer the full documentation presented to him in person, thereby eliminating the tiresome necessity of actually looking it up himself. As one who has spent many a tedious hour sitting in libraries, talking on the telephone to archivists, exchanging letters or faxes and interviewing people, I must say I am more than envious of someone who expects - and believes he can command - such service. Cam Warren ****************************************************************** From Ric My point was that the mere presence of a footnote does not confer credibility. You have to see what the source is. For example, Mary Lovell's book "The Sound of Wings" is quite thoroughly footnoted but sometimes the source is given as "Author's conversation with ...". I've done a little bit of research myself, as have many of the people who have contributed to the Earhart Project. We don't take the attitude that "I spent all that time finding the information. If you want it you can go look it up yourself." We put as much original source information as possible on the TIGHAR website, free to everyone. I confess that I'm at a loss to understand your bitterness. You complained that we had somehow tried to repress your HF/DF paper so I offered to send it to anyone who wanted it. Several people made the request and everyone who requested it got the paper. Some of those people then asked to see the sources you referred to and I offered to put your paper and your sources on the TIGHAR website with full credit to you if your sources bear out your claims in the opinion of the forum members who are interested in providing peer review for your paper. You're now doing a pretty good impression of a guy whose bluff has been called. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:16:50 EDT From: Lawrence Subject: History channel Last night I watched an old 1976 program of "In Search Of" with Mr. Spock (Nimoy). Elgin Long was on the program with Fred Goerner. Mr. Long was explaining his theory of how the Electra sank, intact, 40 miles NW of Howland Island. I was surprised that it took nearly twenty-six years for him to get the funds to search for the aircraft. You think with all of his calculations, he could have convinced someone to search for the Electra much earlier than the Nauticos expedition. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:34:32 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficency? <> My guess would be that you'd be doing good to pick > that out from 20 miles out. 15 miles is probably more like it - but that's > just my guess. On frequent flights into the Azores, Kindley, and Wake from 1,000' 5 to 10 miles was about the average. A thousand feet up is not very high to see islands. you can come pretty close before they can be seen. Ric is correct in that that pretty light blue around the island is sometimes the first clue. This is an easily testable issue and anyone flying a small plane could give us a better idea. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************ From Ric The reef slope is so steep on most Pacific atolls that there isn't much pretty light blue water surrounding them, but if they have a lagoon the color difference is quite dramatic. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:52:35 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Koshu movements According to those who believe AE/FN ended up in Saipan, the Electra was either heading to the Gilberts or as a plan B, heading to the Marshalls after she couldn't find Howland. Then she ran out of gas some four hours later, and somewhere along the way a Japanese fishing boat picked her up or she crash landed on Mili depending on which witnesses you accept. Then from Mili she was transferred to Jaluit, then on to Saipan, and then on to Japan, then on to Weishein Assembly Camp in China, then on to New Jersey to take on the new identify of a NJ housewife , Irene Bolam. Lots of witnesses but no hardware yet!!! LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:05:25 EDT From: Denise Subject: Go Go Goldstein! Note to Carol: I must say I'm with you on the Goldstein and Dillon book. What Ric appears to believe is that the whole thing is based on the Safford report, and what he doesn't seem to know - or at least acknowledge - that this is the official centennial biography and thus A LOT of people have contributed a LOT of information to it; people who have not been interviewed elsewhere and whose contribution to the story is very important. The Safford stuff is only a chapter or two ... the rest of it is GREAT, and he would approve, if only he could let go of his simple prejudices. LTM (who'd approve of Carol Dow) Denise ************************************************************************** From Ric The official centennial biography? Who made it official? I have the book in front of me and as far as I can see it was the authors or the publisher who decided it was The Centennial Biography by virtue of it being published in 1997. My simple prejudices are the result of an equally simple belief that a non-fiction book should be free of fiction.